Tributes: Lord Wallace of Tankerness

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stephen (LD)]

I first met Jim Wallace 43 years ago. I recognised him. He was standing at a bus stop outside the Station Hotel in Aberdeen. He was a 28 year-old newly elected Member of Parliament. I was a 23 year-old Liberal councillor. He had no idea who I was, but I introduced myself and offered him a lift to his public meeting. Off we went. On the way, he told me stories about the great Jo Grimond. Grimond had said that he would never trust a Secretary of State for Transport until he saw them coming to debates by bus or on the Tube. Little did I know during that 20-minute conversation that Jim Wallace would go on to have such a profound effect on my life and, more importantly, such a huge impact on the life of our nations.

Let us, for one moment, set aside everything that Jim did in the Scottish Parliament. We will come back to that. Look only at his 18 years in the House of Commons as MP for Orkney and Shetland, as Chief Whip and in many Front-Bench roles. Then he spent 19 years in this House from 2007 until last week, as Minister and law officer, Advocate-General for Scotland, leader of the Liberal Democrats here and a year as Moderator of the General Assembly, when he stood down as a Liberal Democrat but never stopped being a liberal. All that—those 37 years alone—would amount to a remarkable political, parliamentary and Church career.

Of course, the Scottish Parliament was the pinnacle. From the start of his leadership of the Scottish Liberal Democrats in 1992, Jim moved steadily towards his pivotal role in shaping, delivering and then helping to lead the new Parliament. He worked very closely with George Robertson, now the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, with Donald Dewar and then, after Donald’s tragic death, with Jack McConnell, now the noble Lord, Lord McConnell. Jim had enormous respect for them all. The words of tribute from the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, have been even more poignant in the tragic circumstances of his own loss of his brother, which, by cruel coincidence, came on the very same day as Jim’s death. Our thoughts are very much with the noble Lord.

I had been elected to the other place in 1991 in a by-election and went to live during that time in a small room in Jim and Rosie’s London flat. Our friendship grew. Beyond politics, there were family visits to the Wallace home in Tankerness in Orkney. Jim was always great fun. Helen and Clare were young, and my children were even younger. They always called him Uncle Jim, and he would sing along to “Agadoo-doo-doo, push pineapple, shake the tree”, with the dance steps and the hand movements—I have the video. The low point in our relationship came in May 2000, when Jim presented the Scottish Cup to his team, Rangers, after they narrowly defeated my team, Aberdeen, 4-0. He was beaming as he handed over the trophy. I immediately sent him a text message encouraging him to smile less, but not using those words.

Jim met many remarkable people. He once hosted Kofi Annan at a United Nations dinner in New York and explained, of course, that he had been brought up in Annan in Dumfriesshire. Jim later ended the evening singing Burns songs and was delighted to discover that Kofi’s wife was called Nane. Obviously, out of respect, he said he resisted the temptation to sing anything with the words Nanannan.

Jim embodied the very best of politics, the very best of people He was courteous, collegiate and consensual, but with a strong and persuasive voice. He combined kindness with humility, authority with deep humanity. He held things together repeatedly at a time when the new Scottish Parliament was being tested to its limits, and he did more than that. He helped deliver many things, such as free personal care for the elderly, the abolition of tuition fees, a strong new freedom of information regime and PR for local government in Scotland. None of these things was easy.

Above all, it was not about the policies. Jim was about friendships, across all parties and places, about values and faith, and about family—most of all about family, Rosie and Helen and Clare, his brother Neil and, of course, his grandchildren Catriona, Ella and Adam. “It’s very special”, he said to me recently, “being a grandfather”. Jim Wallace, you too were very special, very loved, and you will be very dearly missed.

[The Lord Speaker (Lord Forsyth of Drumlean)]

My Lords, I would like to say a few words of my own in tribute to Lord Wallace of Tankerness, or Jim as he was known to his many friends both inside and outside Parliament and from all parts of the political spectrum. Lord Wallace lived a life of public service that stands as an example to us all, of dedication, hard work and love of his country. When he joined the House of Lords in 2007, after stepping down as an MSP, the deep emotional bond that this son of Dumfriesshire had forged with his island constituency was reflected in the title he chose for himself as Lord Wallace of Tankerness, of Tankerness in Orkney. As the convener pointed out, he was pretty popular there, achieving in the 1999 election for the MSP for Orkney a remarkable 67% of the votes.

Jim was a kind, devout and decent man and a good friend to me. At a time when politics is held in low esteem, he was a model of public service, a great parliamentarian both north and south of the border and one who adored this House of Lords. He was, as we say in Scotland, gathered much too early. He will be much missed and mourned by so many folk who held him in the highest regard. My most heartfelt sympathies go out to his wife Rosie and their loving family.

Tributes: Lord McFall of Alcluith

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean Excerpts

Monday 2nd February 2026 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Bishop of Manchester]

My Lords, I add the thanks of our Benches to our former Lord Speaker. We are enormously grateful for the warmth of his welcome to us, which began from the moment we were introduced to the House, and continued each day, as he introduced the duty Bishop leading Prayers. We also warmly welcome the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, whose enormous gifts have already been attested, and with whom we look forward to working for the effective work and maintenance of the rights and privileges of your Lordships’ House.

One of my own privileges is to be invited to comment each day on requests for Private Notice Questions. PNQs are an important part of the work of the House. They allow us to raise matters that are urgent and important, and where the Order Paper is unlikely to offer a better opportunity. The wisdom of the noble Lord, Lord McFall, in discerning which to accept has demonstrated his commitment to allowing the House to scrutinise government, while ensuring that the Questions asked are those which will shed light on an issue rather than simply rehearse familiar argument. We will experience an example a little later this afternoon.

He is of course of a different branch of the Christian faith from my own. Hugely influenced by the work of Gustavo Gutiérrez and the liberation theologians of Latin America so prominent in the 1960s and 1970s, he is as comfortable quoting from papal encyclicals and the documents of Vatican II as from Acts of this Parliament. I am not sure the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, will quite follow him in that regard. John’s faith underpins his political beliefs, just as it does his character and moral standing. It was famously quipped of a Speaker in the other place, on a similar occasion to this, that there was Methodism in his madness. Of our own Lord McFall, may it truly be said that there is Catholicism in his kindness.

[The Lord Speaker (Lord Forsyth of Drumlean)]

My Lords, I wish to add a few words of my own in tribute to my predecessor, the noble Lord, Lord McFall. I have known him since the 1980s, when the bonnie, bonnie banks of Loch Lomond divided us: he was the Member for Dumbarton, and I was the Member for Stirling. We sat on opposing Benches in the House of Commons and often disagreed, but in later years we became firm friends. I came to respect him as an honourable, diligent and trustworthy parliamentarian, guided by principle and driven by the common good.

That instinct was rooted in his upbringing. He grew up in a tough, close-knit, working-class, Clydeside community where there was real hardship but also a strong sense of belonging and of responsibility for others. His mother ran a small newsagent’s shop serving the whole neighbourhood and it gave him an early feel for people and for what holds a community together. He believed everyone should have a second chance at education, as he did, as the Leader pointed out. He left school at 15 and took a job with the parks department, weeding flower-beds. Years later, he went to night school, where teachers spotted his considerable potential and encouraged him. That opened the way to university, a fulfilling career as a teacher and a deputy head, and a lifelong commitment to learning.

His public service showed the same seriousness of purpose, as a Minister in Northern Ireland and as chairman of the Treasury Select Committee, as has already been alluded to. In the aftermath of the Omagh bombing, he helped to keep all communities engaged in the peace process. Following the financial crash of 2008, he held leading figures from the City to account in a series of Select Committee hearings which did much to expose the root cause of the crisis and paved the way for the Future of Banking Commission and the reforms designed to prevent another crisis.

In the House of Lords, he served as Senior Deputy Speaker and then as Lord Speaker, improving how the House works—there is more to do—and communicating its value to the country. He helped to steer the House through the Covid period, ensuring that scrutiny and revision continued when normal proceedings were severely disrupted. As Lord Speaker, he was tireless in explaining what this House contributes, encouraging sensible reform, but insisting that critics should first understand the work we do. He strengthened education and outreach, and embraced new ways of communicating, including digital media, to bring the work of members to a wider audience. He was the Members’ champion, accessible to colleagues, attentive to concerns, and determined that the House should serve its members better.

He now steps back from the Speakership so he can spend more time caring for his wife, Joan. He returns home, where he can still see from his window that flower-bed he tended as a young teenager. It should remind him, with pride, of how a life of public service began and blossomed to the benefit of Parliament and the people of the United Kingdom. He has won the affection of Members, staff and officials alike, and I know we all join in wishing him well in the future, together with his wife Joan.

Election of Lord Speaker

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean Excerpts

Monday 12th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)]

My Lords, I have known and worked alongside the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, for many years, since we represented neighbouring constituencies in the House of Commons in the 1980s. Michael was Conservative MP for Stirling, on the east bank of Loch Lomond, while I was a Labour representative for Dumbarton on the west side. It is fair to say that we did not see eye to eye on every issue. When there was turbulence in the waters of Loch Lomond, locals would say, “Aye, that’s McFall and Forsyth rowing again”. But, although we locked horns many times, I always recognised Michael as an honourable and distinguished public servant, dedicated to the good governance of our nation and the well-being of its people. That impression has been further cemented by his work here in the House of Lords, particularly as chair of the Economic Affairs Committee and the Financial Services Regulation Committee. After more than 40 years’ service in both Houses of Parliament, I am sure the noble Lord will find, as I have done, that the post of Lord Speaker is both the most rewarding job of his career and the honour of a lifetime.

I thank both the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, for putting themselves forward as candidates to serve this House and congratulate them on the constructive way they conducted the election, and I also thank all those involved in the administration of the contest. But above all I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, on his election and offer him my best wishes and support in his new role as Lord Speaker.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

My Lords, I am most grateful for these very flattering tributes from all the Front Benches. My father would have been astonished and my mother would have believed them. I am overwhelmed and slightly humbled, believe it or not—I do not know why noble Lords are all laughing—by the confidence and trust that have been put in me by those who supported my election. Not all noble Lords voted for me and, for those who did not vote for me, I would just like to say that I completely understand why. That is because I had in my opponent a formidable candidate and I echo all the words that have been said about the noble Baroness, Lady Bull.

The Clerk of the House was very kind and told both of us the result on Friday, so we have had quite an interesting weekend trying not to tell anyone what was happening. I rang the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, and she has very kindly agreed to continue to support me as Deputy Speaker. We will work together to deliver what were so many common issues across the Benches—that you can be sure of.

I am sorry we are not allowed to say anything at this stage about the Lord Speaker. I think he has done a brilliant job and it is a great privilege for me to have the opportunity to build on the great work that he has done on increasing accountability in the House and moving us forward. I look forward to serving all noble Lords, whether they voted for me or not, with pleasure, and I will try to avoid being political—which for people like me must be a bit like coming off heroin as an addict.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean Excerpts

3rd reading
Monday 21st July 2025 Lords Chamber

Being a hereditary-minded person, I am very proud to have grandchildren. It is unlikely, I admit, but if they ever ask me what I did in the war for parliamentary reform, I want to be able to say, “Well, my dears, I tried to uphold Parliament’s independence and legitimacy”.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

My Lords, my grandchildren refer to the Parliament building from outside as “Grandpa’s office”.

This is a moment in which we have lit a fuse; a fuse which will ultimately change irrevocably the nature of the House of Lords and, more importantly, and perhaps for those at the other end to consider, the House of Commons.

I have always been opposed to the idea of an elected House of Lords, partly because of my experience in the House of Commons and my belief in the primacy of the House of Commons. As our leader, my noble friend Lord True, pointed out, to suddenly create a House which is wholly appointed and depends wholly on prime ministerial patronage is to open the gates for the arguments which we have heard for so many years from the Liberal Benches for an elected House. How can it be possible to sustain the idea that it is better to have people appointed by Prime Ministers than people who are elected by the people?

There is an opportunity, by accepting the amendment which has been made to the Bill, to at least mitigate it. If people see that Prime Ministers can remove whole groups of people, whether that is hereditaries, people over the age of 80 or people who have some other characteristic, then the voters will ask why the Prime Minister should choose and why they, as electors, should not choose.

If we have an elected House, as the leader of the Liberal Democrats wants—I am calling them Liberal Democrats today, because he is making a democratic argument—I think we will find that the future of the House of Commons as the primary Chamber will change irrevocably. That is the basis upon which all reforms have failed, when the penny has suddenly dropped for Members of Parliament that there will be a Member of the second Chamber in their constituencies; that their role as constituency MPs will be undermined; that their ability to make promises on the doorstep will be second-guessed; and that party management will result in the membership of this House, under an elected system, being determined by party leaders, so that it is filled with people who go along with whatever the party management wish—not something that I find very attractive.

I just hope that, at the other end, in the zeal for getting rid of hereditaries, which your Lordships’ House has done, they do not miss the point that they have a lit a fuse, which may very well blow everything they believe in and support apart, to the detriment of our country and the good management of our law.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 9th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, before speaking to Amendment 13, I should explain that I have tabled Amendment 13A on the supplementary list to put beyond doubt a point that may have been an unintended effect of the original drafting of Amendment 13. Amendment 13A ensures that the proposal in Amendment 13 would not apply to any existing Member of this House, but only to future ministerial appointments of new life Peers. After all, we on this side do not favour the forced expulsion of any Member of your Lordships’ House, and indeed your Lordships voted to support that important constitutional principle only last week. It has been agreed in the usual channels that, if the clarifying Amendment 13A is supported in a Division, Amendment 13 will be accepted as a consequential, so there will be only one vote on this issue.

The purpose of this is to send a clear message to the other place and to all Governments—I emphasise “all Governments”, and will come back to that—that service as a Minister in your Lordships’ House should be properly remunerated. There are other issues that need to be addressed, including pension and severance pay, but this amendment is about pay.

I spoke at some length on this in Committee, and I do not need to repeat all the arguments here, but let me set out three firm principles on which surely we across this House should all stand. The first is a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work; the second is equal treatment for Ministers in both Houses; and the third is that no Member of this House should be prevented from serving their party, their House and their country for the lack of private means to do so. That is an unfairness that should have ceased to exist in the 18th century, let alone now in the second quarter of the 21st century. None of those basic principles that I have set out currently applies to Lords Ministers’ pay. Surely all Government Ministers in the House of Lords, whichever party is in office, should be paid. If they wish to renounce that pay, or any part of it, that is all well and good, but that does not affect the basic underlying principles.

In Committee, I spoke very frankly of my sense of shame—and, I might have added, anger—that I was unable to resolve this issue while I was Leader of the House because of, frankly, opposition at the top of both major parties. I exclude the noble Baroness opposite from this, who was extremely helpful and constructive in our discussions. I need not repeat those points today.

Towards the end of the last Government, 14 Ministers and Whips in this House were expected to work unpaid. The unpaid Ministers included my noble friends Lord Howe, Lord Minto, Lord Camrose and Lord Roborough. It is richly ironic that their public service and self-sacrifice then will now be rewarded by this Bill, as originally drafted, excluding them from our House.

As I said in Committee, I felt particularly keenly that it was a disgrace that my noble friend Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon, a consummate and internationally respected servant of his country, lost out doubly as being unpaid and unable to claim an allowance because he was so often unable to attend the House because of his duties overseas. Such things should not happen.

Today, the Downing Street website tells us—I take it directly from there—that the noble Baroness, Lady Gustafsson, of Chesterton, and the noble Lords, Lord Hanson of Flint, Lord Timpson and Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill, all work as Ministers of State unpaid. The noble Lords, Lord Moraes, Lord Wilson of Sedgefield, Lord Katz and Lord Leong, and the noble Baroness, Lady Blake of Leeds, all work as Government Whips unpaid, according to the government website this morning.

Perhaps only those of us in this House understand the immense burden and workload that falls on Whips in your Lordships’ House. It is quite different from what happens in the Commons. We admire them all greatly, and each of those Ministers I named are greatly admired and respected by their colleagues on this side of the House.

But no one should be required to do all that work without pay. No one in any other workplace would tolerate that as a fair way to treat labour. Where is the clause in the massive Employment Rights Bill to right the wrong that is done not just to those individuals but, frankly, to the dignity of this House?

I take nothing away from the sense of public duty. I admire it tremendously because it has led noble Lords under successive Governments to give public service here without reward. But not everyone in this place has the means to do that. That is an unfairness and an injustice, and it should end.

The problem results from two 50 year-old statutes: the Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975 limits the total number of paid Ministers to 109, and the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 allows for up to 95 Ministers in the House of Commons. If the Commons takes up its full allocation of 95 ministerial places, the effective, legal statutory limit for paid Ministers in your Lordships’ House under that limit of 109 is just 14. Clearly, that is not enough. The system must be changed. Of course, it could be changed by a simple Bill agreed across the parties to amend paragraph 2 of Part V of Schedule 1 to the Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975 Act. I am sure we could agree that very swiftly.

The self-sacrifice and sense of duty of those who serve for nothing should be respected. However, it need not for ever be repeated. We cannot neglect this issue, I submit, for the dignity and effectiveness of this House. This amendment would force the hand of all future Governments and all parties in the other place to address the issue. Now that the Bill has now been amended and is going back to the other place, I hope we may agree to send this important message down the Corridor.

On the basis of my experience and my sense of the rightness and fairness of this House, it is high time to open up the opportunity to every one of us here who may wish to serve their party and country as Ministers or Whips in this place but cannot afford to do so without pay to have that chance.

On our side, we will work across the House to agree and expedite a fuller solution going beyond this initial step, which will redress the balance between Commons and Lords Ministers. In the interim, I commend this first step to the House, with the firm belief that if no message is ever sent, the same experience that I and former Leaders of the House have had will go on recurring and people here will be asked to work for nothing.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

My Lords—

Amendment 13A (to Amendment 13)

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, as explained, I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

I apologise for jumping the gun, but the enthusiasm I feel for this amendment from my noble friend goes back to the previous Parliament: I pay tribute to the Leader of the House and to my noble friend for the efforts that were made in the last Parliament to right this wrong. Perhaps I could just make a few punchy points.

There is a limit, as my noble friend has explained, on the total number of Ministers. I was very indebted, in the last Parliament, to my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham, who pointed out that there seems to be an increasingly inflationary effect on the number of Ministers who are needed to run this country. When I was Secretary of State, pre-devolution, we were responsible for everything, not just the devolutionary matters in Scotland, and we did it with one Secretary of State, four Ministers and two law officers. There are now 29 Ministers in the Scottish Parliament.

I am looking at my noble friend Lord Clarke. He and my noble friend Lord Fowler ran the Department for Transport in 1979 with two Ministers, and in 1979, that department was responsible for British Airways, the ports and the National Freight Corporation, none of which applies to the present or the previous Government’s Department for Transport, just to show that I am being non-partisan. In 1979, there were two Ministers, but by 2023 there were five Ministers in the Department for Transport, with much less to do.

The same was true of the DHSS, which had five Ministers in 1979. The DHSS was then split into two departments: the Department of Health and the DWP. The DHSS had five Ministers in 1979, but the two departments between them had 12 Ministers. You could argue that things have got more complicated, but there does seem to be an inflationary effect which even beats the Bank of England in the ability to create this kind of growth.

I think that it is very important that the principle that my noble friend has enunciated should be upheld: no one should be unable to be a Minister because they do not have the private means to do so. But just to follow up on my point, it looks to me suspiciously as though ministerial appointments in the other place were being used as a means of patronage by the previous Government to make sure that people would go through the Lobbies.

This Government do not really need much patronage —until recently, at least, they had a huge and loyal majority—but it looks as if that is what is happening. If we add to that the appointment of people who act as trade envoys and so on, it looks as if appointments are being used to increase the power of the Executive at the expense of the elected Chamber and this House. I think that my noble friend’s amendment and this principle is very important, because it goes to the heart of the ability of Parliament to hold the Executive to account.

This is not the only anomaly in the way this House is treated in respect of remuneration. Our Select Committees, if they go and do their work outside the House, can claim only half a day’s attendance, yet if people participate in our Questions remotely, they can claim a full day’s attendance allowance. I am sick to death of reading in the newspapers how we in this House are paid £371 for just turning up. No one points out that, out of that £371, people are expected to make a contribution to their overnight allowance and expected to cover their own secretarial and research costs. I point out that in the other place, the allowance for secretarial and other support can go up to £250,000 and the housing allowance up to £25,000.

Yes, MPs have constituents but, in this House, we often sit long after the other place has gone because we are clearing up the mess which is left when Bills have not been properly considered. Ministers in this House—God bless them—are expected to stand at the Dispatch Box, although they do not always do so, and answer questions not only on behalf of their departments but for the whole of the Government. This is an onerous task, and the idea that people should be expected to do that unpaid is, frankly, utterly outrageous.

--- Later in debate ---

[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—

[Lord Butler of Brockwell (CB)]

Before the noble Baroness sits down, can she help me on a procedural point? If Amendment 13 were to be passed, Amendment 13A is clearly sensible. We are going to consider Amendment 13A first. Will it be possible to agree Amendment 13A and then vote against Amendment 13?

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, the combination of titles with membership of the second Chamber is one of the many things that we have inherited from the medieval period and the 16th and 17th centuries. It is very pleasant, most of us enjoy it and I particularly enjoy the title that I have, because the village in which I live is a special one, a world heritage site, and people love to come and visit us. But I am occasionally confused—some years ago I was at a conference in Japan from which I had to return early. As I shared a taxi to the airport with a senior Japanese diplomat, he asked me in a most polite way, “Are you returning to your estate”? I wanted to say, “No, to my allotment”, but did not feel that he would entirely understand the subtlety of that reply.

We in the Liberal Democrats are in favour of a working and modern second Chamber. It is interesting that the noble Lord, Lord True, in his quirky way, described this as a modernising move. It seems to us to be adding another area of complexity, as the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, said, to our already highly complex honours system. There are plenty of honours around: there are knighthoods, damehoods, and members of the Order of the Companions of Honour and the Order of Merit. We are not quite sure why—perhaps for the Conservative Party in particular—if one wants to award one’s more generous donors with something, the title of a peerage is particularly important.

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

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

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

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

I do not wish to be unkind to the noble Lord, but my recollection of the coalition Government is that every time the Government wanted to get agreement on a policy, the Liberals demanded more peerages, which is why we got those numbers. Therefore, for him to argue against this amendment is a particular example of how the Liberals behave in politics.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

That was an imaginative idea from the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, but it is the first time that I have heard it. I am not sure where his sources may be.

I do not wish to detain the House. This seems to us to be an unnecessary amendment, and we will not support it.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 2nd July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

Before the noble Baroness sits down, the proposal is to set up a Select Committee to consider the issues that have been discussed with her. Those issues include offering life peerages to hereditary Peers. Is that something that the Select Committee would consider?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I do not imagine that that would be discussed by this Select Committee, which will look at the two specific issues that have been raised. We will debate the matter that the noble Lord refers to later on the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, will not be surprised that I do not agree with this amendment, for the reasons so pithily put by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. There are a number of points with which I could take issue, but I will pick up a couple from the speech by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson. He implied that those of us who supported the “Grocott Bills”, in their various guises, were almost being hypocritical by not voting for this today. The truth was—with all due respect to the noble Lord, Lord Grocott—that the Grocott Bills were second best. They were the best that was on offer, and we saw them as a way of making some progress while believing that what is in this Bill was preferable.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

How can the noble Lord possibly argue that it was second best when the Leader of the House has told us that, had we accepted Grocott in the last Parliament, this would not have been necessary?

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I am explaining to the House what I thought at the time, not what anybody else might think.

The noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, said that the system of by-elections should not be thought to have been eccentric. The noble Lord, Lord Grocott, was very eloquent in pointing out just how eccentric they were, particularly in respect of by-elections for the Liberal Democrats. On one notable occasion, there were seven candidates and three electors, and nobody in the Liberal Democrats knew who half the candidates were. They were truly eccentric. They brought the House into disrepute, certainly in respect of those by-elections, and they were simply not sustainable in any way.

I strongly agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, in pointing out that one consequence of this amendment would be to maintain over a considerable number of years—unless there was a great increase in the size of the House—a significant Conservative plurality over the Labour Benches. That seems me to be a bad thing, because the inevitable consequence would be that the Government would increase their numbers, and we would have a bloated House. Apparently, everybody agrees that the House is too big, yet this amendment, if agreed, would have that consequence for decades to come.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

As far as I know, although I do not know the intricacies of the mechanism that brought me here, there were probably more than three people who thought that it was okay.

I would be dishonest to the House if I did not admit to being flattered that it seems to be universally described as the “Grocott Bill”. It is lovely to have a Bill named after you, even if it was rejected time after time. It is no longer the “Grocott Bill”. I liked the ring of that, but I very much like the ring of the new, improved Bill before the House today, so I think we ought to call the original one the “House of Lords (Grocott No. 1) Bill” and the one before the House now the “House of Lords (Grocott No. 2) Bill”. Why do I support the “House of Lords (Grocott No. 2) Bill”? It is because it is better, it does the job more effectively and it means that we can move on from this endless debate to discuss other aspects of reform.

However, I really despair at times about the inability of this House to deal with such a simple proposition: a two-clause Bill. It would have cost nothing—it might have saved money—and upset no one, but time and time again it was rejected. It was filibustered—I will not mention all the Peers who opposed it. In anticipation of this debate, I checked who had spoken against it at Second Reading on its various outings. There were two culprits—I will not embarrass them now—who were worse than any others and who persistently put down 60 or 70 amendments the day before Committee. We are powerless in this place if there are people determined to wreck a Bill in that way. Perhaps they can reflect, in the quietness of their own souls, on what might have been if they had not done that, because I believe that if a Bill like this had been passed —if not mine, then certainly Lord Steel’s Bill—most of the hereditaries now would have peacefully moved on, by whatever mechanism, from membership of this House.

It has been a bit of fun, this somersaulting by sundry Members opposite, but thank heaven that we are removing the hereditary principle as a mechanism for membership of this House. It is long, long, long overdue. It could have been dealt with much earlier, but let us not cry over spilt milk; let us just get on with this and quickly.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Lord said that we are now removing the hereditary principle. It is accepted, on this side, that we are removing the hereditary principle. His speeches are very entertaining, mocking the system that was brought in by his own party in government.

My difficulty is that the Leader of the House has repeatedly told us, both publicly and privately, that, had we not opposed what is called the “Grocott Bill”, this would not be necessary. I therefore have to ask: what is the principle that we are discussing? It appears to be that the hereditary principle should be got rid of—that has been accepted. However, I am concerned by the idea that we should pluck out of this House hard-working Members, who are mainly Conservatives. We heard from the Liberal Benches that they are worried about numbers. On my count, 45 new Labour Peers have been appointed since the general election. That does not strike me as being the activities of a party that is concerned about the size of the House; it strikes me as being a party that is concerned about the number of people who will go through the Lobbies in support of it. Therefore, one is left with a terrible suspicion that what is going on here is taking a group of people out of this House, who happen to have come into it as hereditaries, for party-political reasons. That is a very dangerous—

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords—

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

I will give way in a second.

That is a very dangerous precedent to accept. How soon will it be before people arguing for this precedent argue that other groups of people can be taken out, because they are not convenient?

I am trying not to be too partisan today, so I will appeal to the Government. To put it gently, the Government are in a certain amount of difficulty on a number of issues. The one thing I learned when I was in Government was that having a good and effective Opposition is a really good thing for a Government, because it makes you avoid making the kind of mistakes that Governments make. Therefore, it is very important—especially in this House, where we simply ask the Government to think again and we have no ability to force them to do otherwise by force of argument—to have an effective Opposition.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords—

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

I will give way to the noble Lord when I have finished my point.

One-third of the Opposition Front Bench are hereditaries. They are people of enormous experience and dedication. By not accepting this amendment, the Government are damaging not only the House by creating a terrible precedent but the Opposition, as well as the number of Tory Peers that there are. That is a disgraceful thing to do.

What is the argument? I know that people on the Benches opposite have sought to argue, “Can’t you get other people to sit on your Front Bench?” I say to the Leader of the House: she should try using that argument. It is very hard, especially if they are not paid—I will come to that later—to ask people to give up the time and for them to have the expertise. You can bring in new people, but it takes a very long time to get used to the way this place operates—it has taken me a very long time.

If we do not accept the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, we are talking about disabling the Opposition and gerrymandering the composition of the House. That is a disgraceful thing to do.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for finally giving way. He talks about the disabling of the Opposition. Would he like to explain to the House what his party did in Government from 2010 to last year in terms of the numbers they appointed? I excuse the noble Baroness, Lady May, because she took the issue of the size of this House very seriously but, alas, her predecessors and those who succeeded her did not. As a party, we have put new Members of the House in since the election to try to get ourselves a reasonable balance after the disgraceful approach of so many Conservative Prime Ministers over those years.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

There are a lot of things that we did in Government that I would not like to defend. I do not disagree with the noble Lord. I understand why a number of very good and excellent appointments have been made to the Benches opposite. I understand the reason why they wish to make up the numbers. All I am saying is that to argue that the Government are not going to accept the amendment from my noble friend because they are worried about the size of the House is ridiculous when, at the same time, they are increasing the size of the House. Have a care here for the importance of Parliament, of effective opposition and of not disabling the ability of this House to carry out its constitutional duties. In the end, it will be to the disadvantage of the Government and the House.

I support my noble friend’s amendment. I am glad that my noble friend Lord Hailsham is going to vote for it, but I do not see any conditionality about it. I am going to support it because it is in the interests of our country, democracy and this splendid institution—the House of Lords—which all of us should hold in the highest regard.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

The thing I find odd about the argument just advanced, and, indeed, about the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, and the way in which he introduced it—splendid though it was—is the implicit assumption that if his amendment were to pass here, the other place would say, “Goodness, that’s a good idea”, and accept it. Does he really think that would happen? If so, I have a Westminster Bridge to sell to him. If he does not, does he think that the process of ping-pong will be good for the image of this House?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, we have had a bit of a rehash of a debate that we had previously in Committee on a similar amendment. Amendment 2 today is almost identical to the previous amendment, seeking to amend Clause 2 and return to what is commonly known as the Grocott Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, possibly alone in the House, has the benefit of consistency on this issue, in that, as I recall, he consistently supported the Grocott Bill as a way forward.

I think I understand the emotion displayed by the noble Lord, Lord True, on this issue, but he will now probably regret not taking up my offer to ensure that the Grocott Bill could have passed all its stages and got through the House as a Private Member’s Bill. I gave him my party’s guarantee that we would do that. The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, frowns at me, but I gave the guarantee of my party that we would support that Bill and do our best to get it through the House. So we could have done that, but the opportunity was lost, and that is a shame, but that is where we are now. We are now debating a manifesto commitment from the Labour Party.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

The noble Baroness said that I frowned. The reason I frowned is that I do not really understand the argument that says, “You should have taken my offer but you didn’t, so we’re going to throw all these people out of the House of Lords”. If you thought it was okay for Parliament to continue, having got rid of the hereditary principle, why is it any different now?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Newby (LD)]

Of course, that would be debated as part of that process; I accept that.

If I could proceed, I was saying that I believe that, under our proposals, people should be elected on a regional basis, so that they could look to the common interests of a wider area than a single constituency. They should be elected by proportional representation, so that we can avoid the dramatic swings in membership that we have seen in the Commons.

After the 2015 general election, I was mocked—very effectively, if I may say so—by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, because we did very badly in that election yet retained significant numbers here. After the last election, the Tory party finds itself in the position we found ourselves in. If we had the system that the noble Lord, Lord Brady, is proposing, a future Conservative Party in the House of Lords could be decimated in the way it has been in the Commons. What I am proposing here is a more balanced system that means that these wild swings, which you see through first past the post, do not persist. That would bring an element of stability to Parliament that would be extremely sensible.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

I wonder whether the noble Lord would stand for election under this system. I am thinking about how it would operate: I knock on someone’s door and they say, “I’m worried about the health service”, “I’m worried about housing”, or whatever, and I say, “Actually, that’s for the House of Commons, but I’m very good at revising legislation”. There might be a reaction on the doorstep that is even more hostile than we are used to—certainly those of us who were in the House of Commons. How does the noble Lord expect the voters to take us seriously if we are not able to say that we will absolutely fight for whatever it is? This division of powers will mean that we are second-order operators. I suspect that the noble Lord’s answer is that he would not stand for election, and that is probably true of most of the Members of this House. So what we will get is a whole load of party-list B-team people.

Parliamentary Commercial Department

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean Excerpts

Thursday 12th June 2025 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I am moving this Motion on behalf of the House of Lords Commission. We are asking the House to support and endorse the report published on 14 May establishing Parliament’s commercial function as a joint department of both Houses. I hope that noble Lords have read the report, which provides a clear explanation of and rationale for this decision. The Parliamentary Commercial Directorate is a shared service between both Houses, based in the House of Lords. It is responsible for all procurement and it sets and monitors standards for contract management across Parliament.

In 2022 the noble Lord, Lord Morse, undertook an independent review of financial management, which included looking in considerable detail at Parliament’s shared commercial service. The noble Lord found underperformance in all commercial areas compared with the rest of the public sector. Following publication of his report in November 2022, new leadership was brought in. The new commercial directors developed and delivered significant improvements, and by March 2025 these were rated as being good or better in all areas.

The commercial needs of Parliament are complex and challenging, and likely to become even more so in the future. It is essential that our commercial function continues to improve and has the confidence of both commissions. To achieve this, the next step is the establishment of the joint department. Before reaching this decision, we in the commission sought assurances about the arrangements to protect the joint interests of each House and to continue the improvements already under way. We have agreed a governance and performance framework so that the department will now be accountable to both Houses and will provide information about its priorities, service and performance. The current directorate staff—around 40 people—will be transferred to the new department and employed jointly by the Clerk of the Parliaments and the Clerk of the House of Commons as the corporate officers. The team will be led by a new chief commercial officer currently being recruited. We expect the transfer to take place on 1 October.

In conclusion, I acknowledge and recognise the significant improvements that have been made in the last couple of years following the excellent and very helpful report and review of the noble Lord, Lord Morse. I put on record our thanks for the commitment and professionalism shown by the commercial directors and their team in achieving this. I look forward to working with them to achieve further progress. I beg to move.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

I welcome the decision to make some changes here, but can the noble Baroness tell the House what the cost of the new front door at the Peers’ Entrance has been? Very senior Members of this House and members of the commission have been told repeatedly that they cannot know the cost of the front door, because if they knew the cost of the front door that would enable terrorists to work out what the security is surrounding it. I suspect that the costs of the front door make it one of the most expensive front doors in the world, and it is a front door that does not work. Various Members from all sides of the House protested right at the beginning that this design would not work as it would result in people having to queue outside to get in and they would therefore be more vulnerable. We were told that no, it had been carefully designed and the system had been looked at, but we now discover that we need somebody permanently there to press the button to open the door. The other evening someone in a wheelchair was unable to access the House. It is a complete white elephant and a disaster.

I do not wish to be unkind to any of the staff who serve this House or to underestimate the difficulties of dealing with a historic building of this kind, but it is simply not acceptable that public money should be spent in this way with such disastrous consequences, with no one being held to account and no knowledge of the associated costs. If we are going to have a joint department—and I welcome the appointment of some new leadership in this area—how can we be assured that the necessary commercial competencies will be there, as well as the ability to understand the importance of listening to what this House has to say and taking account of it in making these decisions?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, mentioned my diplomatic skills. I now start my audition for a role at the UN.

I will challenge one thing the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, said, which I strongly reject: that we are a part-time House. Those of us who were here at 1.30 am would not think that. We are a full-time House. We do not expect every Member the of House to be full-time, but the work of the House is a full-time responsibility.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

I stand corrected. Perhaps I should have said that, unlike the other place, we are unpaid.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

Round one on my diplomatic interview. A number of points have been raised and I want to try to address them. This has gone wider than the question.

On the door itself, there are two issues: cost and operability. It is completely unacceptable that we have a door that does not operate as it should. I can answer some of the questions. I will deal with the cost first, because there is wildly exaggerated and incorrect information. When you do not give information that is correct, incorrect information gets into the realm, which is unhelpful.

There is normally a rule that information regarding security costs is not provided. I think that does not help in this case at all. In terms of how it came about in the first place, noble Lords will remember—the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, may remember this—the Murphy review. After the death of a police officer at the other end of the building, it was important we considered the safety of those who work on the estate—not just Peers and MPs but all those who work on the estate. Their safety and security are of the utmost importance. We have had incidents that show that is important. The fence was part of the review. Noble Lords have been consulted and advised on that on many occasions. It is about security.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, it is an accepted tradition that we do not disclose security information and the costs. Costs on this have been available to Members on the relevant committees, so they were available—and I will probably be sacked later for giving the costs anyway. Given that there was this degree of suspicion about the costs—some of the figures were inflated—and because the door has not been working, it was the view of the commission yesterday that it was important that the costs were made available to Members, so that they have accurate information. When we spend that much money on something that does not work, the key thing is that it is resolved, and that is what I am focused on.

On the new joint department, it is really important going forward that we have the right expertise and the right knowledge. There are things that went wrong here that should be used to inform further decisions, and engaging Members on all these decisions is really important. However, when we engage Members, there are, dare I say it, two Members and three opinions, and a wide spread of views around the House, and sometimes we have to say no to Members because we cannot say yes to everybody. There is a danger that we try to please everybody and end up pleasing nobody.

The words “lessons learned” are currently banned from my office, but there are some points here that we can take away and use to resolve these issues, so that we do not have the same problems in the future. The important thing is to get this joint department up and running, with the proper oversight, and to ensure we have proper and workable security arrangements that protect all of those who work in the Palace and that do the job they are supposed to do.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

I do not want to detain the House, but I am worried about the point from the noble Lord, Lord Hayward. I understand the point about maintaining security, but it is awfully convenient to be able to say that we cannot be told the cost. What is the cost, for example, of the new fence that has been put up, which is hideous? We are being told that we cannot know that because of security, but each and every one of us goes back to where we live—I was going to say to our constituencies—and get mocked about the cost. We are held accountable, and we are meant to be accountable. My worry about this “tradition” is that it means that there is no accountability. When you do not have accountability for expenditure, you get excessive expenditure—and my goodness me, that front door is an example.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

The noble Lord made a number of points. There are always increased costs because of the heritage nature of the building. I do not think any of us is entirely comfortable with having a fence. In the days when I was first a Member of Parliament in the other place, you could walk in without even needing a pass. Times have changed, and that is the reason we have this fence. These things are not unreasonable if there is genuinely a security issue, and I would defend that, but perhaps we sometimes need to stress-test these things a little more, and perhaps that is a role for the commission to undertake.

Sometimes costs seem alarming. Those of us who used to be in local government or who were Ministers will know that, when you account for things and look at the cost, it always seems far more than if you were doing it in your own back garden. This is not just a front door; it is something much more serious than that, and we have to get it up and running. All of us on the commission—a number of us are here in the Chamber today—will take this away, and I know that the Lord Speaker feels the same. We will stress-test those issues. Where information can be made available to Members, it should be, but where it cannot, noble Lords can trust the commission to look at these issues and make decisions with the security people.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 1st April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Collins of Highbury) (Lab)]

I say from the start that I know the noble Baroness, Lady Mobarik, and respect her. Certainly, I welcome her contributions to this House, and many times in debates we have been on the same side, which reflects how this House operates. I had to decide whether in responding I should respond to the amendment or to the debate. I have decided that I will follow the Companion and stick to the amendment.

The noble Baroness’s amendment seeks to compel the Prime Minister to recommend 87 new Peers. The noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, is absolutely right: is that really what we want to do in terms of where we are? I also point out that while the noble Baroness’s amendment says that she wants to mirror the political balance of the outgoing hereditary Peers, there is nothing in it that would guarantee any hereditary Peer remaining in this House, so I am not sure what the last hour has been all about.

Nevertheless, I want to focus. I think the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, summed it up—and I agree with her—when she said that we are a country that takes constitutional change gradually. I recall from the Labour manifesto in 1901—I do not recall it; I remember reading about it—that we were seeking then to abolish the House of Lords. We have changed our mind over time. We have reached a sort of view about it. The hereditary principle was addressed over 25 years ago, and the noble Lord opposite has said that it has gone. We do not support the hereditary principle when it comes to this legislative House.

I say to the noble Lord, Lord True, that the transitional arrangements that were made over 25 years ago are now going to come to an end. We have had 25 years to look at a sensible way of dealing with this issue. My noble friend Lord Grocott has offered many opportunities to do it on a gradual basis which have all been rejected, primarily by noble Lords opposite.

We have now reached the point where we have a manifesto commitment to deal with this issue. I understand why the noble Baroness has made her amendment and understand the nature of the debate, but, as my noble friend the Leader of the House has set out many times before, it is for the Prime Minister to make recommendations to the sovereign on new Peers. In doing so, the Prime Minister invites nominations from party leaders across the House, so, again, I say to the noble Lord, Lord True, that there is nothing stopping him making recommendations to his leader to include hereditary Peers in any new list. Why not do that? Why not offer that transitional arrangement? It is not for us to decide who stays in this House. It is not for us to decide whom the leader of the Conservative Party decides to recommend to the Prime Minister—

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

Will the noble Lord just explain how that works for the Cross Benches?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I was going to come to that point, but as the noble Lord gives me the opportunity, let me say that my noble friend the Leader has addressed that. She is working in consultation and wants to have further discussions about how we address that issue. Certainly, I am confident that we will be able to do so, because I think the Cross-Benchers play a very important role in this House, and the Convenor of the Cross Benches is a hereditary Peer.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

If the noble Lord is prepared to have those discussions with the Cross Benches, what is wrong with the Official Opposition? Why can he not have the same discussions with them?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I repeat: the Prime Minister of this country has made an offer. In terms of the new Peers that we have recently had introduced into this House, the Conservative Party was offered more than Labour was ever offered in previous nominations. It is a very important point: the simple fact is that, if the leader of the Conservative Party wanted to nominate hereditary Peers to life peerages, they can do so. This amendment—

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 1st April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

My Lords, I think I have a sense of humour, but I did not find the noble Lord’s speech at all amusing. What is being proposed here is a nasty proposition. It is being proposed in the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, but she did not actually speak to it but rather complained about the process by which this Bill has been scrutinised by the House. Let us spell it out here: this is a very nasty proposition that every single hereditary should be forced out of this House the moment the Bill receives Royal Assent.

The mask has slipped, because it is all about numbers. It is about reducing the number of Conservatives in this House; Conservatives who have a duty to provide opposition to the Government and to seek to warn them where we believe they are making errors or mistakes —and, my goodness me, that becomes an increasingly onerous task. The noble Baroness talked about degrouping. I am very sad that the amendment has not been grouped with that of my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham, who has a rather more satisfactory and sensitive approach.

The noble Baroness mentioned in her speech that she convened the group that has done so much to bring forward iterative improvements to this House, led by the late Lord Cormack and my noble friend Lord Norton. The whole point of that group and its success is based on the fact that it achieves consensus, works in harmony and works across the House. To have an amendment that suggests that the hereditary Peers, who have given years of public service to this House, should be trashed the moment the Bill gets Royal Assent is an outrageous proposition.

It shows scant regard to how this House operates. There are no fewer than five Deputy Speakers who are hereditary Peers. When the Bill is passed, what is going to happen? Where are these Deputy Speakers going to be found from, just like that, on a timescale that remains unknown? It means that the Convenor of the Cross Benches would disappear just like that, and the Cross Benches obviously have a great job to do in this House.

Then there are the committees. I said I would speak only once on this Bill, to the first amendment, but this amendment is so nasty and unpleasant that I feel I should point out some of the practical consequences. I mentioned in my speech at the beginning of this process the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, who serves on my committee and is a really able Member. Are committees to be denuded of their participation just like that? Think of the practical considerations.

All that may not exude much sympathy, but I think all of us in this House are pretty fed up with reading in the newspapers how we get £371 a day just for turning up. The fact is that Members on the Front Bench are unpaid, and people are meant to meet their other costs out of this, which include research facilities and perhaps overnight accommodation for people coming from elsewhere. What of those hereditary Peers who have staffing or other obligations? Are they suddenly to be cut off, without any concern? I find it astonishing that the noble Baroness, chairing this group as she does, should come forward with such a divisive amendment.

When I spoke at the beginning, I suggested that there was a way forward—to reach a consensus in the House that looked at the requirements of the House, the role played by the hereditaries and their necessity in enabling the Opposition, Cross-Benchers and others to hold the Government to account. Wise Governments like to be held to account because that is what prevents them making serious mistakes.

As the House of Commons fails to do its job, this House becomes ever more important. We need an arrangement here. I understand that the Government have a clear mandate. The hereditary principle is over and a number of the hereditaries will leave the House, but let us do this in a way that does not poison the atmosphere in this House and does not prevent us carrying out our proper duties.

We can do without amendments like this. My noble friend Lord Young’s amendment, when we get to it, is the sort of approach I would much prefer to see coming from the noble Baroness than the amendment she has just moved.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

My Lords, it has been an effort not to speak for the previous several hours, but flesh and blood can take only so much. I have listened to virtually all the debates that have taken place, including numerous Second Reading debates that took place on the first group of amendments today, with Members, kindly enough, pointing out to us that they had not had the opportunity to speak so far. We are on the fifth day in Committee and they did not speak on Second Reading, but they thought it was their duty to, in effect, give us a Second Reading speech today. They have since departed. I am sorry that they seem to have all gone somewhere else now and their interest in the Bill seems to have finished.

On my noble friend’s amendment, it is difficult for me not to repeat things. We are talking about 88 people who have known for a quarter of a century—if they know anything about these things or follow them—that this House has decided that the hereditary principle should not apply to legislators. Now, they are apparently faced with some gross injustice that will cause them great pain. As I have pointed out before, I have been summarily thrown out of Parliament, as has the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth. I got over it pretty quickly, to be honest.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

Yes, we were both thrown out by the electorate, but we were given some resource to enable us to deal with staffing and other issues. We were supported in that process.

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

The decision to remove the hereditaries means they are being removed by the electorate —the electorate that elected a Labour Government with this manifesto commitment. The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, will not know, because I departed rather before he did, that there was none of the kind of soft landings in quite that degree when I lost, but I do not complain about that. Man up. Man up is about the right phrase for a men-only section of the House of Lords. Plenty of notice is being given. My noble friend says it should be on Royal Assent. I think someone suggested it should be at the end of the Parliament in four and a half or five years, or at the end of this Session. When is the end of this Session? We do not know. It could be in a few weeks.

The fact is that there will be a date, there will be plenty of time to address it, and no great injustice is being done by following the result of a general election. Great kindness and support are being shown. We have all said, or many of us have said, that there are some very able hereditaries, but the most amusing of the comments I have heard is, “How will we cope with all this talent being lost to the House? Maybe we should set up a review after a year to see what damage has been done to our democracy by these people departing”.

I simply say to that, “Don’t bother”. We have done it; we had a review. Twenty-five years ago, 668—I think that was the figure—hereditary Peers were removed. We are talking about 87 now. We have had a template to see the damage that results from the departure of hereditary Peers. As far as I can make out, in the period since the 668 departed, the earth has still revolved around the sun in much the same way as it did before. The British people have taken it all very calmly and in their stride. I do not recall any demonstrations against it. I have not heard a tangible argument from anyone specifically spelling out what damage was done to the work of this House by the departure of that group of people. I have nothing against them. There may have been an Einstein among them as far as I am concerned, but this House is bigger than it will be when a certain number of people depart for whatever reason. It is suggested that if you throw a group of people out like this, all sorts of other groups will feel threatened. Well, if they do feel threatened, they will get around 25 years’ notice if precedent is anything to go by.

I want to put one final test—I slightly realise the risks I am taking by speaking at all—to people, mainly those on the other Benches. I have to take it at face value, although I have my doubts, that they are desperate for further reform of this House. They are urging the Government at the earliest possible opportunity to bring forward a series of reforms. I have never noticed them arguing for that other than in the present circumstances, but that is their argument, to which I say that if I were advising the Government now, in the light of this debate—where a very narrow, well-publicised, well-rehearsed, well-anticipated reform is taking place and has allowed this Committee over five long days and bits of nights to discuss everything from attendance to statutory commissions, the role of the Bishops and everything under the sun—my advice to them would be to think twice before they bring in any piece of reform legislation whatever because all this stuff was able to be debated this time, apparently legitimately, so they would be running a grave risk to their legislative programme if the same amount of time was given to any further reforms.

The real test will be this. Let us get on with the rest of this Committee. Let us get on with Report. I think three days should be the absolute maximum after five days in Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

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

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

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

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

My Lords, the hour is late, so I simply want to say this: I hope that the noble Baroness the Leader of the House will take on board the very wise advice given by my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham in speaking to his amendment. He is vastly experienced, having been Leader in the other place. I think all of us, with the possible exception of the odd Conservative Whip, have much enjoyed the way in which he takes a sometimes very independent and always well-considered view of matters before the House. Notwithstanding the earlier debate, I would like to be on record as very firmly in support of what he suggested. I hope that the noble Baroness the Leader will treat that seriously in the interests of the House as a whole.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, other amendments in this group have a tendency to delay the date of implementation of the Bill. My Amendment 107A is neutral on that. It would remove the words relating to the end of the Session from the Bill and instead would make the implementation of the Bill dependent on a statutory instrument to be moved by the Government. To make it all the easier for the Government to accept it, I have ensured that it would be through the negative procedure, so it would be the easiest thing in the world for the Government to do. That flexibility might be of advantage to the Government; indeed, if I were them, I would seize this amendment with open hands and adopt it as my own.

Noble Lords who are hereditary Peers may think that it introduces an element of capriciousness about their fate and that they would therefore be uncertain about when they would come to the end of their term. But there is already a large degree of capriciousness and uncertainty, because the end of the Session is, of course, not a fixed date: it will be decided, in effect, by the Prime Minister, and I am sure he will decide it according to a broad range of considerations. The fate of Members of your Lordships’ House is probably quite low on that list. The Session could end at any time. Noble Lords who feel that they would somehow be losing control of events by handing this power to the Government just need to remember that the end of the Session is equally in the Government’s power. But this would give the Government a little more flexibility and allow them to have more discussions, perhaps after the Bill has passed, about an appropriate time for implementing it, so as to be able to carry noble Lords with them a little more.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 25th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, for raising this issue. It has been raised in your Lordships’ House previously, and the noble Lord the Leader of the Official Opposition has raised some of the legal issues around the legislation that causes part of the problem.

I have to say—and I think the noble Lord would say the same—that I am immensely proud of the work that my ministerial colleagues do. If you look across Parliament, you find that there are few Ministers who work as hard as Lords Ministers. Partly that it is because Lords Ministers—as I look at the team, I think, “What a team!”—have to cover a range of issues, including for their colleagues. They will answer any issue raised across their department. I have enormous respect for the work they do.

The problem lies with legislation that is 50 years old that limits the number of Ministers overall: it limits the number in the House of Commons and then it limits the number of different categories of Minister. As the noble Lord says, it has been the case for a number of years that there have been a small number of unpaid Ministers. I am pleased to say we have made some progress. We have five paid Ministers of State in your Lordships’ House now and significantly fewer unpaid Ministers. However, I take the point; I do not think that any Minister should be unpaid. It is not just the issue of pay; it is the respect that we gain in doing the role.

The noble Lord refers to arrangements that he tried to come to with his Government and failed to do so, and how he and I spoke. I have to say that the reason we did not reach agreement was that the arrangements did not address all the issues that I think need to be addressed. I considered that it was a stopgap measure that would get us through a short period, but I did not think it was a long-term solution. This is something that is very much on my agenda, and my colleagues know it is on my agenda. It is a good old trade union principle that people should get paid for the job they do, and that should be the case.

I have to say, though, that it is not related to this Bill. It is quite a stretch to get it in the Bill, and I admire the noble Lord’s ingenuity. However, the effect of his amendment if it were to pass would either be immediately to reduce the number of Ministers in the Commons or to lose Ministers from this place. The third option would be to change the legislation, which is probably a bit above my pay grade for now. I can say that these matters are under discussion, and I will do what I can with my colleagues to ensure that all of them get the proper support that they should get when doing their jobs. For now, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

Surely it would be possible, if the noble Baroness is not prepared to accept my noble friend’s amendment, to have a one-clause Bill which simply alters the number and is agreed between the usual channels, which could pass through both Houses. It is very hard to understand why this could not be done. The noble Baroness may say, “When you were in government you did not do it”, but the former Leader of the House, my noble friend Lord True, made perfectly clear the effort that was put in. I would have thought a Labour Government would stand for the principle that everyone should receive equal pay for equal labour.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

The noble Lord is right: if there was agreement across both Houses—if he could persuade the leader of the Opposition to support this in the other place as well—I would certainly talk to the Prime Minister. But this is something that has to be done cross-party and not with party-political capital made out of it. We also need to say a bit more about the work that our Lords Ministers do. There is nobody in this House who does not hold Lords Ministers in the highest regard. Perhaps we ought to be saying that to our colleagues in the other place as well.