Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
My Lords, shall we kick off? You know the drill, but if there is a Division in the Chamber, I will let the Committee know and we shall adjourn for 10 minutes to allow noble Lords to vote.
Disclosure (Scotland) Act 2020 (Consequential Provisions and Modifications) Order 2025
(1 day, 13 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Cluny
That the Grand Committee do consider the Disclosure (Scotland) Act 2020 (Consequential Provisions and Modifications) Order 2025.
Relevant document: 18th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Baroness Smith of Cluny) (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to debate this order today. It comes as the result of collaboration between the two Governments in Scotland and makes provision as a result of changes made to the existing disclosure regime in Scotland. The order before us, if passed, will be made under Section 104 of the Scotland Act. Scotland Act orders are a demonstration of devolution in action, and I am pleased to say that this Government have taken through seven orders since we came to power in 2024. I will now go on to explain the purpose of the order.
This order is in consequence of the Disclosure (Scotland) Act 2020, which deals with the circumstances in which information about a person’s criminal history and other information held about them by the police and other law enforcement bodies can be disclosed. The disclosure Act seeks to modernise and improve proportionality in the disclosure system in Scotland. As a result, some changes have been made to the disclosure regime and this order is accordingly necessary to ensure the continued provision of conviction information, cautions, relevant police information and records of fingerprints that are held by UK law enforcement bodies to the Scottish Ministers for the purposes of the disclosure regime.
The order places equivalent duties on the chief officers of UK law enforcement bodies in relation to disclosure information, where relevant, to those which the disclosure Act places on the chief constable of Police Scotland. This ensures that the chief officer must provide information to the Scottish Ministers in the same way that the chief constable is required to do in Scotland. Without this order, there would be significant consequences for safeguarding across the UK, as the cross- border disclosure and information-sharing arrangements already in place under the Police Act—that is, the duties on and powers available to chief officers of UK police forces—will no longer operate. I beg to move.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, first, I am glad to be able to debate with the Minister. I had a conversation with her when she was first appointed, but this is my first opportunity to do that. I am obviously grateful to her for introducing this order.
The Minister has more expertise in this field than I have, but I had a look at the instrument—I can see why we need safeguarding, of course, and why there is a desire to tidy it up and ensure that there are comparable rules around the UK—and it would appear that some differences remain. In particular, the situation in Scotland is that where other, related issues are being addressed—in other words, non-criminal ones—the person who has their information disclosed has the right to make representations before it is disclosed to the applicant for the information. This instrument, as I understand it, says that where UK authorities are handing information related to other parts of the UK to Scottish authorities, they have to take that into account. Indeed, they have to apply that law, which is fine if that is what the law says, but I worry that police authorities across England, Wales and Northern Ireland will need to know that the law in that context is different. What assurances are there that that will be observed, and that information will not inadvertently be disclosed which the affected party has not had the right to test? That was highlighted in the statutory instruments committee’s comments on the order.
Although it is stated that the overall purpose of this SI is to bring more coherence, consistency and simplification to the system across the UK, it still leaves differences. The Scottish law basically says: “We have a standard, which doesn’t apply in England and Wales, but if you are feeding information into Scotland, you’re obliged to be aware of that standard”. My main question is: how are we to ensure that all the relevant people know about it, bearing in mind that we are talking about not just the police here but potentially about other related bodies that may have information?
Of course, at the other end of the scale in the changes that are made, all those who are employing people or taking them on as volunteers need to know what their rights are, what they can get and the circumstances in which they can get it. Given the change- over in volunteers, again, who is responsible for ensuring that? Presumably, it is Scottish officers in Scotland, but, obviously, it is other agencies elsewhere in the UK. I ask the Minister: what steps will be taken to ensure that the differences that still apply are understood by all the relative parties and do not lead to a situation where either information that should be disclosed is not or a person’s right to have it tested before it is disclosed does not apply? If that is the case, in effect, the law is being broken. What would the penalties be for any authority outside Scotland that broke the law? Is there any provision for a penalty in that case, or is it just unfortunate?
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, I take this opportunity to welcome the noble and learned Baroness the Advocate-General for Scotland to the Front Bench. Although she has been in post for a while, this is the first time that I have been in Grand Committee with her, and I wish her well in all that she does for His Majesty’s Government. I am grateful to her for her opening remarks on this order.
In terms of the original legislation as passed by the Scottish Parliament, the Disclosure (Scotland) Act is intended to simplify the process by which information on a person held by the police can be shared. It will go into effect on 1 April this year, replacing the existing three levels of disclosure with just two levels. It is worth noting the broad welcome that the legislation has received, as well as cross-party support in the Scottish Parliament; for instance, Volunteer Scotland welcomed the Act for both its potential to remove barriers for individuals with past convictions seeking employment and its ability to strengthen the PVG scheme. However, we must remain mindful of the complexities and nuances involved. These changes will undoubtedly have a significant impact on various professional sectors, particularly those that work with vulnerable groups. In addition, it will significantly affect how personal data, including criminal history, is shared.
The purpose of the order before the Grand Committee is, rightly, to ensure that the existing arrangements for cross-border information sharing between UK law enforcement bodies and Scottish Ministers continue. It will also help prevent any disruption to the flow of crucial data between UK law enforcement and Scottish Ministers.
Although we do not oppose this order, rather like the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, I observe that the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee noted this as an instrument of interest because it would create inconsistencies in the way in which information is shared between police forces and Scottish Ministers, as compared to the rest of the UK. Police forces outside Scotland would have a duty to allow the subject of a request to make representations on other relevant information when a request originated in Scotland, despite having no such duty for other requests in the rest of the UK. That introduces a critical question: why is it necessary to create this distinction? There is a concern that this difference in treatment could lead to inefficiencies for both law enforcement agencies and individuals. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments as to the position of the UK Government on this seeming inconsistency.
Further, can the Minister clarify how police forces across the UK will be supported in managing these new obligations on the ground, especially in ensuring that adequate resources are there to ensure that the transition to a new system does not lead to delays or hinder in some way the sharing of critical information? Finally, given the complex nature of this situation, can she assure us that the guidance due to be published will be easy to understand and clear to the public? I look forward to hearing what she has to say.
Baroness Smith of Cluny (Lab)
I thank noble Lords for their contributions. I am particularly pleased to see the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, who has done a lot of work in anticipation of this order, which has been in inception for some time. I am grateful for the points raised and the opportunity they allow for some reassurance to be given.
The noble Lord, Lord Bruce, commented that it is a question of how the differences will not come to be a problem in practice when, plainly, police forces and other public bodies are essentially required to treat requests differently, to a certain extent, depending on where in the United Kingdom the case emanates from. Many of the processes are the same; it is really on the question of review that there comes to be a bit of difference. It is also worth observing that there is a process whereby an applicant can ask for a review under the current regime and the one that will remain in England and Wales. The substance of the process—the fact that a police force is required to undertake a review—remains the same. The skills and the tests are the same. It is the substance that matters a great deal to the applicant.
It is the case that the weight of obligations will change a little bit. At present, an applicant may be asked for additional information, whereas this order places a duty on the public body to do so and to have regard to it. However, I reassure noble Lords that the substance of the matter and the questions to be asked remain the same. There is also one other difference, which is the opportunity to have an independent reviewer look at the process.
I understood the noble Lord to be asking what work has been undertaken to ensure that these differences are understood and therefore can be implemented beyond simply police forces because, as he observed, this will affect a wider group than just police forces. Scotland Office officials have worked to create the policy as well as draft this order alongside counterpart officials in the Scottish Government, the Ministry of Justice—my office—the Home Office, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland and the Welsh Government. Police forces in England, Wales and Northern Ireland have been consulted and have provided valuable input until January this year. Statutory guidance has been developed and the same police forces and bodies have been involved in its drafting. The guidance aims to be as consistent as possible with the existing guidance issued to officers across the United Kingdom.
It is worth observing that Disclosure Scotland has existing relationships with all the public bodies that provide information at the moment, so it is not a question of the scope of public bodies with which it needs to interact changing. There are relationships there, and the functions are understood. Engagement has been led by Disclosure Scotland through the National Police Chiefs’ Council, as well as with wider parties, to ensure that there is a clear understanding.
I hope I can reassure noble Lords that there has been good engagement. On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, it is important that the guidance is clear, and efforts have been made not just to make it clear but to engage the affected parties so that it is clear to them as well as to the Government. One concern raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, was that the wrong information may be disclosed. I hope that that will not be a consequence of this order, for the reasons I have given: the substantive exercise to be undertaken and the tests to be applied remain unchanged; it is simply a question of the opportunities for review and how those reviews are undertaken. As for a failure to apply the review processes properly, raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, I think that speaks to the policy purpose behind introducing the independent reviewer function, which allows not only another step of review to take place but indeed for that to be undertaken by someone independent.
On the final point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, on additions to guidance and a concern around inefficiencies, I detect that that may speak to the question of resources. Again, I hope that because of the extensive engagement that has gone on over a period of time and the fact that the guidance is being drafted in consultation with those affected that will not be an issue and it will simply be the case that public bodies recognise, with the assistance of Disclosure Scotland, that this is a request coming in from Scotland and that there are slightly modified rules to be applied if, and only if, the applicant asks for a review, as of course many of these issues will be dealt with without that being required.
I close by saying that this order demonstrates the continued commitment of the UK Government to work with the Scottish Government to deliver for Scotland.
Electronic Communications (Networks and Services) (Designated Vendor Directions) (Penalties) Order 2025
(1 day, 13 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
That the Grand Committee do consider the Electronic Communications (Networks and Services) (Designated Vendor Directions) (Penalties) Order 2025.
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, the Government take the security of public telecoms seriously. As noble Lords know, the Telecommunications (Security) Act 2021 received Royal Assent on 17 November 2021. The Act established powers to introduce a new telecommunications security framework and introduced new vendor security powers. It is these vendor security powers that are relevant to this statutory instrument.
The Act allows the Secretary of State to issue a designation notice to a vendor whose presence in the UK networks poses national security risks, and designated vendor directions to public communications providers placing controls on their use of equipment or services by a designated vendor. The Act also gives the Secretary of State powers to impose a penalty on a public communications provider that does not comply with a designated vendor direction issued to it. That penalty can be up to 10% of a provider’s turnover. The Act states that the Secretary of State must set out rules for how they intend to calculate a provider’s turnover. That includes what relevant business the Secretary of State will take into account when calculating that turnover.
The Electronic Communications (Networks and Services) (Penalties) (Rules for Calculation of Turnover) Order 2003 sets out rules for Ofcom to calculate a provider’s turnover when it contravenes conditions set under the Communications Act 2003. The statutory instrument makes changes to the 2003 order so that rules in that legislation apply when calculating turnover for the purposes of determining a penalty for enforcement of designated vendor directions. It also defines what is to be treated as a network service facility or business by reference to which the calculation of turnover is to be made.
The Secretary of State could have relied on the 2003 order for the purposes of enforcement of a designated vendor direction. However, this SI removes any ambiguity and provides legal certainty and absolute clarity on the rules that apply. Turnover will be calculated in line with accounting practices and principles generally accepted in the United Kingdom and will be limited to the amount derived by that provider after the deduction of relevant taxes.
In conclusion, this is a narrowly focused but important statutory instrument through which we are ensuring legal certainty and clarity. It makes clear the Secretary of State’s approach to calculating turnover, which will underpin any decision to penalise a provider in relation to the designated vendor directions. I beg to move.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her introduction to this draft statutory instrument; it was brief and to the point. These penalties will be able to reach 10% of turnover or £100,000 per day for continuing breaches, so getting the calculations right is crucial. However, I have some concerns about the SI, the first of which is about timing.
I do not understand why we are looking at a three-year gap between the enabling powers and the calculation rules. The Telecommunications (Security) Act 2021, which I worked on, was presented to this House as urgent legislation to protect critical national infrastructure, yet here we are, in 2025, only now establishing how to calculate penalties for breaches in the way set out in this SI. During this period, we have had enforcement powers without the ability to properly determine penalties. As I understand it, tier 1 providers had to comply by March 2024, yet the penalty calculation mechanism will not be in place until this year—no doubt in a few weeks’ time.
Secondly, there is the absence of consultation. The Explanatory Memorandum cites the reason as the SI’s “technical nature”, but these penalties—I mentioned their size—could have major financial implications for providers. The telecoms industry has complex business structures and revenue streams. Technical expertise from the industry could have helped to ensure that these calculations are practical and comprehensive. The technical justification seems remarkably weak, given the impact these rules could have. For example, the current definition of “relevant business” for these calculations focuses on traditional network and service provision, but modern telecoms companies often have diverse revenue streams. There is no clear provision for new business models or technologies. How will we handle integrated service providers? What about international revenues? The treatment of associated services needs clarification.
Thirdly, the implementation sequence is an issue. We are being asked to approve penalty calculations before seeing the enforcement guidelines. There is no impact assessment, so we cannot evaluate potential consequences. I understand that the post-implementation review is not scheduled until 2026, and there is no clear mechanism for adjusting the framework if problems emerge. The interaction with the existing penalty regime needs clarification.
There are also technical concerns that need some attention. The switch from “notified provider” to “person” in the 2003 order, as a result of this SI, needs rather more explanation. The calculation method for continuing breaches is not fully detailed, there is no specific provision for group companies or complex corporate structures and the treatment of joint ventures and partnerships remains unclear.
Finally, I hope that, in broad terms, the Minister can give us an update on progress on the removal of equipment covered by the Telecommunications (Security) Act 2021. That was mandated by the Act; I know it is under way but it is not yet complete.
This is about not merely technical calculations but creating an effective deterrent to the telecoms industry, while ensuring fair and practical enforcement of important security measures. Getting these rules right is essential for both national security and our telecoms sector. I look forward to the Minister’s response on these points.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for bringing this important SI forward today and for setting it out so clearly and briefly. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. He made a range of interesting points: in particular, the point on timing was well made, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s answers on that. This instrument seeks to implement provisions relating to the enforcement of designated vendor directions—DVDs—which form part of the broader framework established under the Telecommunications (Security) Act 2021. That Act, introduced under the previous Government, was designed to strengthen the security and resilience of the UK’s telecommunications networks, particularly in response to emerging national security risks.
We all know only too well that one of the most prominent issues at the forefront of this framework has been the removal of high-risk vendors, such as Huawei, from UK telecommunications infrastructure. Huawei’s involvement in the UK’s 5G rollout has long been a point of debate, with growing concerns about national security risks tied to its equipment. This SI therefore provides a mechanism for enforcing the penalties that may be applied to public communications providers —PCPs—that fail to comply with the DVDs to ensure that the UK’s telecommunications infrastructure remains secure from undue foreign influence.
The primary change introduced by this SI is the formalisation of the penalties regime for public communications providers that fail to comply with the conditions outlined in DVDs. It establishes a framework for calculating and enforcing penalties that may be imposed by the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State retains discretion in imposing penalties, but they must be applied in a proportionate manner. In considering penalties, the severity of the breach, the culpability of the provider and the broader implications for the sector must all be taken into account. The aim is to ensure compliance with DVDs while protecting the integrity of the UK’s national infrastructure.
However, while the objectives of this instrument are understood, this debate offers a good opportunity to scrutinise some of the specifics a little, particularly with regard to the proportionality of penalties and the potential economic consequences for the sector. It is with that in mind that I shall raise questions in just three areas regarding the provisions set out in this instrument.
First, the SI grants the Secretary of State significant discretion in the imposition of penalties. Of course, we recognise the value of flexibility here, but there is legitimate concern that this discretion may result in inconsistent enforcement across different public communications providers. Can the Minister assure us that transparency and accountability will be maintained throughout this process? How will the Government ensure that the application of penalties is fair and consistent, particularly when considering the varying size and scope of telecoms providers?
Further to this, can the Minister clarify how the penalties will be calculated? I echo the questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, particularly in cases where a breach does not pose an immediate or severe national security threat. Do the Government anticipate that penalties will be tiered with lesser fines for breaches that do not substantially compromise national security? Can the Minister further explain how such decisions will be communicated to the public and to industry to ensure transparency?
Secondly, providers are required to remove Huawei equipment from the UK’s 5G networks by 2027. This is, of course, a significant and costly task for telecom providers. Given these financial challenges, will the penalties for non-compliance take into account the costs already incurred by providers in replacing Huawei’s technology? Will the penalties be adjusted to reflect the substantial financial burden that these providers are already facing in removing Huawei equipment from their networks? Thirdly, where PCPs have been issued with a DVD, this can be a long and demanding process. How are the Government going to keep track of progress? What progress reports can be shared with Parliament and the public?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their valuable contributions to this debate. We believe that legislative certainty is important, which is why we are seeking to resolve potential ambiguity by making this instrument at the earliest opportunity. This SI will ensure that important decisions on national security, specifically the enforcement of national security powers introduced by the Telecommunications (Security) Act, have clear rules underpinning them.
I will now have a go at answering the questions raised in the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, asked about the three-year gap and why the SI was not taken forward earlier. I should thank Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee clerks for asking for clarification on the operability of the regime. The system has not been inoperable for four years. The Secretary of State can and has used their powers to monitor compliance with a direction under the current rules. The Secretary of State could have taken enforcement action without this SI being in place. The 2003 order could have applied for the purpose of enforcement of a designated vendor direction. However, there is some ambiguity concerning whether the rules set out in the 2003 order can apply to the enforcement of a designated vendor direction. This could have left enforcement action imposing a penalty on a provider vulnerable to legal challenge. We are therefore making an SI to ensure that there is legal certainty and clarity when penalties are imposed, and that position was set out in a letter to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee clarifying that.
The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, also asked about the lack of consultation, but this is a technical clarification for rules that were already in operation. He asked about how turnover would be calculated. It will be done in conformity with the accounting practices and principles that are generally accepted in the United Kingdom. The turnover will be limited to the amount derived by that provider from the relevant business after deduction of sales rebates, value added tax and other taxes directly related to turnover. If the provider’s relevant business consists of two or more undertakings that each prepare accounts, then the turnover should be calculated by adding together the turnover of each undertaking. Any aid granted by a public body to a provider should be included in the calculation of turnover if the provider is a recipient of the aid and if that is directly linked to the carrying out by that provider of the relevant business. The business activities to be included in the turnover calculation for a provider are as follows: the provision of public electronic communications network; the provision of the public electronic communication of services; and the making available of facilities that are associated with facilities by reference to such a network or service.
The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, asked about the removal of equipment and the progress report on that. Using the powers provided by the Telecommunications (Security) Act, the former Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport issued a designation notice to Huawei and a designated vendor direction to 35 providers in October 2022. The direction gives 12 specific requirements for telecom providers’ use of Huawei equipment. The previous Secretary of State decided that these legal controls on the use of Huawei equipment or services were necessary and proportionate to the national security risks they were designated to mitigate. The UK is now on a path towards the complete removal of Huawei from its 5G networks by the end of 2027.
The noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, asked whether the application was being applied in a fair and consistent way. I would say that this was an evidence-based decision, reflecting the national security risk. The designation notice issued to Huawei set out the reasons why the use of its equipment is viewed as a national security risk; it includes concerns about, among other things, corporate control, cybersecurity and engineering quality. This action builds on long-standing advice from the National Cyber Security Centre and the Government on the use of Huawei equipment in UK public tele- communications networks.
The noble Viscount asked about the cost to business of removing this equipment. The Government have estimated that the removal of Huawei equipment due to the designated vendor directions will cost providers up to £2 billion in total.
The noble Viscount also asked how the Secretary of State monitors compliance with a direction. The Communications Act 2003, as amended by the Telecommunications (Security) Act 2021, provides the Secretary of State with powers enabling the monitoring and enforcement of requirements imposed in designated vendor directions. The Secretary of State is responsible for determining compliance with a direction, based on evidence provided by the industry and Ofcom. The Secretary of State may give Ofcom a direction requiring Ofcom to monitor providers’ progress in complying with the direction and to report to the Secretary of State to inform their assessment of compliance. The former Secretary of State received Ofcom’s report in spring 2024 on the removal of Huawei from relevant providers’ core network functions, and that ongoing appraisal continues.
I hope that I have answered all the questions that were asked. If I have not answered on something that is very technical, I can write to noble Lords, of course. In the meantime, I hope noble Lords agree on the importance of introducing this instrument to ensure legislative certainty and therefore agree that enforcement through these powers should be introduced as swiftly as possible.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
Is the Minister confident that the 2027 deadline will be met; that no vendor, purchaser or telecoms company will be caught by the Act; that no fines will be levied; and that what we are talking about today is, therefore, entirely theoretical?
Viscount Camrose (Con)
While the Minister is working on her answer, perhaps she could include in that something about how progress against the delivery of these objectives will be reported to Parliament, potentially —and, indeed, to the public.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
I am sure that it says in my brief that we are on target to meet the 2027 deadline. If I am mistaken about that, I will write to noble Lords, obviously.
In response to the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, of course Ofcom reports to Parliament in the normal way, through its annual report, and I am sure that this activity will be included.
Town and Country Planning (Fees and Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2025
(1 day, 13 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
That the Grand Committee do consider the Town and Country Planning (Fees and Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2025.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, these draft regulations were laid before the House on 13 February. They make consequential amendments to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and other primary legislation, as well as to the planning application fee regulations. These amendments reflect the two new routes for planning permission for Crown development that were introduced through the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023. This legislation forms part of a wider suite of statutory instruments needed to implement these new routes. These routes are crucial to ensure that there is a more timely and proportionate planning process for nationally important public services and infrastructure.
I will start by providing some context and background to these regulations. Recent experience, including the response to Covid-19, has exposed that the existing route for securing planning permission for urgent Crown development, which was introduced in 2006, is not fit for purpose—so much so that it has never been used. Furthermore, government departments have struggled to secure local planning permission for nationally important public service infrastructure, such as prisons. The Levelling-up and Regeneration Act made provision to address these challenges by providing two new routes for planning permission for Crown development in England.
The first route, referred to as Crown development, is for planning applications for Crown developments that are considered of national importance. These applications are to be submitted to the Planning Inspectorate directly instead of to local planning authorities. A planning inspector will consider and determine the application, unless the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government recovers the application to determine herself.
The second route is an updated urgent Crown development route. This will enable applications for nationally important developments that are needed urgently to be determined rapidly under a simplified procedure. Applications under the urgent route will be submitted to the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government.
These new routes can be used for developments only where it is clearly justified. Provisions in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act require that applications can be accepted by the Secretary of State only if she deems that the proposed development is of national importance and that it is urgent, in the case of the urgent Crown development route. I made a Written Ministerial Statement on 13 February which set out the principles under which national importance and urgency will be determined. Applicants are required when submitting an application to set out the reasons why they consider that the development is of national importance and, in the case of urgent Crown development, is needed as a matter of urgency.
I turn to the detail of the regulations. This is the first of a suite of statutory instruments needed to implement the Crown reforms. It makes amendments to primary legislation to reflect the two new Crown development routes. For instance, it amends references to planning permission set out in a range of different pieces of legislation. It also removes references to the previous urgent Crown development route in Section 293A of the Town and Country Planning Act, which now applies only in Wales. This instrument also sets the fee for an application for planning permission under both routes. This is the same as the fee that would have been paid to the local authority if the application had been submitted to it.
Following this statutory instrument coming into force, a further suite of statutory instruments will be made through the negative parliamentary procedure. These instruments will set the procedures for the two routes and make further consequential changes to secondary legislation in order to reflect the implementation of these routes. We have published these instruments in draft ahead of this debate to provide proper transparency on how the routes will operate.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for her explanation. I have no difficulty at all with the thrust of this statutory instrument, but I have one or two queries.
Throughout her speech, the Minister referred to Crown development, but the Explanatory Memorandum says that this concerns
“planning permission for the development of Crown land”.
Does this apply only to development on land that the Government already own? Or, as the Minister said, is this about Crown development, possibly on land owned by other people or organisations? If I am right and this is confined to the development of Crown land, as the Explanatory Memorandum says on pages 1 and 3, is there a definition of “Crown land”? We are familiar with the Crown Estate but what exactly is Crown land?
Secondly, can the Minister give us some examples of the sorts of development that might be relevant to this statutory instrument? I understand the process that she described, but I did not get a picture of exactly when this would be used by the Government. It would be helpful if she could flesh that out.
Thirdly, this measure applies to development that is urgent and in the national interest or
“securing planning permission for nationally important and urgent Crown development”.
Is that justiciable? In other words, would it be possible to slow down the whole process if somebody came up and said, “This is a misuse of this statutory instrument. This is not nationally important or urgent”? In that case, the whole objective of this SI—to speed things up—could be nullified if the decision to use it was justiciable.
My final point is a petty one. I notice that, on pages 2 and 3, a whole lot of legislation is being amended. It is not clear to me why the Caravan Sites Act 1968, for example, has to be amended as a result of what we are doing in this SI. Is there some particular caravan site occupying a site of enormous national importance that might have to be used for the purpose of some giant infrastructure scheme? Looking at pages 2 and 3, one sees a whole series of pieces of legislation, and it is not absolutely clear why they all need to be amended to bring this SI into effect.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I share the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, and I hope that the Minister will be able to respond satisfactorily to the points that he raised.
Reading the Explanatory Note, my question is: who decides whether an application for a development is “of national importance” or “a matter of urgency”? I assume that there is a proposal from a department, presumably from the relevant Minister, that then goes to the Secretary of State in the noble Baroness’s department, and that the final decision is made by the Secretary of State, but on the recommendation of the relevant department. I assume that this means that the relevant department cannot itself define that something is urgent and of national importance. I think I have concluded that it is both, but that the final decision will lie with the Secretary of State. For me, the vital question for the Minister to clarify is: will the public be able to object? The Minister talked about the need to try to ensure consultation with local people, but will local people be able to object to an application, or will the decision lie simply with the Secretary of State?
I noticed the Minister’s comments on scrutiny. I think she said that there will be full scrutiny of the use of powers, but paragraph 10.1 of the Explanatory Memorandum says:
“The instrument does not include a statutory review clause”,
and paragraph 10.2 says:
“The Ministry of Housing, Communities, and Local Government will monitor the overall effect of the implementation of the Crown Development and Urgent Crown Development routes for planning permission”.
It is not clear to me to what extent that will involve Parliament. I want to hear from the Minister that the monitoring review will be thorough and part of normal parliamentary procedures on matters of this kind.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
I thank the Minister for her explanation of how we got from there to here; its clarity is welcome. I also thank the noble Lords, Lord Shipley and Lord Young of Cookham, for their forensic questioning, and I look forward to the Minister’s response. We on these Benches are in agreement that projects in the national interest, especially those deemed urgent, must and should be expedited as swiftly as possible. We are also in agreement that the present system has failed to deliver the improvements necessary to promote economic growth and improve the productivity of our vastly unequal regions.
Subsidiarity, a word we do not hear very often, cuts to the heart of this SI and the changes it introduces. Decisions must and should be taken at the most appropriate level, proportionate to the impact of the decision, which this SI attempts to do. Only time will tell whether it has been successful.
However, to me, this is a two-way street, with powers devolved down as well as taken up. It is nothing short of madness that when I was an elected mayor, I had to go through a four-year torment and two judicial reviews needing the Secretary of State’s approval—of which there were many during those four years—to be able to turn an allotment site into much-needed facilities for our local hospital. Conversely, it is also unacceptable that plans to build a third runway at Heathrow have been in discussion for decades. Evidence abounds that something needs to change and the system is failing. I am therefore interested in the Minister joining the dots for me as to how the new regional super-mayors will be involved in this process, given that the Government are also giving them greater planning powers.
We can also see how this joins up to the Government’s broader agenda. We have all lived through the Crown Estate Act and agree with its aims to use land—we look forward to the clarification mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham—to create lasting and shared prosperity for the good of the nation as a whole. We can see how the SI is designed to drive through nationally significant projects at pace. However, the then Opposition, us included, were greatly concerned that such powers would be used only when necessary and with appropriate safeguards in place.
We will have to watch to see whether the safeguards and processes envisaged by these changes are effective, and whether the definition of “national importance” has been consistently applied and the criteria as laid out adhered to. Perhaps the Minister can give us some examples of what applications constitute a matter of urgency and warrant an expedited planning process.
Our overriding concern is the need for accountability and transparency. Can the Minister clarify what is envisaged—in the words of the Minister in the other place—to ensure that
“the House as a whole”
will have
“the opportunity to consider and scrutinise their general operation”?—[Official Report, Commons, 13/2/25; col. 33WS.]
Is this for each application or the generality of the process? To paraphrase my noble friend’s question, we would seek clarity on the review.
There are legitimate concerns around the erosion of local democracy—of not listening to local voices and their elected representatives. Can the Minister reassure us that all voices will be heard and consultation will be wide ranging, as appropriate to the application? I underline that phrase. Does the Minister agree that the undeniable right to be listened to and consulted does not confer a right of veto?
I am unconvinced that a retrospective annual report in the form of a letter of decisions taken, placed in both Libraries, fulfils the commitment to make sure this is scrutinised and accountable. We are looking forward to the changes to come in the context of the new Planning and Infrastructure Bill, which I am sure we are all eagerly looking forward to—or not. However, that is an argument for another day. We support this SI, with caveats on future scrutiny and transparency.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, as usual I declare the fact that I am a current councillor in Central Bedfordshire. I thank the Minister for her explanation on the SI and the reasons behind it. Like my fellow noble Lords, I recognise that we need to get on with these major infrastructure projects. The noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, gave the example of Heathrow, but one can also think of the Lower Thames Crossing, which I understand has received approval just today, after about 800 million pages of planning documents.
It is important that we do that, so in principle we support the need for the SI. The Minister has reiterated to us how important it is to get on with these things, but to do so by completely ignoring the public and the local planning process is a concern to this side of the House. We really want the assurance that it will be done only in exceptional circumstances and where speed is absolutely necessary. We recognise that the planning process is far from perfect; I too look forward to debating the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. This very much seems to be a mechanism to shoehorn through a process in a system that does not work. We really ought to look at making the system work.
I very much look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments on why it is so necessary to do that and her assurances on why it is necessary to circumvent local planning processes and local transparency. I also support the calls from fellow Peers that local involvement should be maintained and representations to the Minister should be still able to be made.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, this has been a helpful debate. As ever, our great experts on planning in the House contributed to a good discussion. I will, of course, attempt to answer all the questions. I am sure that noble Lords will pull me up if I do not if I do not answer them. I will, of course, check in Hansard afterwards and reply in writing on anything to which I have not responded to fully.
The noble Lords, Lord Young and Lord Shipley, asked who is able to apply for planning permission through these routes. Section 293 of the Town and Country Planning Act defines who is an applicant known as an appropriate authority for the purpose of applications under these routes. For example, this includes where land belongs to a government department or is held in trust for His Majesty for the purposes of a government department. That department is considered to be an appropriate authority. For land belonging to His Majesty in right of the Duchy of Lancaster, the Chancellor of the duchy is the appropriate authority and for land belonging to the Duchy of Cornwall, a person that the Duke of Cornwall appoints is the appropriate authority. So land that goes into any of those routes will be appropriate for this route.
The uses for Crown development and confirmation of which developments Crown development can be used for was the subject of the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Young. I am sure that he will ask again if I have got that wrong. It will be for the Secretary of State to assess on a case-by-case basis what is deemed nationally important, and it would not be appropriate to comment now on specific schemes. However, it is likely that the Crown development route will be used most for HMG programmes relating to nationally important public service development. For example, this would include, but not be limited to, new prisons or border infrastructure. Traditionally, those things are difficult in the planning process. The route could also be used for defence-related development, as PINS is able to put in place special procedures to handle information dealing with matters of national security. Special provisions exist whereby the Secretary of State can issue a direction limiting the disclosure of information relating to matters of the security of a premises through Section 321 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The Crown development route can also be used for particularly sensitive or significant development being brought forward by, or on behalf of, the Crown. We expect few applications to be submitted through this route every year. It is not going to be used all the time; it would be an exception.
In terms of urgent Crown development, again, it will be for the Secretary of State to assess on a case-by-case basis what is deemed nationally important and needed urgently. When I looked at the papers for this SI, the first thing that came to my mind was the time when, during Covid, we were getting desperately short of mortuary space. This is a bit of a morbid subject but, in the middle of a pandemic, it is vital that you think about that and you may want to have an urgent process to deal with that sort of thing.
It would not be appropriate for me to comment on specific schemes, but the urgent Crown development route is expected to be used very rarely, where other planning application routes just cannot be used to secure a decision quickly enough. The pandemic might have been one of those instances. It will be used only where development needs to be put in place quickly, in a matter of days or weeks, and where it is in the national interest—for things such as medical centres, the storage and distribution of key goods and services in the event of a pandemic or, potentially, mortuary space.
The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, asked who makes the decisions—he was correct in his assumption on that; I hope that that is helpful—and whether the public will be able to object. I will come to those issues in a moment.
The noble Lord asked about how national importance is defined. The Government are committed to a planning system in which decisions are made locally. However, it is a well-established principle that, in limited circumstances, it is necessary for the Secretary of State to make planning decisions where issues of more than local importance are involved. In general, the Secretary of State will consider a development to be of regional or national importance only if it would: involve the interests of national security or foreign Governments; contribute to the provision of national public services or infrastructure, such as prisons or border infrastructure; support a response to international, national or regional civil emergencies; or otherwise have significant economic, social or environmental effects and strong public interest. The applicant will have to set out, as part of a statement accompanying the application, evidence demonstrating that at least one of those principles has been met.
The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, asked how “urgency” is defined. The applicant will be required to provide a statement to accompany the application setting out why they consider that the development is both nationally important and needed as a matter of urgency. The Secretary of State will accept applications through the urgent development route only where the applicant can demonstrate that the proposed development is both of national importance and needed urgently. The applicant will need to demonstrate that the proposed development needs to be made operational in an accelerated timeframe and that it is unlikely to be feasible using other application routes, including the Crown development route, and will need to evidence the likely consequences of not securing a decision within the accelerated timeframe. I hope that that is helpful.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, asked me about mayoral powers and strategic planning. I share her pain, as any local councillor will, over the planning process. I will never get back the hours that I have spent in discussion about great crested newts and rare species of bats and insects, so I feel her pain on that. However, these reforms are for national and very urgent issues only.
On mayoral or strategic powers, the Crown reforms will affect the ability of combined or mayoral authorities to call in applications of potential strategic importance. The relevant combined authority will instead be consulted for development coming forward through the Crown development route, so it will be done at that strategic level.
In response to all noble Lords’ questions about how further information on this will be provided, we will publish updated planning practice guidance to reflect the new routes coming into force. We intend to publish the amended guidance closer to the implementation of the routes.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, asked about transparency. As I said, applicants need to demonstrate that the application is of national and urgent importance, and the Secretary of State can accept that application only if she considers that that is the case.
When a decision is made to accept an application, as I set out in my opening speech, a letter will be written to the MP whose constituency the development falls in and will be deposited in the Libraries of both Houses. Application documents will be available and applications to both routes will be determined on planning merits, with the reasons behind whether to grant or refuse set out in the inspector’s report or the Secretary of State’s decision letter. I hope that that is helpful.
In my opening speech, I set out in some detail how community engagement will work; the noble Lords, Lord Shipley and Lord Jamieson, raised it again. Of course, community engagement is very important. Any comments made during the consultation and publicity period that raise material planning matters will be taken into account as part of the decision-making process. The local planning authority will also have a role to play. It will need to place the application and documents on its planning register and, as PINS does not have a local presence, the local planning authority will be required to affix site notices during the mandatory publicity period and notify owners or occupiers who adjoin the site. So, for that purpose, it will work just the same as the local planning process.
Regarding urgent Crown development community engagement, as I said, we would encourage consultation with local communities, where possible. If it is possible to do meaningful engagement in a timeframe, we would encourage that. Where it is not possible, the Secretary of State should use alternative methods to make sure that community views can be taken into account.
The noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, talked about fixing the planning system; we hope we will be able to do that. Working very quickly, we have already managed a major consultation on the NPPF and published a revised version in December. Yesterday, the other House had a long debate on the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, which will come to this House shortly. My belief is that there will always be a need for an urgency procedure for decision-making in councils. There will always be a need for some kind of urgent process and for the Secretary of State to be able to make a decision on national grounds. I hope that that has answered all noble Lords’ questions.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
The Minister has been enormously helpful in answering the questions, but she did not touch on the question of whether a decision to use this route would be justiciable. She may not be able to answer that, but I assume that it would be.
The Minister mentioned the case of Covid and the mortuaries. As I understand it, this system can be used only where the Crown owns the land, so if it does not own the land, it will have to buy it before it can use this SI. If something is urgent but the Crown does not own the land on which the building is needed, I wonder whether the CPO will hold things up, or whether that can be part of a streamlined process.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I was assuming that it would be an application made on land already owned, but I will write to the noble Lord and set that out in further detail.
On his other point, my understanding is that all things are, technically, judicially reviewable, but I will find out the detail of that and set it out. Obviously, if we are going to put an urgent and national process in place, we want it to be able to speed through as quickly as possible, but, in the planning world, it would be most unusual for there to be no process of review should that be needed. I will get our planning team to check that for the noble Lord, and I will write to him with the exact details.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
I have a question; it is not dissimilar to the one from my noble friend Lord Young. As I understand it, from what the Minister has laid out, it will in essence be up to the Minister or Secretary of State to determine whether this is urgent, nationally significant and so on. My real question is: what constraints will there be on him or her in determining that? Where is the opportunity to challenge, review or assess? I know that the Minister is going to come back on the issue of judicial review. Clearly, we do not want to have an urgent process be bogged down by it for two or three years; however, we would want some constraint on it. So what process is in place to ensure that the Minister is not in a position to determine all of this by himself or herself?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for reiterating those points. I set out that there is a set of criteria deeming whether an application is of national importance. The applicant will need to say which of those criteria they are using to say that it is of national importance. The same applies to the urgent procedure: the applicant will need to demonstrate one of those criteria for it being urgent, and the Secretary of State will decide whether or not that is the case. Out of the criteria I set out, the applicant will need to demonstrate that at least one applies. That is how it is going to work. I will have to come back to noble Lords on whether it will be reviewable.
In conclusion, the two new routes for planning permission that we are seeking to implement are necessary and timely; all noble Lords agree with that, I think. These regulations represent a crucial step to their delivery. I hope that the Committee will welcome the regulations, which address this critical requirement for a proportionate planning procedure for nationally important Crown developments.
Israel: Arms Exports
(1 day, 13 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Howard of Lympne
To ask His Majesty’s Government, further to the remarks by Baroness Chapman of Darlington on 3 September 2024 (HL Deb cols 1065-69), whether they had discretion not to suspend the arms exports to Israel which they suspended.
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, the assessment that there was a clear risk that certain UK exports might be used to commit or facilitate serious violations of international humanitarian law meant that such exports were no longer permitted under our strategic export licensing criteria, and were thus suspended. The SELC are statutory guidance, from which the Government may depart only when there is a good reason. Moreover, the UK’s international obligations, such as under the Arms Trade Treaty, remain binding on the UK under international law, irrespective of whether the SELC are being applied. My noble friend Lady Chapman was therefore quite correct to say that, under the criteria, the Government were required to suspend certain licences.
Lord Howard of Lympne (Con)
I thank the Minister for that answer but, when the Foreign Secretary announced the suspension, he was careful not to use the word “required”, and specifically referred to the fact that international humanitarian law was not the only factor to be taken into account. Whether one thinks that all arms exports to Israel should be suspended or no arms exports to Israel should be granted, surely we can all agree that Parliament must be given an accurate reason for the Government’s decision. Is not the very fact that the suspension is only partial proof that, contrary to what the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman of Darlington, told your Lordships on 3 September and subsequently, the Government had a discretion in this matter that they chose to exercise in a particular way?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
I must reiterate that my noble friend Lady Chapman was absolutely correct to say that, under the criteria, the Government were required to suspend certain licences. The decision not to suspend the F35 licences was a departure from the criteria, and Ministers anticipated such a course when the criteria were introduced.
However, our international obligations remain binding on the UK under international law, regardless of whether the SELC are being applied. So, for example, our actions to depart from the SELC and continue the export of items for the F35 programme still have to comply with the Arms Trade Treaty. Article 7 of that treaty requires a balancing exercise, considering factors including the risk of serious violation of international humanitarian law and whether exports
“would contribute to or undermine peace and security”.
Exports are prohibited under this article unless the risk of negative consequences is overriding.
Finally, the Government have been clear about the international humanitarian risks in this case, but also that F35 licences cannot be suspended without serious prejudice to the entire programme and, therefore, to international peace and security. Thus, the exemption of F35 licences was a case-specific decision based on specific factors, while the suspension of other licences was mandated by the criteria.
Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB)
My Lords, the United Nations, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and others have all condemned Israeli brutality and genocide against Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank. The International Criminal Court has declared Israel’s Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, guilty of war crimes and issued a warrant for his arrest. Will the Minister agree that, in continuing to supply arms to Israel, however diplomatically we put it, we are complicit in the genocide of Palestinian men, women and innocent children?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
Ultimately, these are matters for the courts to determine, not the Government. However, the clear risk of serious breaches of international humanitarian law has led us to suspend those licences. I will say one further thing: Prime Minister Netanyahu has not been found guilty of any breaches up until this date.
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, are the Government taking a bit of a pick-and-mix attitude to international law? In the case of Prime Minister Netanyahu, what about the law of sovereign immunity? He has immunity as a head of state, and it is a state that never signed up to the International Criminal Court. The Government need to be clear on what they consider to be international law and what is not, and not just pick and choose.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
I can only reiterate what I have just said, which is that this is a matter for the courts, not the Government, to determine. However, we have made our own decisions about the clear risk of serious breaches of international humanitarian law, which have led us to suspend the licences being debated.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, on 15 October my noble friend Lord Howard of Lympne asked a Written Question of the Attorney-General, who I am pleased to see in his place. He asked whether the Attorney-General’s advice was that licences to export arms to Israel had to be suspended. The Attorney’s reply cited the usual convention that his advice was confidential. But, on 5 September, the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman of Darlington, referred expressly to the substance of that advice when explaining to this House why arms exports had to be suspended. Her answer therefore both breached the convention on Attorney-Generals’ advice and contradicted the Foreign Secretary’s explanation, because he said in the other place that the Government had a “discretion” on whether to suspend the licences. Can we now finally have a clear answer to a clear question? Were the Government legally required to suspend those arms export licences or did they have a discretion that they chose to exercise in a particular way?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
As I have made clear, our assessment was that there was a clear risk that there would be serious violations of international humanitarian law, so my noble friend was correct in her decision. The strategic export licensing criteria are cumulative, in that before a licence can be issued it must comply with all the criteria. Criterion 5 of the SELC is a separate criterion that allows the Government to weigh national security concerns when considering whether to license an export, and as such provides a discretionary basis on which to refuse exports. There is no scope to balance criterion 2(c) on international humanitarian issues against criterion 5.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
My Lords, is it not a fact that we all know and can agree on that, during the course of the war in Gaza, schools, hospitals and aid convoys have been attacked, and families have been attacked in areas that the Israel Defense Forces has declared as being safe to go to? Rather than looking at the intricacies of legal arguments, is it not an absolutely clear fact, bearing in mind the proportionality principle of international humanitarian law, that it would be an astonishing argument to say that there have been no violations of international humanitarian law?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for raising those issues. We strongly oppose Israel’s resumption of hostilities and urgently want to see a return to a ceasefire. More bloodshed is in no one’s interest. The reported civilian casualties resulting from the recent strikes are appalling and we urge all parties to return urgently to talks, implement the ceasefire agreement in full and work towards a permanent peace. For the sake of the remaining hostages and their loved ones, for the people of Gaza and for the future of two peoples who have suffered so much for so long, we will continue to strive for a return to the path of peace.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, these Benches agreed with the assessment carried out last summer. But, given that there have been considerable and grave breaches since then, why have the Government not reviewed their assessment, to take into consideration the more recent developments and the concerns over breaches? Given that the assessment concerned the risk of grave breaches in Gaza, we have also seen—with almost impunity—the deteriorating situation in the West Bank. Surely the Government should be using the precautionary principle and we should not be trading with the Occupied Territories and should be restricting further activities, because these export licence restrictions represent less than 10% of all licences. Surely the Government must now use the precautionary principle and widen restrictions even further, especially with regard to the West Bank?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, we keep all these decisions under review. The noble Lord is right to say that not all the licences have been suspended. Some of the items are not being used actively in combat; they are being used for humanitarian aid and other issues, to help, for example, the NGOs in those territories, so we did not feel that a full suspension was necessary.
Female Genital Mutilation
(1 day, 13 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Berkeley of Knighton
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the prevalence of female genital mutilation nationally.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
Female genital mutilation is an abhorrent crime. The Home Office concluded a feasibility study in 2024 to examine how to produce robust prevalence estimates for FGM; we are now considering the next steps. We monitor data on FGM cases from the police, the National Health Service and the Ministry of Justice. Of the 2,755 honour-based abuse offences recorded by the police in the year ending March 2024, 111 were FGM related. However, the hidden nature of FGM can make it challenging to quantify.
Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)
I thank the noble Lord for that Answer. Although the biggest battle to eliminate FGM lies in sub-Saharan Africa, as the figures show, we cannot afford to be complacent in this country. Does the Minister agree that, although education is by far the best way to effect culture change, we still need the rule of law as a deterrent? Is the Minister at all concerned that between 2014 and 2024 we have had only two convictions for FGM? Furthermore, will the Home Office possibly agree to a request by Nimco Ali’s Five Foundation—she, of course, is a survivor—to update the 2014 estimate, thus informing policy going forward on ending FGM in the UK and helping signpost where survivors can get medical or psychological support?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord, who has a long history of tackling this issue in legislation and bringing it before the House. He deserves credit for the work he has done to date. He mentioned a couple of key issues. We agree that the prosecution rate needs to be examined. The College of Policing has recently sent out further authorised professional practice notes to police forces and we recently confirmed £13.1 million of funding for a new centre to tackle violence against women and girls, which will help look at a range of issues, of which FGM will be one. He is also right that we need to look at the prevalence of FGM. The feasibility study I mentioned in my initial Answer looks at how we can record and understand better the level of crime being committed. One of the key things we are doing is looking at that study and what needs to be undertaken. I and colleagues will bring forward measures to this House and to the House of Commons in due course, of which support for survivors is key.
Lord Dobbs (Con)
My Lords, I believe that the figures for female genital mutilation reported by the National Health Service are considerably greater than the figures the Minister just gave us. This has been going on for years—not just under this Government, but year after year. Thousands of people are being mutilated in this way, usually children. Yet I think there have been not two but three convictions for this crime in all these years—thousands of cases and three convictions. Does this not have the stench of the Rotherham grooming scandal? Why is it so difficult to get justice in this country?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord. The figures from NHS England, which I have before me, show that between April 2024 to June 2024, 985 new cases of women and girls with FGM were recorded by the NHS, with around 2,175 cases in total during these three months. He is right that there is, in my view, an underreporting of FGM and a need to up the level of prosecution when evidence is submitted. The purpose of the study that was commissioned and undertaken was to look at how we both better record and translate recording into prosecution. He is right that the prosecution level is too low. That is why the College of Policing is issuing guidance to police forces on how they can record information to put forward to the Crown Prosecution Service to ensure that those prosecutions take place.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
My Lords, are there not serious issues in these investigations that the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, quite rightly pointed out? Obviously, many of the mutilations are arranged by parents, which means that the children may have to give evidence against their parents. The people who carry out the cutting are abroad, which means that they are beyond our ability to investigate, although various operations have been carried out at Heathrow to try to get these girls when they are travelling; some have been successful.
I worry that the health service is not recording all the data. I understand why: of course, we want patients to get care if they have had a terrible medical episode after one of these cutting episodes, or if they have subsequent medical problems. We need the data to see how big the problem is. I suspect, as the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, indicated, that it is far bigger than we know. The medical profession, I suspect, has the data for adults as well, because women need treatment later and it will be obvious what happened in earlier life. The Minister mentioned the study, but perhaps he could say a little more about how he intends to get that data.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord. The study we have commissioned is looking at what needs to be done to collect further data. We are looking at establishing a pilot scheme to look at the health service, the police, the Ministry of Justice and other data collection points to ensure we get the proper picture of FGM instances.
The noble Lord is right that many women and children are transported abroad for this. I am sure he will be aware that Operation Limelight is an ongoing operation to target inbound and outbound traffic to and from countries with a high prevalence of FGM. It is both raising awareness about the crime and following up where leads are in place to ensure that people do not leave the country for that trafficking purpose.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord. I disagree with the previous questioner: the NHS data is extraordinarily helpful. It says that, of the known cases, less than 9% are adults and all the rest are children, but by the first time they are seen in the NHS, 98.9% are adults and aged over 18. What is the Home Office doing, along with the NHS, to ensure that word is out in the various communities—not just the Muslim community—that perpetrate FGM? It is important that those two services are joined up.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble Baroness is absolutely right. One of the key things we need to do is ensure that those people who perpetrate FGM and encourage others to do so are held to account. That is why I again point to the prosecution figures and to the information collected by the National Health Service, because, again, someone only goes to the National Health Service when they have already been offended against. Those are both important issues, and the purpose of the policy study we are undertaking is to gather more information. Again, it is important that we have a proper definition of FGM and honour-based abuse. We are currently looking at that with other government departments to come to some conclusions in, I hope, the relatively near future.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, girls born in the UK in communities where FGM is commonplace face severe injury, long-term health complications and sometimes even death because of this abuse. As many have highlighted, it is almost impossible to detect because of the burden on victims to report it. I therefore ask the Minister: what specific steps have the Government taken to reach out to women in those communities where FGM is prevalent? How are Ministers working to safeguard women and girls and to effect a cultural change to ensure that this dangerous and illegal practice is stopped?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord. First of all, this is a crime. As it is a crime, if it is reported it will be acted on, and if evidence is collected the CPS will prosecute. We need to ensure that we increase the level of prosecutions. The noble Lord asked about the help we are giving to people who may be involved. This is not a political point, because his Government supported it as well, but the Home Office has for many years funded Karma Nirvana’s national helpline. We have committed £215,000 for this current year, 2024-25; obviously, we continue to look at that support. It is important that people come forward and report FGM to the health service and the police. If they do so, we need to look at how we can improve those prosecution rates to make sure that offenders are brought to justice.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
My Lords, I will ask directly about the situation with the NHS and reconstructive surgery. At the moment, the NHS will offer labiaplasty to people so that they end up with a Barbie vagina, but women who have had FGM who come before the NHS and want that critical surgery end up having to go to France or Germany to have this done. I am a patron of the Vavengers, which has funded this. Could the Minister please clarify the NHS’s position on this life-changing surgery for women who have been victims of this vile practice?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that question. The specific responsibilities of the National Health Service are wider than my brief on the issues before us today, but it is important that we examine them. I will look at what the current policies are in discussion with Health Minister colleagues, and I will write to the noble Baroness in due course.
Cuba: Political Dialogue and Cooperation Agreement
(1 day, 13 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Woodley
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to ratify the Political Dialogue and Cooperation Agreement with Cuba.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Collins of Highbury) (Lab)
My Lords, the United Kingdom-Cuba Political Dialogue and Cooperation Agreement was signed in November 2023 under the previous Government. It is currently undergoing cross-government consultation and will be laid before Parliament for scrutiny in due course.
Lord Woodley (Lab)
My Lords, of course I warmly welcome that Answer from my noble friend the Minister, but as he will appreciate, every day is a terrible delay in terms of the suffering that it leaves the Cuban people in. Can I therefore press him further on when he anticipates that this agreement will be ratified, bearing in mind that, as he said, the previous Government travelled to Havana to sign it? I urge my noble friend to consider provisional implementation beforehand, in line with what the EU is doing, as a vital means of breaking the isolation of this very peaceful Caribbean island.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I hear what my noble friend says, but we cannot commit to a specific timeline for ratification, as this is a matter for Parliament. However, initial steps to undertake the cross-government consultation are under way. We do not currently have plans for provisional implementation, but I point out to my noble friend that positive collaboration with Cuba is possible without it, as evidenced by the recent visit to Havana by United Kingdom climate experts.
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, I went to Cuba a few years ago, and we got to know a taxi driver who drove us around—he was a charming man. When he relaxed, I said to him, “Would you like to go to America?” He said, “Are you mad? Everybody I know wants to go to America”. The reason is that they were being oppressed by the ghastly Government on that “peaceful island”.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I hear what the noble Lord says. The embargo does negatively affect the living standards of the Cuban people but, more importantly, it impedes the economic and political development of the country. That is why this country, including the previous Government, supports this move.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, unfortunately, I have not a chat with a Cuban taxi driver, but 18 months seems a little long for internal government consultation on an agreement signed by a Minister of the Crown. Part of the agreement, as Minister Rutley said when he signed it, was about the US embargo—and now we have seen the most recent restrictions by the Trump Administration. So, given that our Government want to be closer to both Beijing and Washington, will they actually bring into force the Cuban agreement that we have signed?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I think I have already answered the noble Lord: we will put ratification of this agreement before Parliament, but it is a matter of parliamentary time. Since the election, we have started the cross-Whitehall consultation to ensure that we can properly implement it. But I repeat that positive collaboration with Cuba is possible without partial implementation of the PDCA, and that is really important to understand. Climate change is just one aspect, but other aspects of collaboration can happen without the full implementation.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, the Human Rights Watch World Report 2024 paints a desperate picture of the rights situation on the “peaceful Caribbean island” of the noble Lord, Lord Woodley. It reports, among other things:
“Cubans who criticize the government risk criminal prosecution. They are not guaranteed due process”,
and:
“Authorities routinely block access to many news websites within Cuba”.
When I visited, I did not speak to any taxi drivers but getting access to the internet at all was incredibly difficult and expensive. Therefore, how are the Government utilising the provisions under the PDCA to promote progress on human rights in Cuba?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I did not expect to have to explain this to the noble Lord, but the previous Government’s rationale for implementation was to promote economic and political development. Certainly, I will not defend the attacks on human rights—I am the Minister for Human Rights—but I welcome the fact that, on 14 January, 553 prisoners, including political prisoners, were liberated. We remain concerned about those continuing to serve time, and we have made representations about that. We certainly urge Cuba to ensure that all those prisoners have the right to a fair trial, without condition. But I repeat that the engagement that we have undertaken, and what the previous Government did, had a purpose: to see economic and political development. That is the way to make progress.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, in welcoming what the Minister—in his capacity as the Minister for Human Rights, a task he carries out with great diligence —has just said about human rights violations in Cuba, I ask him: can he share with the House the current numbers of people who are imprisoned in Cuba because of their political views? Can he share the violations that have been carried out under Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights—the right to believe, not to believe or to change belief—and the massive numbers of violations and imprisonments that occur in Cuba under that clause?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I shall not repeat the figures from the announcement about the recent release, but I reassure the noble Lord that the United Kingdom Government, as did the previous Government, have called for the immediate release of all political prisoners, without condition, and that will remain our position. We are absolutely determined to advance political development in Cuba, and we will focus on ensuring that human rights are respected.
Lord Sahota (Lab)
My Lords, as our Government are on good terms with the President of America these days, will they ask the President of America for Americans to leave Guantanamo Bay, which is something that the Cuban Government have wanted them to do for the last 60 years—but they would not leave?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
That is a base that was agreed and remains a sovereign base for the US. I am certainly not going to make any commitments in that regard. Our purpose as a Government remains to have good relationships with all Governments, because the way to a peaceful world is to ensure that we maintain good relationships with all Governments—particularly with our longest-standing ally, the United States. They remain important in terms of keeping global peace.
Lord Balfe (Con)
I draw attention to the fact that during the last 62 years this embargo has actually failed to remove the Government of Cuba, which it was meant to do. It has been a complete failure, but it has made it more difficult for British business to intervene and get orders there. What steps is the Minister going to take to mitigate the challenges of the embargo, with things as they stand at the moment, to enable UK businesses to engage more with Cuba and sell more products to Cuba?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I hear the noble Lord. The United Kingdom, under all Governments, has opposed the US embargo against Cuba, which negatively affects living standards, as I said, and impedes economic and political development. Since 1996, the United Kingdom has consistently voted in support of the annual United Nations General Assembly resolution calling for an end to the embargo. Most recently, we did so on 29 October 2024.
The noble Lord is right. Titles III and IV of the US Helms-Burton Act prevent and restrict British companies, among others, from conducting legitimate and lawful business in Cuba. We have made representations in that regard, and we are absolutely concerned about the ongoing impact on the economic development of British companies and companies within Cuba.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, Cuba, a comparatively poor country, has 9.31 doctors per 1,000 people and exports medical professionals. The UK has 3.2 doctors per 1,000 people, well below the EU average, and struggles to produce doctors; it has imported 32% of its doctors. On the assumption that we can all learn from other countries, will the Government study Cuba’s health system and seek its help in addressing doctor shortages in the UK?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I reassure my noble friend that we are absolutely committed to learning from best practice. One thing I have learned as Minister for Africa is how we can learn from many African countries—because they have focused on primary healthcare and prevention. I think it is really important that we look at best practice everywhere and see how we can adopt it.
Strategic Priorities Statement: Defence
(1 day, 13 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Jackson of Peterborough
To ask His Majesty’s Government why the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not specifically include the defence industry among the priority sectors in her Statement of Strategic Priorities to the National Wealth Fund, published on 19 March.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Livermore) (Lab)
My Lords, consistent with the Government’s manifesto, the National Wealth Fund supports the growth and clean energy missions, prioritising investment in advanced manufacturing, digital technologies, clean energy and transport. Recognising the need to adapt to a rapidly changing world, the statement of strategic priorities set out that the National Wealth Fund will also invest in dual-use technologies which support the UK’s defence and security, and will support the wider industrial strategy, including in defence.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, the EU has apparently taken the decision to shut the UK out of its €150 billion defence fund unless we acquiesce on a new fishing agreement. Clearly, the Macron Administration and the EU seem to care more about fish than our collective defence. In addition, domestic pension funds like NEST and the People’s Pension have refused to invest in defence firms on so-called ethical grounds. Given these acute challenges, does the Minister agree that the Chancellor’s decision further weakens and undermines a crucial sector? Will he implore his ministerial colleagues to reconsider their priorities so that there is proper consistency in government?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his question, but I am not sure he listened to the first Answer I gave. I very clearly said that the statement of strategic priorities sets out how the National Wealth Fund will invest in defence. It says very clearly that it should invest in
“dual-use technologies and … support supply chain resilience across these priority sectors, to better support the UK’s defence and security”.
It also says that the National Wealth Fund
“should consider the role it can play in supporting the delivery of the wider Industrial Strategy, including in defence”.
That wider industrial strategy absolutely achieves many of the things the noble Lord is talking about. The strategic aim of the defence industrial strategy is to make sure that the imperatives of national security and a high-growth economy are fully aligned.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, for bringing the attention of your Lordships’ House to this issue and once again encouraging me properly to research a subject. On 19 March, the Chancellor wrote to the CEO of the National Wealth Fund to communicate the Government’s strategic priorities for the fund. That latter document on three occasions explicitly identifies defence as a priority under Investment Principle 2. It also goes on to enjoin the CEO to refer, in assigning priorities, to the Government’s industrial strategy Green Paper, which in turn refers to the importance of the UK’s defence sector no fewer than 38 times. The former Conservative Business Secretary, Greg Clark, described that Green Paper as a serious and substantial document and applauded it for singling out eight sectors, including defence, as priorities. Does the Minister agree with me that it is reasonable to expect the CEO of the fund to read beyond the press release and to examine in depth the correspondence and references to which his attention has been drawn?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am very grateful to my noble friend for his question. He far more eloquently than me set out what I was attempting to say in my previous answer. He draws attention to the importance of reading the documents that are in your Question before tabling your Question.
Lord Stirrup (CB)
My Lords, has the Minister seen the recent piece in the Financial Times setting out the challenges posed to defence companies by the high level of friction within Europe-wide supply chains? This is not just a Brexit issue. Brussels has criticised the overregulation of intra-EU transfer of defence-related products. Does the Minister agree that we and our European partners need to address this issue as a matter of urgency if our defence industry is to develop the high degree of efficiency that is so necessary in the light of the serious challenges we face?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I very much agree with the noble and gallant Lord. I hope those issues will be addressed through the Prime Minister’s work with the European Union on defence and security co-operation, and in the defence industrial strategy and the wider EU reset.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, it is clearly welcome that the strategy includes defence. What support are His Majesty’s Government planning to give to small and medium-sized enterprises working in dual-use technology? Are His Majesty’s Government thinking about letting contracts in the short to medium term, so that, as we build up our defence expenditure towards 2.5%, the companies have the certainty of knowing that there will be contracts?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her question. The issues she raises will be addressed exactly by the defence industrial strategy. One of its key objectives, for example, is procurement—increasing its pace and opening it up to small and medium-sized enterprises, as she said. I hope that there will be more for her to hear in tomorrow’s Spring Statement.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, can the Minister confirm that any defence spending channelled through the National Wealth Fund will not be constrained by the Government’s fiscal rules, specifically the investment rule, as those investments will be scored as net financial assets under the new measure of debt introduced by the Chancellor?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I can absolutely confirm that all National Wealth Fund spending will be within the fiscal rules.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, is the Minister perplexed, like me, by the negativity coming from the Benches opposite? As well as many tens of billions of pounds in the National Wealth Fund, our Government have given billions to infected blood compensation, and next month we will get the triple lock on pensions. Those are three tremendous steps forward. Can the Minister urge the Chancellor to be just a little more upbeat tomorrow?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I will absolutely pass that on to the Chancellor.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, defence is the single most important activity of the state, and it is therefore unfortunate that many ESG funds have excluded investment in defence stocks, hitting our innovative UK companies. Does the Minister agree that the rebranded National Wealth Fund must lead the way more clearly and work with private sector funds to spur significant investment in the UK defence sector, as well as in other priority areas?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I do agree with that, because the noble Baroness described exactly what the National Wealth Fund is there to do: to work closely with the private sector to catalyse more private sector investment in industries that we consider to be priority sectors. As the rest of this Question has shown, defence is very much one of those priority sectors.2
Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford (Con)
My Lords, for the National Wealth Fund to crowd in capital at the scale envisaged, it must be empowered to deploy capital against higher levels of risk appetite and against a wide range of products and financial investments. Moreover, it will need to operate at market pace. Whatever the strengths of the Treasury, historically it has not been renowned for its risk appetite or pace. What steps does the Treasury intend to take to ensure that the National Wealth Fund is empowered to act, not only with the appropriate risk appetite but with the necessary pace, to attract private sector investment?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her question. I do not agree with her criticism of the Treasury, but I agree with what she said about risk appetite. That is exactly why, when the Chancellor wrote to the National Wealth Fund, she specifically said that the
“economic capital limit will … be increased from £4.5 billion to £7 billion, allowing”
the National Wealth Fund to “take on greater risk”, and giving greater “flexibility over its investments” to
“support more projects that struggle to access private finance”.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister welcome this Question from the Opposition? Does it not once again demonstrate the problems of Brexit? We hear every week about differences, and today they are complaining about access to aviation and defence. Is it not time that they changed their position and stopped asking questions that give us an advantage?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am very happy to agree with my noble friend’s assessment of the damage that Brexit has done to our economy.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, many of our European partners, particularly Poland, are seeking to diversify satellite technology to overcome the reliance on certain technologies in the context of increased defence expenditure. Surely that would also be the United Kingdom’s ambition. Can the Minister confirm that, as we increase our defence expenditure—which I welcome—there is now the opportunity to work much closer with our European allies, rather than using part of that increased expenditure on Starlink, which is owned by Elon Musk?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am very happy to say that, as the noble Lord knows, this Government plan increase defence expenditure to 2.5% by the end of the Parliament. However, it is not for me to set out today exactly how that will be spent.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
The Minister referred in his first Answer to the role of Great British Energy in delivering clean energy. How will the Government achieve that if the budget for GB Energy is reduced in the forthcoming spending review?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
The noble Baroness said “if”, and I do not in any way accept that. She should wait for the spending review to see what will happen.
Arrangement of Business
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, today, the Commons is considering the amendments made by the House last week to the non-domestic rating Bill. As ping-pong on that Bill will be quick, I thought it would be helpful to the House if I set out arrangements for the Bill tomorrow.
The Bill will return from the Commons this evening. Members can table Motions from the return of the Bill until 11 am tomorrow. Members who want to table amendments are strongly encouraged to speak to the clerks in the Public Bill Office as soon as possible, and well before the deadline. The House will consider the Bill tomorrow afternoon, once all necessary documents are ready. I will update the House tomorrow on the precise timings of ping-pong.
House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill
Tuesday 25th March 2025
(1 day, 13 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-IV Fourth marshalled list for Committee - (21 Mar 2025)
Lord Inglewood
“Review: changes to the composition of the House of Lords in the future(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, review the impact of this Act and any subsequent legislation which alters the composition of the House of Lords on the process by which changes are made in the future to—(a) appointments to the House of Lords;(b) the composition of the House of Lords.(2) The Secretary of State must lay before each House of Parliament the report of the review within one year of the day on which this Act is passed.(3) Thereafter, the Secretary of State must initiate a review of the subject matter in subsection (1) within the six months after any future General Election and must lay before each House of Parliament the report of the review within one year of the day on which the General Election took place.”
Lord Inglewood (CB)
My Lords, this is a probing amendment. What I am suggesting is a stalking horse, so the detail is not important other than to engender discussion and debate. It is the reasons which lie behind it that matter. Dr Johnson, that quintessential Englishman, was clear when he said:
“Depend upon it, sir, when a man knows he is to be hanged in a fortnight, it concentrates his mind wonderfully”.
And so I have been thinking.
Looking back to the last time the House considered the matters we are discussing now, some 25 years ago, I find that some things are similar but others are not. In particular, the wider political context is vastly changed. At that time, we were all basking in the glow of the collapse of the Berlin Wall and its political and emotional consequences. Now, sadly, it is all very different. Since those heady days, a great shadow has fallen across the globe. Democracy, freedom and the rule of law have lost at least some of their appeal and popularity, and with it some of their resonance and potency. They have been replaced all around the world by new personalities, new policies, and new political approaches and priorities which are greatly at variance with our national traditions and values. The concept of “good chaps” from the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, then generally accepted across the political spectrum here in this country, is at best questioned and at worst dismissed in some quarters.
As I thought about the implications of the Bill in a wider context against this background, it became apparent to me how potentially fragile some of our constitutional arrangements might be. Members of the Committee should forget about the Salisbury/Addison convention and rather focus on the Parliament Acts. In raw political terms, an unscrupulous and determined Government with a big majority of seats in the House of Commons—which we know does not necessarily require as huge a number of votes in the country as one might expect, under the rules of our existing electoral system— could, in pretty short order, completely alter the entire composition of the second Chamber or even abolish it entirely, as happened under the Commonwealth.
I know from my time on the Constitutional Affairs Committee in the European Parliament that many countries deal with this kind of possibility through differential systems of voting, referenda and/or super- majorities as forms of checks and balances. We know that we do not do things quite like that here, but we have a provision in the Parliament Acts which excludes from their scope proposals to extend the life of Parliament. For the future, once this Bill will have become law, it seems sensible to me to envisage an amendment which would extend this rule to proposals to change the composition of the second Chamber and/or to abolish it. Under this approach, the House of Lords itself would become the check and balance of last resort.
I tried to table such an amendment, but it was ruled out of scope by the clerks, and this is the best I was allowed to table, the wording of which, on my own admission, is inadequate and is merely a peg upon which this wider important topic can be discussed. I hasten to add that I have done this for exactly the same reason that I insure my house against fire. It is not that I am expecting my house to burn down—on the contrary—but were it to do so, the consequences would be dire and very difficult to deal with without having taken out an insurance policy previously.
Finally, let us remember that the phrase “It just couldn’t happen here” is weasel words and is frequently the first step on the road to political disaster. I may well be accused of setting a hare running. I hope I have, and I hope it will run and run.
The Earl of Devon (CB)
My Lords, I shall speak to three amendments in this group. Amendments 91 and 94, in my name, seek to address gender equality in hereditary peerages once Clause 2 of this Bill ends for ever your Lordships’ ancient jurisdiction to determine peerage claims. Amendment 97 considers whether the name “the House of Lords”, with its inherently gendered, privileged and feudal connotations, remains appropriate once the gendered, privileged and feudal hereditary Lords have left. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hannan of Kingsclere, and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Llanfaes, who have added their names to Amendment 97.
Equality of succession to hereditary peerages is an issue I care about deeply. I had hoped we might change the law to remove this discriminatory patriarchal anomaly while I was here, but that now appears unlikely, given this Bill. The best we can do is require the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, to which peerage claim jurisdiction now moves, to exercise its functions in a non-discriminatory manner and to consult on the challenges posed thereby.
Throughout the debate on the hereditary peerage, we have been assailed for our gender. Since the Countess of Mar departed, we have indeed all been male, and it is right that we should not reserve seats in Parliament for a predominately male cohort. However, the equitable solution is not to abolish us due to our gender but to change succession laws to alter our gender. It is discriminatory to critique us for a protected characteristic over which we have no control while refusing to allow us to change the law. These amendments are our last hope of dragging the hereditary peerage into modern times and establishing equality at the heart of British society. Once we leave your Lordships’ House, I think no one will care.
Here, I note my interest as the Earl of Devon. I am the 37th man to have held that title. There has been one woman, Countess Isabella, the last Queen of the Wight—an example of powerful feudal female leadership. The title was most recently restored in Tudor times, since when it passes exclusively to all heirs male. My grandfather, my father and I each grew up as the only brother among multiple sisters, poster boys for male primogeniture. The youngest of four, I was uncomfortable that my gender charted my life. That my mother “would have gone to any lengths” to have a son was a phrase that echoed somewhat awkwardly through my childhood, particularly given the prominence in our home of the portrait of the ninth Earl with his 13 sisters, painted in 1779. There are no male spares in the Courtenay family tree, which is so verdant with female branches. “Kind hearts and Coronets”, we are not.
It is not just the personal embarrassment of male preferment that motivates me but the earldom itself. It was granted to Baldwin in 1142 when he was the first Norman baron to raise his standard over Exeter Castle in support of the Empress Matilda’s claim to the Throne of England. She was usurped by her cousin Stephen on the death of her father, Henry I, because Stephen and others felt that Matilda, being female, could not rule. Baldwin disagreed. From inception, therefore, the earldom of Devon championed female leadership. Lost and recovered some five times during the Middle Ages, the earldom was most recently restored in 1553 by our second female sovereign, Queen Mary I, because once again the family championed her right as a woman to rule England upon the death of her father, Henry VIII. We had been beheaded for these radical views in 1538, but through Queen Mary’s good graces the family recovered and have since kept our heads sufficient for me to be here now to continue that fight—and perhaps risk a further beheading.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, there can be no doubt from the very witty speech by the noble Earl, Lord Devon, that he is a hereditary Peer—but it is not always clear. Did we know when the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, spoke? Do we know when others speak? I would have thought that every hereditary Peer would be obliged to declare that interest at the beginning of their speech. If I was in the other place, I could ask the Speaker to rule on that, but that does not apply here. I hope the Leader of the House might indicate in her reply that it would be helpful not just for the House but for the public outside to know whether the Member speaking has a vested interest.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, that is an interesting concept, but I do not think there is a vested interest of mine in this set of amendments. I very much support what the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, said. I think this is a good direction to go down. Of course, I support the first two amendments from the noble Earl, Lord Devon. I was a supporter of Lord Diamond on those Benches in the days of John Major’s Government, when he tried twice to abolish the male exclusiveness of the hereditary peerage. I have promoted Bills to that effect, and it has never appealed to the Government of the day.
However, I rather like the noble Earl’s formulation, which puts a duty on the Privy Council to sort things out. I think leaving bits of sex discrimination lying around in prominent places matters. It is only a label, but I do not think it should be allowed to continue. It is not that hard to make a change, as the noble Earl shows, and I very much hope that the Government will feel inclined to consign one of the last bits of formal sex discrimination in our constitutional arrangements to the dustbin.
Amendment 62, like the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, is a device to get my proposed new subsections (2)(a) and (2)(b) discussed. My interest in participating in the Bill is to make sure that, if we can, we use it to make sure that, going forward, the House without us will be in a better place and able to function better than it does now.
The first barrier that needs to be removed is that the Government should not only let us but positively encourage us to innovate and improve. We ought to have that motivation too. Things stay the same and change only slowly in this place, but we need to do better. We are sure of the effectiveness of our scrutiny when it comes to legislation, but I have never seen it really examined. Where are the research reports and the independent investigations? Where are the committees looking into this and proposing how things might be done better? We ought to be in a condition of constant improvement.
To my mind, the same applies to our interface with the public. For a long time, we have been limited by the fact that it is only us and that there are no staff. What we can do is throttled by that and by the need to work in this Chamber, but artificial intelligence is in the process of changing that and making it possible for someone in our position to engage with a great deal more information and conversation than was ever possible in the past. It also makes it much easier for people outside this Chamber to have a connection with and understanding of us and what we are doing, in a way we can join in with, without overwhelming ourselves. We ought as a House to be determined to give the public the benefit of these technological changes.
I am not particularly attached to the mechanism in my proposed new clause. It will take some rethinking before Report to produce something that gives the House the initiative, but also the duty, to improve, that allows it to push forward and that encourages the Government to support that. Obviously, big changes need a Commons veto, but we can move so that most of this goes via Standing Orders, while the bits that cannot should go via secondary legislation. We would need the approval of the Commons but would not need to go through the rigmarole of a Bill. House of Lords Bills happen very occasionally, but our process of improvement ought to be constant.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I am standing up to speak before the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, because he is very fluent and I do not want to embarrass myself by following him. I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, that I am not a hereditary Peer, but he knows that because I am a woman.
I wholeheartedly support Amendments 91 and 94 from the noble Earl, Lord Devon. They make absolute sense and it would be a good move for the Government to take them forward as soon as they can, even if it is not in this Bill. In a sense, this are trivial—it does not affect many people—but, at the same time, it is an indicator of a lack of balance and equality in our society.
On the noble Earl’s Amendment 97, I really could not care less what we are, what we call ourselves and how we look. This whole architecture is Victorian kitsch. It is falling to pieces and it is time that we renovated. It is time that we sat not two sword lengths apart but in a circle like a modern second chamber. But I very much support Amendments 91 and 94.
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, I rise to support my noble friend on Amendments 91 and 94 and to extend them a bit. Titles are not trivial. I have been involved in this in a certain way, which I am coming to, for more than 10 years. Titles are property and they go back to feudal times. We cannot have two laws, one of total equality for people outside this House and another for those who are affected by the ability to sit and be addressed in this House. We all take a rather shallow course called Valuing Everyone; let us start, indeed, by valuing everyone.
This is what I want to move on to: I speak for hundreds of Dames who have husbands and dozens of noble Baronesses who have spouses. It is not a trivial matter that our spouses do not share our titles, whereas it works the other way around. I was in correspondence with Buckingham Palace about this a long time ago, having tried in this House. The Palace told me it was a matter of property and a very serious matter, and that only if Parliament willed it could titles be changed so there would be equality.
So, once more, I put in a plea. If someone is a Lord, of course their wife is a Lady, though I wonder why; it certainly ought to work the other way round if that is how it is. Likewise for Dames, because we cannot exempt ourselves from the equality that applies outside and not apply it in this House. Unfortunately, the last time I tried, I was undermined by the late, lamented Lady Trumpington, who told the House that, when she and her husband, whose name was Dr Barker, checked in to a hotel together, it gave them a frisson.
Baroness Deech (CB)
This brought the House down—as it has done again today—and I lost my point. But it is a serious one: if we are going to share titles, although I am not sure that we should, it should work both ways.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
My Lords, what a pleasure it is to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, and, indeed, one half of our Green Party. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and I have known each other since we met on the slopes of Mount Sinai nearly 40 years ago. She knows how fond I am of her—she supplies my family with her lovely homemade jam—but, as always, I completely disagree.
She cared very much about the gendered amendments but not about the name of the House; I am exactly the other way around. It seems to me utterly bizarre that the Government should have a view on succession to titles. I get the argument of republicanism and I get that it is an irrational thing to have younger brothers inheriting before older sisters. But it is equally irrational to have a prejudice in favour of first-born children rather than younger children. In fact, the whole thing is irrational and cannot be justified wholly on logical grounds. If you start pulling at that thread, you very quickly end up with a French Revolution-style abolition of the entire shebang. If we want to do that, fine, but the idea that you can keep the titles but apply a Guardian public sector equality test to them seems to me extremely strange.
I speak in support of Amendment 97, standing in my name and that of the noble Earl, Lord Devon. I think I said at Second Reading that even the architecture of this Chamber is a link back to the old House of Lords: that it was in the minds of Pugin and Barry to recreate the idea of a throne room and a monarch taking the counsel of his bishops and barons. There is, I think, a thread in the make-up of this House that connects us back, certainly to the earliest House of Lords in the reign of Edward III and probably to the Magnum Concilium of which the noble Earl spoke; or, before that, even to the pre-Conquest witans—I think a Saxon king taking the counsel of his thanes and aldermen would have been doing something not unrecognisable to a Chamber that contains a partly hereditary element.
That thread is being snapped; the link is being sundered. It is being sheared in two, as the Fates were said to do with the thread of a man’s life, and we are being cut off from a part of our history and our constitutional inheritance. I am Tory enough to regret that, but I am Whig enough to recognise that there is something irrational about having an inherited element of a legislature. I wish we were replacing it with something better, as was originally the deal promised in 1998, but we have lost that argument and it is an argument for a different time.
I come back to the bizarre anomaly of having a House of Lords that does not contain any “lords”—as the word would have been understood for the previous 1,000 years. That seems a case of having our cake and eating it. If there are no lords of the traditional, recognised, aristocratic variety then by what virtue and on what basis do we continue to appropriate the name?
This question has been faced before. During the Cromwellian interregnum, the Lord Protector was always trying to bring the old aristocracy back into government. He wanted to sustain the legitimacy of his rule by returning to bicameralism. His problem was that none of the lords would agree to serve. If memory serves, there was one—the sixth Baron Eure, who was a parliamentary soldier who inherited his title when the fifth Baron Eure, who was a distant cousin of his and a royalist soldier, was killed on the battlefield at Marston Moor. He was the only lord, in the old sense, to serve in what came to be known, with spectacular banality, as the “other House”—hence the convention of how the two Chambers refer to one another that we have to this day.
If you do not have any lords, in the Cromwellian sense, do you not face exactly the same dilemma? We can probably do better than “the other House” as a title—we could call ourselves a senate—but it seems utterly extraordinary that we should pretend to the authority and legitimacy that comes from this very old institution when we have deliberately, and in contravention of promises made at the ballot box, torn that thread in two.
I would like an answer to this when Ministers come to respond. Let us please hear their defence of titles.
Baroness Hayman (CB)
My Lords, I have resisted so far the temptation to participate in the debate on the Bill. I shall keep to that, in the sense that I will resist the temptation to follow the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, on the byways of nomenclature for the House itself.
However, I urge the Government Front Bench to think seriously about and respond positively to two issues raised by the noble Earl, Lord Devon. The first is the inappropriateness of this House in any way involving itself in the determination of peerage claims. This was an argument that I made, and lost, before the turn of the century, but I still agree with what I said then and I believe that it would be far better for the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council to take on that responsibility.
Secondly, we need to right the implicit wrong in the hereditary peerage: the sex discrimination against generations of women who should have inherited not only the title but the estate—which in many ways is much more important. I hope the Government will give us some hope that they will make progress on that.
I talked about inheriting the title. The noble Baroness, Lady Deech, pointed out the other anomaly of the husbands and wives of baronesses and barons. We should not right that wrong by creating another anomaly of giving someone else a title because of their sexual relationship with another person who has a title. That does not seem to make a great deal of sense or to be progressive in any way. I would just stop anyone giving their partner a title because of something that they have inherited or achieved.
The Earl of Erroll (CB)
My Lords, I want to say to the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, that while I am a hereditary Peer, I am not here to try to stay here; whatever happens, happens. The reason that I and the other 91—92 in all—stayed here was to ensure the further democratic and proper reform of the House of Lords. That was the promise given; not that we would be turfed out, 20 or 25 years later. The whole point is that the Government are trying to do one bit, and I bet we will not see more. That is why Amendment 55 is essential, to try to start putting a timetable on reform happening. Otherwise, after this, nothing will happen; we will end up with a House with no democratic legitimacy, and that will be a problem. I therefore very much support Amendment 55.
I am here because my mother was here before me. She was one of the first five Peeresses to sit here when they allowed Peeresses to sit; she was the Countess of Erroll, in her own right. It was quite amusing, as my mother and father used to have trouble getting tickets for the train. If they were travelling from Perth, where they were known, they could travel down in the same compartment as the Countess of Erroll and Captain Iain Moncreiffe, as he was when they were first married. If they booked from London, they had to go up as Mr and Mrs Moncreiffe, or otherwise that would not be allowed—they did not allow that sort of behaviour. In fact, Claridge’s would not give them a room on the night of their honeymoon for the same reason, so this has been a perpetual problem.
Interestingly, there was always that issue of equality. My mother was also Lord High Constable of Scotland, as that has been in the family since about 1314. As such, at the Coronation, when the Queen went up to receive the Honours of Scotland, my mother was not allowed to carry the sword, as it was not thought suitable for a woman to do that. The Earl of Home carried it as her deputy, but she stood next to the Queen as the Queen received the Honours of Scotland. She had to be there to supervise and to make sure that it was done properly. As a woman, there was no bar to her holding what was traditionally thought of as a male position, and there is no reason why there should be in the future.
I heavily support the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Devon, which I think are very sensible. We have got to move forward. There comes a point when it gets too difficult.
I want to say a little about how things get taken over. My father always told me that the communists took over the colour red, not as the people’s blood but because the nobles in Russia, as everywhere, used red as their colour; it is the colour of nobility. What they were doing was usurping the nobles, and taking over their mantle and structure. That is why the communists wave a red flag.
Personally, I am looking forward to future reform of this House, to bring it forward into the 21st century and onwards, in a proper form, not just as a whole lot of people appointed by one person who may be so-called democratically elected but not necessarily by the majority of the country. It is wrong.
Lord Northbrook (Con)
My Lords, I support the amendment in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Devon. I declare two interests: first, as a hereditary Peer, and, secondly, as having three daughters and no son.
I promoted the Succession to Peerages and Baronetcies Bill, which said that daughters should be able to inherit the title when there were no sons. This upset the House; the mood was that the eldest child should be enabled to inherit titles regardless of sex, as per the Royal Family. My concerns are over existing expectations, as mentioned by the noble Earl, and matters such as long-established family trusts. I am not sure about children born to unmarried parents—this might lead to some title-hunters. But I like his amendment on this, which gives some flexibility.
As regards the name of the House, I feel it should perhaps be called the Senate, and that we should go with the Wakeham commission’s idea of LPs—lords or ladies of Parliament—or senators.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, I shall make one point about the amendment in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Devon. Until the Law Lords were removed from the House, these peerage claims were decided by a committee on which the Law Lords sat. Members of the House who were not Lords were not allowed to vote in those committees, so he would in effect be restoring the position to what it always used to be.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, I support Amendments 55 and 62 as the first modest steps to build in safeguards as to the future composition of this House. The speech by the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, reminded me of the circumstances in which and the speed with which the Weimar Republic was replaced by a bullying minority Government. I say that not—and I really mean this—to cast aspersions on the party opposite or the present Government, but because we can take nothing for granted in constitutional matters. Who knows who will be in office in five or 10 years’ time, when there may be difficult economic circumstances and big residual problems from the waves of immigration we have had, and when the mood in the country may be much worse than it is now? Without safeguards, a populist Government—supported by, say, 34% of the electorate—in such difficult economic times and under such pressures might seek to pack this House and drive through dangerous legislation if there are no proper safeguards over its constitution and who is put here. Beware a House of nodding donkeys.
I commend these two amendments as a first step to securing our parliamentary democracy and the constitution that we love. Those who believe in a constitutional democracy and the rule of law must take nothing for granted.
Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (PC)
My Lords, I support Amendment 97, which I have signed, in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Devon. The amendment invites consideration of the suitability of the name “House of Lords” after the removal of the hereditary Peers from Parliament. “Lords” is a word associated with aristocracy and a class-based society that stems from our feudal system. The name of this House and the use of titles bridges a further gap between citizens and Parliament.
If we are removing the rights of hereditary Peers to sit in the House—this Bill does that, and I support doing so—the name of the second Chamber should reflect that. When further reform takes place, the name of the second Chamber should also reflect the make-up and composition of that Chamber. As of March 2025, the Inter-Parliamentary Union database contained details of 187 active parliaments worldwide, 81 of them being bicameral. Names of second Chambers worldwide include “Senate”, “National Council”, “House of Councillors”, “National Council of Regions and Districts”—and then us, the “House of Lords”. “Senate” is the most popular, with 54 countries choosing that name for their second Chamber. The Labour Party’s own work in the past favoured the name “The Council of Regions and Nations”.
The name “House of Lords” is also discriminatory with regard to gender. Although the name does not reflect the make-up of the Chamber, with women being allowed to be Peers, it feeds into a narrative that places of power are reserved for men—specifically, men of important social status. This comes back to my other argument about achieving further reform that would give people from every kind of background and walk of life the opportunity to be seated in a second Chamber. While renaming alone would not address deeper concerns about democratic legitimacy and accountability, it could serve as a symbolic and meaningful step towards broader constitutional reform. That is why I urge the House to support Amendment 97.
Lord Wrottesley (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 62 in the name of my noble friend Lord Lucas. I shall make a few comments in support of his amendment, and I am grateful to him for tabling it. I declare an interest: I am an excepted—or, as the noble Earl, Lord Devon, calls us, elected—hereditary.
I shall build on the analysis that my noble friend Lord Blencathra presented earlier in Committee. As I mentioned at Second Reading, I feel that the issue of the composition of this House needs serious consideration. Few, I expect, would disagree, but what has always troubled me in our discussions is that far too often, measures in the Bill may have been drafted and defended based on partisan grounds, not principle.
I believe that this House deserves better. That is why I wholeheartedly support a review of the composition of the House of Lords. My understanding, based on what the Leader of the House has said during the passage of the Bill thus far, is that the Labour Party believes that, currently, it is not represented fairly in this House. I would like to look at the numbers to see whether the Labour Party’s claim about the House being weighted against it stands up to scrutiny. At Second Reading, I suggested that the House’s composition should be based on a weighted average of the composition of the parties in the other place over 25 years, which is the period I suggested as a term limit and is also in line with what is widely recognised as a generation. Perhaps a review, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, suggests, could consider this as a metric.
Some simple maths: since the Life Peerages Act 1958, the Conservatives have been in government for 42 years, and Labour for 24 years, which breaks down as 64% and 36% respectively. Over the same period, the parties appointed 924 and 745 Peers respectively—incidentally, 374 were appointed by Sir Tony Blair, after the hereditary principle was done away with—which breaks down as 55% and 45%. So in fact, Labour Governments have appointed far more Peers, proportionately, in their years in power.
Even if we use the current composition of the House, the Conservatives hold 34% of the seats, and when the hereditaries are expelled this will drop to 31%. Meanwhile, the proportion of seats held by Labour will rise from 25% to 28%. Some noble Lords opposite may consider many of the Cross-Benchers to be conservative with a small “c”, but the reality is that they are very much of an independent mind. You just have to ask the last Government, who rarely won votes when, more often than not, the Cross-Benchers were massed against them. Under these proposals the proportion of Cross-Benchers will also drop slightly, from 22% to 20%.
Through this analysis, which is pretty simple maths, really, under current plans the Labour Party is with one hand demanding balance and with the other tipping the scales. By expelling the hereditaries, this Labour Government will be redressing the balance—in their favour. But this does not seem like rebalancing; it seems more like gerrymandering, as we have heard before in Committee. By getting rid of 85 Peers who are in opposition to them—all the non-Labour hereditary Peers—they will once again skew the numbers even further in their direction, and who is to say they will not take other measures to achieve more? Far from modernising and improving our institution, this would seem little more than a way to consolidate power. It is the constitutional equivalent of bulldozing down one of the walls in our great Chamber and insisting that the roof will stay up. What wall, what group of Peers, will be demolished next under this Labour Government’s plans? That is the main issue here: no one really knows what is coming next. No one will tell us.
My noble friend Lord Lucas’s amendment is a sound one: let us please carefully review who is here, who will remain here and whom they represent. We must be sure that this evolution—maybe the revolution the Labour Government speak of—in our House and our democracy does not descend, as I fear it might, into an erosion of our great House. We must protect this place from plans which I believe are designed deliberately to diminish this place, a place that has supported our democracy for centuries.
With all that is going on in the world today, we must not let any Government, now or in future, use the guise of constitutional reform or modernisation to remove dissenting voices. We know it is too late for all, or the majority, of us hereditary Peers—to paraphrase Lord Byron, I am not long for this House. But I believe that a proper review by those who understand this place could offer some protection against what seems to be the Labour Party’s modus operandi, which is— I hate to say this, having just paraphrased one of our greatest poets, but, to quote a Taylor Swift song—“Death By A Thousand Cuts”.
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, these amendments relate to the review of appointments, the composition of the House, claims to peerages within it and, indeed, its very name. I thank all noble Lords for their thoughtful contributions to this debate.
At the heart of all these amendments lies a common impulse: a desire to reflect, scrutinise and reassess. That instinct is of course the defining virtue of this House. We are not a body that accepts institutions, policies or conventions unquestioningly. We test, examine and refine: that is our duty. But scrutiny should lead to improvement, not distraction. We should consider these amendments within the context of the broader debate about the future of your Lordships’ House.
First, I turn to the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, which calls for an impact assessment on appointments and the overall composition of the House. We acknowledge that the composition of the House is an ongoing topic of debate. It is after all crucial that the House reflects a range of voices and expertise to represent the diverse concerns of the nation. In this sense, we understand the desire for a more comprehensive review of the effectiveness and composition of the House.
However, it is also important not to fetter the right of political leaders to appoint those who demonstrate true merit in their opinions and expertise. The right of political leaders to appoint individuals based on their judgment remains a cornerstone of a functioning, flexible system. Ultimately, it is the diversity of thought and expertise, not just demographics, that should guide appointments.
I would be interested to hear from the noble and learned Lord, the Attorney-General, how the Government see the balance between reflecting these different perspectives and maintaining the autonomy of political leaders in making appointments.
The noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, made a valid point that the Prime Minister has great powers of patronage to determine the legislature, and that the removal of hereditary Peers will place even greater powers of patronage in the Prime Minister’s hands. At Second Reading—my noble friend Lord Wrottesley has just raised this—I made the point:
“Judged by legal status alone, none of us can be secure that our future in this place will not be cut short at the whim of the Executive”.—[Official Report, 11/12/24; col. 1858.]
I look forward to hearing the views of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hermer, on this subject.
The amendment from my noble friend Lord Lucas seeks a review of the overall composition of the House. Again, this is a fair question to pose. Should we not periodically take stock of who sits here, how they are appointed and what the right balance should be? It has commanded support from several noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Sandhurst, to give added protection. But let us examine this more closely. If we were to conduct such a review, what would it be for? There are those who argue that this House is too large, but size alone does not determine effectiveness. If this House is to be judged, let it be judged on its ability to scrutinise legislation, revise policy and hold the Government to account. We should beware the temptation to equate numerical reduction with institutional improvement.
Others might argue that the party balance needs adjustment, but again we must be cautious about imposing artificial solutions. The strength of this House has always been that it evolves over time and reflects experience and judgment rather than crude arithmetic. A formal review risks turning the question of appointments into a matter of quotas: political engineering rather than political wisdom.
The reality is that this House’s composition is already subject to ongoing reflection by Prime Ministers, leaders of parties and the House itself. This is why we have argued throughout that it is critical that reform and review should be carried out through consensus and with full discussion.
Finally, Amendments 91 and 94 from the noble Earl, Lord Devon, as we have heard, raise the plight of gender equality for hereditary peerage claims. I listened with interest to the arguments and have considerable sympathy with points made on both sides of the debate. It is a difficult and delicate issue, with merit on both sides. But it is also a private and personal matter—as my noble friend Lord Hannan made clear, and as the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, also pointed out—on which there is unlikely to be agreement.
Amendment 97 invites review and consultation on the appropriateness of the name “House of Lords”, and this is an intriguing suggestion. Words have power and names shape perceptions. The title of this House evokes centuries of history and tradition and it is certainly reasonable to ask whether it still reflects the institution as it is today. But I would say that the reputation of this House—its credibility and authority—will never be determined by its name; it will be determined by its actions, the quality of its debates, the sharpness of its scrutiny and the seriousness of its deliberations.
In conclusion, I recognise the intent behind the amendments to improve and scrutinise the composition of the House, but more clarification is needed on the specific objectives of some of the proposals. While we certainly value the input of new voices and perspectives in our appointments and the overall composition of the House, it is equally important that we do not compromise on the merits and expertise of those appointed. If we are serious about the future of this House, let us focus on what really matters: scrutiny, legislation and the real business of holding the Government to account. That is what the public expect from us and that is where our credibility lies. We look forward to hearing the views of the House on these important matters.
The Attorney-General (Lord Hermer) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this debate. Amendments 55, 62 and 97, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Inglewood and Lord Lucas, and the noble Earl, Lord Devon, all seek, in different ways, to place a duty on the Government to review and report on the impact of legislation after it receives Royal Assent.
As a matter of principle, and when they are applied in the right case for the right reasons, obligations to review and assess the impact of legislation can serve a very valuable public function. For example, the scope or size of the subject matter of a Bill might give rise not just to a range of predictable outcomes but to a material risk of adverse impacts in the real world that cannot be adequately assessed at the time of the Bill’s passage. Those impacts could be wide-ranging: for example, they could be financial or environmental or could entrench any manner of inequality. While Parliament can always review the impact of legislation at any time of its choosing without an explicit statutory authority, on occasion, as I have said, a mandatory obligation can serve a proper and indeed important function. However, the Government’s view is that there is no adequate rationale for a review and reporting requirement here.
This Bill is very simple. The primary purpose it seeks to achieve is singular: to remove the right of the remaining hereditary Peers to sit and vote in your Lordships’ House. We also know well what the impact will be: the loss of those Peers. I mean no disrespect to the great public service of those Peers to say that their loss will not give rise to unforeseen, significant adverse consequences that come anywhere close to the sort of justification we would want for the measures sought by these amendments.
We know from experience what the impact will be, because your Lordships’ House has already experienced a far more significant reduction of hereditary Peers following the 1999 Act—which, I note, itself had no post-legislative reporting requirements to scrutinise impact. There has been little suggestion that those reforms produced any profoundly detrimental impacts, let alone ones that would justify the steps proposed in these amendments. The House continued to function effectively then, and, as I say, while we truly value the work of hereditary Peers to date, the House will continue to function when this reform is completed. As the Leader of the House said at Second Reading, the Bill does not alter any core functions of your Lordships’ House.
I hope those points address the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood. I thank him for clarifying that his is a probing amendment, and for his thoughtful contribution and the important points he made about our constitutional framework. However, the noble Lord’s amendment is not confined simply to a review-and-report requirement: if agreed, it would continue in perpetuity to impact any subsequent legislation that alters the composition of your Lordships’ House. In other words, there would be a requirement to undertake reviews indefinitely after every general election until the end of time. With the greatest respect, I suggest that would be a disproportionate measure—but I hope the brevity of my response will not be mistaken for a lack of gratitude for his thoughtful contribution to the debate.
The noble Lord asked what insurance policy is in place. I hope that there are several, not least the Government making plain that this reform—completing the work, as we put it—is the beginning of steps for a further reform of your Lordships’ House, the next being close consultation across the House on the shape of further reform. I agree with very many of the sentiments expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Finn. As we go forward, it is important to ensure that we capture and protect the important role of the second Chamber in revising and reviewing legislation, ensuring that it has a degree of independence from the other place. The reassurance I give is that it is our intention to consult widely and collegiately on the steps ahead.
I turn briefly to the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, whom I have known for a long time prior to coming into this House. As he knows, I greatly respect him and our friendship, but I am afraid I consider his remarks, drawing a comparison between the Bill and the risks faced in the Weimar Republic, quite misplaced. All of us in this House are no doubt acutely aware that this is a delicate moment for liberal democracies and your Lordships’ House no doubt has an important role to play at this delicate and important time, but the power of our contribution will be diluted if we reach too quickly for overstatement or—the more so—inappropriate overstatement. This is a manifesto commitment that is limited in scope, and we serve ourselves well to remember that and not to rhetorically overreach.
I turn to Amendment 97, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Devon. The House of Lords will continue to be called the House of Lords following the passage of the Bill. The removal of the right of hereditary Peers to sit and vote in this place does not change the fact that Members of this House, save for the Lords spiritual, will continue to consist of Peers of the realm. The answer to the eloquent speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, as to why is simply a literal one. In answer to the point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Devon, about the dictionary definition of the “House of Lords”, I respectfully suggest that that version of the dictionary, like this House, requires some subtle updating.
Amendments 91 and 94 have joined this group to accommodate the noble Earl, who is, sadly, not available for the final day of Committee. I hope I accurately capture the amendments in saying that they address a narrow point about the power to refer disputes to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, but also a wider point that seeks to address gender inequality in the succession to peerages. I will first address the narrow point about referrals to the Judicial Committee, which I will come to again substantively when we discuss the amendments to Clause 2 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, next week.
As your Lordships know, this House currently has a role in handling complex and disputed peerage claims under Standing Order 77. The aim of Clause 2 is to remove that role. The intention is that that role will be fulfilled by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, whose jurisdiction to do so is already established by virtue of Section 4 of the Judicial Committee Act 1833. The effect of the noble Earl’s amendment would be to place the issues arising out of inheritance and title, irrespective of complexity, on the Judicial Committee. The Government, and indeed the Privy Council, would perceive this to be an unacceptable burden on an already exceptionally busy body. It would, in short, amount to an unnecessary and disproportionate use of its resources and expertise. For those reasons, and given the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, we cannot accept the amendments.
Finally, and most importantly—
The Earl of Devon (CB)
The Minister may have misunderstood the purport of my amendment, which is merely to ensure that when the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council exercises the functions that it will exercise following the passage of this Bill, it does so in a way that does not discriminate against claimants due to their gender. It is nothing more than that—I am not adding any work. I just wish that women could inherit hereditary titles.
Lord Hermer (Lab)
I am very grateful for that, and I shall turn to that point now, but the actual wording of the noble Earl’s amendment would have the effect that all disputes, not just complicated and contentious disputes, would be referred to the Judicial Committee, so there is a very practical objection to it.
I turn to the wider point, which I know is the one of most interest to the noble Earl. I shall deal with both amendments in turn, starting with Amendment 91. In the Government’s view, the amendment unacceptably seeks to force on the Judicial Committee how it should exercise its jurisdiction with regard to gender equality and to impose an obligation on it to report on how that obligation has been discharged. With the greatest of respect, that misunderstands the appropriate constitutional role of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, which is to apply the law. If the law distinguishes between the sexes, as the noble Earl is aware that it does currently in succession to hereditary titles, the Judicial Committee must apply it accordingly.
As I leave that aspect of Amendment 91 and turn to Amendment 94, I of course recognise the importance of the issue that the noble Earl seeks to raise through his good faith amendments. The Government very much share his unease at the inequality baked in to so many hereditary peerages. The fact that fewer than 90 hereditary peerages allow women to inherit titles is something that I know Members in both Houses and across this House are not comfortable with. The Government are committed to the principle of greater equality.
On careful reflection, not least through the engagement that the noble Earl has had with my noble friend the Leader of the House, we do not consider that the amendments have a place in this Bill. The law around succession is complex and the inequities are not confined to gender. The law around succession to hereditary titles also affects adopted children, those born to unmarried parents and children born via assisted conception, using donors. That is before we enter into the issue of whether any future reform should protect the expectation of living heirs or managed property rights. We consider that those are issues that should be considered, but they need to be carefully considered holistically and do not properly form part of this legislation, however aligned we are with the noble Earl on the rationale behind his amendments.
There is also an additional objection of a constitutional nature to Amendment 94, because it seeks to impose on the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council an obligation to consult. Such a requirement to consult on how the law should be applied in the area of peerage claims very significantly cuts across the judicial independence of the Judicial Committee. I appreciate, of course, that that is not the noble Earl’s intention, but I fear that his amendment would critically undermine the independence of the committee. Either the committee independently and impartially applies the law or it takes views on social policy. It cannot do both. However, as I have said, nothing in my response to the amendments from the noble Earl should be taken as a suggestion that he is not raising very important points—he is—but they are not part of the policy aims outlined in our manifesto commitments or in this Bill.
I turn briefly to the issue raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Deech. As the contrasting contribution from the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, demonstrated, there is no consensus on this point, and it underlined— I say with the greatest respect—that this Bill is not the place to determine that question. For those reasons, I respectfully request that noble Lords do not press their amendments.
Lord Inglewood (CB)
My Lords, I begin by thanking the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General for his remarks about my amendment. He got the message I was trying to convey. All I would say, to use his phrase, is that we are living in delicate political times. It is incumbent on us to think about the worst possible eventualities that might emerge long after the passage of this Bill.
I, as a hereditary Peer, was trying to do something that lawyers say you cannot do: issue commands from beyond the grave. We should bear in mind extreme eventualities, because the one thing that is certain is that this reform is not the last reform. This is not a dialectical process, ending up in some nirvana. We must be alert.
As far as the wider debate is concerned, I thank those who participated. It seemed to me that it struck a divide between those thinking along the lines I described and those thinking rather more differently. I think the noble Earl, Lord Devon, got it right. He said in the future people will be concerned about titles and sex, because that was what a great deal of the discussion earlier this afternoon was in fact about.
Finally, the noble Earl, Lord Devon, on the Cross Bench, who is a personal friend, made me feel very inadequate. I may be a hereditary Peer, but my hereditary peerage did not exist at the time I was born. This is in very great contrast to the noble Earl. All I would say—I hope this gives pleasure to the noble Lords, Lord Foulkes and Lord Grocott—is that I came into the world as citizen Vane, and I am quite happy to leave it under that epithet. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar
“President and Deputy President of the Supreme Court(1) Omit subsection (3) of section 137 of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 (parliamentary disqualification for holders of disqualifying judicial offices).(2) On the day on which this Act is passed, the Prime Minister must recommend to His Majesty the King that the President and Deputy President of the Supreme Court be granted a life peerage under section 1 of the Life Peerages Act 1958 (power to confer life peerages).(3) When a person is appointed as President or Deputy President of the Supreme Court, the Prime Minister must recommend to His Majesty the King that the person be granted a life peerage under section 1 of the Life Peerages Act 1958.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would ensure the President and Deputy President of the Supreme Court are granted life peerages.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 56, I will speak also to Amendment 57. Both seek to ensure that senior members of the judiciary are appointed as life Peers with the right to sit and vote in your Lordships’ House. I will declare an interest— and a non-interest.
First, the non-interest: I have no intention of becoming a judge. Indeed, when I became a Minister, I received advice from the propriety and ethics committee of the Cabinet Office that, having been a Minister, I had probably rendered myself unable to accept an appointment as a judge. I thought that was a little odd. I am not sure whether the noble Baroness, Lady Gray of Tottenham, was involved in that decision or warning; we all know that the Cabinet Office at that time kept a very close eye on the impropriety of people moving from non-political posts into others in our constitution. The interest I have is as a lawyer; I want to make this House work as well as it possibly can.
The historical position is this: for over 600 years, from 1399 to October 2009, the House of Lords was the highest appeal court in the land. This House had a vital judicial function. Between 1876 and 2009, that function was served by the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary. From 2009, the Supreme Court of the UK assumed that jurisdiction; the then 12 Lords of Appeal in Ordinary —the Law Lords, as they were colloquially called—were the first Justices of the 12-member Supreme Court, and they were disqualified from sitting or voting in your Lordships’ House.
When they retired from the Supreme Court, they could return to the House of Lords as full Members, which they were, but—and this is the point—newly appointed Justices of the Supreme Court do not have seats in your Lordships’ House. From that point on, apart from the grandfather rights—if, in light of the debate on the previous group of amendments, I can use a sexist term—given to existing Lords of Appeal in Ordinary created under the 1876 Act, the long link between this House and the judiciary was severed. Indeed, the last Law Lord was created in 2009.
It is important to appreciate that the old system preserved a clear distinction between the Law Lords’ role as judges and as legislators. I will give a simple example of that. When Lord Lyndhurst, as Lord High Chancellor, considered himself bound in his judicial capacity to decide the famous Lady Hewley’s charity appeal—Attorney-General v Wilson 1848—it turned on the difference between trinitarianism and unitarianism for the purposes of charity law, a topic into which I fear to venture. While he held himself responsible to decide that point in accordance with legal orthodoxy, which he did, he then introduced, as Leader of the House of Lords, a Bill—which became the Nonconformists’ Chapels Act 1844—to remedy, and indeed to overturn, the perceived injustice consequential on his own judicial decision.
Why are we in this position? The great absence today is that of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton. His Constitutional Reform Act—I will have more to say about that Act in the next group—is, frankly, responsible for quite a lot of the constitutional mess that we now find ourselves in.
The basis for my amendment is this: your Lordships’ House has been deprived of the experience of many Supreme Court Justices who could and would contribute a great deal to the work of this House in the way—if I may say this without nominating myself for Private Eye’s “Order Of The Brown Nose”—that the current former judicial Members of this House play such an important part and lend their expertise.
When I sat on the Government Benches as a Minister, I was not worried about the barrage that I might receive from the Opposition Benches, and I certainly was not concerned about the occasional small-arms fire from the Liberal Democrat Benches; I was worried about the incoming missile from my right—from the judicial Members of the Cross Benches. Without this amendment, it will be unclear on what basis peerages will be awarded to those who reach those lofty judicial heights. What we must avoid at all costs is any impression that peerages are given or withheld by the Prime Minister of the day to senior judges, depending on how particular cases have been decided. The only way to avoid that is to have clear rules as to when a peerage will be awarded. That is why I have sought, in my amendments, to highlight the highest judicial offices and to attach a peerage to those offices.
I see that the impressive legal twin strike force of my noble friends Lord Banner and Lord Murray of Blidworth has taken my amendment and added “all Supreme Court Justices”. I will listen carefully to what they have to say, but the principle underlying our amendments is the same.
Finally, the amendment also disapplies Section 137(3) of the Constitutional Reform Act, which disqualifies a holder of relevant judicial offices from sitting or voting in your Lordships’ House. We do not need that provision; we managed perfectly well under the old system. The problem we have now is that, although we have a wealth of judicial experience, it is not as current as it used to be when we had the Law Lords here. I know this may be shocking to many Members of your Lordships’ House, but even the law moves on and changes. The way law is done—and what the law is—is simply not the same now as it was five, 10 or 20 years ago. That is especially the case in areas such as family law.
I remember taking the Domestic Abuse Bill through this House—I pick a topic which was taken on a total cross-party basis. Family law in 2025 is radically different from family law in 2000, and certainly family law in 1980. So I suggest that this House would benefit from the presence of judges who either are sitting or who have very recently sat. My submission to this Committee is that these amendments will improve our debates and our membership, and I therefore beg to move.
Lord Banner (Con)
My Lords, I speak in support of Amendment 68, which, as my noble friend Lord Wolfson indicated, takes the premise of his Amendment 56 and rolls it out to all Supreme Court justices. I declare an interest as a practising King’s Counsel who fairly frequently appears before the Supreme Court, including in one appeal where judgment is still pending.
I supported the replacement of the Appellate Committee with the new UK Supreme Court, and I still believe that was the right decision. In a modern democracy, all courts, and in particular the final court of appeal, must not just be but be seen to be separate and independent from the other branches of the state.
However, a collateral and I think probably unintended effect of this, as my noble friend Lord Wolfson outlined, has been significantly to reduce the pool of Cross-Bench legal expertise in this House. By convention, certainly by the turn of the millennium, sitting Members on the Appellate Committee did not speak in debates and did not otherwise participate in relation to controversial matters, although they did sit in committees to some degree. However, upon their retirement they invariably would—and those who remain still do—make an invaluable contribution to the work of this House.
It is also the case that, prior to retirement and while in office as judges, by virtue of being Members of this House, those on the Appellate Committee would have a fuller and further first-hand understanding of the procedures of Parliament, which, as my noble friend Lord Wolfson indicated in his excellent lecture at Policy Exchange earlier this afternoon, may have assisted the judges in their consideration of the Prorogation issue in the second Miller litigation.
Now that the final court is outside this House, its members no longer need to receive a peerage upon being appointed and, contrary to what had been advocated in some quarters, no convention to that effect has been established. In recent years, among full-time Supreme Court justices, only the President has been by convention awarded a peerage—albeit that the Lord Chief Justice, who occasionally sits in that court, has also by convention been awarded a peerage.
The result of all this has been significantly to reduce the pipeline of top-tier judges able to contribute to the work of this House. Amendment 68 would rectify that by requiring all current and future Supreme Court justices to be awarded a peerage. I myself would envisage that, during their tenure on the court, they would follow the Appellate Committee’s former convention that sitting judges do not speak in debates and do not otherwise participate in controversial matters, but, upon retirement, they would be able fully to engage and thus continue the long-established and invaluable tradition of our most senior judges contributing to the work of this House on their retirement from the Bench.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 56, 57 and 68 in this group, to which I have added my name. I declare an interest as a member of the Bar. I also declare a special interest in that, across the corridor in my chambers is the room of Lord Dyson, who was the first member of the Supreme Court not to be the beneficiary of a peerage under the Appellate Jurisdiction Act, and therefore the first person from these Benches that the House did not have the benefit of hearing from, which in my view was a great loss—and that applies to many members of the Supreme Court.
There is an element of confusion in the general public, and indeed even in the politically engaged general public. When they read of public pronouncements from the likes of Lord Dyson or Lord Sumption, they are under the impression that these people are Members of this House. When the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 came into force, there was a question about what title one gave to the Justices of the Supreme Court. So, when Sir John Dyson, as he then was, became a member of the Supreme Court, having formerly been the Master of the Rolls in the Court of Appeal, where he was Lord Justice Dyson, there was a need to differentiate him from the members of the Court of Appeal and to give a special title to members of the Supreme Court.
Lord Strathclyde (Con)
My Lords, I am following my noble friend’s argument and I very much support him, but does he believe, as I do, that, after 2005, there was an understanding between the Labour Government and the Justices of the Supreme Court that they would all be made Members of the House of Lords—Peers in their own right—but would not sit in the House of Lords until after they had retired. If such an understanding had taken place, it would have solved a great number of problems. I hope the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General might give us an answer, if he knows, on whether there was such an understanding after the 2005 Act.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I am very grateful to my noble friend for his intervention, and I very much hope there was such an understanding—but I am afraid I cannot find a trace of that agreement.
Turning to the answer given to a question put to Jack Straw on this question in January 2009, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, asked him about the future of the justices of the Supreme Court. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, noted that the Law Lords performed an important function in the legislative process and asked the then Lord Chancellor what the position would be once they had retired, along the lines outlined by my noble friend—thus suggesting that there was an informal agreement that this would be what would occur. The then Lord Chancellor’s answer was:
“Of course, that was one of the arguments against change and … I can see the case”.
He then said that
“it crucially depends on whether we continue with an all appointed House of Lords”.
So the answer was that they just parked the issue, saying that it was all dependent on what was going to happen in future to the House of Lords. The Lord Chancellor goes on to say that
“if we go to a 20% appointed chamber”,
which was one of the things then being considered, the number of noble Lords would be “fewer”. That was why he refused to commit at that point in answer to that question.
The issue was raised again in July 2009 in a question from the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and it was answered by the noble Lord, Lord Bach, the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice. He said:
“My Lords, justices of the Supreme Court who are appointed after October 2009 will not automatically become Members of the second Chamber on retirement, but could be considered for appointment by the Appointments Commission. It is right to say that former Law Lords will be able to take up their places again … on retirement from the Supreme Court, and it is right that this House needs a lot of expertise, particularly in that field”.—[Official Report, 20/7/09; col. 1375.]
Of course, he was right in that respect. But the reality is that that has not happened. If one looks at the appointments that have been made by HOLAC, one sees that former justices of the Supreme Court have not numbered highly among the appointments. This has been a very significant omission and now is the moment, I suggest to your Lordships, to rectify that error.
At the very least, the Wolfson-Elie compromise of giving peerages to the President and Deputy President of the Supreme Court should be strongly considered by the Government, but I would suggest it should go more widely than that: every member of the 12-member court should receive life peerages on appointment. That should be the convention. There would then be no need for these courtesy titles. When they retire, they would then hopefully become engaged and active Members of your Lordships’ House.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
My Lords, I will make one brief contribution to this debate, which is likely to go on for some time. I enjoyed listening to the contributions entirely from lawyers except for the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. They had one thing clearly in common: none of them had any reference whatsoever to the subject of hereditary Peers being removed from this House. They are entitled to have made their amendments because of some ruling, which came from somewhere that I have not yet discovered, that under remote circumstances hereditary Peer membership could relate to other parts of the constitution. I accept that this might be the case in some remote circumstances. However, it is very difficult for me to understand, in any sensible conversation, what relevance adding, through these amendments, 25 protected places in the House of Lords has to the subject of this Bill.
I do not want to prolong it because I do not want to promote debate. However, with such a loose definition of what is included and what is not, on the same logic if you had a Bill to reduce class sizes in infant classes it would be entirely within the scope of the Bill to discuss university admissions processes—because, obviously, if you reduce class sizes, that gives an opportunity for children to develop more effectively and stand a better chance of getting into university. Lawyers can do that but, in the interests of common sense and as a general principle, if an amendment has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject of the Bill, it would be a good idea to determine that it is out of order.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness (LD)
My Lords, I want to speak to my Amendments 58A and 59B. I have a lot of sympathy for what the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, has just said. I tabled these amendments against a background of also aspiring to a wholly elected House, where appointments would not come into it.
What prompted my amendments was that Amendment 57 recommends that
“the Lord Chief Justice, Master of the Rolls and Lord President of the Court of Session be granted a life peerage”.
In the interests of the union, we should not forget one part of the United Kingdom, and that is why I have sought to add the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland. I do not know the present Lady Chief Justice, Dame Siobhan Keegan, but I know her predecessor, Sir Declan Morgan, who would make excellent contributions to your Lordships’ House—and may yet do so for all that I know. If we are passing legislation for some parts of the United Kingdom, there is no logic at all to why Northern Ireland should be omitted.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I agree with what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, has said. Like him, I spotted the omission of the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland and note that we have not had a holder of that office since Lord Kerr of Tonaghmore, who was the last person to receive a peerage under the Appellate Jurisdiction Act 1876, so I welcome the noble and learned Lord’s amendment.
My Amendments 58 and 59 are designed not to disagree with the proposition that senior lawyers are very important and useful people but simply to point out that useful and important people can be found in other walks of life as well. There is much sense in the amendments that my noble friend Lord Wolfson of Tredegar, my noble and learned friend Lord Keen of Elie and my noble friends Lord Murray of Blidworth and Lord Banner have tabled.
I agree with what my noble friend Lord Wolfson said: a lot of the mess that we are in stems from the Constitutional Reform Act 2005. The fact that we are still, 20 years on, debating some of the questions that were left unanswered, perhaps even unopposed, at the time of the passage of that Act, answers the point that the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, raised. It is important when embarking on constitutional reform to try to think of the implications, and that is why I welcome noble Lords scrutinising this Bill and its knock-on effects in many other areas. I know the noble Lord regrets that we are debating it at such length, but this is a very important Bill with serious consequences, and we do not want in 20 years’ time to find ourselves with the sorts of problems that were not properly addressed during the debates on the Constitutional Reform Act.
From my experience working in Downing Street under my noble friend Lady May of Maidenhead, I can say a little bit about a more recent chapter. Noble Lords know that, when he was Lord Speaker, the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, established a committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Burns, to look at the size of the House and propose non-legislative ways that it could be reduced. Not everyone agreed that the size of the House was a problem, but a clear majority did, including those who spoke in a well-attended debate held on the committee’s report on 19 December 2017. As Prime Minister at the time, it fell to my noble friend Lady May to respond to this initiative, which had been taken by your Lordships’ House to reduce its size. She wrote to Lord Fowler on 20 February 2018, responding to the report, as well as to the points that were made in the debate in December about it.
My noble friend Lady May acknowledged that, if noble Lords were to be persuaded to embrace retirement, an innovation which at that point had only recently been brought about through the House of Lords Reform Act 2014, they would need an assurance of restraint from the Prime Minister. In her letter to the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, my noble friend gave that assurance, and she stuck to it: she and Gordon Brown are the only Prime Ministers in modern times under whom the size of the House of Lords has gone down rather than up. As part of her policy of restraint, my noble friend said that she would
“operate on the basis that there is no automatic entitlement to a peerage for any holder of high office in public life”.
That is the reason, in addition to the Parliamentary Answer that was highlighted by my noble friend Lord Murray a few moments ago, why senior judges have not, as they might have expected, come to your Lordships’ House automatically.
This has certainly been disappointing to them, and it has denied your Lordships’ House the valuable contributions that they would all undoubtedly have made. In his memoir, Lord Dyson records with very good grace his understandable disappointment at being the first Master of the Rolls for, I think, two centuries not to sit in your Lordships’ House; only death prevented others from doing so. His successor, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, has come here and plays a very valuable role indeed in the work of this House.
As my noble friend Lord Murray says, Lord Dyson was also the first Justice of the Supreme Court not to come to this House. The first cohort were, of course, Lords of Appeal in Ordinary, so entitled to return to this House on their retirement. Unlike my noble friend Lord Banner, I am among those who regret their removal from your Lordships’ House. I tend to the view that cases like some of those that we saw in the Brexit years would have been less politicised had they been decided in this building, rather than pitting two institutions on opposite sides of Parliament Square against one another and asking them to settle the matter over the heads of protesting crowds standing between them.
But if all Justices of the Supreme Court were to come here on retirement, as my noble friends Lord Murray and Lord Banner suggest, we would be adding a tally of 20 new Cross-Benchers—nine former justices and 11 current ones—on current numbers alone. It would also seem to run counter to the argument that was made by those who supported the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 that the judiciary and Parliament should be more separate.
My noble friend Lord Wolfson and others, in their Amendment 56, suggest that there should be peerages ex officio only for the President and Deputy President of the Supreme Court. Stepping aside from the debate on numbers, they crucially and sensibly suggest that the peerage should be granted on appointment and not at the end of their time on the judicial bench. As I said at Second Reading, there are dangers in allowing politicians to pick the judges on whom they wish to bestow favour; but that same danger relates to other key public servants, such as Chiefs of the Defence Staff, Commissioners of Police of the Metropolis, heads of the intelligence agencies, Cabinet Secretaries and many more.
Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)
My Lords, although I am also a lawyer, I will be brief because the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, has a point. I am rather against rules that require people to be appointed to this House by virtue of offices that they have held. As a former holder of the least distinguished of the offices listed in the generous Amendments 58 and 59 of the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, I certainly did not feel entitled to such elevation, although the work I did in that office emboldened me to try my chances with HOLAC.
The glory of the Cross Benches—if that is not too strong a word—lies in the very diverse backgrounds of those who are here. I fear that a mandatory inflow of establishment figures, rigidly predefined and appointed irrespective of any scandals that may have attended their time in office, would tend to reduce that variety, in particular by inhibiting the appointment of people’s Peers, about which I have spoken in a previous debate.
With respect to the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, I would make an exception for the very senior judges named in the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, for the reason that he gave: judges at that level often have impartially to determine cases to which the Government are, and sometimes even the Prime Minister is, party. That is what distinguishes them from Chiefs of the Defence Staff, Cabinet Secretaries and so on. They have to choose, in any case, on the basis of the law, whether they are on the Government’s side or not. That is why, between judges of equal rank, the state has to be scrupulously even-handed about conferring honours or preferment.
I am sure that every Government see the priceless benefit that former Supreme Court judges bring to our deliberations, but such judges should not be appointed to this House, any more than they should be given knighthoods or damehoods, simply because the Government of the day like the cut of their jib. Something less arbitrary is required. Either all should be appointed, as proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Banner, in Amendment 68—which would be my own preference, I hope not only because, like him, I am awaiting a judgment from the Supreme Court—or, if that is thought to be too rich a diet, the honour should be rationed, as proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, on the basis of rank. I hope Ministers might agree; I hope they might even be prepared to say so.
Lord Garnier (Con)
My Lords, I am very attracted to what the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, has just said. I find what my noble friend Lord Banner had to say extremely attractive, and I hope that the Government will find it their—
Lord Garnier (Con)
Yes, wisdom—I was clutching for the word. I hope they will find it in their wisdom to reach a conclusion similar to that advanced by my noble friend.
Quickly, while the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, is still in the Chamber—
Lord Garnier (Con)
He is never far absent from it. This series of amendments does not appeal to the noble Lord because it does not deal with the hereditary peerage, but of course, right in front of us—of me—is my noble friend Lord Hailsham, the third Viscount, whose grandfather and father were both Lords Chancellor and therefore senior members of the judiciary in their day. He demonstrates the agility of the British constitution, in that, although a hereditary Peer, he sits here as a life Peer.
Lord Garnier (Con)
Exactly; and we are all the better off for that. However, I think it very important to recognise that, although our constitution is odd, strange and, in many ways, not very neat, it does function all the better by having people from a variety of backgrounds in this place.
The fact that we do not any more regularly have the presence of what used to be called Law Lords, and now are justices of the Supreme Court, is a disbenefit to us. Also, I suspect that there was a time when the Law Lords gained advantage by, if not speaking and voting in the Chamber, at least being here and listening to or discerning the political mood of the moment. This is particularly so when they are dealing with cases involving public policy. I suspect that we have missed a trick by informing the Supreme Court and our being informed by it in our respective deliberations.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord for giving way. He will recall that, when we both became MPs a while back, we attended APPGs regularly. It was customary at those to see a number of sitting Law Lords in attendance—obviously, never making controversial points but adding a great deal of wisdom and knowledge to the work of the APPGs.
Lord Garnier (Con)
My noble friend was obviously a keener member of APPGs than I was, but I am sure he is entirely right.
None the less, I think it important that we in this House, and the Supreme Court, for its part, should mutually benefit from each other’s membership. I hope the Government will accede to my noble friend Lord Banner’s amendment, even if it does not go as far as my noble friend Lord Wolfson asked for in his.
I heard two particularly hurtful and outrageous suggestions this afternoon. One was from my noble friend Lord Wolfson: that he was not in the least bit bothered by the submissions from Members of his own Back Benches when he was a Minister.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
When I said, “the Opposition”, I meant the Opposition as then constituted; anything that came from our own side was obviously of the highest quality.
Lord Garnier (Con)
I was fishing for that compliment —and it does take a lot of effort. Anyhow, the other outrageous thing was my noble friend Lord Parkinson claiming that exceptionalism from lawyers was something to be criticised; I find that very distressing.
I will finish on this point. I cannot compete with my noble friends Lord Wolfson and Lord Banner, or indeed the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, on the number of times I have appeared in the Supreme Court, and I am certainly not awaiting a judgment now, but the last time I appeared there was in 2019, when I had the joy and honour of being against my noble and learned friend Lord Keen of Elie. He was acting for the Government and I was not. I had the advantage of being able to describe his client, the Prime Minister, very frequently as “the defendant”.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, I hope the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, will forgive me for intervening. I certainly do not wish to prolong these proceedings, and I agree with a great deal of what he said about their irrelevance to the Bill, but I should say a word because, as it happens, I am a former holder of two of the offices referred to in these amendments—first as Lord President of the Court of Session, later as a Law Lord, and later still as a Justice of the Supreme Court—so I can say a little bit about what these amendments might mean for them and for the House.
As far as the Lord President is concerned, I think the noble Lords, Lord Wolfson and Lord Anderson, will be alarmed to know that I received a peerage not when I was appointed as Lord President but after I had been serving as Lord President for about five years. It came to me as an honour in the New Year Honours List, for which I was, of course, extremely grateful.
A few years later, I became a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary, but I was already a Peer, so I did not have to become another form of Law Lord—that is, a Law Lord Lord—as I was already a life Peer. I thought that would see me through until retirement, but in 2003, when I was travelling home to Edinburgh and was in the lounge at Heathrow Airport, I was greeted by an announcement on the television set that the body to which I belonged—the Law Lords—was being abolished and that a new Supreme Court was to be created. So it was that, when the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 was enacted, I became disqualified as a result of Section 137. I never came here during that time, except possibly once to sit on the steps of the Throne to see what was going on. It was only after I retired that I was able to come back here because the disqualification was lifted.
I do not remember there being an agreement, as it were, that at some stage the Justices of the Supreme Court would be granted peerages. Certainly in 2003, when the whole issue blew up, there was very strong resistance to the judges being in the Lords at any time, whether serving or retired. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, knows where the bodies are buried, not I, but there certainly was that resistance. I do not recall any undertaking and nor was it buried under the sofa, because it was quite a strong feeling at the time. There it is—that is what the position was at that time.
So far as the amendments are concerned, I will say a word about the Lord President. The Lord President’s place of work is as a judge in Edinburgh. I found it an extremely demanding and time-consuming job. I came here to take the oath after I received my peerage and I came later on, for one day, to make my maiden speech, but I cannot remember coming at any other stage as Lord President. My predecessor, Lord Emsley, was in much the same position. He received a peerage after he had been serving as Lord President but he very rarely, if ever, came to speak.
Those were pre-devolution days. Now, the situation has changed markedly. The system over which the Lord President presides is devolved, and much of the law that he and his colleagues in the court look at is devolved, so the occasions for the Lord President feeling justified in taking time to come to London to sit and speak in the House of Lords will be very few and far between. The same would be true, with respect to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, of the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland. It is a different matter after retirement, of course, but as serving judges their place here would be difficult to justify.
So far as the Supreme Court is concerned, of course, its place of work is not here—it is just across Parliament Square—but I can say, having worked there for four years, that it seems a very long way from this House. In the summer months you have to fight your way through the crowds to get here from there, and, of course, there are all the problems of finding a place and finding an occasion to speak. One thing we have lost, inevitably, is the connection with the House, which I felt very strongly as a serving Law Lord: I used to come here, not to take part very much but to listen to debates and understand what was going on. That connection and the wish to participate has been lost.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Smith of Basildon) (Lab)
It is appropriate that we hear from the Lib Dem Benches, as we have not heard from them yet.
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, I very strongly agree with much of what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, said, particularly his last comment. As long as we have independent Cross-Bench Peers in your Lordships’ House, there is a very strong argument for having former senior judges and civil servants as part of their number. However, I have three reasons for disagreeing with these amendments. I realise that, as a mere Lib Dem, I will not at this point have the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, shaking in his shoes, but I hope that the Committee will forgive me if I have a go.
The first point is that I am opposed in principle to the idea that people should get a peerage just because of their formal title and position. The reason was explained in part by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope: although some people in that position will then come and play an active part in your Lordships’ House, others will treat it as an honour. We will not see them and they will not play a part. One thing that has gone through the debates on this Bill is a view that everybody who is a Member of your Lordships’ House in future should play a full part in its activity. I simply do not believe that these proposals to automatically grant people places would achieve that aim.
The second argument is the slippery slope argument. In a way, my noble and learned friend Lord Wallace of Tankerness’s amendment demonstrated this: there was a clear gap in what was already proposed, so he came up with another category that might justifiably form a part. In respect of the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, once you start specifying a greater range of people it becomes a more difficult problem. I see the noble Lord, Lord Macpherson, in his place; I certainly think that former Permanent Secretaries to the Treasury, as a general rule, have a greater claim to membership of your Lordships’ House than directors-general of the BBC.
Lord Newby (LD)
I say that much as I respect the noble Lord, Lord Birt. That just demonstrates the problem of specifying individual placeholders who should get a place in this Chamber.
Thirdly, the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, made a valiant attempt to explain why he did not think the separation of powers mattered. The only thing I will say is that the separation of powers was legislated for by Gladstone in the Judicature Act 1873, a provision that was not implemented when Disraeli became Prime Minister the following year. As in many other things, I prefer Gladstone to Disraeli. This may or may not have been Liberal policy for 152 years—it actually beats our commitment to having a directly elected House of Lords as the longest commitment continuously held by a political party before it was implemented— and I see no reason why we should change from that position now.
Lord Keen of Elie (Con)
My Lords, the first life peerages were conferred under the Appellate Jurisdiction Act 1876, which remained in force until the impact of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005. It is perhaps notable that the first three appointments as Lords of Appeal in Ordinary were Scottish lawyers. It is also notable that the next three appointments as Lords of Appeal in Ordinary were Irish lawyers. However, 15 years later, a suitable English lawyer was identified and appointed.
Against that background, I turn first to Amendments 56 and 57, in the name of my noble friend Lord Wolfson, to which I have added my name. I must note two points. First, I express a degree of surprise about the advice he received from the Cabinet Office upon his appointment to the Government. There is a long and perhaps dishonourable tradition of Attorneys-General, Solicitors-General and Lord Advocates assuming high judicial office after their service in government. Indeed, in the case of the Lord Advocate, it was invariably the practice into the 1960s that he would appoint himself to the most senior judicial office available, there being no conflict of interest. However, there are very good reasons why it is of benefit to this House, as a political House, to have the benefit of those who have served in high judicial office, whether they do so following their retirement or at an earlier stage.
It was a point made by my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier and touched on by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, that, while Lords of Appeal in Ordinary sat in this House, they would do so with a self-denying ordinance. They would not engage in matters that were potentially controversial from the perspective of their judicial office; for example, you would not have seen them engage in debates with regard to the Human Rights Act and other similar matters. However, as my noble and learned friend pointed out, it gave those in high judicial office some impression of the political mood so far as legislation was concerned, and that would have an impact on them when they came, in due course, to address what were potentially politically controversial issues that were raised to a point of law. I suggest that there was always a significant benefit in having such qualified persons in this House, albeit that it may be appropriate that they should be here after the judicial retirement age of 75 and up to the Government’s intended retirement age of 80—I see some of the government Back-Benchers wincing at that, but I understand that that is the intention.
I support the points made by my noble friend Lord Wolfson. I do not go so far as the amendment proposed by my noble friends Lord Banner and Lord Murray, and I do not take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, that we are dealing here with protected places. We are dealing here with those who are not executive appointments to this House, of which a greater proportion are going to emerge as a result of this legislation.
In these circumstances, it appears to me that there are two elements. There is the element of an honour conferred on those who are granted high judicial office, and that is already reflected in the fact that the present President of the United Kingdom Supreme Court had a peerage conferred on him upon his appointment and the fact that the Lord Chief Justice, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Burnett of Maldon, had such an honour bestowed upon him as well. Frankly, I would be confident that those who have held high judicial office and have been public servants for so long a part of their career will, as a matter of course, become engaged in the proceedings of this House if that opportunity is presented to them.
I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Newby, that there should be no link between the peerage and a distinguished office which has been held. I do not believe we have to go down a slippery slope. However, I acknowledge that the separation of powers has to be noted and acknowledged, albeit Montesquieu was talking about the United States’ system and not our own—and even there, there are changes afoot.
I invite the Government to consider very seriously Amendments 56 and 57, and to comment on the other attendant amendments which would bring those who have held high public office and been distinguished public servants into this House, almost invariably on to the Cross Benches.
Lord Hermer (Lab)
I am grateful to all noble Lords for their contributions, which in this group concern the appointment of specific public servants to your Lordships’ House. I will start, if I may, with the amendments that concern the conferral of peerages on serving members of the senior judiciary, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Wolfson and Lord Banner, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness.
I start from a happy place of consensus, set out so eloquently by the noble Lords, Lord Wolfson, Lord Banner and Lord Anderson, and the noble and learned Lords, Lord Garnier and Lord Keen. There can be no doubt as to the enormous benefit that your Lordships’ House gains from the presence and participation of former members of the senior judiciary. That benefit is not limited to the contribution of judges. As all the noble Lords I have just listed demonstrate, the contribution of eminent practitioners in the law adds to your Lordships’ House. If I may say so, there was no finer reflection of the contribution made to your Lordships’ House and its importance than the contribution made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead.
Before it is thought that I am in competition with the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, and others for a Private Eye award, there are three reasons why we cannot agree to these amendments. The first is that the Government’s intention is that this is and will remain a single-purpose Bill, to give effect to our manifesto commitment to remove hereditary Peers from participation in your Lordships’ House. I am not going to labour that point because it has been made in respect of so many amendments and was reiterated by the contribution from my noble friend Lord Grocott. We do not consider it appropriate or desirable to seek to piggyback quite separate proposals for reform on to the Bill.
That merges into my second reason. The future composition of your Lordships’ House beyond the proposal in this Bill is a matter best considered in the round. The Government have committed to consult on an alternative second Chamber—and before that, on further reforms—in due course. One can anticipate that it is highly likely that Prime Ministers of all parties will wish to continue to appoint retired senior judges to your Lordships’ House, but, before more comprehensive reform, we consider it appropriate that appointments remain for now at the discretion of the Prime Minister. Of course, if there are to be changes, we entirely accept the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, that logic dictates that, in respect of judges, it should be extended to Northern Ireland if it is extended to Scotland, England and Wales.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for giving way. The answer he proposes is that the Prime Minister retains the discretion to appoint retired members of the Supreme Court to this House. How does that answer the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, that this appears to place a slightly invidious choice on the Prime Minister where he is conferring a favour on a judge? If it were automatically all judges, there could be no suggestion that decisions are made that might favour them in the list of peerages.
Lord Hermer (Lab)
I am grateful for the noble Lord’s intervention. I can well anticipate that, if this is an issue that arises on consultation, there may be a distinction—to my mind, it is potentially a constitutionally important distinction—between the appropriateness or otherwise of the appointment of senior judges on their appointment to judicial office, which gives rise to the constitutional tensions that I alluded to a moment ago, and appointment upon retirement. I hope that that answers his question, at least in part.
Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)
The noble and learned Lord draws a distinction between appointment to the Lords on taking office and appointment at the end of office being served, but we have heard already that the current President of the Supreme Court was appointed to this House on assuming the office—of course, on the understanding that he would not participate in the debates of the House. Is the noble and learned Lord saying that that is unconstitutional?
Lord Hermer (Lab)
The constitutional tension is between judges who sit on cases that may often concern government legislation also sitting in the legislature. The distinction I seek to draw simply seeks to exemplify the merits and demerits of a debate that may well take place during consultation. It is not meant to reflect any firm view of the Government as to where that may ultimately land.
I make one final point on the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, drawing on the wider point that I made a moment ago about the merits of looking at this in the round. It is worth reflecting that, if this were to come into effect today, it would create a significant number of new Members of your Lordships’ House. Putting aside judicial Members, of that large number, only five would be women. It is also right to remind ourselves that, in the long history of the Appellate Committee of your Lordships’ House and then the creation of the Supreme Court in 2010, there have been only four women judges or members of that committee.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
The point I was making with my amendment was not necessarily to make the case for all—I take the arguments that the Minister and others have made about a slippery slope—but to tease out the distinction between the constitutional point that the Minister identified, on the necessity of appointing judges on appointment, and maintaining the independence of action of senior public servants who might want to curry favour with Prime Ministers who have the power to put them in the House of Lords after they complete their jobs.
Lord Hermer (Lab)
The noble Lord’s intervention exemplifies the important conversations that lie ahead as we try to unpick those tensions.
As I have just alluded to, there are wider questions around the future composition of this House. The Government are committed to other reforms, not least the alternative second Chamber set out in our manifesto. There is no doubt that this House will continue to be blessed with legal expertise. There is also no doubt that, with any appointment to your Lordships’ House now or in future, the expertise offered by former members of the senior judiciary will be a blessing to your Lordships’ House. Although noble Lords have pressed an important point and this has been an important conversation, I respectfully ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Northbrook (Con)
Before the Minister sits down, may I kindly ask him to comment on the claim by the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, that the amendments to the Bill in this group are too wide-ranging in scope? The clerks have been clear that amendments on the composition of your Lordships’ House are in scope on the basis that the removal of one group of Members is closely connected to, and has repercussive effects on, the wider membership. I believe it is against the practice of the House implicitly to criticise the clerks on the Floor of the House, which the noble and learned Lord appeared to do. Apparently, on 12 March the Government tabled amendments to change the scope and long title of the Employment Rights Bill. The Government have therefore done it on another Bill, so there is no need for the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, on this Bill.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)
My Lords, on behalf of the Government, I thank the noble Lord for his question. Obviously, it is not appropriate for the Government Benches to respond. The clerks have been clear, and we are discussing all amendments as laid out. We are on the second group of 12 today, so I beg we move forward.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, I am going to move forward by thanking everybody who contributed to that very interesting and informative debate. I did not declare an interest as a practising barrister—although of course I am—because I do not have any outstanding cases from the Supreme Court. The reason for that is that I received judgment in my last case in the Supreme Court only last week. Full disclosure—I lost. I knew things were bad when I saw in the draft judgment that the court had been very kind about how well I had argued it. That is always fatal; when the court is nice about the way you argue a case, it is going to decide against you. It is an immutable rule of English jurisprudence.
I am grateful for all the support I received on these points from various parts of the House, particularly from the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, who brought his experience to bear. I listened extremely carefully to what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, said about participation; that is a real issue. However, I was somewhat alarmed to hear that the first the Law Lords heard of the demise of that venerable institution was on the TV and that they had not been told in advance. I would have thought that a Labour Government would have wanted to tell people about any change in their—so to speak—employment status. Again, it is such a shame that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, is not among us.
As far as the noble Lord, Lord Newby, is concerned, the answer to the point he gave about individuals was precisely the point that was made by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, and that was made thereafter by my noble friend Lord Murray. I confess that whenever it comes to a bust-up between Gladstone and Disraeli, I will invariably be on the side of Disraeli.
I am grateful for the support from my noble and learned friend Lord Keen of Elie, both by way of him adding his name to my amendments and from his position on the Front Bench. I wonder whether the reason I received the advice that I would be effectively barred from becoming a judge—although the prospect of Wolfson J was always somewhat theoretical—was because I was becoming a Minister and not a law officer. I was a little surprised, but there we are.
I am extremely grateful to the Attorney-General for his response. He is right that there appears to be a consensus across the Committee that we need to find a way to have more judicial Members here, at the right time. I therefore look forward to continuing the conversation. I would make only one final point: my understanding is that so far as unamended Bills are concerned, in the previous Session only four Bills went through entirely without amendment. Two were money Bills, one was an emergency Bill and one was a Bill on animal welfare that had cross-party support. It is a somewhat worrying approach for a Government to say, ab initio, and before listening to the debate, that they will brook no amendments at all, even if they have cross-party support in principle, as this one has. With that caveat, I will withdraw my amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)
I cannot call Amendments 58 to 59B, as they are amendments to Amendment 57.
Amendment 60
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar
“Lord ChancellorIn the case of any person who holds the office of Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain who is not currently a member of the House of Lords, the Prime Minister must recommend to His Majesty the King that the person be granted a life peerage under section 1 of the Life Peerages Act 1958 (power to confer life peerages).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would ensure that the Lord Chancellor is a member of the House of Lords, as was the case for over two centuries leading up to the passage of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 60 seeks to ensure that,
“any person who holds the office of Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain who is not currently a member”
of your Lordships’ House must be recommended by the Prime Minister for a life peerage under the 1958 Act.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, I sympathise with a very great deal of what my noble friend said. I speak with a certain family background, and I too regret the diminution of the role and status of the Lord Chancellor. That said, we are where we are and we cannot sensibly address this amendment without asking ourselves what the role of the Lord Chancellor is and should be. Since 2007, the Lord Chancellor has also been Secretary of State for Justice, sitting in the House of Commons. The Secretary of State for Justice has a very large number of responsibilities that touch on the constituency interests of Members of Parliament. I find it very difficult to believe that Members of Parliament would accept the Secretary of State for Justice sitting in the House of Lords.
That takes one directly to the role. Are we to separate the role of the Lord Chancellor from that of Secretary of State for Justice? That is certainly possible; it could be done. But what other departmental responsibility would the Lord Chancellor then have? I accept that there are some senior offices that can be represented in this House—if I may say so, the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General does so with distinction. He has been preceded by other Attorneys-General in this House, and I regard that as perfectly proper because there are a relatively few constituency interests that would engage Members of the House of Commons.
That, to a lesser extent, was also true of the Foreign Secretary. My noble friend Lord Cameron occupied the role of Foreign Secretary with great distinction. It caused real problems in the House of Commons, as indeed did the role of Lord Carrington at the time of Lady Thatcher’s Government. In both cases, this had to be met by having a very effective deputy. But, again, the Foreign Secretary’s role, although hugely important, raised relatively few constituency interests.
My point is this: if the Lord Chancellor is to have a serious departmental responsibility, which has constituency interests engaged so far as Members of the House of Commons are concerned, that Lord Chancellor, Secretary of State for Justice or whatever, has to be in the House of Commons. If this Committee accepts that, one is then driven to ask: what, if any, departmental role would a new Lord Chancellor have? I find it very difficult to identify one. If that is the case, we are diminishing and not enhancing the role of the Lord Chancellor. So, while I agreed with an awful lot of the underlying sentiments expressed by my noble friend, I cannot back him on this one.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I have my name on Amendment 60. It seems to me that the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, in this regard—the Lord Chancellor having by law to be a Member of your Lordships’ House—is sensible. My noble friend Lord Hailsham’s point is easy to answer. Part of the constitutional pottage made by the Blair Government when they passed the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 was the creation of the Ministry of Justice, with its Orwellian-sounding name. It has not been a happy experience melding the operation of the prison system with the court system, and I suggest that the answer is that that is broken up and the Prison Service returned to the Home Office. Accordingly, there would be no need for a separate Secretary of State for Justice, thus answering my noble friend Lord Hailsham’s point, and the Lord Chancellor could therefore return to this House and protect the interests of the judiciary in the Cabinet. He could indeed also return to being Speaker of this House, which would further guarantee his independence from the Government of the day. That, of course, is for another day, but, at the moment, I strongly support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson.
Lord Keen of Elie (Con)
My Lords, I too support the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, with regard to the future position of the Lord Chancellor. Of course, that will not involve the Lord Chancellor sitting as a judge in the future, and I question whether it would involve him sitting as Speaker in this House. However, he clearly does have a role, but one that he can perform effectively only if, as the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, observed, the office is seen as one of the great offices of state, as it once was; if it is acknowledged as “a destination job”, as he described it, the final step in a distinguished political career. By that means, he could also be appointed Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, something that is sorely lacking at the present time. Because responsibility for the constitution is somewhat nebulous within government, and I acknowledge that that has been the case since 2005.
The responsibility is devolved to the Cabinet Office to some extent and to the Ministry of Justice in other respects, and there is a clear case for identifying someone who is in a position to discharge the role of Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs. A suitable person appointed to such an office would also resume the position that great Lord Chancellors occupied in the past. He would be not only the adviser to government on matters of constitutional nicety, but the moral conscience of the Government as well.
That role is difficult to define until it is absent, and it is a role that a suitable Lord Chancellor sitting in this House would be able to perform, with the strength to speak truth to power—something that has sometimes been absent in executive government in this country, as we have faced various constitutional challenges. I heartily endorse the amendment proposed by my noble friend.
Lord Hermer (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, and other noble Lords for their contributions to this debate. We do not accept Amendment 60 for three reasons, beyond the fact that it falls outside the intended scope of this single-issue Bill.
First, the amendment seeks to fetter the power of a Prime Minister to shape the Cabinet according to his or her own choosing. Under this amendment, if the Prime Minister wished to choose a sitting MP to be Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, as has been the case for every Lord Chancellor since 2007, that person would have to vacate their seat and trigger a by-election; or, if this amendment were to be accepted, the Prime Minister would be required to separate the roles of Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice. In the Government’s view, that would be a constitutionally inappropriate fettering of the Prime Minister’s discretion to pick a Cabinet of his or her own choosing.
Secondly, there is no constitutional or public policy rationale to justify taking us back to the position that we were in before 2005. One cannot, for the reasons set out by the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, simply pick and choose without going wholesale back to the 2005 position—putting the Lord Chancellor back on the Woolsack and as the senior judge—because what else is left of the Lord Chancellor’s role? It cannot simply be a rationale driven by nothing more than to have a member of the Cabinet committed to upholding the rule of law. That should be a commitment consistent with the ministerial code for all members of the Cabinet but, if I may say so, I also see it quite properly as a role for an Attorney-General. As the House will be aware, with the Prime Minister’s and the monarch’s grateful permission, the oath of the Attorney-General was changed when I took it to include an express commitment—although it would always have been implicit—to the rule of law.
Thirdly, the amendments fail to address what we would respectfully say are the most important attributes for a Lord Chancellor in the post-2005 age. Those attributes were identified by the Constitution Committee, which considered the Lord Chancellor’s role in a report two years ago—and I acknowledge the committee’s current chair, who is not in his place, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. In its final analysis, the report said that
“character, intellect and a commitment to the rule of law are the most important attributes for a Lord Chancellor to possess”.
We agree, and we do not consider that the acid test of those attributes is the House in which a Lord Chancellor should sit.
My right honourable friend the Lord Chancellor exemplifies the qualities of a great officeholder committed to the rule of law. More widely, as she has made clear, this entire Government see the rule of law as our lodestar. I have no doubt that the Prime Minister has appointed my right honourable friend in the confidence that the House in which she sits is no hindrance to her in discharging her vital constitutional responsibilities. For those three reasons, I respectfully request that the noble Lord withdraws his amendment.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for the contributions in this short but important debate. I make the point, although it really ought to go without saying—but I say it for the avoidance of doubt—that none of this is any reflection on the current occupant of the role, for whom I have the greatest personal respect. What we have to do when we consider constitutional matters is to move away from the personal and to the principled, and that is what my amendment is directed at.
The noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General has identified three reasons why this amendment cannot be accepted by the Government. First, he said, it would fetter the PM’s choice of who to have in the Cabinet, but it does not; the PM can still appoint anybody to the role of Lord Chancellor. In fact, the Prime Minister is able to appoint anybody and is not limited to Members of the House of Commons, because somebody could be parachuted in, as has happened on previous occasions. There is no fetter at all—that is a good red herring.
The second point is about what the Lord Chancellor would do. That was the point made by my noble friend Lord Hailsham—and the noble Lord, Lord Murray, gave the short answer. The Lord Chancellor would be there to oversee the really important parts of our constitution: constitutional affairs, devolution, human rights and international treaties. We should therefore go back to the Lord Chancellor being in charge of a Department for Constitutional Affairs.
As to the last point, that the current Attorney-General is the first one to add into the oath a commitment to the rule of law, of course I share that commitment to the rule of law with him—although I think that our interpretation of what it contains may sometimes differ, but that is not a matter for now. With regard to statute, the Lord Chancellor is in a sui generis position. I continue to think that we have lost something important in the 2005 Act, and I hope that this conversation may continue, but of course I beg leave to withdraw the amendment this evening.
“Ministerial members(1) In each Parliament, a limited number of persons may be appointed as temporary ministerial members of the House of Lords.(2) Appointments are to be made by His Majesty the King on the recommendation of the Prime Minister.(3) A recommendation may be made only for the purpose of facilitating the performance by the recommended person of that person’s functions as a Minister of the Crown.(4) An appointment may be made only at a time when there are fewer than 8 ministerial members appointed to the Parliament by the current Prime Minister who are Ministers of the Crown.(5) Any person appointed as a ministerial member of the House of Lords ceases to be a member of the House of Lords when they stop serving as a Minister of the Crown.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to allow temporary appointments to the House of Lords for serving Ministers of the Crown.
Baroness Laing of Elderslie (Con)
My Lords, the amendment in my name on the Marshalled List, Amendment 67, regards the potential appointment of temporary ministerial Members of your Lordships’ House. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, for his support of this amendment and for having added his name to it.
In the very few months during which I have been a Member of your Lordships’ House, I have seen from the inside what outside observers cannot appreciate fully: that this is an institution that works. It is a House that does its duty efficiently and effectively. I hope that discussing Amendment 67 will give the House, and indeed the Government, an opportunity to consider how the House could work even more effectively.
It is vital that a significant number of Government Ministers should be Members of this House, and equally vital that a significant number of Members of this House should be Government Ministers. Our duty to hold the Government to account is accomplished in a variety of ways, as your Lordships are well aware, the most obvious of which is asking questions of a Minister at the Dispatch Box.
In recent years, 36 Ministers have been directly appointed to this House as Ministers. They have come in and made their maiden speeches at the Dispatch Box as Ministers of the Crown. I am not for a moment suggesting that there is anything wrong with that.
A Prime Minister is entitled to appoint the person he or she considers best for the job. It is in all our interests—indeed, in the interests of the country as a whole—to have Ministers carrying out the business of government who know their subject and know how to put policies into action.
It has long been an accepted practice that a Prime Minister can appoint a person who has not been elected to Parliament to become part of the Government. But surely we all accept—some of us more than others—that the ability to win votes at a general election is not the only attribute that makes a good Minister. A successful government department needs a mixture of talents. The aim of Amendment 67 is not to restrict the ability of a Prime Minister to appoint the right person to do a particular job. On the contrary, the effect of this amendment would be to make it easier for a Minister to be appointed.
At present, the only possible appointment to this House is as a Peer for life. I put it to the House that there should be an alternative: the Prime Minister should be able to appoint a person to be a Government Minister and they should be a Member of this House during their tenure of the ministerial appointment and only for that time. Of course I will give way to my noble friend.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
I thank my noble friend for giving way. I just seek some clarification. She is making a very strong, cogent argument. When they leave their appointment as Ministers, will they keep their title or not?
Baroness Laing of Elderslie (Con)
I thank my noble friend for that very pertinent question. I think the answer is yes. A title is an honour—we have discussed this in various aspects of the Bill and in the changes that we are considering. There is no harm in a title. It is the presence of being in this House and having the ability to vote, et cetera, that is really the point at question. So, indeed, a title, once conferred, would be kept for ever. It is a great honour to be appointed to this House, but I ask noble Lords to consider that an appointment for life means something rather different to a person aged 30 and a person aged 60. None of us can predict what “for life” will mean, but if one is planning one’s career, it looks rather different from the point of view of having accomplished most of the things you are going to do, rather than from the point of view of having accomplished not very much yet.
There might be bright young things out there who could serve a few years as very effective members of a Government but who do not wish to undertake the duty of being a Member of this illustrious House for the rest of their lives. All recent Prime Ministers have vowed that they want to reduce the size of your Lordships’ House. Let us try to help the current Prime Minister to do that, by giving him the option to appoint Ministers on a temporary basis. It would be a modest step towards a 21st-century House if the Government were to consider adopting Amendment 67. I beg to move.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend Lady Laing of Elderslie proposes the creation of a new class of Members of your Lordships’ House, as ministerial members. It is not clear from her very eloquent speech whether such persons would be created Peers or not. She did suggest that they would be accorded titles, not only for the duration of their tenure in office but for life. This amendment does not address the problem of unpaid Ministers in your Lordships’ House. I am not so sure there would be many volunteers for such posts in the absence of a salary and a peerage. I hope my noble friend will clarify whether, on reflection, these temporary Ministers would be given a peerage or the right to sit after retirement from ministerial responsibilities.
Baroness Laing of Elderslie (Con)
I thank my noble friend for his question. Just to clarify, it is set out in Amendment 67 that such a person would be created a Peer, but not a Peer for life. Although the title might continue, the right to sit in your Lordships’ House would not, once the ministerial appointment had ended.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
I thank my noble friend for her clarification, but I wonder about the creation of yet another type of Peer. I wonder how many people would be happy to be created that kind of Peer, if others appointed as Ministers were created proper Peers for life. It might be a bit difficult.
I will comment on Amendment 90C, which my noble friend Lord Brady is going to move. He seeks to abolish the Lords Ministers altogether. Who would speak for the Government in your Lordships’ House? My noble friend clearly has in mind a very different role for the House, and I look forward to his elucidation of that.
Lord Brady of Altrincham (Con)
I am grateful to my noble friend for introducing my remarks so capably. I hate to disappoint him, but my intention is to speak briefly in support of my noble friend Lady Laing’s Amendment 67, not to move Amendment 90C in my name. I tabled it intending for it to sit with the earlier amendment that I proposed, which we debated at an earlier stage. My intention was to draw out a broader debate about the importance of a separation of powers. We heard earlier about the separation between the judiciary and the legislature, but we do not speak very often about the possible separation between the Executive and the legislature. That is the debate I was wishing to have, but it does not sit comfortably at this point in our proceedings.
I do, however, very strongly support my noble friend Lady Laing’s amendment, which serves quite an important purpose—and sits naturally with the avowed intention of the Bill. Most of us across the House recognise that the odd process of exempted hereditary Peers being chosen by by-election has become very difficult to justify. It has been widely said at previous stages that it had already really fallen into disuse and most people have been happy to see that there would not be future by-elections.
In dealing with what appeared to be an anomalous route for appointment to your Lordships’ House, it is very hard to see how the appointment of a Peer for life simply because they are being appointed to do a specific job for a specific period of time is not at least as anomalous.
I strongly support my noble friend in her intention. As she has said, it would increase the freedom of Prime Ministers to bring in people to act as Ministers from a much broader field or a much wider spectrum of life experience—and it would not have the unintended consequence of constantly swelling the ranks of your Lordships’ House.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, I wish to make two brief points. First, with regard to what has just been said by the noble Baroness, I strongly support the idea of time-limited persons in this House, whether they are Ministers, appointed for a particular short term or—my own favoured proposal—for fixed terms of, say, 10 years, which addresses some of my noble friend’s point.
Amendment 90C, which my noble friend Lord Brady does not intend to move, would be seriously bad news. If this House is to perform its function as a revising Chamber by scrutinising legislation, it is essential that the Government of the day are represented by competent Ministers who can answer questions from the Opposition or their own Benches. If my noble friend’s amendment, which he does not intend to move, was ever to find favour, the role of this House would be hugely diminished.
Lord Rennard (LD)
My Lords, I, too, support Amendment 67 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Laing of Elderslie, which I have signed.
As a stalwart participant in debates about the future of your Lordships’ House, in particular on the principle of its hereditary membership, it has been a source of constant frustration to me that the House has been unable since 2015 to make even minor and sensible reforms to our composition, until now. There are several sensible amendments to this Bill that go beyond removing the hereditary basis for membership, and I support the principle of this one.
I have looked at ministerial appointments made by way of creating a new peerage since 2015. There have been 29 in this period, of which nine—or approximately one-third—have lasted as Ministers for less than a year. Only seven of the 29 new Peers created in this way have lasted as Ministers for more than two years. Therefore, 76% of them have not lasted as Ministers for two years, but all of them have been granted lifetime membership of the House. I then looked at the record of those appointed Ministers in this way after they ceased to be Ministers. Of the 29, 11 have gone on to make fewer than 10 spoken contributions and only 12 have made more than 50. Fifteen did not serve on a committee, 17 took part in fewer than 50 Divisions and only eight took part in more than 100 Divisions. It is a great source of frustration to many in the House that we have seen so many ministerial appointments which involved the granting of a life peerage, with the newly appointed Ministers lasting only a very short period of time in office and then mostly disappearing without trace from our Chamber but without choosing to resign from it.
If ministerial appointments created in that way continue at the same rate over the next decade, we will add another 30 Members to the House. That would make the cull of the hereditary Members less justified, if it were simply about numbers. One ministerial Peer would be created for every three hereditary Peers removed, and the ministerial Peers are likely to be of less value to the House in the long run.
All the evidence suggests that peerages created to enable ministerial appointments inflate our size while not invariably providing Members who are very active beyond the term of their ministerial office. We need to end the practice of a peerage for life being granted simply to enable ministerial appointments to be made from outside the membership of the House of Commons. Almost everyone agrees that the House of Lords is too large and that it is not well served by having Members who inflate our numbers without properly participating in our work.
Therefore, I hope that the Government will look favourably at ending the link between a life peerage and ministerial office. They could, at the very least, expect any new Ministers appointed in this way, at the end of their term of ministerial office, either to remain as active in the House as expected by the standards of the House of Lords Appointments Commission or to resign immediately from membership of the House. A public statement from the Prime Minister that this will be the case would be a welcome step, pending more wide-ranging reforms of the House. It would make an amendment such as this less necessary and avoid further debate.
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, I hold my noble friends proposing these amendments in high regard, but I am sorry to say that they display a misunderstanding of the relationship between a Lords Minister and other Members of your Lordships’ House. I do not understand how the House would work if my noble friend Lord Brady’s amendment were to be accepted. What would be the point of being in the House of Lords if we were unable to influence a Minister on a Peer-to-Peer basis?
Lord Brady of Altrincham (Con)
Had I intended to move my amendment, I would wonder whether it occurs to my noble friend that it would be possible to bring Ministers from another place to answer Questions here.
Earl Attlee (Con)
I could not resist having a pop at my noble friend.
My noble friend Lady Laing mentioned the 36th direct ministerial appointment, and the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, in his important contribution, said more about that. The underlying cause of that is that Prime Ministers have been offering peerages, rather than attractive salaries, to fill ministerial vacancies in your Lordships’ House.
My noble friend Lady Laing’s amendment would have a very serious and adverse effect on the culture of the House. In all my time in your Lordships’ House, I have looked decades ahead. I will give an example. In the 2001 Parliament, we had a perfectly decent, hard-working and effective Minister for Defence Procurement as our Lords Defence Minister. At the time, we were militarily overcommitted, and at Question Time I asked for how many years we had operated outside the defence planning assumptions. He misled the House by saying, “My Lords, none”, and sat down. Unfortunately, that was the wrong answer. I could have wickedly arranged for him to come to the Dispatch Box, immediately after Prayers, to apologise to the House for misleading it—but I did no such thing. Instead, I located the crestfallen Minister and said, “Don’t worry, Willy, just put a Ministerial Statement in the back of Hansard and it will be fine”. Nine years later, when I accidentally cut a £1.7 billion railway electrification scheme, it was my pals in the Labour Party, including the noble Lord on the Woolsack, who said, “Don’t worry, John, you have another Question tomorrow and you can clarify the situation then”.
In the past, I have worked very closely with parachuted-in Ministers, and I am doing so now. I am working very closely with the noble Lord, Lord Timpson —who is a parachuted-in Minister—on prison reform. This is the House of Lords, and our role is to revise legislation and to be an additional check on the Executive and a source of expertise. We cannot perform this role unless other Members of the House and Ministers work together collegiately, with mutual trust and in accordance with the Nolan principles.
Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)
My Lords, I will speak in support of my noble friend Lady Laing’s amendment.
I begin by pointing out two problems with her proposal before I give her my unwavering support. I call the first the “Wolfson problem”, or perhaps the “Timpson problem”, whereby we appoint extremely experienced and able people to fill a ministerial role and then discover, when they leave that ministerial role, that they will be extremely distinguished and able Members of our House for the rest of their lives.
I gave three cheers when my noble friend Lord Wolfson came into this House, and I gave three cheers for the three excellent Ministers appointed by the new Government to the Front Bench, each with huge expertise in their areas. I invidiously agree with my noble friend Lord Attlee that one of them is the noble Lord, Lord Timpson. I have absolutely no doubt that they will continue to make extremely distinguished contributions to the House long after they have left their ministerial posts. The “Wolfson problem” is easily solved by converting those temporary Ministers into full-time life Peers at the discretion of the Prime Minister of the day.
The second issue is the element of—
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
The only problem with that is that I left my ministerial office because I resigned from it. The prospect of the Prime Minister of the day thereafter appointing me as a life Peer might be regarded as somewhat remote.
Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)
As somebody who left the Whip because of the capriciousness of the then Prime Minister, and then managed to get the Whip restored and to be put into this House, I know that there are ways around the problem, particularly with extremely clever arguments put forward on one’s own behalf. But I digress.
Baroness Laing of Elderslie (Con)
I thank my honourable—I am sorry, he is not my honourable friend; he has stopped being honourable. I thank my noble friend for giving way. I was trying to be brief in my initial remarks, so I did not go into great detail. This amendment would not apply to all Ministers; it would simply give the Prime Minister the ability to appoint some Ministers on a temporary basis. It would not oblige the Prime Minister to make all ministerial appointments to this House on a temporary basis. I hope that reassures my noble friend.
Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)
The noble Baroness was effectively my first employer, when I was 21 years old, and we have this telepathic understanding: she has seamlessly introduced the main point I wish to make.
I want to turn this round and pick up precisely on what the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, was saying. Moving to a system where the Government of the day could appoint temporary Ministers to this place would give the Prime Minister and the Government a huge amount of flexibility to fill government posts with genuine experts with, effectively, executive ministerial power to carry out their functions. There must be a small, niggling doubt when a Prime Minister is filling positions. Even with the very distinguished people appointed in recent months, he—and it is “he” in this case—must be thinking, “Am I appointing too many people to fill these Benches; people who are going be here for the rest of their lives?” If he had the freedom, for example, to appoint 12 or 13 experts in the field to fill specific ministerial roles, knowing that at the end of those roles they will leave this House, that would sit better with public opinion and give him more freedom. It would serve the country better if he were able to appoint such experts to carry out these functions—by definition, almost certainly as junior Ministers—and help the Government of the day. That is a very powerful argument.
As I say, there would be discretion to convert those Ministers into life peers at the end. In fact, I had not considered the question of whether they should have a peerage when they enter this House. My conclusion is that they should not. They should be called MILs—Ministers in the Lords—and then they can aspire, based on their service as Ministers and their contribution to the House, to a peerage after they have served as Ministers here.
Finally, I turn to the question, raised by one of my noble friends, of how many people would be attracted to the unpaid role of a Minister in the Lords. First, it does not necessarily need to be unpaid. It is a matter for the Government of the day as to whether they have the courage to face down public opinion and expand the number of paid ministerial positions. But this House should certainly seriously consider giving the Prime Minister and the Government of the day the freedom to appoint temporary MILs to help service its business.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friends Lady Laing of Elderslie and Lord Brady of Altrincham for their amendments. My noble friend Lord Brady seems to have pulled off the ingenious feat of engineering a debate on an amendment he did not want to move or speak about himself. So I will not say very much about his Amendment 90C, other than to note that the answers that noble Lords get to their questions would be far less satisfactory if the people responding had less authority to seek or determine the answers, and that our scrutiny of legislation would be diminished if the Ministers responding did not have the authority to make changes and compromises based on the arguments they have heard. We live in hope that we might be able to persuade Ministers of the need for some changes to and compromises on the Bill before the Committee.
I will focus on my noble friend Lady Laing’s Amendment 67, which has far more going for it. It is certainly valuable to be able to bring people into government who might not have had the inclination or the opportunity to stand for election. The present Government have made good use of that. Mention has already been made, rightly, of the noble Lord, Lord Timpson, who had a distinguished career in business but also helped those who had been in the penal system. More pertinent examples are people such as the noble Lords, Lord Vallance of Balham and Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill, who were distinguished public servants in their fields before they dipped their toes into more political waters. Similarly, the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General stepped away from a successful career at the Bar to provide counsel and public service in government. Governments of all colours have been able to persuade distinguished people from all sorts of walks of life to pause or sometimes abandon their careers in order to serve the country. What my noble friend says is right: they could perhaps persuade more if it were not accompanied by a life sentence in the legislature.
Although some noble Lords who have given service in government remain active members of your Lordships’ House, drawing on the expertise they have added in office, others do not. I was struck by the figures that the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, quoted on the rate of continuing participation of former Ministers. Indeed, when I look down the list of those who served in the Conservative-led Governments of the previous 14 years, I am struck by the number who have chosen no longer to sit on these Benches. I remember one difficult conversation with a noble Lord, who will remain nameless, who was anxious to step down as a Minister, having already served for longer than the late Lord Heywood of Whitehall had promised them they would have to in return for their life peerage.
So, although I am firmly of the view that Ministers of the Crown should be represented in both Houses of our bicameral system, my noble friend Lady Laing’s suggestion that temporary service in government should be separated from perpetual service here in the legislature is worthy of consideration. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Collins of Highbury) (Lab)
This has been a really interesting debate. I will not address the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Brady, because he has not moved it, which makes life a bit easier. However, he supported Amendment 67, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Laing, which seeks to allow individuals to be appointed as temporary Peers so that they can serve as Ministers, after which they would depart this House.
Although the Government see the reasoning behind this amendment, we do not think it is the best way of achieving our objective of a smaller, more active Chamber. Ministers are appointed to the Government because of the experience and expertise they bring to this House, and the House benefits hugely from that. Some Ministers appointed to this House who were Members of Parliament bring both an intrinsic understanding of the other place and valuable experience of particular government departments. I have said before that in my view, both Houses work most effectively when we understand each other’s day-to-day workings. That is a really important point.
Others have been appointed as Ministers in recognition of the value of their experience outside of government, in the private sector and in other areas of public service. As noble Lords have said, we are lucky enough to have a number of such experts on the Benches with us. My noble and learned friend Lord Hermer and my noble friend Lord Timpson were recently appointed to this House to serve as Ministers, as was the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, in the last Parliament.
Whatever the precise reasons for their appointment, I think noble Lords would agree that these individuals proved valuable to the House long after they ceased to be Ministers. This amendment risks depriving the House of often considerable experience.
I understand the sentiment of this amendment. New Peers, whether appointed as Ministers or not, increase the size of this House, because appointments are for life, and the House has become too big. What the House has found frustrating is that, often, when Ministers are appointed and come into this House, they leave their ministerial posts quite quickly and make no further contribution. That is not the case for the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, and certainly not for the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, and the noble Lord, Lord Agnew. All three of them resigned from government on a matter of principle, but they have continued to participate.
We would not have had the benefit of the noble Lord in the debate today if he had been subject to the noble Baroness’s amendment. This is an important point to make. The noble Lord, Lord Agnew, has continued to contribute. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, has been contributing to today’s debate. I hear what the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, says, but I suspect that they do not have his unique skills in persuading the Prime Minister to keep them in.
The noble Baroness’s amendment is not the way to address the problem of the size of our House. Our objective is to create a smaller, more active Chamber that represents the country it serves. As we have said throughout Committee, the Government believe that a mandatory retirement age is the most effective way to do this. It is right that we take time, as a House, to continue the dialogue on how best we can implement these manifesto commitments, and this amendment would pre-empt that dialogue.
I have heard what the noble Baroness has to say, but the evidence is here before us. It is not for the first time that I have congratulated the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, on his participation, and it would be terrible if we did not have him here in today’s debate. I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Lord Rennard (LD)
My Lords, would the Minister consider raising with the Prime Minister the suggestion that I made of a statement along the lines I indicated in my speech, which would enable a Prime Minister to make Ministers by way of creating a peerage, but for such Peers to continue in the role only if they undertook regular participation in the House in future, and, if they did not, that they should therefore resign their membership of the House?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
As the noble Lord knows, we are going to look at participation generally. That means that we have to engage in proper dialogue and consultation, so I do not accept the noble Lord’s point. I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Laing of Elderslie (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his assessment of the amendment that I have put before the Committee. It had not been my intention to have any argument ad hominem. I was not looking backwards in my tabling of this amendment in order to eject from the House any particular former Minister—and certainly not any sitting here.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
I just make it clear, as far as I am concerned, that a copy of today’s Hansard is going directly to my mother, and I am very grateful for what my noble friend said.
Baroness Laing of Elderslie (Con)
In consideration of the feelings of the noble Lord’s mother, let me make it absolutely clear that I share the Minister’s admiration for recent Ministers on both sides of the House, and, indeed, those who are now shadow Ministers and those who were previously shadow Ministers. The quality of the personnel who take charge of this House is exemplary and magnificent. Does the noble Lord think that that will be enough for his mother?
Lord Ashton of Hyde
“Retirement from the House of LordsIn section 1(2)(b) of the House of Lords Act 2014, after “peer”, insert “or a person holding a lasting power of attorney for that peer”.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment allows for a person holding a lasting power of attorney for a peer to sign on their behalf when notifying the Clerk of the Parliaments of the peer’s retirement.
Lord Ashton of Hyde (Non-Afl)
My Lords, in 1934, Percy Shaw patented the cat’s eye, the ubiquitous reflective road stud that we all recognise. It is one of the most perfect inventions and recognised as one of the top 10 British design icons, along with, among other things, the Spitfire, the telephone box and the world wide web. It is simple, effective, self-cleaning and, most importantly, was wholly beneficial to everyone. It had no downsides.
I am not claiming that my Amendment 69 is quite in the same league, but it is non-political and non-partisan; it applies to all noble Lords, whether elected hereditaries or life Peers; and—the noble Baroness the Leader of the House will like this—it helps address the view of the Labour manifesto that
“the second chamber of Parliament has become too big”.
The problem it addresses is to do with the composition of the House, which is why it is relevant to this Bill, and one that faces all party leaders, Chief Whips and the Convener of the Cross Benches. They often have conversations with Peers about retirement, and sometimes those conversations are quite difficult. That is understandable, because it is a sensitive subject, and particularly so when it occurs because the Peer feels that he or she might be losing the mental capacity required to be a Member of the legislature. It is, as I say, a sensitive subject, and I pay tribute to those Peers who have made the difficult and brave decision to retire for that reason. But mental capacity is not a cut and dried issue, and it can vary from day to day or week to week, and it can often reduce over time. When you are over the hill, as they say, you begin to pick up speed.
The House of Lords Reform Act 2014 allows a Peer to retire if he or she signs a letter which is witnessed and addressed to the Clerk of the Parliaments. The Catch-22 situation is that the Peer has to have, in the opinion of the Clerk of the Parliaments, the mental capacity to be able legitimately to sign the retirement letter. Even if there is a lasting power of attorney in place, the attorney cannot sign a retirement letter on behalf of a Peer who has lost mental capacity. So we have the perverse situation that an attorney can sell a Peer’s house or use his or her money to pay for long-term care, but has to leave that same Peer able to vote and speak in Parliament, even if their mental capacity continues to reduce steadily. I think everyone would agree that this is not good for the reputation of the House and potentially unkind to the Peer who may still attend the House when, frankly, they should not.
Not all Peers will have a lasting power of attorney, even though we should all at least consider it. However, if they have thought it through and decided to establish a lasting power of attorney while they still have mental capacity, this amendment would remove all doubt and allow the Clerk of the Parliaments to accept the attorney’s signature on the resignation letter. I beg to move.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, what feels like many years ago when we had the first day in Committee on this Bill, the noble Lord, Lord True, moved a completely unnecessary amendment to restate the purpose of the Bill as already expressed in the short title. That focused on the content of the Bill, which is about hereditary Peers.
The problem with the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Ashton, which has a great deal to be said for it in terms of substance, is that it is not relevant to the Bill. It focuses on another matter, a matter which needs to be resolved—for the future of this House and for the reputation of this House—but it is not a matter for this discussion in this Bill.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I have taken a certain interest in this issue because a Peer who was extremely kind to my wife and me when we were young academics, and was himself then a senior diplomat, was the case in point.
This is something which needs sorting. It can be sorted by either a change in Standing Orders or an Order in Council. If that is not allowed, it needs legislation. We have just passed a short Bill through this House, the Church of Scotland (Lord High Commissioner) Bill, which covered one extremely small element that was forgotten or not allowed by the Church of Scotland in the Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829. If we can do that, then we can add, if necessary, a short amendment to this Bill to have that effect.
As I walked through the Lobby the other day, another Peer, who happens to be a relative of the Peer in question, said to me, “This is not just a single case. Until we have agreed a retirement age, we are likely to be facing this again and again with others”. We all know that there have been cases of Peers who have continued to come here as they begin to lose their mental capacity.
I have another reason for intervening on this. I recall my mother, aged 93, trying to sign a power of attorney for me to act on her behalf. Her paralysis had reached a point where she was unable to sign and thus not able to confer the power of attorney, despite being completely in her right mind.
This can be done. We are entitled to ask the Government that, by Report, we have clear advice on whether it has to be done by legislation or can be done by an Order in Council or a change in Standing Orders. I know that there is conflicting advice on this, because I have taken some interest in the case.
I know that the Government’s preferred outcome is that there should be no amendments to this Bill. However, this is a Bill about some further reform of the Lords, and we are unlikely to see another one for some time. Therefore, this House is entitled to say, as it goes through, that we are interested in some further reforms and that some further limited reforms might appropriately be attached to this Bill. That is what we are now discussing.
I look forward to the Government making an announcement at the start of Report on what further changes in the structures, Standing Orders and procedures of this House they propose, what further consultation on legislative changes they have in mind and when they propose to complete them, so as to help the passage of this Bill through the House. I strongly support this amendment. I do not mind whether the changes are made in one form or another, but they are simple to make, and it should be done.
Lord Garnier (Con)
My Lords, as a signatory of the amendment, perhaps I may make one or two points in support of my noble friend Lord Ashton.
A lasting power of attorney gives the attorney a power to make decisions about two sets of things—health and welfare, and property and financial affairs. Under health and welfare, the attorney can deal with your daily routine—washing, dressing and eating. They can make arrangements for your medical care, for moving into a care home and for life-sustaining treatment. They can make use of that power when you are unable to make your own decisions.
A property and financial affairs lasting power of attorney can be used as soon as it is registered and with your permission. That allows the attorney to manage a bank or building society account to pay bills, to collect benefits or a pension, and, as my noble friend Lord Ashton mentioned, to sell your home. These are big decisions in both types of power of attorney. However, as he pointed out, what they cannot do is enable you to retire from this House when you have lost your faculties.
I am particularly interested in this amendment because, having been on the Conduct Committee for the last three years—I came off it in January—it appeared to me and perhaps to other members of the committee that loss of mental capacity is something that this House will have to deal with in a humane but none the less determined fashion. Had the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, been making that point about this being out of scope of this Bill in a court, I would have said it was a mere pleading point and, “Shall we just get to the substance?” The substance is that this is an issue—the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, was right to address it—that has to be dealt with, if not within this Bill then in some other way by the House, because we are facing a growing and difficult problem of people who are beginning to fail to understand that they should no longer be here. It may be cruel to expel people, but if they could make up their own mind, they would do so. We need to cater for those who have lost the ability and the capacity to make that decision.
I urge the House, if it does not accept the amendment in its current terms, to understand that this is a problem that faces us, and we must deal with it as a House.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach (Con)
Perhaps I may say a few words as the predecessor of my noble friend Lord Ashton of Hyde as Chief Whip for the Government in this House. When I was serving under the noble Baroness, Lady May, she was very keen to make sure that the numbers in this House did not increase exponentially. We have the noble Lord, Lord Burns, in his place today, to thank for a very good report on not increasing the numbers in this place.
I spent a lot of time, along with my noble friend, trying to urge people to retire when they could no longer participate in this House or do anything to add to our deliberations in any way. I felt that we needed to do something about this. So when this amendment was pointed out to me, I did not take the view of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, although I totally agree with his analysis that it is not covered by the Short Title of the Bill, except for the reference to “hereditary Peers”. This should apply to all Members of the House, and I urge the Government, when they come across this issue on Report, to propose their own amendment to address it on behalf of the whole House, or to suggest ways in which we can do so with the support of all Benches. The need to achieve this objective has been very well explained.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
My Lords, I simply want to make two points, one on procedure and the other on substance. On procedure and the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, he will know, as a long-standing Member of this House, that if my noble friend’s amendment were not in scope, it could not have been tabled. Also, as much as the noble Baroness the Leader of the House may pray in aid her manifesto and the promise of more legislation, we know that, despite the standard argument of Ministers that a particular piece of legislation is not an appropriate vehicle and another one will be along shortly, it very often does not happen.
That leads me to my point concerning substance, which I am sure the noble Baroness the Leader of the House will acknowledge. As my noble friend has already said, this sensitive issue is one that all of us who have had the privilege to serve as Leader or Chief Whip of our respective groups have faced, and we cannot leave it unanswered or unaddressed. I urge the noble Baroness please to take this seriously, and I hope that the Government’s desire not to amend the Bill will not be advanced as an excuse in response to this debate.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I have put my name to my noble friend’s amendment. My noble friend, as a former Chief Whip; my noble friend Lord Taylor of Holbeach, as a former Chief Whip; my noble friend, who is a former Leader; and I as a former Leader: we all know that there is a serious issue of law and principle that needs to be addressed here. I agree with the very wise words and advice to the House from the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, took exception to a speech I made at the outset of these debates. In part of that speech, I said that there are several parties to this legislation. One is the Government’s desire, which we accept, to stop the inflow of hereditary Peers; the other is the views of other parties in the House; but there is an overriding interest of the House. This is a House of Parliament, and there is a Bill before us which directly affects your Lordships’ House. It is absolutely reasonable, as the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, submitted, that this House of Lords should put forward propositions for sensible and limited amendments to legislation that will improve, potentially, the reputation of the House. I believe that this proposal fits squarely into that. I assert the simple principle that those who cannot conduct their own affairs should not conduct the affairs of Parliament. If this is not addressed, it risks one day bringing disrepute on this House.
The clear intention of the House at the time of the 2014 Act that brought in retirement was exactly that those life Peers who no longer wished to take part in the House, or who perhaps felt that their powers to do so effectively were declining, might retire permanently from the House. That was a sensible and useful reform, but, as has been described in the debate, a potential problem has arisen. In the 2014 Act, it is clear that a Peer must personally sign a witness document stating that he or she is wanting to retire. That was the clear advice I received from the House authorities when I was Leader: that where a Peer has ceded control of his or her affairs by means of a lasting power of attorney, as explained to us by my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier, doubts have been expressed as to whether the Clerk of the Parliaments could accept the letter of a duly appointed attorney as conclusive in relation to retirement. Thus, as my noble and learned friend said, in extremis an attorney might be able to sell the property of an individual, move their bank account contents anywhere or put them into a retirement home, but they could not effect a request for that Peer to retire from the House. That is a quite extraordinary position.
In the worst imaginable case, an attorney might know that a Peer is wholly incapable of managing his or her own affairs but could not prevent that Peer coming to the House to take part in directing the nation’s affairs because no valid document of retirement could be presented to the Clerk of the Parliaments. Such circumstances should never arise, and they would never be accepted in any House of Parliament in most other countries of the world. I simply disagree with the view expressed that an amendment cannot be considered or accepted because it was not part of the original intention of the Government in presenting a piece of legislation. I have presented many pieces of legislation to your Lordships’ House on behalf of the Government and found that the House did not agree with the purpose I had in mind for the Bill, but that it thought that the Bill might be a useful vehicle for making changes to the betterment of the public weal.
If there is before us a vehicle that could enable us to do something swiftly and easily that would be useful for this House and for Parliament, I believe we should take that opportunity. This is not a question of prevarication or wanting to cause difficulties. It is the easiest and simplest thing to do and would involve a 15-minute debate on Report if we get agreement on a way forward, if that is necessary. This Bill provides an obvious opportunity to put the law beyond doubt. It is under doubt and it is conflicting advice, and we have a vehicle through which we could make it clear. The issue has no relevance to politics or to the other contentious issues in the Bill. In my submission, it is simply common sense. Frankly, it is an amendment to the law that no one in the other place could conceivably take any exception to.
I trust very much that your Lordships will support my noble friend and take advantage of this opportunity to set this small but important matter beyond doubt, if it is indeed necessary to do so. I know that the noble Baroness the Leader of the House takes this matter very seriously—we have had the opportunity to discuss it and other matters in our normal conversations—and that she will give full consideration to the arguments of my noble friend. But it is my submission that the Bill should not leave this House without this difficult and sensitive matter having been solved swiftly, clearly and permanently, and with the utmost, crystalline clarity.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ashton of Hyde, for raising this issue, as he knows from the brief conversation we had about it. We have heard from two former Chief Whips and two former Leaders of the House how serious an issue this is. For me, it is a matter of the dignity of the Member. Where Members are not able to participate in the role of this House, particularly Members who have—I hesitate to say “career”—given distinguished service to your Lordships’ House, they should be able to leave with dignity.
I am slightly ahead of noble Lords. One of the first things I did as Leader of the House, knowing there had been problems in the past, was to seek further legal advice on this matter. I am still seeking advice, and I think there is a way forward, but there is not much more I can say at this stage. It is an issue that needs careful consideration.
I am sorry that the debate has been a little “It must be in the Bill”; I think that the best way forward is to give effect to it quickly, and I do not really care what the vehicle is. We may be able do it more quickly or we may have to wait to pass legislation, but what I can say is that it is more legally complex. It may be that a change in the law is not the best way and is not what is required; it may be that we can do it from the House itself. Those are issues that I am looking at at the moment. I am happy to talk to the noble Lord about it, but I am looking at ways to give effect to this.
I ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment and give him the assurance that we will return to this issue. As the noble Lord, Lord True, said about our conversations, it is one of the first things that I raised with him very early on, soon after I became Leader, as I feel that it has been around for far too long and it needs resolution as quickly as possible. This engages a number of issues, but I assure your Lordships that I will take this away and bring something back to your Lordships’ House in one form or another. I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment, but I give him my assurance that this is not something I will let drop: I have already been working to get a resolution as quickly as possible.
Lord Ashton of Hyde (Non-Afl)
I thank all noble Lords who have spoken, including the noble Lord, Lord True, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, who added their names to this amendment. I particularly thank the Leader of the House for her encouraging words.
I was a bit disappointed by the point from the noble Lord, Lord Harris, which was, to a certain extent, a political point—that there should be no amendments to the Bill and that, even if we have a perfect vehicle to achieve the solution to a problem, we should not use it. The Leader of the House has said that there may be other ways and that the most important thing is to address the problem, which we all agree exists. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, who explained better than I can why the noble Lord, Lord Harris, was in error, but he may not agree.
On the basis of what the noble Baroness said, for which I am grateful, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. I think we can address this before Report and deal with it then.
Baroness Smith of Llanfaes
“Timeline for the next stage of reform of the House of LordsThe Secretary of State must, within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, set out a timetable outlining additional reforms to the composition of the House of Lords during the Parliament in which this Act is passed.”Member's explanatory statement
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to promptly publish the next stages of reform to the House of Lords.
Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (PC)
My Lords, although I welcomed during Second Reading His Majesty’s Government starting efforts to reform the composition of this House, I am still perplexed as to why they have still not seized this opportunity to go much further. My Amendment 71, supported by my noble friend Lord Wigley, aims to address that.
Most of your Lordships will be aware of Plaid Cymru’s long-held position that this place should be abolished and replaced with a democratic alternative—a view that I thought the Prime Minister shared. It was certainly the position of his party prior to the 2024 general election. This Government can and should go so much further, but we remain with a very thin Bill and no firm commitment to further reform in this term. This thin Bill is utilising so much parliamentary time for not that much change, and I am not alone in this view; even some on the Labour Benches have expressed it.
The noble Lord, Lord Hain, was reported in the Guardian on 3 March as saying that
“time was of the essence for any possible further changes”.
He said:
“I think if you don’t do it in your first term then are you ever going to do it?”
We have far to go.
Amendment 71 seeks to ensure that momentum is not lost and that there is a firm continuance in reforming this place and ensuring that that mission is not dropped. My amendment is very simple: it requires the Secretary of State to publish the next stages of reform for this place within six months of the day on which the Act is passed. What is there to disagree with?
It is imperative that we see commitment from His Majesty’s Government for further reforms in the future. We need certainty and action. Further reform must stem from consultation with citizens—those whose lives are shaped by the decisions that we make in this place. How can we possibly know what serves them best without asking them? Citizens’ assemblies could be a way of doing this.
Following the 2024 general election, a Modernisation Committee was established in the other place, driven by a new generation of MPs determined to bring their working practices into the modern age. Its purpose is to review procedures, standards and working practices. In the implementation of Amendment 71, perhaps there is a strong case to be made for the establishment of a similar committee in this place. However, that has not been defined in the amendment and would be up to the Government. It would be a modest but very meaningful step towards a second Chamber that would be more accessible for a broader range of people in our society.
The Duke of Wellington (CB)
My Lords, I apologise for being absent from the Chamber earlier, when I was attending the European Affairs Select Committee. At Second Reading, I said that I thought the Bill should be allowed to pass largely unamended, and I said that with great sadness. However, since Second Reading, many noble Lords from all sides of the House have told me that, in their opinion, it is unlikely that the Government will take Lords reform any further. That is regrettable. There is considerable support for further reforms from throughout the House, and I think it would be sensible for the Government to introduce further reforms.
Of course, other reforms were also in the Labour Party manifesto. Matters such as minimum participation were mentioned in the manifesto. I realise that a retirement age has become controversial, but the handling of misconduct by Members was also in the manifesto.
The sole purpose of my Amendment 81, which I hope the Government will at least consider, is to require the Government to go to the next stage of reform within 24 months. The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, has put six months, and the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, has put 18 months, but I have put 24 months to give the Government more time. I have purposely not specified what reforms should be in the next piece of legislation because I well understand that the Leader— I am so pleased that she is in her place—wishes to consult extensively on these matters.
We have discussed at some length in Committee possible further reforms and, as I said earlier, the manifesto included certain specific further reforms. It is right that these matters should be considered, probably outside this Chamber, by wise heads and at a sensible pace, but it would not be correct for Ministers to say to the country that by removing the hereditary Peers they have completed reform of the House of Lords. They should be more ambitious and find a way to bring here men and women prepared to undertake public service in this House and—this is the important point—who would be unlikely to be nominated by party-political leaders.
I ask the Government to consider Amendment 81. I do not believe that the other place would necessarily object to it. Although I am sure that it will reject many other amendments that may or may not be passed on Report, this amendment could find favour in the other place. I hope Ministers will consider it.
Lord Fowler (CB)
My Lords, Amendment 85 is in my name. I will be extremely brief. I had originally written down that I agreed with some of what the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, had to say. Having listened to her, I am not sure that that fully explains my position; I found myself in sympathy less and less with what she had to say in her proposals, but there we are. I am much more in sympathy with what the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, said, because he put the case extremely well. It is always a great privilege to follow him, and it is very good for my reputation with my children that I can at last say, “I was supporting the Duke of Wellington in the House of Lords last night”. Even more, I support the provisions that he puts forward.
It was right of the Government to set out what they wanted to do, and what they are doing is the proper course to take. My only concern is the time that this three-line Bill is spending on the Floor of the House of Lords. A number of very important points have been followed, and I pay tribute to the definition from the noble Lord, Lord True, of what can and should be amended, but I think he concedes that not everything in the Bill can be added to and amended. That really is my point—it is not really a point, in a sense, for this Bill, but it is certainly for the handling of it.
I take the view that the whole value of this House is not just as a revising Chamber but because we have acknowledged experts here. In areas such as defence, for example, they can give their advice, and that advice goes not just to us but to the country. That is a very important function that the House of Lords has.
My advice is that we should have as much debate as we can, which will enable people to say why the House of Lords should listen but also why the public should. Yet we know that it is extremely difficult to get debates on the Floor of this House issues other than this Bill—I mean debates with speeches, and with proper time for those speeches, rather than Parliamentary Questions. We know very well indeed what problems that creates. Yet it seems that, at this point in our history—this time of unbelievable tension in the world—there is a particular need for the House of Lords to try to act as a funnel for the concerns being put forward, where the House and the experts within it can make their contribution. Yet I fear we are going to spend four or five sessions talking about just the House of Lords. That is a pity, and it is excessive considering the other issues. That means that we will not have long debates about the situation in Palestine, the position in Syria, or the 101 other issues that there are.
My proposal is basically this: we should deal as expeditiously and as generously as we can, in the way the Leader of the House suggests, with the issues that can be contained in this Bill, but we should recognise that not all of them can be. My amendment says that the Government, within 18 months of the day on which the Bill passes, should put before Parliament a draft Bill that seeks to limit the size of the House of Lords. That seems, frankly, non-controversial at the moment, but it is the most important thing, as my noble friend behind me knows. If we know what the numbers are we can make sensible policies. We need legislative proposals to introduce a retirement age for Members of the House of Lords—I perhaps speak with more authority than most on age and the rest, as far as this is concerned. Then, even if Ministers do not agree, there should also be proposals about electing a proportion of the membership of the House of Lords, which I know some parties hold very dear.
My proposal, therefore, is that we should first support the Government’s Bill. We should then add those rather different concerns to it in the future. Once this Bill is out of the way, we should go in for serious consideration of the other issues. I agree entirely with what the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, said: we cannot stop here. We have come a certain way in reform but it is not enough. To say that we will simply abolish the hereditary Peers—goodness knows that that has been on the books now since 1997—is insufficient and inadequate. We should address the other issues as well. That, I fear, means the Government making proposals on the issues that I have set out. I think that the House would approve of that, and so would the public.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, all the amendments in this group seek to bind the Government to undertake some further reform of your Lordships’ House. They variously cover some of the other manifesto commitments the Labour Party made before the general election. As one of those who sit here as
“the sand in the shoe”,—[Official Report, 22/6/1999; col. 791.]
as we were described, to ensure that the House does indeed move in the direction of accepting more democracy at the expense of prime ministerial power, I welcome all three amendments.
The Bill without any such amendment seeks to achieve the reverse. None of these three amendments by itself guarantees real democratic reform. Amendment 71 is non-specific as to what changes to the composition would be proposed, although Amendment 70, proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Llanfaes, and the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, on 10 March, did contain proposals for an entirely elected House on a proportional representation model. During that debate, the noble Baroness stated that among bicameral legislatures, the only entirely appointed upper chambers are your Lordships’ House and the Parliament of Lesotho. She forgot to mention Canada.
The noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, allows the Government a full two years to lay a Bill before Parliament, and his Amendment 81 would not bind them to enact any substantive changes, such as were envisaged in 1999. The noble Lord, Lord Fowler, allows the Government 18 months to produce proposals covering three areas: size of the House, retirement age and the election of a proportion of Members. All these areas were referred to in the Labour Party manifesto, including the retirement age provision, which was included in the first paragraph containing matters that the Government would address first.
I am not sure that the models proposed in any of these amendments contain the best way forward, but I am certain that it is a mistake to change the composition of the House before deciding the direction in which we should move. It is also arguable that the public should be invited to endorse the final recommendations in a referendum.
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, whether or not one agrees with the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, that many of the issues we have been debating should not have been debated—I think with every passing hour, his arguments will gain more support among your Lordships—the one thing they have done that should help the Government is tease out the views of the House on the whole raft of issues the Government say in their manifesto they plan to legislate for later in the Parliament.
The Government are in a much better-informed position of what your Lordships’ House thinks on issues such as retirement age and what is acceptable behaviour than they were at the start. So we should all be—at one level, in theory—extremely relaxed, because the Government have a manifesto commitment to do all these things, on which we broadly agree, during the lifetime of this Parliament.
The problem is that a number of noises have emanated from the Government—not in your Lordships’ House—that perhaps they will not actually do it and that this might be the endpoint. That is why people are getting nervous, because the other things the Government are committed to—on which there is consensus, virtually, in your Lordships’ House—may not actually happen. That is why these amendments have been tabled and I completely support the principles behind them.
I am not sure that having an amendment that says that within a certain time the Government should come forward with unspecified things gets you desperately far. My problem with the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, even though the third component of it mirrors our own amendment on an elected House in some respects, is of a different order. There clearly is no consensus in your Lordships’ House about an elected House, however much we would like it. That has to be dealt with separately from all the other issues where there is agreement and on which we need to make progress during this Parliament.
I hope that, if not tonight—I hope it will be tonight—then certainly on Report, we have a much clearer idea from the Government what their timetable is for getting to the next stage, because if we had that, it would ease a lot of the current debates, behind which lies a fear that the issues on which we are agreed may not be progressed in a timely manner. I look forward to hearing the Leader of the House’s response to this common plea from the House to keep at it and let us know the pace the Government intend to adopt in doing so.
Lord de Clifford (CB)
My Lords, I support these amendments, especially Amendment 81 from the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington. I refer to my interest in the register: I am a hereditary Peer.
As stated on many occasions in Committee by the Minister on the Front Bench, this is a simple Bill with one simple action: to remove the right of hereditaries to sit in this House. Other than the first day in Committee, when your Lordships spoke on amendments to Clause 1, the remaining days have been spent mainly on reform of the House of Lords, with many different proposals being suggested, such as the length of a term a Peer should serve, a possible retirement age, a participation requirement for Peers, and a longer-term view of an elected Chamber or a partially elected Chamber, with regional participation.
The Labour manifesto mentioned the immediate removal of the hereditary Peers, which we are debating and which will most likely go through. I support this, although with disappointment, bearing in mind the good work that hereditary Peers have done in this House. The manifesto sets out more options for future reform, such as a retirement age and a participation requirement, with a long-term vision of a second Chamber to replace this esteemed House.
By the end of Committee, we will have spent nearly 20 hours discussing Lords reform. That is why I support these amendments: they require the Government to come back at some point in the future to say when the next Lords reform will take place—therefore, not wasting the time spent in this Session of Parliament discussing Lords reform. The track record of this House in agreeing some form of reform is not good. Hereditary Peers have remained here for 25 years.
Amendment 81 in the name of the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, which I support wholeheartedly, is simple—a bit like the Bill. It requires the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament a draft Bill containing legislative proposals for reform of the House of Lords within two years. It does not set out any detail about what should be in the proposed legislation; all it does is force the Government to take forward the next stage of reform, which, it appears from Committee, most Peers agree needs to happen.
The Leader of the House has encouraged us all to engage with her on the future of the House. I thank her for the time she has spent with Peers. These amendments may add to her workload because they put a deadline on making decisions with regard to reform, but some proposals have already been set out in the manifesto. They set a deadline for things to happen; without deadlines on difficult and indecisive issues, things just continue on and on. That is why a date would help to take reforms forward—it is important.
The reforms may not be perfect despite the length of time we have debated the issue. The legislation will not be a perfect solution and not everybody will agree, but reform is wanted from outside the House and therefore a deadline to force something through is appropriate at this stage. That is why I support these amendments to continue Lords reform after the removal of hereditary Peers.
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, all these amendments are unnecessary as, in my opinion, there will be no next stage of reform at any time soon—certainly not in this Parliament. The drivers for this Bill are class-based and a need to reduce overall numbers, thanks—wait for it—to the mismanagement of various Conservative Prime Ministers. The only one of them who seemed to grasp the need for restraint was my noble friend Lady May.
The evidence for my statement is that Sir Tony Blair had two successive, clear election victories after the 1999 Act, as well as the benefit of the very carefully thought-out royal commission report chaired by my noble friend Lord Wakeham. He did nothing; I suspect that was because he could not be sure that any further reform would result in a better arrangement than what we already have. My question for the Minister is: why not just implement the Wakeham reforms?
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, I will respond from these Benches to these three amendments, which all seek to hold the Government to their manifesto commitment to deliver “immediate”—that was the word used—reform of the House of Lords. I mentioned that commitment in my Second Reading speech on this Bill.
I can be brief this evening as the essential points have been made by, in particular, the three noble Lords who tabled these amendments. We have heard much of the Government’s plans, and there has been much talk in these debates of the importance of punctuation in the Government’s manifesto, but the central point on these amendments is this: the Government ought to give the Committee reassurance that the wider reform will come and, importantly, that it will come soon.
When the House of Lords Reform Act 1999 was passed, the Government claimed that the compromise as to some hereditary Peers remaining in your Lordships’ House would act as an encouragement to the Government to complete their reform of the House. However, we are now more than two decades on and still the Government have not brought forward to this House—as opposed to a few sentences in a manifesto—anything approaching proper reform. The obvious question is: why?
The Government often say that, if we seek to change everything, we run the risk of changing nothing, but the truth is, as we all know, that legislative time is precious. In SW1, the most valuable commodity is parliamentary time on the Floor of a House. We have seen Governments fail to deliver second-stage reform before, so why would it be different this time? As the noble Lord, Lord Newby, rightly pointed out, the noises off—if we can call them that—are not encouraging at all.
Therefore, I completely understand the concerns of the noble Baroness and noble Lords who have brought these amendments. We should reasonably expect the Government to give the Committee a much clearer sense of when, in their already busy legislative timetable, they intend to bring forward the next stage of reform. This House, on this issue, is very much once bitten, twice shy. I look forward to hearing from the Leader of the House on this important issue. I hope that she can be more definite than saying, “At some time in this Parliament”.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I smiled at the point where the noble Lord said that “the party opposite” had done nothing for two decades. I just have to remind him that, for 14 years of those two decades, he was in government and we were not, which did hamper our ability to take action.
I want to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Llanfaes, the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, and the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, for their amendments. What seems clear—and I welcome this—is that there is a bit of momentum about change, which has been lacking for a very long time. I seem to remember that the only proposal the party opposite came forward with about the House of Lords in its time in government was to move this House to York while the rest of Parliament stayed in London, which was not a particularly helpful or constructive suggestion. We seem to be moving now towards a much more collegiate way of doing things and seeing some way forward. I am grateful for that; it is very helpful.
Several times in the debate, noble Lords have raised the question: why this particular proposal first? I have explained that this is the first stage, and the reason that this is the first stage of reform is that it is the one described as “immediate” in the manifesto, but it also completes the start of something that started 25 years ago. The principle of removing the hereditary Peers was established 25 years ago. It seemed very straight- forward, even though we have had very long debates about other issues around it. I am not criticising that; it is just a matter of fact. That principle was established, and this completes that principle.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, has not spoken during this debate, apart from in a sedentary position. He sits and mutters, “Ain’t going to happen”. My, such cynicism in one so young.
Lord Strathclyde (Con)
My Lords, I feel deeply flattered by the noble Baroness. I always thought she was younger than me, but there we are.
In her introductory remarks, she accused the Conservative Government of the last 14 years of not having done any reform. She has forgotten the 2012 Bill that was introduced in the House of Commons and passed its Second Reading with flying colours but then, because of the lack of support from the Labour Party on a timetable Motion, did not go any further at all. Surely the noble Baroness should show some humility. The Labour Party, which promised further reform in 1997 and again on the passage of the 1999 Act, has done no thinking whatever since then.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
The noble Lord’s memory may need a bit of jogging. We are talking about a time when there was a majority; had the Conservative Government wanted to push that through, they would have been able to do so.
The proposal from Michael Gove to move the House of Lords to York—which was really a nonsense and did not help the reputation of this House or of the Government—fundamentally misunderstood how this House operates. We are trying to look at how the House operates. We are fulfilling a manifesto commitment but we are also fulfilling what started 25 years ago. The noble Lord is critical that we did not do it sooner, but it is here now, and I have made clear that further proposals for the next stages will come forward, so he can park his cynicism for now. We will come back to this and see who gets it right.
I thank the noble Baroness and both noble Lords for tabling these helpful amendments. I am grateful to them, and I respectfully ask that the noble Baroness withdraws her amendment.
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, I am at one with the noble Baroness the Leader about Mr Gove and York, but can she explain why she cannot blow the dust off the royal commission report—the Wakeham report—and just implement that?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
The Wakeham report was some time ago, but I am always happy to look at it as we go forward to further our considerations. But the House today should come to the view on what the House today would like to do.
The noble Earl gave a list of his Government’s failures on the House of Lords. I suggest that another of them was not accepting the Grocott Bill.
Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (PC)
My Lords, I thank everyone who has spoken in this debate, and I am grateful to all noble Lords who have supported the proposal that was brought forward. I will not be able to refer to each point made, but I will try to respond briefly.
The noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, noted that there is a consensus around the House for further reform inside and outside the House. That is an important point to note and something that we should push forward. Although the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, may disagree with my reasoning, at least we agree on the outcome: we cannot stop here.
The noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, rightly pointed out that my Amendment 71 does not provide a specific model. My Amendment 70, previously debated on another day, does so, but this was on purpose and Amendment 71 was more of a probing amendment. I hope the Government bring forward a clear timetable on the next stage before Report. The noble Lord, Lord Newby, pointed out that if the Government published a plan, there would be far fewer amendments on Report, so I hope we see a plan.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, for his support for the group of amendments. He noted that some reform is wanted outside the House. There was a good consensus from around the House. The Leader of the House welcomes the momentum for change, and I hope she will join and lead that momentum.
While I welcome the Government’s commitment to removing hereditary Peers, this reform cannot and must not be the end of the journey. We must push for a fully democratic second Chamber, one that is chosen by the people it serves and not by birthright or privilege. The momentum for change must continue, and we cannot afford to let it falter.
Amendment 71 would ensure that the Government were held accountable on their long-held calls for abolishing the Lords and would require them to outline the next steps for reform within six months. I hope that the Government further consider publishing the next steps for reform before the Bill completes its stages in the House. I welcome the Leader of the House’s words today, particularly looking at how we engage with the public on what the second Chamber looks like. For those around the Committee who agree that this is a sensible ask, I would welcome them getting in touch with me.
I will withdraw my amendment today, but I retain my right to reintroduce it on Report if a plan is not published. Not only do I hope that His Majesty’s Government reflect on this debate today but I encourage them to be bold in delivering further reform and to follow through on the Prime Minister’s own desire to see this place replaced with an alternative second Chamber. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Disruption at Heathrow
(1 day, 13 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for advance sight of the Statement made yesterday.
The remarkable thing about this event is what it was not. It was not a hostile terrorist attack, but in the first few moments no one could have known that. Indeed, the natural suspicion would have been that it was. That circumstance can only enhance our admiration for, and our thanks to, the firefighters in particular, and other responders who rushed to the scene not knowing what would await them. We are all very grateful to them and all the others who pulled Heathrow back from this incident for what they did.
It is worth also saying a word of thanks to the staff of Heathrow Airport, and I would like to do so. It may seem a fairly simple thing to switch an airport off and then, a while later, just to switch it back on again. There are rare occasions when this happens. I am thinking of the example of Bangkok airport in 2008, when an occupation by protesters for a week caused the airport to be shut down deliberately. On that occasion, once it was safe to do so, it took a full five days to restart the airport safely. The fact that the staff at Heathrow were able to respond so well and so effectively to the changes—I cannot describe or imagine them—in electrical work required to operate the airport, and to do so quickly and safely, shows their skill and abilities, and is something that we should be grateful for and acknowledge.
Once it was clear that this was not a terrorist incident, everyone could relax. The chief executive of Heathrow was so relaxed that he went back to bed. But of course, the people who could not relax were the passengers affected by this event. Across the world, it is estimated that nearly 300,000 people were affected by this incident, spread out over 1,350 flights. Does the Minister think that they have received an adequate apology? Many of them will be receiving financial compensation, depending on their carrier and the jurisdiction that they live under, but is financial compensation simply enough? Is it too easy for us to think, “Oh, they’ve got their compensation and their refund—we don’t actually need to apologise”? I have not seen a great deal of apologising going on to people who were very seriously affected and disrupted in their lives and in their plans.
Turning to the specifics of the incident, it raises significant questions about Heathrow’s resilience and the safeguarding of critical infrastructure. The fact that the airport was reliant on this electrical substation which proved so vulnerable is concerning and the outage serves as a stark reminder that energy security is about not only affordability but ensuring the physical safety and reliability of our infrastructure. I would like to hear what the Minister has to say about that reliability and security.
I will say immediately that I recognise that it is not always the right answer to build in huge amounts of redundancy in the light of an event that may happen only very occasionally. These are difficult judgments to make. All that redundancy costs a lot of money. I know that the Government and Heathrow have to make difficult judgments about it. I would like, however, at least to hear in what direction the Government are going in making those judgments: whether they think they have got the balance right and what should be done. Given the essential role of airports to our economy, what discussions has the Minister had with the Minister for Energy Security and Net Zero regarding the security of energy supplies to our major airports? Can the Minister tell us what the timeline is for the Kelly review being undertaken on behalf of Heathrow Airport? Does he expect its findings to be fully publicly accessible?
Finally, will the Government assess the incident in the broader context of Heathrow’s expansion? I am not referring exclusively to plans for a third runway. Heathrow has significant expansion plans that fall short of a third runway that it is progressing with securing approval for at the moment. Does the Minister believe that the current infrastructure challenges at Heathrow raise wider concerns about the viability and resilience of that expansion? What steps will be taken to ensure that any future expansion does not exacerbate the vulnerabilities exposed by this recent disruption? What steps will be taken to ensure that any future expansion does not increase the airport’s vulnerability to this sort of event?
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for the Statement and join him in paying tribute to the firefighters, all the emergency services and everyone who worked to extinguish a significant fire and return services to normal. This incident not only affected Heathrow but cut power to 63,000 homes, and 100 residents were evacuated.
The Minister is correct that this is an unprecedented incident. I welcome the intention to learn all and any lessons that arise from it and from the Heathrow internal inquiry and the NESO six-week initial investigation that have been announced. A single incident should not have been able to shut an airport. The mere fact that the cascade was not prevented offers us wider opportunities to ask serious questions about our preparedness, the resilience of our energy infrastructure and the urgent need to make new risk assessments with fresh minds.
The fire was the result of 25,000 litres of an oil-based cooling system overheating and catching fire at North Hyde substation. The significant fire required 70 fire- fighters to get it under control and resulted in a series of events that ultimately meant that more than 1,300 flights were cancelled, a further 670 flights impacted, and some 200,000 passengers suffered. We need to understand, at the point of ignition, what caused the fire. Are there flaws in substation design? Was this substation being overused, causing it to overheat? Why does it appear that there was no prior knowledge of the overheating while it was taking place? Could it be that something as simple as a few pounds spent on a remote temperature sensor could have alerted system operations to the problem and perhaps prevented the fire?
I welcome the involvement of the counterterrorism police, who have the skills to make rapid assessments of the causes. I note that in the last few hours the Metropolitan Police has confirmed that this incident is no longer being treated as a “potentially criminal matter”.
There is some confusion over the interpretation of events, and that concerns me. The Government and NESO say that while one of the main substations went offline, two alternatives remained available to provide the power required and additional reserve generation capacity at the airport gave some further limited capacity. Heathrow meanwhile argues that energy supply was insufficient to ensure the safe and secure ongoing operations and proceeded
“to reconfigure its internal electricity network”.
This meant, in effect, that every computer and safety system had to be turned off and on again. It is this act that caused the impacts. I ask the Minister: did Heathrow game plan and stress test the falling offline of the whole of this substation and, if so, what were the predicted impacts and consequences. If not, why not? When is the Heathrow inquiry expected to give initial findings? Will the NESO inquiry work with and have some access to the findings of the Heathrow inquiry? How will fundamental disagreements between the findings of the two inquiries, if they exist, be addressed? When will the Government respond to the National Infrastructure Commission’s report Developing Resilience Standards in UK Infrastructure?
To conclude, wider systemic and broader national risks to our national grid and critical energy infrastructure must be considered. Considering known terrorism-related attacks on other western countries’ energy infrastructure, including undersea cables, I call on the Government to undertake a full review, with the inclusion of the National Security Adviser, of our critical energy infrastructure—its susceptibility, resilience and levels of redundancy—including vital transport services and other services such as hospitals, key computer systems and telecommunications.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, I share the sentiments expressed by the noble Lords who have just spoken about the firefighters and other emergency responders who went to the site of the substation fire when it first broke out and brought it under control. They are undoubtedly very brave and I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, that when they arrived it was not clear what they were facing, so they were all the braver for tackling it directly. I also share the thanks of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, to the many workers at Heathrow Airport and, indeed, those who work for airlines, who not only had to work hard to get the airport back online but have dealt with the further disruption caused to flights, not only in Heathrow but across the globe.
I must express great sympathy for all those whose flights were delayed as a consequence of this incident. They are the passengers—the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, referred to them—and many people’s personal and business activities will have been delayed and disrupted due to this very extraordinary outage. I am happy to express sympathy for those people. I hope that, now, as Heathrow is returning to normal, their travels have resumed.
Both noble Lords referred to the two inquiries. My noble friend Lord Hunt, who is sitting beside me, is the Minister of State for Energy Security and Net Zero. He has commissioned the National Energy System Operator to investigate the power outage. That will deal with understanding wider lessons from the power outage. Noble Lords will know that Heathrow Airport Ltd, which owns and operates the airport, has asked Ruth Kelly, former Secretary of State for Transport and an independent member of its board, to undertake a review of its internal resilience. That review will analyse the robustness and execution of Heathrow’s crisis management plans, the airport’s response and how it recovered the operation. The first report, from NESO, will be made to the Energy Secretary, and the Secretary of State for Transport has asked to see a copy of the second report. Heathrow has agreed to that, and we will report back to the House in due course.
The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, asked whether I thought compensation was adequate and whether passengers needed an apology. They certainly need an apology. Everybody’s reasons for flying are different, but all of them expect to fly at the time on their ticket. Clearly, they deserve an apology, even though this was an extraordinary event. Do I think the compensation is adequate? The compensation for airline delays is set out, and it depends, in part, on which airline it is. Not only are people legally entitled to a choice between a refund within seven days or to be rerouted to their destination, including on flights operated by another airline, but they are entitled to care and support, such as refreshment or, if necessary, overnight accommodation, while waiting for a delayed or rerouted flight.
The questions about the reliability of the supply, security and the judgments that have to be made by the airport operator will undoubtedly be addressed by the two reviews that have been spoken about. Both noble Lords asked about timelines. We do not yet know what they are, but it would be better for both reviews to be thorough than it would for them to be quick. I know from some experience of this in different transport modes that, very often, you have to dig deeply to find out the root causes and understand what can be done. There is no doubt that the number of systems in a modern airport is huge, and they are very sophisticated. It will take some time to discover whether or not you can get them restarted any better.
The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, asked about the expansion plans for Heathrow—not merely the projected third runway but the expansion of terminals. There will of course be a relationship with this. We would expect Heathrow Airport Ltd to have resilience plans, which will scale up to whatever capacity the airport has. I would expect the Kelly review to look at how any expansion would be dealt with and whether or not expansion might make it easier to invest in such systems and resilience in order to obviate such a thing happening again.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, is absolutely right to refer to the 63,000 people affected by the power outage. Many of them were not affected for long, but, nevertheless, even in the middle of the night there will be people who need power for various reasons, including medical reasons. Our sympathy goes to them as well.
On the confusion about capacity and the airport’s ability to recover, and the downtime when the power supply was cut off, we are expecting the two reviews to interact on this to a degree where there is no gap between them. There should be no question about whether they are comprehensive. I am sure that the Heathrow review will undoubtedly look at whether there was a game plan at Heathrow and at how much it has stress-tested its systems. I do not have anything further to say until the reviews have reported.
The noble Earl was completely right that the Metropolitan Police has recently reported that it does not believe this was a criminal act and is not pursuing that line of inquiry. I am sure that is a relief. I will look further at the government response to the National Infrastructure Commission report, and if I have anything to say I will write to the noble Earl about it.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, I refer to my interest as chair of the National Preparedness Commission.
I understand that the Daily Telegraph knows what happened. The headline today said:
“Blame Heathrow’s faceless foreign owners for airport’s meltdown”.
That may be a rather simplistic analysis, but it does strike me that there is an issue—this is a point the noble Earl raised—with the extent to which the contingency plans within the airport had been thought through and stress-tested. You cannot create it overnight, but had Heathrow considered, for example, as part of its risk analysis and appetite, whether it was possible to run part of the airport and keep some of the functions going? Had it considered its ability to switch from one source of power to another without having to switch off all the systems?
When it is known the extent to which Heathrow had contingency plans and stress-tested them, could my noble friend the Minister say whether his department has any powers to say to those who own airports that their risk appetite should be different? The economic consequences of disruption at Heathrow will always be enormous and the reputational impact for the country as a whole is enormous. Does the Minister have the power, if necessary, to tell the owners to take a different risk appetite?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for that contribution. I also respect the National Preparedness Commission and know how useful it is because I was, fairly briefly, a not particularly active member of it. It is interesting that somebody in the media already thinks they know who is responsible. One should wait for the in-depth and comprehensive review from Heathrow Airport itself and the National Energy System Operator to find that out. In particular, they must between them look at whether complete closure was the only option, or whether some partial closure could have been achieved with less disruption.
The direct answer to whether the department has powers to change the risk appetite of an airport operator rests with the Civil Aviation Authority, which is the economic and safety regulator for airports. The Secretary of State has, of course, been in touch with the CAA, which will look closely at the work to be done by Heathrow Airport in the Kelly review. When the CAA receives that report it will then be able to take a view on the appropriate level of risk appetite and the amount of money that needs to be spent to assuage that risk. The CAA is the authority that should, in due course, take a view, and I am sure that it will.
Lord Maude of Horsham (Con)
My Lords, I should probably declare an interest as one of the tens of thousands of people who, in the small hours of Friday morning, had his flight turned round in mid-air and returned to the point of departure. In my case, the flight departed from the Caribbean where, I stress, I was working, not relaxing. Just at the point where the flight had roughly reached the Bermuda Triangle, we were told by the pilot that Heathrow Airport was closed and that we were turning back.
This was obviously a very substantial incident, but not one that was inconceivable. Does the Minister accept that a key part of any disaster management plan has to be clear, consistent and timely communication? First, we were told that this substation was the only source of power for the whole of Heathrow Airport—an absolutely critical piece of transport and, therefore, economic infrastructure. Then we were told—as was reported—that Heathrow apparently said all its back-up plans had worked perfectly, which was not particularly mollifying for those of us whose plans were in tatters. Then we had a rather unedifying public spat between National Grid and Heathrow about whose fault it was. Clear communication is absolutely essential. Does the Minister accept that vetting these kinds of disaster recovery plans, which must exist for something as clear a risk as this was, has to be the duty of the CAA as both the safety and economic regulator?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for that contribution. It is, of course, hugely inconvenient to have your flight turned around in mid-air. I absolutely agree that clear communication is necessary. The first duty is to communicate with those directly affected—which is very timely for flights in mid-air—and with all affected ticket holders to stop them going to an airport where they cannot take off. I would like to think, from what we have seen, that that combined communication effort from the airport itself and the airlines was pretty good. I know that other transport modes helped too, because there were clear notices at tube and railway stations saying, “Do not go to Heathrow because there are no flights”.
However, I accept entirely that clear and timely communication with those affected is the essence of what is needed in these circumstances. Communication about what has occurred and the background inevitably comes out over time, because the first job should be to communicate with those affected. If literally hundreds of thousands of air passengers are affected then it is they who deserve this clear information. I do not think anybody finds the prospect of chief executives of organisations apparently contradicting each other in public particularly helpful. That is why there are two inquiries: to get to the bottom of what really happened, how much planning there should have been, what was in those plans, and what could feasibly have been done to a place of such public and economic importance.
The CAA has a duty to execute its duty of economic and safety regulation properly. I have no doubt at all that it will look very carefully at the outcome of the Kelly review and draw the appropriate conclusions for the future regulation of not only this airport but others as well.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for the Statement. As someone who travels weekly from Belfast to London, periodically using Heathrow Airport, I sympathise with all those whose flights were cancelled or redirected in mid-air, because that is quite a frightening experience. What steps are being taken to ensure that the aviation sector, including Heathrow, remains on track to reach its net-zero targets, including through the sustainable aviation fuel mandate, given the recently announced expansion of Heathrow, where congestion levels are very high?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The Government are committed to reaching net zero by 2050, as set out in the Climate Change Act 2008. The Government will set out details on plans for meeting legislated carbon budgets later this year. We have been very clear that any airport expansion proposals need to demonstrate that they contribute to economic growth, can be delivered in line with the UK’s legally binding climate change commitments, and meet strict environmental requirements on air quality and noise pollution. The Government are supporting the aviation sector to decarbonise through our sustainable aviation fuel policies, including the introduction of a mandate to generate a sustainable aviation fuel—SAF—demand, plans to legislate for a sustainable aviation fuel revenue certainty mechanism to spur investment in UK production, and providing a further £63 million of funding for the advanced fuels fund. We are also committed to airspace modernisation and supporting the development of more efficient and zero-emission aircraft technology, through nearly £1 billion of additional funding to the Aerospace Technology Institute programme.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Blake of Leeds) (Lab)
It is the turn of the Lib Dems.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, as we have heard, Heathrow is an important hub airport, yet this incident has led to its complete closure, causing so much disruption. Will the Government now focus on the infrastructure in and around Heathrow, and indeed other airports, to improve resilience—which we have been discussing—security and the passenger experience, rather than simply advocating expanding Heathrow and other airports?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
Provided that a suitable proposition comes forward for the expansion of Heathrow, it is inevitable that all the things that the noble Baroness mentions will have to be considered in the round in that. I am sure that she also includes surface access to the airport and a good passenger experience. She will know that we await a proposition from Heathrow and/or any other interested parties in the expansion of Heathrow, but I have no doubt that, when that is received, consideration will be given to all the things that she talked about.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
My Lords, obviously, the impact of the closure of Heathrow is massive and has reputational and other consequences for this country. But travellers and business depend so much on other airports throughout the United Kingdom—such as Belfast, which has been mentioned, given the lack of alternatives, for obvious reasons. Does the Minister know what work is going on at present in airports in Northern Ireland, and throughout the United Kingdom, to examine resilience and the threats to those airports?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The noble Lord may know that I am tolerably familiar with the essential nature of flights from Northern Ireland to mainland England, Wales and Scotland because of the Union Connectivity Review. In particular, I had to answer a question quite recently about the reliability of the first flight on Monday mornings, which clearly contains quite a large proportion of Members of both Houses. I repeat that I strongly recommend to the operator that, come what may, it operates that flight if it operates nothing else. I do not know currently what is going on in other airports in Britain to look at resilience, but I have no doubt that the outcome of the Kelly review and the—I will make sure I get the right initials—NESO review will be closely studied by all those airports because that is undoubtedly the case. Noble Lords can be reassured that the transport community as a whole takes a close interest in what happens in one place.
Incidentally, I have seen—noble Lords might have expected me to—a review that Network Rail started on Saturday morning about the resilience of its power supplies, because in these circumstances you would start those sorts of reviews before you knew even what the cause was. That is a perfectly rational thing to do. So I have little doubt that that is going on in respect of other UK airports currently; I do not know that it is, but whether or not it is, I have absolutely no doubt that they will study very closely the results of the Kelly review and the NESO review—I would rather not use the initials, but it is too easy to do—to make sure that they are all as resilient as they can be.
Baroness Buscombe (Con)
My Lords, I shall try once more. I am rather tired because I, too, was very badly directly affected by this incident.
The incident itself was deeply unfortunate, but one key issue is the lack of rigour in customer support from our principal carrier for terminal 5. There is clearly a problem with rigour in the contracts between the carriers and Heathrow Airport Holdings. There must be because, first, the systems and processes for security and for processing customers at Heathrow are so antiquated. I have had the luck in the past few weeks of going through a number of airports that make Heathrow look an embarrassment by comparison in its support for customers and in making the life of customers through the airport a pleasant experience.
In the Statement, the Government say that they are
“acutely aware of the need to ensure that passengers are well looked after”.
Will the Minister impress on the Secretary of State the importance of using this seriously important opportunity to demand the possibility of looking at the contracts between the carriers and Heathrow Airport Holdings? Each time there is an issue—and this is not a peculiar issue of lack of customer support but a daily problem at Heathrow—British Airways constantly abrogates responsibility and blames Heathrow Airport Holdings for problems.
This is a chance for the Government to say that we need to understand who is responsible for what and to look at customer support. My noble friend referenced the need for communications, but it is not only about communications in the middle of a crisis. British Airways passengers were left high and dry, with a phone line that is available only from 9 am to 5 pm and a lack of support at various airports, while looking at planes that were sitting in the middle of the runway and doing nothing when Heathrow was already back and open.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I am willing to have great sympathy with the noble Baroness and her experiences. People’s travel is important to them, whether it is personal, recreational or for business. The Government recognise that it is very important for the British economy for the major airport in Britain to run smoothly—there is no doubt about that. There is also no doubt that it is a challenge to deal with so many customers who are disrupted at one time. It is not just one plane-load of passengers; it is a huge number. Well over 1,000 flights were cancelled and delayed on the Friday that the airport was closed.
That is a challenge that both Heathrow Airport Ltd and the carriers, including British Airways, ought to be able to rise to. They are two commercial companies, and there is a limit to what the Government can do between them. I have seen some passing comment in the media in the past couple of days about what compensation is due between the two parties. I hope that is reflected in what trickles down to the customers of the carriers, because otherwise it looks like rather an unseemly debate from various commercial organisations.
There is a limit to what the Government can do, but they want people to move smoothly through Heathrow in particular, because it is so important to the British economy. I think that both parties to which the noble Baroness refers would say that one issue with Heathrow is that it is very full of planes and people. Therefore, it will not be a surprise when Heathrow comes forward with an expansion plan, simply because it is much harder to deal with very large quantities of passengers when there is virtually no expansion space left—and I have some sympathy with that. We must rely on both companies to do their jobs properly and seamlessly. Passengers should not feel that, somehow, they are at odds with each other, given that a successful aeroplane flight depends on both doing their jobs properly. They will know that anyway, but we will see what the reports say, and we will see what the carriers do in respect of customers who, in some cases, have been very badly delayed.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, the Statement refers to the ownership structure of Heathrow, which was also referenced by the noble Lord, Lord Harris. It was of course bought by the Spanish firm Ferrovial in 2006 with a huge pile of debt and was finally sold in 2025 to a French asset manager and to wealth funds from Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Singapore and China. The similarities to our water company ownership, and all the failures associated with that, are very obvious. It is also worth noting that the ownership vehicle company has seen 21 changes in director since May last year, and it announced just a month ago that it would pay its first dividend in five years.
In that context, does the Minister think it adequate that, while there is a government inquiry into the energy side of this issue, this inquiry has been commissioned by Heathrow itself, which has been left with the entire responsibility for seeing what has gone wrong? Where is the inquiry into the Civil Aviation Authority to see whether its approach to Heathrow has been sufficiently resilient, given that it has resulted in actions like this?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The British public are entitled to expect the airport to run properly, no matter who owns it. We are also entitled to expect that, as a major piece of public utility, it is capable of examining its own systems and recommending whether or not they were adequate. The CAA will look at the report. I do not currently see a reason why the Civil Aviation Authority itself needs to be examined. If we are not careful, we will examine everything, in circumstances where it is pretty clear that the airport was responsible for its own systems and there was an outside power issue. The two inquiries will look at both those things. The Civil Aviation Authority will draw some conclusions from the Kelly inquiry. It is responsible for economic regulation and safety; it is not responsible for running the airport itself. We have to expect Heathrow Airport Ltd to be able to do this itself, and we will see where that goes.
The Secretary of State and I have no doubt that it will examine this with rigour. It is an exceptional experience. It is not the case that the airport regularly falls over in this respect. It is entitled to look at this itself, and we are entitled to look at the results and see to what extent improvements can be made, and what its risk appetite is to do so. We will wait for the outcome of these reports to make that judgment.
House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill
Tuesday 25th March 2025
(1 day, 13 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-IV Fourth marshalled list for Committee - (21 Mar 2025)
The Earl of Dundee
“Future composition of the House of Lords (statutory appointments commission)Within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a draft Bill containing legislative proposals for—(a) conferring power on the House of Lords Appointments Commission to recommend the appointment, as crossbench peers, of one third of the membership of the House of Lords other than the Lords Spiritual, and(b) conferring a duty on the House of Lords Appointments Commission to consult with—(i) the Leader of the House of Lords,(ii) the Shadow Leader of the House of Lords,(iii) the leader of the third largest party-political group in the House of Lords, and(iv) the Convenor of the Crossbench Peers,on an ongoing basis, when discharging their power under paragraph (a).”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is connected with others in the name of the Earl of Dundee which provide for further reform of the House. It would require a draft Bill providing for an Appointments Commission appointing crossbench peers as one third of the temporal members of the House.
The Earl of Dundee (Con)
My Lords, the purpose of this group of amendments is, within a reformed House, not to diminish but instead to preserve and improve the high standard of function of the present House. This is our successful ability of legislative scrutiny and holding the Government of the day properly to account.
It is proposed that the House is capped at 620, with 600 temporal Peers and 20 Lords spiritual. As indicated in subsection (a) of the new clause in Amendment 74, a Lords appointments commission would recommend 200 temporal Peers, or one-third of the total of 600, as non-political Cross-Benchers; subsection (b) of the new clause also confers a duty on the commissioners to consult on an ongoing basis with the Leader of the House and the shadow Leader of the House, with the leader of the third-largest party-political group in the House and the Convenor of the Cross Benches.
An electoral college, representative of all parts of the UK, indirectly elects 400 temporal Peers, or two-thirds of the 600, as political Members, the government and opposition parties having exactly the same number at 150 each, or 37.5% each out of 400, as stated in subsection (3) of the new clause in Amendment 75, while the other political parties, chiefly comprising the Liberal Democrats, have 100, or 25% of 400. This means that, at 200, the non-political Cross-Benchers have 50 more members than the Government or the opposition parties, at 150 each. That in turn ensures a far better standard of legislative scrutiny than otherwise obtaining if, within a reformed House, either the government or opposition political parties had a majority instead.
For two reasons, indirect elections of 400 political Members are much preferable to direct elections of 400 political Members. First, direct elections would lead to conflict with the House of Commons, whereas indirect elections avoid that. As a result, and secondly, arising from direct elections, such competition with another place would also distract and undermine the democratic value and quality function of a reformed House as an effective revising Chamber.
Regarding the procedures and ratios of indirect elections, subsection (1)(b) of the new clause in Amendment 75 puts a duty on the Secretary of State to ensure that the indirect elections are conducted with integrity, fairness and transparency. Out of 400 places for political Members, and given that 2023 statistics indicate a total UK population of 68,265,000, England—which represents 84.5% of that figure—would be allocated 338 places; Scotland, which represents 8%, would be allocated 32 places; Wales, at 4.5%, would be allocated 18 places; and Northen Ireland, at 3%, would be allocated 12 places.
As detailed by subsection (2) of the new clause in Amendment 75, the electoral college comprises selected participants who become the electors. These would include: some Westminster House of Commons parliamentarians; some from each of the three regional Parliaments in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland; and, as electors of English Members to a reformed House, some English local government representatives.
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, the previous Labour Government commissioned a royal commission, chaired by my noble friend Lord Wakeham, which looked very carefully at all these matters about a well thought-out solution for Lords reform. It is extremely unlikely that an individual noble Lord, on his own or with a little help, could do as good a job as the Wakeham commission did.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I agree with my noble friend Lord Attlee’s remarks about the Wakeham commission report, which deserves examination.
I congratulate my noble friend Lord Dundee on his set of amendments. He has clearly thought extremely carefully about his approach and I fully agree that, as we go forward, we should primarily be guided by the functions of the House and their effective performance. How we should be constituted should flow primarily from that.
My noble friend has set out an ingenious and comprehensive scheme for reform and a mode of transition towards it. He proposes indirect elections. I fear it may be a personal fault in me to believe that, should there ever be an elected element in the upper House, it should be directly elected by the people, although I well understand the considerations that have led my noble friend to the conclusion he reached.
As my noble friend acknowledged, a number of the themes in his amendments have been discussed under their specific heads in other groups on the Bill. He will therefore forgive me if I do not pursue them again now. However, although I welcome his view that a strong independent element should remain in the House, the figure he suggests of over 30%—a third larger than the number of Peers allowed to the Government under his scheme—is surely too high.
If we were ever to have a written constitution— I venture to hope we should not—I am sure that the framers would wish to consult my noble friend on the details of his proposals for the House of Lords, given his careful consideration of the matter. In the interim, I thank him for his thoughtful and considered reflections. I am certain that they will be studied carefully by those in the future genuinely contemplating reform.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)
My Lords, I admire the ingenuity and ambition of the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, in tabling these amendments, in addition to the careful consideration he has given in presenting a package of reforms. He poses a range of questions about the future composition of your Lordships’ House. However, the noble Earl will understand that we cannot accept them, as we are currently engaging in wider discussions with noble Lords from across the House about the way forward.
The noble Earl will be aware of the Government’s long-term ambition for more fundamental reform by establishing an alternative second Chamber that is more representative of the regions and nations of the UK. The Government’s manifesto makes a commitment to consult on proposals to provide an opportunity for the public to contribute their views on how to ensure that this alternative Chamber best serves them. As an aside, I note that the noble Earl’s Amendment 79 does not include the public in the list of people whom the Secretary of State would be obliged to consult.
The Government are open to differing views on what an alternative second Chamber could look like. Nothing on this matter is settled and it is right that we continue the debate, including with the public at large.
With the greatest respect to the noble Earl, his amendments would put the cart before the horse and bring forward a comprehensive package of reform, not only before the public have had the chance to have their say but with a pre-empted outcome. I therefore respectfully request that the noble Earl withdraws his amendment.
The Earl of Dundee (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for the kind remarks from both Front Benches. I very much take on board the comment of the noble Baroness, Lady Anderson, about how the public should be consulted. On Report, perhaps one of the first things that it might be constructive to do is to bring back a revised amendment that incorporates that consideration.
If we agree that what should come first and foremost is the quality of legislative scrutiny and other high-standards benefits of this House, to which membership composition is secondary and subservient, then in the light of that prescription and within this grouping, your Lordships may agree that three aspects should perhaps be brought back on Report: first, the proportions and numbers indicated for different Benches in a reformed House; secondly, the role of the Appointments Commission; thirdly, that of the electoral college.
Fortunately, in the present House, the quality of legislative scrutiny is able to be as good as it is in spite of the political patronage system that appoints numbers here indiscriminately.
However, that system of indiscriminate appointments of numbers would, surely, undermine a reformed House, within which good-quality results are likely to be sustained all the same, provided that respective numbers are established in the first place, such as the proposed 200 non-political Cross-Benchers, having 50 more Members than the two main political parties, with 150 each. Having said that, I appreciate the comments of my noble friend Lord True, who takes the view that that might not work, while my view is that it could probably be made to work.
Although HOLAC or a statutory appointments commission is the way to increase as necessary the numbers of non-political Members in a reformed House, nevertheless, on Report a further amendment is needed to safeguard the reputation of the commission and its usual procedures of appointments against judicial challenge.
Equally, for the reasons already outlined, although an electoral college indirectly electing 400 political Members protects United Kingdom democracy better than direct elections of 400 political Members would, Amendments 75 and 79 should still both be revisited on Report, in connection with further evidence supporting, in comparison with direct elections for a reformed House of 600 temporal Members, the greater usefulness, authenticity and public benefit of the formula proposed, which consists of indirect elections for 400 political Members combined with commission appointments for 200 non-political Members.
Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 74 and will not press my other amendments in this group.
The Duke of Wellington
“Further reform of the composition of the House of LordsWithin two years of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a draft Bill containing legislative proposals for further reform of the composition of the House of Lords.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Government to lay before Parliament a further bill to reform the House of Lords after the removal of hereditary peers.
The Duke of Wellington (CB)
My Lords, I say to the Leader that I should like to reserve the right to table the amendment again on Report.
Lord Burns
“Restriction on nominating new life peers (1) During any period in which the membership of the House of Lords exceeds the membership of the House of Commons, the number of recommendations made to His Majesty for the granting of new life peerages under section 1 of the Life Peerages Act 1958 (power to confer life peerages) must not exceed one new peer for every two who leave the House through retirement or death.(2) Once the membership of the House of Lords is equal to or less than the membership of the House of Commons, recommendations made to His Majesty for the granting of new life peerages under section 1 of that Act must not be such that they would cause the membership of the House of Lords to exceed the membership of the House of Commons.”
Lord Burns (CB)
My Lords, we have spent many hours examining individual proposals for reform, including term limits, age limits, participation limits and the strengthening of HOLAC. I will bring together these threads and argue that none can be entirely effective in the long run unless we can establish a ceiling on the size of the House of Lords. For me, this is the keystone around which we can build the other elements of reform we have discussed. Without it, it will be difficult to stabilise the number of Members, and we will likely encounter the problem of increasing size again. I am less committed to the precise number for this ceiling and more to the principle of a ceiling.
My amendment proposes a limit on the size of the House of Lords, specifying that it shall not exceed the size of the House of Commons. Until we reach this limit, there would be only one appointment for every two leavers. I emphasise that this amendment is not intended to delay the passage of the Bill, which I support. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, for joining in this seminar on the future reform of the House—possibly the longest seminar I have ever participated in.
Lord Northbrook (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 110 in this group. The report of the Lord Speaker’s Committee on the Size of the House was published in 2017. As most noble Lords sitting here before then know, the Lord Speaker tasked the committee with exploring methods for reducing the size of the House. From the start, it took the view that any reduction in the number of Members must not be undone by reversion to the persistent historical tendency of the House to increase in size. The committee and the report designed a system intended to keep a reduced membership within a fixed cap for as long as the House remains an appointed Chamber, while allowing it to be refreshed and rebalanced in line with general election results over time. It has been strongly supported by the Campaign for an Effective Second Chamber.
At the time, the Lord Speaker’s report proposed a system that could be implemented without legislation. It required a working agreement between the parties and a willingness by existing Members voluntarily to take the steps needed to achieve the target reduction in the size of the House. It did not propose time limits or compulsory retirement for existing Members. The report proposed setting the cap on the size of the House at 600—a reduction in existing membership of more than a quarter, making it smaller than that of the House of Commons.
The committee report proposed, as per the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Burns, that until the target of 600—which the noble Lord’s amendment would increase to 650—was reached, there should be a guiding principle of “two out, one in”, whereby one half of all departures, retirements and deaths from the House as a whole would be earmarked for reducing its size and the other half allocated to new appointments, distributed between the groups on a fair basis. Once a target had been reached, all vacancies would be allocated to new appointments: a “one out, one in” system.
To meet the aim of reducing the size of the House in a reasonable timeframe, the committee believed that it would be necessary to agree the rate of departures from the House. The extent to which the rate was to be increased—a matter for the House to decide—would determine how long it would take to reach the target of 600 under the “two out, one in” system. In deciding the rate, the committee believed it would be necessary to agree the basis on which future Members should be appointed, so that the current and new systems could be interwoven in a way that worked effectively.
Two other key areas in the report, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Burns, were, first, fixed terms of 15 years for new Members, to generate sufficient turnover, and, secondly, fair allocation of appointments to reflect the result of the most recent general election.
The fifth report of the committee, published in July 2023, detailed progress since 2017. Initially, then Prime Minister Theresa May responded positively to the report and, in the first two years of the scheme, good progress was made in reducing the size of the House. Prime Minister Boris Johnson showed no interest in the issue of the size of the House. While the number of departures from the House continued to be in line with the committee’s benchmark, the number of appointments far exceeded departures, and were granted predominantly to members of our party.
There was concern that, as the Conservatives now had so many more Members than Labour, the next Labour Prime Minister would appoint a large number of new Peers in order to get the Government’s business through the House. Of course, this has come to pass, with Keir Starmer having created, I believe, 45 new peerages.
The committee summarised the lessons learned over the previous six years. It now accepted that its original timetable for a transition to a House of 600 was too slow and vulnerable to political events. However, it felt that one of the lessons of the previous six years was that there is little point in going through a difficult period of reducing the size of the House if the progress is undone by excessive new appointments subsequently, particularly if those appointments are not fairly balanced between the parties in the way proposed by the committee.
Instead, it believed that it would be effective to seek to secure a limit on the size of the House and a fair way of allocating appointments before endeavouring to reduce the size of the House or introduce term limits for appointments. Ideally, the committee emphasised, this should be achieved through legislation. As the committee felt that this would not be a government priority, there could be a formal agreement between the main party leaders for the time being. This would ensure that retirements would not be cancelled out through excess future appointments, thus encouraging more Members to take retirement with confidence.
The committee focused on the process for appointing the Cross-Bench Peers, stating that the system was now “a muddle”. The regime introduced by Tony Blair involved the House of Lords Appointments Commission, HOLAC, appointing most of the Cross-Bench Peers, and the Prime Minister making up to 10 non-HOLAC Cross-Bench appointments per Parliament.
By 2023, this was no longer being observed. Instead, there have been a great number of prime ministerial appointments of Cross-Bench and unaffiliated Peers, while HOLAC has been limited to a maximum of two or three appointments per year, with none at all in five out of the last 10 years. While HOLAC appointed 59 Peers in its first 11 years, it has been granted only 15 appointments in the subsequent 11 years.
HOLAC’s aim is to appoint individuals who will add to the breadth of experience and expertise that already exists within the House of Lords, and to help to ensure that the House fully represents diversity within our country. It puts considerable effort into selecting and vetting the people who can best meet the needs of the House and show a willingness to participate regularly. HOLAC’s vital task cannot be achieved with the small number of appointments made over the last 11 years. The Prime Minister should revert to a maximum of 10 non-HOLAC Cross-Bench appointments per Parliament and increase the number of Members that HOLAC is allowed to appoint.
In summary, the amendment seeks to follow three key elements of the fifth report of 2023. First, there should be a cap on the size of the House, although 600 could be optimistic in the short term. Secondly, there should be term limits of 15 or 20 years to allow refreshment and rebalancing of the House. Thirdly, there should be a fair allocation of new party appointments. Fourthly, there should be a mandatory retirement age, which is not in the Burns report but was emphasised earlier by the Government as per their manifesto, although they are rowing back on this as the largest number of political Peers over 80 are Labour. Also, they have appointed several Labour Peers over the age of 80. I believe the combination of all four would bring the House size down to the level required, and a draft Bill should be published to implement these proposals before the end of this Session.
Lord Hain (Lab)
My Lords, I do not want to add to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Northbrook, and certainly not to the excellent case made by the noble Lord, Lord Burns—that is why I put my name to his amendment—except to say that we cannot continue as we are. We are over 800 strong and we keep ballooning, and that has to stop. The size of the House is too great. I ask my noble friend the Leader of the House to reassure the House that she will take this seriously and consider the report by the noble Lord, Lord Burns. Incidentally, that report—I remember the debate; I took part in it—was supported by every party. The noble Lord’s all-party committee was not pushing against a great wall of opposition; it was supported by everyone, and we ought to do something about it. Will my noble friend consider doing so after the Bill is passed? We want this Bill passed as quickly as possible, but then we must return to this issue because it cannot be left on another shelf for ever.
Lord Butler of Brockwell (CB)
My Lords, the House will not want to be delayed. I just want to make one point in support of my noble friend’s amendment. I say to the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, that I had the honour of serving on the Wakeham commission and I think we did a pretty good job, but the committee under my noble friend Lord Burns did a better one.
The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 82 only. I spoke in November in our debate on House of Lords reform and, in December, at the Second Reading of this Bill. I said I felt that there were three unfairnesses in the make-up of our House: the hereditary Peers, the Bishops and—the biggest one—the prerogative powers of the Prime Minister to make unlimited appointments to a legislature in a western liberal democracy. That is a very big power without precedent in any other western liberal democracy.
I am not going to repeat anything that has been said already, but for me Amendment 82 does two things. It patrols the size of the House—that is important, although I know there are people who have other views—and, most importantly, it puts a cap on the prerogative powers of the Prime Minister. I fully admit that our current Government are fully and transparently democratic, but that will not necessarily be the case for ever more. Future Governments may not have that make-up, so I feel this is a safety mechanism as well.
As we go forward from here, I feel strongly—here I agree very much with the noble Lord, Lord Hain—that the thrust of this amendment is important, and I commend the noble Lords, Lord Burns and Lord Hain, for bringing it forward.
Viscount Thurso (LD)
My Lords, I offer my support to the noble Lord, Lord Burns, in this amendment. The key point is that his report was based on a situation where there was unlikely to be any legislation possible in the foreseeable future. There is now the possibility of legislation, because we are debating it. I think it is agreed on in all parts of the House that a limit is necessary.
I was very struck by the noble Lord’s comments that the principle is more important than the number, and his move from 600 to 650 simply to get the principle in. It seems to me that there are a few things in our debate on which we agree which could be accepted by the Government, while there are a vast number of things which are completely out of scope and require a full debate on the future of the House. In this respect, this is something that the House would do well to listen to and I hope the Government, when it comes to Report, will look favourably on whatever the noble Lord might bring forward at that point.
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, on these Benches, we strongly agree with the central thrust of the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Burns, which is that the House is too big and should be reduced in size. It is interesting to consider that if all parties and the Government had accepted the Burns report and we had legislated for the Grocott Bill when they were first proposed, we would not now be faced with a House of this size.
One of the elegant things about the original Burns report was that it was a way of dealing with the size of the House without legislation at a time when no legislation was likely to be forthcoming. This is obviously not the case now that we have this Bill, but we are also looking at having a retirement age and a bar for participation, both of which, even if retirement age is phased in, will have a very significant impact on the size of your Lordships’ House.
Although the noble Lord makes the case that his amendment sort of dovetails with those, one could equally argue that they drive a coach and horses through it. Not that I wish to disagree even in the interim with the principle of it, but the one thing it does not deal with, and is an extraordinarily difficult problem with or without the Burns approach, is what the balance of the composition of the House should be.
We are in a five-party political system at the moment, leaving aside the nationalists in Scotland and Wales, and this House conspicuously fails to reflect that. The position that my party has found itself in is that over a decade we have had three new Peers, all three of them within the last year. I have been, as it were, commanding a slowly shrinking iceberg floating south with no prospect of new Members.
On what basis does the Prime Minister determine how many Liberal Democrats there should be in the House? It is a whim, truth be told. You can have a principle that says that there should be parity between the two largest parties, but beyond that no principle has ever been adumbrated while I have been in your Lordships’ House as to how you deal with all the other parties.
This is a real problem and under the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Burns, there is not even a hint of how you deal with this conundrum of balance. Under it, the Prime Minister could, if he wished, replace every two departing Peers with a new Labour Peer—he could do any variety of mixture—and that seems to me a real problem. Noble Lords will not be surprised to know that we favour having an elected House because we do not believe that there is a logical or defensible way around the conundrum of the prime ministerial whim deciding on the composition of a second Chamber in a mature democracy.
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Burns, with Amendment 82, proposes an immediate restriction on appointments—a two-out, one-in policy— until this House reaches 650 Members, at which point it would transition to a one-out, one-in model. Your Lordships are no strangers to this proposal. It echoes the recommendations of the Lord Speaker’s Committee on the Size of the House, known to us all as the Burns report. Once again, the noble Lord makes a compelling case with his usual eloquence and my noble friend Lord Northbrook pursues a similar objective by different means. He would require the Government to publish a draft Bill implementing the Burns report before the provisions of the current legislation can take effect. Reflecting on both these amendments, I venture this: it is not size that matters, but the perception of it.
Baroness Finn (Con)
Before I turn to the substance of the amendments, I will interrogate the premise that this House is too large and should be made smaller. Time and again in this debate, noble Lords have invoked the total number of Members, drawing unfavourable comparisons with other second Chambers around the world. But before we lose ourselves in the arithmetic of armchairs, let us consider a few rather more revealing figures.
Since 1999, the average daily attendance has never exceeded 497 Members. Last year the figure was just 397 Peers—barely 51% of the total membership. Even in our most heavily attended vote, on the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill, just 634 Members took part. These are not the numbers of a bloated, overbearing assembly; they are the numbers of a House that flexes with the rhythm of expertise and interest—that breathes in and out according to the demands of scrutiny.
We are not and were never meant to be a full-time House. It is neither expected nor desirable that every Peer attends every day. Many noble Lords bring with them outstanding commitments rooted in their industries and fields of expertise. This is not a weakness; it is our strength. It is the very foundation of our ability to scrutinise, revise and improve legislation. Some of us are generalists and able to contribute widely. Others are specialists, drawn in when their knowledge is most needed. That blend is not accidental; it is essential.
To fix an arbitrary cap on our numbers, particularly one tied to the size of the House of Commons, would not enhance our function; it would potentially diminish it. It would risk leaving gaps in our collective knowledge, stifling the very expertise on which this House depends. Without a mandatory retirement age to generate vacancies, restrictions on appointments could become a blunt instrument, blocking the arrival of fresh insight while leaving the door shut to renewal.
Although I maintain that, in itself, size does not matter, I can see that the perception of size is an issue. Public confidence and trust in this House matter, and I do not blame the public for misunderstanding what we do—how could they when so much of our work is invisible, unbroadcast and uncelebrated? We all bear the responsibility for explaining it better, proving our value and showing that the presence of hundreds of Members does not mean hundreds of voices speaking at once but is rather a reservoir of wisdom summoned when needed.
I look forward with great interest to the Lord Privy Seal’s reply to this debate, but I will close with a question: do the Government believe that it is the size of the House that matters, or is it merely a convenient fig leaf to cover a more political ambition—the removal of over 80 hereditary Peers, the vast majority of whom do not take the Government Whip?
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Smith of Basildon) (Lab)
My Lords, this was a short but interesting debate. I thank the noble Baroness for injecting some humour into it. It seemed that the female Members of the House found it funnier than—if I dare say it—the male Members of the House. Perhaps I will pass over that quite quickly and move on.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Collins of Highbury) (Lab)
You need a fig leaf.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
It continues.
There have been some interesting discussions. The noble Lord, Lord Burns, used his amendment to refer back to the Lord Speaker’s Committee, when he looked at the size of the House and how related issues might be addressed. His amendment focuses on the idea of two out, one in, although he spoke more widely on the report, which was very helpful. I will come to that in a moment.
The noble Lord, Lord Northbrook, wants to delay the commencement of the Bill, which is why he tabled his amendment. He seemed to think we should have a draft Bill first to implement the Burns committee’s report. I looked into his interest in the Burns committee, and I was surprised, given that he thought it so important to delay this Bill until there is a draft Bill on the Burns committee, that he did not speak on the Burns committee when it was debated in your Lordships’ House. I think he referred to it in debate on my noble friend Lord Grocott’s Bill. It is an interesting point but not one that we would be able to accept, because it would just delay this Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Burns, raised some interesting issues. When we debated the Burns committee report there was widespread support around the House for it. Looking back, I was not sure during the debate that every Member was fully signed up to every part of the report, but there was a real view that something had to be done and that this was going in the right direction of how we might address the issue.
The noble Baroness made a point about size and how we are not a full-time House. We are very much a full-time House. We sit longer and later than the other place, but we do not expect every Member of your Lordships’ House to be full-time. Members have outside interests, and we do not expect everybody to be here all day, every day—and neither should we. It would be unhelpful to the House if every Member was always here and we were all full-time politicians. We bring different experiences and different issues to the House.
I think we agree that the size of the House should come down. This is a bit about perception. We regularly read about the size and the bloat of the House, and how we are the second-largest assembly in the world, but we are not. If we look at the active membership—Members who attend reasonably regularly—then the House is not that size; it is much smaller. The two measures we are looking at, on retirement and participation, go a long way towards addressing some of the criticisms that are made. That is why I am so keen—and I have said that I will come back to the House on this—to have a mechanism that Members can input into so that we can see if the House can reach agreement on what that might look like in practice. We have had some discussions about that already.
The noble Lord, Lord Newby, made some points about allocation. We discussed this before on the Bill from the noble Lord, Lord Norton, which suggested that 20% of the House should be Cross-Benchers. Although that is a pretty fair figure for the Cross-Benchers, having a mechanism within your Lordships’ House that, in effect, determines what the size of one group should be does nothing about the relative size of other groups. One of the things I have looked at with some dismay over the years is how the government party has grown and grown. The noble Lord said his party had had only three new Members, most of them very recently. To come back to an earlier debate, at one point I think more new Ministers were appointed—in some cases for very short terms in office—to this side of the House than we had appointments in the whole of that time in opposition. We therefore need to get a better balance between the two parties.
The noble Lord, Lord Burns, is absolutely right. The House does some of its best work when we do not play the numbers game and say, “We’ve got more than you, we can win a vote”. We got into bad habits during some of the coalition years, when there was an automatic majority. We saw large numbers come in under Boris Johnson in particular: when the Government lost votes, their answer was to appoint more Peers. That did not have the effect that the Government wanted it to have. The House does its best work when there are roughly equal numbers between the Government and opposition parties, and when we are more deliberative in our approach rather than thinking that everything has to be resolved by voting. The House was designed to take that sort of approach. But the House is larger than it needs to be and it does not reflect the work we do or how we operate.
The noble Lord, Lord Burns, did the House a great service with his report; he focused minds. These are issues that we will return to, but he established an important principle that the House should look at dealing with some of these issues. It is very important that we do, because our views on how we should operate matter. This goes back to earlier debates about the skills and experience required, and about the make-up of the House that we want to see. We will have that debate in a moment, I am sure, on the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra. This has been an important debate and I am grateful to both noble Lords for their amendments, but I would respectfully urge them not to press them.
Lord Burns (CB)
My Lords, I am very grateful for all the comments that have been made about the Lord Speaker’s Committee’s report and in response to the amendment. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hain, who been supportive throughout this process; that has been important to ensure that we did really have cross-party support.
The noble Lord, Lord Newby, raised the allocation of places. I thought I mentioned this in my remarks, and it was certainly set out in some detail in the Lords Speaker’s Committee’s report. New appointments should be allocated according to the proportion of the votes in the previous general election. That would certainly be reflected in the number of Liberal Democrats. I appreciate there would be a problem if there was suddenly a very big shift in the voting behaviour in the country—for example, if a new party emerged. Then, of course, there would be some issues about balance.
The noble Baroness, Lady Finn, emphasised the whole question of whether it really matters what size the House is—it needs to come and go according to the rhythm of the place. But the reality is that without a ceiling on the House, the numbers have gone up and up over the whole period since there have been life peerages. There is no control mechanism with these arrangements. Whatever we do in the short term to bring down the numbers, if we do not have a commitment on what we want the size of the House to be and a mechanism for keeping it there, I can see nothing other than that the numbers will continue to rise.
Lord Blencathra
“Peers from chartered professional bodies(1) The Prime Minister must recommend to His Majesty the King that one member from each chartered professional body be granted a life peerage under section 1 of the Life Peerages Act 1958 (power to confer life peerages) in accordance with this section.(2) The peerage granted under section 1 must entitle a peer from a chartered professional body to sit in the House of Lords for five years only (a “temporary peerage”), at which point the Prime Minister must propose a new peer from the chartered professional body.(3) The Prime Minister must only recommend the individual proposed by each chartered professional body.(4) Each chartered professional body may determine the individual they propose for a temporary peerage by the method it considers appropriate. (5) A chartered professional body under subsection (1) means any professional body granted a royal charter after the day on which this Act is passed and any professional body below—(a) Association of Chartered Certified Accountants;(b) Association of Corporate Treasurers;(c) Association for Project Management;(d) Association for Science Education;(e) British Computer Society;(f) British Psychological Society;(g) British Society of Gastroenterology;(h) Chartered Institute of Management Accountants;(i) Chartered Association of Building Engineers;(j) Chartered Institute for Archaeologists;(k) Chartered Institute for Securities and Investment;(l) Chartered Institute of Arbitrators;(m) Chartered Institute of Architectural Technologists;(n) Chartered Banker Institute;(o) Chartered Institute of Brewers & Distillers;(p) Chartered Institute of Building;(q) Chartered Institute of Credit Management;(r) Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management;(s) Chartered Institute of Environmental Health;(t) Chartered Institute of Fundraising;(u) Chartered Institute of Horticulture;(v) Chartered Institute of Housing;(w) Chartered Institute of Internal Auditors;(x) Chartered Institute of Journalists;(y) Chartered Institute of Legal Executives;(z) Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals;(z1) Chartered Institute of Linguists;(z2) Chartered Institute of Logistics and Transport;(z3) Chartered Institute of Loss Adjusters;(z4) Chartered Institute of Marketing;(z5) Chartered Institute for the Management of Sport and Physical Activity;(z6) Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys;(z7) Chartered Institute of Payroll Professionals;(z8) Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development;(z9) Chartered Institute of Plumbing and Heating Engineering;(z10) Chartered Institute of Procurement & Supply;(z11) Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy;(z12) Chartered Institute of Public Relations;(z13) Chartered Institution of Railway Operators;(z14) Chartered Institute of Taxation;(z15) Chartered Institute of Trade Mark Attorneys;(z16) Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers;(z17) Chartered Institution of Civil Engineering Surveyors;(z18) Chartered Institution of Highways and Transportation;(z19) Chartered Institution of Wastes Management;(z20) Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management;(z21) Chartered Insurance Institute;(z22) Chartered Management Institute;(z23) Chartered Quality Institute;(z24) Chartered Society of Designers; (z25) Chartered Society of Physiotherapy;(z26) Chartered Trading Standards Institute;(z27) College of Optometrists;(z28) College of Paramedics;(z29) The Chartered College of Teaching;(z30) Energy Institute;(z31) English Association;(z32) Geological Society of London;(z33) Institute and Faculty of Actuaries;(z34) Institute of Chartered Accountants in England & Wales;(z35) Institute of Chartered Accountants in Ireland;(z36) Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland;(z37) Institute of Chartered Foresters;(z38) Institute of Chartered Secretaries and Administrators;(z39) Institute of Chartered Shipbrokers;(z40) Institute of Conservation;(z41) Institute of Directors;(z42) Institute of Health and Social Care Management;(z43) Institute of Marine Engineering, Science and Technology;(z44) Institute of Materials, Minerals and Mining;(z45) Institute of Mathematics and its Applications;(z46) Institute of Maxillofacial Prosthetists & Technologists;(z47) Institute of Measurement and Control;(z48) Institute of Physics;(z49) Institute of Practitioners in Advertising;(z50) Institute of Refrigeration;(z51) Institution of Chemical Engineers;(z52) Institution of Civil Engineers;(z53) Institution of Engineering and Technology;(z54) Institution of Engineering Designers;(z55) Institution of Mechanical Engineers;(z56) Institution of Occupational Safety and Health;(z57) Institution of Royal Engineers;(z58) Institution of Structural Engineers;(z59) Landscape Institute;(z60) The Law Society;(z61) Law Society of Northern Ireland;(z62) Linnean Society of London;(z63) Royal Aeronautical Society;(z64) Royal Agricultural Society of England;(z65) Royal Anthropological Institute;(z66) Royal Asiatic Society;(z67) Royal Astronomical Society;(z68) Royal College of Anaesthetists;(z69) Royal College of General Practitioners;(z70) Royal College of Nursing;(z71) Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists;(z72) Royal College of Organists;(z73) Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health;(z74) Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Glasgow;(z75) Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh;(z76) Royal College of Physicians of London;(z77) Royal College of Psychiatrists;(z78) Royal College of Radiologists;(z79) Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists; (z80) Royal College of Surgeons of England;(z81) Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh;(z82) Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons;(z83) Royal Economic Society;(z84) Royal Geographical Society;(z85) Royal Historical Society;(z86) Royal Incorporation of Architects in Scotland;(z87) Royal Institute of British Architects;(z88) Royal Institute of Navigation;(z89) Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors;(z90) Royal Institution of Naval Architects;(z91) Royal Meteorological Society;(z92) Royal Microscopical Society;(z93) Royal Pharmaceutical Society;(z94) Royal Photographic Society;(z95) Royal Society for Public Health;(z96) Royal Society of Biology;(z97) Royal Society of Chemistry;(z98) Royal Society of Medicine;(z99) Royal Statistical Society;(z100) Royal Town Planning Institute;(z101) Society for Radiological Protection;(z102) Society of Dyers and Colourists;(z103) The Textile Institute.”
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 83 is in my name. At first glance, it may scare your Lordships if 129 of these suggested new Peers descend on us in one fell swoop, in addition to our current 850 Members—but that is not my intention. Let me explain where I am coming from on this. First, I am working on the assumption that we will reduce the numbers in this House by possibly 250 by the end of this Parliament—those retiring, those who fail to turn up and those who fail to participate. I am old enough and cynical enough to say with absolute certainty that I am afraid that no Prime Minister will ever implement the report of the noble Lord, Lord Burns, so we need to reduce numbers some other way.
We boast that we are a House of experts, which is true in comparison with the House of Commons. We have lawyers, doctors, farmers, financial experts, a Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors Peer, veterinarians and some other specialists. But we do not have the full range of specialists we could use. I asked the Public Bill Office to add the names of these 129 professional chartered institutes and royal colleges so that noble Lords could see the wide range and just what we could be missing.
At first glance, noble Lords will say, “Goodness me, we can’t have all these people here. What would they bring?” But I challenge any noble Lord to say that the presidents or vice-presidents of any of these royal colleges or chartered institutes would have nothing valuable to contribute to some of our expert debates. Of course, we will all have our personal views and biases on which ones are more important and prestigious than others, and we may have some snobbish put-downs about some. I am reminded of the time when John Major allowed technical colleges to become universities and I heard some commentators call them “hairdressing degree universities”.
I agree that some of the experts from the royal colleges of medicine may have more to contribute to a debate about assisted dying than, say, the institute of waste management—well, probably, although it may have a view as well. However, in seeking, for example, a better-designed Holocaust memorial than the monstrosity Adjaye wants to inflict on us, I would prefer to hear from the institute of designers than any distinguished royal colleges. It is horses for courses, and in the House of Lords we have an awful lot of courses.
When our expert Select Committees embark on a new inquiry and need to interview experts and collect evidence, it is to many of these organisations on my list that they will turn. Look at the lists of evidence submitted, for example, and you will see the names of many of these organisations. When the Government go out to consultation, every one of these organisations will be on their distribution list as a stakeholder for the relevant subject or area.
I suggest that if the Government consult these organisations as knowledgeable stakeholders, we should have one of their number in here on a short-term peerage. We have some very able accountants and financiers, but every day this House and its committees would benefit from having Peers from the Institute of Chartered Accountants, the Chartered Institute of Management Accountants, the Chartered Institute of Internal Auditors, the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy and the Chartered Institute of Taxation—and I may be so politically rude as to suggest that maybe the Chancellor too could benefit from some of their advice at the moment.
We have the long-running problem that after 17 years we still cannot get on with restoring this building. Perhaps if we had Peers from the Association for Project Management, the Chartered Association of Building Engineers, the Chartered Institute of Architectural Technologists, the Chartered Institute of Plumbing and Heating Engineering, the Chartered Institute of Procurement & Supply, the Institution of Civil Engineers, the Institution of Structural Engineers, the Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers, the Institution of Mechanical Engineers and others, perhaps the place would be rebuilt by now. We do not have enough experts in this House who design and build things. I also think we need experts from trading standards and environmental health.
On the environment, we have some experts here already, but we could do with more, such as from the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management, the Chartered Institute of Horticulture, the Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management, the Institute of Chartered Foresters, the Landscape Institute, the Royal Agricultural Society of England and the Chartered Institution of Wastes Management.
Last week in Grand Committee we had the digital markets regulations and the immigration biometric information regulations. Today in Grand Committee we debated—although I did not debate it as I could not understand any of it—the Electronic Communications (Networks and Services) (Designated Vendor Directions) (Penalties) Order 2025, which is on the tip of all your Lordships’ tongues, to be followed by the Ecodesign for Energy-Related Products and Energy Information (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2025. I accept that I may be the only Peer in this House who would not have a clue what these regulations seek to do, but perhaps if we had experts from the Institution of Engineering and Technology, the Institute of Physics, the Energy Institute and the British Computer Society, we would have a much more informed debate.
If noble Lords look down the list in Amendment 83, they can see experts in some of the Government’s central priorities for education needs in this country—and, if we are to have growth, institutes for housing, science education and a whole range of mathematical and science disciplines, as well as logistics and transport. Noble Lords may say, “It’s all right; we can get some of them already if they are nominated through HOLAC”. Yes, but it is very hit and miss, requiring someone to nominate someone who may or may not be an up-to-date, current expert in any of the 129 disciplines listed in my amendment—and that person, like the rest of us, will serve until death or retirement, whereas my amendment would ensure a new expert from the institute every five years.
The key point of my amendment is that these Peers nominated by their respective institutes would serve for five years. That would ensure that we were getting a constant flow of experts who were up to date with their areas of expertise. What I did not put in the amendment is the logistics of doing this. I suggest that we could bring in up to 26 per annum over a period of five years so that they did not all arrive in one fell swoop and all depart at the same time. Their order of introduction could be done by ballot.
My amendment states that the Prime Minister cannot substitute his own preference, but I neglected to say that HOLAC would still have the final say on propriety and, if HOLAC rejected a nomination, the institute would have to propose someone else who satisfied the propriety test. They would all be Cross-Benchers and be instructed that they were not spokespersons for their institute but individuals giving us their personal expertise based on the professional expertise for which the institute nominated them in the first place.
In our debate on an elected House a few nights ago, a few noble Lords made the point that we can widen the franchise, so to speak, and be more democratic without requiring direct elections. If we adopted the system that I propose, we would be introducing an indirectly elected element that would be more democratic, I suggest, than just the Prime Minister making appointments. I would also hope that we would not need individual nominations through HOLAC or the Prime Minister because they wanted a Peer with experience in taxation, ecology, archaeology or any of the 129 disciplines in my amendment.
Of course, the Prime Minister will still make political appointments, but my system in this amendment would guarantee that, in five years’ time, the House had 129 experts from these professional bodies, constantly renewing their expertise in addition to any other noble Lords who have been appointed. I also suggest that this would give us a more regional spread, since it is likely that some of the appointees will be from countries of our United Kingdom other than England—and, indeed, seven of the institutions listed here are not English.
In conclusion, this suggestion is not as frightening as it first appears when one looks at the Marshalled List with these 129 organisations. These experts, introduced to the House at a rate of up to 26 per annum and changing every five years, would give us a whole new cadre of experts and at least 100 professionals that we do not have in here at the moment. If noble Lords worry that that is too many at one time, then I would remind the House that the Prime Minister has introduced 45 new Peers in his first 250 days as Prime Minister, and we can expect another large batch of politicians and aides in the last Prime Minister’s resignation honours.
Naturally, of course, my amendment will not be acceptable—possibly by all sides of the House—but I suggest quite humbly that I think I have got a germ of an idea here which, with refinement, could give us more independent experts, widen the franchise, be more democratic and not allow the Prime Minister to be solely in charge of Lords appointments. I say we need more experts; if we boast that we are a House of experts, then let us prove it by accepting this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach (Con)
My Lords, I put on a tie this morning which represents the royal agricultural societies of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Where are they on this list? I learnt something about this—and the former Leader of the House my noble friend Lord Strathclyde and the then Cabinet Office Minister my noble friend Lord Maude will know about this—in the Public Bodies Bill. Schedule 7 to that Bill listed the public bodies that we were going to abolish, and we ended up having to revoke that whole schedule. Lists are an abomination in legislation. I advise the Committee that my noble friend is wrong, and I disagree with him totally on this idea.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
My Lords, with due respect to my noble friend, I want to say something on this proposal. The House can normally rely on the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, for good sense, but this is a seriously bad idea and I can rely on my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal to explain in detail why.
I just want to make the point, speaking as a member of the professional body listed at subsection (5)(z33) of the proposed new clause, that the idea that we come here to provide expertise, professional advice or technical advice is seriously wrong. If we want such expertise, we should pay for people to come and tell us rather than expect individual Members to provide it on the fly. It is the wrong form of representation within this House. I say to the Committee that, as a jobbing actuary, my hourly rate is significantly more than the daily allowance, so I do not want members of my profession or other professions to be taken advantage of.
Viscount Thurso (LD)
My Lords, agreeing with the noble Lords, Lord Taylor and Lord Davies, that we are here for judgment, not experience, I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra: what has he got against the hospitality industry, which is not on his list? I speak as the president of the Institute of Hospitality.
The Earl of Leicester (Con)
My Lords, I have some sympathy with the thrust of my noble friend Lord Blencathra’s amendment. Indeed, a number of the professions that he has suggested would, ironically, replace the gifted amateurs—those we may be about to lose—the hereditary Peers.
I scribbled down, in the past few minutes, the number of hereditary Peers with valuable experience in finance, banking and investment, foreign exchange, accountancy and insurance. On top of that, we have engineers, vets and property managers, as well as those representing the agriculture and forestry industry, transportation and logistics, the law, human resources and public relations. Indeed, we even have an ex-diplomat. Of those 90 hereditary Peers, I am pretty certain that 89 have come from the private sector, and nearly all have valuable experience of wealth creation. I will stop there, but I must ask what we are being replaced by.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I am very touched by the determination of the noble Lord, Lord Harris, to hear from me. I am very happy to act as a performing seal to keep the noble Lord happy for hours on end, if he wishes, but that has never been the intention of the party on this side. If he looks carefully in Hansard, he will see me having said, from this Dispatch Box, that there was no question of our Front Bench dividing this House at any stage in Committee, and I hope that that message has been relayed to Members opposite.
My noble friend Lord Blencathra raised an interesting issue in his typically creative way. Like others, I flinched when I saw the long list of bodies in his amendment, although it underlines the depth and range of skills that there are still in this great country. Having listened to his arguments, I realise that he has put forward a probing—or perhaps more a scattergun—amendment. My noble friend is right that it is vital that we have a wide range of expertise to be called on as and when it is needed. That expertise, or the ability to analyse and deploy it, is one reason why your Lordships’ House has the authority that it has. It is why—although this is not germane to this amendment—I am rather more sympathetic to the occasional expert contributors we have among us than some who measure participation by quantity only.
The ingenious proposal from my noble friend Lord Blencathra, which does not seem to have found favour, is that temporary peerages be granted for representatives from each chartered professional body. We also heard another interesting proposal earlier from my noble friend Lady Laing on temporary Ministers, which I found fascinating. One might even moderate those proposals to consider: if we are a modern Chamber, and if we wish to be modern and we speak about reform, can we not think of doing things in different ways from all the other boring assemblies around the world? We are an interesting place. That area near the Throne is where the judges come at State Opening, on writs of assistance, to be present in the Chamber; it is not technically part of the Chamber. Could we not moderate the kind of proposal that my noble friend Lord Blencathra has put forward, so that if we are discussing something highly technical, we occasionally have people come here to advise and respond in our Chamber to inform our proceedings? It is just an idea.
If we are thinking of the future, let us be open without necessarily having to call people here for a long period with permanent peerages, as my noble friend said. Certainly, if we were ever to consider anything along my noble friend’s lines, he is surely right in proposing that any such appointment be temporary, to keep people at their most relevant and to allow a degree of flexibility within each sector to propose their representatives.
I admire my noble friend’s ingenuity in asking us to reflect on the expertise that we have, the expertise that we need and the expertise that we stand to lose, as my noble friend Lord Leicester said, if the proposal to exclude all hereditary Peers and all Peers over 80 were to go forward. We should have in mind the expertise we might lose as we consider any proposals for change and transition. However, my noble friend and the Committee will not be surprised when I say that, despite my great respect for his intentions and ingenuity, I am afraid that we on this Front Bench cannot support his specific proposals.
Appointing representatives from all chartered professional bodies in this way would make our House a bit too corporatist for my liking, and my noble friend leaves out other great institutions of the land. That said, we should reflect on whether there are other ways in which we could have witnesses occasionally to advise us on technical matters when we are considering important legislation. If we are to have this great modernisation, let us also consider innovative ways in which we might draw on the great wisdom of the British people.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, this has been an interesting debate, and there has not been very much support for the noble Lord’s proposal. One thing that impressed me—he may have gained a record, at least so far on this Bill—was that he managed to produce an amendment longer than the Bill itself. I do not recall that happening before.
It is clear that the different backgrounds, experiences and knowledge of noble Lords from around the House are really valuable in our deliberations. There are indeed past presidents of societies sitting in the House at the moment. The noble Lord, Lord Rees, has been president of the Royal Astronomical Society. The noble Baronesses, Lady Rafferty and Lady Finlay, have been presidents of the Royal College of Nursing and the Royal Society of Medicine respectively, and the noble Lord, Lord Trees, was president of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons. They have enhanced the debates—the noble Baroness, Lady Rafferty, has not been here very long but we look forward to more contributions from her; she has proved herself already—and these appointments are always welcome to your Lordships’ House. I think the noble Lord gets that.
Where I struggle with the noble Lord’s amendment is with regard to all the other organisations. The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, got it absolutely right: once you get a list, you look at the things you are excluding, and I do not think the chartered institutes and royal societies are the only groups that can provide such expertise. I also note that, had all the appointments been made that the noble Lord speaks of, they would make up about 30% of the House as Cross-Benchers. I think the noble Lord, Lord Norton, said that the Cross Benches should make up around 20%, which is roughly what most people were talking about, and this amendment would take it well over that. They would probably be larger than either of the two parties of government.
The noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, made the point that I would have made, but he got there first—obviously, it is a very good point to make, because it was what I was thinking. Why are we here? We are here for our experience, our knowledge and the contributions we make, but basically, we are here for our judgment. We listen to people who are experts and those who are not experts, and we listen to the public. We take on board all those things, and ultimately, we all have to act on our honour and make a judgment on the information before us.
The noble Lord, Lord Davies, pointed out how much the expertise that Members bring to this House would cost if it came from outside this place. But I do not really want a House just of experts, and I do not know where the noble Lord got that from. We are not a House of experts; we are a House that comes together to reach an expert opinion. We have experts among us, but not all of us have an expertise. Many do, but others are here, as the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, said, to exercise judgment. We want Members to speak not just on one issue in which they have expertise; we expect them to look at a range of issues while they are here.
I am also uncomfortable with the idea of temporary membership of the House, which the noble Baroness, Lady Laing, raised earlier as well. We want all Members to be equal and to have equal status here; we do not want some Members who are temporary and some who are not.
I am sure that the noble Lord tabled his amendment with the best of intentions, but I ask him to withdraw it.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, my political antenna detects that my suggestion has not received universal acclaim. I say to my noble friend Lord Taylor of Holbeach, who was my superb Chief Whip, that I am sorry if I missed out the royal agricultural societies of Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland. That would put my list up to 130, from 129. He does not like lists, but the Bill is nothing but a list of 88 people to chuck out, so I suggest that it is a list as well.
The esteemed organisation of the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, is not a chartered institute or a royal society. I say to the Leader of the House that one has to create a cut-off somewhere. There are lots of other able organisations, but I wanted to pick those that were officially chartered institutes and royal societies, and which had therefore reached a certain level of acknowledged expertise, possibly among their peers. I note the points made by my noble friend Lord Leicester, and I largely concur.
The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, was quite strongly against my amendment. He did not want these experts in here; he would prefer to pay them to speak to us. Suppose that, over the next few years, HOLAC had nominated each of these individuals. Why would it nominate them? It would nominate them because they were experts in their field. We would say, “Jolly good, welcome here; we need your expertise”. Of course this House needs experts and expertise. I say to the Leader of the House that I am not suggesting having 650 technical experts; I am suggesting 129 experts, plus any others we may have, which would leave another 400 or 500 Peers to exercise our judgment. I agree with my noble friend Lord True that we need to look at innovative ways. I said that I had the germ of an idea here. Most people think that this germ should be disinfected and done away with immediately, I suspect, but there is a possibility here to do things differently. He said that my plans were too corporatist. I thought that he said that they were too corpulent, which the House rather is at the moment; it is too large.
I am clearly not going to succeed. I do not intend to bring this back on Report. I was floating an idea and in five years’ time, say, the House may wish to look at it. I am grateful for the Minister’s response. In view of the attitude tonight, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
“Former Members of the House of Commons and special advisersThe Prime Minister must not make a recommendation to His Majesty for the granting of a life peerage under section 1 of the Life Peerages Act 1958 (power to confer life peerages) to any former Members of the House of Commons of the United Kingdom, or to special advisers to the Government of the United Kingdom, the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government, or the Northern Irish Executive, until at least two years have passed since the end of their service.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to delay the appointment of former MPs and special advisers to the House of Lords until at least two years have passed.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 87 I will also speak to my Amendments 88 and 89. These amendments have elicited a lot of attention from my noble friends since I tabled them. My noble friend Lord Forsyth of Drumlean singled them out during our debate on Amendment 1, when he promised that he would not speak on them. It is good to see him in his place to fulfil that promise this evening.
I make it clear from the outset that I have nothing against Members of Parliament. Some of my best friends are Members of Parliament. For a long time, I wanted to be a Member of Parliament, and I tried—with conspicuous lack of success. However, the role of a Member of your Lordships’ House is different. This House is calmer, quieter and more consensual than the other place. It respects the primacy of the elected House and recognises that with nobody in the majority here, the way to get things done is by constructive debate and compromise.
Some of the best advice that I received when I took my place in your Lordships’ House was to hold off making a maiden speech and to spend some time in the Chamber learning not only the rules of the House but its ways and its tone. It is very easy for those who have watched too many of the proceedings of the House of Commons to assume that that is how we behave here as well, but it is not. We are less partisan, less pointed and less pugnacious, although it is very easy to slip into those habits. I have done so myself on too many occasions. Those habits are even harder to give up for noble Lords who have served for many years with distinction in another place, as are the more innocuous but still alien habits such as repeatedly intervening on each other, thanking the Lord Speaker for calling us or referring to “honourable Members” rather than “noble Lords”.
We are a self-regulating House. Our ways and procedures are set and policed by how we choose to behave. Even in my short time here, I have seen those ways evolving. A great deal was lost during the challenging months of the pandemic, when we had to do things differently. Some, but not all, of that has been clawed back. We are in a constant state of flux, with new Members arriving all the time, bringing new perspectives and new ways of doing things. As a self-regulating House, it falls to all of us to protect those courtesies and conventions that we think important. That is why I lament the way that this Bill will expel so many long-standing Members who know how important those conventions are, and many more recent arrivals who learned by watching them as apprentices before they were elected.
I overlapped here only briefly with the Countess of Mar, but it was long enough to know how valuable a role she played, keeping us all on the straight and narrow. Lady Mar was a Deputy Speaker of your Lordships’ House for many years, and of the two dozen Deputy Speakers we have today, five are hereditary Peers drawn from the Labour, Tory and Cross Benches. Many others have served on the Woolsack previously. If they are to go, as this Bill proposes, we will have to work even harder to hold on to some of those subtle traditions that make this House such a pleasant and productive place to legislate.
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, I agree with the general thrust of these amendments. When I came to your Lordships’ House in 1992, to get from the House of Commons to the House of Lords you had to have been a Cabinet Minister, preferably for two tours, Mr Speaker or the Deputy Speaker, or an MP of stratospheric reputation. Being a junior Minister was nowhere near enough.
We would have to be careful with the drafting of Amendment 89, because a very good candidate could have either been a spad a very long time ago or had a high-profile career in industry and then been a spad. That is just a drafting issue.
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, I start by making it clear that we value the contributions of all noble Lords in this House, regardless of whether they have served as Members in the other place or as special advisers in government. I say this with a smidgen of self-interest, as a former special adviser myself, and in full awareness that my noble friend Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay served as special adviser to my noble friend Lady May of Maidenhead, who, of course, is not only a former Member of Parliament but a former Prime Minister. Your Lordships’ House benefits a great deal from their service, as it does from many others who have come from the other place or through government.
None the less, these amendments raise the interesting question of what this House is for. It is reasonable to consider the broader experience that we need to fulfil our responsibilities. It is important that this House remains a distinct second Chamber and that we do not blur the lines between the two Houses.
Your Lordships’ House benefits from a large membership with broad experience and expertise, whether from former Members of Parliament or otherwise. The House of Lords Library has produced useful research in this area, which tells us that 21% of noble Lords have previously served as MPs in the House of Commons; that is 181 former MPs. Unfortunately—or perhaps fortunately—the House of Lords Library does not readily provide information on the number of former special advisers, but, as we know, there are at least three of us in the Chamber this evening. I understand why some noble Lords might consider a cap on the number or proportion of ex-MPs and special advisers, as proposed by my noble friend Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay’s amendments, to be beneficial and to ensure a balance of perspective and experience in your Lordships’ House.
The expulsion of our hereditary colleagues would deprive us of a huge amount of private sector experience, which cannot easily be replaced. The Bill stands to exclude chartered accountants and surveyors, the former president of the Heavy Transport Association and a former managing director of Paperchase. They are among many more examples of businessmen, entrepreneurs and industry titans whose perspectives we will greatly miss. We should not take their experience and expertise for granted; it is vital for the scrutiny of legislation that affects businesses, markets, industry, workers and employers alike, and our wider economy, that our private sector is properly represented by those who know and understand its operation.
Of course, having a background in politics does not preclude one from having other types of experience. Indeed, it is valuable experience in itself. Some of our most effective Members are those who have been here the longest and who have learned over the years how to get things done within Parliament and across government—critical skills in a legislative Chamber.
The other suggestion that we have discussed is what I consider a cooling-off period, as proposed by my noble friend Lord Parkinson’s Amendment 87. It is an interesting suggestion that might alleviate an external perception of political patronage and perhaps lighten the pressure on Prime Ministers to confer such patronage. However, I do not believe that it would be right for this House to limit the ability of a democratically elected Prime Minister to make the appointments that they wish.
As my noble friend pointed out, these amendments cause us to consider the House of Lords as our second Chamber. We fulfil a role that is very different from that of the other place. We have the time and ability to scrutinise and revise legislation in a way that the House of Commons does not, while respecting the will of the elected House. This House is one of the highest-quality revising Chambers in any democracy, and it is a role that the House rightly takes very seriously.
Your Lordships’ House has a constructive, consensual way of doing things. It should desist from becoming more party political and more like Punch and Judy than noble Lords are used to. We should be wary of any such trends. Your Lordships’ House works best when we treat each other with respect, making revisions and posing questions constructively. One of the many negative effects of losing our hereditary Peers is that we will lose a great number of those who act as the custodians of the conventions and manners of this House.
To conclude, I do not support the literal interpretation of the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, but I understand and sympathise with the intention with which they were tabled. We welcome the contributions and experience of all noble Lords, but it is right that we should reflect on what we will lose with the removal of our hereditary colleagues. It is also right that we reflect on the unique role that your Lordships’ House has in our parliamentary democracy and the need for us to uphold our distinct customs and conventions to continue that role. I thank my noble friend for giving us the opportunity to reflect on and debate these thoughtful proposals.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, this is an intriguing set of amendments, particularly given the professional experience of the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay. I declare my interest as a former Member of Parliament myself. I hope, as far as the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, is concerned, that it would be my stratospheric reputation that earned my place here—
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
—although I may be slightly too young for the retirement home for ex-Members that the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, referred to.
Since I joined your Lordships’ House, I have had an unusual aspiration: to get “chutzpah” into Hansard—I look forward to seeing its spelling. I believe that the noble Lord’s amendments have given me such an opportunity. We are very lucky in your Lordships’ House to draw on a range of expertise from across public life, law, science, academia and the arts and cultural sector. We have former Permanent Secretaries of government departments, former or current vice-chancellors of universities, news editors and a number of former presidents of esteemed institutions, as outlined in the last group, and we even have BAFTA winners among us.
It is true that a significant proportion in this Chamber are former Members of Parliament: at the last count, it was 21%. We also have a number of former special advisers in this place—some are sitting on the Benches opposite me. I should declare at this point that I have many friends who are current and former special and political advisers. I do not think that is such a bad thing. Your Lordships’ House is predominantly a political house. The Prime Minister invites party leaders to nominate individuals to this place, and party leaders choose who should best represent them. It is likely that many of the people they nominate have a political background as special advisers or former Members of Parliament, Members of the Scottish Parliament, the Senedd or the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Both Houses work most effectively when we understand the day-to-day workings of the other. As a former MP, I have certainly found the experience of the other place very useful as we consider how this House can work best—and how much more effective we can be than some of my former colleagues in the other place. In addition, a number of noble Lords who have been Members of Parliament have also been Ministers. They have a deep understanding of departments and how the work we do here affects government and the delivery of public services.
Former special advisers, recent or otherwise, too have valuable experience to bring to your Lordships’ House. For some Peers, their time as a special adviser or political adviser was one role among many that have led to their appointment to your Lordships’ House and is not necessarily the reason they were appointed. The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, is an obvious example. He was a special adviser before he became an MP, but I do not believe that that is the reason he was appointed to your Lordships’ House. The same could be said on my Benches for my noble friend Lord Reid, who was also an adviser but held many posts in government.
There are many other former special advisers from across the House who bring valuable insights to our work, both from their days as special advisers but also often from outside this experience. Such perspectives are incredibly valuable in this place. They deepen and enrich our ability to scrutinise legislation and hold the Government to account. As someone who regularly signs off a significant number of Written Parliamentary Questions, I often reflect—to my genuine concern—on the insight held by former Ministers and special advisers about the mechanisms of government. They bring a genuine level of scrutiny and insight.
It is, of course, important that we maintain a non-party political element to the House of Lords. The Cross-Benchers especially provide specialist expertise and insights that we would not always find on the political Benches. As the Government have said repeatedly during these debates, it is just as much about what Peers bring to this House and their willingness to contribute to proceedings as about their experiences and achievements before they came to this place. After all, I note that the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, is truly proving his worth with his extensive contributions throughout Committee.
It is up to party leaders, including the Prime Minister, to decide who best represents their political parties in the House of Lords. It is right that they are able to choose who is most suitable. Restricting party leaders’ ability to choose knowledgeable, experienced figures to sit in this House just because they have a political background would be a disservice to us all. I respectfully request that the noble Lord withdraws his amendment.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply and for the most generous defence of special advisers that I have heard outside of the Thursday evening drinks we used to have at the Two Chairmen pub when I was in government, when the special advisers used to get together for a chinwag. I accept all the points she made, not just about special advisers but about Members of Parliament and the great contribution they bring, as I acknowledged in my speech. I see that as well.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I note that I did not hear an answer to my question about the Government’s view on the ideal number of former special advisers and Members of Parliament. As we pass this Bill, which gives such unbridled powers to the Prime Minister to appoint whomever he wishes to your Lordships’ House, we should be mindful of the growing and accelerating trend to put former Members of Parliament and special advisers here. With that, and with thanks to the Minister, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
“Unsalaried MinistersNo one who is a Minister of the Crown shall be eligible for membership of the House of Lords unless they are in receipt of, or have been offered, a salary under the Ministerial and Other Salaries Act 1975.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would mean that unpaid Ministers would not be eligible for membership of the House.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, after what I acknowledge was not a popular measure, I hope that this one will find more support on both principal Benches of your Lordships’ House.
My Amendment 90 seeks to address the long-running problem we all acknowledge of the number of Ministers serving in this House who are not salaried. When I had the privilege of being a Minister in the previous Conservative Government, I was lucky enough to be in receipt of a salary that was important, principally, for the pension contributions and the national insurance contributions it allowed me to pay. But some 40% of my colleagues on the Front Bench in the previous Conservative Government were unsalaried. That meant that not only were they not taking home a salary cheque at the end of the month, they were also not paying into their pension, their national insurance contributions were not being made and, in some cases, because of this and because of their age, they were not in receipt of severance pay when the general election put an end to their time as Ministers.
This is a problem that affects both the major parties when they are in government. It dates from the Ministerial and Other Salaries Act of 1975, which was written with a noble aim to ensure that the Executive does not grow too large by comparison to the legislature and that the cost to the public purse should be limited, but it was drawn in an age when Ministers in the House of Lords were assumed to be drawn from the landed gentry. We are not anymore, and, in the absence of baronial lands in Whitley Bay being granted to me, I was very grateful for the salary that allowed me to carry out my work as a Minister.
This is a problem that my noble friend Lord Forsyth of Drumlean and many others have raised in previous Parliaments and in this one. I know that it is one that draws the attention of the noble Baroness the Leader of the House. I hope that, much as in the debate on power of attorney, this may be an opportunity for us to solve a long-running problem that causes problems for Governments’ ability to find Front-Benchers and to draw people from all walks of life, from modest backgrounds, to serve their country in government. I beg to move.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I rise briefly to support my noble friend, who is absolutely right. If I have got my figures correct this time, this Labour Government are abusing only four Lords Ministers, while the last Conservative Government, disgracefully, abused 11 Lords Ministers, by not paying them. That is simply not right.
Part of the problem is that Prime Ministers like to stuff their departments full of paid MPs and, of course, they have their PPSs as well to help them. The larger the payroll of MPs in the Commons, the less likely there is to be a rebellion. So it pays for any Government to have as many paid Members of Parliament as possible, and their PPSs.
About 35 years ago, as a junior Whip, I encountered a colleague who was very concerned that that he was not fully involved in policy development in his department. He said to his Secretary of State that he would like to be more fully involved. The Secretary of state told him, “You’re just a PUS. Your job is to reply to all the letters from people whingeing about not getting their bypass”. That rather put him in his place.
My noble friend is right: there has been a large expansion of the roles of PUSs and others. I personally think that that is wrong. There is also a view that Peers can afford to do it for free: “Let’s have as many paid MPs as we can within the ceiling of the allowance, and then get Peers to do it for free”. That is utterly wrong. Many of them cannot do it for free. Noble Lords in this House who have been doing it for free have been doing it out of a sense of duty, not because they can afford it.
On that note, I see my noble friend Lord Younger of Leckie in his place. He and my noble friend Earl Howe were Ministers for 30 or 40 years between them. I doubt if they got paid for two or three years of that. There were those who did job after job unpaid. It is not right that any Government, whether Conservative or Labour, should abuse Peers in that way.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, public service in the old days used to be quite a different thing. My forebear, Admiral Robert Barlow, used to be the superintendent of the Chatham Shipyards. He ran the shipyards through his personal account and took quite a lot of the Government’s money to build large houses for himself and his family. But we are now in the 21st century, and we should be doing things in a different way. We should not be relying on public servants to pocket cash. We should have a modern, meritocratic form of government. It is therefore completely and utterly wrong that we expect Ministers to work hard for no pay at all.
I pay tribute to the noble Lords, Lord Hanson of Flint, Lord Timpson, Lord Ponsonby, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, and Lord Hendy, and the noble Baroness, Lady Gustafsson, all of whom are on the ministerial list with the word “unpaid” underneath their names. I was one of those Ministers. I had my name on the ministerial list with the word “unpaid” underneath it, and it was a complete humiliation. I found it completely undermining that it was thought in government that I was someone who was not worth the salary that others were paid. I was not worth the £81,000 that a Minister of State got; I was not worth the £71,000 that a PUS got. It hit me that I was not taken seriously in my department in that respect.
This is an old-fashioned system that we need to end. The 1975 Act was well-intentioned, but it is out of date. We should be supporting a meritocracy. I have seen in my own Government some of our finest people walk out of government because they could not afford to hold down the job. Instead, the people who could afford the job got the place. In this day and age, this is quite wrong. I know that the Leader is very keen not to amend the Bill, but this is such a ripe opportunity to undo a serious injustice in the way we do government. I beg the Leader to take this opportunity and accept this amendment.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I declare a personal interest, in that my son-in-law, my noble friend Lord Johnson of Lainston, acted as an unpaid Minister of State in the previous Government. I am grateful that he did not look to his father-in-law to subsidise him, and that he managed to survive without doing so. But the fact is that it is all to do with the number of paid jobs there are in any Government and the reluctance of government to extend that number of jobs. It is a hard decision, I accept, but one that I have always been assured government is prepared to take.
The sooner the Government get on with it, the better. As has been pointed out by my noble friends, it is a complete iniquity that people should be asked to serve for nothing. As has been pointed out by my noble friend Lord Bethell, people often give up the job that they are very good at doing, and somebody less adequate takes over because they are prepared to do it for nothing. This is all completely wrong, and we should change it as soon as possible.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Parkinson, in his ever-ingenious way, has found a route to raise the question of ministerial salaries in the House of Lords. Having heard the strong feelings expressed, I think it is a matter that needs to be dealt with. There are a number of issues involved—as some touched on, there are matters in relation to pension and severance pay as well—but my noble friend’s amendment relates to salaries.
This is one of a number of issues—power of attorney, which we discussed earlier, being another—that the existence of the Bill has brought to the surface, and which go beyond the vexed and divisive issues of composition that are raised in the Bill and indeed in the Government’s manifesto. Surely if we can address any of these issues, for the good of the House, the Government or the country, we should find a way to do so.
Of course, Government Ministers in the House of Lords, whatever party is in office, should be paid. I give particular thought, although he is not here in his place, to people such as my noble friend Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon, a truly outstanding servant of this House and of his country who, because he was not able to attend the House in the conduct of his normal duties, lost out doubly as being unpaid and unable to claim an allowance.
Frankly, when I had the honour to be Leader of this House, I was deeply troubled by the fact that I had colleagues who were asked to work without pay. No one in any workplace would tolerate that as a decent way to carry on. The problem, as we have been told, arises from the interrelation between two 50 year-old statutes—we are often told that old law should be re-examined. Those are the Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975, which limits the total number of paid Ministers to 109, and the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975, which limits the number of Ministers in the House of Commons to 95. If the Commons takes up its allocation of 95 then the effective limit for paid Ministers in your Lordships’ House under the limit of 109 is just 14. That is clearly not enough. Between 1979 and 2019 the total number of Lords Ministers and Whips fluctuated between 21 and 27. There are further complications arising from overall limits on the numbers of Ministers of State.
The system needs review. When I was Leader of this House, I had discussions in the usual channels with other parties on this, and it was clear then that there was broad agreement that the injustice should be attended to—that it surely could not be right in the 21st century that you should need private means in order to serve as a Minister of the Crown. In saying that, I take nothing away from the high sense of public duty that led many noble Lords under successive Governments—including, I thought, some under this one—to undertake public service without reward.
When a number was given, the noble Baroness indicated that it was not true, but I had thought that there were some in this Government who were unpaid. Whether or not that is true, under any Government the self-sacrifice and public sense of duty of those people should be honoured, respected and remembered. However, it need not be for ever replicated, Government after Government. In the context of a reasonable settlement for the future of this House, as we go forward from this Bill, this matter might again be usefully discussed across party lines.
In March 2024, towards the end of the last Government, there were 14 Ministers and Whips in your Lordships’ House who were working unpaid. They included all six Ministers of State in this House, as the House of Commons wanted all paid posts then as Ministers of State for MPs. If that is not happening today under this Government, it will happen in due course as the demands on patronage grow. The unpaid Ministers included my noble friends Lord Howe, Lord Minto, Lord Camrose and Lord Roborough, whose public service now is to be requited by the current Bill as drafted by being expelled from Parliament. As we have heard, others had previously performed for nothing.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, for raising this issue. It has been raised in your Lordships’ House previously, and the noble Lord the Leader of the Official Opposition has raised some of the legal issues around the legislation that causes part of the problem.
I have to say—and I think the noble Lord would say the same—that I am immensely proud of the work that my ministerial colleagues do. If you look across Parliament, you find that there are few Ministers who work as hard as Lords Ministers. Partly that it is because Lords Ministers—as I look at the team, I think, “What a team!”—have to cover a range of issues, including for their colleagues. They will answer any issue raised across their department. I have enormous respect for the work they do.
The problem lies with legislation that is 50 years old that limits the number of Ministers overall: it limits the number in the House of Commons and then it limits the number of different categories of Minister. As the noble Lord says, it has been the case for a number of years that there have been a small number of unpaid Ministers. I am pleased to say we have made some progress. We have five paid Ministers of State in your Lordships’ House now and significantly fewer unpaid Ministers. However, I take the point; I do not think that any Minister should be unpaid. It is not just the issue of pay; it is the respect that we gain in doing the role.
The noble Lord refers to arrangements that he tried to come to with his Government and failed to do so, and how he and I spoke. I have to say that the reason we did not reach agreement was that the arrangements did not address all the issues that I think need to be addressed. I considered that it was a stopgap measure that would get us through a short period, but I did not think it was a long-term solution. This is something that is very much on my agenda, and my colleagues know it is on my agenda. It is a good old trade union principle that people should get paid for the job they do, and that should be the case.
I have to say, though, that it is not related to this Bill. It is quite a stretch to get it in the Bill, and I admire the noble Lord’s ingenuity. However, the effect of his amendment if it were to pass would either be immediately to reduce the number of Ministers in the Commons or to lose Ministers from this place. The third option would be to change the legislation, which is probably a bit above my pay grade for now. I can say that these matters are under discussion, and I will do what I can with my colleagues to ensure that all of them get the proper support that they should get when doing their jobs. For now, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
Surely it would be possible, if the noble Baroness is not prepared to accept my noble friend’s amendment, to have a one-clause Bill which simply alters the number and is agreed between the usual channels, which could pass through both Houses. It is very hard to understand why this could not be done. The noble Baroness may say, “When you were in government you did not do it”, but the former Leader of the House, my noble friend Lord True, made perfectly clear the effort that was put in. I would have thought a Labour Government would stand for the principle that everyone should receive equal pay for equal labour.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
The noble Lord is right: if there was agreement across both Houses—if he could persuade the leader of the Opposition to support this in the other place as well—I would certainly talk to the Prime Minister. But this is something that has to be done cross-party and not with party-political capital made out of it. We also need to say a bit more about the work that our Lords Ministers do. There is nobody in this House who does not hold Lords Ministers in the highest regard. Perhaps we ought to be saying that to our colleagues in the other place as well.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I very much agree with the final words of the Leader of the House and what she says about Ministers. I see how hard-working her team of Lords Ministers are. When they go into their departments tomorrow bleary-eyed after these long debates, they will have diaries full of meetings and boxes full of papers—prepared without the expectation that they should have been here at nearly 11 pm the evening before, so I very much agree with her.
I particularly welcome the noble Baroness’s willingness to look at this issue on a cross-party basis. I know that there is never a good time to legislate to pay politicians more, but this is a problem that has been kicked down the path for half a century. It is causing problems to the social composition and the sense of fairness about Governments. I hope we might be able to act on it. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord True for his candour about the efforts that he made as Leader of your Lordships’ House, and the sense of shame and frustration he feels that he was not able to persuade our colleagues in government to do it.
With this Bill there is an opportunity to right this wrong. I hope the noble Baroness and my noble friend Lord True will take this away and continue those discussions. If not, I see there is an employment Bill coming down the line and we will be able to assert our trade union rights in the future. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Strathclyde
“Election of temporal members of the House of Lords(1) In section 1(2)(b) of the Life Peerages Act 1958 (power to confer life peerages), after first “and” insert “, if elected in accordance with section (Election of temporal members of the House of Lords) of the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Act 2025 for a particular Parliament, to”.(2) In section 1 of the House of Lords Act 1999 (exclusion of hereditary peers), at end insert “unless they were in receipt of a writ of summons to attend the House of Lords in the Parliament in which the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Act 2025 came into force”. (3) Within three months of the day on which this Act comes into force, 600 peers who were in receipt of a writ of summons to attend the House of Lords in the Parliament in which this Act was passed must be elected to sit and vote in the House of Lords for the rest of that Parliament by elections conducted in accordance with standing orders of the House of Lords and the rest of this section.(4) Elections to choose 600 members of the House of Lords must be held on the first meeting of each new Parliament and those eligible to vote and stand in any such election shall be—(a) any peer who was eligible for election in the election conducted under subsection (3), and(b) any peer who has received a writ of summons under section 1(2)(b) of the Life Peerages Act 1958 since the day on which this Act comes into effect.(5) Any peer who was eligible to stand in, but was not elected in, the elections specified in subsections (3) and (4) shall be excluded from membership of the House of Lords for the rest of that Parliament, although they may be included in accordance with subsection (7) and are eligible to vote in elections and stand for election to sit in subsequent Parliaments.(6) Nothing in this section shall enable any person to attend the House of Lords, or to sit and vote in that House, at any time when disqualified under any other enactment.(7) In the event of the death, exclusion or retirement of any peer elected to sit in the elections specified in subsections (3) and (4), their place will be filled for the rest of that Parliament by the peer in their party group or, in the case of crossbench and non-affiliated peers, their group as defined under subsection (10) of this Act, who was not elected who received the highest number of votes in any list or lists of candidates for election produced by the Clerk of the Parliaments for the purpose of these elections.(8) The standing orders referred to in subsection (3) shall make provision for 480 members who are members of political parties to be elected by members of their party group in the elections mandated by this section.(9) The number of members under subsection (8) allocated for each party group must be determined by the mean share of total votes cast for each party in the previous three general elections.(10) The standing orders referred to in subsection (3) shall make provision for 120 members who are not a member of any political party (“crossbench and non-affiliated members”) to be elected by all peers described in subsection (4) of this section.(11) Should the leader of any party indicate that their party does not wish to have members in the House of Lords then the vote share of that party shall not count in the allocation provided for under subsection (9).(12) If under subsection (9) any party is entitled to a number of seats in the House of Lords which is greater than the current number of peers eligible to stand for election who are affiliated to that party, then new peerages may be created under the Life Peerages Act 1958 to provide for those places to be filled.(13) Nothing in this section shall affect the right of Lords Spiritual to attend the House of Lords, and they are not eligible to participate in the elections under this section.”
Lord Strathclyde (Con)
My Lords, the night is young and there is still plenty of time, so it is a real delight to move Amendment 90A in front of an audience of the Labour Party on its Benches. I have to tell noble Lords opposite that their own Front Bench has been working valiantly during the days we have spent on this Bill with near-deserted Back Benches. It has been rather depressing, in just the last few minutes, to see the Government Chief Whip going around tapping the odd folk on the shoulder and sending them home just as I was about to get to my feet and get into my stride. But that will not put me off.
This amendment is not a probing amendment; it is a helpful amendment, designed at a problem that has been haunting the House of Lords for many years. My noble friend Lord Fowler, and the noble Lords, Lord Burns and Lord Butler, have referred to it this evening in looking for imaginative ways of dealing with the issue of the numbers in the House.
At a stroke, this amendment finds the solution to that, and it does so in several ways. This is an amendment that is already in statute law in the House of Lords Act 1999. It is therefore extremely well precedented; we have demonstrated that it can work. Perhaps noble Lords who were around 25 years ago will remember that the then Convenor of the Cross Benches, Lord Weatherill, moved an amendment—which became known as the Weatherill amendment—to reduce the number of hereditary Peers to the 92 that exist at the moment. This amendment seeks to reduce the size of the whole House to some 600-odd people—the Bishops, incidentally, are supernumerary to that. It would do so by election—a well-tested method of reducing the size of the House that worked extremely well in 1999.
Tonight, I offer it up to the Committee, not just as one amendment but as three in one. It is a solution to a problem, it is already in law, and it is already well precedented. I know that the noble Baroness the Leader of the House will find the amendment very difficult to accept, but perhaps she will indicate that she finds real attraction in finding an electoral way of reducing the size of the House without relying on the kinds of formula that so many noble Lords tried to introduce in the past. I offer it to the Committee, and I very much hope that it might be brought forward in a future Bill in due course. I beg to move.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Strathclyde on tabling his very sensible Amendment 90A. It should find favour on all Benches because, as my noble friend said, it ticks so many boxes. It would ensure that the hereditary Peers who have sat in your Lordships’ House these 25 years have not sat in vain. We were allowed to continue to sit on the basis that stage 2 would provide some substantive reform and move the House’s composition in the direction of a popular basis, as stated in the Parliament Act 1911.
The amendment would introduce some democratic legitimacy by allocating seats according to party blocs based on the average of the number of votes cast in the last three general elections. That provision would ensure that the composition of the House provides a balance to major shifts in public opinion that result in wide disparity of seats in the House of Commons, which is elected on a first past the post basis. It would give a nod to PR, since the voting strengths are determined on the basis of the number of votes cast, ensure that your Lordships’ House provides stability, and help to avoid dramatic shifts in policy supported by the public only ephemerally.
The amendment should be supported by those of your Lordships who agree with the view of the noble Lord, Lord Burns, that the House should be reduced to 600 people. It should also be supported by those noble Lords who believe that the Bill as drafted is discriminatory, in that it treats some members of the body of Lords temporal differently from others although, for all practical purposes, there is no difference between life and hereditary Peers in terms of rights and privileges in this House. We are appointed to serve on committees or on the Front Bench without any consideration of the route by which we entered your Lordships’ House.
The amendment treats all holders of a Writ of Summons to this Parliament equally. It would result in the House enjoying greater democratic legitimacy but retain the service of those noble Lords who are more independent, and election by party groups would give preference to those who work harder and make a greater contribution. It is an excellent amendment, and I ask the noble Baroness the Leader of the House to consider it seriously.
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, for this ingenious proposal. The aim of getting down to 600 Members would be achieved by having a retirement age and sensible participation limits. That would probably get us well below 600. But I really rise just to ask the noble Lord whether, when he replies to this debate, he could confirm that his support for this amendment has not undermined the principled stance he took on my amendment, which calls for a wholly elected House.
The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)
My Lords, I do not want to delay anything, and I do not actually want the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, to respond to my thoughts. But there is the matter of the Lord Speaker and the Senior Deputy Speaker: they are both Members of the House, so would they have to stand? There are also a number of judges whom the Convenor of the Cross Benches has to produce for particularly contested private Bills and other things. So, although I was very interested to hear the noble Lord’s introduction of the idea, it has quite a few legs that would require to be sorted out.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, it is unfortunate, in a way, that my noble friend’s carefully thought-out amendment has come forward at this hour and at this time. It draws on existing practice, as was done in 1999; it provides a way to get towards a number that the House of Lords might be content with; and it addresses issues of party balance—I take what the convenor has just said about the specific interests and concerns of the Cross Benches.
We are not going to have a serious or thoughtful examination of this significant amendment at this hour on this particular day. What it does do, however, is remind us that there is a lot in the Bill about a finality and an alleged completion of unfinished business. There are differences about what bit of business is being finished or left unfinished, but what is absolutely clear—as I said at the start of our debate—is that the future of the House remains a fog. We have to bend our thoughts and consideration to the future; considerations were put forward for us by the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, and others in earlier amendments. We cannot have ease or security in this House without the kind of arrangements and patterns of governance and composition—the kind of things that are addressed in my noble friend’s amendment. By the way, I always thought he was a passionate advocate of an elected House, and he may well still be under the surface; I do not know. But we really have to find a way.
The noble Baroness was talking earlier about consultation, and no specific timescale was given in response to any of the amendments—from the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, or the noble Duke—for when we might see some of the fog about our future lifted. There has to be some model or mechanism; it might be close to what we have now or something nearer to what my noble friend Lord Strathclyde suggests. We cannot have closure unless we have an opening to the future—a better one than we have heard in our debates on the Bill so far.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, again, this is an ingenious amendment, and I congratulate the noble Lord. I am not sure whether he or the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, wins the prize tonight, but both amendments are longer than the Bill, which is something of an achievement when drafting amendments to legislation.
On the point that the noble Lord opposite has just made, I will say something I have reiterated several times: there is a three-stage process from the manifesto. The first stage is this, which is the completion of the reform started in 1999 around hereditary Peers. The second is the issues we have debated tonight and voted on many times—they are not for this Bill but for moving forward—on issues like participation and retirement. There is not an exact timetable, but we will get clearer to that in the process as we get to Report. Then there is a longer-term objective for consultation with the wider public on an alternative second Chamber. It is not rocket science; I have been quite clear around that.
This amendment would create a House of 600 Members—and I am not sure that that figure has been raised before by the noble Lord, but I am happy to be corrected on that—we would have self-perpetuating elections by Members of this House at the beginning of each Parliament, and the only people who could vote would be Members of this House. It would also completely undermine the purpose of this Bill, because hereditary Peers would be able to take part in those elections, stand for them and vote.
The noble Lord’s proposals for future composition are interesting, but I take into account the points made by the noble Earl the Convenor. It does not address the wider issues of the House, but I know the issues that he is trying to get to. We will continue that dialogue and formalise that in due course around other issues that have been raised, and I gave a commitment to that earlier on tonight. But this amendment would undermine that dialogue and engagement, and I ask the noble Lord to withdraw it.
Lord Strathclyde (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken. I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Newby, that I have not given up on the idea of an elected House, but I am a realist, and I do not think that there is much thirst for it in this House—and I am not entirely convinced that there is very much thirst for it in another place either. The fact that it did not appear in the manifesto of the Labour Party rather indicates that view. We are still relying on the preamble to the 1911 Act. I join the noble Lord, Lord Newby, in trying to encourage a long-term solution around that.
The noble Lord, Lord True, is right. At some stage we need to find a real solution. Of course, there are age limits and all sorts of other things that you can bring in, but none of those is popular either. The idea of an election works; it has been tried and tested, and I hope that, on reflection, the Leader of the House will feel that there is some purpose in this kind of amendment, which would change the whole debate about the size and numbers in the House, and keep people in who have the support of other Peers to remain in the House for the rest of their lives.
Having heard what everybody has said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.