Carbon Border Taxes
(2 days, 5 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Fuller
To ask His Majesty’s Government, further to the proposals by the European Union to exempt 80 per cent of eligible EU companies from new carbon border taxes, what plans they have to ensure that equivalent businesses in the United Kingdom are treated similarly.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Livermore) (Lab)
My Lords, this is already the case. To ensure that the costs of complying with the UK carbon border adjustment mechanism are proportionate, it will apply only to those firms importing CBAM goods valued at £50,000 or more over a rolling 12-month period. The Government estimate that this will exclude 80% of CBAM-eligible firms while retaining more than 99% of imported emissions within the scope of the tax.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, the carbon border adjustment mechanism is a tariff by any other name. I am involved in an industry affected by CBAM, so I know more than most about the astonishingly divergent way in which the UK Government plan to introduce this tax. It will damage competitiveness, be complex to administer and drive growing inflationary pressures. There are even proposals to levy the tax to protect industries that do not even exist anymore. The EU has worked out for itself—
Lord Fuller (Con)
I am just about to ask the question. The EU has worked out for itself that building a walled garden around the economy will damage its own competitiveness. The Prime Minister said today in PMQs that all options were on the table in so far as tariffs are concerned. Does the Minister agree that the whole UK proposal needs a fresh look, or is he prepared to see us sleepwalk into a trade war with our friends and allies in the United States while damaging trade with our close EU partners?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his question. However, the answer is no, I do not agree with him. Reducing the UK’s carbon emissions is necessary to meet our emissions targets, and the emissions trading scheme and the carbon border adjustment mechanism are necessary tools to do that. Our approach is very similar to that of the EU. As the noble Lord said in his Question, we are doing exactly what the EU is doing—in fact, I think it has followed us, rather than the other way around, so our approaches are extremely similar. The US Administration have made no public comment on the UK CBAM, and I am not going to speculate on a hypothetical.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that the UK and the EU running separate carbon markets only adds regulatory burdens and damages our energy transition and national industries? Is it time to work with our EU partners and look at relinking carbon markets to help to make our industries more competitive and drive down our energy bills?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I absolutely agree with the noble Earl that alignment is helpful to UK competitiveness. We recognise that alignment with existing regimes can reduce administration burdens, so we will align where appropriate and we will follow developments on the EU CBAM very closely. We also continue to explore all options to improve trade and investment with the EU, which includes the UK and EU giving serious consideration to linking our emissions trading schemes.
The Earl of Devon (CB)
My Lords, given that we now produce no nitrogen fertiliser at all in the United Kingdom, and all of it is imported, have the Government calculated the impact of the carbon border tax on the price of food grown in the UK?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
Fertiliser production in the UK is subject to carbon pricing under the UK Emissions Trading Scheme. A UK CBAM will ensure that fertiliser produced overseas faces a comparable carbon price to equivalent goods produced in the UK. Most UK agricultural prices are a function of a range of international factors and the Government do not expect a CBAM on fertiliser to put UK farmers at a competitive disadvantage.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest in this subject. Further to the question asked by the noble Earl, Lord Devon, can the Minister say whether the Government have made any assessment at all of the impact that this could have on our balance of payments?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I do not think that that is relevant to this policy. Most of our trade in food is with the EU, and the EU has a similar scheme to ours.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, is not this another example of the mess that has been left by the previous Government? Does my noble friend agree that they did nothing to negotiate this, which is now causing problems to our industry?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am very tempted to agree with my noble friend. I think that what he says is absolutely the case.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, UK energy prices are far too high, notably for industrial uses such as steel, cement and ceramics, and for manufacturing, which are vital to the UK economy. Does the Minister agree that the arrangements for a carbon tax here and any border mechanisms must always be considered against the need to reduce energy costs for users and, as has been foreshadowed, to keep prices down, especially for hard-pressed consumers?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
Yes—I agree with the noble Baroness that energy prices are too high. I just wonder what the previous Government did to tackle that over 14 years. This Government have invested in CCUS, for example, which the previous Government did not. I do not know whether the noble Baroness agrees with our investments in that; she opposes the revenue-raising measures that we have taken to raise the funds to invest in those measures. It is an interesting question, but I of course agree with her. That is why the tax is designed in exactly the way that it is.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
My Lords, to return to my noble friend Lord Fuller’s question, how is this different from a tariff? One effect of a tariff is that it results in the outsourcing of manufacturing. People will take car-making or whatever to places that are not affected by this additional levy. Have the Government made any assessment of how much deindustrialisation there will be as a consequence of imposing what is, in effect, a tariff on ourselves?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
As I understand it, the noble Lord likes market-led approaches. The UK Emissions Trading Scheme is a market-led approach whereby those domestic firms and industries that are able to decarbonise quickly do so first, while technological solutions are found for those where it is more difficult. To maintain the integrity of the UK’s decarbonisation efforts through the emissions trading scheme, we must mitigate the risk of carbon leakage, which means that we must have a carbon border adjustment mechanism.
Campus Antisemitism in Britain: Community Security Trust Report
(2 days, 5 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Deech
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the report by the Community Security Trust, Campus Antisemitism in Britain 2022–2024, published on 9 December 2024; and what steps they have taken to ensure an appropriate response to its recommendations from university authorities.
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
My Lords, the recommendations of this report focus on improving processes for reporting and investigating campus anti-Semitism. We have discussed it with the Community Security Trust and the Office of the Independent Adjudicator. The Secretary of State will shortly host a round table with vice-chancellors to discuss, among other matters, how the report’s recommendations might be implemented. The forthcoming Office for Students E6 condition will require universities to demonstrate that they are preventing and tackling harassment.
Baroness Deech (CB)
I thank the Minister for that Answer, and wish to press her on further action. The events of 7 October have released a 117% rise in anti-Semitic incidents on campus and released into the mainstream an anti-Semitism that was always under the surface—what a failure of education. The incidents reported, which include acts by lecturers, are shameful: calls to “Kill Jews” and “Bring back Hitler”, comparisons of Gaza and Auschwitz, physical assaults and isolation—the like of which I have never seen before in academic life. Will the Government tell the Office for Students to use its regulatory powers to ensure a good complaints system which is speedy and punishes the malefactors? Will the Minister follow this up? Will she tell vice-chancellors to stand up for persecuted Jewish minorities and to stop appeasing and negotiating with vandals? Vice-chancellors should follow the example of the noble Lord, Lord Hague, the new Chancellor of Oxford, who has spoken out against the situation.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The noble Baroness is absolutely right that there are some shocking examples of anti-Semitic abuse, some of which I was able to hear about yesterday during a session run by StandWithUs, at which students themselves movingly and distressingly talked about their experiences on campuses. The noble Baroness is right that higher education needs to focus on the recommendations of the report and, in thinking in advance of the implementation of the new OfS condition in August, on what action it can take. That is why my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will be bringing together vice-chancellors to make that message very clear.
Lord Katz (Lab)
My Lords, as the CST report lays bare, university campuses are indeed the front line of anti-Semitism, with some at risk of becoming all but no-go zones for Jewish students. Has my noble friend the Minister seen the briefing compiled by the Union of Jewish Students which catalogues a litany of Holocaust distortion and inversion that occurred on Holocaust Memorial Day this year in universities across the country? Does she agree with the UJS that HE institutions—including the Office for Students and student unions—and the police need to take immediate and decisive action to confront this troubling trend, ensuring that Holocaust distortion has no place on campus, and that Jewish students have the necessary support and protection to thrive at whatever university they choose to attend?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I recognise the situation outlined by my noble friend. I have already talked about the action that this Government will be taking with respect to the Holocaust to ensure that young people understand its significance even before they go to university. The Holocaust is, quite rightly, the only historic event that is compulsory in the current national curriculum for history at key stage 3. It is why, as well as the support provided for Holocaust education in schools and colleges at the moment, an additional £2 million was committed in the Autumn Budget 2024 for Holocaust remembrance and education. That funding aims to ensure that all students have the opportunity to hear a recorded survivor testimony, with the department exploring ways to support schools in achieving that goal.
The Lord Bishop of Bristol
My Lords, aware of the renewed efforts by the University of Bristol to combat anti-Semitism, and noting the multifaith conference on anti-Semitism that will take place there this month and the collaborative work of multifaith chaplaincies with university authorities and the Community Security Trust, how are the Government using the learning and good practice from universities around the country?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The right reverend Prelate makes the important point, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, that there are some universities which are taking this challenge extremely seriously and are making progress. It is important that we share that best practice as widely as possible. On the role of chaplaincies, one of the things that this Government have already done is to provide £500,000 to the University Jewish Chaplaincy, to help to support student welfare on university campuses, as part of the £7 million in funding that we have confirmed to address anti-Semitism in schools, colleges and universities.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
One of the areas led on by the CST was the encampments at the universities, which provide an intimidating and, frankly, terrifying atmosphere for Jewish students. I have walked past them myself and I have seen them. They have been joined by people from outside the university who are masked, shouting slogans supporting terror. What steps will the Minister take to encourage vice-chancellors to move these encampments away from the central parts of the universities—free speech is fine, but not right in the centre of a university—and pursue those who are clearly guilty of anti-Semitism and anti-Semitic rhetoric?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The noble Lord is right that encampments have been enormously intimidating and that they have attracted external activists on to campuses, often in a very intimidating way. Universities have already been working hard to improve on the situation from 2023-24, when there were a number of pro-Palestine encampments—at one point, there were around 40 active encampments. Some universities have taken legal action in order to secure possession orders in legal cases. Those cases were helpful for other universities contemplating or in the middle of possession proceedings against similar student encampments. So far, in this academic year, 2024-25, protesters have not been able to establish any kind of encampment lasting more than a few hours. Universities appear to be learning a lot from last year’s experience, both in being able to de-escalate incidents where possible and, where necessary, taking formal action to prevent disruption to core activities, including teaching.
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, we will hear from the Lib Dems next and then we will hear from the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg.
Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)
My Lords, can the Minister say whether all universities have designated places of worship for Jewish students and what security arrangements they are expected to put in place to ensure that Jewish students can work in safety?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I am not in a position to say whether all universities do, although, as I have previously identified, we are providing support to the University Jewish Chaplaincy to support student welfare on campuses. However, I think that is a fair question and one that I hope vice-chancellors will reflect on.
Lord Turnberg (Lab)
My Lords, last night, I had the privilege of hosting a group of students who described in devastating detail the sort of abuse that they were receiving on campuses, such that many are now afraid to attend classes or even go to the universities. Worst of all, it seems that their complaints to the authorities are often ignored and not answered at all in many instances. There may be examples of good practice but there are too many examples of bad practice. Will my noble friend the Minister bring it to the attention of vice-chancellors that they must take a grip on this horrible situation that allows their students to be treated in this manner, and in a way that means that some parents are beginning to think they should move abroad, rather than take their children into an English university.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The noble Lord is right about the impactful testimony that we were able to hear yesterday evening. I agree with him about the types of action we should be taking, particularly focusing on how the introduction of the new OfS condition will ensure that universities respond quickly, appropriately and with sufficient independence to the sorts of complaints we heard about yesterday.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, I was glad to hear the Minister refer to the University Jewish Chaplaincy, which offers invaluable practical and emotional support in universities all around the country. Will she join me in thanking it for its work, recognising that it is in exceptionally difficult circumstances, and for the leadership of the chief executive, Sophie Dunoff, and her team?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I am very pleased to join the noble Baroness in recognising that work. The University Jewish Chaplaincy not only provides safeguarding and support for Jewish students, at a time that we have already agreed has been enormously difficult, but, as the right reverend Prelate outlined, is increasingly working with other chaplaincies to develop the tolerance, and the ability to discuss and debate on our university campuses, that we should absolutely expect—as should Jewish students, given the experiences they have had. As a Government, we will definitely promote that work.
Apricity Fertility Closure
(2 days, 5 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the effect of the closure of Apricity Fertility on 1 January on the patients who were undertaking treatment with them.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)
My Lords, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority advised the department about the closure of Apricity in December. Apricity did not fall under the HFEA’s regulatory remit, as it was only a digital service. I urge anyone seeking fertility treatment to check that the clinic they are using is HFEA licensed. I advise affected patients in this case to check their consumer rights and engage with trading standards, if needed. More broadly, the HFEA is helpfully providing advice.
Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge (Con)
My Lords, Apricity Fertility advertised itself as:
“The UK’s Top Virtual IVF Clinic”.
As the Minister pointed out, it was not regulated by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, which by law can regulate only UK-licensed fertility clinics, which are the premises where treatments take place. Will the Minister commit to a review of the HFEA’s powers to ensure they are appropriate for digital services?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
As the noble Baroness will be aware, in November 2023 the HFEA published Modernising Fertility Law, in which it made a number of recommendations for urgent change, including around its regulatory powers. I will meet the HFEA chair and CEO tomorrow, and we will further discuss the regulatory challenges that the HFEA faces. I assure the noble Baroness that the Government are currently considering the HFEA’s priorities, including its role with digital clinics such as the one referred to, should an opportunity for legislative reform arise.
Lord Winston (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, asks a most important Question, and I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for answering it at least partially. I argue that much more of an answer is needed. Apricity advertised a success rate that was literally impossible; indeed, it was more than double the national success rate. Again and again, patients are being sucked into in vitro fertilisation—which may not always be the best treatment for them, just because they are infertile—because they think they will have a better chance of success than they actually have. It is time to be much more rigorous. As my noble friend the Minister is seeing the HFEA chair tomorrow, will she ask her how well the HFEA feels it is auditing the results it gets from clinics? In my view, many clinics are exaggerating, in all sorts of ways, what the success rate is.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My noble friend raises an extremely important point, which I will of course cover in my meeting tomorrow. It may be of interest to know that the Advertising Standards Authority and the HFEA issued a joint enforcement notice in 2021 to ensure that fertility clinics and others were aware of the advertising rules and were treating consumers fairly. That remains in place. The ASA periodically reviews compliance with its rules. Its recent review in the fertility sector found far fewer absolute claims than it had found previously and that the level of compliance is good. That is not to say that it is good in all cases, and I agree with my noble friend’s point.
Baroness Barker (LD)
My Lords, the law governing human fertilisation and embryology in this country built on the outstanding work of Baroness Warnock. It was carefully crafted so that it rests on principles that endure, but it was designed in such a way that it could be regularly updated to deal with advances in scientific knowledge and changes in society. Does the Minister agree that this is an indication that we have come to a point where that legislation needs to be reviewed? In order to do that, will the Government commit to beginning the process of consultation that must take place before any legislative review comes to this Chamber?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I agree with the noble Baroness’s observations. The legislation goes back to 1990. We are in 2025, and there has been an advent of many new technologies, techniques and business models—for example, the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, referred to Apricity—that were never imagined just a few years ago, let alone in 1990.
The majority of clinics are privately owned. Many are part of large groups with external finance. Elements of fertility care and associated treatments are increasingly offered online or outside HFEA regulation. There is a huge challenge here. That is why we are in discussion with the HFEA, and we will be in discussion tomorrow.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, the Minister will recall that in 2022 the previous Government published the 10-year Women’s Health Strategy for England. During the consultation process, it came out that access to fertility services differs greatly across the country—possibly one of the reasons that many women went to Apricity in the first place. Part of the solution that was proposed to tackle these disparities was a target to establish women’s health hubs. I understand that the current Government have decided not to go ahead with these women’s health hubs. My question is not why, but how the Government envisage tackling these disparities without women’s health hubs. What is the strategy for doing that?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
Women’s health hubs—which are a huge success and we continue to support and promote them, without any shadow of a doubt—do not deal with fertility treatment in the way this Question is discussing. I gently point out to the noble Lord that, as he rightly said, commitments were made to improve access to fertility services, which is very variable across the country. They were made under the last Government’s women’s health strategy but, regrettably, were not delivered. It now falls to us to look at how we can improve both availability and quality, and to equalise what is available, which is a huge challenge. This continues to concern me.
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a former chair of the HFEA. The problem the Minister has referred to is increasing commercialisation. Vulnerable patients are more or less captured by clinics—for example, by being charged ever-increasing amounts for the storage of their embryos. How can the Government get to grips with the market element in an area that is largely private? Can they encourage the NHS? I know the difficulty of taking on more. What legislation can there be to control this commercialisation and the huge amount earned by the private doctors?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
The noble Baroness and other noble Lords are quite right in what they are reporting on the change. Fertility treatment is now overwhelmingly obtained through private means. It is in a very different place from the rest of healthcare in our country.
On the point the noble Baroness made—I am grateful for her contribution in view of her previous service in this area—there are many claims made, for example, about egg freezing. It is crucial that anyone considering freezing their eggs understands that there is an optimum age for freezing, that it is a serious medical procedure and that the risks should be taken into account. That chimes with the point made by my noble friend Lord Winston.
The market has changed—it has very much become a market. The demand is huge and has multiplied many times over the decades. We are not in a situation where we have either the regulation or the NHS provision to deal with that. I assure your Lordships’ House that we are working with NHS England, particularly on the variability up and down the country.
Baroness Manzoor (Con)
My Lords, the Minister is right that the market has changed, but the legislation has not been kept up to date; nor has it kept up to date with patient expectations, developments and the way those services are being provided for some of these women. Often, some of these women are vulnerable. Can the Minister say exactly what the Government will do to update not only the regulations but the law?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
In my discussions, I will consider the publication Modernising Fertility Law, which, as I said, the HFEA put forward in November 2023. In it there are a number of recommendations for urgent change, which I am taking extremely seriously. Most patients are funding their own treatment, which is why we have to make a shift. In 2022, 27% of IVF cycles were funded by the NHS; that figure fell from 40% in 2012. That gives some idea of the scale of the challenge. I consider it unacceptable that access to NHS-funded fertility services is so variable across the country.
Prime Minister: Meeting with Prime Minister of Canada
(2 days, 5 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Viscount Stansgate
To ask His Majesty’s Government when the Prime Minister expects to meet the new Prime Minister of Canada.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)
My Lords, as the Prime Minister said in the House of Commons, the UK and Canada are the closest of allies. The Prime Minister has congratulated Mark Carney on his forthcoming appointment as Canada’s new Prime Minister. He looks forward to working closely with him on shared international priorities through the G7 and to further deepening the UK-Canada relationship together.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
I thank my noble friend the Minister for that Answer. Mr Carney is indeed well known in this country. In the light of growing tension and destabilising global uncertainty, with the world apparently changing in front of our very eyes, does my noble friend agree that the Prime Minister has been skilfully navigating his way towards a different role for the UK in international affairs? In that context, when he next meets the Prime Minister-elect of Canada, will he be able to offer some reassurance to a fellow head of a Commonwealth Government that the UK values its friendship with Canada and its close links and ties, and that Canada will, and should, remain a sovereign country?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, the UK and Canada are of course the closest of allies. We have a proud history of partnership built on shared values. We share a sovereign; we are among the oldest parliamentary democracies in the world; and the British and Canadians fought bravely alongside one another in two world wars, and in nearly every major conflict for more than a century. It should go without saying that the future of Canada lies solely in the hands of the Canadian people.
Lord Lilley (Con)
Will the Minister express solidarity with the Prime Minister of Canada in his determination that Canada should remain an independent country, making its own laws and trading with its huge continental neighbour on the basis of a free trade agreement that America should respect? Will she also express delight that he has abandoned the advice he used to give to Britain—that, in order to trade with our huge continental neighbour, we should submit to all its laws and join a political union with it?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I compliment the noble Lord on the agility of his questioning. The best thing I can do is repeat what I said about our long-standing friendship with Canada and to extend our friendship, good wishes and congratulations to Mark Carney on his appointment as Prime Minister.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, we on these Benches welcome Mr Carney’s election to the leadership of our long-standing sister party in Canada. He is reported to be assembling his Cabinet on an economic war footing. He obviously knows the UK economy and the European market extremely well. We still trade with Canada on a continuity agreement, not on a full FTA. Does the Minister agree with me that, when our Prime Minister meets Mr Carney, it will be a very good opportunity to turbocharge discussions on a full UK FTA; and that, given what the Trump Administration are doing, it will be an opportunity for an EU-UK-Canada strategic trade alliance, so that we are all resilient against the uncertainties around what the Trump Administration will do?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
We are firm believers in free trade, as the noble Lord knows. However, he will also be aware that negotiations for an FTA with Canada did stall under the previous Government in the UK. This was primarily to do with regulations around food, specifically cheese and beef. This is a familiar issue and similar to those that are likely to be encountered when negotiations take place with the European Union. It is a tangled knot—but his point about us needing to enhance our trading arrangements is a good one.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, Canada will shortly hold a general election and we on these Benches hope that the reign of Mr Carney will be short-lived and that there will be a different Canadian leader. But, whichever leader the Canadian people choose, will the Prime Minister take the opportunity to reiterate our long-standing friendship and support? Canada has stood alongside us and alongside the US throughout many conflicts, as the noble Baroness said, from World War II to 9/11. Will she reiterate that the way it is being treated by the current US Government is appalling?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I would like to restate, for the third time in the last five minutes, our deep and enduring friendship with Canada. I gently suggest that it is not really for politicians in the United Kingdom to stand up in this place and express a preference for the outcome of the forthcoming general election in Canada. We will be happy to work closely alongside whoever the people of Canada choose to lead their country.
Lord Beamish (Lab)
My Lords, my noble friend says that Canada is a close and valued ally. It is a key part of NATO and very important in terms of our intelligence efforts. When the Prime Minister does meet the new Prime Minister of Canada, will he also try to build on the relationships in terms of security around defence exports—for example, around the Type 26 frigates that have been exported? This area could be built on to secure not just Canada but the UK.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
Canada is a very close ally of the UK in defence, security and intelligence. I am sure that, when the Prime Minister meets Mark Carney, they will discuss in some depth the issues that my noble friend raises since, as many noble Lords have mentioned, this relationship is now more important than ever.
Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)
Canada and Canadians feel more alone than ever right now. Does the Minister agree that Canada is not just a friend or ally but part of a family that we are supposed to belong to? The President of the United States has used, if you will forgive the expression, trumped-up charges—completely specious reasons—for imposing these tariffs on Canada. That country is under attack. Talking to people in Canada, it seems there is a real risk that they feel abandoned by us. They may be considering abolishing ties with the monarchy and even leaving the Commonwealth. What are we and our Commonwealth partners doing to support Canada when it is under such attack?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
We are close friends, allies and family members inside the Commonwealth with Canada, as the noble Baroness quite rightly reminds us. That closeness is unshakable. It is for the people of Canada to decide what they wish to do in terms of their sovereignty and all those issues, and we respect that, but there is no need for Canada to feel isolated. It will always have a strong friend, ally and family member in the United Kingdom.
Lord Stirrup (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that we should recall that, following 9/11, Canadian military forces fought heroically and suffered many casualties in Kandahar province—as did the Danish military, alongside the British military in Helmand province?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
It is interesting that the noble and gallant Lord should mention both Canada and Denmark today. He is, of course, completely right, and we are proud to have served alongside the armed forces of Canada and of Denmark.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, at the end of the Second World War, Canada had the third-largest navy in the world, we had the second-largest and America had the largest. In support of my noble friend Lord Beamish, it is very important that we work very closely with Canada on the maritime side, because the Arctic is becoming, I am afraid, a new battle zone. We already have deals on the Type 26, but there is an opportunity here both for ourselves and the Canadians and it is crucially important, for global peace and for Europe, that we get the Arctic battleground right.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
That is a very important point. Canada is a leader in working alongside other Arctic nations on issues of security. I am pleased that we work closely with the Canadians on issues surrounding the Arctic region and we have every intention of continuing to do so.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
My Lords, since Mr Carney became leader of the Canadian Liberal Party, both of the main Canadian parties are now in favour of CANZUK—that is to say, closer links between Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the UK on issues such as a free market, free movement of labour and enhanced diplomatic collaboration. Is this something that His Majesty’s Government will look upon as a way of building on the ties we have of language, law, habit, history, culture and kinship? We are already linked in the trans-Pacific partnership. Could we not deepen our alliance with the countries that, as the Minister correctly says, have fought longest and hardest at our side?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
As the noble Lord says, we are members of the CPTPP, together with Canada. If there are other ways that we can deepen our collaboration and enhance the ties he described, I am sure that we should look at them and speak with our Canadian friends about this.
US Steel and Aluminium Tariffs
(2 days, 5 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they plan to take to mitigate the impact of US steel and aluminium tariffs on the UK manufacturing sector.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Information and Technology (Baroness Jones of Whitchurch) (Lab)
My Lords, it is disappointing that the US has today imposed global tariffs on steel and aluminium. The UK will always be a champion of free and open trade, which is essential in delivering our Plan for Change. We are resolute in our support for the UK steel industry. This Government are working with affected companies today, and we back the industry’s application to the Trade Remedies Authority to investigate what further steps might be necessary to protect UK producers.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I thank the Minister for her Answer, and I am pleased to hear about the steps she is taking. To move on slightly, I was pleased to hear that the Prime Minister acknowledged, during Prime Minister’s Questions today, the Brexit benefit of seeking a trade agreement with the United States to avoid tariffs. However, while the UK looks to negotiate with Washington, the EU has already retaliated against US tariffs, so the Government must now recognise that resetting relations with the EU at this moment risks dragging the UK into an escalating transatlantic trade war. Last month, a close ally of Donald Trump, Stephen Moore, made it clear that Britain will have to choose between its special relationship with the US and closer ties to the EU. The time for vague statements and talk of all options being open is surely over; we need clarity. Now that the US and the EU are openly in a trade war, do the Government not see the urgency of making their position clear? What will the UK prioritise—the special relationship or Brussels?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, as the Prime Minister has made clear, when it comes to the national interest, he rejects having to make any false choice between allies. We are committed to continuing our work with both the US and the EU to remove barriers to trade and help UK businesses grow. Our number one priority will be the growth of the UK economy and free and open trade with our most economically important partners. We will only ever sign trade agreements which align with the UK’s national interests.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, speaking to the last Question, noted that the Trump Administration had been completely outrageous to Canada. By extension, it must therefore have been completely outrageous to the European Union, so it is interesting to hear the opposite being argued by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe. Does the Minister agree that now is the time to work with our allies? The noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, said that Canada is our closest ally. The Prime Minister has said that we need to reset our relationship with the European Union. Why, then, have we taken a different approach to those two closest trading allies?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, as the Prime Minister has said, this is a time for a cool-headed approach on the issue of trade tariffs. The UK and the US have a strong economic relationship that is fair, balanced and reciprocal. The tariffs on steel, aluminium and derivatives being proposed by the Trump Administration are global; they are not targeted at the UK. In the meantime, we have been having regular, detailed conversations with the US Administration and have repeatedly and emphatically made the case for the UK to be exempt from proposed tariffs—most recently with the Secretary of State speaking to US Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick on Sunday and US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer on Tuesday. We have made that point over and over again. This is a time for a cool-headed approach to any possible tariffs, and we will take every action we need to in order to defend the UK’s national interest.
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
We will hear from my noble friend Lady Rafferty.
Baroness Rafferty (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the Opposition’s sudden interest in the fortunes of the British steel industry—a sector which was neglected over the past 15 years and has suffered enormously as a result. This Government launched a consultation on a steel strategy earlier this year. Could my noble friend update the House on the status of that consultation? How soon does she envisage the strategy being brought forward?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for raising this issue. The steel strategy consultation remains open until 30 March, at which point we will analyse responses received. The consultation is a key step forward in developing the steel strategy, ensuring it best promotes long-term, sustainable growth that will provide benefits to communities across the UK. It will provide us with a clear evidence base on the needs of the steel sector and its customers by leveraging a wide range of views and expertise and will bring those views to the heart of steel-making. We are committed to bringing forward the steel strategy in the spring, and we will learn from the lessons of that strategy.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick (Con)
My Lords, is it not the case that the reckless and ill-thought-out measures being taken by President Trump will only damage the US economy itself—they will not prevent imports but will harm immensely the steel-using industries that are the main market for the US steel industry? It is an extremely short-sighted measure by President Trump. His having taken that measure is no reason for us to follow in such a short-sighted policy. We have the much more important objective of trying to negotiate better trade terms with the United States. These are general tariffs, not ones against the UK in particular, and the Government are quite right not to react by imposing tariffs ourselves.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
I very much thank the noble Lord for that intervention. Let us be clear that industry here does not want to see a trade war with both sides escalating the situation. Standing up for industry means finding a solution, and we are working on that solution. The UK and the US have a strong economic relationship which is fair, balanced and reciprocal. We have £1.2 trillion invested in each other’s economies, supporting more than 2.5 million jobs across both countries. It is important that we maintain and build on those relationships. As I said before, cool heads are aware of and monitoring very carefully what is going on, but we do not want to do anything reciprocal at this stage.
Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab)
My Lords, will my noble friend comment on how she sees the development of steel in this country? I am pleased that the Opposition are now interested in that. I represented a community that lost what I think was at the time the most cost-effective steel-making plant in the country; I then had to represent the community that was devastated following that, under Mrs Thatcher’s Government, so I am really pleased that they are now interested in putting manufacturing at the heart of this country. In the north-east, we have been developing some very good greening of the industry. Can the Minister reassure us that the plans that the Government have for growth will involve re-energising that industry so that we get the new houses and new infrastructure that we need in this country and rebuild a steel-making industry here?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
I assure my noble friend that we are determined to support and invest in the steel sector. We already have plans and are taking steps to do that. We see a bright future for steel in the UK, and our plan for steel, which will be published in the spring, will establish a long-term vision for the industry, promoting long-term growth and securing jobs for the future in all parts of the country. The point that my noble friend makes is absolutely right about that. This is about ensuring jobs, protecting the industry for the future and making sure that we can go forward on a competitive basis in the global trade on this issue.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, we will hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, next and then the noble Lord, Lord Caine.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I think that His Majesty’s Government are quite right not to rush into retaliatory measures, but will the Minister say whether they are giving any thought to what will happen when the EU retaliates? What happens to Northern Ireland, which has been left within the EU for these kinds of matters? That is something that they need to be looking at urgently.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, Northern Ireland is a part of the United Kingdom’s customs territory and internal market. We will continue to monitor closely the impact on Northern Ireland of any tariffs. While the framework means that tariffs would apply on US goods moved into Northern Ireland for the limited subset of US goods in line with its protection of the UK and EU markets, there is a duty reimbursement scheme in place where those goods do not enter the EU. The duty reimbursement scheme enables traders to reclaim or remit applicable duties in full without any limit on total claims. Businesses moving goods into Northern Ireland should contact HMRC for more information about these schemes.
Lord Macpherson of Earl’s Court (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that tariffs harm consumers and encourage industrial inefficiency? Does she agree that the British economy was at its most successful when it was pursuing a policy of unilateral free trade in the 19th century?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
The noble Lord makes an important point about our commitment to free trade. The Prime Minister has made our position absolutely clear on this matter. I am sure there are lessons from history that we can learn on all of this. We will continue to promote our policy of free trade and encourage new agreements wherever it is in our interest.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
Does my noble friend agree that there is very little prospect of a comprehensive free trade agreement with the United States because of its stance on agricultural products, which we could not possibly accept? However, there is a real possibility of an agreement on high technology, and that is what we should aim for.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My noble friend is absolutely right that we are continuing to discuss with the US the possibility of a trade deal. In the economic and tech sectors, there is the possibility of agreements on the basis of mutual interest. Those discussions are ongoing, and I hope to update the House on them in due course.
Lord Swire (Con)
My Lords, while I very much welcome the action and words that the Prime Minister is using to defend the United Kingdom in this respect, does the Minister share my concern that, if the United Kingdom is to be exempt from any tariff war with the United States but the EU is not, the EU will seek some kind of revenge on the United Kingdom? What will the Government’s reaction be if that is the case?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, that is very much a hypothetical question. As I said earlier, we have very good relations with both our key partners, the US and the EU, and we will continue to aim to maintain those relationships. We have seen no sign that the EU will take any action against us, and we will continue to pursue good, friendly and trade-based relationships with the EU.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, the steel that the US imports from us is specialist steel. It is interesting that, for the new ballistic missile submarines—both our own and the American ones—a common missile compartment is being designed and built by the UK. It will contain specialist steel, for which the US will pay more money. The Government are absolutely right not to take any action at this stage, because people will look again at this and there will be sensible negotiations.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My noble friend makes a very good point. As I said, we very much support the strengthening of our steel industry in this country. It is very important to us, and we are taking a number of measures to invest in and build that sector, including the specialist sectors he referred to.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, will the Government give us an assurance that they will be extremely wary as they enter into, or continue with, trade talks with the United States? It has always sought very exploitative trade agreements to take advantage of both our National Health Service and our agriculture. The Conservatives negotiated a very weak trade treaty with Australia, which has done only damage. In these negotiations, will this Government be careful that they do not follow in the previous Conservative Government’s footsteps?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I assure the noble Baroness that we will act only in the UK’s interest in any discussions we have with the US. The National Health Service is not on the agenda for those discussions.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, in our negotiations with the United States, the Minister should be very cautious on relying on expressions of good will from President Trump—it seems that they are not to be relied upon.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
The US is a very strong friend and partner of this country, and we will continue to aim to maintain very good relations. We will of course take a hard-headed approach; we will not simply do deals on the expression of good will. These negotiations will be hard-headed, and they will take some time.
Industrial Training Levy (Construction Industry Training Board) Order 2025
(2 days, 5 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Malvern
That the draft Order laid before the House on 5 February be approved.
Relevant document: 18th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 10 March
Food and Feed (Regulated Products) (Amendment, Revocation, Consequential and Transitional Provision) Regulations 2025
(2 days, 5 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Merron
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 29 January be approved.
Relevant document: 17th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument). Considered in Grand Committee on 10 March
Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [HL]
Wednesday 12th March 2025
(2 days, 5 hours ago)
Lords ChamberProduct Regulation and Metrology Bill [HL] 2024-26 View all Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [HL] 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 18-R-II(a) Manuscript Amendment for Report (Supplementary tot he Second Marshalled List) - (5 Mar 2025)
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Leong) (Lab)
My Lords, as noble Lords will know, this Bill affects the whole of the United Kingdom. We have been engaging constructively with the devolved Governments throughout its passage. Although their consent has not yet been provided, we are hopeful of securing legislative consent from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. It is not unusual for issues related to legislative consent to be resolved in the second House, and we hope to be able to have more to say in the other place—we will of course keep noble Lords updated on this.
Lord Leong (Lab)
The Product Regulation and Metrology Bill will preserve the UK’s status as a global leader in product regulation. It creates a level playing field between the high street and online marketplaces, supporting businesses and protecting consumers. It grants necessary powers to adapt to modern-day safety issues and technological innovation, and to safeguard businesses and consumers from emerging risks.
This Bill is not the same one that entered this House. We have listened carefully to the concerns of all Peers and have proactively made changes in relation to consultation and the use of the affirmative procedure and Henry VIII powers. We have also provided further clarity on definitions in the Bill. Furthermore, the Government have published a code of conduct that sets out the statutory and non-statutory controls in place to ensure that regulation made under this legislation is proportionate and evidence based.
It is fair to say that the Bill has given rise to some interesting debates, passionately and expertly argued by noble Lords across the House. Particularly, I thank my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, whose support during these debates has been invaluable; the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, for his forthright scrutiny of the Bill, made with his customary charm and good humour; and the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for his extensive engagement on the Bill. He, along with the noble Lord, Lord Foster, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, have been crucial in getting the Bill to where it is today. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, for his engagement on the Bill, particularly on standard essential patents. I am glad I have been able to reassure him.
I thank the Constitution Committee and the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, past and present, for their reporting on the Bill, as well as the thorough grilling they gave me and Minister Justin Madders in October last year. I extend my gratitude to the Bill team and the officials supporting the passage of the Bill, as well as the parliamentary staff and those in my private office, who are instrumental in the continued smooth running of this House.
As we send the Bill to the other place, I believe we do so having fulfilled our role as a scrutinising Chamber with diligence and care. I beg to move.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friends Lord Hunt, Lord Sandhurst, Lord Frost, Lady Lawlor, Lord Jackson and Lord Lansley for all their contributions and for raising very important issues throughout the discussions on the Bill. I also thank the noble Lords, Lord Leong and Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, for their openness, collaborative approach and humour—it was very much appreciated.
On these Benches, we take pride in having pushed not only the Government but even the Liberal Democrats —yes, even them—to acknowledge the importance of protecting the pint. Although they were initially resistant, they eventually recognised its value, and we have ensured that the pint will remain untouched.
As the noble Lord, Lord Leong, noted, the Government made some welcome concessions on this Bill, such as the introduction of a requirement for consultation—a very welcome step. However, as highlighted by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and the Constitution Committee, this remains a skeleton Bill. We think it grants excessive power to the Executive with insufficient parliamentary scrutiny. Whether it is the affirmative procedure or, as once proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, the super-affirmative procedure, we will still advocate for greater parliamentary oversight.
The question of dynamic alignment with the EU remains unanswered yet ever more topical. When my noble friend Lord Frost raised the issue, the Government could not rule out as a fact that the Bill could lead to dynamic alignment with the EU.
We still do not think this is a good Bill, but it is much improved. It not only allows for alignment with the EU but risks overregulation, and we confidently suspect that the lawyers will be busy for a while. But it would be churlish to finish on that note, so I once again thank noble Lords opposite for their incredible work on the Bill. I also thank their officials, who often go unremarked in these matters, and our research team led by Henry Mitson, and in particular the indefatigable Abid Hussain, for their enthusiastic and extensive help.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, the speeches on this Bill have probably been exhaustive. I make just one observation: it appears that the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, has had one pint too many as far as this debate is concerned.
This Bill turned out to be more exciting than its name promised. It has been an interesting process going through it. I thank the Ministers, the noble Lords, Lord Leong and Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, for their good humour—I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, on that—their levels of engagement and the engagement from the Bill team and the political office, which helped us fashion this Bill. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe and Lord Hunt, and their Back-Bench posse, for making the debates on this Bill so interesting. I also thank Cross-Benchers for their support, who made some important interventions.
Special thanks go to my noble friends Lady Brinton, Lord Foster and Lord Redesdale, and a big thank you to Adam Bull, who was our legislative support officer and supported us ably. Your Lordships have shown great interest during this debate in the affirmative process and legislative scrutiny, so I look forward to seeing all of you in Grand Committee when the statutory instruments arrive.
Lord Rooker (Lab)
My Lords, so that we do not gloss over the constitutional aspects of this Bill, I remind my noble friend that, when he said that he appeared before the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee last October, that was the first time in the three years that I was a member of the committee that we ever summoned Ministers, because we were so disturbed by the Bill’s transfer of powers from Parliament to Ministers. I am very pleased to see the Attorney-General here, because it is his job to stop this kind of thing turning up in Bills. I am not blaming anybody for this one; it is early days and he has plenty of time to get going, but he must be firm that this Bill went too far. This has been debated before in this House. We have to watch it at our peril, because there has been a massive transfer in the last few years of powers from Parliament to Ministers, and it has gone too far.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I also thank the Minister and his officials for their considerable time, patience and responsiveness as we have raised issues during the Bill. I will briefly note three things.
I hope the Minister and his colleagues in the other place will look at Clause 1, because this Bill should be about product safety but does not mention it. It does not say that products should be safe, even though it repeals and replaces Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act 1987, which does. I hope they might still look at the purpose, so that Clause 1 says that one of the purposes should be that products should be safe, such that risks associated with their use are minimised or mitigated. That would be much clearer for those reading the Bill.
Lord Leong (Lab)
I thank all noble Lords who have just contributed, and I thank my noble friend for his friendly advice. We have taken the Bill from its early state to where it is today, and obviously it will now go to the other place. I am sure that the noble Lord is right: there will be further deliberation on the Bill, and hopefully we will get it to a better place.
House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill
Wednesday 12th March 2025
(2 days, 5 hours ago)
Lords ChamberHouse of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill 2024-26 View all House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 49-III(b) Amendment for Committee (Supplementary to the Third Marshalled List) - (12 Mar 2025)
Lord Blencathra
“Attendance requirement of 20%A member of the House of Lords who attended fewer than 20% of possible sittings in the 2019–2024 Parliament must retire from the House of Lords within two months of the day on which this Act is passed.”Member's explanatory statement
Alongside other amendments in the name of Lord Blencathra, this amendment has been tabled to permit the House to vote on three options for requiring peers who have made little recent contribution to the work of the House to retire. According to analysis of Library figures, requiring a minimum attendance of 20% of sittings between 2019 and 2024 could remove 154 peers.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, the Labour manifesto said that
“we will introduce a new participation requirement”.
My Amendment 26, in the next group, deals specifically with the very small number of Peers who turn up and then do nothing.
The Government keep complaining that many amendments to this Bill have nothing to do with the removal of hereditary Peers, saying that the Bill is narrowly focused. That is true, but it was a political decision by the Government to make it so narrow and not include the other priority issues from their manifesto. The Government are seeking to give the impression that dealing only with hereditary Peers is somehow sacrosanct or ordained from on high. If we were in the Moses Room right now, I would be looking at the tablets that he brought down from Sinai to see if there was an 11th commandment saying, “Thou shalt have no other provisions in thy Bill except the removal of hereditary Peers”. Governments often widen the scope of Bills and adjust the Long Title. Indeed, today in the other place the Government have tabled Amendments 262 and 263, which will amend the Long Title to the Employment Rights Bill. They could do so for this one also if they were so minded.
With these amendments, I am seeking to explore the possibility of retiring Peers who have attended few of our sittings. Let me make it crystal clear that I reject the idea of a full-time House of political professionals. The great strength of this revising Chamber is that, with a very wide range of expertise to call on, most noble Lords do not sit here all the time intervening on issues that are not their speciality, but participate in our debates and Select Committees on issues on which they are expert.
I recall a debate on an amendment to the precision breeding Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, was debating a point with the noble Lord, Lord Winston, concerning recombinant DNA—whatever that is. The rest of us sat there watching a very civilised ping-pong match, and they were the only two in the whole Chamber who knew what they were talking about. Indeed, when my noble friend the Minister wound up, he said that neither he nor his officials in the Box knew anything about the subject, either, and would both noble Lords come to the department and explain it to them? That is one tiny example of the superb strengths of this House—that is the House of Lords in action. For the record, both noble Lords had attendances in the last Parliament well above 30% and 40%.
I turn once again to the Excel spreadsheets produced by the Library, which have the attendance record for all Peers in the last Parliament. There may be some names missing and there are other little technical errors; however, these figures are not the full picture, since the attendance data is based on contributions made in the Chamber and Grand Committee and does not include participation in other committee meetings. The Library tells me:
“This is because of the way in which different types of data are stored in the House of Lords’ internal systems and the challenges in extracting it to provide a dataset which we can be confident is accurate for all members and across the full duration of the Parliament, unlike chamber contributions which we can be sure is robust. We are actively looking at ways of incorporating committee attendance into this analysis and hope to resolve this in future releases, conscious that we want to present as comprehensive a picture as possible.”
Nor do the attendance figures count all the days that Ministers are working away from the Lords in their departments, or abroad. Nor do they include the 25 days per annum when 23 Members of this House are away serving at the Council of Europe, the NATO Parliamentary Assembly and the OSCE.
With those caveats, the figures are nevertheless accurate enough for us to debate the concept of retiring Peers below certain attendance thresholds, and they give us a fairly good picture of attendance. If we retired Peers who attended fewer than 20% of possible sitting days in the previous Parliament, that would be 154 Peers. What does 20% mean in actual sitting days? Over the past 10 years—I have done the number-crunching myself —the number of sitting days has averaged 148.1 per annum. That ranged from just 15 days in 2019 to 350 during the 2017-19 Session; thus, an annual average is more accurate than a sessional average. Peers who attended 20% of the time therefore attended for just 30 days out of 148. Peers who attended 15% of the time attended 22 days out of 148, and those who attended just 10% of the time were present here for just 15 days.
If noble Lords access the spreadsheet, they can come to their own conclusions on whether the occasions on which some of those 154 Peers spoke or participated merit continuance in this House. I have seen a few names who made worthwhile speeches, but my recollection is that the vast majority of the 154 Peers in this category have not contributed much to the work of this House. Those who attended fewer than 15% of possible sittings number 118 Peers. When I look at the 10% and below—the 70 Peers who turned up for a maximum of 15 days per annum—I cannot see, in my opinion, any whose contribution was so essential or vital that we should retain their presence in this House for their very rare words of wisdom. Indeed, I can recall only three of them making any speech, and none has served on any of our committees.
This is not one of my amendments, but if we opted for removing those who have attended 5% or less of the time, that would be just 39 Peers. My noble friend Lord Hailsham has suggested a 1% threshold, but that is 12 Peers and, in my opinion, it would make us look a bit silly if we went that low. However, I agree with his other amendments: of course we must exempt those on leave of absence—but not for too long—or those with royal duties, such as the noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk, or the new Lord Chamberlain, the noble Lord, Lord Benyon.
These figures are out by about eight because of judicial appointments and some deaths since the Library compiled them last year, but noble Lords can see the ballpark figure—if that American term is still acceptable. Noble Lords may say, “What does it matter if they don’t turn up? They are not getting any allowance and not costing anything”. I agree with that view, but we are here today because the Government say that there are too many Peers, and the Government’s solution is to get rid of 88 hereditaries, many of whom are assiduous attenders. Indeed, there are only 14 hereditaries who have attended less than 20% of sittings.
I do not have a firm view on my options, but I think that noble Lords would consider the 20% or 15% thresholds to be on the high side and a bridge too far to begin with. When noble Lords look at the names of the 70 who would be retired for an attendance figure of fewer than 15 days per annum, I think we might have some consensus around that, with the necessary exemptions suggested by my noble friend Lord Hailsham.
Now, where this gets really interesting is if one combines an age cut-off and an attendance cut-off. The Excel spreadsheet gives some interesting figures. I will not waste time by running through the extremes: at one end, a retirement age of 90 and an attendance of just 1% would retire 89 Peers; at the other, retirement at 80 and a 20% attendance cut-off would retire 420 Peers, which I think would be a tad excessive.
The more sensible criteria might be a retirement age of 85 and an attendance of 10%; that would retire 304 Peers by 2029. A retirement age of 85 and an attendance of 5% would retire 213 Peers. I suggest that that figure is on the edge of a possible solution, reducing our numbers to those who turn up, take part and are not perceived from outside as too old to do the job.
I have a couple of final points on attendance. I think that it has to be retrospective and based on attendance in the previous Parliament. That is highly contentious, but if we introduced, say, a 10% threshold for about 15 days in future, we would have some colleagues counting their attendance and rushing in to attend for a few days at the end of the year just to get over the threshold. We would also need some special appeal mechanism—a committee to which Peers could appeal if they felt that they were being wrongly excluded. I will say more about that when we debate Amendment 26.
I appreciate that this is contentious and goes against the precedents we have had for centuries. But I come back to my starting point that retirement of those who turn up infrequently and say little is infinitely preferable to throwing out all hereditaries, over 70 of whom who turn up regularly and participate fully in the work of this House.
Of course, if we were to go down this route in future, we would need complete and accurate figures for attendance in the Chamber, the Grand Committee and all our committees, as well as on Ministers and shadow Cabinet Ministers working away from the precincts of this building and those Peers on foreign delegations.
In conclusion, I look forward to the unanimous support of my noble friends, and I beg to move.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
I rise very briefly to speak to the four amendments in my name, Amendments 22 to 25. The first three would amend the lead amendment, Amendment 19, moved by my noble friend. For reasons that I shall come to shortly, I very strongly disagree with it.
First, I express some cautious agreement with my noble friend as regards future participation. My noble friend Lord Blencathra has urged the case for requiring a future minimum degree of engagement as a condition of membership of this House, and there is clearly a case for that. My own Amendment 25 suggests a participation record of 10%. However, I would be a bit cautious about setting too high a requirement; first, because occasional interventions from those who are not regular attenders can be very valuable, sometimes on esoteric subjects, although not exclusively so.
Moreover, and more generally, there is a danger that too demanding a requirement could encourage interventions for the purpose of meeting the criteria from those who are not currently great participators. We all know that speeches in major debates are time-limited, and very often the time available is very short. The question that arises is: do we want to make a more restrictive timetable? I think not, but that could well be a consequence of an increased participation requirement. As my noble friend touched on, there needs to be a degree of flexibility with regard to minimum requirements. Members may very well have good reasons for not participating: illness, leave of absence, overseas commitments, family problems and so forth. My suggestions in Amendments 22, 24 and 25 are designed to address these problems.
Where I actively and positively disagree with my noble friend is in his Amendment 19 and his related Amendments 20 and 21. Your Lordships will have noticed that those amendments relate to the 2019-24 Session. That is retrospective in character, and my noble friend is suggesting that if a Member fails to satisfy the stated participation level in the past Parliament, he must retire.
I am against retrospective requirements or sanctions. My noble friend’s proposal is just that. It imposes a penalty which is entirely retrospective in character, in respect of a failure to meet a requirement which did not exist at the relevant time. I regard that as a thoroughly objectionable proposition and I very much hope that this Committee will not go down that road.
The Earl of Devon (CB)
My Lords, I rise briefly to speak to Amendment 64 in my name, to which the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, has added his name. Like the other amendments in this group, it addresses the question of attendance.
By amending the House of Lords Reform Act 2014, which sets a minimum attendance of one sitting day every Session of Parliament, my amendment aims to ensure that Members attend a minimum of 10% of sitting days in each Session, which is similar to some of the amendments already mentioned. As I have said previously, I am of the view that the broad and largely amateur membership of your Lordships’ House is one of its enduring strengths. The fact that those who sit are, for the most part, not professional legislators is important to ensure that a diversity of experience and views are heard from a wide range of backgrounds. I believe that that was the consensus view of the House when we debated an elected House on Monday.
That said, a minimum attendance is entirely reasonable and this amendment puts that at 10% of the sitting days in any one Session. Such a modest attendance will ensure that Members are committed to service in the House and are able to keep suitably abreast of developments in Westminster. It will not, however, require Members to attend so often as to preclude them from continuing to maintain their outside interests, and will equally not require them to make unnecessary and numerous interventions, slowing down the business of the House as Members seek to pad their records of contribution. This is in nobody’s interests.
I note that the amendment is similar to Amendment 21, proposed so excellently and with so much Excel detail by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, but his amendment would require 10% of sitting days within any one Parliament, whereas Amendment 64 requires it in any one Session, which will ensure a greater regularity and spread of attendance. On that basis, I recommend it to the Committee.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I have Amendment 37 in this group. I think we have Members of extreme expertise in here but, unlike my noble friend Lord Hailsham, that we do not want to hear from them only when that particular expertise is engaged. We want their broader contribution and wider understanding of life; we want them to bring that expertise into our wider debates. We should expect people who are part of this House to turn up for a reasonable percentage of time—certainly 10%. As I learned from my noble friend Lord Strathclyde, Peers whose habit is to blow in, blow off and blow out are really no use to this House whatever.
The other characteristics of my amendment, compared with others, are to leave a lot of flexibility to the House of Lords in saying what the level should be and how it should be determined. That is rather better expressed in Amendment 32, which we will come to in a while and which I thoroughly support.
The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 64, which is the one I am most attracted by in this group. I have in my right hand a copy of the Writ of Summons that we each receive when we come here. I am going to read an extract:
“We, strictly enjoining, command you upon the faith and allegiance by which you are bound to Us that considering the difficulty of the said affairs and dangers impending (waiving all excuses) you be personally present at Our aforesaid Parliament with Us and with the Prelates, Nobles and Peers of Our said Kingdom to treat and give your counsel”.
I believe that the Writ of Summons is a very serious document and this is why I think that Section 2 of the House of Lords Reform Act 2014, which allows for only one day of participation, is not consistent with the Writ of Summons, frankly.
I have been looking at my own spreadsheet; my numbers came from the Journal Office, so they are no doubt slightly different. In looking at those numbers, I felt that, as I said in November and in December, by raising that one day to 10% of the days sat in a Session, we would lose between 50 and 100 of our number who did not live up to what is in our Writ of Summons. I felt that that was proportionate. However, although I clearly looked at other percentages as well, 10% is a figure that, selfishly, suits the Cross Benches, because we have a large number of people on our Benches who are low-frequency, high-impact Members. I need not name them, because all noble Lords will be able to think of several, but they are people at the very top of their professions. They are able to come here to give devastatingly good speeches, but they are not able to make more than 10% of the time here. They go on to our committees and do a lot of valuable work for our House. That is why I feel that 10% is the right number.
The pleasing thing about the amendment in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Devon, is that, in it, attendance is measured as it is today, so the very methods that we use to measure attendance are there. The methods that we use if a Member wants to appeal a wrong marking out, as it were, are there and work well. I have confirmed with the Clerk of the Parliaments that these methods could be applied to this type of amendment. Therefore, in my eyes, the noble Earl has scored a hit.
The Earl of Dundee (Con)
My Lords, as is proposed in Amendment 37 by my noble friend Lord Lucas, this matter ought to be dealt with proactively; for, as may be inferred from that amendment, individual Peers should make their own commitments in the first place. Therefore, at the beginning of every Session of Parliament, each House of Lords Member would sign a declaration of intent to attend more than a certain proportion of sitting days during that Session. Nevertheless, a key question obviously remains: what should this minimum number of days be?
Here, once more, my noble friend Lord Blencathra assists our thinking and comes to the rescue. He has just done so by gently nudging imprecision and indecisive conjecture towards mathematical certainty. For, as he points out, if there had been a 20% attendance stipulation between 2019 and 2024, we would have lost 154 Peers; if there had there been a 15% attendance stipulation, we would have lost 118 Peers; and, through a 10% attendance stipulation, 70 Peers would have been asked to leave.
Yet, having got thus far, mathematics then slightly escapes and retreats back towards conjecture; for, given that there was no minimum percentage attendance requirement between 2019 and 2024—and given that these years would not suddenly come to penalise Peers retrospectively—that leaves us guessing, of course, as to the number of Peers who, in the knowledge that they would be expelled if they did not meet that requirement, would have in fact failed the attendance test. Obviously, these numbers of failures would not be the same as —instead, almost certainly be much less than—those figures between 2019 and 2024, as has already been quoted, when Peers knew that there was no minimum attendance requirement as high as 10% that they had to consider at all.
Included in this grouping is Amendment 64 in the names of the noble Earl, Lord Devon, and my noble friend Lord Dobbs, to which the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, has referred. A minimum attendance requirement of 10% of House of Lords sittings is stipulated. Your Lordships may agree with that for two reasons, the amendment works efficiently and strikes a good balance when taken in conjunction with my noble friend Lord Lucas’s Amendment 37, as other speakers have said. First, following Amendment 64, Members would then know that if they do not adjust their diaries to a known quantity of 10% attendance, they will be asked to leave. Secondly, following Amendment 37, their necessary advance commitments to dates at the beginning of parliamentary Sessions would more than likely be made responsibly and, therefore, to well exceed a statutory minimum of 10% in any case.
Viscount Astor (Con)
My Lords, I offer a different opinion—perhaps a dissenting voice. My noble friend Lord Blencathra’s amendment is terrible. It is a bad amendment to a bad Bill. What he has not said is why, when he tabled it, he chose, for example, five years. What was the purpose of that? Was it one Parliament? Why not 10 years? Why not 15 years, as some noble Lords would like the Session to be? Why not go back further? In my case, the noble Lord could have gone back 50 years. I do not know what my attendance record would look like over that period—pretty shoddy, I suspect, but never mind.
It is a mistake to have this principle, because if it is carried forward we will find ourselves encouraging Lobby fodder—my noble friend is a former Chief Whip. Everybody would be here all the time to vote and get their name down but they would not participate in your Lordships’ House; they would just be here for the benefit of the Chief Whip. That is a bad thing. Also, if we are going to attract some younger Members to your Lordships’ House, they will have careers and other jobs, and maybe would not be able to attend all the time. Some noble Lords are retired and do not have other jobs to do.
This is a dangerous and bad precedent. It should be discarded and it should not be in this Bill. I welcome and look forward to hearing my noble friend’s response.
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, this group and the next deal with the vexed question of how we ensure that Peers do the job for which they have been summoned by the monarch, when we know—the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, has given us the statistics—that not everybody does. Equally, we are all of the view that everybody should.
This is an area where there is a dissonance, just as there is on retirement age, between what people outside think and what people inside think. All the discussion so far has been on how it affects us rather than how we are seen. If you say to most people, “I am an active Member of the House of Lords”, they might ask, “How often do you go?” If you reply, “Well, it’s very onerous you know; I’ve got to go 10% of the time”, then they would ask, “Well, what does that mean?” You would say, “It means that when the House is sitting I have to go—well, not once a fortnight, but roughly that”. They would then ask, “What time do you start?” “I probably go in at about 3.30 pm, 4 pm”, you would say. They would ask, “What time would you finish?” You would reply, “If it was a busy day, I might stay until the dinner hour”. This is not an onerous requirement. Suppose that it is 20%. That is once a fortnight, roughly speaking, possibly for a couple of hours. That, to most people outside, would not be seen as a hugely onerous requirement.
I also think that, following our Writ of Summons and as Members of a deliberative assembly, it is frankly not good enough to turn up just once or twice a year to discuss an issue on which you are an expert. In politics, many of the issues that we have to debate are ones that we would rather not debate, because we are not experts, but they are the most important. Some of them we would rather not debate because they are really difficult, and we are not experts. Take assisted dying: I am sure that many of us, in an ideal world, would at one level rather that other people took a decision on it, because it is so difficult. However, we are summoned by the monarch to give counsel on a range of things. If there is any suggestion, particularly in legislation, that a minimum level is acceptable, then that really would not be acceptable, even though that has been the pattern in the past.
I also have a question about whether legislation is the right place to put such an amendment, in terms of the amendments in both this group and the next. Apart from anything else, it goes in here and then it goes to the other place. Let us suppose that our colleagues in the Commons say, “Hang on a second, those people at the other end seem to think that 10% is enough—that’s ridiculous. Let’s change it and put in 50%. That sounds a bit more reasonable”. Are we then going to have ping-pong on what is the reasonable level of attendance here?
Lord Strathclyde (Con)
We should thank my noble friend Lord Blencathra for introducing this amendment. It is a subject worth discussing. Since this Bill is designed to fling out a cohort of your Lordships’ House who on the whole do turn up and play a part and some of whom hold very senior and important roles in the House, it is worth discussing for a few minutes those who hardly come at all and finding out whether there should be some kind of attendance threshold.
The amendment that we are discussing deals with attendance. My noble friend Lord Hailsham mentioned participation—but I think that participation, which is very important, is a very different issue from attendance, and we will come to it in the course of today’s deliberations. What the noble Earls, Lord Kinnoull and Lord Devon, said about the Cross Benches is very important. We do not want to discourage or reduce the ability of those Peers who have something to say but for a whole variety of reasons come less often than most of us; that is why the threshold should be realistic but relatively low.
I think that what my noble friend Lord Blencathra was saying was that, if it had been set at 10%, we would lose about 100 Peers, from past records. I entirely agree with my noble friend Lord Hailsham that we should not do anything that is retrospective. I do not think there is a problem and that suddenly a whole bunch of Peers would turn up because they wanted to be above the threshold—because the Peers who come hardly at all have already decided that they do not want to play a part in your Lordships’ House, but do not want to retire or take leave of absence. So this is a useful amendment and a useful debate and discussion—and setting the threshold at 10% I do not think will put anybody off.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, I, too, support my noble friend Lord Blencathra in bringing forward this topic, and I very much agree with what my noble friend Lord Strathclyde has just said.
When I looked at my noble friend’s three amendments, I was inclined to think that Amendment 20 struck the right balance. It is important to retain the concept of the House of Lords as a part-time House, but I also believe that, to remain sufficiently involved in what is going on so as to be able to make a contribution to debates on matters in which noble Lords possess expertise and knowledge, a participation level of 10% may be on the low side. But, as long as your Lordships’ House retains its present sitting hours, 15% is a reasonable minimum participation level—although it would be difficult to maintain a full-time job outside the House and a 15% participation level if the House were to adopt similar sitting hours to the House of Commons.
However, my noble friend Lord Hailsham is right to provide in his Amendment 25 for the possibility that the House may resolve to exempt a noble Lord from compulsory retirement if it concludes that there was a good cause for that noble Lord’s non-attendance. I entirely agree with the point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, about low-attendance, high-impact Members.
I also support Amendment 37, in the name of my noble friend Lord Lucas. This amendment would allow the House to provide exceptions to compulsory retirement, but, interestingly, allows the possibility of first fixing and later changing the minimum participation rate through Standing Orders, which would provide for more flexibility. My noble friend Lord Blencathra is absolutely right to ask your Lordships to consider this matter, because the Labour Party manifesto also committed to introduce a new participation requirement, at the same time as excluding the excepted hereditary Peers. Those who believe that the House is too large may also support the introduction of a minimum participation level. I would expect that the retirement of a number of inactive Peers would make it easier for the Government to find a better way forward that would cause less disruption to the ability of the House to discharge its functions in a way that serves the country well.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
My Lords, I find myself questioning the premise on which this amendment rests, and indeed on which the Bill it is amending rests—namely, that there are too many of us here. It is repeated very often, but it is rarely interrogated or properly analysed. The case against the amendment from my noble friend Lord Blencathra has been eloquently made by others, and I am not going to repeat the points that they have made. My noble friend Lord Astor made an extremely good point about the perverse incentives that it would bring in, my noble friend Lord Hailsham made a very good point about its retrospective nature, and who can disagree with the compelling case made by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, about the low-frequency but high-impact Members?
But we would not be having this debate at all if it were not for this general assumption that we need to free up space. Before I came here, I took that as axiomatic. We are always told that this is the second-biggest legislative chamber after the National People’s Congress in Peking. But too many Peers for what? Do we have difficulty finding a seat in the Chamber? I do not think so; if we look around, we see that there is plenty of space. Do we have difficulty booking a table in the Peers’ Dining Room? Do we not have our Written Questions accepted? Are we pullulating in such numbers that the ushers are unable to cope with us? I do not think so. If we are, the one lot of people we do not have a problem with are those who do not turn up very often. They, by definition, are the ones who are contributing least to the problem and, indeed, claiming least from it.
This Chamber has existed in one form or another since Magna Carta—at least if we count the conciliar form of government that took shape under King John and Henry III as the progenitor and ancestor of this Chamber—and at no stage has anyone felt the need to insert a minimum attendance requirement. It was assumed that it could be left to the patriotism and judgment of the bishops and barons to decide when something was sufficiently important to merit turning up. Have we completely junked that idea of trusting people’s own discretion and judgment?
If it really were a question of numbers and we really did feel that we were massively overloaded, why is it that almost every day we keep on admitting more Members here? If Ministers think that the problem is that this is too large a legislature, why do we seem to be gaining half a dozen people a week? I sometimes feel we are in one of those Gilbert and Sullivan operettas where everyone gets a peerage. I sometimes wonder whether that is the end game—that this country will end up becoming an oligarchy, where the real power is vested in the hands of the last remaining 500 people who still have the right to vote for the other place, and everyone else will have the right to sit here. But, you know, as long as they do not turn up, it is still not a problem—so I come back to saying that I dispute the premise.
I know that Ministers share my view, because they are not proposing a cut-off based on attendance, or indeed a cut-off based on age. They have looked beyond their manifesto and have decided to do the right thing, rather than be bound by the dots and commas of what their manifesto says. I hope they will extend that logic to the only democratically elected element of your Lordships’ Chamber, namely our hereditary colleagues.
Lord Dobbs (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to follow my noble friend Lord Hannan, but we do have a problem with numbers. We are constantly being compared with the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party. It is a silly jibe but it does us damage. It makes us seem stuffed like a goose. When did we last see 800 Peers in this Chamber—or 700 or 600? Yet the impression out there is that there are far too many of us who are here only because we are stuffed geese. There is widespread, if not universal, agreement that our numbers should come down. That is why I was very happy to join the noble Earl, Lord Devon, on his amendment, which will help to achieve that objective.
The noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, talked about a part-time House. We all talk about the value of a part-time House. Do we want a full-time House? No, I do not think we do, but neither do we want a no-time house. A peerage is not a zero-hours contract.
It is strange that the Government set out their deckchairs in their manifesto—so far, so very clear about a number of different measures that would help bring down numbers—but for some reason they now seem content to sit on their principles and watch the boats sail by. It is baffling that they do not do what they said they would do, and why they aim their cannons simply at the hereditaries, rather than at, for instance, those who do not participate. A fellow might be forgiven for thinking that some in the Labour Party’s main interest is not so much reform as a bit of cynical old-fashioned class warfare—perish that thought.
I constantly bang on about the fundamental principle that inspires the relationship between individual Peers and our institution, which is that we are here to serve this House. This House does not exist to serve us. The institution, not the individual, must come first. It is not simply a numbers game. More fundamentally, it is about the need to refresh this House to ensure that its experience and advice are up to date and that this House remains relevant. Sometimes you need a fresh wind to blow away cobwebs. If numbers matter, and the Labour manifesto said that they do, I suggest that the amendments we are discussing today would help.
In a slightly wider context, we all know that the Government will get the Bill through, but why do it the hard way—the bitter way? Why strip away the desire to compromise? Why poison the well? Why not show a little willingness, allow a little wiggle room on the Bill? Is it really to be seen just as the use of naked power?
We have, of course, had different points of view expressed, even on this amendment. But I believe that a quick and honourable deal could be reached on the Bill and, indeed, on a wider reform package in line with Labour’s manifesto. That deal could be done this afternoon between the party leaders over a cup of tea, and even before that cup of tea has a chance to go cold.
It is important for the credibility of this Bill, this Government and this House that the Government should try, and be seen to be trying, to come to a broader agreement, than they have done so far. I hope that the Government will open their door and reach out for agreement. That would be so much more dignified and productive than simply being seen to reach out for our hereditaries’ throats.
Lord Sentamu (CB)
My Lords, I ask noble Lords to forgive me for echoing what the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, said on Monday. I listened to some amazing speeches, but their delivery will be in the future, not with this Bill. This Bill is so small and its effect on hereditary Peers is absolutely terminal in the end. I am not a prophet, nor a prophet’s son, but I like to have a healthy check.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, it is a huge privilege to follow the noble and right reverend Lord, who made some very compelling points. I want to pick up on three points and make a suggestion.
First, on this Chamber being overcrowded and everyone being completely under pressure wherever they go, I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Hannan. I come from the other place, where—as the Leader of the House will know only too well—in a Division, there can be up to 600 MPs voting. Even on a really busy Division here, there are never more than about 450, 470 or so. Frankly, when I was an MP, I often had difficulty finding a place in the Library or in the tea room. We do not have that problem here. The idea that that this House is ridiculously overcrowded is a non-starter. It is not the case.
I absolutely agree with what the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, mentioned. When those Members turn up here from time to time—but make a huge impact—the House is captivated by what they say. It would be a great shame to lose them by some rule around 10% or 20%. Would it not be better if the House looked at Section 85 of the Local Government Act 1972, which states that if a councillor fails to attend for a period of six months without due cause they can be disqualified? Would that not cover some of our colleagues who never turn up? If that rule was in place, would that not make them turn up? That would be better way of going about it than looking at 10% or 20%.
One of the reasons why the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, tabled these amendments was to show—and he made it clear enough—that there are many life Peers who hardly ever turn up and may have a lot to offer but do not take their role very seriously; whereas I am told by the Library that if we applied the 20% rule to hereditary Peers, only two hereditaries would be covered by that. All the other hereditaries have an attendance of more than 20%. None has an attendance of less than 10%. Their attendance record is quite excellent and impressive. Could the Minister comment on that point?
As the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, pointed out, we are going to be debating this in Committee for more than four days. We may progress, but, rightly, a lot of different subjects have been covered. We will then have a long time on Report and at Third Reading. Surely there is a compromise that can be found. The Government already know they are going to get rid of the elections. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, that it is very sad that the elections will mean that we will have no more hereditary Peers, but we have conceded that that will happen. If it is about numbers, then surely a deal can be done. Many of the hereditary Peers on our side—there are 40 or so left—have said that they are going to retire anyway. Some of the life Peers, well into their late 80s and early 90s, on our side have said that they would retire. Before you get too far, you find that figure of 40. Surely, we can have a compromise here. It would save everyone a huge amount of time, effort and money.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, it is a great privilege to speak after my noble friend Lord Bellingham, who makes very clear points very persuasively. Attendance in Parliament has been a long-standing issue throughout British history, and my noble friend Lord Hannan spoke extremely well about the motivations of parliamentarians. Previous monarchs have looked at this issue very closely, and both King James and Queen Elizabeth brought in roll-calls and fines because they struggled so much to get parliamentarians to attend.
Many parliaments around the world have attendance criteria. In Belgium, salaries are docked if you do not attend enough. In Oregon, you get only 10 spare days and if you miss your 10 days you are not allowed to stand for re-election. This is an issue that many parliaments face.
The first three Lord Bethells never spoke in Parliament at all. They regarded it simply as an honour. That is a shame and not at all tolerated in modern times. The British public expect parliamentarians to play an active role, and they are absolutely right. I will say two things on that. First, the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, made the point about “deep and infrequent”. I think that is right and I have enormously valued the participation of some Peers with enormous expertise but other commitments. Secondly, there is a collaboration element to being part of what is a collective House. Scrutinising legislation, our principal endeavour, requires an enormous amount of co-operation between Peers, and that requires a relationship that needs a little familiarity. If people do not turn up at all, you cannot build those bonds of trust and collaboration and cannot do your job properly.
For that reason, I strongly support the spirit of the amendments from my noble friends Lord Blencathra and Lord Lucas, and endorse the comments of the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
My Lords, we are all here to bring different things, and I am not sure that participation rates are the best way of going about reform. Peers contribute differently. They bring their counsel, as we were reminded from the Cross Benches. Some bring their expertise or knowledge of a particular subject, and most bring their judgment on all subjects.
The options being proposed as we debate this short Bill are very different. Because there really is no agreement on the best way to proceed, I urge the Leader of the House to consider trying to find a consensus across the House to get some agreement, given the extraordinary differences we hear about how best we should proceed.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I am glad that we are debating this question of attendance separately from the question of participation, because they are materially different. I share the scepticism of the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu, about the Government’s willingness to accept amendments to this Bill and, indeed, his salutary warning about being careful of what we say now and remembering that it is taken down in the official record. These other issues are being raised because we all care very deeply about the future of this House, and one of the great tragedies of this Bill is that some of the people who care most deeply will not be here to give their opinions on the further stages of reform or the Government’s adherence to the rest of their manifesto once the Bill is passed. I know he will understand why they are getting their arguments in early.
As the Convenor of the Cross Benches reminded us, our presence here is not thanks to a democratic mandate of our own or any of our achievements but in answer to a call. We sit here in response to a Writ of Summons from our sovereign, who has commanded us, waiving all excuses, to be at the Parliament holden here at Westminster, to treat and give our counsel on certain arduous and urgent affairs. I agree with the noble Lords who have said that we are invited and treated to give our opinions on arduous affairs, even if they are outwith our own areas of expertise.
It is up to each of us to decide how we answer that call, and it is clear that noble Lords across the House do so in different ways. But we have some insights into how they do so thanks to the spreadsheets of my noble friend Lord Blencathra and to the data dashboard provided by the House of Lords Library. That shows that during the last Parliament your Lordships’ House sat for 701 days. On average, noble Lords attended on just under half—46%—of the days that they were eligible to attend. Of the 966 people who were eligible to attend at least some of the last Parliament in your Lordships’ House, 28 Members did not attend at all. More than 100 Members—116—attended on less than 10% of the days that they were eligible to be here, which is the threshold that many noble Lords have mentioned.
Further interrogation of these data by the Library reveals some interesting points. During our last day in Committee, we debated the ideal age of Peers. The data from the last Parliament show that the younger Peers are more likely to attend than older ones. Noble Lords aged 59 and under attended on more than half of our sitting days in the last Parliament. Noble Lords aged 60 or above were absent for most. While noble Lords in their 80s were with us on 45% of sitting days and those in their 90s managed 31%, those in their 30s were here on 55% of sitting days and the sole noble Lord in her 20s—the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Llanfaes—was here 78% of the time, despite travelling from much further afield than most.
Perhaps most pertinently for this Bill, average attendance rates were highest for our hereditary colleagues, at 49%. For life Peers it was 47%. For the Lords spiritual it was 14%, although we know that the right reverend Prelates have many other duties in tending to their flocks. Our remaining Law Lords were here on just 12% of sitting days that they could have been. These statistics, interesting though they may be, should not be taken at face value. Some may very well think it is better to have 12% of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hale of Richmond, than it is to have half of a thirtysomething.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I am 41. We benefit from having busy people who are active in many areas of civic life and who bring their experience to bear on our deliberations as they see fit. As my noble friends Lord Blencathra and Lord Hailsham said, they contribute with great expertise on esoteric topics.
There are many good reasons for noble Lords’ absence. Many are still active in business and charities. Some serve as chancellors and vice-chancellors, or as ambassadors and high commissioners. Others serve in the no less noble roles of husbands, wives, grandparents and carers. Some are suffering the illnesses and ailments that afflict us all, and they speak very movingly about it when they do. Most of those people would, I think, still be able to meet the modest requirements of Amendment 64 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Devon, particularly if combined with some of the leniency expressed by my noble friend Lord Lucas in his Amendment 37.
As my noble friend Lord Hannan of Kingsclere reminded us, a very important point is often forgotten when we look at attendance. If noble Lords choose not to be here or cannot be here, they cost the taxpayer nothing. They do not cancel out the votes of noble Lords who have chosen to express their view in a Division. I share my noble friend Lord Astor’s concern about stuffing your Lordships’ House with Lobby fodder. The people who are not here do not take up a seat in the Chamber or force us to queue longer for our sandwich at lunchtime—although, as we have heard, it is rarely a problem. What harm do they do? I am glad that my noble friend Lord Bethell picked up the point of history to correct our noble friend Lord Hannan, pointing out that, in some of the early English Parliaments, those who ignored their Writs of Summons found themselves fined. Perhaps that is an idea we should return to.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord. I fear I have been set a challenge by my Leader to try to get Andrew Lloyd Webber’s lyrics into my speech, but with very little notice, so no one is going to cry for me today.
Before I start, I wish the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, a very happy birthday. I am sure he could think of no better way to spend his birthday than to be in a debate with your Lordships.
Since I joined in 2022, one of my favourite parts of being a Member of your Lordships’ House is the fact that every week I learn something. The calibre of debate in your Lordships’ Chamber is exceptional. When I am asked about it by my friends—who do not necessarily follow our debates as much as they should, although I believe my mother now watches every one—I suggest that, at least once a month, I have the privilege of listening to my own version of a Reith lecture. That is the quality of the debate that we have in this House, from those who the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, highlighted as high impact, and from noble Lords across your Lordships’ House. It is a privilege to be part of it, and I welcomed very much that part of the debate.
I thank all noble Lords who have contributed. The debate on this topic has been valuable and insightful. I am aware that the next group of amendments looks at different ways of devising a framework for the changes that have been discussed, so I will try to keep my remarks brief and confined to the attendance requirements outlined.
From debates that we have had in the past, as well as the one we have had today, it is clear that there is broad agreement that Members should attend and participate in the core functions of this House. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Newby, highlighted, that looks very different internally and externally when it comes to quality and the demands that we may make on each other.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, for sharing his data with the Committee and the Government, particularly my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal. It has provided a structure for the conversations that we are having.
As noble Lords will be aware, there are existing measures to remove Peers who fail to attend the House once during a Session, and this Government have indicated their intention to go further in relation to requiring participation. Although this Bill is not the right vehicle to make such a change, this debate has been very helpful in examining the ways in which it might be achieved.
There is rightly a public expectation—and, having listened to the debate today, an expectation among your Lordships—about how Members should contribute. That is why we are developing a new participation requirement, a process which could include looking at the attendance of Peers. It is my hope that we can work together across your Lordships’ House to define what this new participation requirement should look like and how often Members should attend. There are genuine arguments about the quality of attendance and participation, as the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, highlighted. The range of amendments tabled on this topic and those in the next group, which considers other forms of participation, demonstrates that, although we are not at that point yet, we are focused on finding some agreement. As the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, stated in his opening remarks, not even he has a firm view.
The amendments that we are debating in this group all identify attendance as the metric through which to judge a Member’s contributions to this place. As we will see when we come to debate the group of amendments concerned with participation, attendance is not the only way in which contributions could be measured. Is a simple requirement to attend the House for a certain amount of time, as proposed in the amendments tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Blencathra and Lord Lucas, the noble Earl, Lord Devon, and the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, a reasonable measure of participation, or should we be more specific about the type of activities that need to be undertaken? I will refrain from pre-empting the later debate on this point, but this will be an important matter to consider when we look to clarify what is expected of Members of this House.
Before we consider the means by which we introduce a new participation requirement, I suggest that we should think not about the previous attendance records of the current membership, as the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, has suggested in his amendments, but about a long-term solution that is fair to Members. A priority is to ensure clarity on what the right and expected level of participation is, whether it be attendance or some more specific contribution, and to ensure that this is adhered to in the future.
Briefly, I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, for the series of amendments that he has tabled to further shape the proposals for an enhanced attendance requirement. He has made a number of sensible suggestions that should be considered when addressing the matter of participation, such as whether a Member is on an agreed leave of absence. Any work on this area will need to include reasonable exceptions, such as those identified by the noble Viscount. There is a question about the implementation of any enhanced attendance requirement: should the requirement be comprehensively set out in legislation, or should the detail be left to this House to decide and subsequently set out in our Standing Orders, as proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas?
I will briefly address the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, on the commencement of the Bill—Amendments 101E to 101G. I addressed these amendments during Monday’s debate. They would bring forward removal of the hereditary Peers to Royal Assent of this Bill, and make the noble Lord’s other amendments subject to a further resolution of the House, potentially delaying the measures indefinitely should both amendments be successful. The Government cannot support this change to the commencement of the Bill. The arrangements currently set out seek to balance the timely delivery of a manifesto commitment that promised an immediate reform, while not undermining the business of the House. As I have previously noted, they follow the approach set in the 1999 Act.
It is clear that the Committee wants to discuss this issue, and we welcome the suggestions that have been brought forward as part of that. There is positive momentum behind ensuring that there are clear expectations of Members, but this Bill is not the right vehicle to introduce this change. I therefore respectfully request that noble Lords do not press their amendments.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to every noble Lord who has taken part in this debate. Again, as with retirement ages on Monday, we might be seeing some consensus on the proposals from the noble Earl, Lord Devon, supported by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull. I will very briefly rocket through the comments of some of those who have spoken.
I take the point made by my noble friend Lord Hailsham on retrospectivity. Others made that point as well and I think it would be possibly better. Well, the House would never approve that in any case—any changes would be for the future. He also made the point that there is a danger that a threshold would cause Peers to come in to speak just to get past the threshold.
The noble Earl, Lord Devon, with his idea of 10% of sitting days in the future, may be on to a winner. Of course, the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, again supported that. It was a very good point about the Writ of Summons. It is not something that occurred to me—that the Writ of Summons would suggest that we should attend more frequently than some noble Lords do. I think my noble friend Lord Dundee also said no retrospectivity, and he also supported the 10% agreement in future.
My noble friend Lord Astor said there is a danger that it would encourage people just to turn up. And what about those brilliant young men and women, the executives, who could not afford to do 15 days per annum? I say to my noble friend that a threshold of 15 days per annum is not too high for brilliant whizz-kid young executives. If they boast about doing 18 hours a day in the City, I am sure they could manage to turn up here for 15 days per annum.
Oh—I am sorry. I should say, first and most importantly, a happy birthday to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire.
The noble Lord, Lord Newby, was highly supportive of a minimum threshold level, but I suspect that his strong support from the Lib Dems will not enamour him to my noble friends behind and around me. Nevertheless, he did say that we would need future legislation on this. I say to the noble Lord and other noble Lords: look at my Amendment 32, coming up later, because there I see that, in order to avoid future legislation, we can take a special delegated power, a regulation, to make any amendments the House decides in future without further Acts.
My noble friend Lord Strathclyde also said no retrospectivity, and I think he supported 10% as well. My noble friend Lord Trenchard suggested about 15%, so long as the House does not change its sitting hours, and that is a valid point. My noble friend Lord Hannan made a brilliant speech as usual—tremendous rhetoric—and I agree entirely with him. Having 850 Peers on the books is not a real problem, and it is not a problem if only 450 turn up regularly and the others do not come. They are not claiming any money and there is no cost to the system. But the reason we are here, I say again, is that the Government say it is a problem. The Government say there are far too many Peers. The Government want rid of Peers and their solution is to get rid of 88 hereditaries, 70 of whom do turn up. I suggest it is better, if we want to reduce the numbers, to do it through the measure I propose here.
My noble friend Lord Dobbs supports the noble Earl, Lord Devon, and says that the Government should reach out across the House to try to reach agreement. The noble Lord, Lord Sentamu, criticised having these amendments to the Bill—but, as I said at the start, it is perfectly legitimate to amend any Bill. The Government have drafted it very narrowly. They do not have to draft it narrowly; it is legitimate to amend it.
My noble friend Lord Bellingham again supported the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull. He liked the idea of excluding those who do not turn up for six months at a time, following the Local Government Bill. It is an idea to be explored. My noble friend Lord Bethell said that parliamentarians need to appreciate—he thanked me kindly for raising this concept—that it is right that Peers do turn up.
My noble friend Lady Lawlor said that the Government should seek consensus across the House. I am grateful that my noble friend Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay said he found the Excel spreadsheets useful. He made a brilliant and witty speech. But I am not quite sure what percentage he would recommend to the House. If I missed that, I am sure I will be corrected later on. He played a very careful sitting-on-the-fence game, which is an important political skill.
As for the Minister, I like her generally warm welcome for the concept of a threshold, and I think she was being very honest and sensible in saying that. Of course, she says it is not for this Bill. Again, I refer her and noble Lords to my Amendment 32, which may solve that problem.
So I am pleased to have tabled these amendments and I take credit for two things. I think my amendments have provoked and prompted better amendments from some other noble Peers, and of course the Excel spreadsheets have given us all something of substance to talk and argue about. Without those spreadsheets, we would be talking in vague generalities.
Lord Blencathra
“House of Lords participation requirement(1) Standing Orders may make provision for a member to cease to be a member of the House of Lords if they have not met a reasonable level of participation based on requirements other than attendance.(2) A peer who does not meet the level of participation required may be notified and given six months to do so before the provision set out in subsection (1) takes effect.(3) For the purposes of subsection (1), “participation” includes—(a) speaking in the Chamber and Grand Committee;(b) serving on committees of the House;(c) asking oral questions;(d) tabling written questions;(e) participating as an official delegate in international organisations;(f) any other activity which the Committee considers to be participation in the work of the House.(4) The House of Lords may appoint a committee to consider and approve revisions to the Standing Orders to give effect to subsection (1).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is intended to ensure that members who attend but then say or do little or nothing are removed from the House.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, if one thought that my last amendment was slightly controversial, it is nothing in comparison to this one. I and the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, can again say to the Leader of the House, “Neither of us is from the Government but, again, we are here to help you”. We will help to implement the Labour Party manifesto that
“we will introduce a new participation requirement”.
Part of what I propose here is simple and straightforward, but another part would be difficult and highly contentious.
The first question is: why is this necessary? We all know that there is a tiny number of Peers who, shall we say, clock in and then disappear without any participation. Even if it is only one Member or up to 10, that brings the House into disrepute. There is more than enough abuse in the media about hard-working Peers getting the £361 per day tax-free allowance, so we must root out the small number who turn up and do nothing.
The easy bit is collecting the statistics, as per the list in the amendment’s proposed new subsection (3). Thus we know exactly who has spoken in the Chamber or in Grand Committee and how often. As the Library said, statistics are also being collected for our Select Committees. We know who has asked Oral and Written Questions, and how many. We may not record those who attend and work in other committees at the moment, as they do not count for attendance. That work is also vital to the functioning of this House. It can be very time consuming, but we can easily collect the names and statistics there also.
We know who serves on international delegations such as the Council of Europe, NATO and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, and that is 23 Peers in this House. As an aside, if noble Lords will permit me, the half-allowance that we get for that work is nonsensical. The hours and threats that the noble Lords, Lord Dodds and Lord Lancaster, and I faced when we observed the elections in Georgia last November were far longer and tougher than anything we do in this place. I can also say, with all certainty, that those of us who serve in those three organisations are going to some very long and hard days in our next few meetings as we wrestle with the new security threats in Europe. All our meetings start at 08:30 and end at 20:00 and we get £15 per hour for our attendance.
That was a personal aside—now, back to my amendment. My concluding item is to include any other work that a committee would consider to be participation in the work of the House. The only area in which I differ from the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, is that I would not let any Secretary of State get his or her fingers on this. We can set this up ourselves without government help, and either call on the Procedure Committee to do it or create a new committee specifically to decide on the metrics for adequate participation. A new committee would probably be best—one that would keep this under constant review and act as an appeal body for those Peers who objected to retirement on the grounds of attendance below any threshold, and participation below any new threshold also.
That is where the contentious parts will be. It is easy to collect the statistics, but how will we decide what minimum level of participation should entitle one to continued membership of this House? This is where I am looking forward to hearing from the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, particularly on his proposed new subsection (3) on a minimum participation level and the metrics to set it. Neither of us can say today what that should be, but I can pose some of the questions that the committee would have to adjudicate on.
If a Peer did nothing save put down a few Written Questions, would that suffice? If so, how many? Would one speech per annum in the Chamber or two in the Grand Committee qualify? Would we treat participation in all committees as equal, or would we say that some were more important than others and one would have to attend two or three lesser committees to equal one attendance at a more important one, however one defined “important”?
Then there is the vexed question of effectiveness. As soon as I was elected in Penrith and The Border to succeed the great Willie Whitelaw, he said: “David, you must distinguish between activity and achievement. Many MPs run around being active but achieve very little”. Suppose that we have a Peer who has asked only one Written Question in the whole year, but it revealed some terrible scandal or made the Government change policy; or a Peer who came high up in the Private Members’ Bill ballot and his or her Bill became law and changed the lives of thousands—for the better, one hopes and assumes.
I appreciate that, the more I talk about the difficulties of a minimum participation level, the more your Lordships will conclude that it is too difficult and we should leave well alone. But that is not our normal modus operandi in this House. The Lords tackles issues which Governments and departments shy away from. Just look at our Select Committee reports. I cannot believe that a committee of all sides of this House will be unable to draw up the metrics which the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, proposes. If it says after serious deliberation that it cannot be done, that is the end of the matter. If the great and the good of this House cannot find a solution to set a minimum participation level, no one can. Of course, we need to incorporate the exceptions proposed by my noble friend Lord Hailsham. I also look forward to my noble friend Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay naming names, if he has anyone in mind.
I conclude as I began. We have a very small number of Peers failing to participate at all, or participating very infrequently, and that is bringing the House into disrepute. Fixing it is not beyond the capabilities of noble Lords. I beg to move.
Amendment 27 (to Amendment 26)
Viscount Hailsham
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, my amendment is very technical. It provides simply that the sanction should not apply if the Member has good reason for not participating.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
My Lords, I have Amendment 63 in this group. If we can help the Front Bench with musical lyrics, it is surely:
“Oh what a circus, oh what a show”.
I declare my interest as a so-called hereditary Peer. I will make two general points before I turn to the detail of my amendment.
First, as earlier speeches from right across the House have made clear, it is accepted that the hereditary principle is no longer suitable and that the suspension of by-elections should become permanent. The Bill achieves that, full stop—a piece of punctuation that seems to have taken on unparalleled significance in our debates on this Bill.
Secondly, on Monday some noble Lords stated either on their feet or in not very sotto voce sedentary mutterings that all amendments are irrelevant, because this is a single-objective Bill. While I understand that view and share the intense frustration with the speed of the debate, some of the degrouping and the gratuitous rudeness to the Leader of the House, particularly on the first day, I nevertheless understand that amendments have been put down and marshalled in the usual way. Most are probing and, while they may seek to go beyond the tight circumference of the current text of the Bill, I am not sure that they can simply be dismissed as irrelevant. Such amendments have arisen because there is a widely expressed concern that, once the expulsion of the hereditaries is done, all further reform will again grind to a halt and the House will sink quietly back into a pattern of prime ministerial patronage and ever-growing size, neither of which enhance its reputation or credibility.
My amendment does not seek to obstruct the purpose of the Bill, but it does invite the Government to take some practical steps to enable the further reform to which their manifesto commits them. Amendment 63, like some others, addresses the issue of participation, but not by prescribing in advance and in detail exactly what such reform should comprise—rather, by seeking simply to put in place a process and timeline to progress it, something that speaker after speaker has been calling for over the days of this debate. It is thus complementary to the single purpose of the Bill and could be added to it without obstructing that purpose in any way.
The focus of this amendment is participation, for the following reasons. First, it is a Member’s participation and contributions, be they aged 91 or 21, that most affect both the quality and the reputation of this House. To touch briefly on a related point of age limits, I understand the convincing argument for imposing an age limit as a matter of public perception, and a wide range of dates was suggested in the debate on Monday and examples given of very competent individuals who would be lost at each gradation. I am not against an age limit, but what the debate on Monday actually highlighted was the inability of Whips to require Members to retire when—and there is no point tiptoeing around this—participation in the work of the House has become too challenging for them. Maybe that is the problem that needs to be addressed.
Secondly, a participation requirement is a commitment that needs to be transformed from a manifesto statement to an implementable set of actions. Finally, and I apologise for introducing a personal note, it does rather sting to be dismissed en bloc but leave behind some Peers—and there is no shortage—who do not attend, or who attend, claim their allowances and then do not participate.
The amendment has three key features. First, it requires, within six months of the Bill becoming an Act, that a cross-party group be set up to consult, to define participation and to establish suitable metrics to measure it. I have been told that defining participation is too difficult. It is not. The “too difficult” mantra has been given as an excuse for far too long. No doubt a range of views will be contributed to the cross-party group, as other amendments in this group illustrate, and account should be taken of previous work in this area. This amendment embraces both those factors. We already collect most of the necessary data, but previous Governments have, I am afraid to say, simply lacked the firmness of purpose to act on it.
This brings me to the amendment’s second feature: it enables the setting up of the processes required to implement the participation requirement as a basis for continued membership. Not all aspects of the outcome will please everyone completely, but we need to move beyond the wringing of hands and the gnashing of gums in order to resolve the participation gap in a practical way.
Some time ago we had the excellent Burns report, which made recommendations that Members across the House supported, but these have not been implemented. Other speakers on Monday recited a long list of failures to implement change. We need to do better. That is why the third and final feature of this amendment is to require the Government to bring forward measures to ensure that the findings are implemented. While the amendment as drafted anticipates the Government getting a grip on this, the House might itself, if it has the powers to do so, take responsibility for setting up the group, ensuring its work is done and carrying it forward to implementation. That is certainly worthy of consideration, so long as it does not become yet another consultation that, in the best traditions of Sir Humphrey, in “Yes Minister”, simply delays and dissolves what actually needs to be done.
In conclusion, this amendment does not—and I underline this—seek in any way to thwart the single-minded purpose of the Bill. It does not prescribe how participation should be defined, quantified or implemented, but it does put in place a process and a timeframe of 20 months for reform, based on participation, once the Bill is passed. For a Government who are serious about reforming this House, it is an opportunity to address its size, effectiveness, cost and reputation—all things that most Members agree are not currently what they should be. I therefore hope that the Minister will seize on this amendment, both as a means to move forward with the Bill and to demonstrate in practical terms the Government’s absolute commitment to resolving the participation issue: not in a general, aspirational sense, or as something that, in a phrase heard earlier in the debate, “we are working on”, but with a structure and a timetable so that the House can both understand and benefit from long-overdue change. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
My Lords, like a number of noble Lords, I have sat here with Trappist vows avoiding contributions that might prolong the debate further. However, having listened to the whole of our debate on the first group, which took one hour and 10 minutes—and to the noble Lord, Lord Newby, saying in our debate on that first group that we should be careful to ensure that we try to see ourselves in the way we are viewed from outside—I think that we need to reflect on a couple of simple facts.
One is that this is a five-clause Bill. Everyone knows that no organisation is happier than when it is talking about itself. We have been demonstrating this—testing it to destruction, in fact—during our debate on this Bill so far. A simple five-clause Bill would not normally have an attendance such as this on the second day in Committee. So far, up to today, we have discussed 10 groups of amendments. There are 32 groups left to discuss, assuming that there is no further degrouping. We are averaging five groups a day per session. Members can do the maths better than I can but, at this rate of progress, we shall be debating this Bill for Committee day after Committee day.
Some of us will no doubt enjoy ourselves, as we all like talking about our own organisation and how we work, but, in relation to other matters that the Lords should be considering on the Floor of the House, to spend another six, seven, eight or more days on this Bill, as these stats suggest we will do, repeating arguments that have been heard on numerous occasions—as the right reverend Prelate pointed out, 90% of them are, we know, not directly related to the Bill, and some of them will, in any event, come forward at a later time—we really need, if we want to be seen as relevant and persuasive in the eyes of the public, to do better today than debating just five groups of amendments. Bearing in mind that I have spent precisely two minutes and 42 seconds speaking and do not intend to speak again, I hope that we will have the good sense to get through this Committee stage at a dramatically speedier rate than we have managed so far.
Lord Strathclyde (Con)
My Lords, can I just reply to the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, on what I thought was a disobliging and wholly unnecessary speech? He said that this is a five-clause Bill and does not therefore need much discussion. Well, I can remember—I expect that the noble Lord can as well—the Maastricht Bill of some years ago, which was four clauses long. The House was full every day and night, and this went on for a great deal of time. It was an important constitutional issue. This, too, is an important constitutional issue. The difference between me and the noble Lord is that he thinks this Bill is about getting rid of the hereditary Peers, while I think it is about creating a wholly appointed House, which we have never had before, with the appointments in the hands of the Prime Minister. That is why many of the amendments taken today and on previous days are so important.
There is no attempt to try to filibuster this debate. The noble Lord, Lord Grocott, cannot point to any individual who has spoken for very long. It is hardly surprising that so many of us want to get involved in this debate. I am sorry that we are not going to hear again from the noble Lord or the rest of the Labour Party, but that is their decision; perhaps they are so horrified by what the noble Lord’s Government are putting forward that they do not want to listen to it anymore. I, for one, am very happy to sit here.
Lord Swire (Con)
My Lords, I am now genuinely confused by this Bill. It seems to me that the purpose of this place, if it has any purpose, is to look at bad legislation—bad proposals—and seek to improve it. Every time we try to do that for this Bill, we are accused of filibustering. If the Government are simply not prepared to listen to anything we are saying, or to take into account any of our amendments, we are all wasting our time. I am equally confused as to what is really—
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Smith of Basildon) (Lab)
The noble Lord said that the Government accused him of filibustering. He will have heard from every Minister who has responded from this Dispatch Box that we welcome these discussions. I think the point that my noble friend made was that some contributions seem a little long, but we on the Front Bench would not accuse anybody of filibustering.
Lord Swire (Con)
I am not saying that the Front Bench has accused anyone of filibustering, but we have been accused of filibustering when we have probed the reasoning behind some of these rather strange proposals.
To be honest, I am equally confused as to whether this Bill is about reducing the numbers in this House or whether it is about getting rid of the hereditaries. We have heard that the hereditaries contribute far more than some life Peers who do not attend this House. So is the Bill about getting rid of the hereditaries or about reducing numbers? It seems to me that it is not about both.
I have a real problem with this clause. We can argue until the cows come home about what “participation” means; some of the speeches have already conflated “attendance” and “participation”. I fully endorse what my noble friend Lord Blencathra said. During my early days in this Chamber, we listened to the electric exchange between the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and the noble Lord, Lord Winston. I did not understand what they were talking about—and neither did my noble friend, so he confesses. As he said, I do not think that those in the Box understood a word of what they were talking about, and Hansard probably had to stay up overtime to work it out. It was on such a different level that only a fool would have intervened at that point. I was reminded of the adage, which has been attributed variously to Abraham Lincoln and Mark Twain, that it is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.
That makes me think about “participation” as defined in subsection (3)(a), in the new clause proposed in Amendment 26, which refers to “speaking in the Chamber”. Will we really judge noble Lords by how often they speak in the Chamber? Without naming names, we all know that, among our goodly number, there are people who pop up on every occasion to speak. Are we to judge the validity of their existence by the fact that, like Zebedee, they bounce up and ask a question on every topic? Alternatively, will we be a little bit more circumspect in how we judge noble Lords’ contributions?
I heard what my noble friend Lord Bethell said about his forebears, but that is nothing compared to John Erle-Drax, the MP for Wareham in the mid-19th century, who was known as the “Silent MP”. He made only one statement in the House of Commons: on a particularly hot evening, he inquired of the Speaker whether it might be possible to open the window just a bit. He is not recorded as ever having said anything before or since. This ought to be a question of what noble Lords say, rather than how often they say it.
The other issue I have been going on about is the quality of noble Lords’ speeches. I know that not everybody has a background in public speaking, has served in the other place or has the natural fluency and eloquence that the gods vested on my noble friend Lord Hannan. But, increasingly in the Commons—and, I am afraid, here—speaker after speaker gets up and reads out a pre-prepared statement. That is not a debate. That just means that they want to publicise what they have decided; or, worse, what they have been handed by a foundation—very often the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, I regret to say—or some PR outlet. I have sat in this Chamber and heard a speaker read out what was clearly provided to them by some kind of lobbying group, and they got their text muddled up between what “we want”, “they want” and “I want”; it was clear that they had not even previously read what they were reading out. We need to improve the quality of debate in this Chamber, and not judge people on how often they pop up and ask a question.
On
“serving on committees of the House”,
there are not enough committees for all Members to serve on. Are Members who are not fortunate enough to serve on a Select Committee going to be penalised because they do not?
On “asking oral questions”, that is perfectly good, but you do not always get in on an Oral Question session; you have to jump up and down very often, and you are lucky if your hit rate is high.
On “tabling written questions”, let us not look at the quantity of Written Questions; let us look at some of the Answers—let us try to get an Answer. I have noticed over the years that Answers are masterful in their evasiveness. They do not even attempt to answer the Question, and if the Question is too difficult, they say it is at disproportionate cost to gather the information. Why do we bother asking some of these Written Questions, particularly when they cost hundreds of pounds to the public to provide a non-Answer? But we can all do that, if we are going to be judged on asking Written Questions. We can do it remotely, lie in bed and table hundreds of Written Questions. Lo and behold, we will all be judged to be doing terribly well in terms of participation. I rather think not.
The amendment talks about
“any other activity which the Committee considers to be participation in the work of the House”.
What does that mean? That is an all-encompassing statement. What can it possibly mean? This is a terrible amendment.
We should concentrate far more on the quality of what and how we debate here, on the quality of the speeches and levels of engagement. To seek to prescribe and identify how each and every one of us—individuals here for completely different reasons—should behave in some hideous template way to be decided by a committee is not the way to improve what goes on in this place.
The Earl of Erroll (CB)
My Lords, I want to quickly say something about participation—I think back to a long time ago when I was involved in the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill. What goes into the law does not happen in here; by the time a Bill gets into Parliament, it is already set in concrete—the anchor is in the ground. If you want to see what goes into legislation, you have got to influence the thinking behind it with the Civil Service. I, and many others, certainly spent some time on that.
The statutory instruments and regulations that come out of it are the real things that affect how it works and operates. You need to talk to the civil servants behind it, before those regulations appear, because we cannot amend them or do anything about them. It was on that Bill, or perhaps another one, where we said that they had to come back with regulations within a year and that was seen as revolutionary because it almost seems beyond our powers. We did not actually turn them down and it has always been a big problem here.
How do you measure participation in the all-party groups, the discussions behind it, the influencing you have done and what comes out? It happened with that Bill, and it happened again with identity cards—there was a huge amount of work behind the scenes on that, and on the Digital Economy Act, Part 3, and all the age verification stuff—I chaired the British standard on that. The Government had something which they totally ignored, but it has become an international standard. There is all the stuff we do which may not be on the Floor of the House, because, in general, it is too late by the time it gets to the Floor. You have to get to the people who are writing the stuff before it gets here, and that means participation in other groups, such as the all-party groups and other influential ones, which you do not have recorded.
I do a lot with entrepreneurship—in fact, I am on X today, encouraging MPs to support entrepreneurship in their local areas. There is a huge amount of other parliamentary stuff and influence you can do. How on earth do you measure that? Maybe you say that the only thing that counts is talking on this Floor. For many, it is the last thing that counts.
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, I remind the Committee that I intend to retire in the spring and would need a great deal of persuading not to do so.
I did not speak to the previous amendment. I had speaking notes, but I chose not to make a speech because I did not need to. I do use notes; I use them to regulate how long I speak and, actually, in my notes I have cut out several paragraphs because it was not necessary to use them. This is largely a presentation issue, and I agree with what my noble friend Lord Hannan said, but I would very strongly counsel against making any changes, especially strategy ones, because to do so could have perverse effects.
However, we are all grateful to the Guardian for its research, for pointing out that some Peers have been claiming large amounts of allowances while making little or no contribution to the work of your Lordships’ House. It will be obvious to the Committee that it is not just activity in the Chamber that should count as participation. The noble Earl, Lord Erroll, made that point. However, it is what the public are encouraged to think. Some Peers are not so good in the Chamber but are invaluable in Select Committees.
Earl Attlee (Con)
I was delighted to plan to stay overnight in Ipswich; what happened was that the abnormal load movement got cancelled, but I was still faced with the cost of the hotel, and I could not get the cost of the hotel from the heavy haulage company because of the risk of falling foul of the paid advocacy rules.
I did all this activity at my own expense and, save for one day, was not able to claim allowances. This is not unusual. Other noble Lords will be engaged in similar activity which would not be detectable as participation. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, that there could be some mechanism for measuring such activity; possibly at the end of the Session we might be required to say how much money we have claimed in allowances and what we have actually done.
We have already experimented with a participation test during Covid. Noble Lords will recall that we paid ourselves allowances only when we made a contribution. On one occasion we were debating an order that concerned vehicle testing and inspection. I thought that I was the House’s only subject matter expert. Imagine my surprise when I found that not only was the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, the country’s top psephologist but he had expertise on vehicle maintenance and inspection. Leg-pulling apart, we need to be careful to avoid creating perverse incentives to participate when it is unnecessary.
Finally, some Peers have quite low contribution rates but, nevertheless, I have found their private counsel to be invaluable. The noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, talked about low-frequency, high-impact contributions. One has only to think of the contributions of the noble Lord, Lord Owen.
Lord Desai (CB)
My Lords, there are many dimensions in which participation can be measured. We have two problems. As the noble Lord, Lord Swire, said, we do not know the quality of the participation but we know the quantity. These different dimensions are sort of related.
I was a statistician all my life—not a good one, but I was one. There are techniques to combine those dimensions in one single measure, and I urge the Government and the people in charge to use them. It is called principal component analysis—noble Lords can ask me, and I can find out more about it for them. That will give you a more or less objective way of measuring different people’s performance across a number of dimensions. This has been done many times; it is reliable. There is no doubt that quality is difficult to measure, but quantity can be measured, and I urge the decision-makers to use this to be able to sort out who is in and who is out. That would be helpful.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, given the comments of the noble Lords, Lord Grocott and Lord Swire, I will keep my comments short. Although I am reading from a piece of paper, I am reading from my scribbles, not a full text. I hope that is all right. I co-signed Amendment 26 from the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra. I do not think he needed any real encouragement, but I think it is very sensible. In fact, Amendment 63 from the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, has real value. If he took that to a vote, I would probably support it. I absolutely hate Amendment 28 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay. It might as well say, in brackets afterwards, “Kick the Greens out”.
I suggest that we could have got around this debate—all these days, hours and repetitions. We could have just made all the hereditaries life Peers, which would have removed all this. I understand that there is an issue about kicking them out but, personally, I think we will miss them. Making them all life Peers would have just shut them up, and we would be free to go and have an early supper.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
The rest of us are not blessed with the eloquence and wit that the noble Lord, Lord Swire, feels he has, but I think he has missed the point of my amendment and that, as a Committee, we are now trying to do all the detail on the Floor of the House. That is impossible. My amendment tries to establish that after this Bill a system is put in place to define these issues, to which we can all contribute usefully and sensibly—or foolishly, as we wish. That is the way to take this forward, not putting it into the Bill in detail. We need a system for the Government to show a bit of an ankle here and show us that they are really going to do this by putting this amendment into the Bill, not trying to work out the minutiae of percentages here. That is completely pointless.
Lord Lucas (Con)
I have Amendment 40 in this group. I find myself very much in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, which is a travesty of history. My route forward would be by Amendment 32, because I think it leaves the initiative much more with this House than with the Government. I would say, if the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu, were in his place, that St Matthew recorded some excellent advice about getting to grips with your adversary as soon as possible as the best way to deal with something. I think it is rather more likely that the next four and a half years will see the second coming of our Lord than a second Bill on the House of Lords, so to have something like Amendment 32 would be a great advantage.
The thing that unites us all is a determination to improve the way this House serves the public. There are many aspects in which we can work on this. The amendments we have in front of us are restricted by the nature of the Bill, but I absolutely think that this is the right moment to bring them forward and discuss them.
In my years in the House, I can remember one occasion when a Starred Question made a difference to government policy, which was when the Government were asked what their plans were to celebrate the 50th anniversary of El Alamein, in 1992. The answer was, “There are no such plans; it is the Germans’ turn to celebrate anniversaries this year”. With a House full of veterans, that led to a fairly rapid reverse of policy. I cannot recall one since. Much as we enjoy Questions, I think we should be much more critical about whether what we are doing actually has a function. I believe we should commission outside research, be self-critical, try to self-improve as a House and find ways of doing better.
When it comes to looking at our expectations of participation, I very much understand what the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, and my noble friend Lord Attlee were saying. There are many ways in which this happens. The form in proposed new Section 2A(1) in my amendment, asking people to sign a declaration to, as it were, say on their honour that they are participating fully in the business of the House, may be a good way forward. What the noble Lord, Lord Desai, suggests as a way of measuring that is certainly something to explore. We could also explore following the advice of Elon Musk and each week writing a postcard to the leader of our groups naming five achievements. I think that would put some of us on the spot.
In thinking about the worthwhile work this House does, we should focus on committees in all their various forms. That is where I have seen most value delivered and, in terms of what my noble friend Lord Norton says about fitting our membership to our function, that is very much the direction in which we should be trying to go.
The Earl of Dundee (Con)
My Lords, as has been said by practically everybody, participation statistics—such as simply the numbers of annual interventions by any Peer, without enough reference to the contents, let alone to the parliamentary usefulness and quality of those interventions—are thoroughly misleading.
At the same time, adjudications should obviously take into account how a Peer may have contributed in the usual ways through speeches, Written Questions, committee work, voting and so on.
Your Lordships may agree with what I think has emerged very clearly from this debate: rather than going only by participation numbers, a far clearer picture would emerge from assessments made by a cross-party commission set up for this purpose, as proposed in Amendment 63, and just now so eloquently explained and spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, I support the adoption of a participation requirement as provided for in Amendment 26. Standing Orders should be drawn up to set a minimum participation level but should take account of the fact that some noble Lords who seldom speak exert a considerable degree of influence, whereas other noble Lords who speak often and at length may exert rather less influence. Perhaps my noble friend Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay had this in mind when he tabled his Amendment 28, which I look forward to hearing him speak to. It is important that the committee appointed to consider and approve provisions should consider this fact.
I also support Amendment 40 in the name of my noble friend Lord Lucas, which seeks to do the same thing and provides for the House to provide an exemption from compulsory retirement in cases where there are good reasons why a noble Lord may have failed to live up to the declaration of intent that he or she signed at the start of each Session of Parliament. Perhaps the declaration of intent could be combined with the Code of Conduct so as not to lengthen the time required for oath-taking, which is already rather time consuming.
Amendment 63 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, is just another way of ensuring that noble Lords must achieve a minimum participation level to justify retaining their seats in your Lordships’ House. It seeks to establish a cross-party commission to make recommendations and ultimately, after 18 months, would require the Secretary of State to introduce a Bill to put the minimum participation level on a statutory footing. This has both advantages and disadvantages; it would be difficult and would require further legislation to make any changes to participation levels. The amendment is also silent on any provision for exceptions to compulsory retirement being possible in cases where the House considers that a noble Lord should be spared eviction.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, before the birthday boy, the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, begins to wind up for the Front Benches, I will speak very briefly to my Amendment 28, which seeks to provide for a maximum participation threshold, as well as a minimum. I do so with the humility and self-awareness of one who is speaking on the Bill from both the Front Benches and the Back Benches.
My amendment is an important flip side to the debate and there are some salutary examples from what happened in another place. A few years ago, there was the invention of a number of websites and journalistic tools, such as TheyWorkForYou, which track the participation levels of Members of Parliament in the House of Commons. That encouraged some to game the system by making lots of short speeches or interrupting others with great frequency, preferring quantity over quality.
There is value in restraint. I was struck by what the noble Lord, Lord Desai, said about what we can learn from academic theory. The Swiss-American psychologist and pioneer of organisational development, Edgar Schein, set out the concept of humble inquiry. He said that those in public life or leadership positions should ask themselves three questions before making a speech. Does it need to be said? If so, does it need to be said by me? If so, does it need to be said by me now? I should say that I was put on to the work of Professor Schein by one of our more taciturn and thoughtful colleagues in your Lordships’ House.
I have often suspected that, if one looked at the top 10% of speakers and the bottom 10%, it would serve as an interesting competition about those who one would rather hear from. I asked the Library to crunch the numbers for me relating to the last Session. It is not as large or interesting reading as the now famous spreadsheets of my noble friend Lord Blencathra, but it certainly reveals some interesting points.
I am sure we can all guess some of the names that appear in the top 10%, so I will not name names, other than to confirm to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, that the Green Party is the group from which we hear most frequently. We have the pleasure of hearing from the noble Baroness on 68% of the days that she can speak. Personally, I find the other 32% of days to be days of great sadness.
All of us who miss our late noble friend Lord Cormack will be impressed to hear that he still made it into the top 5% of speakers, even though he was sadly taken from us before the end of that Session.
By contrast, 106 noble Lords spoke on only 1% of the days that they could have done. If one glances down that list, which is available from the Library, one sees many examples of what the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, has rightly described as low-frequency, high-impact Members. One sees the names of three former Cabinet Secretaries, a former Governor of the Bank of England, former Leaders of your Lordships’ House from both sides of the House, a director-general of the Security Service rendered quiet by his service in the Royal Household as Lord Chamberlain, and fellows, and indeed the next president, of the British Academy. I see some of them in their places today—I see them in their places frequently—and I am glad that they are using their brains more than they are using their mouths.
I agree with what my noble friend Lord Swire said about the dangers of debate that just repeats verbatim the briefings we are given from lobby groups. I agree with what the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, says about the many other valuable ways that Members of your Lordships’ House can influence the way that we are governed in this country. With that, I shall take my own advice and shut up.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, beneath the wide-ranging and sometimes unfocused discussion we have had on these amendments, there is a degree of limited consensus that we should build on. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, shows us the way we should go. I hope that between Committee and Report, we will have a number of discussions, off the Floor, about where we go from here that will build on that limited consensus. I hope that the Government will consider accepting a limited number of amendments, which would show us the direction in which we go further, as well as committing to make some clear statements about how they would see further developments.
On the questions of attendance, participation and retirement, I agree strongly with my noble friend Lord Newby that some of this can be done through Standing Orders and agreements of the House and does not require legislation. That is part of the way that we may go forward.
I suggest that we all know pretty well what we mean by a minimum level of attendance and participation, and can name quietly, but we will not, some of the people who fail to fulfil it. I recall some years ago being invited to an office in the City of London to brief the CEO of a rather major operation on how to make a maiden speech. He had been a Member of the House for almost a year and I do not think that he had attended more than two or three times. He did not understand the House and he felt that he ought to make a maiden speech. That is clearly below the level of attendance and commitment.
This is a Parliament in which we are supposed to parley with each other—to exchange ideas, to listen and to learn. I have learned a lot through taking part in Bill Committees. I look at the noble Lord, Lord Vaux of Harrowden, and I remember the Procurement Bill, which we worked through in the previous Session. It was not my area of expertise, but I learned a great deal from him and from a number of other participants. We are here to examine in detail proposals that the Government make and to discuss difficult issues that the Government sometimes do not want to grapple with. That requires a minimum level of attendance and interaction between us. That is part of what we are here for.
Having said that, I hope that we will now be able in the rest of this evening to get through several more amendments, much more rapidly. I hope that the Government will think about what assurances they need to give us in order that we can make greater speed on Report. We should never forget that how this House is seen from the outside is something that we all need to be conscious of. The size of our House and those who come in for just 20 minutes and go out again are an embarrassment, and are picked up by the media. Honours and obligations need to be balanced. A later amendment suggests that we should be moving towards separating honours from the obligation to attend and participate, but these are all questions for the longer term. Dividing what we think this Bill can achieve from what we need to commit ourselves to discuss for the future is part of what we need to discuss between Committee and Report. I hope that this amendment will be withdrawn, but we should bear in mind that the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, is offering us a very useful way forward.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all those who have spoken—sorry, I am forgetting that I am not a Minister anymore; that is what the noble Baroness says. This debate has generally conformed to the good-natured debates that we have been having. I am very grateful to the Front Bench opposite and to others that that has been the case.
If I may say so, I was disappointed by the intervention by the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, which slightly changed the atmosphere for a time. The noble Lord and I were good comrades, he will recall, in the Brexit years, when he and I were among the very few people in the House who thought that we should do what the British people had voted for. There were times then when I felt, and I am sure he felt very often, that the House did not really want to hear from us again on the subject. I beg him to understand that we are facing a situation where many of our colleagues are threatened with leaving this House, and it does not help if they are told that they should not be heard from again. We will never be able to hear from them again. I have to say that the noble Lord has never been known not to repeat arguments on the House of Lords that he has put before—I have heard them many times. I shall break the rules of the House and say, “Come on, Bruce, let’s put our smiles on again”.
This has been a good debate. Again, many noble Lords have said, quite correctly—the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, made this point in a measured and sensible way—that it is important that we should understand the direction the Government are going in, and it is perfectly legitimate that House of Lords, faced with a Bill to reform and change the House of Lords, should express views about the future of the House of Lords. Let us recall that this question of participation is not a subject that has been dreamt up by some deviant Back-Bencher to put before your Lordships’ House; it was put before us in the Labour manifesto, so of course we should look at it.
When I hear these debates, it seems there is a widespread feeling in our House that there is a strong case in equity, and in the interests of the whole House, for finding some way towards a transition that allows many of the best of us who are threatened with expulsion to remain. I also believe there is an equally widespread feeling across the House that we should not continue to protect those who never come here, while working to throw out people who do contribute.
The question on participation is, how do we define it? It goes far further than attendance, and this debate has illustrated that. The Government surely must have had a view on this when they put the Bill in the manifesto, but there are many ways in which we can measure participation, and these have been brought out in the debate. I could cite those who serve as Government and Opposition spokesmen, Deputy Speakers or indeed Convenors of the Cross Benches—they are vital to the operation and functioning of your Lordships’ House. Hereditary Peers currently make up 27% of our Opposition Front Bench, 21% of Deputy Speakers and 100% of the Convenors of your Lordships’ Cross Benches. I say these things because I believe that noble Lords who are already with us—all of us, not just the hereditary Peers—should be judged, if we are to be judged at all, on our participation and contribution to your Lordships’ House, and not on any of our identities or characteristics.
I acknowledge how difficult it is, potentially, to define participation, and this has come out in the debate. There are many ways that noble Lords contribute to the House, and my noble friend Lord Blencathra, in his repeated brilliant speeches, keeps bringing up so many of them. Noble Lords can make legislation, propose amendments to Bills, participate in Divisions, ask Oral and Written Questions, contribute to committees, participate in debates, serve as Opposition spokesmen and even take part in international work, as my noble friend pointed out. They can also make use of their expertise and experience—as have several noble Lords who have spoken in this debate—to contribute in myriad ways to the work of this House and the progress of our nation behind the scenes. The noble Earl, Lord Erroll, and my noble friend Lord Attlee spoke to those points eloquently. One Peer, who was recently attacked in the media for not speaking enough, has been a diligent, active and hugely valued member of your Lordships’ committees for decades.
My noble friend Lord Lucas focused on a broad definition of committee work in his Amendment 40. This is extended to participation in all Bill stages, Questions and Statements by my noble friend Lord Hailsham’s Amendment 42, but as I and this debate have illustrated, the participation net could be cast even wider. My noble friend Lord Blencathra suggested a practical solution in his Amendment 26, which sets out some initial suggestions but would otherwise allow for a participation requirement to be determined flexibly through Standing Orders and a committee of the House.
I will come to the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, in a moment, but the more we can do in this House—this is no disrespect to the Minister; I would have said it of my own Government—and the less we can leave to Secretaries of State in the House of Commons, the happier I will be. There is great wisdom in this House, and the more we can reach solutions here through the kind of consultations the Minister is initiating, the better.
In his Amendment 63, the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, has not sought to pre-empt the definition of “participation” or, in fact, the level at which it would be required. But he proposed a structure to make and implement decisions that would need to be made. Given the broad range of views that we have discussed today and our need to reach consensus, while avoiding any unintended consequences, I—like the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire—consider the content of the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, to be a sensible basis for progress. However, I repeat that I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Newby, and my noble friend Lord Blencathra that it would best to keep the House of Commons out of it as far as we can.
The Attorney-General (Lord Hermer) (Lab)
I thank all noble Lords for their amendments and for the thoughtful and good-faith contributions that have marked this debate. The amendments in this group share a great deal of commonality with those in the last group: all of them, in their essence, seek to expand the purpose of the Bill to introduce a participation requirement, attendance being just one aspect of participation.
This debate demonstrates that there is a very considerable measure of agreement that there should be an obligation on Members of your Lordships’ House to participate in our proceedings; that we should arrive at settled metrics to assess the adequacy of participation; and that, absent very good and legitimate reason, a failure to meet the recognised standards should be deemed incompatible with continued membership of the House. There, however, the considerable agreement, if not consensus, ends.
As the amendments and the debate have demonstrated, there is as yet no measure of agreement on what the requisite participation levels—the metrics—should be. As all noble Lords know, participation in this House can take many different forms, but specifying which metrics should be applied to requisite participation is a complicated and nuanced matter. Participation, and specifying responsibilities so as to capture genuine and active work in the House in a way that can be measured in practice, will require further discussion and thought.
For instance, is a simple requirement to attend the House for a certain amount of time, as suggested in the amendments that we considered in the previous group, a reasonable measure of participation, or should we be more specific about the types of activity that need to be undertaken, as suggested in the amendments that we are now considering? If more specificity is desired, is it spoken contributions that should count, or votes in Divisions? Likewise, tabling amendments is a fundamental part of the work of this House, as is the valuable contribution made through Select Committees. Whether any one vote counts as participation, or a single Written Question should have the same weight as an afternoon chairing a Select Committee, are all nuanced questions and issues that will need to be considered.
On top of the identification of the metrics, there is an additional important question about how we implement those metrics. Should the requirements be set out comprehensively in legislation, or should the details be left to this House to decide and set out in Standing Orders, as suggested by the amendments tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Blencathra and Lord Lucas. This throws up numerous problems. On the previous group, the noble Lord, Lord Newby, touched on why legislation might be thought on the one hand to be preferable vehicle for the certainty and solidity that it gives, but may create all sorts of unintended consequences that the noble Lord set out.
In the Government’s view, these questions serve to underline the utility in our intent for the current Bill to remain focused on the single issue of hereditary peerages, leaving the important—I stress “important”—issue of participation levels to be the subject of further consultation and discussion with all your Lordships, not least to see whether a general consensus can be found. It is the Government’s hope that we can work together across this House to define what this new participation requirement would look like. As I have said, although we are grateful for this discussion and for your Lordships’ focus on this issue in this group of amendments, the very range of the amendments and scope of the debate that we have had demonstrate that we are not at a point where consensus has been reached and that further work and discussion are required.
Turning to the particular amendments, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, for his amendment, which seeks to impose a maximum participation threshold. In listening to the noble Lord’s contribution, I assume that the amendment seeks to ensure that minimum participation levels do not have an adverse impact on the operation of this House or incentivise participation for participation’s sake. The Government agree that care will need to be taken when we come to discuss what participation levels look like. It is one factor that will go into the pot as we try to calibrate what requisite participation will look like through discussion—or, indeed, potentially through the algorithm suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Desai.
The amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, seeks to impose an obligation on the Government to establish the cross-party Lords commission which, within six months, would set out recommendations requiring the Government, within a further six months, to adopt those recommendations in a draft Bill. I thank the noble Lord for his engagement on this matter, the thought that he has given to it and the spirit in which it is adopted. In his speech, he said that the purpose of his amendment was to get the Government to show a little ankle as to where we were. I am anticipating that that was metaphorical, not literal and I hope that I can reassure him and this House that the Government are committed, once this Bill has passed, to moving forward, hopefully through consensus, to push to the next level of reform, at which participation will be key.
However, I hope the noble Lord will also understand that we cannot support his amendment, even as we work together collegiately on that issue, for two reasons. First, the Government do not believe that it is necessary or helpful to prescribe on a statutory basis the mechanism by which a proposal for participation requirement is identified. Secondly, the final aspect of the amendment would oblige the Government to publish a draft Bill implementing the recommendations of the commission. We fully intend to work with your Lordships across the House and are committed to finding solutions that have the support of this House, but binding the Government to the recommendations of a commission that is not yet established is not an appropriate way to proceed.
Amendment 26, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, seeks to create the participation requirement that is now based on metrics other than attendance and allow for removal of Members who have not met a reasonable level of participation. The amendment seeks to appoint a committee to approve the relevant standing changes. I thank the noble Lord for his amendment. As I said in response to the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, the Government are committed to working collaboratively on the issue. I also thank the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, for the series of amendments that he has tabled to further shape the proposals for the participation requirement. He has made a number of very sensible suggestions that must form part of any further discussions on participation. They will need to take account of the sensible points raised by the noble Lord.
These are all significant and nuanced questions across the range of amendments, to which thought will need to be given carefully and collaboratively. The Government will welcome that discussion. As many noble Lords will know, my noble friend the Leader of the House has already engaged in over 60 discussions with your Lordships, trying to fashion and develop how we move forward after this Bill. Channelling the spirit of the debate, I respectfully request that noble Lords do not press their amendments.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, once again we have had a fascinating debate. The Government may not have wished us to discuss this and to take an hour to do so, but noble Lords on all sides of the House have welcomed the chance to raise this important point. As I said at the beginning, like it or not, a tiny number of Peers come into this place for only a few minutes each day—then they disappear. That is quite a different matter from those who come here and participate at some level in discussion, including on a committee.
I do like Amendment 63, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell. He made the point that, if we do not tackle this now, we never will. Both our amendments call for this special committee to be set up, which will come up with metrics and decide on a level of participation. My noble friend Lord Strathclyde was right to say that this is an important constitutional matter and that it is right to discuss it now.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
—we would never dream of kicking her out of this place. She was absolutely right to say that all hereditary Peers should be given a life peerage. That would kill this nonsense stone dead.
My noble friend Lord Lucas has proposed an excellent amendment. As he said, we are all engaged here in trying to improve the effectiveness of the House. Asking new Peers to make a commitment for the future has merit, but we still have the genuine problem of the handful of Peers who come here, clock in and do nothing. I say again to my noble friend Lord Swire that I am not suggesting measuring the quality of speeches. If Peers are making speeches, then they are participating in the work of the House. The quality of their speeches is not something to be measured by this committee. My noble friend Lord Trenchard also supports participation level, but I would say to him that legislation is not necessary if we accept Amendment 32 when we come to it later.
As I am leading on all six groups of amendments today, I fear I have fallen foul of my noble friend Lord Parkinson’s exhortation not to speak too much. He quoted an incident that occurred years ago in the Commons, when I was a junior Whip and the marvellous Harold Walker was Speaker in the Chair. We were in government, and we had an agreement with the Opposition on a two-minute time limit for speeches on Commons consideration of Lords amendments. We were rocketing through our consideration of Lords amendments to yet another criminal justice Bill. We were getting on fine until our friend Sir Ivan Lawrence QC —I am not naming names, this is in Hansard—got up and said, “Everything that could possibly have been said on this Bill has been said, but not by those of us qualified to do so”. He spoke for 20 minutes, and the Labour Chief Whip said, “That’s it—the deal’s off!” We spent another two hours in Committee.
The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, whom I congratulate on his birthday, showed support for the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, and a minimum level of participation. He also criticised those who, as he said, turn up for 20 minutes and then leave. I think those were my exact words, too, and we did not collaborate on that.
My noble friend Lord True, speaking from the Opposition Front Bench, said that it is legitimate to discuss these issues, which were in the manifesto. He said that there is a widespread view in the House that we have to do something about the problem of those who do not participate. Peers contribute in myriad ways. The committee that the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, and I are suggesting setting up would take those myriad ways into account before establishing a minimum.
The noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General said that agreement on doing something, having a metric and removing those who fall short of that level is important and that we should do something about it, but we are not setting it up here. All we are asking for is a committee to decide on the detail. The noble and learned Lord was justifying not doing anything because, he said, there were too many nuances. Of course there are nuances, dozens of them—there are hundreds of things to be taken into account—and that is the purpose of the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell. If we pass his amendment and set up the committee, it will do the consultation on all sides and spend a year or two figuring out the details.
I say to the noble and learned Lord that he reminded me of that wonderful “Yes Minister” attitude, where Sir Humphrey says, “Yes, Minister, that is a very good idea. We will set up an interdepartmental working group and consult the Cabinet committees and this, that and the other. Then we will publish a Green Paper first and then a White Paper. I am sure that we will be able to deliver on your promise—eventually”.
In conclusion, there is a mood in the House to take this participation problem seriously. Most noble Lords favour the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell. He stressed that some noble Lords were fussing about the details. He suggests that could be done by the committee.
Lord Blencathra
“Removal of peers with a criminal convictionAny peer convicted of a criminal offence on indictment ceases to be a member of the House of Lords within seven days of the conviction, or the loss of appeal if the peer appeals the conviction.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment intends to ensure that peers who have committed a serious offence are removed from the House, using an indictable offence to provide a clear threshold.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I am sure noble Lords will be relieved to hear that my speech will be much shorter on this occasion. I leave it to my noble and learned friends and other noble Lords to suggest improvements to my amendment.
Again, my starting point is the Labour Party manifesto. It said:
“Labour will ensure all Peers meet the high standards that the public expect of them, and we will introduce a new participation requirement as well as strengthening the circumstances in which disgraced members can be removed”.
The term “disgraced” is a bit vague. If we get into the business of removing Peers who have disgraced themselves, there will be quite a few, depending on how we judge the subjective word “disgraced”. It is safer to stick with those who have brought the House into disrepute and have committed a crime which has resulted in a prison sentence. My suggestion is that the prison sentence which triggers expulsion should be reduced from 12 months to six. My noble friend Lord Hailsham is right that his amendment would rectify my sloppy and imprecise legal wording. I hope noble Lords will agree that, however it is properly and legally phrased, the term should be reduced to six months from 12.
There are a number of related issues that the Committee needs to tackle. Suppose a Peer is convicted of drunk-driving and gets a three-month prison sentence and a 12-month driving ban—any drunk driver is a potential killer—should we not suspend him or her from the House for the same period as the driving ban, for example? We have a problem—some Peers, two I believe, who have served time in prison are still here because we did not have the expulsion power when they were convicted. Another defrauded the House of over £120,000 —the largest ever expenses scandal—but was never charged with a crime. We need to use the legislative power to retrospectively deal with those disgraced Peers.
No matter how heinous the crime might be, right up to the level you get when applying for a visa for the United States—“Have you ever waged thermonuclear war against the United States?”—if a Peer was instantly expelled and could never enter the House again, their title, Lord, still remains. In those rare cases, I suggest the title must be removed.
A peerage can be removed only by an Act of Parliament. The most recent Act that did that was the Titles Deprivation Act 1917, which I am sure is on the tip of your Lordships’ tongues. It was used to remove peerages from enemies of the UK during the First World War. Specifically, Section 1 introduced powers to remove a peerage from anyone who had
“during the present war, borne arms against His Majesty or His Allies, or who have adhered to His Majesty’s enemies”.
The Act meant that any Peers suspected of assisting the enemy could be investigated by a committee of the Privy Council, which would then lay a report to both Houses of Parliament for 40 days. If this period elapsed without either House tabling a Motion disapproving the report, the report would be taken as final and presented to the monarch. The Peer would then be struck off the peerage roll and would have all rights to receive a Writ of Summons and sit in the House of Lords removed. The Act took away four titles. Three of them—the Dukes of Cumberland, Albany and Brunswick —were high-ranking German noblemen and their peerages came from Victoria. The fourth, Viscount Taaffe, an Irish title, was serving in the Austrian army.
It would be a simple matter to have a new Act of Parliament replicating that, called the “Titles Deprivation Act”, for serious criminal offences, implementing exactly the same procedure of a committee of Privy Counsellors of both Houses deciding whether or not a title should be removed because of the severity of the crime committed by the Peer. Of course these issues are not in the Bill, and I am not asking that they should be, but I cannot think of any other opportunity I would have, this year or in the next few years, to raise that little issue, which I believe should be addressed by Parliament in the future to remove disgraced Peers. I beg to move.
Amendment 30 (to Amendment 29)
Viscount Hailsham
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, I think the Committee would agree that disqualification from membership of this House should follow only a serious conviction. My suggestion is that a better indicator of the gravity of the conviction lies in the sentence rather than simply in the fact of conviction. That is why I have tabled an amendment whereby disqualification should follow the imposition of an immediate custodial sentence or a suspended sentence of at least six months. I suggest that that is a better mark of the gravity of the offence than simply the fact of a conviction, albeit on indictment.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I want to make sure that in this debate we do not forget the case of our late noble friend, Lord Montague of Beaulieu, who was imprisoned for 12 months for homosexual acts and would have fallen foul of my noble friend’s amendment, even as amended by my noble friend Lord Hailsham. He was charged under the same Act of Parliament as Oscar Wilde and many other gay men. The Montague case of 1954 gave direct rise to the Wolfenden report of 1957 and the decriminalisation of homosexuality 10 years later—a campaign led in your Lordships’ House, incidentally, by a Conservative hereditary Peer, the eighth Earl Arran, following the sad suicide of his brother.
On his release from prison, Lord Montague of Beaulieu returned to your Lordships’ House and remained an active and greatly esteemed Member, as well as highly engaged in civic life. He chaired the Historic Houses Association and English Heritage. He was elected to remain in your Lordships’ House in 1999 and announced his plans to retire only in 2015, the year that he died. So, while I agree with the sentiment that lawmakers should not be lawbreakers, it is important to remember that what constitutes a criminal offence is a question for legislation, and I for one am glad that the late Lord Montague was able to remain a legislator.
Lord Hacking (Lab)
I would like to add to what the noble Lord has just said. Some 53 years ago, when I first entered the House, there was a Cross-Bencher who had been convicted and served his penal sentence. I have forgotten where it was. He was greatly respected and was treated as an expert in your Lordships’ House on penal matters.
Lord Keen of Elie (Con)
I am obliged to the noble Lord. I am not able to claim that same degree of expertise.
In speaking to these amendments, I fully understand what lies behind them: a desire to ensure that those who serve in this legislature exhibit the standards of integrity and character that the public would surely demand of them. My concern is that the amendments are perhaps too narrowly focused. We already have a means, since the 2015 Act, of dealing, by way of the Conduct Committee, with recommendations for expulsion or suspension. That broad remit seems to me a more equitable and sensible means of addressing these issues.
I give but a few examples. In the past few years, at least one of your Lordships was convicted of a serious offence in the United States of America. He was sentenced to three and a half years in prison. Would that sentence be attached by the proposed amendments? It would be necessary to extend the amendments to sentences imposed by courts not just within but outwith the United Kingdom. What if a noble Lord was charged with an offence in the Russian Federation on highly dubious grounds and was convicted and sentenced to a number of years in prison? How would we deal with that issue if we had extended these provisions to sentences imposed by courts outwith the United Kingdom?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, this has been a short but interesting and thoughtful debate on the amendments trying to probe these issues. The comments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, on how the House can deal with this matter were very helpful.
Currently, as the noble and learned Lord said, under the House of Lords Reform Act 2014, a Member of this House automatically ceases to be a Member if they are convicted of a serious offence—that is, if they are given a non-suspended prison sentence of more than a year. We have already heard about the House of Lords (Expulsion and Suspension) Act 2015; the Standing Orders of this House and the Code of Conduct deal with that very clearly. If a Member receives a prison sentence—of any length and regardless of what the sentence is—that is deemed to be a breach of the code.
There has been a general view across the House about having some strengthening of their roles but, as the noble and learned Lord has said, a number of factors have to be considered in the round. For example, would it be right automatically to expel a Member if the Crown Court considers that the offence is not sufficiently serious to warrant a custodial sentence? Are there particular offences that the House may consider should be treated more seriously, or as being incompatible with membership of your Lordships’ House and warrant automatic expulsion?
Noble Lords also raised the question of somebody being prosecuted overseas. As well as what we might determine malicious or political prosecutions, somebody could be prosecuted overseas for something that is not an offence in this country. Further debate is needed on how we can strengthen the rules. Another factor that I will take into account is the rules across both Houses. It was interesting that the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, set the threshold in his amendment lower than the recall conditions for Members of Parliament, but the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, set it higher. Some consistency across Parliament would be helpful.
The noble Lord also raised a very interesting point about the removal of peerage. I am sure I am not the only noble Lord to have heard this point—the noble Lord, Lord True, may have had similar correspondence: if somebody has been stripped of another honour, why do they remain a Peer? In fact, that has nothing to do with the membership of the House of Lords. Someone can retain a peerage. That is not a matter for this House, but I think that those comments should be taken on board as well.
That indicates that we would be willing and happy to maintain an ongoing dialogue on this particular matter—
Lord Blencathra (Con)
The manifesto mentioned “disgraced” Peers. I know that the noble Baroness may be consulting on this, but can she indicate what she means by “disgraced” Peers? Is it only those who have committed serious criminal offences?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
It is hard to look at this without looking at criminal offences, but if noble Lords have other examples they would wish us to consider, we would be happy to do so. Ultimately, these are matters for the Code of Conduct and further dialogue, so I respectfully request that noble Lords do not press their amendments.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, we have spent 15 minutes on this, so I hope we will not be accused of filibustering in this small but rather important debate. I take on board the complexities that my noble and learned friend Lord Keen of Elie and the Minister have described. Nevertheless, it has been a worthwhile debate.
There has been a surprising amount of consensus over the deprivation of titles. If one can take away a knighthood, it should be possible, in very controlled circumstances, to take away the title of Peer. It is a matter for this House in conjunction with the Commons, because the Titles Deprivation Act 1917 said that a Joint Committee of privy counsellors from both Houses should look at peerages and decide who had aided the enemy. If we had removal for serious offences, however we determine “serious”, again, it would be determined by a committee of privy counsellors from both Houses. And it would not be automatic; we would not be looking back at someone like Lord Montague and automatically doing it. The committee would determine whether the seriousness of the offence, whether in the last few years or further back, was worth taking forward. It would not be an automatic removal of title.
Lord Blencathra
“Legislating for changes to the composition of the House of Lords(1) Where a resolution of the House of Lords establishes or changes—(a) the age at which peers must retire,(b) a minimum attendance requirement,(c) a participation requirement, or(d) a type of criminal conviction which results in expulsion from the House,a relevant Minister must, within 12 months, take the action set out in subsection (2).(2) Where a resolution is passed by the House of Lords in accordance with subsection (1) (a “relevant resolution”), a relevant Minister must, by regulations made by statutory instrument, amend this Act in order to translate the relevant resolution into statute.(3) The regulations must use the wording of the relevant resolution, without any alteration.(4) The relevant Ministers are the Leader of the House of Lords and the Leader of the House of Commons, by whatever titles they are then known.(5) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to establish changes regarding the composition of the House in law, while allowing the House flexibility to change them.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I consider this amendment quite important and a solution to many of the problems that have been posed by noble Lords on Monday and today; that is, that we may want to change things in the future, but we need to wait for an Act of Parliament to do it—an Act which may never materialise.
Let us suppose for a moment—and it is not beyond the bounds of possibility—that we make an amendment to this Bill which succeeds, so that the Act of Parliament may contain provisions that set out a retirement age, a minimum participation requirement or an attendance requirement, or sets up the committee that the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, described in his amendment. After 12 months or two years or longer, when that committee reports, if this House decided that we needed to tweak it and that the retirement age or attendance criteria were not right, we would need primary legislation to change it.
The justification for my Amendment 32 was in fact made, I believe, by noble Lords on Monday night. Noble Lords may recall the debate we had on retirement ages and the amendment on transitional arrangements proposed by the noble Earl, Lord Devon. It was supported by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, who said that it
“proposes a simple set of transitional arrangements with two legs that would reduce that organisational shock enormously and allow the House to transition to an age limit of 80 without pain or any loss of our capability and effectiveness … The second leg would give everyone who comes in a minimum of 10 years”.—[Official Report, 10/3/25; cols. 560-61.]
The noble Lord, Lord Burns, said
“if we are going to have an age limit, we do not have to choose between 80, 85 or 90 for ever. We could begin with an age limit of 85 and then, for the following Parliament, have an age limit of 80: we would get two bites at the process of bringing down the numbers. I support what my noble friend Lord Kinnoull says. I think the transition arrangements for this are just as important as they have been in the whole debate about hereditary Peers”.—[Official Report, 10/3/25; col. 563.]
Winding up that debate, my noble and learned friend Lord Keen of Elie had a similar argument—to bring the age down to 85 by the end of this Parliament and to 80 by the end of the next Parliament.
What those four speeches have in common is that, at some future point, a further Act of Parliament would be required on House of Lords reform. It is highly unlikely that we will get any new legislation on changes to the House of Lords, even little ones, and it would probably be outside the scope of even the usual Home Office “Christmas tree” Bill—a criminal justice Bill. The Government have had their fingers burnt with this Bill and will not want a rerun of it, even if they worked out ideas on improving
“national and regional balance of the second chamber”,
as they said in their manifesto. Thus, my solution is to have a special regulation-making power in the Act to enable any of the suggestions on retirement ages, term limits or anything else.
As your Lordships will know, all Governments over the last 40 years have ruthlessly extended the delegated powers in Bills to include more inappropriate delegations. I submit that no Government can be trusted with an open-ended regulatory power to change the four Lords rules that I have suggested in my amendment. I was interested in what the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, said about delegated powers: that, in the past few years, they have expanded dramatically, which is not acceptable. The report from our Delegated Powers Committee, when I chaired it, suggested that every Government over the last 40 years had increased their delegated powers.
Therefore, we need a tightly constrained delegated power that the Government could not change or delay. That is why I state in my amendment that the regulation must copy verbatim the wording of the resolution of the House of Lords, and it must be made within 12 months of our House passing such a Motion. We would need to look at it first, just to ensure that there was no accidental wrong wording in the government regulations.
The Committee may think that I am being a bit cynical, but after four years as chairman of the Delegated Powers Committee, I can show noble Lords real cynicism in some of the appalling delegated powers that government departments have inserted into Bills. We revealed that in our report, Democracy Denied? The Urgent Need to Rebalance Power between Parliament and the Executive, and I can slip noble Lords a few copies at very little cost.
Let us build in now the power to make changes in the future. It would not commit us to making any of those changes, but it would ensure that, if this House of Lords decided on a retirement age or term limits or participation—or to implement anything that the committee described by the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, agreed on—we would not have to wait many years for a new Act of Parliament and for the Government to find time in their legislative programme. Looking at the myriad problems that always affect the country every month and year, I cannot see any Government in the next two or three years finding time for another Bill on House of Lords changes. The regulation-making power that I suggest should be tightly drawn, unlike a Bill, which would be fair game for another 116 amendments as per this Bill.
Before concluding, I must say that I was impressed by the transitional arrangements propositions. If those four noble Lords—the noble Earls, Lord Devon and Lord Kinnoull, the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and my noble and learned friend Lord Keen of Elie—can agree some consensus amendment for Report, I will happily not push ahead with the more blunt instrument of retirement at the ages of 80, 85 or 90. In the meantime, I commend my Amendment 32 to the Committee and beg to move.
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for moving his amendment. However, I am not convinced that it is a very good idea, not least because it would alter the constitution and enable this House to exclude Members of another place from coming here at some point, without affording them the opportunity to say no or to express their concerns.
Lord Northbrook (Con)
My Lords, I am not quite sure what
“resolution of the House of Lords”
means: whether it is by amendment and, considering the mechanics of the whole thing, whether it would also have to go through the House of Commons. I am slightly perplexed at how this amendment would work in practice.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I find this a very attractive way of approaching the amendments proposed previously by the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, because it moves the initiative back to the House of Lords, which has to initiate the change. Given that it has to result in a vote of both Houses, the Government can just vote it down—so in reality it would have to be something negotiated between the House of Lords and the Government.
The amendment does two really important things. First, it produces a mechanism that can actually happen. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hermer, said that this Government are determined or committed on making further changes. Some of us heard that 26 years ago and it sounded just the same—and I believe it was just as real. There was a real determination then to move forward with stage 2, but it did not happen. I do not believe that under the circumstances in the world, in this Government, in this country or in this economy, any Government could find the time in the next four and a half years for another House of Lords Bill. It just will not happen. If we use this mechanism, we get the ability to change most of the important things that we are talking about in this Committee. The Government would retain control because it would require a vote in the Commons—but the House of Lords would take the initiative. That is a very attractive way of dealing with a lot of what we have talked about in the past three days.
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, I am afraid I cannot agree with this amendment, because it requires all these changes to be implemented via a legislative route. As I said in my earlier speech, I do not believe that minimum attendance or participation requirements should be dealt with through legislation—they should be dealt with directly by a resolution of your Lordships’ House. As we have just heard, the Conduct Committee is perfectly capable of dealing with criminal convictions and recommending the expulsion of a Member of your Lordships’ House when it believes that he has behaved in a criminal manner.
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, this is an interesting amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Blencathra. To continue the Lloyd Webber theme, he has certainly been a diamond in our dull grey lives today.
As my noble friend described, this amendment seeks to provide a mechanism by which resolutions passed by this House on matters such as retirement age, attendance, participation or criminal convictions could be translated into statute through regulations. I know that my noble friend, as a former and long-serving chair of our Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, makes this suggestion with a great deal of knowledge and consideration for the workings of our House.
This amendment also reflects an important principle that we have discussed throughout our debates: that constitutional reform should be done with consensus and that your Lordships should have a say in any reforms that affect your Lordships’ House. However, we must also acknowledge that the House of Lords is an unelected body, and allowing it to self-regulate its membership with legal force would raise democratic concerns and risk undermining trust in our institutions. Traditionally, and rightly so, significant changes to the composition of the Lords have been matters decided by Parliament as a whole, not merely by your Lordships’ House.
While I understand the spirit of the amendment, I have some practical concerns—for example, about the proposal to require that resolutions be translated into statute without any alteration. Some House resolutions, though well meaning, can contain ambiguities or practical challenges that would need refining before they could be translated into statute. By requiring strict adherence to the wording of resolutions, there is a risk of making ineffective or impractical law and creating unintended complications.
To conclude, there is much to commend in the principle of this amendment, namely that your Lordships’ House should have a meaningful role in shaping its own composition and standards for the future. However, allowing the House to self-regulate its membership in this way would raise democratic concerns that have not been satisfactorily addressed today. That said, my noble friend’s proposal rightly challenges us to consider how we can translate our internal deliberations into actionable reforms, should there be consensus to do so.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, it has been an interesting debate. One thing that strikes me is that the House itself wants to lead on the issues of participation, retirement age, attendance and criminal conviction. The noble Lord, Lord Newby, said that legislation was not the way forward, and the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, was very suspicious of legislation, because he thinks that it is not going to happen. It is interesting how Members are now much more engaged in these issues than we have been in the past, so I am grateful for those comments.
On the noble Lord’s amendment, I feel the hand of mischief here a little. It feels a bit like a Henry VIII power; I wonder whether noble Lords are comfortable with an unelected House passing a resolution and then saying to the elected House, “You must put this in statute”. It goes against the grain of every speech I have ever heard the noble Lord make on that issue, with which I have always agreed, so it is a curious amendment—but just a probing one, I am sure.
On the issue of the House making these arrangements and looking at how it can do that—including whether we can do things more quickly—there are always arrangements in our manifesto for legislation. But if noble Lords can find a way to agree on a way forward on the issues in the noble Lord’s amendments, I am sure the House would be willing to have those discussions.
I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising those issues. As I say, this amendment raises constitutional issues. In any other aspect of the work he has done, I do not think he would ever have agreed to it, but I thank him for his contribution and hope he will seek leave to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Lucas (Con)
Can I ask the noble Baroness a couple of questions? First, as I read my noble friend’s amendment, the duty on the Government would be to put the matter to the vote, not put it in statute. So the House of Commons would have a controlling vote over whether these changes happen.
Secondly, in response to what the noble Lord, Lord Newby, said, is it the noble Baroness’s understanding that the current arrangements would allow us to change the Standing Orders so that we excluded Peers on the basis of non-attendance or non-participation—or would that require legislative change?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
In our Standing Orders we are already able to exclude Peers for non-attendance. That right exists at the moment. The discussion we have had is about whether it is at the right level, but we could do that through our own Standing Orders.
I am not sure that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, is right in the first point he made, because the amendment says:
“Where a resolution is passed by the House of Lords in accordance with subsection (1) … a relevant Minister must, by regulations made by statutory instrument, amend this Act”.
So there are instructions for the Minister to amend the Act—there would have to be a vote, I am sure, but it is an instruction.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for making that clear. It would be an instruction for the Minister to lay it as a statutory instrument but, of course, there would be a vote on it in the House of Commons at any rate.
My noble friend Lord Northbrook asked about the mechanics of the resolution. We write Standing Orders and they are perfect, so we would draft a new Standing Order on whatever it may be; the resolution of the House would then ask for that Standing Order to be a statutory instrument, which the Government would implement.
My noble friend Lady Finn was worried that we would impose on the Government the wording of this statutory instrument but get it wrong. If I may say so, there is a better chance that the House of Lords will get the wording of a statutory instrument right than any government lawyers; that has been my experience in the past. I welcome my noble friend Lord Lucas’s support.
I am sorry to disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Newby, but I believe that we are capable of drafting sufficient regulations on some of the issues in my amendment and that we do not need an Act of Parliament. I regret that I put the criminal convictions in—that was a step too far—but, hypothetically, surely we should have the power to do as I have suggested as far as the retirement age and a participation rate are concerned. Those things do not need massive outside consultation or an Act of Parliament. As the House of Lords, it should be within our power, if the committee of the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, comes up with metrics on participation—or if the suggestions from the noble Earls, Lord Devon and Lord Kinnoull, on retirement ages and transitional rules come up—to say, “These are the rules that we want”. In the current circumstances, we would say that to the Government. If the Leader of the House, on whatever side, said, “Jolly good idea”, he or she would then go to the Government and say, “This is what the House of Lords wants to change. Can we please have an Act of Parliament sometime to make these amendments to our rules?”.
I am suggesting that we would not need to go through that palaver if we built in a tightly constrained regulatory power. It may have to be tweaked—I am not suggesting that my wording here is perfect; clearly, it is not—but, if we gave ourselves the power to change our rules on retirement ages and participation rates, say, and that regulation power could go to the Government, as I suggest, the Government could then put it in an SI the way we have worded it. The House of Commons could then vote on it. I suggest that this would be a simple solution but, as I think I am the only one here with an amendment, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
North Sea Energy
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
My Lords, this Government have done the exact opposite of building the North Sea’s energy future. Instead, their attitude to our North Sea oil and gas industry, and the hundreds of thousands of people it employs, borders on contempt. For clarification, we should remind ourselves that the 2050 net-zero target, set in Glasgow at COP 26, still required 25% of our energy to come from hydrocarbons. In the North Sea, we have the cleanest and most environmentally advanced industry and the toughest regulatory regime in the world. This world-class industry is now under existential threat from this Government.
We should be clear that the energy profits levy is now at its highest level, as a result of the decisions made by this Government. This hike is uneconomic and will see the evaporation of investment in the sector. As my counterpart in the other place said last week, it may well be “Drill, baby, drill” in the US, but it is
“‘Dole, baby, dole’ under Labour in the United Kingdom”.—[Official Report, Commons, 6/3/25; col. 460.]
Let us look at where we are now. The investment allowance has almost been dismantled, and a windfall tax will now be in place for much longer, until 2030—directly because of the choices made by Ed Miliband. A leading US investor said to me recently that
“we now consider west Africa to be a more stable investment environment for hydrocarbons than the UK”.
During a period of global instability, it beggars belief that our Government are shutting down our domestic oil and gas industry at a pace that jeopardises both our energy supply and our energy security. We are already seeing the impact of the Government’s punitive tax measures: investment is vanishing, work is slowing up or being stopped entirely, and companies are leaving the UK for countries that do see a future in the oil and gas industry. But, even more worryingly, we are haemorrhaging the backbone of our highly skilled technical staff overseas.
The Government’s race for 100% clean electricity by 2030 is driven solely by ideology. They have placed politics above the North Sea’s industry, workers and community, which will all be devastated by their decisions. Despite the fact that they claim that economic growth is their number one mission, their decisions will lead to a £12 billion loss in tax revenue, in addition to another £12 billion in lost capital investment. Instead of making Aberdeen great again by ramping up production, the Government’s approach is to use GB Energy to dabble in renewable projects that the private sector has already decided are dud—a Potemkin village strategy if ever there was one.
All this damage will only see the UK increase its dependence on expensive imports, which will also offshore emissions abroad. The Government’s approach to our energy future simply does not make sense, particularly as the UK accounts for less than 1% of global emissions. Let us not be mistaken: this is simply a case of virtue signalling, and the British people will pay the price. Will the Minister confirm that the Secretary of State has consulted those employed in the oil and gas sector and understands how his policies will impact them directly? Will she explain exactly how much will be needed to support the 200,000 workers in the oil and gas industry, given the recent £200 million of Treasury support for the 2,000 workers impacted by the closure of Grangemouth? Finally, will she inform the House whether DESNZ and HM Treasury have factored these calculations into the spending review later this month? There is no one else to blame and nowhere else for this Government to hide. I look forward to a comprehensive reply from the Minister.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, we welcome this important step towards developing a framework for future energy in the North Sea and, in particular, the clear intention to engage in a constructive dialogue with North Sea communities, business supply chains, trade unions, workers and environmental groups. We also welcome the clear recognition that the North Sea will remain at the heart of Britain’s energy future, supplying home-generated, clean, renewable energy, supporting jobs and our future energy security long into the future. We urgently need a coherent transition plan for the North Sea to support workers, supply chains, families and communities. We need much more thinking and planning on how we transition away from oil and gas after 50 years of drilling in what is now a rapidly declining basin and how we can all work to ensure a just transition for our oil and gas industry workers.
While we welcome the consultation and the Government’s vision for an internationally leading offshore clean energy industry, we believe that more decisive and accelerated action is required to ensure a truly speedy and just transition for the workers and communities who have powered this country for decades. The consultation period is very short. The closing date is 30 April. Is this really enough time, considering the complexity of the task at hand and the range of consultees? What reassessment of the urgency and support needed for a just transition are the Government making, considering the impact of the Supreme Court decision on new oil and gas fields? The implications of the Supreme Court judgment must mean that these matters are now more pressing and require a rethink and more resources than they did. We are seeing multilateral energy companies such as BP rowing back from their commitments to the energy transition. What impact is this having on planning to transition and what actions are the Government taking to work constructively with these companies?
At its heart, this is about rapidly teaching the skills and creating the job opportunities for the future during a period of exceptional social change. While the consultation outlines improvements in clean energy industries, more concrete commitments and funding mechanisms are needed to ensure a truly just transition for the existing oil and gas workforce. Although research suggests high skills transferability, bridging the gap between potential and actual job creation in the clean energy sector requires significant government intervention. We call for more proactive and adequate funding for retraining and upskilling programmes.
There has been talk of GB Energy cuts. We believe that these are counterproductive. The green economy grew by 10.3% last year and, since the war in Ukraine started, we have spent £40 billion importing foreign energy. Cutting GB Energy will simply lead to higher energy bills and more money for the Russian war economy. Policy certainty is of paramount importance and I call on the Government to maintain clear lines to ensure the investment we need to transition. The Government must provide a clear and unwavering long-term vision and must do more than just simply phasing out oil and gas. This will clearly need business plans and investment to ensure that we can transition. Will the Minister say what comes next after the consultation has closed? How will the results be published? What role will Parliament have in making future recommendations?
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Blake of Leeds) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for their contributions to this crucial debate. I thank the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for his positive comments at the beginning of his contribution. I look back fondly on the time we worked together, when I was the Opposition Whip for this area, and we did some useful work together.
To go to the nub of the Statement, which came out in the Commons last week, the Secretary of State launched a consultation on the steps this Government have taken to seize the opportunities of the clean energy transition in the North Sea. That was the critical point that we are talking about tonight. It is about working with businesses, workers and communities to strengthen north-east Scotland’s status as the energy capital of the UK and, obviously, reaching beyond. It is important that all of us talk up the opportunities that we have got going forward.
At the same time, we obviously have the backdrop of global warming to 1.5 degrees and all the evidence we have around that, but I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Offord, that making Britain a clean energy superpower is one of the five missions of this Government, as he quite rightly stated. We are committed to delivering clean power by 2030 and accelerating to net zero across the economy. As part of this mission, the Government remain committed to achieving the UK’s NDCs, carbon budget 6 and net zero by 2050.
We all know, and need to acknowledge, that the North Sea is a maturing basin. Oil and gas production has seen a natural decline of 72% between 1999 and 2023, and, as a result, the industry has already lost a third of its direct workforce over the last decade. We cannot ignore the situation that we are in and, as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, identified, we need a new plan to move forward. We cannot continue to exist as we are; this plan is urgent, as expressed last week in the Statement.
It is a government manifesto commitment not to issue new licences to explore new fields, and we have always been clear that oil and gas will continue to play an important role for decades to come. The reality is that new licences for oil and gas awarded in the last decade have made only a marginal difference to overall production. To continue granting them would not help our energy security and not be compatible with our climate commitments.
Furthermore, as domestically produced oil and gas are traded on international markets, it will not mean cheaper prices for consumers. We have to continue to work with the sector to make sure that the existing fields are managed appropriately for the entirety of their lifespan, and, in answer to the noble Lord’s questions, I want to give real assurance that that is very much part of the Government’s plans. We will respond to the consultation in due course. I cannot give a specific timeframe at this point, other than that we recognise that this is urgent, as I have already said. Developers will, of course, be able to apply for consents under this revised regime.
The other part of the Statement very much referred to the North Sea’s unique strengths, and I would hope that all of us can come together to be much more positive about the potential we have going forward. We know that low-carbon technologies such as CCUS—carbon capture—and hydrogen will play a key role in supporting decarbonisation across the economy, including hard-to-abate sectors.
It is estimated that the offshore renewables workforce, including in offshore wind, hydrogen and other technologies, could increase to between 70,000 and 138,000 by 2030. I hope this addresses some of the concerns that obviously have been expressed. It is vital for delivering the best outcomes for workers, communities, energy security and sustainable economic growth. This also shows how quick and decisive action is needed with the cessation of fossil industries, as we saw at Grangemouth. We acknowledge that we have supported Grangemouth with £200 million from the National Wealth Fund for co-investment with the private sector to unlock Grangemouth’s full potential and secure our clean energy future.
The fact that the Government have moved so quickly to establish Great British Energy is a real indication of our commitment to our clean power target, overseeing a record-breaking renewables auction and improving the offshore wind auction. We all know how disastrous the previous auction was, with no responses at all. We obviously need to kick-start the UK’s carbon capture and hydrogen industries with strong early investment.
The other factor that we need to acknowledge—and I do not think has been picked up—is just how important it is to accelerate the build of new network infrastructure which is essential for reducing curtailment and constraint payments. But this is just the start. The independent NESO has also set up pathways to a clean power system in 2030 and confirmed that a clean power system was deliverable, more secure and could see a lower cost of electricity and lower bills. Building on this advice, our clean power action plan will drive £40 billion-worth a year of investment to meet our goal of clean power by 2030.
I would just like to restate how fortunate we are to have the North Sea as part of the United Kingdom. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Offord, I can say that the North Sea workers will be central to the discussions that we take forward—and not just the workers but the communities, the supply chains and all the rest of the support that our development and plans require.
The plan is the scale-up of clean energy industries and giving the oil and gas sector the support and clarity it needs to continue operating for decades to come. The plan is to keep working with the people who matter the most, as I have said—the North Sea’s businesses, workers, communities and the trade unions—to take advantage of the tremendous opportunities of the years ahead.
I have to say that our experience is not the negative picture from the private sector as has been described. We are in very productive conversations with different sectors, with industry, to move forward. We recognise just how important the work is to support the workers. We absolutely understand the step-change that needs to happen around the skills agenda—this is fundamental —but the potential and the opportunity must drive everything we do going forward.
I am sure that noble Lords will understand that I cannot comment on the spending review in any detail at this point. The outcome of the review will be made public very soon. We look forward to seeing a positive step forward to make sure that the North Sea gets the investment and particularly enables the energy sector up there to contribute to the security of this country. We know that the status quo is not acceptable. We were incredibly exposed after Russia invaded Ukraine; we need to make sure that we move forward at pace, with confidence and with the support of the country behind us.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market (LD)
My Lords, while this Statement is about energy, all these various forms of energy in the North Sea will have to co-exist with other uses such as shipping and fisheries, with the towns and cities which abut the North Sea, and with the environment, which in general is pretty fragile and, in cases such as Dogger, pretty much in crisis. Can the Minister say how the Government intend to co-ordinate to make sure that moving forward on energy in this regard will not compromise some of these other activities? Almost a decade ago, I chaired a Select Committee of this House that called for a strategic North Sea plan that would seek to balance these things. As far as I know, it has never been developed, so I wonder whether the Minister can say how this co-ordination will take place.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I sincerely thank the noble Baroness for raising these important points. Let me acknowledge the awful tragedy that has just happened in the North Sea. I come from Yorkshire, and I know how congested the waters are there. Our thoughts are with the families of those involved. There will clearly be an inquiry into what happened there, but it serves as a very useful backdrop to the issues that the noble Baroness raises.
However, with another hat on, I was very pleased to be involved in the debates on the Crown Estate and ownership of the coastal areas and the various responsibilities in those areas—not only people looking after their own employment, but the environment. Those considerations are important, and I am confident that, by putting together these packages with key interested partners, we will be able to come up with a very positive plan that highlights the issues that the noble Baroness raises.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to debate these issues, and I echo what the noble Baroness and others have said about the tragedy in the North Sea. I cross the North Sea every year to visit my family in Denmark. When I was an MEP, we crossed the North Sea in a ferry after the “Estonia” tragedy to show solidarity.
On the issue before us this evening, does the Minister share my concern that we should have a more balanced source of energy rather than what could appear to be a rapid dash for clean energy? We have seen, as the noble Earl said earlier, that BP as a single company is moving away from renewables back to its more traditional oil and other energy uses. There are also environmental issues related to clean energy, such as decommissioning wind turbines and siting substations to bring renewable energy onshore, and the fact that our competitors—the USA, Norway and other countries—are still relying on their oil and gas reserves. Should we not be looking for a more balanced view?
I also echo what the noble Baroness said earlier. We had many debates during the passage of the clean energy Bill about the environmental issues. I particularly share her concern about fishermen and spatial squeeze—10% of fisheries grounds could be lost through clean energy. If the Minister could address these issues, I would be most grateful.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for raising these issues. It is a complex picture, but this Government are absolutely determined to get to grips with it. On alternative sources of energy, I have mentioned hydrogen, and we have had some very robust debates about its potential future use. The Government have also taken swift action to unlock the potential of onshore wind.
The issue that we probably need to discuss more than we do is how we reduce the consumption of energy at all, whether in our businesses or a domestic setting, and where the highest use of energy is.
The noble Earl has raised the issue of BP before. It is difficult for us to stand here and talk about commercial decisions made by companies, of whatever scale; it would not be appropriate to do so. But I emphasise that although the foot is on the accelerator in progressing to clean energy, we recognise, as we have repeatedly said, the contribution that oilfields and gas will continue to make as we make that transition. We have to make sure that the country is not exposed to any shocks, and that we do this in a measured and sensible way to ensure that we get to where we want to be.
There are, of course, competing challenges—I have heard the noble Baroness discuss on many occasions the impact of climate change on communities in rural areas in Yorkshire, for example, where we live—but there are many opportunities. We need to look at examples around the world, while focusing on making sure that Britain is the best and that we do all we can to reinvigorate our energy markets, provide the jobs we need and create an environment where we invest both within the country and on the international stage.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
Does the Minister agree that the broad direction of this strategy is heavily supported by the public, the energy industry and the trade unions, which increasingly believe that future growth will be green growth, and future jobs will be low-carbon jobs? Does she agree that the Opposition, in continuing to face in absolutely the opposite direction —I know what opposition means—look increasingly blinkered and, frankly, out of touch on this issue?
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for those comments; that was the point I was trying to make. I believe very strongly that positives attract. By going out and talking to people and explaining the progress we wish to make and how we move forward, we are gaining traction.
There is an element of the clean energy debate that we do not often consider and should pay more attention to: the impact on the health of both people working in the industry, and communities that have been exposed to, for example, air quality conditions that we should be looking at. We should be looking after our children’s health and looking after their futures.
There is a positive response. When I go out and talk to businesses, they see the opportunity in a positive way, recognising the challenges, but also that this Government are committed and will work across all the sectors to achieve the aims and objectives ahead of us.
Baroness Foster of Oxton (Con)
My Lords, I support the comments made by my noble friend Lord Offord. The title of this Statement on Today’s Lists— “Building the North Sea’s Energy Future”—is an oxymoron; the proposals coming forward from the Energy Secretary are doing quite the opposite. An industrialised nation such as ours cannot be dependent on so much alternative and renewable energy. We will, for the foreseeable future, need to rely on hydrocarbons.
One of my concerns is about energy security and self-sufficiency; I do not think that that has been taken into account at all. We have turbulence across the Middle East and wars going on, obviously with Russia involved, and yet the reliance of the UK and Europe on these ways of bringing energy into our country does not seem to have been taken account of at all. Frankly, what is going on is vandalism. Some 2,000 jobs are at risk, without which probably at least 10,000 people will be without the supply chain, but that is a number that is just thrown up in the air. That will be the hard effect, certainly if we were to look around Aberdeen and such areas.
That notwithstanding, and although it did not concern the North Sea specifically, I attended a very interesting meeting today with Cuadrilla—the company that sunk the wells for shale gas. Over the years we have had to look at alternative ways of fuelling this nation, and have had good discussions, but now, not only is fracking the big bad wolf but the vandalism that is taking place—pouring concrete down perfectly serviceable wells, which may in the future be very useful to us, notwithstanding the geopolitical position and energy uncertainty across the world—is absolutely astonishing.
I note the Minister’s comments, but I am not sure who the Energy Secretary, Ed Miliband, is trying to convince. A lot of this is built on ideology and is not helpful to the British economy. We are already seeing businesses suffering with the policies from this Labour Government—for example, the closure of the Vauxhall factory in Luton—and this is just the start. I ask the Minister to discuss further with our Energy Secretary positive ways of moving forward.
The net-zero obsession is going to destroy this economy quicker than most other things. We need a reality check on this if we want this country to grow. According to the Prime Minister, growth is apparently key to the Government’s agenda, but what they are actually proposing will not produce growth.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I hope that the noble Baroness is not trying to put all the problems created by the last 14 years of the Conservative Government at the door of Ed Miliband. We know that the economy has problems, as a result of disastrous decisions made by recent Ministers of the party opposite.
To re-emphasise what I was saying, the impression that the situation is rosy and needs to be continued with is entirely false. I repeat what I said in my opening comments: oil and gas production has seen a natural decline of 72% between 1999 and 2023, and, as a result, the industry has lost around a third of the direct workforce. The problems are there. We are taking the opportunity to do the right thing by moving towards net zero, and doing so in a way that brings hope, jobs and the prospect of future prosperity to an area that, frankly, has been struggling for some time.
In my experience, public opinion on fracking is at an all-time low. The noble Baroness should reflect on the comments that she made. The Secretary of State has laid out a positive agenda, one that is supported with clear milestones, and a total commitment to moving forward to make this work for the economy of the whole of the United Kingdom.
Viscount Thurso (LD)
My Lords, I join my noble friend on the Front Bench in broadly welcoming the Statement. The Beatrice wind farm, which has been extremely successful, has its operating headquarters and all its service boats in the port of Wick. It has been a tremendous economic boon for the east coast of Caithness. I expect that further developments, such as the west of Orkney wind farm—which is in the Atlantic, not the North Sea, but is broadly the same proposition—and the other wind farm in the North Sea will have a similarly beneficial economic impact. I firmly believe that the economic future of the UK is a very bright one, using high technology and renewable energy.
Declaring my interest as chair of the Caithness District Salmon Fishery Board, I echo my noble friend’s concern regarding the balance with the environment. There is a conflict in some instances between development and the marine environment. I am aware that we are not going to stop anything, nor would be want to, but we want to ensure that the proper processes are gone through, so that we know what we are doing and therefore can take proper mitigating action. I am aware that the Minister cannot give me an answer, because it is entirely down to MD-LOT and the consenting unit in Scotland, but I thought that I would try to get it on the record anyway.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I thank the noble Viscount for his positive comments. I urge everyone to celebrate those successes and to talk more loudly about them, to generate enthusiasm and excitement—as I said, positives attract. Behind all of that, our commitment to re-skilling, working with young people and giving a vision for the future is critical.
I thank the noble Viscount for giving me a get-out on the marine environment, but there is so much more that we need to do around mapping the coastal areas and understanding what we have and what is vulnerable, and who has responsibility, and then coming together and making sure that it is positive for everyone. There are challenges and there will have to be trade-offs—we know that—but, ultimately, this is a very positive agenda that will bring benefit to our communities across the United Kingdom.
House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill
Wednesday 12th March 2025
(2 days, 5 hours ago)
Lords ChamberHouse of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill 2024-26 View all House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 49-III(b) Amendment for Committee (Supplementary to the Third Marshalled List) - (12 Mar 2025)
Lord Blencathra
“Lords Spiritual(1) A maximum of five Church of England bishops may sit in the House of Lords.(2) Of those five bishops, one must be the Archbishop of Canterbury, one must be the Archbishop of York, and the remaining three must be nominated by the Synod of the Church of England.(3) No bishop may sit in the House of Lords beyond the end of the Parliamentary Session in which they turn 70 years old.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment reduces the number of bishops sitting in the House of Lords from 26 to five.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I rise to move Amendment 33 in my name, which would reduce the number of Bishops in the House from 26 to five: the most reverend Primates the Archbishops of Canterbury and York and three other right reverend Prelates nominated by the synod of the Church of England. I am delighted to see the right reverend Prelate in his place—he has booked his slot among my remaining three by being here tonight.
I accept that this is not in the Bill, and nor was it in the Labour Party manifesto, but spending perhaps 20 or 30 minutes on this will be worthwhile, and I cannot see any other way to raise the topic. Naturally, I expect all Front Benches to keep a million miles away from this subject. I shall be very brief and leave it to other noble Lords to speak in favour of or against this probing amendment.
I shall give the House some statistics for consideration. The number of Church of England baptisms in 2023 was 67,800. The average Sunday attendance is about 700,000. The average Christmas attendance is about 2.3 million. Of course, we have 26 Bishops and an electorate of 48.2 million people, as of the last election. Therefore, there is one Bishop per 27,000 people at attending church on Sunday. There is one Bishop per 88,500 people at Christmas attendance. The maximum size of a constituency is 77,000.
Last year, the daily attendance in this House was 397. Of course, we do not have constituencies and neither do the Bishops, but the number of Peers who attend divided into the electorate would mean one Peer for every 121,000 electors. But, even with Christmas attendance, we have one Bishop for every 88,000 Church of England attendees.
I accept that it would not take an expert statistician to find fault with my conclusions from these statistics, which I admit are highly flawed, but it seems to me that we are overrepresented by Bishops in this House and I leave it to other noble Lords to offer a view for or against that view. I beg to move.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 48 in my name and the consequential Amendment 49. Perhaps I might begin by saying that I am not making any personal criticism of any of the present Lords spiritual. Most, and perhaps almost all, are important contributors to our debates. However, in a debate of this kind, we have to ask the question: on what basis do the Lords spiritual sit here? My suggestion to the House is that we should examine the criteria and ask ourselves whether they are well founded.
The objection to hereditary Peers is very similar to the objection to the Lords spiritual. In the case of hereditary Peers, while both the pool of candidates and the electorate are small, there are, at least on the Conservative Benches, both hustings and elections. But the way in which individuals become Bishops is very far from transparent, and there is no filter of elections and hustings. Moreover, the pool of candidates for the episcopacy is a very small one, and indeed the selectorate is even smaller. The process itself is very discreet.
Once an individual becomes a fully fledged bishop, that person, subject to gender preferences, has a very good chance of becoming a Member of this House. It is, in short, a case of the Rt Rev Buggins. In the case of the two Archbishops and the Bishops of London, Westminster and Durham, membership of this House is automatic—a self-perpetuating oligarchy. That is obviously not a good way to constitute our legislature.
So one has to ask: what about the tests of suitability and propriety? Most of the Committee agree that such tests are important. These debates—the last three days—have shown that the Committee values the role of HOLAC. Some of us, in fact, want to enhance its role. But HOLAC has no role to play in assessing the propriety or suitability of individual bishops to become Members of this House. I note, incidentally, that my noble friend Lady Berridge’s Amendment 90B addresses this matter. I know of no scrutiny—certainly none of a publicly transparent kind—that addresses the question of the propriety or suitability of appointment.
Then there is regional representation. Again, that is an issue viewed as important by most of this Committee. The Lords spiritual are drawn exclusively from dioceses in England—there are none from Scotland, none from Wales and none from Northern Ireland. So one has to ask: on what basis are the Lords spiritual here? As with the hereditaries, it is historic. The Bishops once represented a landed interest—no longer. The Lords spiritual once reflected the pre-eminent national Church—no longer, I say with regret, as an Anglican who regularly attends my local church. This country is now a secular society and, to the extent that it is not, Anglicanism is no longer pre-eminent.
Then there is the question of numbers: 24 Bishops and two Archbishops—not, I acknowledge at once, a large proportion of the House. But, once we embark on a serious attempt to reduce numbers and refresh our membership—and if, as I suggest, it is very hard to discern reasons of principle to justify the presence of the Lords spiritual in this House—I am afraid that the occupants of the episcopal Bench become candidates for removal. I know that will not be the consequence of the Bill, but I hope that we will be prepared to debate the issue with honesty and candour.
Lord Moore of Etchingham (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I must say that I am a little distressed to hear from Conservative Benches the nature of this criticism of the Bishops. It is unfortunate. I understand, however, that people get cross with the Bishops for all sorts of reasons—I certainly frequently do in columns that I write.
I also hesitate to speak on this subject because these are high and complicated matters. But I do feel that somebody has to speak for the Bishops here, because they will not speak for themselves. After all, our Lord said,
“let this cup pass from me”,
and that is more or less so for the Bishops. They cannot say, “No, I want to keep the cup. I want to go on and have another pint in the Bishops’ Bar”. They have to express a becoming humility, which basically means that they have to shut up on this subject—or so they will tend to feel.
Of course, we feel cross about this sometimes and I believe that there is a problem with the Bishops in this period. I will illustrate it with an example. I had a very lovely, pious aunt, who, as a child, attended her parish church. Two clergy preached there: one was very good at it and one was very bad. She said to her parents, “When Mr X preaches, I listen, and when Mr Y preaches, I keep my mind on higher things”. Sometimes, with some of the episcopal utterances we hear nowadays, we need to keep our minds on higher things.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)
My Lords, the time limit is 10 minutes. If the noble Lord could wind up, I would be ever so grateful.
Lord Moore of Etchingham (Non-Afl)
Forgive me; I end by saying that, if only the Government could apply the wise restraint they show on the matter of the Bishops to the very similar position of the hereditary Peers, they would drop this divisive and unnecessary Bill.
The Earl of Dundee (Con)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Moore. I very much agree with everything that he has said. I refer to Amendment 78 in my name. Within a reformed House, this is for the Lords spiritual to continue under their existing statute with their current numbers of 26 reduced to 20.
Two points should perhaps be emphasised: first, and in general, the importance of having non-political Benches and groups in a reformed House; and, secondly, in particular, the case for retaining enough Bishops in order for them to carry out their rota systems in the House of Lords, these being necessary in view of the heavy work commitments of bishops outside Westminster and the House of Lords.
The quality of the present House is its independent-mindedness over party politics. That attitude may apply to all our Benches. However, with Cross-Benchers and the Lords spiritual, we are fortunate in having as many as two Benches that are non-party political in any case, that benefit being unique and unshared by other Parliaments. That is why, and in this context, my noble friend Lord Hailsham might feel able to concur that our Bench of Bishops should remain within a reformed House: not just to lead it in prayer but to influence its debates. Equally in this context, my noble friend Lady Berridge may feel able to agree that Bishops in continuing to sit here should not have to be dependent on HOLAC, not least since their existing statute already enables them to be here in their own right.
A Bench of Bishops numbering 20 would be 3% of a reformed House of 620, of which 600 might be temporal Members. Yet with their heavy Church commitments beyond Westminster, perhaps my noble friend Lord Blencathra might agree that the rota system for attending to House of Lords duties would become unreasonable and under increasing pressure if their numbers were to reduce too much below 20.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 90B in my name in this group, and I am grateful for the relaxation of the rule so that one can speak in Committee having not been able to be here at Second Reading.
This simple amendment would bring into force the evidence of the chair of the House of Lords Appointments Commission, the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, to the Public Administration and the Constitutional Affairs Committee of the other place in her pre-appointment hearing on 24 October 2023 in which she said that,
“every nomination ought to be checked, even if it is a bishop or a hereditary peer”.
As I am sure noble Lords will be aware, under the public bodies rules, the noble Baroness is not permitted to contribute today.
The appointment of a bishop or archbishop, and their suitability—to use the language of nominations by the Prime Minister or the Leader of His Majesty’s loyal Opposition—are, of course, matters for the Crown Nominations Commission, but propriety checks matter for the integrity of the nation’s legislature and its safety. From recent reports in the media about HOLAC’s decisions—of course, decisions are confidential—it seems to be exercising that propriety muscle. What we know is that there are those who by convention would have joined your Lordships’ House who have not been given a peerage.
I wish to make it clear that this amendment would not affect a nomination by the Church commission—that is a Church matter and outside the scope of the Bill. The amendment would mean that a Writ to come to Parliament would not be issued unless HOLAC had done its propriety checks, checks that, as far as I understand it, even the Chief of the Defence Staff undergoes to come to the Cross Benches. I am, of course, aware that a non-statutory body, HOLAC, preventing a Writ of Summons being issued would be unusual, but I hope this amendment will serve to promote discussion of this important principle. How it is achieved in practice is perhaps a matter for another day.
Sadly, this safeguarding issue relating to bishops has come to the fore with the recent resignation of the Bishop of Liverpool, who would have become a member of the nation’s legislature without any propriety checks by HOLAC. Of course, I must state that those were merely allegations that have been refuted, but there remains confusion about how the proceedings of the Crown Nominations Commission of the Church of England were conducted, and there are allegations, again refuted, that pressure was put on the CNC during that process. I note that HOLAC’s checks are not just for criminal matters, so it could have been appropriate for that independent body to look at such a case prior to the issue of a Writ. Yes, this amendment would mean that there could be a diocesan bishop entitled to come to your Lordships’ House who was not accepted by HOLAC, but that in itself makes clear the different roles of HOLAC and the CNC, and the role of Parliament, which is sovereign, as distinct from the Church of England. Who is safe to be in Parliament should not be delegated to a body from any other institution, despite any assertions of how good the CNC is.
The case of the Bishop of Liverpool and the failure last month, for, of course, unknown reasons, of a Crown Nominations Commission to appoint a Bishop of Durham, who would have come straight into your Lordships’ House—of course, CNCs have to be private—highlight the problem for Parliament: why did that person withdraw? Were there safeguarding issues? Was it the process? We just do not know. I hope His Majesty’s Government will consider this matter seriously.
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, I do not actually believe in God. However, just in case, I always seek to adhere to the highest ethical and moral standards, especially so far as public life is concerned. I do not propose to speak to the next group because it is so closely related to this one.
The vast majority of your Lordships’ House are nominally Christian. If your Lordships want to have Prayers read by a Bishop—and I do—we need about 27 Bishops so that one of them can be the duty Bishop for the week or for two weeks, or however they organise it. An important point about the Bishops is that they normally retire, although, as the noble Baroness pointed out, a few come back as life Peers—and they are welcome. Bishops are appointed by the Prime Minister. If there were a problem, I am sure that in most cases the Prime Minister would find out; I am not sure that HOLAC is any better equipped, especially in so far as some of these safeguarding issues are concerned.
It would be profitable for the Leader to find some way for other religious leaders to have temporary membership of your Lordships’ House in the same way as the Anglican Bishops. I do not think this point has been made today, but just because only a few other states have a revising Chamber with religious or moral input, that is not a good reason for us not having such input. I would counsel leaving the Bishops well alone.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Scriven has his name to Amendments 48 and 49 but is unable to be here, sadly, so let me speak briefly from our Benches. I declare my interests as a member of the Church of England and as a former member of the Westminster Abbey Foundation; I am still active with it.
I am very disappointed that the noble Lord, Lord Moore, did not suggest that abbots should be restored to their places here. Clearly, if we are discussing longer-term reform of the Lords, we need to address the question of the Bishops. At the same time, we might as well—other noble Lords have done this via Amendment 34 —address the question of faith representation in the House. In my lifetime, I have seen the Church of England—and certainly Westminster Abbey—become much more welcoming to ecumenical arrangements of all sorts. The Cardinal Archbishop has read the lesson in Westminster Abbey several times. I have been to a joint Jewish-Christian service in the abbey. I have listened to readings of the Koran in the middle of an abbey service. That is part of how the Church of England now tries to maintain its position as a national Church representing all faiths.
It is worth mentioning in passing that this House is not entirely without representation of other Churches and faiths. My namesake was the Moderator of the Church of Scotland two years ago and the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths of Burry Port, is one of the most distinguished Methodists. The noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger, was the lead rabbi of Liberal Judaism, and we had a retired Chief Rabbi on the Benches of our House for some time.
There is a broader question, which we clearly need to address, about the role of representatives of faith in a different House, if we are slowly moving further in that direction. The Bishops need to respond to that, and I hope they will contribute to that debate. That is as far as we need to go when discussing this Bill because it is not necessarily part of the Bill. But in the broader, wider discussion that we are unavoidably finding ourselves having in Committee, that has to be one of the questions under discussion.
The noble Lord, Lord Moore, did not remark that there were only 14 or 15 Bishops in the Middle Ages, as I remember, and that the reason the number was fixed at 26 was because the number of dioceses was mushrooming so fast in the course of the 19th century. Perhaps that is the number we should go back to as an interim measure, but I look forward to hearing from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Sheffield if he is about to contribute to the debate.
The Lord Bishop of Sheffield
My Lords, I am sorry to disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Moore, in the fact that the Bench of Bishops is briefly going to speak up on its own behalf. He may be surprised, as may many noble Lords opposite, that in the first eight months of the current Parliament the Bishops have voted 29 times, and only five times with the Labour Government. The Bishops are not party political; we really do seek to improve and scrutinise legislation. That is by the way.
I am grateful for the opportunity offered by this range of amendments to address some of the concerns expressed by Members of this Committee about the place and role of those of us who serve on these Benches. Although we are not whipped and do not have a party line, the Lords spiritual are pretty much all of one mind that your Lordships’ House would benefit from some reform, not least to do with numbers and patronage. As noble Lords would expect, we believe that a reformed House of Lords should include Lords spiritual and should continue to reflect the present constitutional arrangement.
I will try to speak briefly to all the amendments in this group, taking first Amendments 33 and 78, which seek to reduce the number of Lords spiritual serving on these Benches. Amendment 33 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, would reduce the number from its current 26 to five—the two Archbishops and three others nominated by the Church’s General Synod.
In practice, since every one of the Lords spiritual has full-time responsibilities outside this place, a reduction to five would make it impossible for the remaining Lords spiritual to perform their functions as parliamentarians alongside their duties as diocesan bishops or primates. Although there are at present 26 Lords spiritual, noble Lords will notice that we are never by any means all present at any one time. That is because the demands of our other responsibilities prevent it. Only a minority of Lords spiritual are able to be present in this Chamber on any given day, and I urge noble Lords to keep this in mind in any consideration of a reduction in the number of those serving on these Benches.
Amendment 78 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, seeks to reduce the Lords spiritual by a smaller number, to 20. As in the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, there is no obvious rationale for the number chosen. We are very open to the possibility of a reduction in the size of your Lordships’ House as a whole, with consequences for the Bench of Bishops, but we believe that a conversation about the number of Bishops should take place as part of a comprehensive review of membership of this House. We would warmly welcome representations not just from other Christian denominations but from other faith groups in this country.
Amendments 48 and 49 in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, would prevent new Lords spiritual receiving writs to join the House but would allow current Bishops to remain until retirement and would not prevent someone who is a Bishop being made a life Peer. However, the amendment would permit a bishop to enter for the purposes of reading Prayers. While we appreciate the latter aspect of this amendment, we note that the role of the Lords spiritual is much more than mere chaplaincy. We highly value the privilege of leading your Lordships’ House in prayer, but we do not regard that as our only, nor always our most significant, contribution.
Ultimately, on these Benches we oppose these amendments on the basis that they would effectively sever the constitutional link between Church and state. This limited Bill is not the place to settle questions about the constitutional status of the established Church of England—that is a bigger discussion for another time.
Finally, Amendment 90B in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, would amend the Bishoprics Act 1878 so that the issuing of writs to Lords spiritual would be subject to the approval and effective veto of the House of Lords Appointments Commission. I understand the noble Baroness’s desire for the appointments process for diocesan bishops who become Lords spiritual to be robust. We on these Benches share that view and, indeed, would be open to the direct scrutiny of this House if that is what the House desires. However, there is already a stringent process for assessing propriety in the appointment of the diocesan bishops who subsequently become Lords spiritual. In fact, I venture to suggest that, while of course not perfect, the process overseen by the Crown Nominations Commission in the discernment of new diocesan bishops is at least as thorough as the other processes used to appoint Members to this House. Moreover, Writs of Summons to Lords spiritual are issued by the operation of law, not by the will of the Prime Minister or the Leader of the Opposition, so any involvement of the House of Lords Appointments Commission would need to be quite carefully calibrated.
Noble Lords will hardly be surprised to learn that we on these Benches are not able to support this group of amendments.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Sheffield, who has made a very robust defence of the Lords spiritual in this House. As he was speaking and outlining the reasons why certain numbers would not work, it occurred to me that the logical thing was not to have Bishops at all. Then, they could devote all their time to their diocesan work without having to worry about sitting in Parliament.
I found the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, very persuasive for a number of reasons. The first is the historical link, which was also mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Moore, between the hereditary peerages and the Lords spiritual. A House of Lords Library briefing in 2017 said:
“The participation of the Bishops in public business dates back to the early feudal period, when Bishops were summoned to Parliament by virtue of their feudal status as royal tenants by barony. It has been said that ‘at one time the Spiritual Peers were the most influential Members of the House. They filled the more important offices of state, and in actual number they had a majority over the Temporal Peers’”.
So there is that historical link. The bishops were powers in the land. They owned land—as indeed the Church of England still does—and it was therefore not surprising that they should have a voice in Parliament, but that argument can no longer be made.
I have been reflecting on what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Moore: no bishops, no King. I come from a part of the United Kingdom, and am a member of the Church of Scotland, which has not had bishops since the Reformation, but I can tell noble Lords that the King is respected and very much loved in Scotland.
Next week, we will debate the Church of Scotland (Lord High Commissioner) Bill, which is a good illustration of the link between the monarch and the Church. It means that the Church is a national church, but without us having any desire or need to be in the legislature, not even the Scottish Parliament. It is a link. So, while the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Sheffield says we cannot break the link between Church and state, I think we can. There is no need for the Church, or any particular church, to have representation in the legislature—and it still can be a national church. It can still reflect the views from the different component geographical parts.
The noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, made the valid point that, while it is said that the Church of England has the great advantage of having its dioceses, and it brings views from different parts of England to your Lordships’ House, it is representation from only one part of our United Kingdom. It does not have any representation from Scotland, Northern Ireland or Wales, and in a Parliament that seeks to be a Parliament of the United Kingdom—and many of us here are very strong in our belief that we should continue as a United Kingdom—it is unfortunate that only one part of the United Kingdom has religious representation.
I have looked at the amendment that suggests a whole series of different denominations and faiths that could be nominated. It brought to mind that, when the Scottish Parliament was established in 1999, the first resolution we voted on was whether there should be a “time for reflection” or “prayers”, and time for reflection it became. One of my colleagues, Donald Gorrie, now sadly deceased, proposed prayers by proportional representation. I looked at the list in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, and thought, “For heaven’s sake! They’ll be wanting to have faith representation here by proportional representation, and who knows where that would lead us to”.
The last time the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland discussed this issue, it took the view that there should be no bishops in a smaller House of Lords, and nor indeed should there be automatic representation of any other denomination or faith. By all means have bishops, moderators, clergy, or presidents of the Methodist Conference who get here on their own merit as life Peers, but there is no need for them to be automatically ex officio appointed to your Lordships’ House. For that reason, I am very supportive of the amendment tabled by the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham.
Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (PC)
My Lords, I extend my sincere thanks to the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, for tabling Amendments 48 and 49, which I am pleased to be supporting today. I rise in strong support of both amendments, which offer an opportunity for meaningful reform.
Plaid Cymru has long advocated an end to the automatic provision of legislative seats to Bishops, a change that these amendments would help to realise. Currently, 26 seats are guaranteed to Bishops of the Church of England, yet, as we have just heard from the noble Lord, no guaranteed seats exist for the Church in Wales, the Church of Scotland or for any other faith group. This disparity reflects a deeper issue: the exclusion of Wales and Scotland from representation within the Lords spiritual. It is, regrettably, another example of the UK Parliament’s continuing disproportionate focus on England.
Beyond the Vatican City and Iran, most countries do not grant automatic seats as lawmakers to religious leaders. While some Members of your Lordships’ House may propose the inclusion of representatives from other faiths, I firmly believe that this is not a viable solution. The complexity of deciding which faiths, denominations or non-religious organisations should be represented alongside the constantly shifting demographic of the UK make such a proposal impossible. This is why I cannot support Amendments 33 and 78; they do not differ significantly from our current system, which already grants 26 Bishops automatic seats. As such, they fail to address the issue of representation in a meaningful way.
Polling data from a YouGov survey conducted last September reveals the depth of public sentiment on this matter. Only 22% of respondents believed that the House of Lords should continue reserving places for Church of England Bishops. This consensus spans political divides, age groups, gender and regions. Across the board, the public support an end to reserved places for the Lords spiritual.
Let me be clear: this is not a reflection of the valuable work done by individual Lords spiritual. On the contrary, many Bishops have made significant contributions, particularly on prison reform, contributing to debates on overcrowding and offender treatment; and through their efforts to support migrants and refugees, including their vocal opposition to the Rwanda Bill, which should be commended. However, these accomplishments speak to the individuals involved, not the system that automatically grants them a place in the House of Lords. In a reformed second Chamber, such individuals could, and should, be elected on the merit of their work and dedication, not based on their religious office.
Therefore, I urge the Committee to support Amendments 48 and 49, which represent a clear and necessary step towards a more equitable and representative House of Lords.
Lord Strathclyde (Con)
My Lords, as somebody who is about to be expelled from the House of Lords, I cannot help feeling a little bit sorry for the right reverend Prelates on the Spiritual Bench. At the moment, they are, fashionably, everybody’s whipping-boy or girl. Everybody is rather against the Church of England at the moment. It is leaderless, with no Archbishop of Canterbury. So it is a pretty rotten way of attacking the Church, when they are down.
There are so many good reasons to have a spiritual side to the House of Lords. There are hardly ever more than three or four Bishops in the House at any one time, and usually there is only one. So they hardly make an enormous amount of difference to our voting, but they do make a difference to how we are seen and to the tone of our general debates. I do not think one should decry that spiritual side of the House and its important links as part of the established Church.
One of the reasons why I hate this Bill so much is that it takes a very piecemeal approach—flinging out just one cohort of the House without caring whether it does any good or what will happen when it is missed. I feel exactly the same way about the Bishops; they should be preserved until there is proper thought given to the kind of House we want. I know the Leader of the House will say, “If you want to wait for everything to be agreed, nothing will be agreed”, but that is not necessarily the case at all. It is not about everything being agreed but making sure that the worst aspects of this removal of various Peers are taken into account.
There has been much mention of other faiths, and I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness. As a member of the Church of Scotland, it would be quite nice to hear from a fellow member of that church, and the noble and learned Lord is himself a distinguished former moderator of the Church of Scotland. There is obviously room for other faiths, and during the time I have been here there have been many occasions when representatives of other faiths have been present and played a useful part. Particularly when we deal with great moral issues of the day, whether on embryology, abortion or—no doubt soon if the Bill passes the House of Commons—assisted dying, the voice of the spiritual side of the House is very much to be welcomed.
When I came here, the noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk, was the senior lay member of the Roman Catholic Church, and I spoke regularly against him. I think the current Duke does not want to take up that role—and in any case, he is going to be expelled as well. Less well known is that, over the last few years, the Roman Catholic cardinal archbishops have been offered places in the House of Lords, and often have wanted them, but have been denied the opportunity because of an issue with the Pope in Rome. I have got no idea what that is, but it is an interesting point about how this House is perceived and the importance with which it is perceived by other faiths.
On balance, this has been a very good debate, and one that no doubt we shall return to, and I hope that my noble friends will withdraw their amendments when the time comes.
Lord Northbrook (Con)
My Lords, times have changed for the Church of England since my ancestor in the 19th century demolished the small village church to build a larger one to accommodate increased demand.
I support Amendment 90B, in the name of my friend Lady Berridge, about some sort of quality control on the appointment of Bishops. I am afraid to say I have to use Tim Dakin, the previous Bishop of Winchester, as an example of where quality control should have been exercised. His predecessor, Michael Scott-Joynt, was absolutely outstanding and made tremendous contributions in the House. Unfortunately, Tim Dakin did not live up to the standard of that previous Bishop. There were queries even about whether he was properly ordained—perhaps the Appointments Commission might have been able to inquire into that more seriously. The Bishop, who managed to alienate his own clergy, commissioned a report on alleged abuse by the Channel Islands clergy—who are actually part of the Diocese of Winchester—and the Archbishop of Canterbury had to issue an apology to the Dean of Jersey for the hurt and treatment they had received.
The Church of England was sadly missing in action during Covid by closing the churches. There was no real danger of getting Covid in the larger churches due to the lack of attendance, and I do not recall many inspiring contributions in the House, apart from the Archbishop of Canterbury remotely celebrating communion in his kitchen.
I have to disagree with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Sheffield, who said that the Bishops’ Benches are non-political. The Archbishop of Canterbury got very political during the passage of the previous Government’s immigration Bill and criticised it seriously. Generally, the Church seems to be keener on giving reparations to apologise for slavery than supporting rural parishes.
On the other amendments, I do not really agree with them. We should keep 25 religious Members of the House of Lords but have a multifaith membership of the House.
Lord Strathcarron (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to this group of amendments in particular and would argue for the retention of the Bishops as currently constituted. I fully appreciate the arguments advanced by noble Lords supporting the group of amendments and equally the intellectual arguments against the Bishops remaining here as advanced by Humanists UK and others.
To the charge sheet against the Bishops, I would add that they are also extremely frustrating politically—at least to those of us on this side of the House—as between 2019 and the last general election they voted with the Government only 4% of the time. Often during the long evenings spent in the Division Lobbies, it seemed as if the Bishops were pre-programmed to vote against anything the Conservative Government were doing, just because it was the Conservative Government doing it.
I also appreciate that they should more accurately be called Lords religious rather than Lords spiritual, as there is precious little spiritual, and a lot religious, in their involvement with identity politics and every fashionable left-wing cause that comes their way. I also appreciate that they are historically illiterate, as seen by the £1 billion target for reparations, supporting the view of the recent Archbishop of Canterbury that the British more or less invented slavery and did absolutely nothing to end it. I also appreciate that they are corporately cataclysmically incompetent, spending precious funds on meaningless virtue signalling while parishes are crumbling around the country.
Nevertheless, the Bishops do represent a continuity with our constitution, history and culture and their presence here acknowledges that there is a power to be considered beyond the material and the political and one which still guides many lives. It is right that this part of life is acknowledged to exist by the Bishops being here. I would also argue that their presence here is a reminder of our religious history on whose behalf many of our laws were written, making what the Bishops represent a kind of canvas on which is painted much about the British constitution we hold dear and which can easily be taken for granted. My argument for the Bishops is that, if we are to lose the soul of this House by removing the hereditaries, we should at least keep the heart of it as represented by the Bishops.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, this is a very serious subject and the fact that some may not consider it to be serious or worthy of a long debate is troubling but, I would submit, it should be troubling above all to the Church of England itself which, to the great distress of many of us, has yielded so much of the spiritual ground in this nation that it once bestrode.
I have said more than once that this radical Bill—one of very few in the history of this House to throw out existing Members—has far-reaching implications. The perfectly logical view is that the removal of one group of Members is closely connected to, and has repercussive effects on, the wider membership of the House. As we have heard, that logical connection elides into the urgent aspiration for exclusion that we have heard in some speeches today. Amendments in both Chambers concerning the Lords spiritual are just one example of this repercussive effect.
The noble Lord, Lord Moore of Etchingham, gave what was, I would give him, not a Conservative speech but a notable Tory speech, to which the noble Lord, Lord Strathcarron, offered a coda. The Lords spiritual have been here since the origins of this House. Indeed, like the hereditary Peers, they were among the creators of our Parliament. They survived Henry VIII’s exclusion of the abbots, to which the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, referred, and when Parliament last decided to throw them out in the Bishops Exclusion Act in 1642, they were welcomed back warmly after 1660.
When the British population moved to the new great cities such as Manchester—again, the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, referred to this—it was considered expedient to create new bishops, although there were not, perhaps, what many of us might consider to be the superabundant numbers in the parishes of today. There was considerable debate at that time about whether it would be possible to limit the rights of bishops to receive a writ to sit in this House. In 1847, the Liberal Government introduced the Bishopric of Manchester Bill, which limited the number of Lords spiritual in this House to no more than 26—that is what we have today.
There was considerable resistance at the time, on the grounds that this interfered with the prerogative and, more objectionably, with the right of any Lord spiritual or temporal Peer to attend the House. But the reality, as people saw it, was that, although new bishops were no longer automatically included and a route of entry was partially closed, no one was being excluded. The House settled on this as a reasonable compromise, as the number of bishops expanded. This House, in its wisdom, has always tended to compromise on matters of composition.
Since 1847, the historic limit of 26 right reverend Prelates has been maintained. There may be no magic in this number. I remember being present at discussions in around 2002, when the Conservative Party was proposing a smaller senate of 300. The right reverend Prelates indicated then that 12 might be the minimum number that would leave them with sufficient capacity to perform their important spiritual advisory duties in the House; I do not know whether that is still the case. They do a lot. After all, last night, one of them—the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Sheffield himself—stepped in to assist the House by acting as a Teller in a Division. He was voting against the Government, but I have to tell him that he was voting against the Opposition as well—perhaps that is how the numbers are now squared. We welcome the Bishops’ presence in all guises and at all times. When a gash—others would see it as unfinished business—is being made in the body of the House, I wonder whether it is wise to alight so fast on the next group to be excluded: some or all of the Lords spiritual.
In the other place, the Bill faced amendments by a Conservative Back-Bencher to expel the right reverend Prelates, and in your Lordships’ House noble Lords from almost every party have signed up to related proposals—although I noticed that a proposal from the Labour Benches to expel all the Lords spiritual in two years was withdrawn shortly before the first Marshalled List was published. I hope no one in this House felt any pressure to keep quiet.
My noble friend Lady Berridge tabled Amendment 90B to require Writs of Summons under the Bishoprics Act to be vetted by the House of Lords Appointments Commission. My noble friend Lord Hailsham took the same line, perhaps even more vehemently, but from a different angle. Although I understand my noble friend’s thinking and salute her constant stand on issues of propriety, which is greatly admired in this House, I am afraid it is an amendment we cannot support. The Church has its own rigorous processes for the selection of bishops, culminating in the Crown Nominations Commission, and it does have processes on conduct, to which no one is immune. Giving a veto to HOLAC would, in my submission, fall foul of the constitutional principle put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Butler, in our debates on Monday.
My noble friend Lord Blencathra proposes the immediate reduction of the Lords spiritual from 26 to 5 in his amendment, which would also introduce a retirement age. That number would be too small, even if we were to move, for the reasons I have given. My noble friend Lord Dundee proposes 20 and my noble friend Lord Hailsham goes a step further by seeking to exclude all future bishops and archbishops of the Church of England from taking a seat here. These amendments have gained support formally from other parties, with signatures, as we have heard tonight, right across the Chamber.
I am glad that the Labour Back-Bench amendment was withdrawn. My party would have opposed it, as I oppose the amendments of my noble friend Lord Hailsham. It is true that, with 890 votes cast by the right reverend Prelates against the Government of which I was a member, and only 36% in favour—the highest percentage of votes against a Government ever recorded from those Benches, in four successive Sessions—noble Lords might think I have some animus in the matter. I do not, because I am a generous soul and I was brought up an Anglican. I believe that considerations of party advantage or disadvantage should not enter decisions about classes of Peers who should sit in this House.
As I said at Second Reading, it will not be long before the Bishops are the only Members not appointed under the 1958 Act. This Bill starts down a path that I fear we will be hard-pressed to close off, with the wholesale removal of blocks in the House; first the hereditaries, then perhaps the Bishops, and then, if Labour honours its manifesto pledge, the over-80s too.
I agree with the wise words of my noble friend Lord Strathclyde on the spiritual dimension. We do not support the removal of the right reverend Prelates. Every institution gains from a spiritual dimension. Taking them out now would simply add to instability in the House, give scant recognition to their important role inside and outside the House, including the territorial dimension, and walk without due consideration into a difficult debate on the disestablishment of the Church and, as my noble friend Lord Moore of Etchingham said, perhaps even the role of the monarch in the Church.
Heaven knows, some of us yearn to hear the Christian voice raised more clearly in witness to the nation and not see it dimmed further. Change, such as is proposed in these amendments, to remove or lessen that voice in this House would require the most careful consideration and debate. I hope that my noble friends will agree not to press their amendments.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Smith of Basildon) (Lab)
My Lords, this group of amendments has raised a number of issues. We have heard impassioned and deeply held views on both sides of the argument. As the noble Lord, Lord True, says, this was debated in the other place, where it went to a Division and was lost by 320 or so votes.
A lot of noble Lords made the point that it is important we recognise that, in this House, we welcome people of all religious faiths and of no religious faith. They all add to the diversity of this place.
The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, made the point that there are questions about the future of this House and its composition, as noble Lords have commented on. We have made proposals about what kind of alternative second Chamber could replace the current House of Lords as a long-term ambition. It would be something more representative of the nations across the UK. That would be consulted on, including with the public, with soundings taken as to how they feel that an alternative second Chamber would best suit them.
There are different kinds of amendments in this group. The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, and the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, are looking to remove or reduce the number of Lords spiritual. The noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, who has considerable expertise and respect across the House and the country for her views on safeguarding issues, wanted to amend the Bishops Act to enable HOLAC to approve any Bishops. In fact, the only two groups that HOLAC does not comment on are the hereditary Peers, who come in through by-elections, and the Bishops.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord True—it is nice to be able to say that from the Dispatch Box—in that I am not sure that a role for HOLAC regarding the Bishops is appropriate. The Bishops have their own method for being considered and an approval process before they come to this House.
I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Sheffield for his comments on this issue. He will have heard what Members have said. I think his voting record in the future may confound us. My experience of the Bishops is that they challenge the Government, whoever the Government of the day are. He was a Teller against the official Opposition and then the other night he was a Teller against the Government. I suspect that we may see this on other issues as well.
We welcome the presence of the Bishops here. They will have heard the comments from noble Lords; some were more measured than others and some were more supportive than others. There is a place in the House for the Bishops at the moment. However, if there are wider discussions on any future composition of the House, the Bishops will be part of them. But, at this stage, I request that the noble Lord withdraws the amendment in his name.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, if I may mix my metaphors, someone had to put on the suicide vest and poke his head above the parapet by putting down this highly controversial amendment for a drastic reduction in the number of Bishops. It had the desired effect: in a debate of one hour and 10 minutes, we have had some very interesting speeches and suggestions for a possible way forward in looking at other faiths in another amendment.
We have had the benefit of three very powerful speeches. My noble friend Lord Hailsham made a very powerful speech about the removal of all Bishops. That was immediately countermanded by an equally powerful speech by the noble Lord, Lord Moore of Etchingham, who made the finest case for retaining the Bishops that I have ever heard; he mentioned the line—in fact, the truth—that we must not disturb the settlement. The third excellent speech was from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Sheffield, who made the valid point that having only five Bishops would make it impossible for them to work here. I accept that, but he also said that the Bishops were open to discussion on their possible numbers in any future settlement or change to the House of Lords.
My noble friend Lord Dundee wanted to reduce the number of Bishops from 26 to 20. Forgive me, but I cannot see the big difference that that would make. My noble friend Lady Berridge called for a check on the propriety of Bishops. I have no intention of entering into that detail, but she spoke at length on adding other faiths, which is the subject of my Amendment 34.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Amendment 34 intends to add representatives of five other faiths, so I accept that our amendments are not exactly the same. She talked about lots of other churches and religions not being represented. That is something I was going to talk about in relation to my next amendment, if I moved it.
When the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, spoke, I asked myself, “What on earth is he doing here at 9.15 pm on his birthday? It certainly can’t be to hear my speech”. I should say that, on my next amendment, a colleague complained that I missed out the Church of Scotland; it was not the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, but the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness. He also made the point about including other faiths.
The noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Llanfaes, quoted the polls. If this House or the Government were to do everything the polls wanted every time they wanted it, they would be changing policy every six months—so I do not necessarily go along with that.
I accept my noble friend Lord Strathclyde’s point that this issue needs further consideration, in the round, with further Lords reform.
I simply do not want to get into the detail of what my noble friend Lord Northbrook said; I hope he will forgive me.
At first, I thought that my noble friend Lord Strathcarron was going to support getting rid of all the Bishops, but his speech was a rather intriguing way of keeping the Bishops by criticising everything they did. But he did make the point that they make a very valuable contribution to this House.
My noble friend Lord True, the shadow Leader, made a very careful and thoughtful speech, mainly arguing for the status quo and making the point that the Bishops may be sitting on the only Benches in this House that will not be appointed by the Prime Minister in future. The Leader also made a thoughtful and wise speech, calling for wider discussion.
I was due to move the next amendment—Amendment 34—which seeks to reduce the number of Bishops to five and add five representatives of other faiths. However, given that we have had some extensive speeches tonight on adding other faiths, I may change my mind on moving that amendment. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.
Lord Lucas
“Rights of life peers to sit in the House of Lords(1) Section 1 of the Life Peerages Act 1958 (power to confer life peerages) is amended as follows.(2) At the end of subsection (1) insert “, and, as the case may be, the incidents specified in subsection (2A) of this section”.(3) Omit from “and” in subsection (2)(a) to the end of subsection (2)(b).(4) After subsection (2), insert—“(2A) A peerage conferred under this section may, if the letters patent so state, during the life of the person on whom it is conferred, entitle him, subject to subsection (4) of this section, to receive writs of summons to attend the House of Lords and sit and vote therein accordingly, and shall expire on his death.””
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, it would be a really useful flexibility in our system if life Peers could be appointed without the right to sit in the House of Lords. Frankly, there are people who deserve a peerage but who do not want the obligations, which we have been discussing today, to attend here and deal with the minutiae of legislation. In particular there are those who have grown senior and grand enough that arguing whether a comma should be moved one word to the right is not how they want to spend their life—unlike me.
So this would be a useful addition to the structure of our life peerage. It would enable people to be honoured properly and to be given a seat in this House only if that is what they really want and they intend to make full use of it. I beg to move.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I support the sentiment of this amendment. Again, this is a longer-term issue, but separating the honour from the obligation is an important part of how we should be moving forward. We know that a number of people have desperately wanted peerages—I am one of the many who found, after my appointment to this House, that the number of people who wished to invite me out to lunch to tell me what excellent Peers they would make increased very considerably.
This House has—happily—become much more professional in the past 20 years. We do now recognise this as a job, but we do not necessarily need to be Peers to do the job. Perhaps if we were called “Senators” or whatever, that would work quite as well. I immensely enjoy my title, in the sense that Saltaire is a very special village. It is now a world heritage site. It has a Hockney gallery, and I suspect that no one apart from me in this House knows that Paul Hockney, David’s elder brother, was a Liberal Democrat councillor and the Mayor of Bradford.
The more important thing for the long-term interest of this House is that we have good people appointed to the second Chamber, and that this is thought of first as a second Chamber and not so much as a House of Lords. Those who wish to have titles could perhaps have titles that do not have the obligations that we all now willingly accept to examine legislation, to debate difficult issues and to play a part in the governance of this country.
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, I just say that I will have to leave at 10 pm, but I think we have time for me to make a speech. I am not convinced that this is a good idea, although I understand my noble friend’s thinking. Like it or not, we live in a much less deferential society. It always depresses me when I read of senior military officers or junior ratings or NCOs in the Regular Army being referred to as “Mr”, even in a military context. Many years ago, when I was just a full corporal in the reserves, I was proud of the rank that I held and what it indicated. However, I am not sure now that being a Peer is an attractive rank or honour any more. We see one Baroness who is a national treasure more often referred to by her damehood than her peerage.
I have a point for the Minister and perhaps the Leader to consider. So far as I am aware, there is no reliable, regularly used database of preferred styles for their Lordships. Googling an active Member will take an unsuspecting user to a highly misleading page on the House website. The result is that the uninitiated will inadvertently send irritating emails to traditional Peers such as myself, but at the same time they may irritate other Peers by being far too deferential—the worst of all worlds. Would it not be better if the House of Lords website made it clear what each Peer’s preferred style was?
The situation is even worse, as some potentially really good members, particularly from the party opposite, may be deterred from putting themselves forward for consideration for a peerage because they would be horrified by the prospect of being addressed formally as a Member of your Lordships’ House. This problem could be alleviated by having the database I have referred to and encouraging its use, particularly by the lobbying industry.
The Earl of Dundee (Con)
My Lords, I refer to Amendment 76 in my name. Its effect is to make a distinction between non-parliamentary and parliamentary peerages. Political patronage, along with awarding other honours, would continue to create non-parliamentary peerages but no longer those which confer a parliamentary right to sit in the House of Lords. As a result, conversely, a parliamentary right to sit in the House of Lords would be decoupled from political patronage.
To that extent, Amendment 76 connects to other amendments to this Bill on the future composition of the House of Lords. These include: first, a revised role for HOLAC to appoint within a reformed House of 600 temporal Peers one-third—or 200—as non-political Cross-Benchers; secondly, the setting up of an electoral college representative of all parts of the United Kingdom to indirectly elect 400 political Members, or two-thirds of a reformed House; and, thirdly, the establishment of different membership group numbers in order best to ensure the continuity of our present very high standard of legislative scrutiny and revision.
In a reformed House, this would be done by having the non-political Cross-Benchers in the majority, with 200 temporal Members—50 more than either the government or opposition parties, which would have exactly 150 political Members each, while other political and temporal Members, including the Liberal Democrats, would number 100.
Amendment 76, therefore, is in the context of a continued high standard of legislative scrutiny in a reformed House. It is achievable, provided that, as a first step, the right to sit and work in the House of Lords becomes decoupled from political patronage.
Lord Mancroft (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Lucas has raised an interesting point. There must be a case for decoupling the gift of a peerage or title from the membership of a legislature. Whether one thinks it a good idea or not, that is the route along which this Bill is slowly taking us. When the hereditary Peers leave this House, that will be another step towards it ceasing to be a House of Lords. It will become a senate, second Chamber or whatever you want to call it. The reality is that, if you take the Lords out of the House, it is not a House of Lords any more. Whether the Government want to go that way or not, that is the route they are going.
There has for years, not just in the last few years or decades, been this discussion about people being awarded peerages and obviously not really wanting to be Members of this House. They want to be called “Lord”; they like coronets and being grand, being called “My Lord” in restaurants, having tables and things such as that. It is done as a reward, whether for giving money to a political party or for some rather better reason—I do not know—but the reality is that some have been rewarded in this way and do not really have any interest in being a Member of this House. They want to be called “Lord” but certainly do not want to sit through Report of the rats and mice Bill at 9.45 pm.
That is the route we are going along, whether we like it or not, and at some stage this House will have to think about it. At some stage, whether on this or on future legislation, there will undoubtedly be a split between the peerage Lords and this House. They will divide and go in different directions. That is the reality of life.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I have signed the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Lucas in this group, but that is not because I agree with every aspect of his amendment. I am not sure that any amendment is necessary to achieve the purpose that he and some others who have spoken want to see. Indeed, it could have the negative effect of locking the absolute right of the Crown to create any form of peerage within the frame of the 1958 Act, which, among other things, says that all peerages created under it can be only baronies. I support the amendment because I have long advocated the course that it seeks to enable, and I sense support for that in the Committee. It seeks the creation of peerages that do not entitle a person to a writ to sit in the House of Lords.
The nation will always want to honour those who are most distinguished among us with the high honour of a peerage, yet, as we have heard, not everyone who might be glad—or perhaps hungry or avid—to accept or secure an honour will wish to undertake the sometimes arduous role of playing a part in your Lordships’ House. We all know such people. We have all have known also some who walk the narrow tightrope between honour and duty.
I do not subscribe to the view that all who come here must smash the pain and endurance barriers in participation or attendance. I deplore the fact that some of our number, including much-respected colleagues on the other side, are being measured in this way in a current media campaign against the House. However, I acknowledge that many in this House and outside have high expectations that someone who accepts a peerage should be active in this House. The noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, reminded us of the wording of our summons in an earlier debate.
As some have argued, if we were able clearly to separate those who wish to play a role in Parliament and those who do not, it would, at the lowest argument for such a proposition, reduce at least some of the inflow in headline numbers to this House, to which many attach importance. In short, as argued by my noble friends, and as I would argue, you could have on one side Lords created under the 1958 Act, with all the expectations of a Writ of Summons conferred by that Act and the accompanying duty to take part, and another set of Peers honoured with the same degree of barony—even, potentially, a higher degree—who had no wish to be in this place but who have been proved deserving of such an honour. That is surely perfectly possible.
I have argued this case to at least three Prime Ministers, but the usual reply comes that the law is uncertain. I do not think it is that uncertain, but, if it is, let us, while we have this Bill before us, rally round my noble friend’s amendment, or some variation of it come Report, and make it certain. This would be an exceedingly useful change for the body politic.
The Life Peerages Act did not create a novel concept of a peerage for life. That had existed for centuries. It corrected two problems that had arisen in decisions by your Lordships’ Committee for Privileges. In 1922, in the Viscountess Rhondda case, it decided that a woman could not sit in this House—a shameful judgment, in retrospect—and in 1856, in the Wensleydale case, it concluded that a life peerage did not confer on a man a right to sit and vote in Parliament.
The Wensleydale case is germane to this argument because, although the House held that Sir James Parke’s life peerage did not entitle him to sit or speak in the House—he was later, as many of us know, given a hereditary peerage to allow him to do so and to take up his role as a Law Lord—the Committee for Privileges did not and could not extinguish his life peerage, which remained in existence as a perfectly proper exercise of Queen Victoria’s prerogative as the fount of honour. The issue was whether the hereditary Peers wanted to have him as a life Peer. Although it was said at the time that the creation of a life peerage for men might have fallen into disuse, the Wensleydale barony showed that it had not.
Furthermore, long after the Restoration and into the 19th century, monarchs created peerages for life which did not confer the right to a writ to sit in this House. Charles II created 10, I think; James II created one; William III created at least one; George I created three, I think; and there were others later into the 19th century. They were all for women—and maybe that explains why Charles II created 10 of them. Sadly, in those days, because they were women, they were unable to sit.
The power to create such peerages without the right to sit is, therefore, in my submission, absolutely inherent and current in the Crown. That was also the conclusion of the Lord Speaker’s committee on the size of the House in 2017, in, I believe, paragraphs 25 and 26 of the report. I see the noble Lord, Lord Burns, indicating assent.
Whenever we listen to the Letters Patent at Introductions, we hear reference, after the words
“in pursuance of the Life Peerages Act 1958”,
to another phrase:
“and of all other powers in that behalf us enabling”.
Among those other powers is, clearly, the power to create other types of peerage than a life peerage under the 1958 Act. Indeed, we had peerages under the 1876 Act until lately.
I submit that a Prime Minister could advise the monarch tomorrow to create a life peerage that did not entitle the Peer to sit in this House. I submit that that would be a useful innovation that would be widely welcomed on all sides, whether you were to call it modernisation or, as I am asserting, a useful revival of a custom of the past. It would, frankly, be a far more useful modernisation than what is in the Bill before us. I commend this proposal to the House, as I commend the purpose of my noble friend’s amendment. It is a change that is long overdue and does not require legislation. If Sir Keir Starmer were to take it up, I think it would be widely welcomed as a modern and sensible innovation.
The Attorney-General (Lord Hermer) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, for their amendments and for the brevity with which they spoke. With the greatest respect to their Lordships, the Government do not consider the amendments to be necessary or appropriate.
The reason why is that the Government believe there should be clarity both in your Lordships’ House and in the public at large as to what a life peerage is and, importantly, what the responsibilities are of those accorded the privilege of appointment. The granting of a life peerage, as we all know, brings with it responsibility for the work of your Lordships’ House: scrutinising legislation and holding the Government of the day to account. As my noble friend the Leader of the House has said, Peers should be appointed not only in recognition of their skills and expertise but in anticipation of those skills being put in service to your Lordships’ House.
The Government believe there is obvious benefit to the reputation of Parliament that the role of life Peers is well understood by members of the public. It may be thought that it would be apt to confusion if there is another class bearing the same name but not carrying with it the same obligations.
By contrast to the life peerage, the honour system represents the monarch’s recognition of past service or achievement without any obligation to future service. We do not consider that there is a clamour, either in Parliament or among the public, for some form of superannuation to the honour system so that some would bear the same title as life Peers who work in this House.
For those reasons, I respectfully ask that the amendment be withdrawn.
Lord Mancroft (Con)
My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General sits down, there already are large numbers of Peers who are not Members of this House, so there are already two classes of Peer in that sense. So that part of his argument is spurious.
Also, if the noble and learned Lord casts his mind back—I am not sure if he was in the House at the time; he probably was—we spent some time earlier this evening talking about Peers who are Members of this House who clearly do not obey the Writ of Summons and do not want or choose, for lots of reasons, to play a part in this House. So, both the arguments he has put forward are completely spurious.
Lord Hermer (Lab)
With the greatest respect to the noble Lord, I made my points by reference to life peerages. Obviously, as your Lordships know well, there is nothing contained in this Bill that will affect the status of hereditary peerages, other than the rights to sit and vote in this House. Were the logic of the noble Earl’s argument to be taken to its logical extension, we would create a third—possibly even, on the noble Earl’s argument, a fourth—class of peerage. The Government simply do not consider that necessary. There is no public clamour for it. Certainly the arguments in favour of it could not possibly, in the Government’s view, outweigh the confusion that would arise in the public’s mind as to what a life Peer is and what their functions are, and that confusion would not serve to enhance the reputation of your Lordships’ House.
Lord Mancroft (Con)
I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his response. I am even more grateful to him for promoting me to an Earl, which I would love to be. Do not apologise; I am delighted to be an Earl and am enjoying the 30 seconds of earldom that I have been given.
The reality is that there are masses of Peers walking around the streets—I say “masses”, but it is quite a lot: several hundred—and going into smart restaurants and not coming into your Lordships’ House who are called “Lord This” and “Lord That”. They do not have a badge on them saying, “I am a hereditary Peer”, or another one saying, “I am a life Peer”. The fact is that most people in the world do not know the difference between a life Peer and a hereditary Peer. Again, the argument that the noble and learned Lord puts forward is a complete fantasy.
Lord Hermer (Lab)
Well, I am very grateful to the noble Lord for forgiving my rookie mistake.
We have already discussed during the course of the evening what I anticipate is an almost unanimous view of those of your Lordships who participate regularly in this House on the unacceptable situation of those who do not. There has been a fruitful discussion today, with insightful contributions from all sections of this House, reflecting a determination to address both that problem and the issue of participation. However, I respectfully say to the noble Lord that the very fact that there are Members of your Lordships’ House who do not participate but nevertheless continue to enjoy the benefits of the title is not an argument for creating yet another class of life peerage; it is an argument for the work that will, I hope, take place to address the problems that we face with participation.
Lord Burns (CB)
As was referred to earlier by the Leader of the Opposition, in the Lord Speaker’s Committee, we looked at this in some detail and had legal advice that it would be possible. However, on this narrow question, surely there is another group of people who are around: those who have retired and have kept their titles but no longer receive a Writ of Summons.
Lord Hermer (Lab)
Again, we need to remember what the amendment seeks to do, which is create yet another category. The question there is: how would this help and who would it serve? The Government’s position is that a further category would not help promote the image of your Lordships’ House in the public eye. It would lead to confusion and it would not add to utility. There is no suggestion that the honours system is somehow bereft of a further status that needs to be met by the creation of a further class of Peer.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
The noble and learned Lord asked how this would help and who it would serve. I had the privilege of acting as an adviser to a former leader of my party, a former Prime Minister, and I certainly saw, as noble Lords have alluded to, the not inconsiderable queue of people who come to offer themselves for service in the upper House. I have seen party leaders of all political persuasions come under similar pressure. It would help them to be able to say, “Look, there are ways of recognising your great contribution to national life without giving you a seat in the legislature”, thus separating the distinction of a barony, earldom, marquisate or whatever from a perpetual role in legislating for the life of the nation.
Lord Hermer (Lab)
That may be a convenient out for Prime Ministers present and future but it is not, in the Government’s view, a compelling reason to create a further class of life Peer; and it is certainly not compelling enough to offset the confusion in the public eye that would be created by such an additional class.
Lord True (Con)
I am sorry to persist. It is clear that we are getting nowhere on this tonight, but I believe this is a very constructive proposal. I am very disappointed by the noble and learned Lord’s response. A peerage is a peerage; a barony is a barony, whatever it is, under whatever part of the prerogative or Act of Parliament, or otherwise, it exists. As the noble Lord, Lord Burns, pointed out, we have retired people, we have hereditary Peers—the public are not reeling about in confusion. It may be that the noble and learned Lord is reeling about in confusion, but there may be many ways and many things that attach to the possession of the title “Lord”, just as if you have a knighthood, you can be a cricketer or a captain of industry, or many other things. The noble and learned Lord is ingeniously trying to create difficulties where, frankly, none exist. I would have thought this modernising Government would have the imagination to take a step forward.
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, at the risk of being sent to a re-education camp by my Chief Whip, I find the noble and learned Lord’s argument more persuasive. However, I gave no notice to the Minister about my issue on styles. Can the noble and learned Lord give some careful consideration to that in due course and write to me on it?
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I understand what the Government’s policy is; I think it is profoundly mistaken. As my noble friend on the Front Bench said, I do not think that people perceive someone who is Lord Hermer to be different from any other species of Lord Hermer who might have appeared as a hereditary Peer or, indeed, a Law Lord. It is a title, and the fact that these things come from different directions would not cause a problem. I think that all of us who have been in this place for a while are aware of people who have come here and are totally unsuited to the job we do and the life we lead but who have, in every way, deserved the honour of a peerage—I will not name names, but it is easy to think of lots of them. I can also think of those who have not taken up a peerage, when they obviously deserve one, because of the obligations that being a Member of this House brings and which they personally would wish to avoid.
I think that something along these lines would be good. I share my noble friend Lord True’s frustration at having been unable to persuade the previous Government of various things, but I did have hopes of this reforming Government, and I am sorry that they have been disappointed. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Lucas
“No majority for one party in the House of LordsAfter section 1 of the Life Peerages Act 1958, insert—“1A No majority for one party in the House of Lords(1) An appointment may not be made to the House of Lords if it would have the effect of taking the total number of peers from parties forming part of the Government to more than 40% of the total members of that House.(2) If at any time the number of peers from parties forming part of the Government exceeds 40% of the total members of the House of Lords, no appointments to the parties forming part of the Government may be made until that number is reduced below 40% either by resignation, new appointments or leave of absence.””
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, it seems to me—and this is certainly something that I would want to take through to Report—that, if we are to have a House that is totally appointed by the Prime Minister, one of the really important things is to have some control of the consequences of that for the House of Lords. It is in our memories the threat that was made in 1911 to flood the House with Peers to support the Government. I think that would be a disaster. I am glad we avoided it at the time. The Lord Lucas at the time was a Liberal, and therefore sensible.
I do not think it is the right basis for a second Chamber in a democratic country that the Prime Minister can, if they are sufficiently upset with the second House, effectively flood it with their own supporters and have done with it. Moving, as we are, to a House where the Prime Minister has total control over who comes in, we ought to have some recognition of the current settlement, which is that the Government do not have a majority in this House. I beg to move.
Viscount Goschen (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend does the Committee a significant service by putting forward this amendment. It encapsulates the arguments around a fully appointed House and this extraordinary situation that we find ourselves heading towards—a fully appointed House, with all appointments made by the Prime Minister, and a ratchet, in effect, in numbers, going upwards and upwards, when there is a change of Government. I think my noble friend’s amendment, which sounds so simple and straightforward, throws up any number of difficulties, and we could spend the next two or three days of Committee, if such things existed, talking about how this mechanism might work.
My noble friend Lord Lucas is absolutely right to raise the question of the balance between the parties and the Prime Minister’s ability to introduce, unchecked, large numbers of Peers into the House. I was very taken —on Monday, I think it was—when we were talking about the question of elections, when a hushed silence went through the Committee and there were some shocked faces. I felt like I was in a Bateman cartoon: the man who dared to mention elections in the House of Lords—shock, horror. But here we are, discussing one version of an archaic situation versus another.
It is quite clear that there is no rational defence of the Prime Minister being able to appoint, without any check on numbers, to this House. The question of coalitions—parties that might come together and then split apart, parties that might themselves divide—would cause all sorts of difficulties. I suspect that this amendment that my noble friend has put forward is a legislative hand grenade, designed to illustrate the difficulties rather than necessarily put forward a carefully worked through solution.
Lord Newby (LD)
The noble Viscount will not be surprised at me saying again that the only way to deal with the problem that this amendment seeks to address is to have an election.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My noble friend’s amendment to ensure that no one party has a majority in the House of Lords is a relatively new idea. In the pre-1999 House of more than 1,000 noble Lords, there was often a majority well-disposed to the Government of the day. I remember observing, as an adviser in the Conservative Government after 2015, that this was perhaps the first Conservative Government in history who did not enjoy a majority in the House of Lords. What we are confronting here is a relatively new phenomenon.
Of course, it was a problem that the Labour Party faced much earlier, and had to contend with under the leadership of my noble friend Lord Attlee’s grandfather, after 1945. Out of that arose what we know as the Salisbury convention, though really it should not be called that. Viscount Cranborne had not acceded to the marquisate at that time, and poor old Viscount Addison never gets remembered.
Under that convention, your Lordships’ House agreed that it would not seek to thwart the main lines of Labour’s legislation provided it derived from the party’s manifesto for the previous election. Sadly, the then-future fifth Marquess did not tell us what to do about full stops or other punctuation in Labour manifestos, but it was a convention that certainly helped the Attlee Government get its business through and make all the changes that it did to this country. It echoed the referendal theory, which was developed under the third Marquess, in relation to legislation that was brought forward by Liberal Governments, but it is clear there was a lack of clarity on this convention.
I remember the noble Baroness the Lord Privy Seal arguing to your Lordships’ Committee on the Constitution, when I was in Downing Street advising my noble friend Lady May of Maidenhead, that it was far from clear that the Salisbury-Addison convention was ever intended to apply to minority Governments and that was not an eventuality that was foreseen by the Marquess of Salisbury in the 1940s.
There are clearly a lot of gaps to fill. There was an attempt by your Lordships’ House—indeed, there was a Joint Committee—to look at the conventions and the two Houses’ understanding of how they operated, back in 2006. I wonder whether the noble Baroness or the present Government have any intention of repeating that exercise, in looking to codify or clarify the convention or to point out other unforeseen circumstances, such as minority Governments in another place.
In the 1997 Labour manifesto, there was a sentence that said:
“No one political party should seek a majority in the House of Lords”.
There was no such statement or commitment in the 2024 manifesto. I think the noble Baroness the Lord Privy Seal has been clear from the Dispatch Box before that it is her view that no party should seek a majority in your Lordships’ House, and I would be grateful if she would expand on that in a moment.
But I think my noble friend Lord Hailsham, who has spoken a few times—
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My noble friend, who has spoken briefly and enjoyably on every occasion, is keen to hear from the Lord Privy Seal, as are we all, so I leave it to her.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I am grateful. I was wondering what the chuntering was—I did not quite catch what the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, was talking about.
It is an interesting proposal from the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. I cannot recall—and I think the noble Lord had this right—the last time any political party had an overall majority in this Chamber. He talked about an overall majority, as the Conservative Party has been the largest party for a very long time; before the passing of the 1999 Act, it had over 40%, so it was the Conservative Party that had that majority prior to the hereditary Peers leaving at that time. Since their removal, no party has ever had more than 40% of the seats. Even when this Bill is passed, the Government Benches will still only be 28% of the seats of this House.
I was not quite sure what the noble Lord meant by a “ratchet effect”. The noble Lord will know that I have decried that. It worked very badly under the last Government, where it seemed that every time the Government lost a vote, they would put more Peers in, even though they had a much larger group than any other party and still lost votes. The issue of losing votes is often to do with the quality of the legislation; it is never just about numbers in this place.
The purpose behind the amendment from noble Lord, Lord Lucas, is to address the fact that it has been said, in the media and in the Chamber, that today’s Government are trying to remove hereditary Peers to create vacancies and bring in more Labour Peers to create a majority. My very strong view is on record—in Select Committee in the other place and here—that this House does its best work when there are roughly equal numbers between Government and Opposition.
I would like to see a House of Lords that is more deliberative. We got into some bad habits under the last Government, where a system of “We have the numbers and can get this through” came about. That largely started during the coalition Government, when there was a very large majority for the coalition. Almost anything the coalition Government wanted to do would get through. When we have roughly equal numbers between the main opposition and government parties, we do our best work, because we are more deliberative in our approach and more engaged in how we work. We are not just thinking it is all about vote; it is about the quality of debate and the quality of advice we can offer.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I recognise the good faith that the Government have shown so far, and we have acknowledged in our previous exchanges the different records of previous Conservative Prime Ministers in this regard. The noble Baroness has been very kind about my former boss, my noble friend Lady May.
Once she gets to the roughly equal numbers of the two Benches facing one another that she sees, does she see a case for putting in a protection so that future Prime Ministers, who may not behave with the same discretion that Sir Keir Starmer is currently behaving with—I am sure with the noble Baroness’s support and encouragement—are not able to do what previous Prime Ministers have done before, to her dismay? We have talked about the need for some check on the number or the rate or regularity with which Prime Ministers can recommend people: they go through the Prime Minister, but at a time of the Prime Minister’s choosing and in the number of his choice. Should there be a protection there?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
The noble Lord tempts me—I wonder whether he is trying to tempt me against a future Cameron or Johnson premiership, because that was the time when the numbers were increased. I have had the same pressure from some of my own colleagues after the behaviour of previous Conservative Governments. I would hope that there would not be a need for it, but I think it is something we would look at in future, if Prime Ministers were behaving in a way that was inappropriate in terms of appointments. However, we are not at that point at the moment and it would be wrong at the moment to put that in.
The Norton Bill also talked about 20% for the Cross Benches. While I think that that is a fair and appropriate percentage of the House for the Cross Benches, I would not define that in statute, because defining only one party or group in statute does not help the balance of the House—it is rather mixed, then. In saying that the governing party cannot have more than 40%, you then have to look at the balance for the rest of the House and not just at one particular group.
I agree with the noble Lord on conventions; they are important and have stood the test of time. I remind him that it is not just the Salisbury convention—it is the Salisbury/Addison convention, because there was a Labour and a Conservative leader at the time who agreed on conventions that have served this House well. They served us through the 1999 legislation and will serve us well in future. I think that we would all want to abide by them, because we do our best work when we abide by the conventions, as we did in opposition.
So I understand the sentiments behind the noble Lord’s amendment and have a lot of sympathy with it. I think that the House works best in that way—but the amendment is too restrictive at present and I respectfully ask that he withdraw it.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Lord Privy Seal for that comprehensive answer. We clearly agree on the state of parties that makes this House work best. We also agree as to who has pushed those percentages in a way that perhaps they should not have done, and it has not been the Labour Party. My concern is to produce a system which preserves the sort of balance that she and I agree we need in the face of a future Prime Minister who does not behave well—of whatever colour; probably our party given the precedence—but, either way, my concern is for the House more than party. For now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
I am not able to call Amendments 38 or 39, as they are amendments to Amendment 37.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
I am not able to call Amendments 41 and 42, as they are amendments to Amendment 40.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
I am not able to call Amendment 44A, because it is an amendment to Amendment 43.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
I cannot call Amendment 46, because it is an amendment to Amendment 45.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
Amendments 53 and 54 are amendments to Amendment 52, so I cannot call them.