(5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Janvrin (CB)
My Lords, I want to focus my remarks on the constitution. I start by noting that, in the Labour manifesto, constitutional reform found its place in the chapter entitled “Restoring public service in Westminster”. I commend that wider ambition, which is about trust in our system. We are all agreed that renewing trust has never been more important.
Where have we got to in the King’s Speech? I personally accept that the removal of the hereditary Peers is probably a sensible and incremental step for any Government intent on modernising the House of Lords. Many hereditary Peers are close colleagues and their individual contributions are consistently impressive, but I think they know, as we probably all do, that, collectively, they have been on borrowed time for 25 years. This measure will slightly reduce the size of the House and ensure a slightly better gender balance, but there is much more to be done on both those counts.
I add one small, additional point. I have very occasionally heard it argued that removing the remaining hereditary element of our legislature risks undermining the hereditary institution of monarchy. This argument does not stand up to a moment’s scrutiny—the roles are obviously entirely different.
In the manifesto, but not in the King’s Speech, is reform of the House of Lords appointments process. It may be that strengthening the vetting powers of the House of Lords Appointments Commission—HOLAC —could be achieved without legislation, as could an acceptance that HOLAC recommendations are binding. I hope, however, that in due course legislation can be introduced to put the essential work of HOLAC on a statutory basis. The arguments for doing so are well known.
Why is it important? The present system of appointments to the House of Lords is widely seen by the general public as being about unattractive, and occasionally unacceptable, political patronage. That power of patronage is seen as a tool of party management and party fundraising. I suggest that a Government with a large majority could afford to take risks in limiting this power. It is also another way to restore trust in our political system. There is more to be done.
The area which is neither in the manifesto nor the King’s Speech is the importance of proper scrutiny of secondary legislation. This is hardly a surprise. There are few votes to be had in trying to explain that Parliament lacks the teeth to scrutinise much of the legislation that governs our lives, even if the pitch is spiced with references to Henry VIII or skeleton Bills. However, key democratic principles are at stake. Effective scrutiny makes better law. Parliament’s fundamental constitutional role to hold the Executive to account is weakened by present arrangements.
I congratulate the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General on his excellent maiden speech in which, to my surprise and admiration, he mentioned secondary legislation. I urge him to study the two recent Lords reports on this issue, which highlight what is a democratic deficit in our system of legislation. As with House of Lords appointments, there is scope here for putting wider public interest above party self- interest or executive expediency. There is much more to be done.
I finish where I started. Restoring trust in the way we are governed has never been more important. Constitutional reform has a vital role to play in this, but there is more, much more, to be done.
Lord Caine (Con)
My Lords, I join in welcoming the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General to his post and congratulating him on a superb maiden speech. I also welcome the noble Lord, Lord Khan of Burnley, to his post. It was one of the great honours of my life to serve for a little over two and a half years as a Northern Ireland Minister in this House. After some 36 years of involvement, I will continue to be an active participant on all Northern Ireland matters both inside and outside the House.
In the short time available, I will make three points. First, the election result in Northern Ireland does not in any way indicate that constitutional change is imminent or inevitable, let alone desirable. Yes, Sinn Féin now has the largest number of seats in the other place and, for the second election in a row, there are more nationalist MPs from Northern Ireland than there are unionists. But that tells only part of the story. In fact, nationalists returned exactly the same number of MPs at this election as five years ago. The two main nationalist parties, Sinn Féin and the SDLP, won 38.1% of the vote. For context, it is worth recalling that in the 1998 Assembly election those two parties had 39.6% of first preference votes. The question that those who advocate the end of the union ought to be asking themselves, therefore, is why, after an agreement that they claimed would deliver a united Ireland by 2016, and despite demographic changes, nationalism is in roughly the same place as it was a quarter of a century ago.
The big shift from 1998 has been the decline of the unionist vote, probably exacerbated at this election by events that could not have been foreseen, and the rise of Alliance as an electoral force. However, as I have said before, I do not believe that too many people are motivated to vote Alliance out of a burning desire for constitutional change, and in the constituency won by Alliance at the election, Lagan Valley, more votes were cast for unionist candidates than in any other seat in Northern Ireland. Those predicting or hastening the end of the union are being decidedly premature, so I welcome the reaffirmation by the new Secretary of State—incidentally, my local MP—Hilary Benn that a border poll is not on the horizon. The circumstances that would require it to be called are nowhere near satisfied.
My second point is that this creates both challenges and opportunities for those who want to see Northern Ireland’s place within the United Kingdom strengthened. I count myself among their number. The most obvious point is that unionism has to find a way of co-operating rather than constantly tearing itself apart. It needs, as one unionist put it recently, to start finding new friends rather than constantly seeking out Lundys and traitors and fighting yesterday’s battles.
What form this takes is primarily for unionists in Northern Ireland to determine, although my noble friend Lord Godson set out a number of suggestions in a typically erudite speech in Limavady earlier this year. Unionism cannot afford to appeal to an ever-decreasing base. There is a broader constituency out there that needs engaging about the long-term economic and social benefits of the union, which remain considerable.
My final point is for the Government. I welcome the pledge in the gracious Speech to
“support the political institutions and devolved government in Northern Ireland”.
The restoration of Stormont in February was the culmination of intensive efforts by my colleagues in the previous Administration. It was achieved as a result of the changes we set out in the Windsor Framework and the Command Paper Safeguarding the Union to address the serious defects in the original protocol.
The Government’s manifesto states that they are
“committed to implementing the Windsor Framework in good faith”.
However, it does not mention the Command Paper, which was also vital in getting Stormont back. The Command Paper contained a number of positive and practical measures to strengthen the union—the East-West Council and Intertrade UK, to name but two. I hope that the Government will faithfully implement all those commitments in the Command Paper that are designed to strengthen the union.
As my noble friend Lord McInnes of Kilwinning reminded the House, in 2021 the then Leader of the Opposition stated:
“I believe in the United Kingdom and I will make the case for a United Kingdom”.
However, on his visit to Belfast, days after becoming Prime Minister, he said that he would be an “honest broker” on the issue, intimating incorrectly that this was somehow a requirement of the 1998 agreement. I hope that this does not herald a retreat back to neutrality on the union and Northern Ireland’s position within it. No UK Government should ever be neutral on the union. The Prime Minister should stay true to his commitment to make the case for the United Kingdom and for Northern Ireland’s enduring place within it.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Caine, whose commitment to Northern Ireland is unquestioned. Although he had a very bad hand to play in the last Government, he played it with great integrity. It is also a pleasure to welcome the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hermer, to the Dispatch Box. As a Welsh lawyer, he follows in the footsteps of my friend Gareth Williams, Lord Williams of Mostyn, a distinguished Attorney-General in this House. With him, both in the courts and in this Chamber, I was able, as Shakespeare wrote of lawyers, to
“Strive mightily, but eat and drink as friends”.
I hope it will be the same with the noble and learned Lord.
In all the controversies over the abolition of the hereditary peerage in the Labour Government of 1997, Gareth and I walked together through the Lobby in support of a fully elected second Chamber. This is not surprising. My general election address in 1964 in West Flintshire, which covered his home town of Mostyn, called for the abolition of the hereditary peerage entirely, and also for a Welsh Senedd; 60 years later, we are nearly there.
My criticism of this Government’s programme is in the great Liberal tradition—it does not go far enough. I dislike those dark shadows who, to quote Shakespeare again, strut and fret upon this stage for five minutes and then are heard and seen no more—save to appear briefly at the Bar to collect their tick. What is needed in this House is a body of no more than 400 working Members who will properly scrutinise the Government’s programme on the floor of this Chamber and fill the committees that play such an important part in the work of this House. I would prefer them to be elected representatives covering the whole country, with a nine-year renewable term and with elections every three years of one-third of the body. Short of that, if Members are to be appointed rather than elected, I would abolish prime ministerial patronage. I suggest that a quarter should be appointed for a fixed term of no more than 15 years by an appointments commission as non-affiliated Cross-Benchers.
As for the rest, after each general election political parties that gain representation in the House of Commons should appoint, in accordance with whatever democratic system they choose, a number of Members to the second Chamber proportionate to the votes cast in the election. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, would agree with me on that. No one should be reappointed for more than 15 years’ service. We should take the opportunity to get rid of the flummery. We do not need to be “Lords”. “MS” should be enough: Member of the Senate or of the second Chamber.
By all means, let us have a new order of chivalry for those who are public-spirited enough to fund our political system. I am all for that; let us call it the most noble order of the wallet—after all, a garter is meant only to hold up your socks. But let us ensure that it is not possible simply to buy one’s way into the legislature.
One final thing: I have been fortunate enough to draw a place in the ballot that will permit me to introduce a Private Member’s Bill that I hope will make it possible for secondary legislation to be conditionally amended, as the Hansard Society has called for. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, and the noble Lords, Lord Janvrin and Lord Anderson, referred to this. In opposition, Labour, unlike the Liberal Democrats, refused to contemplate fatal Motions. It is the nuclear option, but regret Motions are a waste of our time and space, since the Executive can and do ignore them.
The Labour Party’s attitude was consistent with its failure to join with the Liberal Democrats to vote down the Rwanda Bill at Second Reading—only months ago—which would have saved weeks of unnecessary argument. However, the first thing it did when it went into government was to abolish that policy entirely. I hope that my proposed Bill will provide a sensible and rational check on Ministers seeking to exercise their powers, in particular their Henry VIII powers. Will it take 60 years?
Lord Bew (CB)
My Lords, as other noble Lords have, I thank the Attorney-General for his impressive, striking and wide-ranging maiden speech.
A passage in the King’s Speech caught my attention. It goes as follows:
“My Government will strengthen its work with the devolved governments in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland so that the best outcomes … 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”.
Understandably, given the last few years, our ears are ringing with the phrase “reset”. There is an element of reset: this is a new institution. As has rightly been stated by the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, and the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, there is a question about how this relates to other institutions in this area. But there was an immediate echo in my mind when I read this passage; it not just a reset, but a fundamental return to basics for the Labour leadership.
I refer to Tony Blair’s speech, as the newly elected Prime Minister, given in Balmoral, Belfast, on 16 May 1997—a speech that, in my view, was the sine qua non for the subsequent negotiation of the Good Friday agreement, which was again supported in the King’s Speech, while outlining a concept of devolution throughout the United Kingdom. Tony Blair said:
“I want to see a Union which reflects and accommodates diversity. I am against a rigid, centralised approach … The proposals this government are making, for Scotland and Wales, and for the English regions, are designed to bring Government closer to the people. That will renew and strengthen the Union”.
This was a crucial moment in 1997. It outlines a vision that was put into effect over the next generation.
To take up a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Caine, Tony Blair was not neutral on the union. He said, quite clearly:
“The Union binds the four parts of the United Kingdom together … I value the Union”.
Sir Keir Starmer said the same in his interviews with Enda McClafferty of BBC Northern Ireland, which have been mentioned.
There is an understandable view that the commitment to equality of esteem somehow erodes this commitment, but it clearly does not. Tony Blair stated that commitment; he knew it was the price of getting the agreement done and he negotiated equality of esteem. Equality of esteem means fair play for the two communities within Northern Ireland, and it has to be exercised by the sovereign Government.
My final point is that this is actually devolution 2.0. Devolution has been through various traumas in Northern Ireland. It had the massive struggle, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Caine, by which the last Government, through the Windsor Framework and Safeguarding the Union, eventually restored devolution in Northern Ireland. That was indisputably the great achievement of the Government who have just left office.
I was very pleased yesterday by the way in which the new Front Bench, in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, spoke about the functions, role and support it has for the Windsor Framework. That was an important moment and we can expect continuity in that policy area.
But this is devolution 2.0. The fact is that, for long spells, not just in Northern Ireland but in Scotland, it has not worked in the way that anybody happily thought it would in 1997. The Government now have a second chance to restore it to the validity of the original vision that Tony Blair brought to it, in the first instance. All I can say is that that will be difficult and require much effort.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to congratulate my noble and learned friend Lord Hermer on his maiden speech, and to welcome him and my noble friend Lord Khan and his colleagues to the Front Bench. It is wonderful to see them there; long may it continue.
I will speak briefly about devolution, which has not been so much discussed in this debate. For me, devolution is vital and it must have the criteria of delivering something that is level, equal across the UK and balanced. For me, probably the worst example of that is where I live, the Isles of Scilly, so I will concentrate my remarks there.
It is a very independent community, 28 miles off the English coast and remote from the rest of the UK. It is a very strong and loyal community, which will tell you that it does not want to be linked with Cornwall. Some noble Lords may have read that the six former Conservative MPs who lost their seats in Cornwall at the last election—in favour of four Labour and two Lib Dem—think that the answer is to have a Minister for Cornwall. If we had a Minister for every county, ministerial boxes might get a bit full, so I do not think that that will work.
Scilly does not want to be part of Cornwall. I have had many discussions with the council on the Isles of Scilly and it has problems. It wants to preserve the community spirit and be a sustainable place to live, but there needs to be a financial settlement, which would probably be different from that of most local authorities.
The single biggest challenge on the islands is transport. Noble Lords may have read about the Harland & Wolff issues, which I am not going to talk about, but the reality is that these transport links are fragile, unreliable and expensive. You can travel on a bus for many miles in Cornwall for £2 a journey, when residents travelling between the islands of Scilly sometimes have to pay as much as £110 for a single fare in the winter, for just a couple of miles. It is the same if you want to go to the mainland, to hospital or for anything else. It is 28 miles, which would probably cost £10 or so on a train. Last week, I paid £110 for a three-hour journey on a ferry. It is a lot more to go by air and it is an unreliable service. Basic services are awful there.
The cost of living on Scilly is seriously high. Housing is a problem. Noble Lords may know that, in the last stages of the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill, before the end of the last Government, the Duchy of Cornwall promised new tender or leasing documents for people leasing their buildings on the Isles of Scilly. No leases extend for more than 40 years at the moment so, if you spend several hundred thousand pounds doing up your house, you will still have only a 40-year lease. I am looking for Ministers to tell us when the Duchy is going to publish its guidelines.
Similarly, it is difficult to get local authority building now because the costs of freight are so high, so something needs to be done and it is not easy. The Council of the Isles of Scilly is good at trying to sort out what should happen there. There must be a devolution deal that will take Scilly outside the normal local authority funding rules. I do not know when that will happen, but the transport needs to become a public transport system rather than one with the costs I have just quoted. Otherwise, the residents will give up and the community will get lost.
The community does not want to be linked with Cornwall and I hope that my noble friends, when they come to look at the devolution of the south-west, Cornwall and Scilly, will come to discuss and consult—as they have said they will—and have a special, bespoke arrangement ready for the Isles of Scilly to talk about.
The Duke of Montrose (Con)
My Lords, I add my appreciation for the contributions of the two maiden speakers.
Because of Brexit and the changes envisaged in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act, the Government will have the power to award huge sums of money across the country, and the relationship between devolved Administrations and Westminster has entered a new phase. In January the previous Government listed their 12 missions as required under the Act, which will be the channels through which the money will be distributed. The challenge for the present Government is whether they can build a better relationship with the devolved Governments than that which exists at the moment.
My family and my health are now telling me that it is time to take a break. At the end of this Session I will take a leave of absence. My interest has been particularly on the constitution and devolution. It has been a privilege to have served this House for 28 years so far. It has meant that my family has been involved in both the constitution and devolution in this country since accompanying King William the Lion of Scotland on his return from exile 900 years ago.
In this building, when I walk between Central Lobby and the Members’ Lobby there is a painting of the scene of the execution of the First Marquess of Montrose, my direct ancestor, for commanding an army that sought to restore the monarchy represented by Charles II. Montrose was sentenced to be hung, drawn and quartered. The night before he wrote a short poem, which begins:
“Let them bestow on every airt a limb,
Then open all my veins that I may swim
To thee, my Maker, in that crimson lake”,
and finishes defiantly, with the lines:
“I’m hopeful thou’lt recover once my dust,
And confident thou’lt raise me with the just”.
In my view he was justified.
The theme that runs through all the subsequent generations was the ancient feudal responsibility that the Minister referred to in his introduction. In the early days it meant, “Do your duty to God and the King”. My family’s motto must date from that time, and it contains the instruction, “Do not forget”. In case I am not granted the opportunity to join noble Lords again, I will say that my hope is that your Lordships always remember what is expressed in the Norman French motto, “Ne Oublie”.
Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (PC)
My Lords, I thank the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, for his service to this House. I warmly welcome the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hermer, to this Chamber, and I am pleased that the Welsh contingent here is growing. Croeso a llongyfarchiadau—welcome and congratulations.
I welcome the commitment to votes at 16 in the Government’s manifesto. I have long campaigned for votes at 16 and was involved in the establishment of the Welsh Youth Parliament during my time as NUS Wales deputy president. Votes at 16 and 17 would strengthen and renew democracy by enfranchising young people at a habit-forming age. This move would also see an end to the imbalance in which Scottish and Welsh 16 and 17 year-olds can participate in democracy but their English contemporaries cannot. Research suggests that when given the opportunity, 16 and 17 year-olds turn out more than those in the next age group. This pattern was seen during the Scottish independence referendum.
It was promising to hear a commitment to encouraging greater participation in the democratic process in the King’s Speech. This comes after a general election with the lowest turnout since 2001 and record low levels of trust in politics. This was also the first general election in which voters needed to prove their identity with strict voter ID rules. So I look forward to hearing more about the Government’s proposals for righting the democratic course we are on.
I turn now to the initial proposals on automatic voter registration, which I hope to see as part of the Government’s plans to encourage wider participation in the democratic process. The Electoral Commission has previously estimated that up to 8 million eligible voters are missing from the electoral rolls—either because they are not registered or because they are incorrectly registered. During the general election, 2.9 million registration applications were made via the online registration portal from the date the election was called until the deadline on 18 June. These figures suggest that while there has been a surge in applications, many people will have missed out on being able to vote because they were not registered in time.
I am pleased that following the passing of the Elections and Elected Bodies (Wales) Bill in the Senedd earlier this month, automatic voter registration will be piloted and introduced in Wales. I hope to see the UK follow soon.
I now turn to the proposals to reform this House. I begin with a reminder of my own view and that of Plaid Cymru—we do not believe that an unelected upper Chamber has a place in a modern democratic society. I therefore welcome the initial steps towards reform of this House with the removal of hereditary Peers. However, I am disappointed that this is happening in isolation, with other reforms being pushed to a further consultation.
As we look to receive this consultation from the Government on age caps—shortly, I hope—I encourage them to use the opportunity to think more broadly. In their first term at least, I urge them to consider term limits rather than simply an age limit. This would remove the “job for life” element, control the size of the House and bring in new ideas on a regular basis. Work has been diligently carried out in this area already, with the Lord Speaker’s Committee on the Size of the House also suggesting that term limits could work. This should be alongside wholesale reform. Term limits by themselves will not fix gender disparity; neither would they make the House more representative of the nations and regions, nor of socioeconomic background.
Gordon Brown made some interesting suggestions, such as replacing this Chamber with an assembly of the nations and regions. Do this Labour Government intend to progress with such recommendations? If so, when? We can begin a new chapter for our constitution and democracy, so let us not delay. I look forward to hearing more about the Government’s plans in the response from the noble Lord, Lord Khan. It has been 25 years since the first stage of Lords reform; I hope it will not take another 25 for the second to be completed. Diolch yn fawr iawn.
Lord Hacking (Lab)
My Lords, I much welcome our new Attorney-General, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hermer. He walks in the steps not only of Lord Williams of Mostyn, whom we all remember with great affection, but of my noble and learned friend Lord Goldsmith, who was Attorney-General from 2001 to 2007 and of my noble and learned friend Lady Scotland, who was Attorney-General from 2007 to 2010. It is most welcome to have the Attorney-General back in our House.
From these Benches, I pledge support for our new Government. I do not agree with all the proposals in the manifesto but I am confident that my Government will listen with willing ears to my concerns and, better still, may abide by them.
This brings me to my confession. For that purpose, I have to take your Lordships to last Wednesday afternoon for the first round of speeches following the gracious Speech. Your Lordships who were present would have heard the most excellent speeches from my noble friends Lord Reid and Lady Hazarika. Your Lordships would also have heard in the middle of the speech of our new Lord Privy Seal a loud, “Hear, hear!” This was also clearly recorded at col. 23 of Hansard, which reads: “A noble Lord: Hear, hear!” That was me.
Lord Hacking (Lab)
Thank you for a further, “Hear, hear!”
I made this noisy intervention because our new Lord Privy Seal had said:
“Ministers in our Government will not accept all changes but, when the House expresses a constructive view, the Government should treat that with respect”.—[Official Report, 17/7/24; col. 23.]
This will not always be easy. Under the last Government, the power of government—the power of the Executive against the legislature—became most powerful. Your Lordships will perhaps remember Report on the Illegal Migration Bill, when we passed no fewer than nine constructive amendments and they were all chucked out without even consideration by the Government of the day.
It is not only in this House that we suffered. I read from a report by my friend Jess Phillips in the New Statesman:
“Round and round and round we walked, voting on the House of Lords’ amendments to the Illegal Migration Bill. The first session took three and a half hours, the second two hours. It really is something to spend so much time losing votes … It feels to me like the very definition of madness that this is how our democracy works: hours wasted on a foregone conclusion that in the end will amount to no change … during these past few weeks … parliament”,
has felt to be a “farce”. On any view, that is most concerning.
It is interesting that the Leader of the Opposition, when he spoke in that debate—he spoke, as always, very well indeed—referred to the 409 government defeats in the last Parliament. I think his point was that there were too many Divisions, but it can also be said that on each of these 409 occasions the Government of the day were not listening to your Lordships’ House.
I finish by mentioning my own departure. I have always been under threat of expulsion from the moment I arrived in this House over 50 years ago. The first Wilson Government had proposed serious reforms of the House of Lords, which were defeated by an unholy alliance between Enoch Powell on the right and Michael Foot on the left. I have been under your sufferance for all these years, but it has been a great honour and an enriching experience to be here. Thank you. I am ready to be expelled for the second time.
Lord Roberts of Belgravia (Con)
My Lords, it would be churlish not to congratulate the Labour Party on its stunning victory on 4 July and unpatriotic not to wish the Government luck and a fair wind. Since the abolition of the hereditary element in this House was in their manifesto, and of course they have the political power to enact it, all I want to do today is speak as an historian about the effect of breaking this living link that we presently have with Britain’s past.
Burke tells us:
“Society is indeed a contract … it becomes a partnership not only between those who are living, but between those who are living, those who are dead, and those who are to be born”.
The hereditary element in this place represents— I hope hereditary Peers in this debate will not mind this characterisation—the “dead” part of that contract, for they do not merely represent themselves here; they also represent their ancestors, whose often glorious deeds have made Britain the country that she is today.
When we see the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, for example, as well as the good-natured and highly intelligent fellow who sits on the Labour Front Bench, we see the shade of his great-great-great-grandfather, Major General Sir Frederick Ponsonby, whose charge of the 12th Light Dragoons helped save the Union Brigade at a critical moment of the Battle of Waterloo—which, of course, was won by the ancestor of another of our present-day Members of this House, the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington. The noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, who is speaking in this debate, holds a title that, for all that it went into abeyance for 400 years, was created in 1375, 650 years ago next year—nearly two- thirds of a millennium.
We are surrounded by ghosts in this Chamber, but they are the ghosts of the great. One of the speakers in this debate from the Liberal Benches will be the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso. At a crucial moment for the continued existence of this country, in May 1940, his grandfather, Sir Archibald Sinclair, put party differences to one side to make his old comrade from the trenches, Winston Churchill, Prime Minister. He was Secretary of State for Air during the Battle of Britain. Then, only three months after he left that vital post, his place was taken by Viscount Stansgate, a decorated RAF officer and, of course, the grandfather of our own noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate.
Some of the families represented in this House go back to the very founding of our country. The first Duke of Montrose—we heard that moving statement from the eighth Duke—played a central part in the Act of Union that created the United Kingdom.
The greatness and the drama of our national past finds a living embodiment here in this Chamber in a way that does not exist in other Parliaments around the world. Once that link is broken, it cannot be reconstituted. To quote Burke again,
“the age of chivalry is gone. That of sophisters, economists; and calculators has succeeded”.
I hope that, when the time comes to say farewell to the hereditary Peers, we will do so full of genuine gratitude for the centuries of service that they and their families have given this House and this country.
Lord Butler of Brockwell (CB)
My Lords, a lot of congratulations could be in order this evening, but I particularly congratulate the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hermer, on his outstanding maiden speech. How marvellous it was to hear the priority he gave to the rule of law and to bringing legislation before Parliament in a full and proper form. I thought to myself how much Lord Judge would have welcomed that statement.
I welcomed the recognition in the Labour Party’s manifesto of the House’s role in scrutinising the Government and in improving the quality of legislation. I also welcomed the statement that reform of the House is “long over-due”, and the recognition that this needs to address the size of the House. Having said that, I was disappointed that the only specific measure announced in the gracious Speech is for the removal of the hereditary Peers. As others have pointed out, the proposed Bill could result in the precipitate exclusion of many Members who currently make such a valuable contribution to the House. I fully recognise the Government’s right to pass the legislation, which was in both the Labour Party manifesto and the King’s Speech, and I hope the House will recognise that also. At the same time, I hope that some means might be found to retain the services of those who continue to make such a contribution to the work of the House.
Of course, the exclusion of the remaining hereditaries will go less than halfway towards solving the current imbalance between Conservative and Labour Members of the House. While the Leader has ruled out the creation of massive numbers of additional Labour Members and has said that she would wish to see
“roughly equal numbers between the Government and the major Opposition party”,
it seems inevitable that, contrary to the aspiration in the Labour Party manifesto, the House will get bigger before it gets smaller. That can be dealt with in due course by the proposal for a compulsory retirement age. As one of those affected, I have no objection to that. But on this proposal the Government appear to be stalling, and I think it is right to stall. Paradoxically, a retirement age of 80 would remove more Labour Members than those of any other party, and thus make even worse the imbalance between the main parties in the House. So I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, that more needs to be done, and I disagree with the view of the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, that the Government are wise simply to be confining themselves to the Bill to remove the hereditaries.
How, then, is the House to be reformed? I share the view of the committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Burns, which was also reflected in a recent letter to the Times from the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: that in the longer term the only effective means of permanently reducing the size of the House would be a statutory restriction on the Prime Minister’s power to appoint new Members. This could be combined with imposing a statutory limit of, say, 600, on the size of the House, to be accomplished progressively by the formula of two retirements to one appointment, as recommended by the Burns committee. As part of a comprehensive reform of the House, many of us would also like to see the implementation of what I know as the Norton Bill, to make the House of Lords Appointments Commission statutory and widen its terms of reference to include competence.
I am not entirely pessimistic about the future. I hope I am not reading too much into the speech of the Leader of the House last week, when she said that it will be
“helpful for us, as a House, to discuss how to move forward on these issues … to ensure we get things right”.—[Official Report, 17/7/24; col. 25.]
I hope that this might imply a degree of flexibility on the Government’s part. If it does, I believe that the great majority of the House will want to welcome and co-operate with the Government’s commitment to House of Lords reform.
Baroness Eaton (Con)
My Lords, I add my welcome to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hermer, and the noble Lord, Lord Booth, and welcome the noble Lord, Lord Khan to his position on the Front Bench. I also declare my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association.
Local government can and will, I am sure, do everything it can to support the new Government’s growth agenda, but by no means does this give Whitehall consent to sideline local councils in the process. To highlight the point I have just made, we saw the example earlier this month of the new Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero approving several solar farm applications in the shires and bypassing councils in the determination process—decisions that would normally be taken by democratically elected councillors who understand the needs of their communities best. On devolution, if the Government are truly serious about resetting the relationship between Whitehall and local government, may I suggest that making such bold decisions that impact local areas while bypassing local councils is perhaps not the best way to go about resetting the relationship? When it comes to infrastructure, it is councils that approve nine in 10 planning applications. The knowledge that councils have of their communities cannot be replaced.
I am pleased to see a commitment in the King’s Speech that an English devolution Bill will be introduced, and I hope I can outline to the House this evening some of the areas that I believe the Bill should cover. For a start, we need to end the endless bureaucratic competitive bidding processes for grants that local authorities need to go through to access funding, often spending thousands in taxpayers’ money and employee capacity in the process just to bring forward worthy bids.
The granting of further powers for local government as part of any devolution is, of course, welcome. However, further powers must come with fairer funding, with a commitment from the new Government to undertake a fair funding review for local government. We urgently need to review the formulae and data that the department uses to determine funding for councils. In addition, a commitment to multiyear financial settlements in areas such as adult social care, children’s services and highways will give local government a powerful hand to deliver alongside any new powers handed to it through the future devolution process.
To give local government more fiscal devolution over the course of the next Parliament, what quick and easy measures could the Government introduce as part of the English devolution Bill? First, if the Government are serious about growth they need to give local councils more flexibility to expand their capacity within planning departments to speed up the planning application process, allow them to set planning fees at rates that consider local demand and give them a firm hand to compete against the private sector on planning recruitment.
Secondly, if Whitehall wants local government to do more and deliver better, it must come forward with serious funding commitments to back that up. That is why I hope that the idea of 100% business rate retention can be explored again, in this Parliament, keeping business rates collected by councils inside local economies. A commitment to devolution should also mean a degree of trust between Whitehall and local government. It must be left to get on with the job without interference from civil servants in Whitehall. On that point, the Government should give an indication of what they envisage the role of the newly created Office for Local Government to be. As a Conservative, I think competition can be good for the sector. However, I do not believe it would be in the interests of local government to see a rehash of the Audit Commission.
To support a reset in the relationship between Whitehall and local government, a better understanding of how local government operates is key. To that end, I would welcome a commitment from the Government to increase the number of secondment opportunities from Whitehall departments into local government in areas of high demand with capacity issues; for example, in planning and infrastructure and related work that is undertaken by local government. I welcome commitments to devolution, but to achieve that a complete reset in the relationship between Whitehall and local government is needed, and I look forward to hearing in more detail the proposals that are likely to be contained in the upcoming English devolution Bill.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, I, too, welcome the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hermer, to his place and thank him for a very thoughtful and calm speech, which I am sure will set a good platform for how he wishes to go forward. I also welcome the noble Lord, Lord Khan of Burnley, to his place. I am sure his knowledge of local government will stand him in good stead. I am very sad that we will be hearing the valedictory speech of the noble Lord, Lord Warner, who I have admired over many years for his insight into health. I look forward to what he has to say.
The new Labour Government’s word is “change”, but what kind of change will we see? With the majority that they have in the House of Commons, will it be bold, radical change or some tinkering at the edges? On the two issues in the gracious Speech that I am going to speak about, I feel it is more tinkering than the bold change that is needed. My view on this House is based on a matter of principle, which is that it should be elected, not appointed. That is not to deflect from the great work that many, if not all, noble Lords do around this House, but as a matter of principle, I believe that this House should have legitimacy based on a democratic process. However, I realise that that is not going to happen under the new Labour Government, at least not in this Parliament, so what we are left with is not a wholesale reform but a piecemeal approach.
In that piecemeal approach, one group in your Lordships’ House seemed to be immune from questioning until the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, and the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, spoke earlier. It is the 26 Church of England Bishops who are guaranteed a place in Parliament. In fact, the Church of England is only institution in the whole country that is by law guaranteed seats in the UK Parliament. In a modern democracy, no religious organisation should be guaranteed seats in a parliament, particularly when less than 1% of the population regularly attends a Church of England service and consistently only 15% to 16% of the population say that bishops should have an automatic place. I believe that in 2024 it is time to end the automatic rights of a particular church to have seats in this Parliament, and I would welcome the Minister’s views on this issue and on why the Government are silent on that.
I am a total advocate of a federal approach to governing the UK. Such an approach is successful throughout Europe, with fiscal and policy devolution, and not just the policy decentralisation that we have in the UK. I register my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. Real devolution can be seen across Europe, whether in the Länder of Germany, the cantons of Switzerland or the regions of France. It allows local leaders to have their hands on the levers of both fiscal and policy devolution. I am interested in the direction of travel that the new Government have signalled on English devolution, but I worry that it will not have the maximum impact, as it seems to be just more of the same with a few extras added in. I feel that there may be a little bit of top-down pushing, and that the culture in Whitehall may not have changed. The Bill on English devolution will direct that each area must have a local growth plan. It will be interesting to see how prescriptive these plans are and whether they will be used to push the national Government’s agenda, rather than local priorities. Time and the detail of the Bill will tell.
What is missing from the Labour Party manifesto and the gracious Speech is fiscal devolution. That is the elephant in the room when it comes to English devolution—an opportunity missed, and one that needs to be addressed. I hope that the Government will pilot a tax assignment scheme in one area of England to examine the benefits that it could bring. They will not have to look far, as the Institute for Government has suggested a way of doing this. A small percentage of national insurance—it suggests 5% of local national insurance—could be retained to the local area, but the rates and bands still set by the Treasury. This would help stimulate growth through local initiative and help with investment pressures. Until we get some form of fiscal devolution in England, the grand words about unleashing the full potential and opportunities of the areas and regions of England will not be achieved. I hope the Minister will respond to this in a positive light.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to participate in this debate on the gracious Speech. Along with others, I congratulate the Minister on a fine inaugural outing; it was an excellent maiden speech, for which I thank him. I also welcome the noble Lord, Lord Khan of Burnley, to his new role; that too is good news.
I congratulate the Government on what has been an awesome election victory. The counter to that is that, for us, it has been humbling and devastating. In many areas, we will clearly need to rethink policy—not principles but certainly policy. I hope that, in doing so, we will continue to inhabit the centre ground, as we must, talking about what matters to people.
I have some thoughts on the areas that are the subject of debate today. On the second Chamber, I can quite understand why the Government do not, at this stage, want to engage in radical reform and tie up this House and the other place in endless discussion when there is so much else that needs attention. The two principles that should guide us in looking at any proposed legislation are these: first, the importance of the House of Lords as an effective second Chamber; and, secondly, that by common accord the membership of the House is too large. I listened with interest to the proposal from the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock. I thought it had much to recommend it, and I hope it is something that we could look at. I hope that we approach this issue with a sense of balance, and of the importance of getting the numbers down and moving on to do many of the other things that are necessary.
I am not totally persuaded of the need to revisit the voting age limit of 18, but I will listen to the discussion. I note that there is an asymmetry about things in Wales and Scotland, and that for local and parliamentary elections it is different. I am persuadable but not convinced.
Metro mayors is one area where my party does not need to reconsider its position. They have been a success. This was a policy brought forward by George Osborne. I have no doubt that it needs refreshing, and that we need to look at how it can perhaps be extended and deepened, but it is a policy that has led to success. While politicians are not generally popular, to say the least, metro mayors sometimes present an exception to that rule. We should look at the way they have been able to engage with their cities and regions, and use that as a driver for growth.
On Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, I welcome the strengthening of the Sewel convention. That is desirable. I also welcome—indeed, I have long argued for—a council of the nations. I see that it is proposed to extend this to the regions as well; that could be extremely valuable and useful.
One dog that has not barked in the King’s Speech is the Barnett formula. It is high time that it was reviewed. It was possible to defend it when it had been there for only 20 years—it was, after all, brought in in the 1970s —but it is high time that it was revisited in the interests of all constituent parts of the United Kingdom and all our peoples. I hope that can be done, because it needs doing.
On a personal note, the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Ely, a Member of your Lordships’ House, is about to become the First Minister of Wales, something upon which we should very much congratulate her. I have known Eluned for the best part of 30 years, and on personal grounds—though not political ones—I am delighted at her success. At a time when we are debating the peerage in the House of Lords, it is interesting that she will be the first Peer to be the head of any part of the United Kingdom since Lord Home of the Hirsel; that is somewhat ironic. I hope that my endorsement of her does not damage her too much, and on personal—but not political—grounds, I hope very much that she makes a success of things. I am sure that her approach will be a constructive one.
With those thoughts, there is much important work to be done. I hope that we are not just going to divert all our attention to House of Lords reform and that we can keep it narrowed to getting the numbers down, concentrating on the important things that we need to do, as both a Government and an Opposition, and continuing with our effectiveness, as we have done for so many years.
Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab)
My Lords, some of my first words in this debate are in my native tongue. “Croeso mawr”—a huge welcome—to so many things in the manifesto of a Labour Government relating to the devolution matters of our nations and regions. I welcome also my noble friend Lord Khan of Burnley, who is taking his place on our Front Bench today. I wish him every success in his important new role. He knows that he will have my full support as he deals with the problems that cover our local government colleagues, and indeed with revolutionising housebuilding across the UK.
Similarly, I say “croeso” to my noble and learned friend Lord Hermer, and thank him for his excellent and wise maiden speech. I remind him that, as he is a former pupil of Cardiff High School, some of my best friends were in his year group there, in the 1980s. I look forward to working with him as he applies the law, considering his political knowledge while maintaining his professional independence.
What have we learned from the Government’s manifesto commitments in the gracious Speech? Members of the devolved legislatures will be given the same free speech protections as those enjoyed by Members of the UK Parliament. There should be elected public forums where all manner of persons, irrespective of their power or wealth, can be criticised.
The Sewel convention is to be strengthened with a new memorandum of understanding. I cannot remember how many times I stood at the Dispatch Box opposite in the previous Parliament raising matters that ran roughshod over the convention’s very existence, with former Prime Ministers either ignoring or refusing to speak to the First Minister on matters of state. Both the Independent Commission on the Constitutional Future of Wales and the Brown commission called for legislation to protect the constitutional principle that consent from the devolved institutions was required for changes related to devolved areas and devolved powers.
It is therefore good to learn, as other noble Lords have mentioned, that we will have a new council of nations and regions. While it will bring a wide range of partners to the discussions, I have no doubt that there will be much closer and direct co-operation between a Labour Government in Cardiff Bay and in Westminster. Indeed, the Secretary of State has publicly said that this closer working has already begun. It will allow the opportunity to work in detail on a fiscal framework for Wales, and both Northern Ireland and Scotland.
Furthermore, the consideration of giving new powers to Wales over probation services and youth services is a welcome beginning to what I am sure will be a continuing conversation during this parliamentary term about any further developments in this area. The Welsh Government have issued a written statement welcoming the King’s Speech in Westminster and praising the UK Government’s legislative programme, together with early and thoughtful engagement carried out ahead of the King’s Speech.
It would be remiss of me to speak about the Welsh Government without mentioning the difficulties experienced there in the last few months. Just two weeks ago we had the honour of welcoming Their Majesties to the Senedd to celebrate the 25th anniversary of Welsh devolution. In all that time we have not seen such discord in the body politic as we have in recent months. We now have an opportunity to rebalance, with a new First Minister. I echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth: I am delighted to see that it looks like it will be my noble friend Lady Morgan, Eluned, a very good friend and the first woman Labour leader of any UK nation. The Government can then concentrate on what is important to the people of Wales—and the people of the UK—by growing the economy and delivering the best public services. Indeed, the reform of our planning system is essential to build the housing we need, together with changes to transport, infrastructure and energy infrastructure.
Like many colleagues in Wales, I am a proud member of the Co-operative Party and parliamentary group. I am delighted to see our campaign on increasing local ownership of the places and things that matter reflected to us in the King’s Speech. As co-operators, we know that giving people a meaningful stake in and say over our town centres, our high streets and our assets of community value gives us a stake in our future that we can all benefit from. These are the things that matter to the people of Wales and to the rest of the United Kingdom. I am proud that after 14 years of inertia, high taxes and a lowering of living standards, we finally have a great opportunity for the change that our communities are crying out for, which was ably demonstrated by their democratic choice in the general election result of 4 July—an independence day to remember.
Lord Warner (CB) (Valedictory Speech)
My Lords, let me first compliment our new Attorney-General on his excellent maiden speech. I very much welcome his commitment to the rule of law, internationally and nationally, but I am afraid it is hello and goodbye because after 26 years here—and being nearly 84— I have decided that enough is enough. That may be a blessing of relief for many people in this House.
I am not going because of the Labour Party’s commitment to downsizing the House of Lords. I am going because I support that, but it is too timid and not strong enough. What I would like to see is a statutory cap, as others have said, of 500 or 600 Peers with fixed terms of 10 to 15 years, alongside retirement at 80 and together with restrictions on prime ministerial appointments. If we have the courage to do that, we will seriously get to grips with a permanent control over the volume of people in this House.
I also want to emphasise my commitment to the idea of removing the Bishops. They are as much an anomaly as hereditary Peers, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, has done us a service in seeming to support that view that they should join the hereditary Peers at the exit. We are a secular society, as censuses and the British Social Attitudes surveys have shown for some time. Anglican Church attendance is shrinking faster than the volume of letters delivered by the Royal Mail, while its congregations largely consist of people over 60. Apart from theocracies such as Iran, there are no other Parliaments where clerics have a right of representation, so that is my starter for 10.
I also strongly support the Government’s commitment to greater devolution. Throughout my working life the governance of England has been overcentralised, with Ministers taking too many powers of direction and senior civil servants—some of whom are here and may disagree—enjoying command and control, undeterred by the short-termism that command and control has seemed to attract in the behaviour of government departments. The Government need to have the courage to start tackling some of those problems. The considerable devolution of powers to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland has failed to be extended to English regions over a long period of time, apart from a few city mayors.
Take a slightly unglamorous region, if I may put it that way, such as Yorkshire and Humberside—
Lord Warner (CB)
I thought noble Lords needed waking up at this time of night. I will say something nice about it. A region such as Yorkshire and Humberside has a bigger population than Scotland and nearly twice the population of Wales, but its public services are largely controlled from London. It is very easy to say we want more devolution, but you have to have some of the detail to make it happen. For devolution to work, the Government need to move to multiyear budgets, remove all these silly local biddings for small pockets of money and use flexible population-weighted financial allocations for many more local services.
This cannot be achieved without a major overhaul of the council tax system—this is absolutely essential. That system is simply not fit for purpose, given the statutory duties and powers that local government has had laid on it by this Parliament. We have to be honest with people that that system is bust—it is broken and needs to be replaced. Nowhere is devolution more urgently required than our broken NHS. I do not have time to go into this, but it is essential that we use devolution there to move the money away from often failing acute hospitals.
I am sorry I am leaving before we have legislation allowing assisted dying and protecting children from illegal religious schools. As the new Attorney-General has said, there are some issues about whether the Government will take seriously the new ICJ ruling on Israel’s conduct in the Occupied Territories. I hope the new Attorney-General will pay attention to that and get the Government to take seriously some of the concerns in this area.
However, I have been around politics a long time, and I am a bit like Mick Jagger, who has been singing for 60 years, “You can’t always get what you want”. That’s it. The end.
Baroness Bryan of Partick (Lab)
It is an enormous pleasure to follow the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Warner, who, in the short time I have been here—only six years—has always made thoughtful contributions to our discussions. He could give Mick Jagger a run for his money. I am pleased he chose this debate for his valedictory speech because I have heard him referring a few times to the situation with the devolved Administrations and their rights—he always comes down on their side. I wish him the very best for his future.
I congratulate the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hermer, and the noble Lord, Lord Booth, on their maiden speeches; that of the noble and learned Lord, in particular, was a breath of fresh air after the last few years in this Chamber. I welcome him, and the noble Lord, Lord Khan of Burnley, to their new posts.
Imagine the critical comments we would rightly make of a wealthy and influential country that had an unelected second legislative Chamber with some Members there on a hereditary basis. Imagine it had reserved places for members of the established religion, that it did not have fair representation of the nations and regions, that less than 30% of its Members were women and that its membership favoured ex-MPs and members of selected well-paid professions. We would probably question the country’s democratic credentials.
Our constitutional problems do not begin and end with the second Chamber; there is a huge imbalance of power between the Executive and Parliament. It was interesting to hear that noted from the Opposition Benches. The new Government have 63% of the Members of the Commons, based on only 33.7% of the popular vote.
Finally, we have no codified constitution, which means there is no protection of fundamental rights that would be usual in other democracies. As we saw in the last Parliament, this is not a hypothetical issue but a real danger. However, instead of seeing the obvious anomalies, we tell ourselves that ours is a special democracy that the rest of the world can learn from.
One of the classic functions of a second Chamber is to protect the constitution and fundamental rights, and this Chamber has fought long and hard to do that. But, without the democratic credentials to be able to justify its role, it will always be overruled. Second Chambers are common in federal states, but our quasi-federal system does not have the usual protections, powers and cross-territorial arrangements that others have. While I welcome the proposed council of the nations and regions, it will currently involve only around 16 people.
While I sincerely welcome the removal of the last of the hereditary Peers, it is disappointing that the Labour Party did not manage to conduct a consultation on the more substantial changes proposed at the 2022 launch of the Commission on the UK’s Future. Because of the lack of democratic credibility of the Lords, we have no legitimate parliamentary means of holding the Government to account when, as has happened, their legislation threatens fundamental rights. Also, there have been numerous examples over the past few years of legislation being imposed on devolved Administrations despite the refusal of legislative consent. The Sewel convention expected that this would happen only in exceptional circumstances, but it has become totally common.
Faced with all this, it is obvious that we need more effective checks on the unrestrained powers of government by having a democratically accountable second Chamber, which I would argue should be a senate of the nations and regions.
The Earl of Erroll (CB)
My Lords, I congratulate both the maiden speakers, and the wisdom in the valedictory speech from the noble Lord, Lord Warner. There were very good points there.
This is an appeal to all the Members of this House and the other place who believe in democracy: please do not accidentally create an autocracy where one person wields all the power. The primary purpose of Parliament is to make the rules under which the Executive branch will operate. MPs in Parliament who are also Ministers are passing laws to control themselves and their successors, and the head of these is the Prime Minister of the Executive, who is also the leader of the majority party in the other place.
We must remember that we are legislating to control an executive Government of the future, and it may be led by a Prime Minister who may have a very different view of democracy from the one we hold today. Just look at some other countries right now. Therefore, I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, that the powers of the Prime Minister must be severely circumscribed, or they will control both Houses of Parliament.
The power to appoint Peers is ancient history; it is an accident. The monarch was absolute until King John and Magna Carta and this is a vestigial relic of that age that is now exercised by the monarch’s constitutional adviser, the Prime Minister. After Magna Carta, we set up all the other elements of democracy slowly through the ages, but that one thing has remained and it is an anomaly.
We hereditary Peers are also a vestigial relic, to a large degree, but we are here to give an incentive for proper reform of the Lords. That is why the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, when he was Lord Chancellor, gave a Privy Council oath, binding in honour, that the next stage of Lords reform would be comprehensive—not just the ejection of the remaining hereditaries. That is in Hansard for 30 March 1999, at column 207. We took his word for it, but unfortunately others have not—certainly not the privy councillors who followed. It is vital because, if this incentive is removed, I do not think there will be any further reform, even though we have been talking about it for years.
I will support any Lords reform that is comprehensive and I will willingly go. We have heard several very good ideas for further reform from various noble Lords. There is no point in going through them again. I like especially those with a strong democratic element, because we need to retain that in order to retain our legitimacy to change laws in this Chamber. Otherwise, the remaining powers will be taken away and we will become just a talking shop. If that happens, there will be no point to noble Lords being here; they will join just for the honour but not really take part. We will not get the great and wise that we do at the moment. For instance, among the hereditaries is our only nuclear engineer and scientist. I am into IT, AI, age verification, ID and various boring things like that. These are not the sorts of things that MPs and politicians want to do—not if they have any common sense, anyway.
The point is that reform must not be piecemeal, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie, said. It will not happen if it is and that will just leave the Executive in control of both Houses. We are here to try to ensure that there is an incentive for further reform. That is what I am looking forward to seeing.
Lord Hay of Ballyore (DUP)
My Lords, I congratulate the Government on their recent success in the election. There are many areas to be welcomed in their priorities, going forward for the future. In the gracious Speech, they are looking to strengthen the union through collaboration between the devolved institutions and hopefully, through the council of the nations and regions, there will be greater collaboration and communication between different parts of this great union.
I agree that the Government must ensure that the focus is on delivering a more united and prosperous United Kingdom. I welcome the Prime Minister’s comments on ensuring that Northern Ireland’s position in the United Kingdom is strengthened. Now and in the future, we must continue to ensure that Northern Ireland benefits and plays a full role alongside England, Scotland and Wales in the long-term future growth of this United Kingdom. Many noble Lords have referred to the Government’s “honeymoon period”, but they will be judged on all these issues over the next 18 months to two years by their actions rather than their words.
In the time I have left, I will dwell on public services in Northern Ireland. All the parties have been campaigning on the issue that public services are constrained by the Barnett formula. The Northern Ireland Fiscal Commission highlighted that funding for public services in Northern Ireland continues to fall well below the level of need. Therefore, year on year, public services are being reduced and we are not receiving the uplift we need to run them. In fact, the Treasury’s contribution to funding public services in Northern Ireland is going down rather than rising. For example, in England spending up to 2025 will increase by over 6%, but in Northern Ireland by only 3.6%. These funding problems are not new. They have been flagged up by the NI Fiscal Council over and over again. The Barnett formula is not working for Northern Ireland as it does not take account of need within Northern Ireland. The Government need to understand that, if public services in Northern Ireland are to be put on a sustainable footing, there needs to be real change in how Northern Ireland is funded into the future.
We need to see a review of the Barnett formula to ensure that Northern Ireland’s funding is based on need rather than on population size. There is an urgent piece of work to be done on a new funding model for Northern Ireland. We are £500 million to £600 million short of what other parts of the United Kingdom receive. When it held an inquiry looking at the funding model for Northern Ireland, the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee and all the parties on it were very much aware of addressing the urgency of this particular issue. In fact, all the members of that committee supported a new funding model for Northern Ireland urgently.
I hope this is an issue that this Government will focus on sooner rather than later. As a devolutionist, I want the devolved Government to succeed. Working alongside the Government, we can hopefully find the right funding model to reform our public services and deliver effective government in Northern Ireland.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)
My Lords, I declare an interest as chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission and as a member of the Enforcement Decision Making Committee of the Bank of England. I will stick to my self-imposed convention of not commenting on affairs to do with either of those institutions.
I congratulate the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hermer, the Attorney-General, on his thought-provoking maiden speech. I will pick up some of his emphasis on fairness and the rule of law, but the points I really want to cover today relate to public appointments rather than having a direct bearing on the Government’s programme for other reforms on appointments, ethics and integrity.
Public appointments are a small but neglected part of our constitutional structure. I could not find any debate where I might be able to express some thoughts on this other than today, so I hope that noble Lords will be tolerant. There are approximately 4,500 public appointments where people serve on a range of institutions that make the country function—non-departmental public bodies in the jargon. In the single financial year 2021-22, there were just under 1,200 appointments signed off by Government Ministers. The competition is stringent, relatively transparent and usually run by civil servants.
Most public appointees I have met who serve on a board as a non-executive do so from a sense of public service. The remuneration is not generous given the time commitment—at least 50% more is always required than what is advertised. It is undertaken by people who have existing expertise in the given area and a desire to contribute to improving it. Most expect to do it selflessly—in keeping with the Nolan principles and other codes of conduct—and do it in honesty and good faith.
However, the system does not respond in the spirit of good faith. I emphasise that conduct has a specific meaning in regulatory and legal terms, and that is not the way I am using it here, although I am partially using it in that sense. If a public appointee, in other words a non-executive board member, faces allegations of having transgressed in their conduct or is alleged to have behaved improperly, the institution in which they serve has no parameters imposed by His Majesty’s Treasury or the Cabinet Office as to how it should expend public funds in that matter. There are no ceilings imposed, even as a proportion of a non-departmental public body’s budget that can be expended on a single matter for review or investigation. Expenditure running into hundreds of thousands of pounds can be spent when expensive lawyers are hired to review matters, irrespective of substantiation or gravity of allegations.
On the other side, the individual accused of misconduct is required to fund themselves entirely without support. This is a unique category. In the private sector, directors’ insurance is virtually compulsory; no one would work without it. It can run to many millions, especially since, in certain sectors, the fit and proper tests have become more stringent. Even third-sector organisations that have hybrid models, such as housing associations, also have directors’ insurance. Of course, in all cases it is contingent on the appointee having acted in good faith in discharging their responsibilities and in keeping with various codes of conduct and so on. So it is uniquely this category—government-appointed non-executive directors—that is entirely exposed. HM Treasury in its manual Managing Public Money explicitly considers providing some form of insurance and dismisses it as unwarranted expenditure, so bodies are, in effect, banned from procuring it for their boards.
What is to be done? Going forward, this Government will make some 6,000 appointments to different types of public bodies during this first term until 2029. One way to approach this would be to allow arm’s-length bodies the discretion to pay for insurance up to a maximum amount and under stringent conditions—for example, the need to have conducted an internal review of the allegations or to seek ACAS support or a Cabinet Office non-executive review. Ultimately, if expensive lawyers are to be engaged, in the interests of fairness, public appointees deserve some small level of insurance or public funding to obtain at least a preliminary amount of professional legal advice.
The Attorney-General has made a great deal of the importance of the rule of law—I agree with his sentiments—but the foundation of the rule of law is fairness. It is time that this group serving in the public interest was treated fairly, and I urge the Government to do something about this anomaly.
Viscount Astor (Con)
My Lords, we must all congratulate the Labour Party on a successful election campaign and welcome the new Government. But one cannot help but notice, looking at the share of the vote, that Labour won with fewer votes than at the previous election, when Jeremy Corbyn was its leader. It was clearly a vote against the failures of the last Government rather than a total endorsement of the Labour manifesto. That does not take away the overwhelming result for the Government, but it puts it into some perspective. The Conservative Party won a larger share of the vote than before; I am sure that this will renew the debate on PR—an issue on which I have changed my mind a number of times, and no doubt I will do so again many times in the future. I wish the new Administration well and welcome the Attorney-General to his place.
Governing is not easy. I see that, this evening, the Government have already had to suspend seven MPs in the House of Commons for voting against the Government. Unfortunately, they seem to have an awful lot of other MPs, so it will not make a great deal of difference in the short term—but it is a sign of how difficult it is to govern. To govern well, Ministers in another place, most of whom will have never served in government before, may be helped by looking at the mistakes made by our Government, the previous Administration—I am afraid that there were a few. The Prime Minister did much to clear up some of the difficult issues he inherited from his predecessors, but I am afraid that the Conservative Government were seen as a Government that failed to deliver on their promises and failed to deliver competent government. We were seen to lack vision and a clear narrative for our polices, resulting in a loss of confidence and trust and a lack of belief in our ability to deliver at Westminster. I think that was an unfair perception; we were the first to produce vaccines in large numbers during Covid, we led Europe in supporting Ukraine and our economic policy was succeeding.
The question we have to ask is: where do we go from here? The current Prime Minister rescued his party from a left-wing clique and oblivion, so I am sure that we will find a new leader who will do the same. We have the talent in our party. It is a question not of being either more on the left or the right but of having polices that clearly reflect Conservative values.
Turning to constitutional issues, I am an elected hereditary Peer. There are very few of us in this House who were elected—albeit by a rather small electorate. I see that my demise is on the cards, as well as those who are aged over 80. I have had a good run. I was rather horrified to look up that I am the fifth longest serving Peer in this House; it is 51 years since I made my maiden speech. On any basis, that must mean that I am due for the chop. I have long thought that retirement is perhaps a good idea but I wonder why the Government chose 80. Why not 75, which is the retirement age for senior judges? The problem with any age is that there are always a few one wishes could stay on, and a few for whom one would like to lower the age and get rid of. The Government’s proposal is that Peers over 80 can stay until the end of the Session, as far as I understand it. If the hereditary Peers’ by-elections are abolished and we are abolished, perhaps the same conditions should apply to hereditary Peers—or rather elected hereditary Peers—and we should be allowed to stay until the end of the current Session of Parliament.
The Government could go further in refreshing this House. Perhaps in addition to a retirement age there could be a limit of service—retirement after 35 years in this Chamber, or perhaps after 35 years counted between sitting here and in another place. When I joined this House, there were a small number of former MPs, a distinguished group, but now their numbers are at least four times greater. Many, of course, have had distinguished careers in another place. But one must ask the question: do the Government want this House to be a retirement Chamber for former Members of Parliament?
I will go quietly. I am happy to go, as long as the Government accept that proper constitutional reform is required. Otherwise, we will have a House where membership is created by the whim of the Prime Minister, or a statutory body where the elite recommend the elite—a House of retired quango chairmen or other such distinguished folks.
The Labour Party manifesto committed to reform the appointments process to ensure quality of new appointments and to improve the national and regional balance of this second Chamber. We must have a second Chamber that does more than relate just to England; we need one that has a better relationship with all three devolved Administrations. Whether it is a Chamber elected on a PR basis or appointed, a greater emphasis on the devolved Administrations is required. This was a challenge that the Government of the previous Prime Minister Gordon Brown set, but which was somehow set aside rather quickly and not taken up. I hope that this issue will not be shirked again. Perhaps the answer is a constitutional convention involving all parties. Perhaps that is required to move proper second-stage reform forward.
Baroness Prashar (CB)
My Lords, I warmly extend my congratulations to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hermer, and the noble Lord, Lord Khan of Burnley, on their respective appointments, and wish them well in their roles. I also congratulate the noble and learned Lord on his elegant and thought-provoking maiden speech. His comments about the rule of law and the protection of fundamental, universal values were music to my ears.
The agenda outlined in the gracious Speech is ambitious. This is necessary because the country is in need of national renewal. The task is enormous. However, achieving the ambitious objectives of national renewal will, above all, require urgent steps to restore trust and faith in politics and to strengthen our democratic processes. Without these, it will be difficult to achieve meaningful and sustainable national renewal.
The gracious Speech made some references to initiatives needed to restore trust and confidence in our political processes but these do not go far enough, given the scale of distrust and disengagement. I was, however, pleased that in his introductory remarks the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hermer, mentioned the role of secondary legislation, ministerial standards and the ethics commissioner—matters not mentioned in the gracious Speech. The Speech mentioned, of course, the duty of candour for public servants, integrity of elections, a modernisation committee for the Commons to drive up standards, and the removal of hereditary Peers, but there is nothing about the reform of the appointments process and a cap on the size of the House of Lords. These were mentioned in the manifestos. Why were they omitted from the gracious Speech?
On the topic of standards in public life the gracious Speech was notably silent. I was a member of the governance commission chaired by the right honourable Dominic Grieve, which published its report earlier this year. This non-partisan commission made practical, implementable and pragmatic recommendations to address concerns about standards in ministerial and public office, the management of conflicts of interest, the way in which the House of Lords and other officeholders are appointed, weaknesses in Parliament’s ability to scrutinise the work of the Government—including the role of secondary legislation—and the relationship between the Government and civil servants, and the role of special advisers. We recommended relatively small changes and improvements, which we believed would go a long way to provide a framework of ethics and standards for proper conduct. There is no shortage of sensible and very easily implementable proposals which can be adopted at this early stage. Sadly, given the scale of distrust and disenchantment, it has now become necessary to embed standards in legislation. Self-regulation is not sufficient. Can the Minister assure the House that questions of ethics and standards in public life will be given the priority they deserve, particularly when the Prime Minister has said:
“The fight for trust is the battle that defines our political era”?—[Official Report, Commons, 17/7/24; col. 56.]
Then there is the question of strengthening our democratic processes to engage and encourage the participation of citizens. Confidence in democratic politics is very low, as shown by the low turnout at the election. This has left the ground fertile for demagogues and the radical alternatives offered by extremists. The gracious Speech recognises that we have become one of the most centralised democracies, reliant on unaccountable bodies, which has led to the disengagement of citizens.
The English devolution Bill is an opportunity to rebuild faith in democracy, building communities based on shared experiences and values and not narrow sectarian interests. Devolution is a real opportunity to engage citizens in the democratic processes and build cohesive local communities that are not pulled apart by narrow sectarian interests. It is imperative that we develop innovative strategies, involving citizens, to reinvigorate local democracy, bind communities, enhance a sense of belonging and create a foundation for resilience, opportunity and prosperity for all. Will the Government consider a devolution Bill which puts a duty on devolved bodies to ensure the participation of citizens, enrich decision-making and build a culture of participation, making citizens meaningful partners with government in the same way that we want to make the private sector?
I am aware that the Prime Minister is fully committed to the strengthening of our democracy and to driving high standards. I am very encouraged by the comments made by our new Attorney-General, so I live in hope.
Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I will not talk about House of Lords reform—I think there will be plenty of time to discuss that. I want to talk about the question of constitutional reform more generally.
The gracious Speech is quite modest in its aspirations, but a new Government, particularly one with a huge majority, can make constitutional changes without too much difficulty. History shows that this is not always a good idea. The Fixed-term Parliaments Act was a mistake. Without it, we would not have had the unlawful prorogation of Parliament and the decision of the Supreme Court in the Gina Miller case. A decision to change our relationship with Europe would have commanded much more widespread support if it had required a two-thirds majority. No party even put down an amendment to the referendum Bill, even in your Lordships’ House, to that effect.
Following the landslide in 1997, the previous Labour Government brought in the Human Rights Act. Its implications were not properly scrutinised in White or Green Papers or by pre-legislative scrutiny. I and other part-time judges attended lectures from academics and practising lawyers. The message was that the Act would make little difference. In fact, it had huge implications for the distribution of power away from the Executive and into the hands of the judiciary—not that it was necessarily anxious to exercise such additional power. The attractive invitation to “bring rights home” disguised what was, in fact a significant subcontracting of the law to the European Court of Human Rights and an invitation to our courts to follow the Strasbourg jurisprudence, which was often inconsistent and not easily transferable.
The Labour Government soon found their own legislation thwarting their policy initiatives, particularly in relation to counterterrorism. It resulted in the then Home Secretary, the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, disparaging judges. Sitting on a committee of your Lordships’ House, I heard three former Labour Home Secretaries say that they were so frustrated by the decisions of our courts that they thought they would seek the judges’ advice before drafting legislation to counter terrorism—an invitation that was refused.
In 14 years, the Conservatives huffed and puffed about the HRA and did nothing. Recent decisions of the European court in Strasbourg have included the unsatisfactory use of Rule 39 orders, which broke every principle of natural justice, and a major incursion into national environmental policies based on Article 8. I hasten to add that the British judge dissented. A low point for me was the Government’s arguments, in the dying days, as to the effect of A1P1 of the European Convention on Human Rights—which apparently prevented them from sufficiently penalising big tech for exercising monopoly powers because of their human rights. You can be passionately in favour of the protection of human rights and still consider that the HRA needs, at the very least, amendment.
On asylum, it is goodbye Rwanda, welcome border security command. We will see how that goes. The Home Secretary has said that she will approach the problem using a counterterrorism approach. She should bear in mind the experience of the last Labour Government. How will the reform of planning laws deal with the Article 8 arguments, and will tax reform run into difficulties with A1P1? We have a Government led by a human rights lawyer whom I greatly respect. Would he consider amending the HRA or is it now an article of faith? We heard from the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, that you cannot have too many lawyers. I would not go quite that far. Lawyers should not dominate the debate. We are legislating for the benefit of the population. It should not be judges who are making many of these decisions.
While speaking of human rights lawyers, I welcome the appointment of the new Attorney-General, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hermer. We have been opponents only in the forensic sense in the past. On one occasion, I was opposed not only by the noble and learned Lord but by the Prime Minister. We lost 3-2 —is it any surprise? I am sure that he will give dispassionate advice to the Government without fear or favour. He may find problems with the elusive question of what international law actually provides in any situation and how we should respond, given that we have a dualist rather than a monist system. I am confident that his approach will reflect a lifelong respect for the rule of law but, echoing what the noble Lord, Lord Warner, said, what is the Government’s position on the non-binding advisory opinion of the ICJ in respect of the Israel-Palestine debate?
A number of issues will have to be seized in the future. I am confident that your Lordships’ House will continue to play a very important part.
Lord Rennard (LD)
My Lords, a key test of this Government in five years’ time will be whether we are a more civilised country, a more tolerant society and a healthier democracy, with greater public confidence and engagement in it and less divisive rhetoric. In the previous Parliament, we saw many measures introduced by a Conservative Government who were constantly seeking to change in their favour the rules by which elections are conducted to try and assist their return to office—to which I might say, “A fat lot of good it did them”.
The Conservatives introduced the most restrictive form of photo ID without any evidence that it was necessary, despite overwhelming evidence that it was not and with a scheme that went far beyond what either the Electoral Commission or the election review conducted by the noble Lord, Lord Pickles, had suggested. We need to scrap or replace the photo ID rules. If ID is deemed necessary, the official polling card should suffice. Using it would save £180 million over the next decade.
The photo ID did not save the Government but there were many close results where these very restrictive ID rules may have made a difference. They include the Basildon and Billericay constituency, where the former chairman of the Conservative Party, Richard Holden, scraped in by just 20 votes, having been parachuted into a seat that was supposed to have had a 20,000-plus majority.
A post-election survey by More in Common suggested that 400,000 voters were turned away at polling stations never to return, because they did not have the requisite ID. For each one of them, there were probably several people on the registers who did not go in the first place, because of the new rules. This must have been a factor in the lowest turnout for 20 years.
An even bigger scandal is that, according to the Electoral Commission, as many as 8 million people were incorrectly not included on the voting registers. Almost all of them would have been unable to vote, even though they were legally entitled to do so. Most people think that the process of voter registration is automatic. It is not, but it should be, so I welcome the announcement that we will move to automatic voter registration.
To help make changes fairly, we need to restore and strengthen the independence of the Electoral Commission. The strategy and policy statement foisted on it by the last Government should be withdrawn, never to be replaced.
As for the voting system, it is a scandal that, in so many constituencies, people did not really have a choice of MP, as the real choice lay with a party machine that can foist MPs upon them. Only 30% of those who voted on 4 July got the MP that they voted for, and many of the 30% were voting tactically against another party.
While I welcome the Ministers to the Front Bench opposite, I ask them to consider that the single biggest mistake of the Blair Government in 1997 was to think that they would never lose another election. This meant that those around Tony Blair saw no need to move to a fairer voting system providing real choices for voters. After two full terms in office, they considered that winning again in 2005 with 35% of the vote was good enough, but it was not and they lost. This Government start with having received just 34% of the vote.
The failure of those Labour Governments from 1997 to make progress on voting reform led directly to what was frequently referred to in the campaign, by the then Labour Opposition, as a “decade of chaos.” With the now noble Lord, Lord Cameron, the soon to be Baroness May, Boris Johnson, Liz Truss and Rishi Sunak, it could not possibly be said that we had the stable government that was supposed to be the main justification for the first past the post system. We need to do everything we can to make sure that every vote counts.
Baroness O'Loan (CB)
I congratulate the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hermer, on an excellent maiden speech. I welcome him and the noble Lord, Lord Khan, to their new responsibilities.
In its manifesto, the Labour Party said:
“The Legacy Act denies justice to the families and victims… Labour will repeal and replace it, by returning to the principles of the Stormont House Agreement”.
His Majesty, in the gracious Speech, said that:
“In consultation with all parties, measures will be brought forward to begin the process of repealing and replacing the”
legacy Act. That clear commitment to repeal and replacement is very welcome. I hope that the repeal of the Act will lead to a reduction in the suffering of victims caused by the Act, the cessation of the Irish Government’s proceedings against the United Kingdom in the European Court of Human Rights and a period of greater co-operation with the Irish Government, which is surely in the interests of everyone.
As noble Lords know, the Act was challenged immediately in the High Court, which found many of its sections to be incompatible with existing rights and obligations, including its provisions for immunity and the abolition of the right to bring civil actions. The Conservative Government appealed that judgment and a decision is expected from the Court of Appeal in early autumn. A new system must provide for the restoration of full independent criminal investigation powers and the right to report independently to those families who wish to know why what happened happened and where responsibility for the many atrocities lay.
Under the Act, the Secretary of State has extraordinary, unnecessary powers which fetter the independence of the ICRIR in many respects. Normal processes for investigations and reporting must be restored, as provided for in the Stormont House agreement. Above all, there must be an unqualified right of access to information from statutory agencies, rather than the current provision that the ICRIR can get only information that it reasonably requires. No such restriction was imposed on the police, nor on me as Police Ombudsman. Access to information has always been a challenge for investigators and, regrettably, there is ample evidence of the refusal by state agencies to supply information and material, even when its production has been ordered by judges and coroners. There must be no scope for arguments about whether materials are reasonably required; if required, they must be provided.
Inquests must be established. There are some 38 legacy cases—a very small number—awaiting inquests. Eighteen coroners were hearing legacy cases last November. These inquests do not represent an insuperable burden on the coronial system. Effective inquests such as the Ballymurphy inquest can be massively important, because what is disclosed informs understanding, and understanding, particularly across the community, is fundamental to trust in policing and security.
The right to bring civil actions, abolished under the Act, must be re-established. Evidence which would normally be available to a plaintiff must be made available and not subjected to the restrictions imposed by the Act.
Most recently, the very experienced new chief constable of the PSNI sought to provide evidence in gist, or summary, to a court. The Northern Ireland Secretary of State initiated legal proceedings to stop him doing so. This is not indicative of any desire to help families access information. It is immensely damaging to victims’ confidence in government when it sees the Government seeking to stop the chief constable providing information.
There is no justification for withholding much of the information which is available. Yes, information is often distressing for families and victims, but the torture of being unable to find out what happened and the suspicions to which it gives rise are equally, or indeed more, distressing. National security needs to be protected, but there needs to be clarity about exactly what is to be protected and why it is necessary to protect it.
Under the Act, the ICRIR was established with a range of functions, including case reviews. A few families seem to be using its services—they have nowhere else to go. We do not know how many families; the ICRIR has not released any information despite requests.
The Government have said that they will consult on options to strengthen the independence of the ICRIR. Much public money has been spent establishing it, providing premises and recruiting staff. However, the ICRIR will have to become a fundamentally different body with a different name, given the problems that have been identified and the distrust generated in the passing of the legacy Act.
Parliament must now create a new set of obligations and responsibilities to enable both impartial and effective investigation and fair and accurate memorialisation. I look forward to the Government delivering on their promise to repeal the Act and to give families the access to justice which, as the Government have said, is currently denied. As the Minister has said, the rule of law is paramount and fundamental to the building of society. Can the Minister provide some information on when the legislation will be introduced?
Lord Winston (Lab)
My Lords, as a budding geneticist when I first came into the House of Lords in 1995, I looked around the Chamber and I could tell the hereditary Peers. They were taller, more confident, had louder voices and were much more knowledgeable. Some of them were larger, all of them were well fed, and without exception they shot game and talked about it at the tea table at 4 o’clock in the afternoon.
It was only when I chaired the Science and Technology Select Committee—which was then a much larger committee than it is now—with everybody around that table being larger, more experienced and far more knowledgeable than me, that I suddenly realised that I could not tell which party people came from, nor indeed whether they were hereditaries. In fact, they were completely indistinguishable, and I have to say that the hereditaries were certainly not indefensible in their presence there.
Without going into the detail of the number of that committee’s reports, they became nationally and internationally well known. This was a really important committee, respected by scientists all over the world. On antibiotic resistance, for example, 25 years later I remember Beryl, Baroness Platt, putting up a clawed hand—she must have been about 80—challenging the speaker who was giving us a seminar on antibiotic resistance. She said to him, “Forgive me, I see that you have just contradicted what you say on page 139 of the document you’ve just circulated”. She was not a medic; she was an engineer. That was the quality of the people around that table.
I also remember with great fondness the fact that we had Nobel Prize winners, among whom was George Porter, who won the Nobel Prize in 1967 for chemistry. I remember that we had a very controversial report, and he suddenly realised that it was going to be very controversial because it was about cannabis usage. We were talking about this and suddenly, in a loud stage whisper—a hoarse voice—he said to me, “Robert, I’ve never had cannabis. What’s it like?”
Anyway, the point is that this was an extraordinary group of people, and it showed the quality of the House of Lords. We boast that we are an expert Chamber and we talk about our expertise, but the question is: really are we, and can we do a lot better about this?
It was therefore a great pleasure, after two years’ dearth of having any new scientists or medics in the Chamber, to see the noble Lord, Lord Vallance, make his maiden speech this week, and what a fine speech it was. It was a bit of a pity that the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, gave him rather a hard time. That seemed to me to be against the conventions with a maiden speaker, but the noble Lord held his own very well with a most extraordinary maiden speech—in fact, one of the best I have heard. We have to remember that when people like him do great public service, often publicly, they face a great deal of unpleasantness. He certainly did during his recent career during the plague. He did exceptionally well.
Months ago, I was almost a lone voice in this Chamber when I opposed the so-called precision editing Bill, which would have modified animals and plants to make them able to be released into the environment. The genetics were poor, and I believe the scientific advice the Government got was well below what it should have been. I think it was, in fact, what the Government wanted to hear rather than what should have been said. Indeed, we have not done this yet but we can now, by law, release organisms into the environment that are either mutant plants or mutant animals. Nobody in the Chamber really had the expertise—apart, I suppose, from the Green Party, which was prepared to join me in opposing this. It is important because there is no doubt that we might have done some damage.
What was extraordinary was a letter I got from the noble Lord, Lord Benyon, after this had passed for Royal Assent. He wrote to me saying this: “Thank you so much for your work on the Bill. I learned a great deal during these interventions. I hope we did not make too many mistakes”. That was an extraordinary letter to write, and it was greatly impressive. It is nice to see that collaboration between parties that are often opposed in this Chamber.
The key thing that we have to remember is that this has to be an appointed Chamber of some kind. To my mind, that appointment needs to be much more carefully regulated. We have been reluctant to accept regulation, but we need statutory regulation to make sure that we really get the expertise we need. We have to ask ourselves: who do we actually need in the Chamber? What expertise are we missing that we could have? We could then do it that way, both for the Select Committees and in particular with the membership. Once we have done that, we will have a House of Lords that will be respected and will be really effective in helping the Government by challenging legislation when it is not quite right.
Lord Kirkham (Con)
My Lords, I approach today’s debate from an unusual and perhaps even unique perspective: as a life Peer of working-class origins who has been sitting on the Conservative Benches since 23 July 1999, precisely 25 years ago today; an entrepreneur who has enjoyed modest success in the now highly fashionable field of wealth creation; and a lifelong resident of South Yorkshire, to which the Government promise the devolution of more power.
Not long after I joined this House, I took part in a team photograph with my Conservative colleagues. Very shortly afterwards, most of them disappeared from this Chamber as a result of the House of Lords Act 1999. As someone who grew up in a pit village rented terraced house with no bathroom or indoor lavatory, I am hardly a natural chum or ally of, or advocate for, the landed gentry and nobility, yet I find myself driven by fairness, natural justice and common sense to passionately remind noble Lords of the important and assiduous contribution of the hereditary Peers who were allowed to remain in the House after 1999—a most positive contribution out of all proportion to their numbers that should not be underestimated. In fact, I am frankly staggered at the dedication and diligence with which the hereditary Peers consistently apply their efforts, and at the scale and value of their contribution to the work of this House. Perhaps this should be no surprise, given that they are the only Members who have arrived here by election—albeit on a highly restricted franchise.
Most of us sympathise with the aim of reducing the overall size of the Chamber, but surely it is so very wrong and irresponsible to expel some of the most active, respected and effective contributors because of bias and a dogmatic belief that the means of their arrival here cannot be justified. Similarly, I do not believe that the suggested imposition of an arbitrary retirement age could do anything but reduce the capabilities of this House as a specialist revising Chamber.
As the writer Ian Dunt—who I think I can safely say is not a fellow Conservative—reluctantly observed in his book How Westminster Works, published last year, this House is
“one of the best-functioning institutions in Westminster”.
Why are the Government trying to fix something that is not broken, through actions that will actually make it less effective?
The same question can be asked, I fear, of their commitment to further devolution. Devolution to the nations of Scotland and Wales was sold to us by the previous Labour Government as a way to suppress separatism and put the power to improve public services closer to the people who use them. Can anybody honestly claim that either of these aims has been realised? Why will the devolution of yet more power now make things better rather than even worse? The one time the people of England were directly consulted about whether they wanted devolution, in the north-east assembly referendum of 2004, they voted no by an overwhelming majority of 78% to 22%. Regardless, the people of the north-east have now been blessed with a metro mayor, because Whitehall continues to believe that it knows best.
The local government map of England is a total mess, with district and county councils, unitary authorities, combined authorities and metro mayors, and every incremental change the Government make seems to draw power away from the historic counties and communities with which people identify and to which they relate. Surely it is time that central government recognised where people’s loyalties truly lie—with the historic counties and the society where they actually live, rather than with arbitrarily assigned groups of local authorities.
With devolution, as with House of Lords reform, I humbly suggest that the answer is to draw breath, stop tinkering, consider what works, remember the lessons of history and, above all, consult the people directly and actually listen to what they say.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
My Lords, I add my congratulations to the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General on his appointment and to the noble Lord, Lord Khan. I think I speak for all of us when I say that we enjoyed both the maiden speeches today, which made us realise how lucky we are to have these people join us.
I have worked as a Cross-Bench so-called hereditary Peer for all my 10 years here, but time moves on and, as the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General reminded us, we need to reflect and move on as things move on around us. The Prime Minister said last week in relation to the King’s Speech that his Government were not going to do things that were easy and populist. But booting out the so-called hereditaries as a group would be exactly that—easy, crude and populist—and flies in the face of the participation requirement trailed in the Labour manifesto.
Before I turn to a solution, I will remind the House of five brief points about so-called hereditaries. First, they do not, as is often wrongly suggested, have an inherited right to sit in this House. They may stand for election, but competition and our interview process, at least on the Cross Benches, is fierce. Imperfect? Certainly. But it is better than party leaders just appointing their mates.
Secondly, much is made of the ancient patronage in return for personal loyalty or treasure, but a good number of today’s life Peers—and their loyalties—are here for exactly those reasons.
Thirdly, the so-called hereditaries are the only Peers to whom reform has already come, with numbers capped and selection formalised. If they are to be sent down the plughole, nothing will have been done, as the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, reminded us, to close the patronage taps open at the other end. It is this modern patronage that is the really pernicious anachronism. It is a seemingly irresistible temptation for leaders to influence or reward their friends.
Fourthly, the pantomime stereotype of Cross-Bench hereditaries as Conservative-voting hoorays is simply not accurate. They are a diverse bunch of professional people who more often than not in this House have supported Labour and Lib Dem positions. Indeed, we have been pilloried by some Conservatives for doing just that.
Finally, it is widely acknowledged across this House that many hereditaries work well above the proportion their numbers would suggest. In fact, in the House of Lords in our daily practice the “H” tag is very quickly forgotten, as others have mentioned. What matters is that all Peers are equal public servants. I therefore welcome the Government’s commitment to service—a slightly old-fashioned word, perhaps, but it is certainly the reason that I work here.
I very much support the overdue strengthening of HOLAC, albeit in the dread phrase “in due course”, but, alongside the focus on how people get here, there is far too little on how they contribute when they do. Even in such a courteous place as the House of Lords, we need a proper participation-based appraisal system for Members rather than blanket dismissals on a single criterion such as heritage or indeed age—or, if that is something we cannot stomach in this place, a 15-year term, which I supported when giving evidence to the excellent committee of the noble Lord, Lord Burns, some time back. If this is not dealt with now, the reputation of this House and this reforming Government will be tarnished.
I am also worried to hear from several sources that, in throwing out the so-called hereditaries, the Government are principally seeking to remove some 40 Conservative hereditary Members in order to reduce the numbers on those Benches and to create in their place a swathe of new Labour Peers. I ask the noble Lord, Lord Khan, to clarify in winding up from the Front Bench whether this is indeed the case. If it is true, it would be manifestly unjust to visit such a party-politically driven strategy on the independent Cross Benchers.
While on the subject of size, sacking the hereditaries would get rid of 92 Members, but removing Members across the House of any type who turn up and participate no more than 10% of the time would reduce numbers by well over 100. Would it not be not only more effective numerically but more logical and, indeed, more just to address the numbers not on the basis of an individual’s family but on the basis of their work?
There is a simple solution to make the hereditary element and issue simply disappear, and I believe it is one that would not be obstructed. Labour has used it for its own hereditary on the Front Bench, and the noble Lord, Lord Grocott—credit where it is due—has made several attempts, with wide support across the House, to bring this solution into play. It is to convert those hereditaries who are committed to the service of this House into life Peers and at the same time end the by-elections.
At a stroke, this would mean that all Peers would henceforth be life Peers, thereby removing a divisive distraction, and no new hereditary Peers would come in. The remaining, by then former, hereditaries, like me, would simply die out over time. This would be a landmark change indeed, and a manifesto commitment achieved and a transition completed. Despite the temptation of party-political manoeuvrings, I hope that the Government will consider this rather than a populist purge.
I add one final, personal note. While it may perhaps be well intentioned, describing as a “sweetener”—as it has been repeatedly—the idea that we might, after being sacked, be allowed to wander the corridors like impotent ghosts, read the newspapers or use the facilities is a total misunderstanding of why I have served here for a decade.
The noble Lord, Lord Reid, and others referred last week to the words of John Smith MP, who said:
“The opportunity to serve … is all we ask”.
I hope that those of us who have followed that mantra will continue to serve this House as life Peers.
Lord Tyrie (Non-Afl)
I begin by congratulating the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hermer, on a speech full of wisdom and the noble Lord, Lord Booth, on a remarkable and thoughtful maiden speech. I say that as also the son of a shopkeeper and having fought Houghton-le-Spring, unsuccessfully, in the 1992 general election, and I know where he grew up quite well.
I put in to speak today because I was struck by something that the Leader of the House said last Wednesday. As she put it, we need to
“re-establish the confidence in our democratic and political system”.—[Official Report, 17/7/24; col. 24.]
I strongly agree. Parliament has a major role to play in reversing the collapse of trust, the corrosion of truth in political discourse, and the perception that the national interest has been subordinated at times to the personal interests of our leaders. I am thinking of the Cameron-Johnson rivalry and what appeared at times to be Bullingdon Club government. All that was wholly unacceptable. Rishi Sunak started a repair job, but there is a lot more for this Government to do.
We have another major constitutional challenge to address. I am not an electoral reformer, but I note the concern that has been expressed that our democracy is put at risk by Labour’s majority of 172 on a vote share of 34%. This House can play a major role in bolstering the trust of the electorate on both these concerns but, to do that, we need to be capable of playing a full role as a second Chamber of Parliament. That means having the courage to deploy the tools available to us under the Parliament Acts.
A good deal of valuable work is done by this House, but the truth is that we are now moving perilously close to the point where we have only the trappings of bicameralism and the reality of almost none. We are little more than an advisory body, a Conseil d’Etat, too often and too easily ignored. The incoming Government are not intending to do much about this either.
I agreed with what both the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, and the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, had to say about the current proposals. The removal of the hereditary peerage is of course long overdue, but the introduction of a retirement age is an unnecessary and probably unjustifiable distraction. The truth is that the current Chamber, which bolsters prime ministerial patronage, suits the Executive.
If we are to address the trust deficit, this House now needs much more moral authority to speak for those for whom we legislate. In the 21st century, in my view, only the ballot box can provide that. I know that is not a popular view here. I note none the less that all three major parties came to the same conclusion as I have just come to in 2010 but have done very little about it since then. That is why I strongly disagreed with the invocation from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, of the doctrine of unripe time earlier, when he argued against more fundamental Lords reform than the Government are currently proposing.
I do not think we are going to get much progress on electoral reform from this Government, but there is something more modest that we could do now: when this House speaks truth to power, it can at least do much more to ensure that it has an audience. Our current committee system is relatively weak, and the other place has stolen a march with some thoroughgoing reforms of its committees. For example, we can and should find better ways of taking advantage of the accumulated wisdom and public service experience available here to boost our committees. We need elected committee chairmen and on longer terms. We need to devise penalties for failure to supply papers to committees or to appear before them. We need to target the issues that the electorate most want us to examine.
If we do those things in the Committee Corridor, at least we can avoid becoming Mr Starmer’s poodle, just as after 1997 the Commons narrowly avoided becoming Mr Blair’s by succeeding with some reforms of the committee system. If more of us could at least signal support for election to this House in principle, that in itself might improve the terms of trade with the other place a little.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)
My Lords, yesterday I had the deep honour and privilege of introducing into your Lordships’ House my dear friend and colleague, my noble and learned friend Lord Hermer, our new Attorney-General. We are very fortunate because the Government have chosen a brilliant, serious and charming lawyer for this role, as the House saw from his maiden speech. In fact, the trio of lawyers—the new Lord Chancellor, the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General—provide a ferociously clever bank of legal skill and integrity.
I wish my noble and learned friend well in his endeavours to reform the House of Lords, but this House is deeply resistant to change, though change is desperately needed. Personally, like the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, I think the best test for reducing numbers—if we want to do that in a fair way, and fast—would be on the basis of participation. Does the Peer participate? Anyone who has not made a speech in this House, participated in a committee, pressed an amendment or taken part in some way, not just turning up like Lobby fodder but actually doing the stuff of public service, should be asked to step down, and the examination can be over the previous five years prior to this election. Arbitrary ways of doing it are unjust. We should be clear that real reform will take a greater time, but if we want to reduce the numbers fast then that is the way to do it fairly.
Today we are discussing matters constitutional, and there is no more profound constitutional issue than our commitment to the rule of law. I want to reflect on the words that the Attorney-General used when he was taking his oath of office—he said something similar in his maiden speech today. He said that
“the rule of law will be the lodestar for this government”.
The truth is that it should be the lodestar for any Government. It is a timely commitment for government to be making now for this most British of values, because it acts a badge of honour for us in a world that in many places is retreating from the rule of law, even in mature democracies. We see, and have seen for some time, the capture of the judiciary for political purposes in the United States, and we have seen it more recently in Hungary as well as the attempt that was made prior to the horrors that we see just now in Israel. We have seen it happening in places where attacks on the higher courts and the judiciary have been taking place.
Before we look ahead, we have to cast an eye backwards and consider the journey that this country has been on in recent years. It is clear that we have started to lose our way. That is a hard truth but one that is necessary for us to internalise. Our standing has been diminished because the rule of law has been degraded fulsomely in recent years. The whole purpose of the rule of law is to prevent abuse of power, as Lord Bingham explained so cogently, but I am afraid we have seen many abuses of power.
Justice, the cross-party law reform and human rights organisation—I should declare that I am the current president—set out clearly the ways in which our lawmaking had become less transparent, less accountable, less inclusive and less democratic. It did that in a report published last September, The State We’re In, which addressed threats and challenges to the rule of law. I have to tell your Lordships that it was sobering reading.
The last Parliament saw many ills fester. We saw a growing legislative disregard, indeed contempt, for human rights. We saw disgraceful laws being passed through this place only months ago: the safety of Rwanda Act falls into that category, in my view. We saw disregard for international treaties, such as the European Convention on Human Rights and the refugee convention. Even the Brexit treaty was being contravened within a year of it being signed. These are commitments to international law.
We had a Prime Minister during Covid who thought that the law was only for the little people and did not apply to him. We had visceral attacks being made on the judiciary and a Conservative Lord Chancellor failing to speedily condemn those attacks in the press. The health of our democracy has undoubtedly come under great strain. The overarching diagnosis of the report from Justice, made by lawyers not including myself, was that accountability and legal restraint were seen as oppositional to the business of government, as opposed to being the core and a central feature of good governance.
This Parliament serves the people of the United Kingdom as custodian of democracy and of the rule of law. As such, it is vital that Members of both Houses do their utmost to defend those principles tooth and nail. I am pleased that Justice is publishing a new guide, Law for Lawmakers, to equip MPs, and perhaps people in this House, to understand what the rule of law really means.
When I sat in the Royal Courts of Justice, I heard the Attorney-General affirm his commitment to the rule of law. My heart sang as I heard him say that it was his duty to speak truth to power. That is sometimes hard for a Law Officer but when our fundamental values come under challenge, it is what has to be done. I hope we can all agree that Members in this House will commit to doing our utmost in helping this Government stay true to the rule of law, whatever may lie ahead.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hermer, on his maiden speech, and the noble Lords, Lord Booth and Lord Warner, on their speeches. I welcome the noble and learned Lord to the Front Bench as Attorney-General, as I do the noble Lord, Lord Khan of Burnley. I hope that despite his heavy responsibilities the noble Lord, Lord Khan, will continue to spread good cheer across the House.
Today’s debate on the King’s Speech raises fundamental questions about Britain’s constitution, on the role of two of its three pillars—the Executive and the legislature —and on the arrangements for our democracy. Although the gracious Speech is made by the monarch, it expresses the wish of his Government. Executive power is no longer exercised by kings and queens, but by Governments elected by the people of this country. This illustrates the evolutionary nature of constitutional change in this country: without bloodshed, the guillotine or the reign of terror; without dictatorships or any of the horrors that have marked other countries’ moves to democratic government.
Political matters were central to the lives and discussions of British people long before they had the power to vote. Their involvement in debate preceded the 19th century laws on the great issues of the time. Home rule, the Corn Laws and extending the franchise were debated in coffee houses, pamphlets and leaflets, the assembly rooms, the hustings and Parliament. Likewise, the extension of the vote between 1832 and 1928 reflected changes across national life that pre-dated the law. What followed was not imposed by decree or by the ideological aim of modernising, which smacks more of the rhetoric of Stalin’s 1920s or Mao’s four modernisations than it does of our evolutionary tradition.
Just a century ago, the Labour Party replaced the Liberals as the radical contender to take on the mantle of government. It won trust because it ruled in line with constitutional tradition. As a result, the country settled down effortlessly to acquiescing in the new two-party system. However, this Labour Government appear, in so far as we can judge from the gracious Speech, to intend modernisation by rupture, by diktat, by committee and commission; in fact, everything but evolutionary constitutional change.
Pursuing modernisation by decree to remove the bits of the constitutional jigsaw that a regime finds uncongenial overlooks the fundamental nature of the British constitution: an evolutionary process over time, reflecting longer developments and following national discussion. Rather than impose a symbolic victory for the forces of the left wing in the ways announced in the King’s Speech—to modernise the practices of the House of Commons by committee and those of this House by eliminating hereditary Peers, despite the composition, powers and, yes, practices of both being a testimony to their evolutionary nature—I ask the Government not to press their advantage. Will they think again before they embark on their piecemeal but aggressive modernisation?
In some places, what is needed is not modernisation but a return to the principles on which constitutional arrangements are based. The Government promise to
“strengthen the integrity of elections and encourage wide participation in the democratic process”.
I support this. One practical place to start would be restoring the secrecy of the ballot and the principle of universal suffrage, to ensure that those women—whom I have met—who are entitled to vote can do so privately, so their vote is not used by someone else. I have been told on the doorstep by women in some communities that they are not allowed out to vote. When I ask, I find that the general right to a postal vote does not help, because their husbands or fathers vote for them. I therefore support the wish to promote the integrity of the election system, and I suggest that one way to do it would be to end the automatic right to a postal vote and reserve it for those serving in an official capacity overseas, the elderly or the incapacitated.
In general, the best approach to the constitution, especially to Britain’s slowly evolved one, is caution. Professor Sir John Baker, the Downing Professor of the Laws of England at Cambridge, told the Constitution Committee of this House that
“a constitution … should stand above government and should define and limit what a government can do … If a government takes over the constitution and manages it by making piecemeal reforms at its own behest, … we no longer have a constitution, because it is doing precisely what a constitution is supposed to stop … There really is no case for pressing forward reforms simply because they happen to be government policy and there is a majority of one. A constitution ought to have a consensus of people generally”.
In this country, the lively political debate among people has, over many epochs, led Parliaments to reflect this in the laws they made. I will end with that reference to a very distinguished legal historian, and I hope the Government will listen.
Viscount Thurso (LD)
My Lords, I add my congratulations to the Attorney-General, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hermer, on an excellent maiden speech. The content was deeply refreshing and the tone was hugely appreciated. I heard him say he would be an active listener, and I look forward to both his listening and his speaking. I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Khan, to the Front Bench, and I note the excellent maiden speech from the noble Lord, Lord Booth, and the good valedictory of the noble Lord, Lord Warner.
There is a great deal in this King’s Speech that I warmly welcome. I think my colleagues on these Benches and I will find ourselves able to vote in favour of quite a lot of it, although I suspect that, in good Liberal fashion, we will find a number of points of detail that we feel need to be explored and that we are able to object to in one way or another. But we look forward to a period of stability and competence.
I start by saying a brief word about devolution, before going on to an area of the constitution. I was greatly encouraged by the word “reset” in looking at how the devolution settlement is conducted, particularly in respect of Scotland. The trench warfare that has sometimes characterised the relationship between Westminster and the devolved Parliaments over some recent years has been deeply unhelpful. As somebody who, in my first incarnation in this place, fought very hard for the Scotland Bill and took part in it, I am one who wants to see devolution flourish. It will flourish only when it is a system that allows for opposing Governments in the different parts of the constitution and allows them to work together in a workmanlike if not always amicable way, but with confidence in each other. I greatly welcome what the Government are doing there, and I hope that we will have a chance to speak more on that on a latter occasion.
Before preparing for this debate I took an educated guess that it would have a large number of speakers, and took a further educated guess that I would be very near the bottom of the list. I therefore came into this Chamber with nothing written down, but I spent the weekend reading Hansards, not simply from our debates on the composition of your Lordships’ House in this place but from the many debates in the other place that I took part in. There was one in 2003, and a wonderful one on 6 March 2007—and one or two other of those who took part in that debate are here now, in this Chamber.
I do not have the time or the will, frankly, to go through all the detailed arguments, but let me say that, through all that process, I have become more and more convinced that the upper Chamber needs to be elected. It needs to be elected because to have a strong Parliament you need a robust second House, and to have a robust second House you have to have moral authority. While in some ways and in some constitutions that may come from appointment, the history of this place means that the only way in which it will have true legitimacy will be through the ballot box. Therefore, throughout my many discussions on the subject, I have pushed that forward. The House is too large and it is composed by patronage and heredity. It does superb work, and I have huge respect for everybody in the House, but it does not command the respect of those in the other place, the media or people in the country.
The lack of aspiration in what the Government are proposing for the constitution is the lack of will to do something proper with this House. We need that strong Parliament, and we need a robust second Chamber, and it cannot be achieved without democratic selection. To me, it is unthinkable that we arrive at the end of the first quarter of the 21st century with a Chamber that is still left in the time warp of heredity and patronage. It really is time that we trust the people. If we want the people to trust us, we need to trust them, and the ballot box is the way to do it.
Lord Northbrook (Con)
My Lords, like other noble Lords I welcome the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hermer, to the Government Front Bench. In the limited time available, I can focus on only one aspect of the gracious Speech, the plan to remove the remaining 92 hereditary Peers from the House, eliminating many centuries of tradition and generational wisdom and thus a golden thread going back to the 13th century—although I note that the Labour Front Bench has a hereditary Peer among their number, albeit restored as a life Peer.
On 30 March 1999, in front of a packed House of Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, stood at the Dispatch Box and said that the 1999 Bill to abolish the majority of hereditary Peers reflected
“a compromise negotiated between Privy Councillors on Privy Council terms and binding in honour on all those who have come to give it their assent”.
The noble and learned Lord continued, in the most carefully worded statement, saying that
“the 10 per cent. will go only when stage two has taken place. So it is a guarantee that it will take place”.—[Official Report, 30/3/1999; col. 207.]
The words could not have been more unequivocal.
It is the responsibility of the 92, and those colleagues who believe that the former Lord Chancellor’s promise should be adhered to, to help the Government make sure that proposed legislation includes provision to move to the stage 2 promise, and I will highlight areas that need to be discussed further.
First, there should be measures to restrict the size of the House. It cannot be right that the number of Peers keeps increasing so that only the National People’s Congress of China has more members. The correct number should reflect the voting turnout in recent years, and the political balance should be adjusted according to the percentage of votes for each party at the general election.
There should be a retirement age of 80, as has been proposed. However, this should not be mandatory; it would be fairer to have a secret ballot of the whole House once a year to decide whether a Peer over 80 should continue. The current retirement procedure works well, but unfortunately its effect is totally negated by the more-than-compensating appointment of new Peers. Slightly confusingly, the Prime Minister has already authorised the appointment of an 81 year-old Baroness. The only Prime Minister to limit appointments was Theresa May. More should follow her example. The Appointments Commission should be put on a statutory basis and firmly applied to all new appointments—political ones included—thus controlling the quality of prime ministerial patronage.
In addition, amendments should be considered on the composition of the membership of the House. First, we should debate whether the House should be elected. As the noble Baroness, Lady Jay of Paddington, opined in the interesting TV programme “The Lady and the Lords”, this is what the general public would expect. Do we need to rebalance the 26 Bishops of the religious element of the House to insert representatives of all faiths? Should the name of the House change to “the Senate”, as it will not allow hereditary Peers to be Members?
Another issue to be looked at is the powers of the House. Should we not be able to amend the reams of secondary legislation that come before us rather than just having the stark choice of agreeing or throwing it out? Also, I firmly believe that we should have the power to amend badly drafted finance Bills, particularly where, due to the guillotine procedure, the clauses are not even discussed in the other place.
Finally, how will some business mechanics work when the hereditaries are gone? Can there be an exemption for shadow Ministers and Whips on the Front Bench? Will there be enough noble Lords to sit on the Woolsack?
I understand that a key reason for the proposed Bill is to remove a number of Conservative Peers from the House, which means that the Government will not have to create the equivalent number of new Labour Peers. However, the Cross-Bench hereditaries have been caught in the cross-fire unnecessarily. Very often during the last Administration they supported Labour and Lib Dem amendments, so they are no major threat to the Government getting their business through. In particular, the convenor should be spared abolition.
What will happen to the Earl Marshal and the Lord Great Chamberlain? Are they also to be excluded from the House? This would seem to be a huge change of tradition to ceremonial offices of state.
I am sure that the proposed legislation will need thorough scrutiny so that it honours the promise made by the then Lord Chancellor in 1999. I am sure that the 92 would be less unhappy to leave when this has been fulfilled.
Lord Bichard (CB)
My Lords, when you are the 61st and last Back-Bench speaker, you can at least hope that some people will be pleased to see you—and I hope that noble Lords are. Building on that positive start, I add my welcome and congratulations to the Attorney-General and the noble Lord, Lord Khan, on the Front Bench. The noble and learned Lord gave a remarkable maiden speech, and it is wonderful to see a local mayor taking up a national office. It should happen more often.
I will pick up a theme that, surprisingly in some respects, has been focused on by a large number of Peers: the loss of trust in government and the state. I agree with them. It has become so severe a problem that it is beginning to threaten our democratic foundations. After all, why would you vote for, campaign for, lobby or influence a state that you do not trust or think can deliver?
I will touch on two reasons why this crisis has occurred. First, people feel increasingly distant from the decisions that affect their everyday lives due to the stifling centralism that has engulfed this country over the last 40 years.
Of course, that is why I welcome the proposal in the gracious Speech to introduce a devolution Bill. However, devolution should not just be seen in terms of the selective transfer of some statutory powers to more local levels of governance, or structural change. To help restore trust, devolution must be about creating stronger, more effective communities—that is what it is about—where people feel a sense of belonging; communities able to define their own needs and make choices about their own priorities; communities that can fully realise the potential which we all know they possess and which we already see in the contributions made by individuals, charities and voluntary sector groups; communities that can quickly respond to changing demands, innovate and build trust in ways that we saw so well during the pandemic.
To create those sorts of communities, we need a long-term vision for the future relationship between central and local governance, based upon greater financial stability and with localities given access to whole-place budgets. We need some credible form of local accountability which, frankly, we do not have at the moment, and we need to confront—yes, confront—the inevitable resistance of central government silos to ceding power. What about a mission-based approach, Minister? For me, the success of devolution a decade from now is not going to be measured by the number of powers transferred or bodies set up, but by whether we have created stronger communities, providing better services, improved growth, reduced waste and that critical sense of belonging.
The second reason why we have this crisis of trust is a profound disenchantment with the behaviour and standards of some who hold public office. I know more than most that we have vast numbers of dedicated public servants who have tried so hard to maintain services in the face of almost impossible challenges, but we cannot ignore any longer the failings exposed by the infected blood inquiry, the Post Office scandal, Windrush, Hillsborough, Grenfell and now the Covid report, and nor can we excuse them as isolated historic incidents. If we are going to regain trust, we need to show that we want to change that and address those failings. We need to show that we are determined to give the public what they have the right to expect, which is not least to be treated with respect and consideration.
Clearly, our current attempts to codify these expectations are not working. The Nolan principles, the Ministerial Code and the Civil Service Code proved insufficient, and their words will ring hollow with, for example, the victims of the infected blood scandal—many of whom I have met—for whom integrity, accountability, openness and honesty were sadly absent. We need a thorough review not just of the content of those codes but, even more importantly, of how they are enforced and how breaches are sanctioned, whether those breaches are by officials or by Ministers.
Surely the Ministerial Code must be made statutory, but what about giving Permanent Secretaries the power to seek a direction, not just on the grounds of value for money but, equally, on potential breaches of the codes of behaviour? If local government is required to appoint statutory monitoring officers—which it has had to do since 1989—then perhaps central government departments need something similar.
We have long boasted that our standards of governance in this country were beyond reproach, but recent inquiries tell a different story. They speak sometimes of a system which is excessively defensive and reluctant to learn the lessons of failure. That has to change.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, for making such a powerful case for change. I shall read his speech in Hansard, because it is a cry to all Members of this House, particularly those on the Government Benches, for what we have to do to change the nature of governance in this country.
In a different tone, I welcome the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hermer, particularly because he put such emphasis on upholding the rule of law. It was so powerful to hear that. I look forward to many exchanges with the noble Lord, Lord Khan, in this House in the months, and maybe years, ahead.
My noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford was right when he said that the Liberal tradition is always to want more reform. In the light of that comment, I say this: our creaking constitution and outmoded governance arrangements, at every level, are in urgent need of reform. The paltry offerings from the Government in this gracious Speech leave much to be desired. It would be good for them to make a bit more of a challenge.
It is not surprising that much of the time in this debate has been spent making different arguments about reforms to this House. On the one hand, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, made a robust defence of the status quo; on the other, my noble friends Lord Wallace and Lord Thurso made the powerful case for fundamental reform and an elected House. We have heard lots of ideas in between, which I hope the Government will listen to and reflect on, because there were some good ideas in the huge array of what has been said today.
That moves me on to democracy—maybe—and elections. My noble friend Lord Rennard said that we hope that the Labour manifesto pledges to introduce automatic voter registration and to remove voter ID will be enacted in the lifetime of this Parliament. He is right to make the case for doing it more promptly than perhaps is suggested in the gracious Speech.
As my noble friend stated, the Liberal Democrats want fairness in all our electoral system and an equal voice for all in making the decisions that affect them at the most local level possible. Therefore, we welcome the principle of devolution to all parts of England. However, what is not clear is whether this will just be further delegation of resources with many Whitehall strings attached—which has been the nature of it so far—or something more meaningful. As my noble friend Lord Scriven argued, fiscal devolution, as well as policy devolution, will be very important. If that is unleashed, it will result in the economic growth that this Government want and that the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, pointed to.
Unfortunately, it seems that the model adopted will continue to be that of a single elected mayor. That creates a whole new democratic deficit whereby key strategic decisions will be made by an elected mayor, but without the proper accountability provided by democratically elected members of different political persuasions. That arrangement will not do and will not stand the test of time.
I move on to devolution to the nations of our country. We have heard calls from noble Lords who have direct experience of devolution in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, and my noble friends Lady Humphreys and Lord Bruce referenced the importance of change within those devolution settlements and that a more comprehensive settlement is long overdue. A piecemeal approach to nationwide devolution is in no one’s best interests, least of all those of the people it is meant to serve. We on these Benches will always press for a constitutional settlement that includes a federal settlement for all the nations of our country.
Meanwhile, in the great regions of England, we are still waiting for real devolution. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Warner, for what he said about Yorkshire, and remind Members opposite that my home county of Yorkshire has a similar population to that of Scotland, and double those of Wales and Northern Ireland. Yet that great county of Yorkshire has had only fragmented and limited devolution, and it is singularly lacking in its democracy. Give us devolution, so that we in Yorkshire can get on and make our county thriving again.
That leads me to talk about what I regard as the appalling lack of reference to local government in this gracious Speech. The noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, talked about that, as did my noble friend Lady Hamwee. The one positive announcement that has been made is to restore “local government” to the title of the department—thank you. All politics is local and all public service delivery is local, and I hope that the Government will be mindful of this. According to the LGA, almost one in five councils is teetering on the verge of issuing Section 114 notices. In unitary councils, including metropolitans in big urban centres, about 80% of their budgets will be spent on adult social care, support for vulnerable children and SEND. A steeply declining resource is left for all other local services, which may explain the state of our roads. This is not sustainable, even in the short term. The Government have ambitious targets for housebuilding and planning reform, but these services cannot be divorced from the rest of local government. Planning applications require assessments by many local services, including highways and the environment. I sincerely hope that the Government understand the predicament facing local government, and that that understanding will lead to desperately needed further resources.
This wide-ranging and fascinating debate has demonstrated that many in this House are urging the new Government to use their huge majority to transform our politics and governance. Unfortunately, the meagre offerings in this gracious Speech leave room for much more. Having said that, it is at least positive that the changes proposed will make a small progressive step in the right direction.
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
My Lords, on behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition let me first put on record my congratulations to Labour on its comprehensive victory in the general election, and my special congratulations to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hermer, and the noble Lord, Lord Khan of Burnley, on their places on the Front Bench. I wish them all success.
For those of us who previously sat on the Front Bench, it is rather disorientating to come into the other side of the House. But in scanning the Opposition Benches calibration came to my aid when I saw my main protagonist in constitutional matters, the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock, in exactly the same place on the Government Benches as he sat when on the Opposition Benches. Perhaps it is business as usual—or perhaps not.
Being relatively new to this House, with a tenure of three years and not yet aged 60, I will not divert into the matters of hereditary Peers or age but will focus on devolution. Given that I previously served as Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, noble Lords will forgive me if I focus on Scottish matters, but for Welsh and Northern Irish Peers there will be many similarities in the remarks I wish to make about devolution. This year, 2024, is the 25th anniversary of devolution in the UK. Surely, therefore, it would not be unreasonable to ask the Labour Party, which invented devolution, to undertake a 25-year review to see where it has worked well and where it has not worked so well.
In the numerous exchanges I had with the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, when I was sitting on the Front Bench, he expressed frustration that His Majesty’s Government in Westminster were not doing more to police the activities of the Scottish Government when they continually diverged outside the jurisdiction of devolved matters into reserved matters. The noble Lord was particularly exercised, as he mentioned this evening, about the establishment of foreign Scottish embassies in eight overseas cities where the UK already has embassies, at a cost of £1 million each, and about the use of civil servant time in publishing a series of independence papers, as well as the indulging of new state planning at a cost of £20 million. The noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, would berate me, the Scottish Under-Secretary of State, that I was not doing more to bring the Scottish Government into line.
My reply to the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, was consistent: His Majesty’s Government have to work within the architecture of the Scotland Act 1998, which was designed and implemented by the Labour Party. The reality is that the Labour Party, as referenced by the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, did not envisage that the Scottish Government would, to use the noble Lord’s language, be weaponised against the United Kingdom Government, as the SNP has done these last 17 years. The result is that necessary checks and balances were not put in place to ensure good law-making, nor indeed were sanctions designed to discourage ultra vires behaviour. Surely now is the time for the new Labour Government to tidy up their previous work and review and improve the Scotland Act, as well as look at devolution across Wales and Northern Ireland to ensure greater co-operation between Westminster and the devolved Administrations.
The Scotland Act is basically very simple—you can put it on one piece of A4 paper. On the left-hand side of the paper you have reserved matters and on the right-hand side you have devolved matters. Harmony is ensured when His Majesty’s Government—the UK Government—focus on reserved matters and the Scottish Government focus on devolved matters. The sad reality is that, in the 17 years under an SNP Government, every single KPI in devolved matters in Scotland has gone backwards. Our education system, once the gold-plated education system in the United Kingdom—which allowed me to go from a tenement to this place—has been reduced from outstanding to average. Police numbers are now at a record 15-year low, and let us not talk about the A9, the single-track railways or the ferries. On health, one in seven Scots is currently on a waiting list, and local authorities are being denuded.
Interestingly, with local authorities there is a glimmer of hope in our 25-year review. One of the great privileges of my job in the Scotland Office was to work with DLUHC on the levelling-up agenda, where £3 billion of UK money went direct to Scotland—and direct to the 32 local authorities, much to the cries of foul play by the Scottish Government, who wanted it to come direct to them. In my role as Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, I had interactions with the 32 local authorities and had very meaningful conversations with them. Whichever colour of party ran the council, they said to us that this was the best level of engagement they had had with the UK in the 25 years since devolution began. They said that it came to them with enthusiasm and empowerment. It was their idea as to how to spend the money—there were city deals, freeports, a levelling-up fund and a community ownership fund. London was not telling them how to spend their money; they were telling us where they wanted to spend it. The one thing they said was that they wanted more of it, because they do not get any of that interaction, nor indeed money, from the Scottish Government.
On this idea of devolution being called for from London to Edinburgh, it does not seem to go from Edinburgh to Greenock, Falkirk or Bathgate. But I am very proud that, in my time in the Scotland Office over the last five years, we have made great strides on that. I will give your Lordships one little anecdote. Many noble Lords will know the Corran ferry, a small but very important link from Lochaber to Ardnamurchan. When it went down, the Scottish Government denied funding for it. The UK Government came to the rescue through the levelling-up fund. The leader of the Highland Council, being an SNP councillor, was so desperate for the money that he even agreed with me to put a union jack on the ferry. The message that came back was, “We don’t care where the money comes from; what we in local authorities want is to be listened to and funded adequately”.
So, when we look at the dismal Administration that we have had in Scotland—we can talk also about Wales and Northern Ireland another time—it is interesting that that is despite record funding that has come from His Majesty’s Treasury. How dishonest of the current First Minister, John Swinney, to claim in the recent general election that Scotland’s problems were all down to Westminster austerity when between 2018 and 2023, the five principal years of Nicola Sturgeon’s premiership, Scottish government spending went up from £40 billion to £55 billion. That is 6% per annum.
I do not know how many of my fellow noble Lords run businesses, but how many who do have organic revenue growth of 6% per annum? That does not look to me to be austerity at all. That money is sent north with no strings attached. London does not prescribe to Edinburgh how to spend the money. The reality is that the Scottish Government make their spending choices. They have prioritised in their period of power giving record welfare payments and record increases in public sector pay. They are entitled to do that. The three lowest-spending departments have been education, the police and local authorities. This should serve as a warning to any new Government and the new Labour Government. The SNP boasts that it has created a welfare economy. The harsh reality is that, without wealth creation, there will be no welfare.
I take this opportunity to urge the new Government to take a fresh look at and review the 25 years of devolution. There have been many good things achieved, but we must take the opportunity now to ensure that the Scottish Government get focused on doing the day job of running the police, the schools and the roads, which has been expressed in this Chamber this evening. On devolution, we all agree a consensus that it is about bringing power closer to the people in matters that matter in their local areas. We need to focus on this, rather than Parliament having fancy nation-building and looking at a land of milk and honey.
I leave noble Lords with this thought. Given that—
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I am flattered that the noble Lord is spending so much time dealing with one of the points that I raised. There were dozens of others, brilliant points raised by other noble Lords. Surely the Opposition spokesperson ought to be replying to those as well?
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for continuing to joust with me. I did say that I would focus on Scottish issues, because I know Wales and Northern Ireland less, and that I would focus on devolution. My major point is that a 25-year review of devolution is required. Therefore, I suggest that we accept that all parts of the United Kingdom send their MPs to Westminster. The constitution is devolved to Westminster and that is where the debates should happen. If we want to debate further independence, perhaps we can invite “Lord Salmond” or “Lord Blackford” to join this Chamber. Then it would not just be “The Lord Offord versus Lord Foulkes Show”.
Anyway, in conclusion, I will finish by reprising the wisdom of my noble friend Lord Caine, who said earlier that the primary responsibility of the UK Government was first and foremost to preserve this most successful and lasting union for the benefit of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. I would welcome that assurance today from the Government Front Bench.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Lord Khan of Burnley) (Lab)
My Lords, it is a great honour to close this important debate on His Majesty’s gracious Speech. I thank your Lordships for your many learned contributions, not least among them the excellent opening speech made by my noble and learned friend Lord Hermer, the Attorney-General—his maiden address to this House. With his decades of legal expertise at the very highest level, I know that my noble and learned friend will make an enormous contribution to this place and I take this opportunity to welcome him.
I also pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Booth, for his maiden address to this House, and to the former Ministers, the noble Baronesses, Lady Swinburne, Lady Penn and Lady Scott of Bybrook. Both my noble friend Lady Taylor and I thank them for their collegiate approach and work on this brief. We look forward to working with them in the future, and with the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, from the Liberal Democrat Benches.
I also pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Warner, who is retiring after almost 26 years in this place. I thank him for his decades of devoted public service and for the important work he has done throughout his career—both as a parliamentarian and as a civil servant—to improve the delivery of public health, child protection and youth justice services in this country.
It is my personal privilege to stand before your Lordships today, for the first time as a Government Minister—an honour that not many working-class lads from Burnley grow up thinking they will achieve. I thank all those who have offered their kind congratulations following my appointment to this office. But we cannot ignore how Westminster, the very heart of our democracy, feels further away than ever for millions of people across our country living in towns like mine. Ordinary working people have seen the gap between the sacrifices that they have been asked to make and the service that they have received from politicians grow into a chasm in recent years. Builders, plumbers, nurses, taxi drivers, as my dad and I used to be—hard-working people are doing the right thing but struggling to make ends meet, because of decisions made here, in this place.
It is time to restore faith and trust in our democracy and bridge the divide that has grown between politics and the people, by delivering the change that this Government were elected so decisively to bring—a point that a number of noble Lords made this evening.
We will place public service at the heart of everything we do, as we fulfil our mission of national renewal. This begins with putting more power than ever before in the hands of local people, kickstarting a devolution revolution in England that will transfer more decisions from Westminster to those who know their communities best, putting local people in charge of shaping their future and delivering the progress that local communities want to see. As a former Mayor of Burnley, I know first hand the transformative change that strong local leaders can achieve if given the powers to do so.
This work has already begun. Within days of taking office, the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister hosted combined authority mayors in Downing Street to discuss our plans for change. Last week, the Deputy Prime Minister wrote to local leaders in devolution deserts across the country to set this political transformation in motion, encouraging them to take on new powers in areas such as transport, adult education and skills, housing and planning, and employment support. We are driving forward our national mission to boost economic growth.
We have seen the benefits of devolution in Greater Manchester. The city region has been one of the UK’s most spectacular success stories and fastest-growing areas over the last 20 years, and it is predicted to outpace national growth for years to come. This success has been led by Mayor Andy Burnham, who has used his powers to encourage investment, boost skills and integrate the local transport system.
We have seen the impact of devolution elsewhere in the country too, with mayors playing a crucial role in attracting new investment, such as Boeing and McLaren to South Yorkshire, creating good new jobs, and West Yorkshire becoming the UK’s fastest-growing digital hub outside London thanks to local leadership.
But, as we all know, these successes are the exception and not the rule. Regional growth has stagnated in recent years. The productivity of our major towns and cities still lags far behind. This is a lose-lose situation for us all. The Centre for Cities estimates a £180 billion boost to the economy if productivity in the north and Midlands matches that of London and the south-east. This is why we are encouraging local leaders to develop ambitious, long-term local growth plans that build on their area’s existing strengths, partnering with them to attract more business, create more jobs and deliver more opportunity for local people. We will join forces with major employers, universities, colleges and industry bodies to identify growth sectors and give them the support that they need to thrive.
Where there is a solid track record of sound financial management, we will simplify the funding process, giving local leaders the space and flexibility they need to progress. But the power of devolution does not stop at economic growth. We want to give people the tools to transform the look and feel of the neighbourhoods and high streets they love, too. Our English devolution Bill includes a new right-to-buy option, so that communities can purchase much-loved assets such as empty shops, pubs and community spaces, while helping to tackle the blight of empty premises, spruce up public spaces and give local communities greater power to shape services and influence regeneration.
Our mission to transfer more power to local leaders in England echoes the spirit of devolution to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland 25 years ago. As we celebrate a quarter of a century since this landmark reform was made, we must reset and restore the strained relationship we have inherited between Westminster and the devolved Governments, rebuilding the partnership between us. We are a Government for the whole United Kingdom: a Government who work in the interests of people living in every corner of our four nations, so that we can stand together once again to face the challenges of an uncertain world.
The Prime Minister is leading this work to rebuild our country, work that began on day one of our new Government when he spoke with the First Ministers of Scotland and Wales and the First and Deputy First Ministers of Northern Ireland, before travelling to meet them in Edinburgh, Belfast and Cardiff within his first 48 hours in office.
We are committed to strengthening the structures and institutions of our partnership of Governments, so that we can lay the foundation for change and deliver the programme of reform and national renewal that our country so badly needs. A council of the nations and regions will be established to underpin this work, with the Prime Minister partnering directly with the elected heads of Government in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and with the mayors of the combined authorities of England, who will be working closely with the Deputy Prime Minister to ensure that our national reforms deliver for people living across our United Kingdom.
But to restore faith in our democracy, we must first clean up our act here in Westminster, beginning with strengthening the enforcement of standards in public life. The Government are committed to establishing a new independent ethics and integrity commission with its own independent chair. This will ensure probity, restore confidence in government and make sure that Ministers are held to the highest standards, helping reset our public life.
As set out in our manifesto, the Government are committed to constitutional reform and modernising how Parliament works. As a first step, we will introduce a focused Bill that removes the right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords. Noble lords will be aware that the measures put in place in the House of Lords Act 1999 were intended to last only for a short period before more substantial reforms were enacted. It has now been 25 years since the passage of that Act and, as a first step on the road to further reform, now is the time for this modernisation.
The Government recognise the good work of hereditary peers who scrutinise the Government of the day and improve the quality of legislation, but reform is essential and long overdue. Places in the second Chamber should not be reserved for individuals because of their family background. For this reason, the Government hope that noble Lords will support this measure when it comes before the House.
The Government will act to strengthen our democracy at its roots by making our electoral system fairer, more secure and more inclusive, improving participation and, in due course, extending the franchise to 16 and 17 year-olds, thoroughly reviewing and addressing the rules on voter ID, and tightening the rules around donations to political parties. These reforms will give more people a voice, and a stake, in our democracy. They will help us meet the threat posed by malign actors who seek to interfere in our elections and give us the tools we need to root them out and expel them from our political finance framework.
I turn to the contributions from noble Lords across the House. On the points made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, my noble friend Lady Jay of Paddington and other noble Lords, the ongoing position, as has been stated in the House, is indefensible and can be addressed quickly through this hereditary Peers Bill. The manifesto is clear that the Government are committed to acting decisively to address the most pressing issues by bringing about immediate modernisation. The first step in this process is this Bill, and this will not preclude further reforms.
The Government are committed to other reforms to the House of Lords. The noble Baroness, Lady Jay of Paddington, asked about this. We are in particular looking at introducing changes to the appointments process and at a mandatory retirement age, as well as a long-term commitment to replace the House of Lords with an alternative second Chamber that is more representative of the regions and nations. Given the nature and potential scale of these reforms, the Government will conduct engagement and consult on proposals for an alternative second Chamber, seeking the input of the British public on how politics can best serve them.
I listened to the ideas my noble friend Lord Foulkes of Cumnock presented. I will take them back to the department. I also pay tribute to the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Burns. I thank him for his previous work on this area. I will look at the points he made and take them back, in particular in relation to the size of the House.
The Government have committed to improving the appointments process to ensure the quality of new appointments and to seek to improve the national and regional balance of the second Chamber. We are actively considering how this can best be achieved. I reject the assertion of the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, that this is a purge. The intention is to make sure that the House is fit for purpose, in line with modernising this House and politics generally.
The Government have set out a commitment to introduce a retirement age. As the Prime Minister said, the Lords has become too big. The manifesto also sets out other measures, including the introduction of a participation requirement. The Government recognise the good work of many Peers who scrutinise the Executive and improve the quality of legislation.
The noble Lord, Lord Fowler, said that this was an unprecedented opportunity for reform and we should not need 30 years. That is why the work will start now. The House of Lords plays an important role in scrutinising, as I mentioned, and we recognise the valuable contribution of many Peers. It is important that Members participate in support of this core function.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, spoke about non-attendance. We are looking at how we can deliver the manifesto commitment to introduce this participation requirement, building on existing rules that require Members to attend once every parliamentary Session.
My noble friend Lord Grocott alluded to the by-elections. Abolishing the by-elections would run counter to our commitment to bring about immediate modernisation. The youngest hereditary Peer is in their 30s, so this approach would mean hereditary Peers could remain part of this House for generations. I take the point my noble friend made; had we dealt with this earlier, we would have had a much smaller House.
The noble Lord, Lord Northbrook, asked whether the Earl Marshal and the Lord Great Chamberlain would remain as Peers. The Earl Marshal is responsible for the organisation of major ceremonial state occasions, such as the Coronation of the monarch and state funerals. The Lord Great Chamberlain has charge of many parts of the Palace of Westminster and is the sovereign’s representative in Parliament. The important ceremonial functions of both will not be impacted by this Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, asked how long it would take to set up the modernisation committee he referred to. The Government are committed to bringing about a return to politics of service and, as a priority, intend to tighten the existing prohibition on MPs providing paid parliamentary advice.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, and the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, talked about our approach to the Lords Spiritual. Some Peers, including the noble and learned Lord, asked why the Government were not planning to remove the Lords Spiritual from this House. The legislation announced in the King’s Speech is a focused Bill to bring about immediate modernisation by removing the rights of hereditary Peers to sit and vote. In contrast to bishops, hereditary Peers gain their position as a birthright. As I said, we are committed to an alternative second Chamber that will be more representative of the regions and nations.
A number of noble Lords made contributions in relation to electoral reform. I will start with the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire. The Government are clear that all legitimate voters should not only have the opportunity to vote in our vibrant democracy but be actively encouraged to participate. The Government will therefore act during this Parliament to give 16 and 17 year-olds the right to vote in all elections, strengthening our democracy, empowering young people to participate and building an informed and empowered electorate. Alongside this, we will tackle the unacceptable participation gap in our elections by taking wider action to improve rates of electoral registration. My noble friend Lord Alli made that point eloquently.
While we act to encourage participation, we will also protect our democracy from malign actors who seek to interfere in UK elections through illegitimate political donations. We will act to strengthen the rules around donations to political parties, a point that my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton alluded to.
Those aged 16 and 17 can work, pay tax and serve our country in the Armed Forces. It therefore stands that they should also be entitled to vote and have their say on issues that affect them and their future. The Government will act during this Parliament to give 16 and 17 year-olds the right to vote in all UK elections, strengthening our democracy and empowering young people to participate in it. We are determined to do this right. This will be a major change to the electoral franchise, requiring careful planning and engagement with stakeholders in the electoral sector, devolved and local government, education and civil society and, importantly, young people themselves to ensure its success. By engaging voters early when they are young, we will build the foundations for their lifelong participation in our electoral process, as illustrated by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Llanfaes. Our Government will work with the electoral sector, as mentioned before, raise participation and make the electoral system more effective. We have a lot of progress to make ahead of primary legislation and will explore opportunities to do so.
The noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Llanfaes, and the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, talked in particular about voter ID. We have had concerns about the voter identification policy, and a long, vigorous debate has previously taken place in this House and the other place on this issue. The Government are committed to carefully and thoroughly reviewing the voter ID rules and evaluating how they impacted citizens during the general election, before bringing forward firm proposals in due course.
In relation to points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, as well as the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, about automatic registration, we want to raise participation in our vibrant democracy and will explore options for achieving that objective. We will look at ways to use data and wider public services to encourage and support electoral registration. We will look to test different approaches and use experience from other countries to inform our decisions.
The noble Lord, Lord Rennard, talked about the independence of the Electoral Commission. On the Electoral Commission strategy and policy statement, it is vital for public confidence in our democracy that the independence of the Electoral Commission is upheld. The existence of a strategy and policy statement for the Electoral Commission is inconsistent with the commission’s role as an independent regulator.
The noble Lord, Lord Bruce, talked about first past the post. The voting system used to elect our representatives sits at the heart of our democracy and is of fundamental importance. The first past the post system is a clear way of electing representatives, is well understood by voters, and provides strong and direct local accountability.
The most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York talked about people being turned away at polling stations. We will conduct a thorough evaluation of the voter ID rules and evaluate how citizens during the general election were affected by the acceptance, or non-acceptance in some examples, of ID. Consideration of the evaluation will be given by the Electoral Commission before bringing forward firm proposals in due course.
The noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, talked about postal votes. The availability of postal voting supports many people who would not otherwise be able to participate in person due to disability or family commitments. It is illegal to use another’s vote, and there are serious sanctions, including fines and imprisonment.
In response to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cymgiedd, I recognise the points made on statutory instruments. I can confirm that the department will take the necessary steps to ensure that information is available to enable effective scrutiny, and that drafting quality is of utmost importance to this Government. He talked about the end of skeleton Bills, as did the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich. The Government recognise the vital importance of allowing Members of both Houses to scrutinise legislation effectively. There will be times where it is appropriate to have framework powers—in regulations in particular. However, we will make sure that there is flexibility, and will increase the minimum wage and uprate benefits in relation to this framework. This new Government will ensure that legislation is brought to this House in a state and manner befitting its importance to allow for effective scrutiny, implementation and improvement of Bills.
It has been a wide-ranging debate, but I will try to get through it in relation to the English devolution Bill. English devolution has been evolving for the past 10 years, with almost half of the English population now covered by devolution deals. However, to date, devolution deals have been struck with areas on a case-by-case basis, leaving a patchwork of institutions with different powers and governance arrangements which is difficult to navigate—these points were made by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkham, the noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, and my noble friend Lord Foulkes of Cumnock.
This landmark devolution Bill will fix this problem by establishing a new, clear devolution framework which will enshrine the role of local leaders in statute, extend the benefits of devolution to more areas and guarantee all areas access to an ambitious set of new powers which will unlock economic growth.
In relation to the point raised by my noble friend Lord Berkeley about the Isles of Scilly, the Deputy Prime Minister has made clear her desire to see devolution extended to every corner of England, and she is inviting local areas to put forward proposals. I will take back the issues my noble friend Lord Berkeley raised.
On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, the English devolution Bill will deliver on our commitments to move power out of Westminster and strengthen mayoral powers. We are committed to engaging with local leaders on this enhanced devolution framework as it is developed. A number of points were made in relation to devolution. I have covered as many as I possibly can. I believe I have up to 25 minutes.
I want to finish this point about ethics and integrity. We will establish an independent ethics commission, as I mentioned. The Government are committed to restoring confidence in government and ensuring that Ministers are held to the highest standards. The ethics and integrity commission will therefore have the powers and functions necessary to do that.
In relation to the points noble Lords made in relation to Northern Ireland, the Leader of the House is in her place listening to them. We will come back and are happy to write to noble Lords on these points.
The Government are determined to rebuild the bonds of trust between people and politicians in this country. We know the damage done can be mended only by actions, not words. This will take time, but the work of change has already begun. It is a privilege to stand here as a Minister. I assure noble Lords that I intended to be an engaged Minister with my door always open to discuss issues and concerns that your Lordships may have. I reiterate the point made by my noble and learned friend Lord Hermer that it is imperative that we respect the rule of law, and I am pleased that this commitment is explicitly included in the oath taken by law officers.
The reforms we have debated today demonstrate the Government’s fundamental commitment to public service as we change our country for the better, putting the interests of ordinary working people at the forefront of all we do, rebuilding respect for our politics, restoring faith in our democracy and reuniting our country.