House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Lord True Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 9th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

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

[Lord True (Con)]

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

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, I am intrigued by my noble friend’s amendment. Yes, it would make good some of the failings of the Government, who have not honoured their 1998 pledge to bring forward their proposals for reform before they remove the hereditary Peers. Nor have they delivered on their promise in the manifesto of 2024 to bring forward proposals for reform on composition, in terms of retirement age, participation obligations and so on. It would perhaps be a good way of making good the problem we face, which is the removal of over 80 of the Peers who are most effective in scrutinising the Government and holding them to account. One cannot help but agree with those who see this Bill as vindictive for that reason, and a partisan attack on the ability of this House to fulfil its constitutional function.

However, dare I part company with my noble friend Lord Blencathra? I feel it is a very bad move to have government by committee—even a Select Committee of this House. By their very nature, committees do not have a sense of the feeling of the whole House, or indeed of the country, which is more important. For this reason, I would worry about such powers for a Select Committee.

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I am always very touched when people call for the Front Bench. I am very happy, if I am so popular, to go over to the other side, if that is what the other side would like.

This has been an important debate, although brief, on the next stage of reform. It is really a coda to the very interesting debate provoked by the noble Lord, Lord Burns. All this flows from the firm promise in the Labour manifesto that another Bill would be enacted in this Parliament to exclude Peers who reach the age of 80 before the end of this Parliament, and other promises in the manifesto to address issues of participation and conduct.

In Committee, my noble friend Lord Blencathra was tirelessly ingenious in the proposals for improvement that he put before the House. He spoke from his great creative experience as Chief Whip in another place, his knowledge, which he alluded to again today, of the often unintended, unbankability of government promises, and also his profound love of Parliament. So, I was surprised—but actually, on reflection, I was not—when the noble Lord’s carefully thought out and clever amendment suddenly appeared on our Order Paper following our debates last week.

Many noble Lords who heard the statement of the Leader of the House last week wanted to hear more detail of the scope of what is planned, and also to have more security in what will be the role of this House in determining what happens next. We have had a few advances on that, but no conclusion. My noble friend’s amendment actually offers the House a route to do that.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Devon (CB)]

My Lords, it is always a privilege to follow the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, and it is nice to see Devon and Dundee legislating until the end.

I will speak to Amendment 28 in my name. It once more considers whether the name “House of Lords” remains appropriate once we have removed the hereditary Lords from these red Benches.

Over recent months, during the passage of this Bill, we have heard from all sides of this House how indefensible is the hereditary principle within a modern parliamentary democracy. We have heard criticism of hereditary Peers, their predominantly male gender and their relatively privileged birth, and heard particular disparagement of their feudal roots. Mine has been one the few voices raised in defence of the indefensible, but, if we are to accept, as reluctantly I do, that the 1,000 years or so of hereditary presence within our legislature should draw to a close, should we not remove the gendered, privileged and feudal name of the House itself?

I am concerned that, in keeping the name “House of Lords”, along with its aristocratic nomenclature and the traditions and pretentions that go with it, we are removing the best bits—the hereditary Members of your Lordships’ House, who contribute so much—and keeping the worst bits: namely, the gendered, discriminatory name and intentions. As the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, stated in Committee,

“Words have power and names shape perceptions”.—[Official Report, 25/3/25; cols. 1554-55.]


The noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General criticised my citation of a dictionary reference for “Lord”, suggesting it could do with some updating. In preparation for this debate, I therefore consulted the Oxford English Dictionary, which confirms the definition of a Lord as a title of nobility or high rank often associated with land ownership and power, particularly in feudal contexts. It can also refer to a man who has achieved mastery or leadership in a particular field, or can be used as a term of respect. In Christianity, Lord is a title for God or Christ—in other words, a deity. Given that names shape perception, and the disparity that has been noted throughout Report between the excellent work that takes place in this House and the terrible public opinion we suffer, should we not be looking at the departure of the hereditary Peers—the Lords, as the Oxford English Dictionary defines them—as an opportunity for a rebrand? Surely it provides the perfect chance to step away from the negative associations of nobility and high rank with land and power; an opportunity to remove the rich aroma of feudal and patriarchal privilege that pervades many aspects of this venerable institution.

[Lord True (Con)]

I am enjoying listening to the noble Earl, although I find it hard to forgive the fact that his collateral ancestors participated in the deplorable and bogus Latin Empire of Constantinople. Some of us remember that, so he should be careful.

On a serious point, we heard earlier the great scale of confusion on the Benches opposite at the different uses of the word “Lord”. Has the noble Earl considered that a better argument for his amendment—which would appeal to the confused elements on the other side who we heard from earlier—is that it would help lift the confusion on the Labour Benches?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, described the preamble as “fine words”. He will know the saying, “Fine words butter no parsnips”. Well, these words have buttered no parsnips for over a hundred years and, personally, I have had enough of fine words on their own.

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I am slightly disappointed that this is the second time this evening that the noble Lord, Lord Newby, has failed to put the case for election when he was talking about the best way to deal with limiting the size of the House and prevent it growing. The best way is to have a constituted, elected House where the people decide how the numbers in the House change. Now, again, he has failed to align himself with the long-held wish of his party to see election. At this late hour, my noble friend has elicited a notable reticence from the party opposite in pursuing its electoral objectives.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

The noble Lord seems to forget that I moved an amendment for an elected House of Lords and, unless my recollection is faulty, he chose not to support it.

[Lord True (Con)]

Well, that is true. The elements are greatly mixed in us, as Shakespeare taught us. There is that terrible duo word of “PR” that always lurks around in any proposition that comes from the noble Lord, Lord Newby.

I do not think that this is a time for reflection on the progress of this Bill. We will have a chance for that next week on “Bill do now pass”. I am pleased that, in general, the conduct of the debates has been good and important issues have been raised. I fear that a more appropriate preamble for this Bill would be something along the lines of, “Whereas it is desired to create an all-appointed House, and no proposals have yet been presented to restrict growth in the power of the Executive over such a House, it is politically expedient to exclude immediately over 80 Members of Parliament who do not support the Executive”. I think that would probably be a reasonably accurate preamble.

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for the patience and willingness to engage with the House that she has again shown in the Chamber this evening. I liked my noble friend’s impish and humble address to the House, but I think that, when the time comes, he should probably withdraw the amendment.

Black Rod

Lord True Excerpts

Wednesday 9th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I liked it.

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

“a gentleman famous in arms and in blood”,

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

[Lord True (Con)]

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

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

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Lord True (Con)]

I had probably better not go on. But we all know who made that choice, and that was Sarah Clarke. How grateful we are that she did, despite the fact that she is well and truly in her right mind.

Sarah brought with her a wealth of logistical and managerial expertise when she accepted our offer to become the first Lady Usher of the Black Rod and the late Queen graciously confirmed that recommendation. She may not have been the conventional choice,

“famous in arms and blood”,

as the Leader of the House reminded us, but she was unquestionably the right choice.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Lord True Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 9th July 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord True]

13: After Clause 1, insert the following new Clause—
“Unsalaried MinistersNo one who is a Minister of the Crown shall be eligible for membership of the House of Lords unless they are in receipt of, or have been offered, a salary under the Ministerial and Other Salaries Act 1975.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would mean that unpaid Ministers would not be eligible for membership of the House, effectively requiring all Lords Ministers to be paid.

[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

[Lord True]

13A: At end insert—
“(2) This section does not apply to Ministers of the Crown appointed before the day on which this section comes into effect.”

[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)]

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

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

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

[Lord True (Con)]

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

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

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

[Lord True (Con)]

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

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

If I may also correct the noble Lord, I pointed out that the consequence of this would be a reduction in the number of Ministers in the Lords, which would be extremely bad for this House.

[Lord True (Con)]

That was also incorrect; it need not necessarily do that at all. I must say that I was surprised when I heard the strictures from the Liberal Democrat Benches—“We cannot support this because this is a very narrow Bill”. Were those not the Benches that pressed two Divisions on the Bill to redesign the House on a democratic basis? They have the gall to now come forward and say that your Lordships should not ask that our Ministers be paid. The intervention was even more startling having heard the explanation from the Liberal Democrat Benches.

The intervention from the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, who is universally respected in this House, was germane, and I thank him too. I had not realised that he was also on the list of unpaid Ministers, which would have been 10 up until a few weeks ago. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, immediately and skilfully picked up the key point that he made. He said that there is never going to be a Bill that comes along to deal with this. Frankly, as I said, we have had the Employment Rights Bill—

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I served as Whip on the Bill in 1999 and I was present for every session. I keep the flame that, one day, we will deal with these issues in a substantive way. I still stick to my point that we will make no progress in this area whatever. I know that the Leader may not agree with me but the idea that a Government would bring forward a Bill to say that we are going to increase the number of paid Ministers is completely naive. That is why, in the end, we should get down to the real business of sorting out what this place should really be for.

[Lord True (Con)]

The noble Lord absolutely makes my point for me. When an opportunity arises, let us put aside all the ardour of this and that, and whether or not we like hereditary Peers. We have a Bill that concerns our House and the better workings of this House. As the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said, if there is a mischief that might be addressed, let us use this opportunity to address it. The Bill has already been amended. It is not a Bill that is intacta. It is not a Bill that is not going back to the House of Commons.

Under successive Governments, for all the striving of the noble Baroness opposite, the House of Commons has continued, and will continue, to ignore the voice of the House of Lords in respect of our request. If we support my amendment, it will force the House of Commons to consider this point and to consider whether there should be a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work in the House of Lords. It will force the House of Commons to consider whether meritocracy should apply and whether the absence of wealth should not deny one the opportunity to serve one’s country in Parliament. It will force the House of Commons to consider the principle that no one should be prevented from serving their party or this House for the lack of private means. Those are critical principles that should be laid before the House of Commons. This amendment would enable that to be done.

I beg Peers from all sides to stand up for their fellows—perhaps silent fellows—in this House who secretly would like to come forward and serve but, as we have heard from these Benches and the Benches opposite, have to look at their bank balances and say that they cannot. Yes, we can. I beg leave to test the opinion of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord True]

17: After Clause 1, insert the following new Clause—
“Rights of life peers to sit in the House of Lords(1) Section 1 of the Life Peerages Act 1958 (power to confer life peerages) is amended as follows.(2) At the end of subsection (1) insert “, and, as the case may be, the incidents specified in subsection (2A) of this section”.(3) Omit from “and” in subsection (2)(a) to the end of subsection (2)(b).(4) After subsection (2), insert—“(2A) A peerage conferred under this section may, if the letters patent so state, during the life of the person on whom it is conferred, entitle him, subject to subsection (4) of this section, to receive writs of summons to attend the House of Lords and sit and vote therein accordingly, and shall expire on his death.””Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would make it possible to create a life peerage without a seat in parliament under the Life Peerages Act 1958.

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, in preface, I thank the noble Baroness the Leader of the House for her readiness on that amendment. We have reached a good point as a result of that discussion, and I thank her for that—though there is no doubt in my mind that there is a matter to resolve.

Amendment 17, in my name, seeks to amend the Life Peerages Act to place absolutely beyond doubt what I and many others consider probably is beyond doubt: the untrammelled power of the Crown to create a peerage that does not bring with it a summons to attend your Lordships’ House.

Throughout the passage of this Bill and over many years, if not decades, we have heard arguments about the size of the House, complaints about people who take peerages and then do not attend the House, reference to people who accept a peerage and then very swiftly retire, and on many occasions criticism of previous Prime Ministers’ extensive peerage creations. This one is not doing too badly, and I have no complaint—it was perfectly reasonable, to my mind, that the Labour Party should create more Peers in this House. That has always been my position, and I stand by what I said when I was in government and at this Dispatch Box. We welcomed all these new Peers in the good spirit that is customary in our House.

However, we all know that not all who receive the supreme honour and dignity of a peerage for life in many walks of service—business, the Armed Forces, the arts or even sport, and many others—want to be working Peers in this place, or even feel that they may be equipped to do so. Some come and then swiftly retire. Some very rarely pass those brass gates but, in the statistics, they still count among our number. Neither of those things serves the interest of the House as a whole.

This is one of many reasons why I submit to your Lordships that there is an overwhelming case for a modernising reform of our system of peerages, so that those who are worthy of being honoured in this way for their services to public life, with this extraordinary high degree of honour, but who do not want or may not be able to fulfil the obligations to attend here, may receive a peerage for life without being required to take a seat here.

He is not in his place, but I have often heard the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock, make this point and I have always agreed with him. My noble friend Lord Lucas argued it very ably in Committee, and I was pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, supported the sentiment in Committee. He argued that

“separating the honour from the obligation is an important part of how we should be moving forward”.—[Official Report, 12/3/25; col. 796.]

I agree with him, and I hope that now the Bill is going back to the other place he will be as good as his word and support what he called this important part of moving forward—though, having heard earlier that the Liberal Democrats’ policy on the Bill is to vote against principles they support, I wish I could be more confident that he would follow me if I chose to divide the House. I will obviously listen carefully to the debate.

As I argued in Committee, it is probable that the right to create a life peerage of this type already exists. Indeed, such a life peerage was created as recently as 2023 in the case of the present Duke of Edinburgh, and there are many historical precedents, as I explained in Committee. When we hear a new Peer introduced in the House, we hear our clerk intone these words every time, after the reference to the Life Peerages Act:

“And of all other powers in that behalf us enabling”.


These affirm the undoubted and full range of powers inherent in the monarch to bestow peerages and other honours.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Rooker (Lab)]

I have just a practical question, really. There is a Peer who came into this House and did not make a maiden speech for 10 years because he considered the peerage an honour. Then, one day, the Prime Minister said to that person, “By the way, with your experience, I’ve got a bit of a job I want you to do”. That Peer came in and made his maiden speech and worked inside the Government. That would not be possible with this kind of amendment.

[Lord True (Con)]

It would. If such a rare case applied, a second, life peerage under the 1958 Act could be conferred—it would be very simple.

Like much constructive reform, this may not be a great innovation. It is an extension of a principle that exists under the royal prerogative, an extension to the 1958 Act so that non-sitting life Peers may be created through a statutory process as well. This would be helpful to Prime Ministers who wish to honour distinguished men and women but not necessarily to swell the ranks of this House.

There are many Peers who currently do not have the right to sit in your Lordships’ House, and I found the arguments put against this proposition in Committee faintly risible. A clear and unequivocal reform, enabling the creation of non-sitting life Peers under the 1958 Act, would be no more or less confusing than the current position, but it would relieve us of the potential difficulties both for individual Peers and for the House, to which I have referred. It might save some future Peers, and indeed your Lordships’ House, from the unnecessary embarrassment of including people who do not want to be here or to stay here for very long. I cannot think for the life of me why any Government would wish to resist it.

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

My Lords, I will risk the possibility of being called risible by the noble Lord, Lord True, for disagreeing with him, but I think he has failed to spell out precisely one point that he should have done. He prayed in aid various people, including my noble friend Lord Foulkes as someone who thought we should separate membership of this House from the peerage. I agree with that—it is a very good idea—but there are of course two ways of doing it.

One way is to say that you do not require a peerage to be in this House, nor do you need a title—we could be called Members of the upper House. That deals with the problem just as effectively as the problem he has constructed, which I do not think is a serious one, to create a new category of Peer. This is the last thing we want to be doing in a Bill of this sort, which tries to simplify and clarify membership of this House, however far from that we have strayed.

According to my reckoning, if we were to make the mistake of following the advice of the noble Lord, Lord True, we would then have six categories of membership of this House. We would have hereditary Peers here for at least another 40 years, maybe longer, due to the amendment we have carried; some Law Lords remaining from the previous legislation; Bishops; life Peers; and we would still have—though not as Members of the Lords—hereditary Peers, who are not able to sit in the Lords. He is adding a further category of life Peers who are not able to sit in the Lords.

If he tried to explain that in “Understanding the House of Lords” to the average 18 year-old studying the British constitution at the moment—or the average anybody—it would sound like the ultimate in making a mountain out of a molehill. We do not need additional categories of membership of this House; we need fewer.

[Lord True (Con)]

I am not proposing an additional category of Members of this House; the whole point of this amendment is that those people should not be Members of this House. By the way, any life Peer who retires from this House is still a life Peer and a Lord, so is the noble Lord confused by that?

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

If the noble Lord, Lord True, cannot see the difference in category between a life Peer who can sit in here and legislate and a life Peer who cannot, then we are going to have considerable difficulty in having a sensible discussion. They are obviously fundamentally different, just as there is a fundamental difference between a hereditary Peer who cannot sit in this House because he is not one of the favoured 92, and a hereditary Peer who can. Believe me, they know the difference—and I am sure the life Peers would, as well.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendment 17 is identical to Amendment 35 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, in Committee. There was a lively debate on this proposal in Committee, as we have also seen today. However, I would point to our extensive, comprehensive and long-standing honours system that seeks to recognise and promote the outstanding contributions made by individuals from the length and breadth of the country, and all sections of society. With the sovereign as the fount of honour, honours are awarded based on merit, regardless of background, for those who give service above and beyond to better the lives of others. I would have thought that this was an answer to the apparent problems suggested by the noble Lord, Lord True.

Many of your Lordships will agree that it is an honour to be appointed as a Peer, but that quite rightly brings with it responsibilities to the work of your Lordships’ House. Peers are appointed in recognition of their skills and expertise, and how they can be put to the service of your Lordships’ House. As my noble friend the Leader of the House said last week, party leaders should be mindful of this when making nominations.

The Government do not support the decoupling of a life peerage conferred under the Life Peerages Act 1958 from membership of your Lordships’ House. We have a manifesto commitment to introduce a participation requirement, to ensure that all Peers contribute to the work of the House, which many noble Lords have been clear that they support. I do not think that creating another layer to the system, to provide for the creation of non-active Peers, is in keeping with the mood of the House.

The noble Lord, Lord True, and others, have consistently advocated for a thoughtful and measured approach when implementing constitutional changes, to avoid unintended consequences. It is not clear how this new honorific peerage would work in practice. It is not clear what HOLAC’s role would be in this two-tier system, whether there would be a role for another honours committee, whether such a system would necessitate the need for additional governance structures or who would remove such a title if we got to that point.

In addition, to create a new class of Peers with the same titles as the ones who sit and vote would exacerbate the confusion that already exists amongst the public regarding the difference between honours and peerages. In essence, this amendment raises further questions that have not been given due consideration, especially when we already have an established and much respected honours system to recognise excellence. I therefore respectfully request that the noble Lord withdraws his amendment.

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I am disappointed by the response from the party opposite. Is this not the great reformist party? Is this not the party that speaks about its accomplishments in changing Britain?

We have heard from the Front Bench opposite that they cannot support the idea that anybody could be a Peer and not have to come and swell the ranks in your Lordships’ House. That is not the way that your Lordships’ House, in its evolving thinking, has been going. We have an important and interesting debate which is being put to us later by the noble Lord, Lord Burns. The feeling of the House is that we should find ways to reduce the numbers, and one way of reducing the numbers is by reducing unnecessary entries by people who have no intention of being working Peers.

I agree with what the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, said. As a matter of fact, if you google me, you will find that I have repeatedly, over many years, proposed this reform, and have even done so from the Dispatch Box opposite.

[Baroness Hayman (CB)]

Perhaps I was not clear enough. The proposition to which I have always given support is that there should be a complete separation of honours and titles from membership of your Lordships’ House. For that, I have not had support from the noble Lord’s Benches.

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, the amendment includes a separation.

Do we have such a low view of the public that we think they cannot tell one person from another? In a previous debate, the Attorney-General offered the argument that it was so confusing. Does he think that the public could not tell an Attorney-General from a major-general? Are they so confused?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

A constant argument of the Conservatives against any changes to our electoral system has been that the public would be unable to understand a voting system in which one put “1”, “2”, “3” and “4”, rather than simply “X”. If that is the Conservative view of the public in relation to voting, I think the noble Lord would find it hard to argue that, without much more complicated citizenship education, the public would be expected to understand the distinctions he is making.

[Lord True (Con)]

I am again startled, as always, by an intervention from those Benches. The noble Lord may remember that we had a referendum on proportional representation; the public well understood the proposition being put to them and they rejected it. For the noble Lord to say that the public would not understand this, he is digging a bigger hole for himself. As for the Lib Dems, I love the Lib Dems. One of the most beautiful things about Britain is its eccentricities, and we love the Lib Dems’ charming eccentricities. All we ask is that they are always charming—which is not always the case, although they have been today.

Let me return to the case in point. My noble friend Lord Blencathra skewered it when he pointed out, very fairly and properly, that this matter was put to the Burns committee. It is in tenor with the way the House is going in trying to find ways not to swell our ranks artificially. It is therefore an extraordinary idea—we have heard it already—that the Government support something but cannot support it today, and yet they might support it sometime in future. That is a nonsensical argument, as is the argument that the public might be confused.

I remind the House that this is not an unheard-of thought; many people have argued for it over a period of years. It would be a useful addition to the honours system. It would prevent the House being burdened and embarrassed by those who, frankly, do not want to come here but who deserve a high honour. I beg leave to test the opinion of the House.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Lord True Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 2nd July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Noble Lords]

Front Bench!

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, are we going to hear all day the cry of “Front Bench”? In this House, the tradition is that those on the Back Benches are permitted, as fellow Peers, to contribute to our debates. Also, if I may say so, I have never heard the proposition that someone who is a hereditary Peer should have to declare that. I very much hope, if that is the principle that is being pushed, that when we come to debate the principle of a democratic House, those who are life Peers will declare their interest—responding to the noble Lord, Lord Newby. This is not a profitable way to go. As was said by the Captain of the Gentlemen-at-Arms very wisely earlier, we should conduct our debates with amity, respect for each other and a degree of tolerance.

History matters; it matters greatly. It was no accident that, in 1999, the then Labour Government decided, outside the discussions that we were having about the elected Peers, to leave an ex officio place for these two great and ancient hereditary offices in our Chamber. It was a wise decision then, and I think it would have been wise to replicate it now. We have heard the long history of these great offices and, more importantly, their current relevance, set out ably by my noble friend Lord Roberts of Belgravia and underlined by the noble Lord, Lord Moore of Etchingham. I agree with my noble friend that we diminish the ceremonial part of our state at great peril to ourselves and to who we are as a people. As was said by my noble friend, it is one of the things that we do amazingly well, which attracts huge income from tourism and, far more deeply, deep respect and interest in our country.

This Parliament is a Parliament of three parts: the Commons, the Lords and the Crown. The Earl Marshal and Lord Great Chamberlain are visible embodiments of that. They are a part of our parliamentary constitution that can be traced back to early medieval times. They are every bit as important today, and they must be able to fulfil their duties at State Openings of Parliament and all the other events and places where they serve us, our House and our country.

When I look back on the great and moving events that took place in our recent memory after the demise of the late Queen and the accession and Coronation of His Majesty King Charles, I well remember, as we all do, the active, practical and dedicated part that the Earl Marshal and Lord Great Chamberlain took in making those events possible and so memorable. I record my personal thanks as then Leader of the House to the noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk, and to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and his predecessor, the Marquess of Cholmondeley. They are also ex officio here by a separate provision of the 1999 Act; they are Members of the House. They have often, over the years, brought great insight here. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell. When I went home late last night, the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, was in his place, having made a full, practical and helpful contribution to the House.

Those of a longer memory will well recall the 17th Duke of Norfolk, referred to by my noble friend, who won the Military Cross under fire in 1944. As a career major general and director of service intelligence, he brought immense wisdom to our discussions of military affairs. With an Earl Marshal responsible for our State Openings of Parliament and a Lord Great Chamberlain in control of much of our estate—the Robing Room, the Royal Gallery, the Chapel of St Mary Undercroft—and their relevance to restoration projects, these officers of state will need unfettered access to the Chamber and the resource and office space needed to fulfil their roles on our behalf. I agree that they should never have to queue for access or beg for a pass.

As others have argued, given that the Earl Marshal and the Lord Great Chamberlain have such an intrinsic role in our House and its ceremony, much the best way forward would have been to allow them to remain as full Members of our House. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Moore of Etchingham, that their ability to serve us can only be strengthened by knowing and sharing the experience of our Members and staff. It worked for many hundreds of years and it seems a shame to change it now.

The unnecessary removal of these ex officio Members, separate from the 90 elected Peers, is to be regretted. However, I know that the noble Baroness the Lord Privy Seal has been talking to colleagues about this, and about the best and properly dignified way of enabling them to go about their important services to the Crown and to this House in an unfettered and unimpeded way in the future. We should all be open to hearing what she has to say.

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

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, for an erudite and entertaining speech. His amendment is similar to one that was tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, in Committee. I think the cries of “Front Bench”, which we do not hear too often, were made in eagerness to hear the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord True. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Rising. He came to see me about this matter, and I am grateful for that discussion, which was very helpful. Looking at the comments that have been made, I can satisfy noble Lords on some points, but there is one particular point on which I cannot, which I will come to.

This is something that has arisen many times during the passage of this Bill. I completely recognise the important roles played by noble Lords in those offices and the historic link between the monarch and the second Chamber. However, the point remains that in order to fulfil their functions and responsibilities they do not need to speak in the Chamber or to vote.

The noble Lord, Lord Roberts, is right that it would be appalling to suggest that they would have to queue up at the Pass Office or seek permission every time they come in. I can give him the categorical assurance that that will not happen, now or in the future. The commission has agreed that both office holders have access rights on the Parliamentary Estate. They will be able to perform their duties as they do now and engage with Members as they do now. That includes the ability to sit on the steps of the Throne, to listen to debates, to access catering and to access the Library. That level of access will ensure that they can engage with Members. In no way should their responsibilities or their abilities to do that be fettered in any way. I can discuss with the House authorities the possibility of office space—there is no office space at the moment—in the House, if required.

I know that some noble Lords have voiced doubts and questioned whether both postholders, now or in the future, would have to come back to the commission each and every time. I reassure the House that that will not be the case. The commission has confirmed the position for current and future postholders, so they would not have to come back. There should not be any impediment to their fulfilling their responsibilities. I assured the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Rising, that I would make that commitment from the Dispatch Box and, as he requested, I am happy to do that.

To correct something that was said, the postholders will not be excluded from the House. They will be excluded from participating in the proceedings of the House but they will not be excluded from coming into the House, so I do not think that this amendment is necessary. There is certainly no criticism of the roles they play.

The noble Earl, Lord Devon, raised three points. I can satisfy him on two of them, but on one, I cannot. He asked what discussions have taken place. I have had at least one discussion with both postholders and probably more than that. He asked whether they have been consulted. Yes, they have, and there has been wider consultation. The point I cannot satisfy him on is the one raised by the Earl Marshal about more diversity. These are both hereditary roles, and they will continue to be hereditary roles. The position of Lord Great Chamberlain rotates through three hereditary positions so, in terms of diversity and inclusion, they will always have to be men at the moment. I know the noble Earl has particular interests and perhaps one day we can make some progress on that, but at present I cannot satisfy him on the diversity role because, as hereditary Peers, they will always be male.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I do not wish to still the debate, but perhaps I might, as the noble Baroness did on a wider point in the first group, intervene briefly. As a previous Leader of your Lordships’ House and now as Leader of the Opposition in this House, the remarks I am going to make, I make as Leader of the Conservative Party here and with the full assent of my right honourable friend the leader of the Opposition nationally.

I say, by the way, to the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, that this House should never be cowed from proposing a thought to the other place. Indeed, one of the arguable contentions that we have had on this Bill is that it must have no amendments. I am sure there have been occasions, but it is unusual in our parliamentary proceedings that the expectation should be that a Bill, and certainly one of this constitutional significance, be unamended. Would the proposition that one cannot have a conversation with the House of Commons on this matter apply to a future Bill to remove people over 80, as promised in the Labour manifesto? I hope not. I hope this House would vigorously raise questions on that.

I have been listening carefully to the debate that was initiated very ably by my noble friend Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, brilliantly supported by the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, and my noble friend Lady Laing. They put a proposition that the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, acknowledged he owns and loves, but he is going to vote against it today. It is a proposition that I think many of us know in our heart is the right and balanced way forward. I think many of us know in our heart that if there were not a party whip applying, there would be a majority in this place to reach a balanced solution. That balanced solution gives the party opposite and the Liberal Democrats what they have legitimately wanted for a long period, which is the end of the hereditary principle as a route of entry into this House, but which does not hurt existing Members or impede the workings of this House in the way my noble friend Lord Forsyth suggested.

In case there is any doubt, I put on record beyond any doubt what those who have been following the debates on the Bill from the outset will already know, which is that my party has no plan, intention or device to block the Bill indefinitely or to delay its passage by the kind of constant ping-pong that the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, referred to. From the very outset, within days of the last general election, on my initiative and that of the Convenor of the Cross-Bench Peers, the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, we recognised, regret it or not, the Labour Party’s mandate to end the entry of Peers to this place by any preferment of heredity. The convenor and I proposed—and the noble Baroness the Leader of the House graciously accepted and helped to develop—that proposal, that by-elections for hereditary Peers should be suspended. That has been accomplished, and it remains so. It is done. It is not an issue in this debate, even though the word by-elections has featured a great deal. No person has entered this place by reason of election under the 1999 Act since Labour’s victory in the last general election, nor shall one ever do so again.

That is a mighty thing under the eyes of 800 years of service here by hereditary Peers. By the end of this month, a Bill will pass which will permanently end entry here on the grounds of heredity, and if the Government should choose to send it for Royal Assent, it could be law by dawn on the first day of August. That is the position. Whatever may be implied or said to the contrary, we on this side are not arguing for the continuation of the hereditary principle as a route of entry here.

My noble friend’s amendment would not alter, detract from or frustrate that in any way; in fact, it would enable it. The sole issue before your Lordships in this debate, as my noble friend Lady Laing argued so passionately, is not who comes here in future but who goes now.

As the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, said—I think the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, slightly missed this point—if the Bill successfully affirms that any Government may expel summarily a group of existing Members of our legislature who for whatever reason they do not like, then any future Executive, using what will be the awesome power—unique, actually, in the world—of a Prime Minister to choose who comes here, and now, on this example, who goes, any future Government, of whatever colour, and heaven forfend it should be the example put before us by the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, could use the same arguments—

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

My Lords—

[Lord True (Con)]

I will complete my remarks and then I will give way. They could use the same arguments to expel any other group now among us in the future.

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

My Lords, this is such an absurd, fanciful and imaginative suggestion. By way of evidence, can the noble Lord explain to us how 667 hereditaries being removed overnight in 1999 raised the spectre that he is trying to put before us—that it enabled subsequent Governments to act in the completely arbitrary and brutal way that he has described? It is pure fantasy.

[Lord True (Con)]

Well, it certainly encouraged the Labour Party, which removed the Law Lords—although allowing those who were here to stay—and are now removing the rest of our hereditary colleagues.

[Baroness Hayman (CB)]

I did not follow the noble Lord’s argument that the ability to change the composition of the House of Lords by legislation, which has been brought forward after a manifesto was provided to the electorate, is the same as the ability of a Prime Minister at the moment to nominate and bring into the House as life Peers any number of people. The arbitrariness comes from the prerogative in terms of how people come in, but we are talking now about the composition of the House and changing it by legislation, and those two are not comparable.

[Lord True (Con)]

The Prime Minister has no power to exclude. Prime Ministers have the power, by royal prerogative, to recommend appointments to the monarch, but no Prime Minister in the world has the power to exclude. The only other House of Parliament in any way similar to ours is the Senate of Canada, and there is no power for the Prime Minister to exclude a Member or group of Members.

The debate ranged widely, but the decisions that we always make as people who make law must be on the face of the paper before us, the proposed Act of Parliament, and it is the Bill before us that the noble and right reverend Lord raised. In a few minutes, what each of us privately has to decide is not whether entry by heredity is over—it is—but whether we assent to the expulsion of over 80 of our comrades on all Benches. These are people we know and whose worth we know, as no one outside this House knows them. They are people we respect, as no one outside this House respects them, as we have seen them sitting on the Woolsack, on our committees and on the Front Benches, as my noble friend said, in service as Ministers over the decades. They are people we like, although that is a small thing in relation to their service and the holes that their departure will leave in our ranks.

When the Bell goes shortly, we will all rise from our place and we will go this way or that. We can go and say, “Out with you all”—that is what the Bill says—“and you must go for one wrong about which you could do nothing: by whom you happen to have been conceived”. Or else we may, by quiet assent or our active move into the other Lobby, say, “Yes, we agree that we will have no more new hereditary Peers but we do not wish to hurt those who serve now or to hurt our House. We value who you are and what you have done and may yet do for this House, and we should like you to stay, sit with us and serve as our Peers”. That is the choice we will make in a few minutes.

It is not about who comes here. That is settled; it is history. No other hereditary Peer will ever take the oath at this Dispatch Box. The decision we make is about who goes. It is simple and binary, and it is a decision that each of us in this great House of Lords—which, as the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, said, has the right to make this decision about its composition and its future, and to suggest a way forward to the other place —must now make, with our unique sense of this House that we love and the good that the people we are discussing do for it. We must make a decision about those people we know who have been, often for decades, are and, I submit, should continue to be our fellow Peers.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I am very torn on this. I favour a unicameral approach and a lot of the arguments against the elected second Chamber have been made very well, even though I want a more democratic way of making decisions.

There is a crisis of democracy at present that expands far beyond this debate. What really struck me in the debate on assisted dying in the other place was the number of times that MPs effectively said, “Let’s leave it up to the House of Lords to sort out”. That is a disaster, because it is anti-democratic. It worries me, as we increasingly watch a certain implosion happening at the other end, that the House of Lords is given far too much credit for being able to sort that out. The unelected House being the ones who are trusted is the profound crisis of democratic accountability in this country. That is what we should be debating. I feel very self-conscious about being in an unelected House of Lords debating the survival of an unelected House of Lords—which people stay and which people go. It is so self-regarding.

As for the notion of a House full of experts—philosopher kings and all that—I cannot imagine anything more off-putting to the British public than us patting ourselves on the back and saying that we know more than anyone else. I appreciate that is fashionable, but it should not be something we embrace. That is not to undermine the expertise that is here, but please do not try to make it a virtue in terms of democratic decision-making.

However, to go back to the spirit of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Newby, one problem with the discussion on hereditary Peers is that it is too limited. It suggests that it is revolutionary and reforming; in fact, it is just going for low-hanging fruit when we should be having a proper discussion about a democratic shake-up at both ends of this Westminster Palace. I feel that we are wasting an awful lot of time while Rome burns.

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, it has been an interesting debate, even if it started slightly predictably. If an all-appointed House is eventually created by this Bill, many—whatever some of us think—will contemplate the logical next step in reforming the House of Lords, which is to consider a democratic mandate. We must not get away from that. I heard talk earlier of “bringing the House into disrepute” by our debating the issues we were, but I am not sure that it helps to be seen laughing at the idea of election, which we did earlier, although it might have been that we were laughing at the Liberal Democrat obsession with proportional representation—one never knows.

As the noble Lord, Lord Newby, explained, it has been a long-held aspiration of the Liberal Democrats and, before them, the good old Liberal Party, which really was liberal, to replace your Lordships’ House with an elected Chamber. It is there in the preamble to the 1911 Act, as my noble friend Lord Strathclyde always reminds us. There have been various attempts, often supported in this Chamber, to achieve a democratic second Chamber: in the 1960s, in the 1970s and most recently by the coalition in 2011. My colleagues are not unhappy with me at the moment, but I will upset them by saying that it was a proposal which I and many others in this House assented to. As we know, it could not be prosecuted because it was frustrated procedurally in the other place by a number of Conservative MPs and the Labour Party.

There is logic and consistency in the noble Lord’s position. I hugely respect the noble Lord, Lord Winston; he really is an expert, whatever others say. However, speaking humbly as someone who has fought seven elections in my ward and won them all, and twice fought elections to be leader of my council and won both—sorry—I hope your Lordships do not consider me to be a complete nincompoop. I do not claim to be an expert, but I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, that some people who are elected can be good.

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I have spent a whole life in the Conservative and Unionist Party, and I dare say people in the Labour Party could probably say the same thing.

The desire for election therefore is not just in the Liberal Democrat party. There are people on our Benches who have spoken on it; we heard from my noble friend Lord Brady of Altrincham. The reality is that this Bill, as presented, creates something unique in the world, outside Canada, which is an all-appointed House, stocked by the Prime Minister, now with the aspiration to be able to remove people. No other democratic nation allows the Prime Minister of the day to decide who his opponents in Parliament will be, and how many, or to stock the Chamber. We will stand alone in the world. They used to say that this House was the only house outside Lesotho which had a hereditary element coming into it. If this legislation goes through, we will not find many models without the kind of additional elements that my noble friend Lord Hailsham talked about earlier. We have to look at the shape of the House being created as the result of this Bill as presented. I welcomed what the noble Baroness the Leader of House said earlier about an opportunity; we have not discussed the shape of it in the usual channels, but we obviously will, and I welcome that. The only thing that she did not say was anything about a Bill, although we have a later debate on the amendment tabled by the noble Duke. When he moves his amendment, I would like to hear a little bit more about whether there will be a Bill—the first I heard of it was at the Dispatch Box. The Minister told me she has been having consultations, and she has come to House and said that, but we still do not know the full shape of what is proposed. What she said earlier seemed quite narrowly confined to the issues of age and participation. The challenge by my noble friend Viscount Hailsham that we will need to look a bit more at the full nature of reform is important.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Lord True Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 2nd July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate, and to those who tabled amendments. We have had a very thoughtful and helpful discussion.

I will pick up on a couple of points, because a range of views has been expressed this evening and questions asked. The point about what is your Lordships’ role in this House has come out quite clearly. There are those who said we are a House of experts, while the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, was quite clear in asking what is wrong with politics and political parties, even though she does not represent a political party. It just strikes me that, yes, we have a number of experts in your Lordships’ House and we value their expertise, but we are not all experts. The reason we have a number of experts is that we listen to their advice and the information they give, but we are all here to exercise our judgment. That judgment is what we should all bring, and that is the seriousness with which we take our role.

I have considerable sympathy with the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Newby. I think we are trying to get to roughly the same place, to ensure that those who are appointed to your Lordships’ House will have the confidence of this House and the public that they are here to do a role and exercise their judgment in the right way. I think the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, goes further than that, because he is seeking to completely remove the Prime Minister or any democratic accountability from the process of giving the sovereign advice on appointments, instead giving it to a commission that has no accountability—he is nodding; that is the correct interpretation. I think that I and a number of other Members struggle with the idea that that is appropriate. The noble Earl, Lord Devon, is looking to give the commission a new power to advise the sovereign on 20 new non-party-political appointments over the next five years.

Let me address some of those points. The Statement that the Prime Minister issued really clarified the role. This comes to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell. There is no change in the arrangements for HOLAC for appointments to the Cross Benches. For those appointments that come through the Prime Minister, whether to the Cross Benches or from the political parties, but go through the Prime Minister, HOLAC is asked to assess for propriety.

It would be totally wrong for any Prime Minister to use that route to make party-political appointments, and I have spoken to the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, about this, giving an absolute assurance this Prime Minister would never do that. It would be completely inappropriate. There is no change: it is exactly as it always has been. The rules are those that other Prime Ministers should have followed—and have in most cases, I am sure—for that route through to the Cross Benches via the Prime Minister. There has been a slight change. I think that originally it was for public servants, but both the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, and the current Prime Minister said that it was for people who have a track record of proven public service. Our recent appointments show dedicated public service. Four excellent appointments have been made to the Cross Benches. They are not necessarily public servants, but public service is important. That was a wise move by the now noble Lord, Lord Cameron, and by the Prime Minister to reconfirm his interpretation of that. HOLAC has a role on suitability in the appointments made by HOLAC to the Cross Benches.

Those are the appointments where HOLAC will also look at suitability, as well as propriety. The Prime Minister also mentioned in his Statement a pretty unlikely event which reminds us of the prime ministerial prerogative on this issue, something I think some noble Lords are seeking to remove. It would be a very serious and almost completely unprecedented step, but there has been one occasion when a Prime Minister has gone against HOLAC on propriety. We have set out the process that the Prime Minister should follow and been transparent about that. I think it is quite a serious step to take.

If the Prime Minister were to make an appointment against HOLAC’s advice on propriety, he would be completely transparent on the reasons why, and he would be held to account for that decision. He would be held accountable—that accountability is the issue that has been raised. He would write to the commission to explain the decision and HOLAC would write to the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Select Committee to notify Parliament that that advice had not been followed. The key there is accountability, as set out in the ministerial Statement.

[Lord True (Con)]

May I ask the Minister a clarifying question? I think this is important, irrespective of which party is in office. I think she has described the situation very fairly and clearly. Obviously, this prime ministerial power, which is not new, of direct appointment to the Cross Benches, raises the question of how those are assessed. I do not quite understand the internal procedures of the Cross Benches, but I know of people who sit on the non-affiliate Benches who have been put through some kind of process. The Cross-Benchers may think that they are a bit too close to one party or another. If the Prime Minister—I am not saying necessarily a Labour Prime Minister or a Conservative Prime Minister—used this procedure, would the Cross Benches be able to say, “We think that this woman or this man is too close to the Conservatives” or “too close to the Labour Party”? How would that operate? Do the Cross-Benchers have a say in who is appointed to the Cross Benches in terms of their background?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

It is probably more of a question for the Cross-Benchers than me, and the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, is ready to leap to his feet.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to add my name to Amendment 8, so ably moved by the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, who has contributed so much to the work of this House, as have so many other noble Lords who happen to be hereditary Peers and whose tremendous and dedicated contributions to this House will be removed by this Bill. This amendment is deliberately not prescriptive, but seeks to ensure that this Bill will not simply represent “job done” in terms of House of Lords reform. This Bill will not improve the effectiveness and value added of this House. It will leave a net loss.

I think we all agree that we need to reduce the numbers in this House and that we would like to modernise it and improve its effectiveness and efficiency, but if this is all we do, it will not leave our House in a better place—and there is further reform. As the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, suggested, expelling the seasoned and the good, rather than those who do not turn up or the underperformers, will not add value. The noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, talked about participation being particularly important. I hope that the Leader of the House will be able to reassure us that this will not be the end of the matter and that there will be further reform to improve on a net-net basis the composition and effectiveness of this House.

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, this has been an interesting discussion. In some ways it ran over from the previous group, I rather thought. There were some very important points raised and I do not think the House in any way—I will come back to it—should underestimate the challenge, which is in no way a challenge to any individual. It is a challenge to the realities of power and the exigencies and priorities of government that was put out by my noble friend Lord Howard of Lympne, which are also intrinsic to the amendment so ably moved by the noble Duke.

I said earlier today that I feel that we on this side have been very emollient in this long process and that we have made many efforts to reach accord and not to obstruct this legislation. So far, there has been little in return. Continuing on that track, I have to say, in the light of what I said earlier, which I meant, speaking with the authority of the Leader, as Leader, that I cannot support, much as I understand his motives, the amendment from my noble friend Lord Hailsham that would effectively seek to delay the implementation of this legislation, which I think is better now, as it was amended by the House earlier. It is defective in the sense that it is not a full reform, but I think that the amendment proposed by my noble friend would, because of all the conditionalities in it, potentially lead to a very lengthy delay in the implementation of the legislation, and I think that may lead us into paths of conflict that might not necessarily lead to the most fruitful outcome. But I do understand exactly the point that he is making and that others have made.

As far as the amendment from my noble friend Lord Blencathra is concerned, I think the House was not only entertained but hugely illuminated by the many amendments that my noble friend brought forward in Committee. He raised an enormous number of points of thought. He has not brought back many on Report, but I think he is in a sense offering us a bridge to make some of those things possible. Again, I understand where he is coming from. It is not really for me, but for others in this House, but I doubt his aspiration that he could bring forward an amendment at Third Reading in the manner that he hinted at, because the normal expectation of the House is that that happens when the Minister says that they are prepared to have a discussion on the thing.

The methodology that my noble friend has proposed is ingenious, and the Leader of the House, who is emollient and inclusive, may well say that she is prepared to discuss this mechanism with him. If so, he could do that, but if not, my noble friend, between now and when we reach his amendment, which I think will be on the second day, may have to reflect on the way forward.

G7 and NATO Summits

Lord True Excerpts

Tuesday 1st July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I sincerely apologise for the discourtesy to the House. I had not realised that the Statement was not going to be read, so I thought I had better get to my place in case the Deputy Speaker had to adjourn the House during pleasure.

Apart from seeing the Leader of the Opposition arriving late, it can be illuminating when a Statement repeat is delayed—I had better go on because the Clock has started—because the Prime Minister’s Statement began with grand claims about fixing social security. We all know what has happened since. Can the noble Baroness the Leader tell the House where the savings lost in this fix of social security since the Statement will come from? I think we all know that it will be tax and tax and tax again on the owners and savers of Britain: on home owners, farmers and small businesses and on the dividends that pay our pensions. As we heard this week, there may be potentially more controls on ISAs, the nest eggs people put aside from their hard-earned income. Gordon Brown invented the cash ISA; now Rachel Reeves is after it.

The Statement also boasts that Britain has a foreign policy for working people. Sadly, thanks to the Chagos deal, it is the working people of Mauritius who are quids in, not the working people of Britain, whose real disposable income is down 1% this year and who will have to stump up £30 billion in taxes to use what they already own. Amazingly, Diego Garcia was not even mentioned in a big Statement on defence.

The Statement was full of rhetoric on more than the botched welfare reform, but the central truth laid bare in the last two weeks is that the Government are all at sea abroad and are increasingly sidelined on the world stage. On 17 June, after sitting next to President Trump at the G7 dinner, the Prime Minister declared:

“There is nothing the president said that suggests he’s about to get involved in this conflict”.


The Foreign Secretary dashed to Washington, then to Geneva, and the call to the US was for restraint. Then, five days later, President Trump struck Iran’s nuclear sites.

The British Government’s response was not to congratulate the US on executing this brilliant action. Instead, they rushed out a statement to say that Britain was not involved, and that the £30 billion giveaway base of Diego Garcia was not used. That did not sound like leadership to me; it was not even followership. I wonder if the Government ever gave President Trump a copy of the reported advice from the Attorney-General saying an attack on Iran would be illegal. If they did, I am not sure that the President would pin that up in the Oval Office to replace the bust of Winston Churchill—out with Churchill’s inspiration and in with the Attorney-General’s injunction.

It is surely indicative that, in this lengthy Statement, the Prime Minister did not once mention those US strikes that resounded around the world this last week. The only mention of President Trump was a reference to the US-UK trade deal signed on what looked like a conspicuously windy day in Canada. That is a deal we welcome as a first step—it was only made possible, actually, by Brexit—but it still leaves our car makers, as the Prime Minster admitted, facing a 10% tariff on exports. Can the noble Baroness say anything about how the Government now intend to build on that trade deal with the US, which I hope was discussed at the G7?

The Statement spoke about stepping up, but where were we as recent major geopolitical events were unfolding? When Israel acted in its self-defence, Britain was out of the loop. Perhaps that is unsurprising when the Government had lately sanctioned two members of the Israeli Cabinet.

The Government have seemed equivocal at times, but I do thank the Prime Minister for his action against antisemitism and I associate this side with the Government’s strong condemnation of the BBC for its shameful broadcast of calls for the killing of Israeli soldiers. The Government were absolutely right there.

The Statement says the UK is using “every diplomatic lever” to keep Britain and the Middle East safe. We support the Government on that and we all pray for a just and lasting peace. But where are those levers and what are they? What progress are we making in addressing the humanitarian situation in Gaza and in ousting Hamas? Those issues rightly concern noble Lords across the House. Will we follow President Trump in easing sanctions on Syria? What of Iran? We agree that Iran should not have a nuclear weapon, but have we had recent discussions with the Iranian regime?

We welcome the Prime Minister’s commitment to more defence spending and to the British nuclear deterrent. We welcome the decision to buy 12 F35A aircraft with new capabilities. But can the Minister confirm what was said in the apparent exchanges on this earlier: that this will in fact cut the defence budget rather than increase it, because these are less expensive planes than the F35? The Minister is indicating that that is incorrect, so I withdraw that question. I misunderstood and will look carefully at Hansard.

We continue to back the Prime Minister’s strong commitment on Ukraine, which is rightly underlined in the Statement. But can the Minister explain why NATO’s communiqué was weak on condemnation of Russia?

On defence, can she tell us what the commitment at NATO to spend 5% of GDP on national security actually means? The only solid commitment is to spend 2.6% on defence by 2027. The 4.1% target is based on adding a new 1.5% spending goal for resilience and security to the already stated 2.6% target. What does that mean? The Italian Government have said that might include a bridge. The Prime Minister spoke of “energy networks”, so could it include spending on pylons to enable green energy? Will the spending on the Chagos deal count towards the percentage?

Finally, will the Minister tell us when the Statement promised to the House last night that stirred the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, to pull the plug on his pledges to the Chagos Islanders will be made?

The Prime Minister has done very much that we support in foreign affairs and defence and we will continue to support that. But, over the last two weeks, we have looked unsure and a little behind the game.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, the Statement improbably begins by discussing the Government’s woes on social security, which of course have absolutely nothing to do with its real subject matter. We welcome the Government’s U-turn there, but I do not think that this Statement is the context in which to discuss them, not least because they have been coming so thick and fast that I am afraid I cannot keep up.

There is a wide measure of agreement that the UK faces greater and more diverse security threats than it has for decades and that we are all greatly indebted to our Armed Forces and other government agencies that are working so hard and effectively to combat them. The headline outcome of the NATO summit was the commitment to spend 5% on national security. In the Statement, this is referred to as a “defence investment pledge”, but it clearly includes expenditure on many non-defence items.

In the national security strategy, the definition of “national security” includes

“the health of our economy … food prices … supply chains … safety on the streets”

and the online world. This definition seems so wide as to be virtually meaningless. Can the Minister explain what is within the definition? The Prime Minister says that we will reach 4.1% spending on it in 2027, so he must know how he reached that figure. Will the Government therefore give a breakdown of the 4.1% and then explain how they intend to get to the 5% by 2035?

One obvious item to include in the definition of expenditure that promotes national security is overseas development assistance, particularly in areas such as conflict prevention. To what extent is ODA included in the new definition of “national security” and do the Government have any plans to increase it as they increase all other aspects of security expenditure?

The Statement goes on to say that UK foreign policy

“answers directly to the concerns of working people”.

What specific concerns of working people are meant by that phrase? To what extent are working people affected by foreign policy in different ways from the rest of the population?

One of the biggest challenges ahead is not just to increase expenditure on national security but to ensure that the money is spent as effectively as possible. In that context, can the Minister explain why we are prioritising the purchase of 12 F35A jets capable of carrying nuclear weapons? These planes are extraordinarily expensive, even if they are not quite as expensive as the F35Bs, and for decades we have not judged it necessary to have this capability. As the noble Lord, Lord West, said at Questions earlier today, this change presumably means that we need at the very least to update our nuclear doctrine. Do the Government plan to do so? Will they publish any new doctrine when it has been adopted?

On Ukraine, we welcome the commitment to repeat last year’s commitment on expenditure and also the funding of additional air defence missiles from frozen Russian assets. Can the Minister confirm that this funding has come from the interest on those assets and that no progress has been made on freeing up the capital, which could be transformative to Ukraine’s success?

In the Commons, the Prime Minister said it was very difficult to access the capital because not all countries were in agreement on how to proceed. Estonia has proposed a way forward on this. Will the Minister commit to looking at Estonia’s proposals as a matter of urgency?

The Statement rightly stresses the need to build up the Armed Forces. So does the Minister accept that there is still a crisis of recruitment, particularly to the Army? Will the Government therefore look sympathetically at the Lib Dem proposal to pay a £10,000 signing-on bonus for new recruits as a way of rapidly boosting recruitment?

On Iran, we welcome the current ceasefire, but it needs to be made permanent. The Foreign Secretary recently met the Iranian Foreign Minister, along with EU counterparts, to promote a ceasefire. Do HMG foresee any future role for the UK in securing a longer- term solution?

Finally, on Gaza, we agree on the need for a quick ceasefire, but there is absolutely no sign of this. In the meantime, deaths and starvation continue. Our ability to affect events in Gaza is limited, but we could at the very least recognise the state of Palestine, which is a necessary precursor to a two-state solution. The Prime Minister says that the Government are waiting for the “right time” to do this. The fear is that in the Government’s view there will never be a right time. We should act now.

Allowances

Lord True Excerpts

Monday 2nd June 2025 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I will speak to the second Motion at the same time, but I will move and speak to the third Motion separately.

In April 2024, the noble Lord, Lord True, as Leader of the House, moved a Motion to establish an overnight allowance to recognise the increased cost of staying in London, away from Peers’ main homes. That scheme set a rate of £100, which noble Lords based outside London could claim as a contribution towards the cost of a hotel. The scheme was welcomed across the House and followed representations from, and discussions with, those who chaired the main party groups and the convenor. It was agreed that it should be reviewed after about a year of operation, and these changes proposed result from that review.

The first change relates to the amount that can be claimed. The scheme was automatically uprated in line with inflation, so it is now £103 a night. It is hard to pick an exact amount, but this figure is not a realistic reflection of the cost of hotels across the capital. The commission therefore recommends an increase to £125 a night. This will continue to be uprated in line with inflation. As previously, claims are linked to attending the House on a sitting day, and receipts must be provided.

The existing scheme covers only hotel-type accommodation. Other noble Lords make other arrangements in London to enable their attendance in the House. The commission and the usual channels have considered this very carefully. We concluded that a new flat-rate allowance of 50% of the hotel allowance was the best way forward. This will again be tied to attendance in the House, with a robust system of verification. For noble Lords whose main address is outside London, they would be able to claim £63 per night to spend at a designated property in Greater London where they stay and are responsible for the costs. To claim, noble Lords must have stayed in the property the day before or the day after attending the House, and the finance team will require documentation to support the claim.

These changes were agreed in the commission and discussed in the usual channels. They are to ensure the original purpose: to assist Members from outside London to be able to attend your Lordships’ House. I beg to move.

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness the Lord Privy Seal for making this statement, which I think will be very welcome to the House. She referred to the discussions we had last year when I took the decision to put to the House the reintroduction of the overnight allowance. I was very grateful for her support on that, and I am very happy to reciprocate the full support from this side following the very careful consideration we have had of these issues in the usual channels and elsewhere, under the guidance of the noble Baroness.

It is always difficult to strike a balance, and I think that the commission, in its decision on the proposals put forward by the noble Baroness, has struck a reasonable balance which will support people who come to this House from all over the country, who wish to work hard on behalf of the House and on behalf of the country. Talking of hard work, I may say that my noble friend Lord Howe, who is next to me, last week completed 34 years on the Front Bench in your Lordships’ House. If that is not a definition of hard work, I do not know what is.

There is a lot of loose talk outside this House about people in this House being lazy and lining their pockets. You do not become rich by becoming a Member of the House of Lords; many people here make great sacrifices. We should not claim that we are poor or that we are underprivileged, but it is right that the House makes provision to enable those of us who come here to do a hard day’s work to enable us to do so in the most reasonable fashion. Obviously, there is a duty on us to behave with honesty and clarity, as we all do and will all do, I have no doubt, under these new proposals. I support them.

Rather than wearying the House, I say in advance that I strongly support the noble Baroness’s further Motion, because that also relates to hard-working and valued Members of the House. So again I thank the noble Baroness and commend these proposals unreservedly to your Lordships.

[Lord Balfe (Con)]

My Lords, I support this Motion. I have a very simple question for the Leader. Bearing in mind what happened during the period up to 2009, have the usual channels thought carefully about what the phrase

“where it is necessary to do so”

means? Will there be some sort of check, for instance, or will it be a pure self-declaration as it used to be before—which led us into a bit of trouble?

UK-EU Summit

Lord True Excerpts

Wednesday 21st May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement. I say at the outset that we share her concern about the humanitarian situation in Gaza, and I think everyone in this House would wish for a peaceful and swift resolution.

I have been around long enough to know that when a Prime Minister, of any party, tells you a deal is a triumph, you need to look pretty fast at the small print. In this latest case we do not yet have most of that, which is actually quite a problem, but the basics are clear: EU control of our food standards restored; Britain as a rule-taker, not a rule-maker; the ECJ back; dynamic alignment back; and, frankly, our fishermen sold all the way to the Dogger Bank in a December gale. All this for a packet of sausages that the French do not actually want. The promise is that we might—potentially, where appropriate, is what the communiqué actually says—be able to go on a summer holiday through passport e-gates. That is something the UK has continued to give EU citizens ever since Brexit. Why did they have to give up so much to get something that we in this country, who have real good will to our European friends, have given to EU citizens for decades?

I have defended some dud deals at that Dispatch Box in my time, and some good ones. You get to sniff them out—and this one is a dud. It reminds me of some other negotiations with the EU in the past: surrender all the key principles first, then try to negotiate the details later when your leverage is gone. So, having been told in the Labour manifesto that there will be no freedom of movement, the Government have a proposed scheme that could see tens of thousands of working-age migrants come to Britain, potentially with the ability to settle and bring dependants. Can the noble Baroness confirm whether reports that the scheme may be capped at 100,000 people are correct, and will she say what upper age limit the UK is seeking for the scheme?

The deal has again made Britain a rule-taker, leaving our farmers subject to rules made in Paris and enforced in Brussels, while they have no voice at the table. What assessment have Ministers made of the impact of EU regulations and dynamic alignment on the viability of family farms in this country?

Do the Government understand that autonomy on food standards is vital to the prospects of our being leaders in precision breeding, for which we only recently legislated? From being world leaders in this industry of the future, we will be tied to move at the pace acceptable to the most resistant bureaucrat in Brussels.

We have also agreed to send new money to the EU for the right to sell to our neighbours defence equipment they desperately need, though it is still unclear what we will get for it and what we will have to give. It is disappointing that, in the face of the greatest challenge to European security for generations, we are haggling on the price of co-operation with would-be allies.

Perhaps the worst case is that of our fishermen. Personally, I was unhappy in 2019 when we delayed for five years full control of our waters, but our fisher folk had reason to expect that things would then improve, and so they did. Replying to a Question from my noble friend Lord Roborough just seven weeks ago, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, told the House that

“after the end of the fisheries adjustment period set out in the trade and co-operation agreement, European Union access to UK waters … becomes a matter for annual renegotiation”.—[Official Report, 31/3/25; col. 8.]

We agreed with the noble Baroness when she said she would work tirelessly to achieve that. However, along with our fishing fleet, she was torpedoed by a late-night call from President Macron. From working for annual agreements—something given to the Faroe Islands but not, it seems, to Scotland—the Prime Minister turned tail on a sixpence and ordered a 12-year surrender of our fishing rights.

There is something of a pattern. The US deal was good start with the US, and I welcome the Prime Minister’s achievement there. President Trump said that after the deal was done, he picked up the phone to the Prime Minister and boasted, “We got a billion dollars more for the US”. One late night call and they cave in. I beg the noble Baroness: when a deal is being discussed, please get the Prime Minister to bed early. Heaven knows what time the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General woke him up to sell him the ludicrous Chagos deal.

Will the noble Baroness set out what control the UK will have over quota-setting and marine protected areas in our territorial and EEZ waters? Will she explain why some of the poorest communities in our country should pay for 12 years the price for the Government declaring a triumph over well-chilled wine at a summit? On energy, just when it seemed some common sense was breaking out at the extremes of net-zero policy, we have entered the EU emissions scheme and cast away energy autonomy. If we want to be a leader in the vital industry of AI, we need large quantities of cheap, reliable, home-grown energy delivered by a UK Government. How will this help?

The Labour manifesto said on Europe that it would not reopen

“the divisions of the past”,

yet instead of looking to the future of a free, fast-developing, independent economy, it has reset us to a misremembered, hyper-regulated past where in some of the key industries of the future Britain must again move at the rate of the slowest in the slowest growing economic bloc in the world. This is a bad deal and, as my right honourable friend the leader of the Opposition has said, it should be ripped up, or perhaps used to wrap up some of our dwindling supplies of fish and chips.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for repeating yesterday’s Statement. I begin by associating these Benches with the sentiments expressed in the Statement on Gaza. Recent Israeli action is indeed horrific and requires a response. Yesterday’s actions by the Foreign Secretary are welcome, but the most obvious way in which we can demonstrate our further support for the Palestinian people is to support their demand for statehood. Can the noble Baroness confirm whether this option is under active consideration by the Government?

On Europe, the joint statement issued by the UK and EU begins by pointing out that this was the first UK-EU summit since Brexit, and this is the context against which the outcome should be judged. It was, of course, a real dereliction of duty for the previous Government to turn their back so comprehensively on our largest and closest partner. A reset in our relations is long overdue in the national interest.

Perhaps the biggest achievement of the summit was that it represented a milestone in rebuilding trust between the UK and the EU. For too long, too many in British politics have poured scorn on the EU while placing their hopes on replacing ties with Europe with countries which are now run by unreliable allies. The EU has noticed this and has been understandably wary about treating with the UK as a result. Against this background, the specific outcomes of the summit are to be welcomed, whether on freer trade in food products, energy, security, defence, or youth mobility, and I am sure pet owners will also be cheering to the rafters the return of the pet passport.

It will surprise no one, however, that we on these Benches see these agreements as but small, tentative first steps towards restoring a much deeper, more productive relationship with the EU. The progress on veterinary and plant health requirements is particularly welcome as it will lead to immediate benefits to the food and agriculture sectors; and, as the Statement made clear, it has even been welcomed by the Scottish salmon industry. The return of frictionless trade in these areas is one of the main reasons why yesterday’s deal will add 0.2% to GDP.

However, for firms in every other productive sector seeking to export to the EU, the deal does nothing to make that easier. Before yesterday’s deal we were set to lost 4% of GDP as a result of Brexit. Now we are set to lose 3.8%. This shows how much more there is to do and why movement towards rejoining the customs union and single market is still urgently required.

The commitment to a youth mobility scheme and reassociation with Erasmus+ I welcome, but it is vague as to timing and detailed content. Can the Minister say what the Government’s aspirations are for concluding these new arrangements so that students and young people more generally can benefit?

The agreements on travelling artists, short-term business mobility and mutual recognition of professional qualifications are also welcome but are even vaguer. Given that agreement in these areas would be a clear win-win for both sides, it is surprising and disappointing that more progress has not been achieved. Can the Government say what they envisage happening next to bring about these much-needed easements?

The new UK-EU security and defence partnership is also welcome. At the heart of this is the €150 billion defence equipment procurement fund. The UK will now negotiate to become a participant in this programme. This could significantly benefit the UK defence industry, but there are no details. When can we expect some? In defence and security, and in the other areas covered by yesterday’s agreements, new institutional ties with the EU will give the UK, for the first time in almost a decade, a formal route to influence EU thinking. This is no small gain.

Taken together, yesterday’s agreements, far from representing a surrender of British interests, are an overdue reassertion of them. This view is shared by the British public, who now decisively support closer ties with the EU. The Government now need to build on the progress they made yesterday. That will make the UK more prosperous, more influential and more secure. The sooner and more decisively they do it, the better.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Lord True Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 1st April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, this goes wider than the Bill. That is the second or third time that we have heard the doctrine that this House must never propose or suggest anything that the other House might disagree with. This is the revising Chamber and, even if we fear that the House of Commons might disagree with what we propose, in our wisdom we have every right, on every Bill, to ask the House of Commons to think again.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I do not disagree with the noble Lord, but I remember him saying the opposite from this Dispatch Box.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Lord True Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 1st April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Porter of Spalding (Con)]

I shall be brief. I apologise; I have not spoken on this Bill so far. Noble Lords who know me will know that one of the reasons is because my fantastic mother-in-law, Dorothy Ann Bray, started end-of-life care and has now passed away. This is the first time I have spoken since then.

I like this amendment, but I do not agree that it is perfect. I urge the usual channels to find a way to work together to make sure this House can come together behind whatever the final solution is. For me, that is all that matters. I appreciate that the Government have a mandate for change, but my children and my grand- children live in this country and I do not want them to think that we have a petty and vindictive Government. If this is about the principle and not the numbers, they must succeed with the principle but find a way of protecting the actual people who we all live and work with and care about.

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Mobarik for initiating this debate and all those who spoke, notably those formidable Baronesses, the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Foster and Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. I believe that a number of our colleagues who face summary exclusion under this Bill will have been greatly touched by what my noble friend Lady Mobarik said, the perspective from which she said it and the way that she said it. I think that they will also have been touched by much that others said too.

There has been a great deal of talk about respect throughout Committee, which I believe has been thoughtful. Indeed, as the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, said, it has raised important issues touching the House. Our debates have generally reflected great credit on all sides. I am sure that the expressions of respect for our hereditary colleagues are meant by all. I understand that it does not always feel like that when you see a Bill that tells you, as my noble friend Lord Shinkwin pointed out, in a powerful speech—the second he has made in your Lordships’ Committee—that whatever you have done in this accumulation of 2,080 years of public service cannot change one dot or comma of the sentence of expulsion. We all need to contemplate that, and that has been the ask from the Committee in this debate. My noble friend Lord Shinkwin made a Shakespearean allusion, and I have to say:

“The quality of mercy is not strained”.


A sense of magnanimity is in the air.

The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, reminded us of the dedication of so many hereditary Peers and compared them against the service, or lack of service, of many Peers who are not being excluded under the legislation before us. That thought and sentiment was echoed by others in the debate.

How do we go forward? The noble Earl, Lord Devon, who is not in his place, said in an earlier debate that he did not think there should be horse-trading between party leaders inside or outside this House about who should stay. My noble friend Lady Mobarik also said that she did not care for back-room deals. I understand those feelings, but it surely need not be everyone who goes or no one. There is a middle ground and, as my noble friend Lady Mobarik challenged us all, does this Committee as a collective really wish to lose all the good people who she and so many others have referenced in the course of this debate?

As I have said before in your Lordships’ Committee, and as we have heard from all sides in today’s debate, there is another party to this matter, beyond the party-political interests of the two Front Benches—mine or of the party opposite—and beyond even those deep family instincts that surely we all understand across the House drive us in the views that we take, particularly on this type of question, and that in fact make the great political parties what they are—the sense of their tradition and the sense of their aspirations. That other party to this matter beyond our two parties is this great House itself.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

Correct, and you have just had six; you could have nominated hereditary Peers as life Peers. There was nothing stopping you—nothing. The important point is that we have had opportunities to deal with this issue over the last 25 years and have not done so. As a consequence, Labour put in its manifesto a clear commitment to deal with the hereditary principle once and for all, which is what we have before us in this very short, simple Bill.

Let me just address this point. The Prime Minister also invites the House of Lords Appointments Commission to make nominations to the Cross Benches. In deciding the number of these nominations, the Prime Minister considers a range of factors, of course, including the political balance of the House. Certainly, retirements and other departures mean that new Peers will always be needed to ensure the House has appropriate expertise and, as has been said before, there is no reason why hereditary Peers cannot be nominated in future lists. Political parties have the opportunity to do that. My noble friend the Leader has recognised the special position of Cross-Benchers and committed to discuss it with the relevant parties. That is the commitment she has made.

If the noble Baroness, Lady Mobarik, is concerned with the party balance of the House, I remind your Lordships that even if this Bill is passed the Government Benches will make up 28% of this Chamber, compared to 31% for the party opposite. As my noble friend the Leader has said before to your Lordships, this House functions best when there are roughly equal numbers between the two main parties; I stand by that. As I have said to the noble Baroness, there are many occasions when we operate on a cross-party basis. I do not see that this Bill will change that one bit—far from it. It will bring about a more sensible balance in this House.

With respect to the noble Baroness, Lady Mobarik, this amendment is unnecessary. It is not appropriate for this Bill and I respectfully request that she withdraws it.

[Lord True (Con)]

The noble Lord has returned to the question of numbers, completely ignoring the points I made about other ways of addressing that. I set that to one side but, as I understood it, his concept was, “Well, you”—I do not think that he can have meant me—“can send some people here if you want to”. The Government are about to expel 44 of our people. Is the noble Lord saying that the leader of the Opposition can name 44 who will come straight back? That appeared to be the logic of his position. Will he answer the specific point on numbers? The Prime Minister decides the numbers; that is the fact.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

Certainly I know that is the case, and we found that out the hard way in the past 14 years. But can I just say—and the noble Lord knows this—we are dealing with an imbalance at the moment? He keeps talking about how many Conservative Peers are hereditary, but that is not the question in this Bill. The question in this Bill is about the principle of hereditary Peers, not about whether they are Conservative. In fact, so much of the debate has been about how they are not political and not partisan, but then the noble Lord keeps repeating how many of them are Conservative.