(4 months, 4 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Reid of Cardowan
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty as follows:
“Most Gracious Sovereign—We, Your Majesty’s most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, beg leave to thank Your Majesty for the most gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament”.
The Attorney-General (Lord Hermer) (Lab) (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, on behalf of your Lordships’ House I thank His Majesty the King for delivering the gracious Speech, and I am grateful for the privilege of opening today’s debate on the Motion for an humble Address. This is my first time at the Dispatch Box, and it is a great privilege to have been appointed to this House and to the office of His Majesty’s Attorney-General.
As this is my maiden speech before your Lordships’ House, I hope I can be forgiven for a few personal remarks before I turn to the substance. I begin with a thank you. I thank Black Rod and the staff of this House for their kind assistance and reassurance in guiding me through the process leading to today. I also thank my introducers, the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury. Being introduced to this House was always going to be a very special occasion, but it was truly enhanced by being introduced by two people I have so long admired and whose friendship I treasure. Sometimes when lawyers refer to their learned friends, they actually mean it.
Noble Lords will all no doubt recall giving their maiden speeches and the range of emotions it evokes. I certainly share a genuine and profound sense of impostor syndrome. I speak as a lawyer who spent 30 years at the Bar, but I am acutely conscious that this House already benefits from the learnings and insights of some of our great former judges, and from a raft of eminent lawyers on all Benches. I had thought that when some noble and learned Lords retired from the judiciary, I would never have to face their difficult questions again. I fear I spoke too soon.
As in law, so is this House blessed by the presence of expertise in science, medicine, business, the military, the arts and so many other sectors; different skills and experiences brought together in your Lordships’ House in public service. It is a true privilege to be asked to join you.
The one other reflection which many of your Lordships may also have felt when delivering their maiden speeches is the thought of dear family members who are no longer here to savour the moment. For me, I think of my late father. I mention my father not least to emphasise a point I wish to make about how I hope to conduct myself, not only as Attorney-General but in my time in this House more generally.
I have been a passionate supporter of the Labour Party since I was a young teenager, but although I shared my father’s respect for the law, it is fair to say that our politics were very different indeed. My father was a proud Conservative, who for many years served his party as a city councillor in Cardiff and as a county councillor in South Glamorgan, where I was born and bred. It is fair to say that we disagreed across a wide array of political topics, topics on which we both had sincere and passionately held beliefs.
Not only did we never fall out over politics, and not only did our difference of opinion never lessen one iota how much I loved and admired him, but our political discussions around the family table were conducted always with respect and often with humour. What is more, as I matured, I developed an inkling that, if I talked a little less and listened a little more, I might actually learn something. So it is with that life experience that I come to your Lordships’ House: of course to represent this Government and assist in the delivery of their agenda, but also to embrace the guiding principle that this forum is for not only mature and respectful debate but active listening.
I turn to today’s debate, which focuses on the constitution and devolution. It will give an opportunity to consider some of the themes of the gracious Speech. I will take the subject matter in three parts: first, this Government’s dedication to the rule of law; secondly, their electoral reform programme; and, thirdly, their commitment to devolution to local communities and the home nations. My noble friend Lord Khan of Burnley will close the debate, and we both look forward to hearing contributions from all parts of the House.
I will start with the importance of the rule of law, a topic that I anticipate is as close to many of your Lordships’ hearts as it is to mine. The Prime Minister and the Lord Chancellor have both made it clear that the promotion and protection of the rule of law will underpin our approach to legislation and policy. As we face the profoundly difficult choices and decisions that every Government must make, it is the rule of law that will serve as our lodestar. In recent years, events at home and abroad have served to remind us that, once you start pulling on a single thread of the fabric of our rule-of-law system, and when democratic norms are whittled away through attrition, the risk of systemic unravelling is great, and the concomitant task of retrenching standards we all once took for granted becomes very difficult indeed.
In addressing the threats to the rule of law and the measures necessary to promote it, we recognise the imperative of seeking to ensure a cross-party consensus on our shared fundamental values and how we protect them for future generations. The values that we seek to protect are not the property of any political party. They are not Labour values or Conservative values; they are British values—indeed, many are universal values. I will work alongside the Lord Chancellor and the Solicitor-General to uphold the rule of law; to protect the independence of the judiciary; to promote the rule of law among the public, not least among the young; and, crucially, to rebuild trust in our political system by explaining how the rule of law applies to and serves us all.
I will inform your Lordships’ House of one small, symbolic step taken last week, when I was sworn in as Attorney-General before the Lady Chief Justice and made an oath, the terms of which can be traced back to the 16th century. Combining tradition and reform in that distinctly British way, I am pleased to say that, for the first time, our oath as law officers included not only the traditional commitments to serve His Majesty the King but an explicit promise to respect the rule of law. Just as we will promote the rule of law domestically, this Government—with my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary in the vanguard—will seek to promote international law and the rule of law in the international legal order, cognisant of its importance to the prosperity and security of all global citizens.
This Chamber has a special role in the scrutiny of legislation. We will seek to promote the highest standards in how we legislate, seeking to increase the accessibility and certainty of law, including by guarding against the abuse of the proper role of secondary legislation. I know that I will be supported by many of my noble and learned friends in this aim, and I very much look forward to drawing on their wisdom.
I turn next to electoral reform. Our democracy is something to cherish and protect in an increasingly uncertain world. This Government will, by clamping down on improper donations to political parties, robustly defend our electoral system against interference from bad actors who seek to undermine it.
The Prime Minister has made clear his expectations for high ministerial standards and integrity. This Government want to restore the public’s faith and confidence in government through establishing a new independent ethics and integrity commission, with its own independent chair. This extends to Members of the House of Commons, who are rightly expected to abide by the highest standards. The Government have committed to establishing a new modernisation committee, which will work to drive up standards, and reform procedures and working practices.
The rules prohibiting the provision of paid parliamentary advice will also be strengthened in the guide to the rules, setting out in more detail what is required of Members in order to abide by the code. The arrangements for that committee are being carefully considered and will be set out in due course.
I turn to the reform of your Lordships’ House. When the noble Baroness the Leader of the House informed me that I would be addressing this topic in my very first speech, I confess to some traumatic flashbacks to my early days at the Bar when I was sent off to advance a recusal application before a particularly ferocious judge. I recall his withering looks at my temerity. As noble Lords know, His Majesty’s gracious Speech set out plans to introduce a Bill that will remove the right of hereditary Peers to sit and vote in this House. The Government of course recognise the contribution made by hereditary Peers, who have worked so hard to scrutinise the Governments of the day and support the improvement in quality of legislation. Our commitment to reform of your Lordships’ House should not therefore be taken as diminishing our respect for the contribution that hereditary peers have made to public life. It is, rather, a reflection of our commitment to maintaining the vitality of our democratic institutions.
It is a feature of our British constitution—indeed, it may be thought to be one of the explanations for its stability—that changes to it are incremental and not revolutionary, and that it morphs with careful regard to our traditions and history. But it has never been static, and nor should it be. For democratic institutions to flourish, they must be capable of change, and must reflect changes in society and evolving constitutional demands. In that same spirit, our manifesto also set out a number of other commitments, including changes to the appointments process, on which we will engage with your Lordships’ House. This includes the introduction of a participation requirement and a mandatory retirement age of 80, as well as a longer-term commitment to replacing the House of Lords with an alternative second Chamber that is more representative of the regions and nations. As our manifesto set out, we will consult on proposals, seeking not least the input of the public on how politics can best serve them.
Finally, I turn to devolution. The Government are committed to delivering on their manifesto pledges to all parts of the United Kingdom. As a proud Welshman, I recognise the rich tapestry of diversity that makes the home nations of the United Kingdom, and the need to present the things we do in Westminster in ways that will not only benefit but be seen to benefit those in other parts of the country. To this end, we will reset relations with the devolved Governments and foster greater collaboration, built on mutual respect and trust.
The English devolution Bill will devolve powers to local leaders to empower them to boost economic growth and their communities. New powers for mayoral combined authorities will allow local leaders to take control over the public transport systems in their area, employment support and strategic planning. Integrated settlements with financial flexibilities will also be available for those mayoral combined authorities with capacity, strong accountability structures and an exemplary track record for financial management. Mayors are critical to delivering economic growth and will be vital partners. All this will enable strengthened partnerships and close working relationships between central and local government.
Another area in which this Government are seeking to drive closer collaboration in their relationships is with other Governments in the union. To ensure that we are indeed a United Kingdom, it is crucial to resettle relationships and give greater importance to respect and collaboration, working together in the service of people across this country.
This Government will establish a new council of the nations and regions, which will bring together the Prime Minister, the First Ministers of Scotland and Wales, the First and Deputy First Ministers of Northern Ireland, and the mayors of combined authorities, to work together on our shared challenges and opportunities to address the concerns of the people who we serve.
This Government have committed to ensuring that all the nations of the UK are reflected in their missions. That is why the Government will deliver energy security through establishing Great British Energy in Scotland, and will continue to work closely on issues of shared interest, such as trade and investment, to promote Scotland internationally.
Wales, I am delighted to say, will also be at the forefront of the UK’s national renewal. Our manifesto committed to working in partnership with the Welsh Government to ensure that the Welsh fiscal framework delivers value for money. In line with this Government’s commitment to devolve employment support in England, we will also devolve employment support funding to the Welsh Government.
I take my responsibilities as Advocate-General for Northern Ireland seriously and recognise, of course, the need for security, stability and prosperity in Northern Ireland as much as in the rest of the United Kingdom, as do this Government, as a guarantor of the Good Friday agreement. The Government will work closely with the Northern Ireland Executive to see public services transformed and an improvement to the sustainability of public finance.
Over the coming months, as Attorney-General for England and Wales, and as Advocate-General for Northern Ireland, and working closely with the future Advocate-General for Scotland, I am looking forward to meeting the Lord Advocate and Solicitor-General for Scotland, the Attorney-General for Northern Ireland and the Counsel General for Wales—whoever said devolution was complicated? Once we put the tongue-twisting aside, I am confident that we will be able to work together effectively and build on our shared objective of upholding the rule of law.
The measures in this gracious Speech put into action the Government’s commitment to the rule of law and to empowering communities across the United Kingdom.
Lord Keen of Elie (Con)
My Lords, it is a privilege to respond to the maiden speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hermer. I am quite sure that, in his role as Attorney-General, he will continue to display the same skill and outstanding judgment that he has exhibited in his distinguished practice at the Bar by holding the Government to their constitutional obligations, ensuring that they adhere to the rule of law and that they respect the rights of all. I also hope that his Welsh background and heritage may bring some further diversity to the proceedings of this House, and I express the hope that his regular attendance at the Millennium Stadium will eventually be rewarded, at least against four of the Six Nations. I am pleased to be able to extend my welcome to the noble and learned Lord.
I will speak only briefly about the rule of law, because I harbour no doubts about this Government’s commitment to the rule of law—as with all Governments of this United Kingdom. I will speak shortly of devolution, which is often the triumph of hope over experience, and something that will work only if we devolve not only power but the means of exercising it. As we approach further devolution, we should bear in mind that there are some aspects of government in this country that do not actually wish to be a part of the governance of the United Kingdom. That has to be taken into account.
What I want to address is the Government’s proposal for the reform of this House. Our most immediate constitutional issue is not, as it was in 1911, the balance of power between the House of Commons and the House of Lords. It is the imbalance of power between Parliament and a mighty Executive. The present House of Lords has a significant role to play in that context, particularly when the Executive is in a position to exercise powerful control over the House of Commons by virtue of their party’s large majority in that House. The adoption of alleged interim measures—such as the proposed removal of 92 Peers from this House—fails to take account of the functioning of our constitutional system as a whole. Such a step is driven by short-term political considerations rather than long-term constitutional imperatives.
There is a very real risk that if this measure is taken then nothing else will happen, with the Executive, in the form of the Prime Minister, falling back on the oft-repeated preference for an appointed House of Lords, as indicated by the then Labour Prime Minister Tony Blair in 2003. What is required in the matter of constitutional reform is fully considered and robust proposals and the proper development of a process to give effect to them. In 2012 the then Labour leader suggested that such a process was required and indicated that it might require a referendum. I pause—perhaps not a referendum, but clearly any material change to this House requires proper consultation.
When there were calls for the removal of the remaining hereditary Peers in 2003, the Labour Ministers responded in the following terms:
“We cannot accept the removal of the remaining hereditary Peers on its own, but only as part of much wider measures of reform to create a democratic and accountable Second Chamber”.
So why the reversion to piecemeal tinkering rather than robust constitutional reform? The answer may lie in the document that is the genesis of the Labour manifesto on the constitution: the report that the present Prime Minister commissioned just over a year ago from the previous Labour Prime Minister, Gordon Brown. Paragraph 36 demands a second Chamber
“to safeguard the … constitutional basis”
of what is explicitly described as “New Britain”. For the benefit of noble Lords from Northern Ireland, when they read the report I think they are supposed to infer that Northern Ireland is part of “New Britain”.
Paragraph 39 makes clear that such a second Chamber can be legitimate only if elected. At page 135, the report refers to the 92 hereditary Peers as “representing the landowning classes”. I happen to know a considerable number of hereditary Peers, many of whom would be delighted to discover that they are members of the landowning classes. Unfortunately for them, such a circumstance never arose, or circumstances conspired against them. It might have been the depredations of Great Uncle Rupert at Monte Carlo or, more seriously, the impact of death duties after two world wars, but what if this statement was accurate? Is there any reason why the so-called landowning class should not have had a role in the making of law for their land?
To be fair to the authors of the report, they go on to observe that the House of Lords discharges “an important constitutional function”. They observe that:
“The work of its committees is … of a very high quality … because of the experience and expertise of their members”.
I quote what follows:
“We wish to record our gratitude to the … Labour Peers who consistently work to improve legislation”.
For the benefit of the authors of the report, and for those newly arrived on the Government Benches, I point out that many Peers on the Liberal Democrat Benches consistently work to improve legislation, as do many Peers on the Cross Benches. There are even some Conservative Peers who consistently work to improve legislation. Among them all are many hereditary Peers.
The very term “hereditary Peers” is now quite misleading. As Lord Steel pointed out when he published his own Bill in 2007, they are now “de facto life Peers”. Why, when the expressed intention is supposed to be the fundamental reform of the upper House, are de facto life Peers to be treated as the exceptional Members of this House? Are they the exceptional Members of this House? What of the Lords spiritual, our Lords of Parliament, once some of the great landowners of England?
The Lords spiritual were removed from this House in 1642 but returned following the Restoration in 1660. Even then their place was precarious, as exemplified by the trial of the seven bishops before the King’s Bench Division in June 1688, on charges of seditious libel because of the petition they presented to the sovereign. Why are they now secure? Today the diocese of Durham is guaranteed a seat in the House of Lords but Scotland is not, despite article 21 of the treaty of union purporting to guarantee Scotland 16 seats. Today the diocese of York is guaranteed a seat in the House of Lords but Northern Ireland is not—not since the disestablishment of the Church of Ireland in 1871. Today the diocese of Winchester is guaranteed a seat in the House of Lords but Wales is not—not since the independence of the Church in Wales in 1920. How does this come about?
Upon appointment to the see of Durham, the bishop inherits a seat in this House from his or her predecessor, without any further requirement. Upon retirement, the seat in this House is automatically passed on to his or her successor, without any further requirement. You might contrast that with the position of the 92 Peers referred to in the Government’s Bill as “hereditary Peers”. They cannot inherit a seat from a predecessor in title and, when they leave, ambulant or otherwise, their successor in title does not inherit their seat.
The situation for the Lords spiritual appears more anomalous, and perhaps more in need of reform, than the situation for de facto life Peers, many of whom have occupied the highest offices of state and served as Ministers of the Crown. [Interruption.] I am not sure whether that was approbation or otherwise, but many have occupied the highest offices of state, served as Ministers of the Crown and generally contributed mightily to the work of this House.
If we are to set out a meaningful constitutional reform of the upper House, so be it, but there is no logic in piecemeal change. To chop away at one small branch of the constitutional oak that is the House of Lords is little more than political vandalism, apparently fuelled by a totally misconceived perception of what the landowning class of this country is. Constitutional reform of any magnitude should be logical and consistent. Piecemeal reform is liable to encourage an overmighty Executive to stop short of major reform when it suits their interests. This has happened in the past and we should not allow it to happen again.
What is presently proposed by this Government is not an exercise in democratic reform, no matter how it may be dressed up. It is what some could regard as a simple interference with the composition of the upper Chamber of Parliament. The Government will seek to secure the removal of 92 Peers from Parliament, and then what will it do? Engage in some democratic process? Let us not be naive. The Prime Minister will send us his chosen appointments. Should we then tolerate a so-called constitutional change that involves the removal of one cohort from this House and simply replaces it with another cohort of the Executive’s choosing? That is not democracy in action. That is simply a further incursion by a powerful Executive on the balance of power with Parliament.
If this Government have a genuine desire to address major constitutional change then so be it, but if they intend to flirt with politically inspired meddling then we should challenge it. Of course we are expected to accept that the Labour Government have further major reforms of the House of Lords coming; Labour’s further major reforms of the House of Lords are always “just coming”.
When the Liberal Government introduced what became the 1911 Act, they did so as a prelude to real reform. The statement was that
“it is intended to substitute for the House of Lords”
an elected Second Chamber. The Bill proposed in the King’s Speech is not even a step in that direction. It is a political cul-de-sac.
I conclude by expressly adopting the statement made by Labour Ministers in 2003:
“We cannot accept the removal of the remaining hereditary peers on its own, but only as part of much wider measures of reform”.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I join in welcoming the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hermer, to his new post and to the House. I was cheered by his speech, and by the broader issues not just of the rule of law but of the need for continuing political and constitutional change and greater democratic participation of which he spoke. I am disappointed that in the list of Bills we have for this Session there is so little, so far, that takes us further in that direction. As the Sessions move on in this Parliament, I hope that those promises will be fulfilled.
I was puzzled, to say the least, by the speech given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen—13 minutes on reform the House of Lords. From time to time, I have pondered with friends how long it would be before the Conservative preference in office for executive dominance as the principle of the British constitution would switch back to Lord Hailsham’s insistence that it was a threat of “elective dictatorship” as soon as they were out of office. I think I began to hear that switch much more quickly than I expected.
This Government came in promising change, and that change must include constitutional change more broadly—not just about the nature of this Chamber. The strongest argument for urgent political reform is that public trust in Westminster politics has now sunk lower than ever previously recorded. Some 45% of respondents to this year’s NCSR survey say that they would “almost never” trust Governments of any party. In a political system constructed to institutionalise two parties, over 40% of those who voted in the general election chose neither of them. Labour won nearly two-thirds of seats on one-third of the votes cast. Taking into account the four in 10 people on the electoral register who did not vote, only 20% of those on the electoral register voted Labour, and only about 10% voted Conservative. Do not forget that, in addition, nearly 6 million—perhaps even 8 million—of British citizens are not even on the electoral register. There are a whole set of issues about the quality of our current democracy.
The gracious Speech declares:
“My Ministers will strengthen the integrity of elections and encourage wide participation in the democratic process”,
but there is nothing in the list of Bills that follows that through. The Prime Minister, in his introduction to the King’s Speech memorandum, declares:
“The fight for trust is the battle that defines our political era”.
We on these Benches agree, but only the Hillsborough Bill, imposing a duty of candour on civil servants, begins to tackle the widespread public disillusion with Westminster and Whitehall politics.
The gracious Speech promises that:
“Measures to modernise the constitution will be introduced”.
Well, let us see them. The only measure listed is to remove the hereditary Peers from the House, which my party proposed for the first time 113 years ago. Where are the measures to entrench the position of the constitutional guardians, from the Lords Appointments Commission to the Committee on Standards in Public Life? The Government, as the Minister confirmed, will propose a modernisation committee for the House of Commons, but we need to know how long that will take to set up and that it will report, we hope, before the next general election.
We on these Benches remain committed to major reform of the UK’s second Chamber—unlike the Conservative Party, I remind the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie—as we proposed in the coalition Government 12 years ago. I painfully remember, as I trust the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, will, the two-day debate we had in this Chamber in which some, including him, argued that there was no way we could improve the current House and that further reform was completely unnecessary. However, Gordon Brown’s recent commission came up with similar proposals to those which the Liberal Democrats put forward. Removal of our elected hereditaries represents a small further reform, although there is room for negotiation on transitional arrangements, since we all agree that many of our current hereditary Peers provide valuable service to the House.
For those opposed to major reform, the most urgent problem the House faces, which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie, did not mention, is the gross imbalance between Conservative Peers and other parties. Constructive negotiations should begin with a Conservative Party offer of voluntary retirement for a significant number of its own Peers. Liberal Democrats support the principle of a retirement age—I declare an interest: I am even older than President Biden—and would consider a minimum age for appointment, which several other second Chambers include.
As to the gracious Speech’s promise to
“encourage wide participation in the democratic process”,
there is very little here to see. We need to move towards automatic voter registration to make the register fully inclusive. We need to restore the independence of the Electoral Commission, which was undermined by a government Act two years ago, and we should widen the franchise to include all those past their 16th birthday, to inculcate the habit of democratic participation into the rising generation as early as we can. Of course, we must face up to the gross distortions of our current voting system.
We need to look at the English devolution Bill to promote some means to regain trust through a more active democracy. Local democracy, after all, provides the bedrock for public participation: local councillors dealing with local problems. Successive Governments have wrecked local government in England over the past 30 years, and the last Government did more damage than their predecessors. Britain has far fewer local councils and far fewer elected councillors than any other advanced democracy. Pursuit of unitary councils and, now, combined authorities and directly elected mayors has left abandoned town halls all across the country. The current patchwork across England is a mess. We have mayors for combined authorities who do not represent recognisable communities, two-tier local government in London, unitary authorities in most but not all of the rest of the country, and metropolitan mayors being the only elected representatives from outside London whom the Government listen to. If we are to rebuild public trust and widen participation in our democracy, as the gracious Speech stated, then we have to revive local democracy. The Liberal Democrats will approach that Bill from the perspective of how we widen democracy across England and the whole of the UK.
Others on our Benches will speak about relations with the UK’s devolved national Governments. We on these Benches will be happy to engage with the Government on more ambitious plans for constitutional change, as well as, of course, on the future of reform for this Chamber, which should all be approached as far as possible on a cross-party basis.
The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)
My Lords, I join in congratulating the noble and learned Lord our Attorney-General on his very thought-provoking maiden speech, and I welcome him to this House on behalf of these Benches. I am also very much looking forward to the valedictory speech of the noble Lord, Lord Warner, whose distinguished career has had so many facets; I am very fortunate to be speaking in the debate where he will be making that speech.
As noble Lords know, we had a debate in my name in this Chamber in January on intergovernmental relations within the UK, pretty well on the second anniversary of the surfacing of the new system that emerged from the lengthy review process. Among the points I made was that one could see from the quarterly activity reports produced by DLUHC, now MHCLG, that Whitehall ministries seem to vary widely in the amount of engagement they undertake. I was therefore delighted to hear in the gracious Speech of the Government’s commitment to strengthening their work with the devolved Governments. Indeed, the further words from the Attorney-General just now heartened me additionally.
As I said in January, the output of the review was good but we were not using the structures and forums well enough, as can be seen from the quarterly reports I just referred to. I also pointed to Canada, which, following its 1995 referendum, when Quebec nearly voted “out”, has put in place a robust system of meetings and communications with its many devolved entities. I hope the Government will take a careful look at the Canadian model, which would also reward the proposed English devolution. I also asked in January whether DLUHC was really the natural home for co-ordinating this; it would seem to me to be the Cabinet Office, which would have greater ability and authority to encourage back-marker ministries to engage. Will MHCLG continue in this role?
I turn to reform of our House. The British constitution is a three-legged stool, with its legs of the Executive, Parliament and the judiciary. Major change by the Executive to the legs of the stool needs to be undertaken with great care, especially if the net effect is to accrue more power to one or other of the legs. Taken together, the proposals to remove hereditaries and restrict the age of Members of this House would see around half the peers present at the start of this Parliament depart by the end of it—by any measure, a major change. The figure for the Cross Benches, with our slightly older average age, is closer to 60%.
In giving evidence to the Commons PACAC committee in May, I commented that there were “three unfairnesses” in the make-up of the membership of our House: the hereditaries, the bishops, and the unlimited and unfettered power the Prime Minister has to make appointments to this House. I continue to feel that the greatest unfairness is this last one, which is both very powerful and vested in one person. The changes proposed in the Government’s manifesto would add power to the Prime Minister, so that an already very large power without precedent in any other liberal democracy would be increased. History shows that vesting great power in one person can cause problems, and however comfortable we might feel about our freshly elected Government today, this is not a satisfactory state of affairs going forward for a major liberal democracy.
In 2017, the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and his committee produced a very measured report about the size of the House and, by implication, some sort of conventional cap on the Prime Minister’s prerogative powers. We in this Chamber unanimously agreed this outstanding contribution to the thinking about these difficult issues. Many of those who were a part of that unanimous agreement are on the Front Benches of the major groupings present today. I look forward to hearing later on from the noble Lord, Lord Burns, who I am sure will pick up that theme.
As we seek to navigate the difficult waters and balance constitutional security, the proper relationship between Parliament and the Executive and the words of the Government’s manifesto, all these factors will need to play a part and be taken account of.
The Archbishop of York
My Lords, it is an honour to respond to the gracious Speech. I, along with others on these Benches, welcome the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hermer, the Attorney-General, and thank him for a really moving maiden speech—not least his desire that we listen to and respect one another and work consensually.
Like others, I want to focus on one thing, which is rebuilding trust in democracy itself. The turnout on 4 July was shockingly low. Research also shows a 13% gap in turnout between constituencies with the highest and lowest proportions of home ownership. Furthermore, an estimated 400,000 people were turned away at the polling station because they did not have the right ID. These are alarming statistics, and I look forward to the changes outlined in the Government’s manifesto that could start to address them, including reducing the voting age to 16.
It is the link to poverty that causes me the gravest concern. It shows that a large proportion of our population do not feel they have a stake in our national life, nor much of a future to look forward to, and therefore for them, voting just is not worth it. There are measures on poverty in the King’s Speech that I welcome, particularly the children’s well-being Bill and the plans for free breakfast clubs, but I must take this opportunity to join others in calling for the removal of the two-child limit to universal credit, because it is the biggest driver of rising child poverty and has a big impact on trust in our democracy.
I have often spoken about the power of devolution, not just to shift power away from the centre. Devolution shifts perspective, enables consensual politics to thrive and enables us to take a longer view. The recently established York and North Yorkshire Combined Authority, where I live and serve, is already starting to demonstrate the difference this can make for rural as well as urban communities. I therefore wholeheartedly welcome the establishment of a council of the nations and regions. Moreover, noble Lords will not be surprised to hear that we on these Benches also welcome the extension of the Lords Spiritual (Women) Act 2015.
The tone of the Government’s manifesto and what we heard from the noble and learned Lord today speaks about governance as service. This is so important for building trust in our democracy. No one meant it to happen, but there has been an erosion of respect for the rule of law, convention and the weighty responsibility to tell the truth. However, the nature of our uncodified constitution is that it relies as much on conventions that are derived from tradition as anything else. Therefore, it is up to us to respect each other, listen to each other, build consensus and work together. I want to take a lead from the noble and learned Lord and say that we can be part of this in the way we conduct our business in this House.
Yes, there are legitimate questions about the House itself. First, we are a scrutinising Chamber, offering wisdom and a balance of power. It is for this incoming Government and the Ministers appointed to this House to ensure that this role is properly understood. Secondly, we ought better to represent the breadth of the nation we serve: 24% of our membership have links to London and 22% to the south-east, but only 3% to the north-east. Thirdly—I do not know what we do about this, but perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Burns, will tell us in a moment—there are just too many of us, and that is not good for us. Fourthly, while we on these Benches value our particular role as Lords Spiritual, we think that other faith communities could be better represented as well. We believe that there needs to be a wide debate about the reform of this House, and we are confident that when this happens, the place of faith in public life will be seen to matter. We look forward very much to working with other Members across this House in addressing these issues.
Finally, I want to pay tribute to something it would be so easy to take for granted and that shows the underlying strength of our democracy, which needs to be rebuilt and renewed: the respectful and peaceful transition of power from one Government to another that we witnessed a couple of weeks ago. For me, that is a great sign of hope for what we can be at our best, working together for the common good.
Lord Alli (Lab)
My Lords, I first welcome the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hermer, to this place. I want to say how pleased I am that he has joined the Government and I congratulate him on an excellent maiden speech.
I have been in your Lordships’ House for 26 years; I know I do not look as if I have, but I have. Twelve of those years have been on the Government Benches and 14 on the Opposition Benches, and I can say without hesitation which I prefer. It is a privilege to return to this side of the House, and it would be remiss of me not to thank the party opposite for all its help in making that possible.
On a more serious note, I want to take a moment to reflect on the many colleagues who are not here today and who would have loved to have witnessed that journey. I am thinking of them all, in particular my noble friend Baroness McDonagh, who I know would have been by my side today.
I have chosen to speak in the constitutional debate because, over the last decade, we have seen an undermining of the fundamental principles that decency and fair play should underpin our elections. At the last election, voter turnout was low—low because voters were fatigued by politicians but also because you do not win elections by maximising voter turnout; you win elections by making sure your votes are distributed in the right seats.
However, in 2014 the Conservative Party started down a road that systematically disenfranchised many voters they believed would not support them. First, there were individual electoral registration forms, where each voter had to register individually rather than relying on the old household forms, thus disenfranchising many young people and ethnic minorities. Then came voter ID, again disproportionately affecting the poor, the disabled and the ethnic minorities. Then there was a type of voter ID that was acceptable—yes to blue badges and older persons’ bus passes but no to student ID cards—and, more recently, sabre-rattling around the widespread use of postal votes.
Democracy requires participation. Depressing participation should not be used as a political strategy. The only winners of that are extremists. So, I welcome the Government’s commitment to modernising the constitution, beyond the reform of this House, to strengthen the integrity of elections and encourage wide participation in the democratic process.
I ask my noble friends on the Front Bench in this place and my honourable friends on the Front Bench in the other place: in addition to extending the franchise to 16 and 17 year-olds, will they look at two other measures? The first, I suspect, given the speech by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, would be easy, and that is automatic enrolment. There can be very few arguments against it. The second could perhaps be a bit more difficult, and that is mandatory voting. This is not a revolutionary idea. Indeed, some form of mandatory voting exists in over 22 countries, including Australia, Belgium, Luxembourg, Brazil, Argentina, Peru, Ecuador, Singapore and Uruguay. What do we see in those countries? We see increased voter turnout and reduced influence of money in politics.
We do not have to sit back and watch extremism rise in our society—extremism built on the back of fewer people participating in our elections. We can do something about it. I am reminded of that quote, “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do nothing”. We can do something. This is our opportunity to act, and I hope the Government will do so.
I wish the Government all the best on what is an ambitious King’s Speech. It has been far too long acoming for me, but it is here now. Let us not waste the opportunity to implement change.
Lord Strathclyde (Con)
My Lords, I echo my noble and learned friend Lord Keen of Elie in welcoming and congratulating the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General on his excellent maiden speech. I know we will hear from him a great deal in future, and I for one look forward to that.
On 11 July, the Lord Speaker wrote to all of us and sent us an email in which he said:
“We will, as always, continue our detailed scrutiny of legislation and debate the key issues of the day, while maintaining the respectful and thoughtful tone that characterises the work of this House”.
Those were good and noble sentiments from the Lord Speaker, yet within days the Government were planning a consultation to remove Peers over 80 and fling out Peers such as the Convenor of the Cross Benches, the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull; the deputy Leader of the Opposition, my noble friend Lord Howe; several shadow Ministers; the Deputy Chief Whip, my noble friend Lord Courtown; and many former Ministers who have served in Governments and served the nation over many years—I should perhaps declare an interest. A respectful and thoughtful tone? I think not, even though the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General did his best to sugarcoat the pill.
Why are the Government proposing this? Some say it is because the House is too big, and there was an echo of that from the most reverend Primate who just spoke, but a reduction from 800 Peers to 710 is hardly going to have them cheering in the streets of Islington. Furthermore, the numbers in the House are not an obvious problem. In the last Session of Parliament, over 450 Peers voted on 16 occasions, nearly all of which were on the Rwanda Bill. That does not sound to me like an overcrowded House.
There are also many better ways of reducing the numbers if you really want to: by age, by failure to attend or by electing those to remain in party groups. It is all quite simple, really, and it has been done before. History tells us that Labour Governments have managed to get their business through quite easily within the existing conventions and normal practices that have governed our House’s behaviour since 1945. Just look at Attlee’s radical agenda in the late 1940s, Wilson and Callaghan in the 1960s and 1970s and Blair and Brown this century.
I am told that, for Labour, this is all unfinished business. It is unfinished business, but not in the way that Labour now means. The Government’s predecessors struck an important and worthy agreement, negotiated by the then Lord Chancellor, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, to let the former hereditaries remain in the House until a proper stage two reform was enacted. So I ask: is this really it? It is thin gruel indeed and not much to show for 25 years of thought or, more properly, lack of ambition.
Labour’s manifesto is more ambitious—age limits, tougher scrutiny through the appointments process and attendance or participation hurdles—but, as soon as Labour is in government, all that is conveniently put to one side. As for elections or even indirect elections, there is not a glimmer.
In 2012, another place voted overwhelmingly in favour of a genuinely democratic House of Lords Reform Bill that included an 80:20 split of elected Members. The Bill foundered for lack of agreement on a timetable Motion. Perhaps we should ask this House of Commons whether they have become more flexible.
The hereditary peerage was abolished in 1999. As my noble and learned friend Lord Keen of Elie said, no right of succession has existed since then. I accept that heredity is a qualification for the excellent by-elections, but even I can see that the intention is that they will not remain for long.
So I ask the Minister: why on earth are the Government continuing some strange vendetta against a small group of Peers who are generally younger, more regular attenders and better participators in the House than the average, yet the Government are still unable to tell us their long-term vision for the House? We should not accept more bungled piecemeal reform until we have the certainty of proper reform that has been promised for so long.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, I welcome the change the election ushered in, which we Liberal Democrats are particularly proud to have been part of. I wish the Government well in restarting the economy, rebooting our public services and providing calmness and stability after the dysfunctional chaos of the last few years.
In Scotland, we saw a serious reset of the obsessive nationalism that we have endured. I am delighted at the increase in Liberal Democrat seats to six—more than the Conservatives’—and the recovery by Angus MacDonald of my friend Charles Kennedy’s old seat. Gordon and Buchan, on slightly redrawn boundaries from my former seat, saw an increase in the Liberal Democrat vote in spite of a vicious squeeze by the SNP and the Conservatives. Indeed, the vote went up in Aberdeenshire, Moray and Inverness seats, which is a pointer to the new dynamics for the Scottish Parliament elections in less than two years. Then, I believe, Scottish voters will seek to continue the rout of the SNP after their disastrous tenure in government and there will be no appetite to bring the Conservatives into government in Scotland. Liberal Democrats will be there to offer a positive programme for government and, unlike those two, we might have some chance of implementing it.
In Scotland and across the UK, there is an appetite for change and reform. I am disappointed to say that Labour do not seem to be inspired for delivering that. I would like to see the devolution settlement clarified and entrenched. The lack of a constitution makes that difficult but not impossible. We do not need an endless debate about powers: just a clear rulebook and a proper partnership, with a clear dispute resolution mechanism when the need arises. The circumstances for another independence referendum surely need to be laid out in terms of what might trigger it, what the question might be and whether there is a case for a supermajority. I do not believe that we can define these things by a simple majority vote.
The electoral system for local government and the Scottish elections is devolved and there is a strong case for review. The current system for electing the Scottish Parliament is not very proportionate and creates two classes of MSPs: constituency and list. Scottish voters are familiar with the single transferable vote in local government. It would be consistent to adopt that system for the Scottish Parliament and create a much better connection with the voters.
Reform of the UK constitution is surely also overdue. Many commentators have said that our political system is broken, but neither of the two old parties shows any inclination to mend that broken system in real, fundamental ways. For example, much is made of the misalignment of votes and seats for the parties in the election, but what is much worse is that 70% of those who voted did not elect anybody, having cast their votes for candidates who lost. This is a fundamental disconnect between voters and MPs—a travesty of democracy, with most votes wasted. People used to say that a Liberal Democrat vote was wasted. It certainly was not wasted in this past election, but nearly everybody’s vote was because they failed to elect anybody. Our democracy is positively Neanderthal. I suggest that the argument that first past the post provides stable government has been very much disproved by the last 10 or 15 years, when it has produced anything but. It has been delivered only by denying people an effective voting system.
The final constitutional issue, which has hung over us for so many years, is our relations with Europe. Brexit has been a disaster, driven by people who never expected to win but hoped they would pick up votes by stirring up resentment. There is no shortcut back, as the nationalist pretension to the contrary is a deception. Nevertheless, geographically, politically, economically and culturally, our ties are closest to Europe, so we need to re-engage. We should accept the offer of limited freedom of movement for under-35s. We should rejoin Erasmus, align veterinary and food rules and more, but the EU may not offer any or all of that without some form of engagement. That is why the Liberal Democrats recognise that, in the long run, over a Parliament, we should be prepared to rejoin the single market to secure the benefits we previously had and which young people are desperate to recover.
The Conservatives have just learned the vagaries of first past the post in Scotland. Labour has benefited this time but could lose out in future. We need a radical rethink, such as New Zealand underwent a generation ago. This is a mission which we Liberal Democrats are prepared to take forward. If others will not fix the system, we will.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
My Lords, I too welcome the new Attorney-General to his place in this House and congratulate him on his maiden speech. I wish him and all members of the new Government well as they face the great challenges nationally and internationally. I hope that our contributions in this House will help the Government in their consideration of these important matters.
I welcome the fact that, at the outset of his tenure, the new Prime Minister visited each of the countries of the United Kingdom—that was an important signal—and met the leaders of the devolved Administrations. I hope the Government will carry through on their commitment to a different and better working relationship with the devolved Governments. I look forward to hearing the details of the proposed new council of nations and regions that has been suggested—it is similar to the new east-west council proposed in the Safeguarding the Union document by the previous Government. It will be interesting to know how those two bodies will interact and relate to each other.
On donations to political parties, the Government are right to consider strengthening the rules on foreign donations. I urge them to look particularly at the anomaly in Northern Ireland where one political party—namely, Sinn Féin—is able to benefit by a considerable amount of donations from abroad, which has an impact on the electoral politics of Northern Ireland. That anomaly and loophole must be closed.
The Government talked about strengthening the Sewel convention. In the last Parliament, your Lordships highlighted a discrepancy in many debates: lip service is paid to the necessity of devolved government and cross-party agreement in Northern Ireland, yet, even when that existed, the Government ran roughshod over the views of elected representatives and people. I think particularly of abortion laws in Northern Ireland, where, again, the views of the elected representatives of the people and the people themselves were set aside, with this Parliament deciding to legislate in place of the devolved Government.
We have also seen that in relation to the issue of legacy. Despite there being considerable disagreement across the board in Northern Ireland, across all parties and communities, the previous Government decided to continue to legislate for a conditional immunity scheme for those guilty of the most heinous terrorist crimes. It was, in effect, a conditional amnesty—a shameful stain on the record of the previous Government and something we all opposed. I look forward to hearing what this new Government will do on that matter. There should be no question of Northern Ireland uniquely being expected to tolerate an amnesty for terrorist crimes when other parts of the United Kingdom are not in that position. Indeed, it is unacceptable wherever it is proposed.
We need to put the victims first and listen to them. I am not interested in those who are hypocritical in these matters. They are the victim creators: they made victims in Northern Ireland and yet bleat about human rights, respect and equality. I am interested in the voices of the real victims. In talks with the Irish Republic’s Government, as a neighbour of the United Kingdom, I would like the Government to raise the Irish Government’s approach to legacy issues as well, because there has been a shameful failure on their part to co-operate and bring justice to victims in the Irish Republic.
In February 2024, the courts in Northern Ireland ruled that major parts of the legacy legislation were not only incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights but had to be disapplied because they conflicted with EU law under the Windsor Framework/ protocol—a UK Act of Parliament struck down by EU law, still in the United Kingdom after Brexit.
In the 21st century, part of this United Kingdom, in 300 areas of law, has its laws imposed on it by a foreign political entity in which no representative of Northern Ireland here at Westminster or in the Assembly has any say. It cannot propose, develop, pass or amend such legislation. This covers vast swathes of our economy and, as we have seen with the legacy issue and on immigration law, areas much wider than just the economy. That colonial status in those areas for Northern Ireland is a travesty of democracy; it is a constitutional obscenity. I urge the Government to grapple with this issue. Some people may wish to sweep it under the carpet, but it is our job as democrats in Northern Ireland and across the United Kingdom to highlight this disfranchisement, and we must rectify it as soon as possible.
Lord Fowler (CB)
My Lords, I will concentrate on two proposals in the Labour manifesto and the King’s Speech: the membership of the Lords and the proposed retirement on age grounds of Members.
Since the passing of the original 1999 Act, there has been no progress whatever in reducing the size of this House, and the result is that we now have a membership that will soon exceed 800. The original proposal of the Blair Government was to exclude all hereditary Peers, but that became subject to 92 hereditaries continuing, the result of a deal between the Government and the Conservative Leader of the Lords. It was a secret deal that just happened to exclude the actual leader of the Conservative Party, William Hague—now the noble Lord, Lord Hague. He showed his immediate view and enthusiasm for the proposal by sacking Lord Cranborne absolutely.
I do not dispute that there are excellent hereditary Peers in this House who give a great deal to public service and to this House—
Lord Fowler (CB)
Yes—we have known each other too long for me to be really rude to the noble Lord.
I hope that there may be an opportunity for those hereditary Peers who have given service to be appointed life Peers. It is not a question of personalities; it is a question of whether appointment of the House based on heredity is the right solution for the 21st century, and I do not believe that it is.
On Lords reform, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, was critical on the basis that we were for ever hearing that Labour reforms were “just coming”. That may be right, but it is certainly better than Conservative reforms, which never come. I fear that has been the history over the past 30 years.
The second proposal is to fix a retirement age of 80. Personally, at the age of 86 going on 87, I imagine that I am in the direct firing line. I could say that my support was because this measure was a manifesto pledge of the Labour Party, but it goes deeper than that. The issue of there being too many Peers in this House is long standing, yet the last Government regretfully did absolutely nothing. People such as me warned them that, if they brought forward no measures of reform themselves, others would do so, and they have. In the light of that indecision, in 2016, as Lord Speaker, I set up an all-party committee under the excellent chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Burns, who is here today, to consider the size of the House. Had the then Government accepted those proposals, we would be down to membership in the Lords of something just above 600, rather than the 800 that we have now—and there would be no ban on hereditaries and no reduction on grounds of age. That is what we threw away.
When the proposals were debated in the Chamber, there was widespread agreement but no notice was taken. If, as the Burns committee said seven years ago, reform is a matter of urgency, the new Government are entitled to introduce measures which catch up with the intervening period.
The real question is whether what is proposed is enough. I do not advocate measures to create an elected House, if for no other reason than that it would effectively gum up the work of the House altogether. However, other measures can be taken that do not all require legislation. First, the Government must state their aim in reducing numbers. We set out 600; what is their aim? Secondly, we should not just concentrate on existing Members but stem the flow of new Members, which means a permanent cap on the size of the Lords, restricting the discretion of any Prime Minister and setting a limit on the number of new Peers who can be appointed each year, otherwise we just leave the tap on full. Lastly, we should take measures to exclude those Peers who by any measure play no part in the life of the Lords. We should also look at the proposals of the noble Lord, Lord Burns, that new appointments should be for a limit of 15 or perhaps 20 years.
In bringing forward the proposals, this Government have an almost unprecedented opportunity for reform. I hope they take it. Above all, we do not want another Bill on the House of Lords which leaves obvious gaps that will take another 30 years to put right.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
My Lords, I join other noble Lords in congratulating my noble and learned friend Lord Hermer on his brilliant maiden speech. I also congratulate the Prime Minister on appointing him as Attorney-General. He will be a major voice for the rule of law. He has spent 30 years at the Bar and is absolutely honed in independence. His appointment could not be a clearer signal that this Government are committed to the rule of law. I very much welcome his appointment and his joining our House; for many years—subject to any reform—he will be with us to help our counsels.
I strongly agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, that there are no risks to the rule of law under this Government. I also welcome him to the Front Bench in this debate. Especial attention should be paid to him because he is the only law officer in 150 years ever to have resigned on a point of principle. One should be very careful not to be persuaded by the quality of his advocacy, but one should listen to him on moral issues because he is a very worthwhile person. I welcome both noble and learned Lords.
The Bills affecting the constitution in this King’s Speech are very well judged. This is not a King’s Speech for massive reform, and rightly so. It is one to consolidate the basic principles of our constitution. I strongly welcome the electoral reform Bill to try to improve inclusion and the Hillsborough Bill that imposes a duty of candour on civil servants, which is incredibly important, particularly to victims of injustice, such as the Hillsborough victims. I also strongly welcome the repeal of the safety of Rwanda Act and the Northern Ireland legacy Act. I join the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, in saying that the latter was an outrage to the rule of law. One of the first things that should be done is to repeal it.
I will mention just two particular points in relation to the King’s Speech. The first is on Lords reform. I, like everybody else, greatly admire the contribution made by hereditary Peers, but this King’s Speech promises two things: more women bishops and no hereditary Peers. Broadly, that is a sensible proposal for incremental change. The idea that we should engage in massive Lords reform at this particular moment in our history is a bad idea.
Secondly, I strongly underline the commitment to the rule of law, demonstrated by the repeal of those two outrages to the rule of law, the Rwanda Act and the Irish legacy crimes Act. It is also very important that, in what goes forward in the next five years, the Government demonstrate their support of the judges. The judges came into play politically in the post-Brexit period. “Enemies of the People” was not just a casual headline by the Daily Mail; it represented a view that the judges were too much part of an elite. It is incumbent on the Government, unlike the previous Government, to be absolutely clear that they support the independence of the judges and will allow and brook no criticism of them.
That would be assisted if the Ministerial Code made it clear that the Lord Chancellor’s role is to defend the independence of the judiciary, that when she is defending the independence of the judiciary she is not bound by collective responsibility and that when she asks Ministers to behave in a particular way, the Ministerial Code requires them to respond to what she says.
The second point is that I strongly welcome what the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General said about skeleton legislation. This House, and in particular the much-missed noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, made it clear that we had moved away from the correct relationship between the Executive on the one hand and the legislature on the other. We in Parliament should be making the big political decisions, not a body, a Minister or a committee. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hermer, said that he would respect that, and that is an incredibly important pointer to the future. I strongly welcome the changes in this Speech.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, I begin by congratulating the Government on their victory at the general election—although I hope it will not be thought churlish of me if I say that, as in 2019, the Government’s victory had as much to do with the electorate’s distaste for its immediate predecessors as for its own merits. I also strongly welcome the speech made by the noble and learned Lord the new Attorney-General. It was a very constructive speech and I hope very much that our exchanges will always be constructive.
Like so many of your Lordships, I want to address the question of the composition of the House of Lords. I myself have always favoured an elected Chamber, but my intention today is to focus on some of the major areas of current concern. First, I make a declaration of interest: I will be 80 next year. I have stood in two hereditary by-elections unsuccessfully. My wife has been a Member of this House for almost 30 years and, inevitably, any change will impact on us both.
There is, of course, a widespread belief that the House is too large. There are, in fact, 818 Peers, including those on the episcopal Bench. I do not wholly agree with that view. It is certainly uncomfortable, but a large House has the advantage of providing a wide and deep pool of expertise on which to draw. We have to remember, too, that many of your Lordships who make the most constructive contributions to debates are either over 80 or have served in this House for a very long time. The noble Lord, Lord Fowler, is 86. I am going to be succeeded in this debate by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, who is 86, and I was preceded by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, who came into this House in 1997. So we should be very careful not to deprive the House of serious legislators.
That said, I do think that the Government are bound to introduce some form of change, but I hope that it will be preceded by careful consultation—and in the context of that consultation I will make a few brief suggestions. First, on the creation of life Peers, I suggest that no life peerage should be created for more than 15 years. Secondly, on mandatory retirement, I do not think that getting rid of hereditary Peers addresses the problem in a very satisfactory way. I believe that the Government will come forward with proposals for mandatory retirement, but we need to keep in mind that 178 life Peers are over 80 years of age and 206 life Peers have served more than 20 years. So we are at serious risk of depriving this House of quality. Any change should be evolutionary and, in my view, should be introduced either at the conclusion of this Parliament or during this Parliament incrementally, or both.
I will make two further comments. On the hereditary peerage. I agree with much of what my noble friend Lord Strathclyde and my noble and learned friend Lord Keen said. However, I do not think that hereditary Peers should sit in the House beyond the conclusion of this Parliament. I would not make a differential between them and other Peers during the lifetime of this Parliament, save this: I would abolish the by-elections. I have come to those general conclusions because I admire the contributions that hereditary Peers have made. Also, what is the difference, in principle, in a democratic society between unaccountable appointments —for example, by the Prime Minister—and an election from a hereditary pool? I suggest that they are not very different.
Finally, and notwithstanding the distinguished speech from the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York, I do think there is scope for reducing the size of the episcopal Bench. There are now 26 bishops capable of sitting on the episcopal Bench. Why not reduce them to five: the most reverend Primates the Archbishops of Canterbury and York and the right reverend Prelates the Bishops of Durham, Winchester and London? That would be quite sufficient.
So I suggest pausing and further reflection—and I hope that, as a result of such reflection and indeed consultation, we might have serious proposals for an elected second Chamber or, at the very least, for the appointment and limitation of life Peers.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, I join with many others in welcoming most warmly the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hermer, to his place on the Front Bench as Attorney-General. I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Khan of Burnley, on his appointment to the Front Bench. The appointment of someone with the learning and experience of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hermer, as a Law Lord in this House, demonstrated so ably by his excellent maiden speech, is especially welcome—I join with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, on this point. It brings to life exactly what the Constitution Committee recommended in a report last year. It is so good to have an Attorney-General back with us again in this House.
I shall make one or two points on House of Lords reform. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, spoke briefly about this at the start of her speech last Thursday. Like her, I welcome the Government’s manifesto commitment to a smaller House and to those who are appointed to come here being selected because of their ability and their commitment to making a real contribution to our work. However, like her, I wonder whether introducing a hard-edged, mandatory retirement age of 80 is the right approach. Like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, I am in the firing line of that proposal as I am 68—I mean 86.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
I wish I was; I feel exactly the same as I did when I was 68, but there we are.
The grand old age of 80 may seem like a far-off dream to those in their mid-40s and the passing of years does have its effect—but it does not affect everyone in the same way. The situation of one group to which I belong—former senior judges—is worth looking at as an example of what a hard edge would do. Serving judges are disqualified from sitting and voting in this House for as long as they continue to serve as judges, and their statutory retirement age is 75. Of course, not all of them continue to that age, but some do, such as myself and the late and much-admired Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood. Like me, he was already 75 when he came back here after leaving the Supreme Court, and many of his finest contributions to the work of this House were made when he was well over 80.
The same is true of the late Lord Judge, who was at the height of his remarkable powers when he reached that age, and we can be sure that he would still be contributing just as well today, had he not been taken from us by the sad illness that led to his death. It may be thought that to cut off members of this group after only five years, when they are only just getting their feet under the table, would deprive us of something of value. It would not fit with our special role as a revising House.
Joining the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, I suggest that the better approach is to concentrate on non-attendance as a reason for disqualification. There is a weakness in our participation arrangements that needs to be examined and corrected. We are a part-time House but I wonder whether those who come hardly at all, of whom there are too many, should be accorded the same privilege to sit and vote here as the rest of us who come so often.
Turning to devolution, I welcome the Government’s commitment in the gracious Speech to strengthen their work with the devolved Governments in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The changes that the general election has brought about in Scotland are profound. I urge the Government to take full advantage of this. There is an urgent need to repair relationships that were so damaged by the attitude of both sides to the independence issue in recent years. It seemed to affect every decision taken by the Scottish Government in their campaign to advance their progression to independence. This, in turn, led to a tight-fisted attitude, understandably so, on the part of the UK Government. Thus, decisions on their part would be used as part of the drive for independence by the SNP. I hope that from now on, in view of these changed circumstances, respect and co-operation will be at the heart of their relationship.
I suggest that the Government look again at recommendations in the report of the Smith commission published in 2015. Two unresolved points deserve attention: further borrowing powers to support capital investment; and the Sewel convention, to which the last Government far too often were unwilling to give effect. If trust is to be maintained, it is essential that the convention be respected at all times by all sides. The commission recommended that the Sewel convention be put on a statutory footing, but the amendment made to Section 28 of the Scotland Act was so worded as to give away as little as possible. It was recognised by the Supreme Court to mean no more than that it remains a convention. I do not think that was what was intended. This needs to be corrected by a change of wording. If that is going too far, it is essential in the meantime that full weight be given in all circumstances to the Sewel convention right across the United Kingdom.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
My Lords, I shall focus on Lords reform. I congratulate the Government on avoiding the temptation to embark on wholesale reform of the Lords and instead approaching the issue on the basis of incremental change. I also congratulate the Labour Government on completing the promise of the 1997 Labour Government, who said that they would remove the hereditary principle as a qualification for membership of the legislature.
Section 1 of the 1999 Act states:
“No-one shall be a member of the House of Lords by virtue of a hereditary peerage”.
During the passage of the Act, as many in this House know and as described well recently by the Marquess of Salisbury, the Lords threatened to disrupt the Labour Government’s whole legislative programme and forced them to retain 90 hereditary Peers, together with an undertaking that any vacancies would be filled by by-elections in which only hereditary Peers could stand, and in which, for the most part, only hereditary Peers could vote. As it has turned out, all 92 are men.
I have tried in vain over eight years, and with four identical Private Member’s Bills, to scrap this ridiculous procedure. All my efforts, despite having the support of the overwhelming majority of the House, were in vain. The Bills were filibustered by half a dozen Peers and blocked by the Tory Government. Had I been listened to back in 2016, there would now be 27 fewer hereditary Peers, and the whole issue would have been well on the way to being resolved.
I understand, of course, the upset that many will feel, in all parts of the House, about 90 colleagues facing the prospect of ending their membership of Parliament. I certainly understand it; it happened to me. In my case it was at 3 am, announced by the returning officer and received in some parts of the hall with great rejoicing. But times change in any parliamentary system, and membership of Parliament carries no guarantee of permanence, as the 250-odd Members who lost their seats three weeks ago will testify.
When the Bill comes to the Lords, I hope we will recognise the context in which it will be presented. First, the Government have a clear and specific manifesto commitment to remove the right of hereditary Peers to sit and vote in this House. Secondly, that manifesto commitment was contained in the King’s Speech as a first Session legislative promise. Thirdly, when it comes to us, it will have been passed by the Commons with a parliamentary majority probably in excess of 200. No Bill could come to this House with greater weight and authority behind it.
We of course have a constitutional duty to scrutinise the Bill, but we also have a constitutional and democratic duty to ensure that this Labour Government, with their commitment on hereditary Peers, are not subject to the same treatment by the Lords as their predecessors were in 1999.
I make one final plea on this subject to the usual channels. The House may not have noticed that, in a quirk of fate and timing, in the same week that the King’s Speech announced the planned ending of the right of hereditary Peers to sit and vote here, it has become apparent, would you believe, that two more by-elections are pending. Our Standing Orders require that these by-elections, one Conservative and the other Cross Bench, must take place within three months. The electorate for the Conservatives consists of 46 hereditary Peers, all men, and for the Cross Benches it is 33, also all men.
I appeal to the Front Benches: surely it would be pure farce to allow these by-elections to take place at the same time that a Bill was passing through Parliament that would scrap them once and for all. To go ahead would be a gift to critics of this House, as well as providing a spectacle whereby someone was introduced as a new Peer, only to be removed in a matter of weeks.
There is a simple solution, which is to suspend the Standing Order that governs these by-elections, and there is a recent precedent when the then Leader, the noble Baroness, Lady Evans of Bowes Park, on 23 March 2020 successfully moved a Motion to do just that. I appeal to the usual channels to spare the House and any potential candidate the risible prospect of these by-elections going ahead by proposing the appropriate Motion before the Summer Recess.
In conclusion, I reiterate my support for the Government’s approach to Lords reform, which avoids the black hole of a grandiose comprehensive reform—which all precedents tell us would end in time-consuming failure. I hope that during the course of this Parliament, there will be further incremental reform to deal with the size of the House. I particularly welcome the Bill on the hereditaries; I often wondered whether it would ever happen in my lifetime. It will now take place as an early Act of the current Labour Government, and in so doing complete after 25 years the work of the previous one.
Lord Browne of Belmont (DUP)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to take part in this debate on the humble Address, and I congratulate the Government on their success in the election. I also congratulate the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hermer, on his maiden speech. I know that his vast experience, knowledge and expertise will prove of great benefit to the workings of this House.
I am pleased to acknowledge the commitment by the Government to repeal the provisions of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023. My noble friend Lord Dodds has already outlined this, but I trust that when the Government arrive at a more suitable plan, they will implement it expeditiously. I believe that the innocent victims deserve nothing less.
A strong United Kingdom growing together is in all our interests. I encourage the Government to establish and maintain effective communication and collaboration between the four parts of this United Kingdom. A strong United Kingdom, evolving and growing together, is in all our interests, now and long into the future. We all have a duty to persist in working to protect and strengthen the bonds between our four nations. For long-term peace, prosperity and growth to continue, all parts of the United Kingdom must play a full and equal role in the development and evolution of the kingdom. It is therefore vital that the upcoming advancements wholly encompass Northern Ireland. Unfortunately, the last Administration’s negotiations with the European Union caused significant economic and constitutional disadvantage to one part of the United Kingdom, and had an extremely detrimental effect on Northern Ireland sovereignty.
Fundamentally, the root cause of the problems with the Northern Ireland protocol and the Windsor Framework is the continued application of European law in Northern Ireland. These arrangements have led to the intolerable situation whereby Northern Ireland remains governed by a swathe of European Union law. These EU regulations have the effect of causing Northern Ireland to diverge from the rest of the United Kingdom in a vast number of areas. There are numerous examples of sea border checks between Great Britain and Northern Ireland disrupting businesses. We cannot afford to have an economic division between Northern Ireland and Great Britain, where most of Northern Ireland trading takes place—some £12 million-worth.
It is important that, if Northern Ireland citizens and businesses are to be treated as equal to our fellow Britons elsewhere in the United Kingdom, the constitutional integrity of the United Kingdom market must be fully restored. To attain this position, we must respect and fully restore the Acts of Union for Northern Ireland, and completely, not partially, remove the Irish Sea border. I trust that this Government will work assiduously to bring about the necessary legislation. This will require further effort and co-operation. I am confident that unionists can work positively alongside and engage responsibly with the Government to undo and remove all the damage associated with the implementation of the Northern Ireland protocol.
For all those who value our place in the United Kingdom, safeguarding and protecting Northern Ireland’s long-term place inside the UK internal market and the union is the most important responsibility that we have. As a confident unionist, I will continue to work on matters of mutual concern with our friends across the United Kingdom. Equally, I am willing to see co-operation with our neighbours in the Republic of Ireland. We simply ask that they too respect the settled will of the people of Northern Ireland to remain part of the United Kingdom.
Finally, it is my hope, now that Stormont is back up and running, that Northern Ireland can start moving forward again. We must all continue to ensure that Northern Ireland benefits from, and plays its full part in, alongside England, Scotland and Wales, the long-term future growth of the great United Kingdom.
Baroness Humphreys (LD)
My Lords, I add my congratulations to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hermer, on a witty and moving maiden speech, and welcome him to this House. He has an important role to play here as Attorney-General, and I am sure that his experience and knowledge will stand him, and us, in good stead. I want to say how pleased I am to see the noble Lord, Lord Khan of Burnley, in his place on the Government Front Bench. I wish him well in his role as Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State. I am delighted to welcome the noble Lord, Lord Hanson of Flint, a fellow north Walian, to his place in this House.
The result of the general election earlier this month has already ushered in changes to our Chamber and to the other place, and I commend the new Prime Minister on the change of tone that he has already achieved in the political discourse. There is a feeling now that the rabid unionism of past years has been replaced by a rational unionism, which could lead to our nations and peoples working together instead of pulling apart.
The Prime Minister’s visits to the devolved nations on his first days in power were a welcome game-changer. Many politicians in Wales breathed a collective sigh of relief, hoping that resetting relationships with Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland would lead to fewer examples of UK politicians riding roughshod over the Sewel convention, and that a more collaborative working relationship would develop.
I assure the Government that I understand the pressures on them and the need they see for the measures presented in the King’s Speech. Many of my Lib Dem colleagues have already expressed our intention to be a constructive opposition in this House. My concerns, however, lie in what is not in the Government’s programme, particularly the lack of prominence for issues concerning the devolved nations.
On a positive note, the formation of a council of the nations and regions is to be welcomed, and I look forward to learning more about its proposed powers and responsibilities in the days and weeks to come. I am pleased by the progress the Government intend making to devolve more powers to combined authorities in England, and look forward to these providing the building blocks for a more federal UK, sometime in the future.
There is nothing in the King’s Speech on the commitment in the Labour manifesto to give members of the devolved legislatures the same freedom of speech protections as UK parliamentarians. There is nothing on the commitment to consider giving new powers to Wales over probation services and youth justice, and nothing on the commitment to strengthen the Sewel convention with a new memorandum of understanding to protect the powers of the devolved legislatures. Perhaps, in replying, the noble Lord would clarify the situation regarding these manifesto commitments.
The PM had already forewarned that the commitment to votes at 16 in England would not appear in the King’s Speech, as his focus is on economic growth. I am disappointed on behalf of the young people of England. Sixteen and 17 year-olds in Scotland and Wales have the right to vote in devolved government and local authority elections; this latter right would have been extended to English students. The commitment would also extend to giving those in this age group throughout the UK the right to vote in parliamentary elections.
The PM’s priorities are obviously pressing, but I urge him and his new Government to take some time to consider the issue of political education in schools—even before they begin to write the legislation for votes at 16. This issue has been avoided in the past: teachers were unsure of boundaries and wary of being accused of indoctrinating their pupils, parents feared that their children would be indoctrinated, and, in the end, very little was done. Learning the facts about the process of voting, from the act of registering to vote through to what the political parties stand for and what happens in a polling station, is essential to the development of confident, knowledgeable voters.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
My Lords, I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Khan of Burnley, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hermer, to their ministerial offices. It is for us all a great privilege to have again in the House an Attorney-General, particularly one with such a deep and obvious commitment not only to the rule of law domestically but, as important, internationally.
There are two aspects of the Minister’s wonderful maiden speech on which I would like to comment. They are both rather unglamorous points, because legislation such as new Bills is always thought, by a Minister, to be the most glamorous thing of all to be able to introduce.
I will begin by talking about legislation, particularly its quality. First, to put down a marker, I hope we have seen the end of skeleton Bills. We should never have seen them in the first place, and I hope we never see another. Secondly, there is the problem of secondary legislation. It would be too much to hope to see it disappear from the way we do things—it is impossible to conceive of that happening—so I want to say a word about the quality of secondary legislation. Much started to be done towards the end of the last Government, but I hope that a much more radical view will be taken: first, to look at the proposals of the Hansard Society; and secondly, to discuss seriously the way in which amendments can be made to statutory instruments. This is a much-needed reform.
As important, and totally unglamorous, are the nuts and bolts of doing the job: first, making certain that when policy is formulated, information is available and is published with the SI; and secondly, that the work of drafting has sufficient resources—that those who do it are properly trained. It is not easy, and mistakes occur because there are not enough resources. The work of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, on which I had the privilege to serve, has shown what a wonderful job the staff can do; the clerks are expert. But there is no substitute for a commitment by the Government to improve; for the appointment of a Minister who will be accountable for the overall improvement; and for a real commitment to resourcing the job properly. It cannot be done on the cheap, but it is of vital importance.
I turn, secondly, to devolution to the home nations. There is not time to make a proper speech about it, so I will address one issue: the Government’s commitment to looking again at joint working. The way in which we have moved to our current constitution with the home nations requires joint working. There is nothing that sets out clearly the powers of the union or its purpose, but areas such as economic development, the way the internal market operates, and trade, clearly require the co-operation of the Westminster Government and the Governments of the devolved nations. In reality, there has been no proper machinery to make that work. There are lots of good ideas, such as common frameworks and the 2002 commitment to a joint intergovernmental working process, but none of this has ever been made to work.
Although much was done towards the end of the last Government, particularly by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, we need a radical rethink. Why this is so important is that if people work together and see that you cannot run a union without co-operation and the machinery of co-operation, things will not work. Solving problems such as the disappearance of the Sewel convention—it is not a convention any more—will ensure that, when we look at the more difficult problems of the union, if people are used to working together properly under a machinery, and, hopefully, with a Minister truly accountable for that, we will make a great deal of progress and improve the government of our nation. All of this is unglamorous, but most important.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, it has been a delight to listen to the important contributions to this debate and a pleasure to follow the excellent speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, a fellow Welshman. I congratulate those noble Lords making their maiden speeches today—in particular the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hermer, a fellow South Walian.
The gracious Speech last week was hailed by the Government as a time for “optimism” for the country, with “opportunity” at its helm. I acknowledge that I welcome some of the content, but before I do so I should say that devolution has rightly become an important constituent part of our democratic system. I was never more convinced of this than when I sat as a member of your Lordships’ Public Services Committee and we inquired into the public services response to the Covid-19 pandemic. It was clear that certain key public services were best delivered locally. I distinctly recall the evidence of local authority leaders, mayors and healthcare workers, who persuaded me beyond doubt that, in such circumstances, devolution to a local level was clearly the way forward. I am therefore supportive, to a point, of the new Government’s plan to devolve more powers to metro mayors but will await the announcement of the precise details.
Today’s debate covers constitution and devolution aspects of the gracious Speech, but having looked at the finer detail, particularly where Wales is concerned, I could not quite believe my eyes, as “opportunity” seemed to be the least appropriate word. How do I justify that remark? In fact, Wales was named only once, and that was in reference to the Government’s plan to create a council of the nations and regions. Sadly, I believe that this could well be a reality check for what is to come—that is, Labour once again taking Wales for granted.
Noble Lords may be aware that I was for a while the Wales Office spokesman in your Lordships’ House in the last Government. The difference in delivery between the last Government and the current one appears to be very stark indeed. Perhaps I could spend a couple of minutes reflecting. Who was it that delivered an additional £18 billion—the biggest block grant in the history of devolution—to Wales? It was the Conservatives. Who delivered two freeports and two investment zones for Wales? It was the Conservatives. Who delivered two cuts to national insurance to help Welsh workers? It was the Conservatives. Who protected more than 100,000 jobs from being lost through an ambitious furlough scheme? Yes, it was the Conservatives.
In fact, the last Government did not stop there. We started to announce even more bold policies for Wales, which were all designed to reverse the sad decline in our public services that have been grossly mismanaged by the Labour Welsh Government. We committed some £1 billion to deliver the north Wales main line, which would have spread economic prosperity and created jobs. We had a very blurred response from the Minister during Questions earlier as to whether this will now come to fruition. We brought forward plans to help deliver the Magor train station, which, again, would have boosted the Welsh economy.
On health, we in Wales suffer the worst waiting lists in the whole of the United Kingdom. In fact, those spending two years or more on a waiting list in Wales now total more than 22,000; in England, the figure is 269. Just let that sink in for a moment, because those figures are incredibly revealing. However, we did not just sit back and bury our heads in the sand: we pledged to help those 22,000 Welsh patients by wanting to offer them access to NHS England. I am bitterly disappointed that the pledges I have outlined were not included in the King’s Speech. Of course, this begs the very pertinent question of why they were dropped. The only plausible explanation is that this was a political decision by the Labour Party.
There was also no considered detail in the King’s Speech on what the new Government will do for the Welsh steel industry. Many of your Lordships will remember last year, when we faced the very real threat of Tata Steel closing its steel-making plant in south Wales. The last Government pledged a £500 million support package to save the Welsh steel industry, plus an additional £80 million to help those who will lose their jobs. Labour’s response was to criticise the package but, so far, it has failed to offer any credible alternative.
Our country will look back at last week’s gracious Speech and view it, sadly, as a missed opportunity. Be in no doubt: the last Government’s pledges that I have just outlined would have improved people’s lives and helped to untap Wales’s true potential. So, although the gracious Speech has some merit, I fear that, from a Wales perspective, it is severely lacking. That is why I call on the Labour Government to place party politics to one side at long last and recommit to the previous pledges made for Wales. Should the Government do so, it would be a win-win situation—most importantly, though, for the people of Wales. I can assure the House that, having accepted the role of shadow Secretary of State for Wales, my priority will be to ensure that Wales is not forgotten by this Government. I will hold Ministers to account for their actions at every opportunity.
Baroness Jay of Paddington (Lab)
My Lords, I join all other noble Lords who have spoken in warmly congratulating my noble and learned friend Lord Hermer and my noble friend Lord Khan on their government appointments. My experience in your Lordships’ House, both in government and as previous chair of the Constitution Committee, is that your Lordships will always give very detailed scrutiny to any business described as constitutional, and your attention is particularly assiduous when measures refer to the House itself. Therefore, it is not surprising that many speeches this afternoon have concentrated on the composition of the House and the proposed exclusion of the remaining hereditary Peers.
Now, perhaps because I see myself almost as the grandmother of the current proposal, I am clear that this admittedly rather belated proposition is simply a completion of the terms of the 1999 Act—terms which allowed an agreed number of hereditaries to remain on a temporary basis. Those arrangements were agreed specifically as a temporary compromise, part of a well- understood process of transition. To quote the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, Lord Chancellor at the time, from Hansard of 11 May 1999:
“The transitional House which will be created as a result of the Bill will be exactly that: transitional and not permanent”.—[Official Report, 11/5/1999; col. 1092.]
I suspect I am not alone in not expecting that transition to last for 25 years—a quarter of a century—but I am extremely pleased that the new Labour Government are now acting so quickly to achieve further reform.
Several noble Lords have already said, and I agree with them, that over 25 years we have all been aware of the important contribution made to the House by several of the 92 hereditary Peers who have remained. I certainly recognise that and pay tribute to their contribution. However, I echo my noble friend Lord Grocott in saying that I do not think even they can have felt comfortable with the very odd process of by-elections for succeeding hereditaries, a process that sometimes has meant that the number of candidates for succession has exceeded the size of the electorate, and which, I am afraid, has undoubtedly damaged the reputation and standing of the House.
Today, acting to exclude the remaining hereditary Peers may appear a simple proposal but I have no doubt—and it has been suggested this afternoon—that there will be many detailed debates on the exact meaning and terms of the original transition proposal, and the rights of today’s hereditary Members. I look forward to those discussions but hope we can avoid some of the frustrating moments of earlier proceedings. For example, I vividly remember long debates—and, indeed, votes—about whether the 1999 reform should refer to “an” hereditary Peer or “a” hereditary Peer. There were times when legitimate scrutiny verged on delaying tactics.
Having made those points, and while I wholeheartedly welcome these limited proposals in the King’s Speech, I wish the Government had also included some of the related manifesto commitments. I would particularly have liked to see other measures to improve the appointments process and to manage the size of the House. In my view, both could be achieved by extending the remit and powers of the House of Lords Appointment Commission—improving HOLAC, in other words.
This week, I pulled out from the cabinet the 2001 White Paper optimistically called Completing the Reform. Perhaps not surprisingly, the same sorts of further measures that are now in the 2024 manifesto are explained and spelled out there. The earlier White Paper could almost be a blueprint for further contemporary action. The then Government proposed, for example, a statutory appointments commission, a cap on the overall size of the House—the number proposed was 600—and guaranteed numbers or proportions for the independent membership. It would be easy today to incorporate these proposals in another Bill, which could be rapidly introduced.
On the controversial issue of retirement from the House or rules on the length of service, I would certainly qualify for the Labour manifesto proposal that Peers should retire at the end of the Parliament in which they reach their 80th birthday, and personally I would be happy to accept this. But as a matter of policy, I would prefer the proposal of a 15-year term of service, and I hope this will be further considered.
Twenty-five years has certainly been a very long time for this transitional House to exist, but I have very high expectations that this Parliament can now achieve further proper reform. I look forward to that legislation and to the success of the Government’s entire programme.
Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)
My Lords, I add my voice of welcome to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hermer, whose fine reputation at the Bar precedes him. I believe he will be a worthy successor as Attorney-General to Victoria Prentis MP, one of the unsung heroes of the last Parliament, who is sadly missed from this one.
It is the time of year when newspapers publish lists of good reading for the beach. The Future of Democracy in the UK, published by the Constitution Unit in November 2023, is inexplicably omitted from those lists. It is a three-year project, based on a citizens’ assembly and two YouGov surveys of 4,000 people. On the big-ticket constitutional issues—proportional representation, an elected House of Lords—public opinion was unremarkably split.
What is truly striking is the strength of support revealed by these surveys for reforms that are often—wrongly, it would seem—dismissed as “Westminster bubble” issues. On ethics and integrity, there was over- whelming support for independent regulators of ministerial conduct to support the role of Parliament in enforcing the rules. On Commons scrutiny, twice as many people thought that Parliament, rather than the Government, should have the main responsibility for deciding what Parliament discusses and when it does so. On skeleton Bills and statutory instruments, 79% of respondents believed that Parliament should always need to consider and approve changes in the law, with only 4% disagreeing —Lord Judge would certainly approve.
I shall not venture into Lords reform, or even into the devolution debate, so aptly promoted first by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, and then by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce. I will put to the Minister five proposals which, though formulated by experts, are in tune with the popular longing for ethical governance revealed by this report and others.
I begin with the November 2021 report, Standards Matter 2, of the Committee on Standards in Public Life. The committee wrote:
“Perhaps the most important element of a regulator’s independence is its statutory basis. Those regulators which exist solely as the creation of the executive are potentially liable to be abolished or compromised with ease”.
Does the Minister, whom I also welcome to his seat, agree with the Committee on Standards in Public Life that the independent adviser, the Public Appointments Commissioner and ACOBA, or their successors, should be put into statute, along with the codes they oversee? If so, I commend to him my public service, integrity and ethics Bill—unlucky in the ballot but as pertinent as ever.
Secondly, to echo the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, next week marks the 125th anniversary of a speech by Augustine Birrell KC MP, in which he deprecated what he called
“the new fashion of legislation by way of skeleton”.—[Official Report, Commons, 1/8/1899; col. 1072.]
The Attorney-General has said encouraging things about this. Have the Government had a chance to look at the Hansard Society’s thoughtful suggestions for addressing the excessive use of skeleton Bills and delegated powers? These include a “Concordat on Legislative Delegation” and a new Act of Parliament to ensure that Parliament, with the help of sifting committees,
“can calibrate the level of scrutiny to the content”
of a statutory instrument.
Thirdly, do the Government favour an expansion of the lobbying register beyond just consultant lobbyists, or, as the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee of the Commons recommended in May, is it more important to ensure that departmental transparency declarations are issued more regularly, consolidated, and widened to cover contacts with special advisers and informal lobbying by phone and WhatsApp?
Fourthly, the Law Commission concluded in 2020 that the common-law offence of misconduct in public office provides neither the certainty nor the
“clarity that the criminal law demands, and is … prone to error, misuse and abuse”.
Will the Government look at the replacement clauses proposed by the Law Commission, and are they committed to catching fully what the United Nations Convention against Corruption describes as “trading in influence”, “abuse of functions” and “illicit enrichment”?
Fifthly, few of us in this House, I suspect, would like to see a written constitution, still less one whose enforcement is entrusted to the judges, but a political constitution needs a political centre of gravity. Does the Minister see merit in the suggestions of the final report of the Review of the UK Constitution, published by the Institute for Government and the Bennett Institute in September last year? The review proposed a new Parliamentary Joint Committee on the constitution, supported by an independent office for the constitution. A similar idea was floated by no less an authority than my noble friend Lord Hennessy in his book The Bonfire of the Decencies.
The noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, has famously said that “expensive noises” are coming from our constitutional engine, but if it can be properly serviced, it should keep us going for many years yet.
Lord Rogan (UUP)
My Lords, a new Parliament always brings an assortment of challenges for an incoming Government, and this Parliament will be no exception. I welcome the Minister, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hermer, to his place as Attorney-General and wish him well in his new role.
According to the newly appointed Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Hilary Benn, whom I also warmly welcome to his post, the gracious Speech included 18 Bills which would extend and apply to Northern Ireland, either in part or in full. However, much of the debate in the Province has been beyond the list of Bills, and I hope that in his wind-up the Minister will remove some of the ambiguity. The gracious Speech incorporated a commitment, in consultation with all parties, to bring forward measures
“to begin the process of repealing and replacing the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023”.
As noble Lords will know, this legislation is opposed by all political parties in Northern Ireland, including my party, the Ulster Unionist Party, and other noble Lords have said today that they agree. While I warmly welcome the Government’s promise to repeal the Act, time is clearly of the essence because it is not on the side of many victims and their loved ones. I would appreciate some clarity from the Minister on when a replacement Act will be on the statute book.
The gracious Speech also stated the Government’s intention to
“strengthen its work with the devolved governments in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland so that the best outcomes possible are delivered for citizens across the United Kingdom. My Ministers will establish a new Council of the Nations and Regions to renew opportunities for the Prime Minister, heads of devolved governments and mayors of combined authorities to collaborate with each other”.
At face value, this promise is particularly positive from a unionist point of view. It was the political objective of my late friend Lord Trimble to take Ulster unionism to the heart of British politics. To have Northern Ireland political representatives sitting around the same table as their counterparts in the other devolved nations and regions to make the United Kingdom work better is a laudable objective. It is also a golden opportunity for Northern Ireland to have a more integral role in UK-wide political decision-making, which was far from the case under the previous Government. Again, I would welcome more detail from the Minister on the nature of this new body and an indication of when the Government hope it will be established. Might I boldly suggest that the first meeting should take place in Northern Ireland? I should remind Ministers that the Province successfully hosted the 39th G8 Summit in 2013, so we know what we are doing.
Of the 18 Bills in the gracious Speech that apply to Northern Ireland, I wish to make brief reference to two. First, the border security, asylum and immigration Bill will enable police to use counterterrorism powers to tackle gangs smuggling immigrants into the UK. Given that Northern Ireland is the sole part of the United Kingdom that shares a land border with the EU, can I seek an assurance from the Minister that the Police Service of Northern Ireland will be fully involved in the formulation and implementation of these new arrangements? Also, given the additional financial pressures they will bring to an already desperately under- resourced PSNI, can I have a guarantee that additional money will be provided for policing in Northern Ireland to deal with these extra responsibilities?
I welcome the pledge in the gracious Speech
“to establish a statutory Armed Forces Commissioner to act as a strong independent champion for our gallant Armed Forces and their families”.
They are the best of us and deserve the enhanced protections and respect that I hope this Bill will deliver. Yesterday, I tabled a Written Parliamentary Question asking His Majesty’s Government whether Armed Forces personnel engaged in a wide range of military operations under the current threat level in Northern Ireland will be eligible to receive the Wider Service Medal and if not, why not. Should the Government choose not to award this medal to members of the Armed Forces serving in the Province, as I hope they will, it is an issue that I will be raise directly with the new commissioner as soon as they are appointed.
Finally, I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Booth, to your Lordships’ House and look forward to hearing his maiden speech.
Lord Booth (Con) (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, as I rise to make my maiden speech today, I want to add my congratulations to the noble and learned Lord opposite on his excellent speech earlier. I start by offering my thanks for the welcome that I have received from your Lordships across the political divide. I thank all our dedicated staff who keep us in order, who feed us, who are custodians of the traditions of this place and who keep us safe. They are true public servants. I also thank my noble friends Lady Pidding, who cannot be in her place today, and Lord Sharpe of Epsom, who introduced me to this House. They are friends, both having served as my predecessors in the role I currently hold as chairman of the National Conservative Convention, the voluntary part of the Conservative Party. My noble friend Lady Pidding was in charge in 2015 and my noble friend Lord Sharpe was in charge of the general election in 2019. The conclusions of their tenures were considerably more successful than my tenure in 2024. In fact, such was the outstanding result for my party in 2019 that my noble friend Lord Sharpe may well have heeded his own words to go out on the lash. I also want to praise all the hard-working volunteers of the National Conservative Convention and, indeed, all political volunteers across the divide, because political volunteers of all parties are the lifeblood of our democracy.
I wish our new Government well, for to do otherwise would be to wish ill to our nation. While we may disagree on the how, surely we agree on what we are here for: the betterment of the lives and life chances of the British people.
My life journey began in the coalfields of the north-east in Houghton-le-Spring, and I am proud to have Houghton-le-Spring as the geographical part of my title. I am very much a product of Houghton, where I was born and where my father’s family had been shop- keepers for four generations. I was brought up behind the shop counter, learning from an early age the value of hard work and learning to be part of a community. Like any good northerner, I can be blunt and to the point and have an irreverent sense of humour. My parents were aspirational for me, and aspiration is something that we must encourage for children across our nation. From Houghton, I went the University of Essex, and my first job was here in the Palace of Westminster as a researcher for a Member of the other place, so my return here is like coming home. In between, I ran my own retail businesses and then a small company designing and exporting spectacle frames across the globe. The small business sector is something I know about and hope to champion in this House.
Finally, I want to thank the most important person in my life for allowing me to spend time and effort volunteering in political life and for being on the journey with me. My wonderful husband Kelvin is here today and has been with me for the past 21 years. I find it wrong that in this House same-sex legal partners and partners of Baronesses get no courtesy title, and what recourse is there for that? In Kelvin’s case, maybe he could self- declare as a woman, put on a frock and, in the words of “Little Britain”, shout, “I’m a lady”, but I do not think that will happen. I encourage the Minister to do what he said in his maiden speech and listen and—I reflect on his own words—to reflect changes in our society, so I hope the Government might eventually address this issue.
I now turn to some of the content in this King’s Speech, and I shall try to maintain tradition by not being controversial. However, I believe it is right to question proposals and ask whether they have been thoroughly thought through and about the potential for unintended consequences of good intentions. I refer particularly to the proposal to remove our hereditary colleagues. The composition of this House was slowly changed with the passage of the Life Peerages Act 1958, some 66 years ago. If that Act had been a person, it would have now reached pensionable age. It irrevocably changed the make-up of this House, but over a long timeframe. The overwhelming majority of us are here today because of that Act. It is the way of our unwritten constitution that a slow evolution occurs. I am sure that the authors of the 1958 Act did not envisage its consequences, but I think it worked out well. The House of Lords Act 1999 then reduced the hereditary Peers to 92 in number. Since joining this House in March, I have been impressed by the work of noble Lords who are not lifers but who are here by birth, and by the expertise, knowledge and commitment they bring to the work of this House. It seems unfair and wrong that they are to be dismissed. I ask the Benches opposite whether they can look at their friends and colleagues and say, “You’re fired”. I ask the government Benches to reflect carefully on these proposals, because in this country we should value public service given over a lifetime. I thank noble Lords for listening.
Lord McInnes of Kilwinning (Con)
My Lords, it gives me the greatest pleasure to congratulate my noble friend Lord Booth on an excellent maiden speech this afternoon, resplendent with the mix of humour and insight that noble Lords would expect. He comes to your Lordships’ House not just with a successful business career behind him but, importantly, with a record of dedicated public service in politics, on which all our political parties depend. Being a senior volunteer in the Conservative Party over the last few years has probably not been a barrel of laughs but he has come to us with his humour intact, and his own delivery of that public service has only enhanced the very high regard in which he is held. We can all look forward to his making a very strong contribution to your Lordships’ House in the coming years.
I begin my remarks, as other noble Lords have done, by congratulating both the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hermer, and the noble Lord, Lord Khan of Burnley, in taking their place as Ministers in the Government. I also congratulate the Labour Party on its stunning victory on 4 July. A large part of that success was in Scotland, and we have to hope for a normalisation of politics away from constant constitutional bickering.
As a Conservative I will always believe that decision-making, where practical, should be made at as local a level as possible. The continuation of the previous Conservative Government’s increasing devolution to the regions of England should be supported and, while I recognise that there may be nervousness from some about a lack of control from parliamentary scrutiny, on my own side I think the examples of Andy Street and the noble Lord, Lord Houchen, demonstrate why devolution should not be feared by Conservatives. It is a pity that the same decentralisation to local councils is not applied by the Welsh and Scottish Governments.
However, after the significant constitutional change and transfer of powers over the last 25 years, I ask that the Government allow stability to reign in Parliament’s relationship with the devolved Governments in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Yes, there may be unforeseen but necessary small, pragmatic changes to the balance of powers both ways—and the Government’s commitment to revise the Sewel convention will be part of this—but, if the constitutional integrity and stability of the United Kingdom is to be maintained, we must focus both the UK Government and the devolved Governments on the delivery of the public services for which they are responsible, rather than feeding constant demands from nationalists for more powers. After the idea was floated that immigration be devolved, I was glad to learn that the Government have now ruled this out; I would be grateful if the noble Lord the Minister could confirm that.
The Labour Party’s success at the general election was undoubtedly helped by the return to a commitment to the United Kingdom, which was sadly missing from the Labour Party manifestos in 2017 and 2019. I also welcomed the commitment in the gracious Speech to a strong working relationship between central and devolved government. As unionists, the last thing we need to see is the machinery of government constantly in gridlock; nothing will do more to undermine our United Kingdom.
While I do not have any objection to the new nations and regions council, I hope that it will not be an alternative to the already existing Prime Minister/First Ministers council. It is important that the Prime Minister and First Ministers meet on a regular basis to support the vital personal relationships between them and, in the case of Northern Ireland, the Deputy First Minister. For collaboration and relationships to be substantive, it would be a mistake to lose these council meetings in the new, much broader nations and regions council; reassurance from the Minister would again be welcomed.
I have spoken before in your Lordships’ Chamber about the importance in Northern Ireland of continuing to build the case for the union with that fast-growing group: those who do not identify as unionist or nationalist but want the very best for Northern Ireland and their families. I was therefore a bit disappointed to read that the Prime Minister—on his first visit to Northern Ireland as Prime Minister—did not repeat his previous commitment to campaign for Northern Ireland to remain in the United Kingdom in any future referendum. I appreciate that he had other important comments to make, and that included a welcome commitment to the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, but I hope that the Minister can give us, once again, a commitment to the Government’s active support for Northern Ireland remaining part of our United Kingdom.
As I draw to a conclusion, I ask when, as part of the commitment to the UK’s constitution and legal frameworks, we might expect an announcement on the appointment of a new Advocate-General for Scotland to ensure that the Government are receiving the very best of advice on Scots law—such advice as we are privileged to receive from the noble and learned Lords, Lord Keen of Elie and Lord Stewart of Dirleton. A timescale would be very helpful.
In conclusion, I make a plea, as this Government carry out their desired mantra of change, that the union is one area where stability and care are required rather than further flux.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, I have known the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hermer, for a very long time and have long admired the breadth and depth of his legal knowledge, his judgment and his powers of advocacy, which were demonstrated here today. His appointment is very welcome on all sides of the House. He spoke with great humility. I remind him of the experience of Sir Patrick Hastings, who was Attorney-General in the first Labour Government 100 years ago in 1924. Sir Patrick too was a distinguished barrister before and after his appointment. He described his time as Attorney-General as “my idea of hell”, and his disastrous conduct in office in relation to the Campbell prosecution in 1924 led to the fall of that first Labour Government. The noble and learned Lord really cannot do worse than that. I also welcome the noble Lord, Lord Khan of Burnley, to his post.
I welcome back the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, to his Front-Bench post. He too is an old friend. He will, I hope, forgive me if I suggest that focusing on protecting the status of hereditary Peers is perhaps not the best way for the Conservative Opposition to demonstrate their relevance on constitutional issues.
I am very pleased that the Attorney-General emphasised the need to promote and protect the rule of law, as he also did in his excellent speech on 16 July on being sworn in as Attorney-General. In that speech, he gave an assurance that his legal advice to the Government would
“always be guided by law not politics”.
That is extremely important, as he recognises. I am delighted that one of his first decisions was to retain as First Treasury Counsel my colleague and friend Sir James Eadie KC, who has given previous Governments objective, skilled and wise advice on a large quantity and very wide breadth of legal problems over many years.
The Attorney-General also enjoys the support of the Solicitor-General, Sarah Sackman, another distinguished barrister of great skill and judgment. I also welcome the new Lord Chancellor, Shabana Mahmood, not just because she both understands the virtues of our legal system and recognises the urgent need for reform of those aspects of our system that are, sadly, in a state of serious disrepair, but because her background is, in her own description, as a child of immigrants who worked behind the till in her parents’ corner shop. That will encourage aspiring law students of all ethnicities and backgrounds that—with hard work, aspiration and an element of the luck that we all need—they too can succeed in the legal profession.
The rule of law and the independence of the judiciary have been under great strain in the past 14 years— I declare an interest in some of the relevant cases—but I am sure that the rule of law will be under strain in the years ahead. It always is, even under Labour Governments. Previous Labour Administrations have had their legal difficulties: the Belmarsh judgment on imprisonment without trial after 9/11, and the Hosenball and Crossman diaries cases during the Callaghan Government in the late 1970s.
The noble and learned Lord should enjoy his honeymoon period as it may be short—“Events, dear boy, events”. He should recognise that many of us lawyers in the House—you can never have too many lawyers—and other noble Lords will be carrying around copies of his speech today and that which he delivered on 16 July, and we will be reminding him of what he said on all relevant occasions in the future when the going gets tough.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I have chosen to speak today because of my support and concern for local—very local—government, which has barely had a walk-on part in the new Government’s manifesto. I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Khan—it is very good to see him on the Front Bench—regards it, as I do, as an essential part of our democracy.
There is a lot that I would like to mention. I echo the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, in regretting that the Conservatives have chosen to focus on a very narrow issue that I do not think is a priority for most people outside this Chamber, although I am looking forward to working with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, again. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Booth, on his maiden speech. He clearly has plenty to contribute to the House.
I would say that local government is the local sphere, not tier, of government. It is separate, not subsidiary. It can exemplify public service, which has been much mentioned recently, and can be effective and influential in giving a voice to local communities. Here I am talking not about metro mayors, who the Prime Minister met so soon after 4 July, nor about combined authorities, which it is becoming clear are the Government’s preferred model for other areas—we will have to see what comes forward—but about councillors, whose job is often not high profile or glamorous but affects people directly. It is a title that I was proud to have.
The job of councillor has become harder. There is little scope for discretion in how you serve your local community. Budgets have become so divorced from local decisions that taxation and representation are largely detached. There seems little bandwidth to think strategically. In my view, that is a real threat to democracy, a situation that fosters distrust of politicians: “They don’t listen”, “Politics doesn’t matter to me”. I am constrained by the timing from going on and on about this.
I welcome the lines in Labour’s manifesto about multiyear funding settlements and ending wasteful competitive bidding. Councillors need the tools to do the job, and part of the job is housing provision. My view is that mandatory targets—we will have to see whether they are a contradiction in terms—are not a tool. Some authorities have found a way to provide social housing, but I have heard nothing about relaxing the rules to enable them to do much more.
Housing is fundamental to flourishing communities and is the bedrock of the integration of refugees— I hesitated as to whether to speak today or on the Home Office day. Local authorities have, or should have, a leadership role in integration. All spheres of government should be advocates for welcoming refugees. I hope the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hermer, is not daunted —although he does not strike me as someone who is easily daunted—by the hopes and expectations of many of us that his appointment and his speech today herald both humanity and respect for the rule of law. He is warmly welcomed.
I have never thought that immigrants or refugees should be presented as a threat in competition with the established population. New arrivals can and should be enabled to benefit us all. As the Woolf Institute’s recent Commission on the Integration of Refugees said:
“At a local level, integrating refugees can provide benefits for all members of the community—from civil society to businesses, healthcare, and public services”.
I continue to find it astonishing what skills and qualifications so many asylum seekers have. The commission, which reported in March, also said:
“A focus on integration has the potential to empower local authorities, their partners and local people to meet the needs of their refugee, asylum-seeking, and long-standing communities by investing funds currently committed to asylum accommodation and refugee services into local communities”.
The commission talked of enhancing
“the agency of refugees, asylum seekers, and local communities, as well as bringing rapid economic and social benefits to the UK”.
It said:
“Current policy … is determined centrally by government in Whitehall, with local authorities often having little influence on decisions around dispersal, accommodation, and access to frontline services, despite being most directly affected by these issues”.
The local authority had plenty to say about the “Bibby Stockholm”, and I am so pleased to have just seen a report that it is to be closed.
The Prime Minister talked last week about the fight for trust defining our political era—yes, in all spheres of government.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I too congratulate the Attorney-General and my noble friend Lord Khan, who has the unenviable task of replying to what I suppose we could describe as a diverse debate. The most difficult reply will be to the Front-Bench spokesman opposite, who seemed to spend his time putting forward a better case for getting rid of the bishops from the House of Lords than on the hereditary Peers. Incidentally, I agree with those who have advocated that some of the hereditary Peers are obvious candidates for life peerages. There are one or two very close to me now who might be candidates.
I was disappointed that the spokesman for the Opposition did not talk about devolution, something that he knows I am enthusiastic about. It worked really well when Scotland had two Governments and two Parliaments and there was a Lib Dem-Labour Parliament in Scotland. It is only in the last few years that the SNP has weaponised devolution and the Scottish Parliament. It has opened pretend embassies overseas, because it could use our high commissions and embassies and the people who are there, and it wants advocates for independence in its own offices. To be fair to the Conservative Government, they were beginning to get this, and I hope that my colleagues on the Front Bench here and next door will get it as well and come forward with a response.
One of the things about devolution has been the English democratic deficit. I am glad that the Government are starting to look at that and that the mayors are going to be involved. The thing is, if you involve only the mayors then there are huge areas of England that will not be included, particularly rural areas, so we need to ask the Government to make their plan more comprehensive and coherent so that the whole of England is involved.
I want to spend the remainder of my time on the composition of the House of Lords, because it is too large. I should declare an interest about this retirement at 80—no, not the one that your Lordships are thinking of. It is that I used to work for Age Concern and was chair of Age Scotland but I also have another interest, as most of us here have. There is a better way of reducing the size of the House. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, was touching on it and I want to make this my main point today.
There is a misunderstanding—a dichotomy—about appointment to this place. Some people treat it as an honour, one above a knighthood, so instead of getting a knighthood, cricketers, donors or whoever get a peerage, and then we never see them. Where is the noble Lord, Lord Botham? I have never seen him. Some of the rest of us treat it as a job. We are part of the second Chamber of the legislature and we want to work here. As someone said earlier, there are 400 people voting regularly. Why do we not make two separate kinds of peerages and have honorary and working peerages? Working Peers could get paid; they could turn up, vote and participate fully. Honorary Peers would not. They would have a title—maybe they could come in and have dinner to keep the catering going. Why can we not do that? These are two completely separate concepts: an honour and a legislator.
I have given a hint to my noble friend Lord Khan that I might raise this, and I know that the Government are looking at it. It would be relatively easy to legislate or might not even need legislation. I think getting honorary Peers and working Peers could be done by resolution of this House and the royal consent for it. Then we would not get this criticism that we are too large, because only the working Peers would be counted, or that people do not turn up, because we would not be expecting the honorary Peers to turn up. I hope everyone will look at that and am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Burns, is following me. If his committee is set up, I hope that he will have a look at it. That is one way forward and it gets rid of the concern expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Fowler—and he is one of the best examples of the fact that if we put in an arbitrary age limit, we will be losing some of the best people in this House.
Lord Burns (CB)
My Lords, I begin by welcoming the noble Lord, Lord Booth, and I congratulate him on his speech. He said that he was born in the mining town of Houghton-le-Spring, in the Durham coalfields. I was born in Hetton-le-Hole, two miles away; I went to school at Houghton-le-Spring and my father worked at Houghton colliery for the best part of 50 years, so I look forward to hearing from the noble Lord in the future as he brings his wisdom, both from Houghton-le-Spring and from all of the other things that he has done.
I will devote my remarks to the paragraph in the gracious Speech relating to constitutional reform and reducing the size of the House of Lords. In principle, I welcome the Government’s proposal to remove the right of hereditary Peers to sit and vote in the Lords. However, I have several regrets. I regret that the proposal for hereditary Members would mean that we would lose some of the valued and diligent Members who I have worked with on committees in this House. I regret that the outgoing Government did not take advantage of the attempt made by the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, to abolish the hereditary by-elections and help to bring about reform earlier and more gradually—we would have been in a much better position if that had happened—and I regret the persistent increase over the past 14 years in the appointment of Conservative Peers relative to the appointment of Labour Peers. This has resulted in fewer Labour Members today than in 2010. It has brought us this imbalance in numbers and is, no doubt, one of the factors which is leading to the urgency of the Bill on hereditary Peers.
Of course, the previous Government were not unique in how they dealt with appointments to this House or in putting upward pressure on House of Lords numbers. For some time, Prime Ministers have appointed disproportionately to their own party. There is no control on this by either law or convention. Generally, appointments to the government party or parties have been between two and three times the number of appointments to the main opposition party. This has applied whether we have had a Conservative or Labour Administration, or a coalition. It is also the case that since 1979, whichever of the main party groups has been in opposition has seen its numbers fall. This is not a recent problem: the number of Labour life Peers also fell between 1979 and 1997; the number of Conservative life Peers fell between 1997 and 2010; and, of course, the number of Labour Peers has fallen since 2010.
This is what produced what we discussed in the Lord Speaker’s Committee on the Size of the House as the process of leapfrogging. With each change of governing party, the new Government find themselves with fewer Members than the new main Opposition. The only way of restoring balance in the number of seats is to have a significant number of new appointments and therefore an increase in the size of the House. After the elections in both 1997 and 2010, the size of the House quickly increased by over 100 life Members. This has become the process by which the House has steadily risen in size, the largest steps taking place when there has been a change of government. Of course, this leapfrogging can take place only because Prime Ministers can make any number of appointments that they wish to the House, as well as to whichever party they choose, and because there is no cap on the size of the House of Lords, unlike probably all other legislative chambers. These fundamental problems were the background to the proposals that the Lord Speaker’s committee, of which I have been very pleased to be the chair, looked at.
Looking at our proposals, I think that they are still as relevant today as when we made them several years ago. The first proposal, and for me the most important, is that there should be a cap on the size of the House. We suggested that the cap should be 600. Without a cap, there are no constraints on appointments and a cap on size will incentivise much more careful scrutiny of the nominations and who is chosen to be sent here.
Our second proposal was that the balance of appointments between parties during a Parliament should reflect the results of the most recent general election. We opted for the average of the percentage of the national vote and the percentage of seats in the Commons. This would constrain the current practice of over-appointment by the governing party and the relative neglect of appointments to the opposition parties. It would be another very important step in removing this need for leapfrogging, which brings with it the increasing size of the House.
Our third proposal was that appointments should be for a limited term. This would create room for refreshment of the membership without increasing the size of the House. With a House of 600 Members, a 20-year term would generate an average of 30 vacancies a year, enough to cover the historic number of appointments that we see; a 15-year term would generate even more.
This takes me to the proposal in the Labour Party manifesto of an age limit of 80. I declare an interest in this limit, as I have already passed it. Nevertheless, in my view an age limit has a useful part to play in getting numbers down. However, on its own it is unlikely to be sufficient to prevent the same problems emerging in the future. It does not resolve the problem of leapfrogging. The age limit needs to be buttressed by the sorts of changes that I have mentioned. If they were introduced, the need for an age limit would actually disappear.
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to speak after the noble Lord, Lord Burns. I declare my interest as a member of the Committee on Standards in Public Life. I offer my congratulations to the Benches opposite and to the Prime Minister on a great election victory. I too congratulate the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hermer—it is always good to welcome a fellow Welshman—and my noble friend Lord Booth on their excellent maiden speeches.
It is in our common interest as a nation that the newly elected Government are successful in their ambitions to reform the delivery of public services. Thirteen years ago, my noble friend Lord Maude of Horsham established the Government Digital Service to try to do precisely that. Although private enterprise had bequeathed us the touchscreen mobile phone and nascent 4G data technology, most interactions between the citizen and the state still took place through paper forms and face-to-face appointments. The gulf between private sector technological achievements and the success of the Government in harnessing those achievements was vast. Those analogue practices are, fortunately, largely confined to history; the Government today can offer almost all of their services digitally. The furlough and energy support schemes are both testament to government’s capability to deliver.
Today’s Government face the far greater challenge of how to harness artificial intelligence for the benefit of us all. Although I look forward to scrutinising the Government’s proposals for AI when they emerge, I wish to make two brief points based on my own experience. The first is that all technological revolutions are inherently labour displacing. Government must resist the temptation to protect incumbents at the expense of the insurgents. The second is that, if the Government wish to ride the wave of a technological revolution, they must be prepared, as with the GDS, to disrupt the established structures within the Civil Service, identify the skill sets in the private sector, persuade those people to come into the heart of the state and then properly empower them to deliver.
I will use my remaining time to make three short observations on other parts of the gracious Speech. First, although this is not in the Speech, the Labour Party’s manifesto includes a commitment to an independent ethics commission, a function largely undertaken and supported at present by the propriety and ethics directorate within the Cabinet Office. That directorate has been persistently and publicly drawn into areas of significant political controversy. Indeed, the director-general was only last week in the newspapers again. I look forward to the Government setting out further details of their plans, but I encourage the new Prime Minister neither to abrogate his autonomy to determine when and whether a Minister has breached the Ministerial Code, nor to blur the lines of accountability to Parliament.
Secondly, the gracious Speech stated that the Government have several ambitions for updating the UK’s devolution settlement, including a new council of the nations and regions. Although I welcome better co-operation between our nations’ Governments and Executives, I urge the new Government to resist any temptation to place these innovations on a statutory basis. Political decisions are best taken by politicians, not judges, and placing these initiatives on a statutory footing may serve only to invite further judicial erosion of the operative efficiency of government.
Finally, I note the Government’s commitment to introduce a statutory duty of candour for public servants. I applaud the motivation behind this but question whether it is necessary or likely to succeed. For civil servants, the Civil Service Code, which features honesty and integrity as core pillars, is already on a statutory footing. Despite this, the Post Office inquiry and the recent report of the Infected Blood Inquiry have exposed the reprehensible conduct of some officials. In the latter case, the report concluded that civil servants had deliberately destroyed evidence relevant to legal proceedings. It is worrying that even the Cabinet Secretary revealed to the Covid inquiry that he had lost evidence that he was supposed to have produced. The law can take us only so far. Those responsible for such failings need to be held properly to account.
On all these proposed reforms, which are not in the main party-political, the best chance of successful implementation comes with cross-party consultation and agreement. I hope the Minister will be able to give assurances that this will happen.
Lord Whitty (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hermer, on his speech today and his presence on our Front Bench—indeed, I congratulate all the new Ministers. It is great to be in this situation again. I also congratulate and welcome the noble Lord, Lord Booth. His maiden speech was not uncontroversial, but I hope the House authorities take his point on discrimination and the procedures of this House in the not too distant future.
I do not normally intrude on constitutional issues, and I do not intend to change that today. You can speak on anything you like in the King’s Speech debates, so I will try to take a number of different issues and focus on their constitutional implications. I usually speak on energy, environment, housing or employment, so I will pick a couple of issues in those areas and draw the constitutional implications from them.
I start with climate change. The noble Lord, Lord Deben, was just in his place and I wished to compliment him on his role here. I too have been involved with the crucial issue of our time. I was a Minister in John Prescott’s department when we signed the Kyoto agreement; I was a member of the Joint Committee with the Commons that led to the Climate Change Act 2008. Theoretically, we have had cross-party support for all these initiatives for nearly 30 years. It is important that we have that degree of commitment to a long-term programme—both of the institutions support it, and particularly the Climate Change Committee. I am glad to see the noble Lord, Lord Deben, back in his place—I was just congratulating him. Where we have such cross-party support on long-term strategies, we ought to consider, as a constitutional issue, protecting them rather better than we do.
In recent months and years—in the last couple of years of the Tory Administration—the then Government and the national press effectively took us away from the strategy on which we were all agreed. That ought not to happen lightly. There ought to be a way to ensure that a slight change in the political mood following a particular by-election—which in this case was misinterpreted by both major parties—does not drive us away from a commitment we have made for years. In this case, the commitment is vital to the future of not only this country but the world. The effect of this has been to undermine not only our carbon change and net-zero progress but the United Kingdom’s role in leading the way around the world. That has a colossal implication, and it should not have been jeopardised by short-term political moves or relatively minor regulatory timetable changes to achieve changes to building standards and to electrify transport. The new Government can rectify this, and I believe they should.
The body politic as a whole needs to ensure that such strategies are protected. I am not saying they should never be altered—I am not a Mede or Persian—but I believe that we should have a stronger way of protecting such long-term strategies. It may be that defence strategy, for example, is in a similar category, and there will be others. I am not suggesting that we should never change them, but we should make it much more difficult to do so, and we should ensure that the good will and cross- party support for such measures is there.
The second issue relates to local government. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, recently spelled it out. The reality is that this Government’s measures on key issues such as social care, employment, and housing and planning will not be delivered without the co-operation of local government. Yet we know that, particularly in England, local government is in a terrible state. It is arguable—and it was argued earlier—that the structure of local government needs further addressing, and I believe that to be true. Certainly the finances of local government need addressing, which means that other resources must be available to local government, both directly in their own patches and through the system of rate support grants and the redistribution of that revenue from central government. If we do not do that, a lot of our programme will not be delivered.
I hope my colleagues on the Front Bench are listening and that, on both those issues, we will have some serious new thinking.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I add my congratulations to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hermer, and thank him for his mention of Northern Ireland and his commitment to his role there.
The gracious Speech speaks of continuing support for the political institutions and devolved government in Northern Ireland. The only Bill relating directly to Northern Ireland will begin the process of repealing and replacing the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023. It is ironic that it was precisely the failure of devolution that led to legacy being dealt with here in Westminster, rather than in Stormont. I very much welcome that the new Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has helpfully made it plain that this will not lead to the abolition of the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery, led by Sir Declan Morgan. It is right that this must be allowed time to show that it can gain the confidence of victims and families.
The replacement of the legacy Act will take many months; bringing the Act in took more than two years in the last Session. While it was always stated, and has been stated today, that all parties in Northern Ireland opposed the Act, it is important to point out they all had different reasons for doing so, and they still have no agreed alternative. I am concerned that the long period needed to work on new legislation will give time for resentment to build up and, consequently, lead to increasing use of lawfare. Your Lordships should be aware, too, of the potential colossal costs if demands are acceded to: £50 million to reintroduce the Troubles inquests; a Finucane public inquiry, if decided upon, costing up to £150 million; and payments for collusion—the new buzzword of former terrorists. That means limitless amounts of money, but certainly in the hundreds of millions of pounds. Then there are reparations in the form of bereavement payments, as advocated by the Commission for Victims and Survivors.
This would total several billion pounds and give little or no value in terms of satisfying victims or providing information, and zero prosecutions of IRA killers or other terrorists. However, once again, the brave soldiers and police officers who did their best to protect the public in hugely difficult circumstances along border areas, being blown up and shot at, only to find the terrorist escaping over the border into the safety of the Republic of Ireland, will be the only people persecuted and prosecuted. The state kept records; the IRA did not. The state gave on-the-run letters of comfort and royal pardons to terrorists, giving them amnesty. Veterans have been abandoned, and the real winners are some lawyers, who are literally making millions, and republicans, who want the history of the Troubles rewritten.
In Northern Ireland, devolution has taken a strange turn. The central basis of devolution, the Belfast agreement, has been unilaterally upended by the disapplication of cross-community consent, which was removed to impose the protocol and remains removed. Therefore, many who value the union will see that, when it comes to devolution, on the most fundamental issues Parliament has not devolved powers to the lawmakers at Stormont but has devolved lawmaking powers to the unelected and unaccountable European Union, which now rules over large parts of Northern Ireland’s legal system. That historic and unacceptable betrayal—I have to use that word—by the previous Government has not been accepted in Northern Ireland and will never be accepted. Political and societal instability will continue, because the damage to the union from the protocol has not been undone. It continues to infect Northern Ireland. One example of how things will get worse is the general product safety regulation, an EU regulation to be introduced in December, which will undoubtedly mean that more and more GB businesses will just refuse to trade in Northern Ireland.
The protocol will continue to be opposed, as the election of the Traditional Unionist Voice leader Jim Allister to the other House and increased votes for strong anti-protocol voices like Carla Lockhart MP demonstrate. Unionism is tired of being taunted about a border poll; there is an intensifying cultural war by republicans, weaponising such things as the use of the Irish language in areas where there is no demand for it. There is nothing in the Belfast agreement that says that the UK Government have to be neutral on the union. The Irish Government are certainly not neutral. There is concern at BBC Northern Ireland’s seeming lack of impartiality—there are too many examples to go into that today.
The people of Northern Ireland want to see workable and constitutionally compatible devolution, but it must be on two grounds: first, restoring the balance at the heart of the Belfast agreement, which means removing the protocol framework; and secondly, and most fundamentally, ensuring that devolution of power runs from London to Belfast, rather than from London to Brussels, with Northern Ireland left powerless. Sadly, the gracious Speech made no promise of genuinely restoring Northern Ireland’s place as an integral part of the UK.