Lords Chamber

Tuesday 25th March 2025

(began 11 hours, 14 minutes ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
14:37
None Portrait Oral questions: Suspension of arms exports to Israel which they suspended, following remarks by Baroness Chapman of Darlington on 3 September 2024 Lord Howard of Lympne (Conservative)
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

First First Oral First Oral Question. First Oral Question. Lord First Oral Question. Lord Howard.
14:37
14:38
14:39
14:40
14:42
14:42
14:42
14:43
14:44
14:45
14:45
14:46
14:47
14:47
None Portrait Oral questions: Prevalence of female genital mutilation nationally Lord Berkeley of Knighton (Crossbench)
-

Second oral question. Lord Berkeley of Knighton.
14:48
14:48
14:49
14:51
14:51
14:52
14:53
14:54
14:55
14:56
14:57
14:58
14:58
14:58
14:59
15:00
15:00
15:01
15:01
15:02
15:03
15:03
15:04
15:05
15:05
15:06
15:07
15:07
15:09
15:09
15:10
None Portrait Oral questions: Chancellor of Exchequer's decision to not include defence industry among priority sectors in the Statement of Strategic Priorities to the National Wealth Fund, published on 19 March Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Conservative)
-

Fourth Oral Question. Lord Jackson of Peterborough. Paper.
15:10
15:10
15:11
15:12
15:13
15:13
15:14
15:15
15:15
15:15
15:15
15:16
15:16
15:17
15:17
15:17
15:18
15:18
15:19
15:19
15:19
15:20
15:20
15:20
None Portrait Business of the House
-

the House last week to the non- domestic rating bill. As the ping- pong on this bill will be quick, thought it would be helpful to the House if I set out arrangements for the bill tomorrow. We will return from the House of Commons this evening, the members can table motions for the turn of the bill up until 11am tomorrow. Members who want to table amendments are strongly encouraged to speak to the clerks of the public bill office, as soon as possible.

And well before the deadline. The House will consider the bill tomorrow afternoon, whilst the necessary documents are ready. I will update the House tomorrow on the precise

**** Possible New Speaker ****

timings of the ping-pong. My Lords, it may now be convenient to have a short pause to allow noble Lords to leave

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the the House the House to the House to be the House to be again the House to be again in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the House to be again in committee on House of Lords

**** Possible New Speaker ****

committee on House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill the. I beg to move the House resolve itself again on the committee of the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

bill. the House will now again resolve itself into committee upon the bill, itself into committee upon the bill, As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

After clause 1 Amendment 55. My Lords, this is a probing
15:23
None Portrait Legislation: House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill – committee stage (day 4)
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, this is a probing

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, this is a probing amendment. What I am suggesting, the detail is important, in order to engender the discussion of debate,
15:23
Lord Inglewood Portrait Lord Inglewood (Crossbench)
-
-
engender the discussion of debate, to the reasons that lie behind a typing matter. Doctor Johnson, that quintessential Englishman, was clear quintessential Englishman, was clear when he said " Depend upon it, so, when a man knows he is to be handed in a fortnight, concentrates his mind wonderfully." So, I have been thinking. My Lords, looking back to the last time, some 25 years ago, the house considered the matters we are discussing now. 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's all very different. Since those heady days, great shadows have 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 residents -- Resonance and potency. They have been replaced around the world by new personalities, new policies, and new political approaches and priorities, to greatly variance with our national traditions.

The concept of good chaps, they generally accepted across the political spectrum here in this country is at best questioned, and at worst, dismissed in some quarters. As I thought 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, forget about the Salisbury Addison convention. Rather focus on the Parliament Acts. In raw political terms, and unscrupulous determined government, with a big majority of seats in the House of Commons, which we know doesn't necessarily carry as huge a vote in the country as one might expect.

Under the rules of our existing electoral system, it could come in pretty short order, completely alter the entire composition of the second chamber or even abolish it entirely, as happened under the Commonwealth. Now, my Lords, I know from my time on the situation fair committee, in the European Parliament, that many countries deal with this kind of possibility through a differential system of voting, referendum, and supermajorities. As forms of checks and balances. But we know we do not do things quite lightly, but we do have provisions in Parliament Acts, which excludes in its scope proposals to extend the life of Parliament.

For future, once this Parliament. For future, once this Bilbo have become law, it seems wrong that once this bill will have become law, it seems sensible to me to envisage an amendment for proposals to change the composition of the second chamber and/or to abolish it. And under this approach, the House of Lords itself will become the check and balance of last resort. I try to table such an amendment. Full scope by the clerks, this is what I was allowed to take, whose wording in my own omission is inadequate, and is therefore so this wider topic and be discussed.

I hasten to add, the reason I have done this is exactly for the same done this is exactly for the same reason I insure my house against fire. It is not that I expect my house to bow down, on the contrary. But where to do so, the consequences are dire, very difficult to deal with, without having taken out an insurance policy previously. Finally, let's remember, the phrase " It just couldn't happen here" Are weasel words and are frequently the first step on the road to political disaster.

Now, my Lords, I am sure I may be accused of setting the hare running, I hope I have and I hope it

**** Possible New Speaker ****

will run and run. Would noble Lord like to move his

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Would noble Lord like to move his amendment? Amendment after close one insert the new clause as mentioned
15:27
Earl of Devon Portrait The Earl of Devon (Crossbench)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

in the Marshalled list. I rise to speak to three amendments in this group. 91 and 94 amendments in this group. 91 and 94 in my name, address gender and the hereditary peerage is, once clause 2 of this bill ends forever. Your worships ancient jurisdiction to determine peerage claims. And 97 considers whether the name, the House of Lords, which is inherently gender privilege and feudal connotations remains appropriate once the gendered privilege and feudal hereditary lords have left. I'm grateful to Helen of Kings clear, and Baroness Smith who have clear, and Baroness Smith who have added their names to amendment 97.

This is an issue I care about deeply. I had hoped we might change the law to remove this discriminatory patriarchal anomaly, whilst I was here, but now that Apple is unlikely given this bill. -- Now that is unlikely given this bill. The jurisdictional moves to exercise its functions in a nondiscriminatory manner and to consult on the challenges posed thereby. Throughout the debate on hereditary peerage, we have been assailed for our gender. Since the noble 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.

But the equitable solution is not to abolish us due to our gender, but to change succession laws to alter our gender. It is a military 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, in the 37th man to have held that title.

There has been one woman, Countess Isabella, the last Queen of the Isle of Wight, an example of powerful feudal 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 grew up as the only brother amongst multiple sisters, poster boys for male primogeniture. The youngest of four, I was uncomfortable in my gender charted by life, my mother would have gone to any lengths to have a son, a phrase that echoes somewhat awkwardly through my childhood, particularly given the prominence in our home of the portrait of the night soil, was his -- With his 13 sisters painted in 1779.

There are no male spares in the family tree, which is averted with female branches, kind heart, we are not. It is not just the embarrassment of is not just the embarrassment of male servants that motivates me, it is the earldom itself or stop it was granted to Baldwin in 1142, when he was the first Norman baron to raise his standard of 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 Matilda being a female could not rule.

Baldwin disagreed. From inception, therefore, the earldom of Devon champion 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 the first, 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. Amendments 91 and 94 are therefore our latest tilt at the gender parity. It is frankly embarrassing that 900 years after Baldwin champions Matilda, we are still bristling with the patriarchal discrimination inherent in mail, Jenna Chih. Given the current state of America, the global predominance of big man geopolitics, the threat of influencers online, and having bins watched Netflix astounding Adolescence this past weekend, the fight against toxic masculinity has rarely been more important. These amendments have been crafted with the support of the public bills office to ensure they fall within scope and I am grateful to them.

They do therefore not change the rules of succession, I was not allowed to do that. But they go as far as they can. Not only does this bill remove the rights of hereditary peers to sit, by clause to commit strips your Lordships of your long- standing jurisdiction to determine claims to hereditary peerage is full of jurisdictional passes to the judicial committee of the council and my amendments impose upon the Judicial Committee, first an obligation to exercise that jurisdiction in a gender neutral manner, and second, an obligation to conduct inquiry into how the pencils

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of equality may be applied to the The government may argue this is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The government may argue this is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The government may argue this is not the place to argue the issue of this nature but it is the only place to do so. It is entirely within our to do so. It is entirely within our right and I would hazard that it is our duty to ensure this power is exercised from this time forward in exercised from this time forward in a non-discriminatory fashion. If these amendments do not pass, we wash our hands of the issue and allows centuries of discrimination allows centuries of discrimination Noble lords might ask why this campaign is relevant given Hereditary Peers are soon to be removed from your Lordships' House.

It is relevant because despite our departure, the hereditary peerage will continue to exist and will remain a totemic if politically left significant in our society and culture. The Lord Marshal will continue to lead us in national Dukes, viscounts, Lords, Baroness is and nights will remain prominent figures in their communities. Ancient estate will continue to Stuart much of our significant natural capital. Glossy magazines will maintain their fascination with titled families. In many rural parishes, the local squire will remain a significant employer and landowner.

Just imagine if in a generation or two, half of those people were women. It would be a seismic shift. Ensuring all levels of society have more equality. If they change worth fighting for and what the government should support. I know the Labour Party has yet to sample the benefits of female leadership. But it does have stellar leadership. But it does have stellar By The Lord Privy Seal, the noble Baroness Lady Smith of Basildon. I am grateful to her for her engagement. She expressed sympathy for these efforts to secure female succession.

But stated this Bill is not the place to address the issue and that it is too legally complex for this government to address it. As for this Bill, not being the right place, I disagree given we are transferring jurisdiction, this is To make sure the jurisdiction is exercised equitably. As for the complexity, I disagree. Of course the patriarchy puts up barriers to its dismantling. But that is how it works. This is the purpose of amendment 94. It allows the Judicial Committee to consult on the exercise of jurisdiction and determine what steps might be taken to ensure equality.

I challenge the government to be brave. Channel Baldwin and support these amendments after 900 years, and it is about time. I turned now in my remaining time to amendment 97. It ask we consider the suitability of the Navy House of Lords following the departure of Hereditary Peers. At the most basic level, having finally cleaned out all hereditary lords from this place it seems odd to keep their name above the door. It seems perverse to remove the privilege from our constitutional democracy and then seek to maintain the trappings and iconography and privileges inherent in that discredited Hereditary Peers.

I refer to the dictionary definition of "Lord". It means a man of noble rank or high office. A noble man. To act in a superior, domineering manner towards someone. Elsewhere it is said to be an appellation for a person or deity who has authority, control or power over others, acting as a master, chief or ruler. Is that how the House wishes to be considered? In previous days of this committee we heard what an excellent job it does. The unglamorous and consensus driven work of Legislative Scrutiny to which we bring expertise and wisdom and a passion for public service and late nights.

Yet we remain surprised the outside world does not understand that. That may not be surprising when we refer to ourselves as a house of noblemen who act in a superior and domineering manner, as masters, chiefs and rulers. What we call ourselves matters. We should take the matters. We should take the opportunity to reconsider. There is an aroma of patriarchal privilege pervading all aspects of this venerable institution. In the context of restoration and renewal, I have argued to improve accessibility we should remove much of the iconography that surrounds us and replace it with something more representative and inspiring.

We legislate between the Magna Carta nights in a temple to Victorian Gothic, celebrating predominantly white, male power structure instigated by Norman and Plantagenet forebears and venerated by the misogynistic empire builders of the Similarly in letters patents, Life Peers are granted by the sovereign and such names, state, degree, style, dignity and honour Baron. Pursuant to which he or she may enjoy and use all the rights, preeminences, immunities and advantages to the degree of Baron of right belonging which barons of our United Kingdom used and enjoyed.

I do not pretend to be an expert. But it sounds like the king is granting the right enjoyed by the hereditary med even barons such as Baldwin. Does it include feudal rights of military service, to lead rebellion Given we are removing with this legislation once and for all the feudal vestiges of hereditary peerage, said to be indefensible, how can we not also remove the protections of this chamber and simply change its name? I do not presume to suggest what it might be changed to.

It is not for me to suggest alternatives. But I am sure your lordship with your public spirited, well-informed wisdom, can come up with something suitably catchy that does not show a paternalistic power structure of which we apparently are so ashamed.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the Earl of Devon for his very witty speech. He is a hereditary Peer, no doubt about hereditary Peer, no doubt about that. It is not always clear when that. It is not always clear when others get up. I would have thought everybody who is a hereditary Peer is obliged to say that, to declare is obliged to say that, to declare that interest at the beginning of their speech. If I was in the other their speech. If I was in the other place, I could ask the Speaker to rule on that.

That does not apply here. I hope the Leader of the House 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 if the person whom the member is speaking does have a vested interest.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lord, that is an interesting

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lord, that is an interesting concept. But I don't think there is a vested interest in this particular a vested interest in this particular set of amendments. I very much support what the noble Lord support what the noble Lord Inglewood has said. I think this is Inglewood has said. I think this is a good direction to go down. Of course I support the noble Earl of Devon's first two amendments. I was Devon's first two amendments. I was a supporter of the noble Lord on days benches in the days of the John Major government when he twice tried to abolish the male exclusivity of Hereditary Peers and I have promoted build myself to that effect.

It has never appealed to the government of the day. But I rather like the formulation. Putting a duty on the privy Council to see things sorted out. I do think it matters. Leaving bits of sex discrimination lying around in prominent places. It will only be a label but I just don't think it should be allowed to continue. It is not that hard to make a change. I very much hope that make a change. I very much hope that the government will consider one of the last bits of formal sex discrimination in our constitutional arrangements to the dustbin.

In amendment 62, it is a device and in this case to get subsections discussed. My interest in participating in this bill is to make sure if we can that we use it so going forward, we can do so without us and that it is able to function better than it does at the moment. The first barrier that needs to be removed is the government should not only let us but positively encourage us to innovate and improve. We ought to have that motivation as well.

Things stay the same. Things remain. Change only comes slowly in this place but we
15:42
15:43
Lord Lucas Portrait Lord Lucas (Conservative)
-
-
really throttled by that indie need to do work in this chamber. But artificial intelligence is in the artificial intelligence is in the process of changing that. It is making it possible for someone in our position to engage with a great deal more information and conversation than was ever possible conversation than was ever possible in the past. It also makes it much easier for people outside of this easier for people outside of this chamber to have a connection with and understanding with us and what we are doing in a way that we can we are doing in a way that 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. So I am not particularly attached to the mechanism in this particular clause. I think it will take some rethinking before report to produce something that is an initiative but also a duty to improve. Which allows it to push forward. Encourages the government to support that. Obviously big changes are needed but we can move, changes are needed but we can move, either most of this will go via standing orders and the bits that cannot should to my mind be Secondary Legislation.

So you need the approval of the House of Commons. But we don't need to go through the rigmarole of a bill because House of Lords Bill is happen very occasionally and are in the process of improvement ought to be constant.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm standing up to speak to the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm standing up to speak to the noble Lord because he is very fluent and I do not want to be embarrassing and I do not want to be embarrassing like that. And I am not a hereditary Peer but you know that because I am a woman. Of course I wholeheartedly a woman. Of course I wholeheartedly support the noble amendment -- the support the noble amendment -- the noble Earl of Devon's amendments. It is incumbent upon us to take this forward.

In a sense it is trivial. It actually does not affect many people but at the same time it does indicate a lack of balance and
15:45
15:45
15:48
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere Portrait Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Conservative)
-
-
point. But it is a serious one. If we are going to share titles, and I we are going to share titles, and I am not sure we should, it should work both ways. work both ways. Lady, half of our Green party. Lady Lady, half of our Green party. Lady Baroness Jones and I have known each other since we met on the slopes of Mount a night, nearly 14 years ago, she knows how fond I am. She she knows how fond I am.

She supplies my family with her lovely home-made jam, but as always, I completed disagree, she didn't care about the gendered amendments sorry, she cared very much about the gendered ones, not the House, I am the other way around, it seems to me utterly bizarre that the government should have a view on a succession titles. I get the argument of republicanism, I guess that it is an irrational thing to have younger brothers inheriting for older sisters. If you think about it, it is equally irrational to have a prejudice in favour of firstborn children, rather than younger children.

In fact, if you think about it, the whole thing is irrational, it cannot be justified wholly on logical grounds. If you start pulling at that thread, you quickly end up with the French Revolution style abolition of the entire shebang. And if you want to do that, fine. But the idea to keep the titles but apply a Guardian public sector equality test to them seems to me extremely strange. But I did want to speak in support of Amendment 97, standing in the name of the noble Lord, the Earl of Devon, and in my name.

I think asset in second reading, even the architecture of this chamber is a link back to the old House of Lords. That it is in the mind to recreate the idea of a throne room. A Monica taking counsel of his bishops and barons. -- A monarch. There is a thread in the neck about this House that connects us back, certainly to the earliest House of Lords in the reign of Edward III, I think probably to the Magnum Consilience, to which the Earl of Devon spoke of, and before that, even to the pre- conquest, Saxon king taking counsel, would have been doing something not unrecognisable to a chamber that contains a highly hereditary element.

That thread is being snapped. That link is being sheared into, as fate is set to do with the threat of a man's life we are being cut off from part of our history and constitutional inheritance. I am Tory enough to regret that, but I can recognise there is something irrational about having inherited element about a legislature. I do think we were replacing it with something better as was originally the deal promised in 1998, what we have lost that argument and that is an argument for a different time.

And I do come back to the bazaar anomaly of having a House of Lords that doesn't contain any loads, as the word would have been understood, for the previous thousand years. That does seem to me a case of having our cake and eating it. If there are no lords of the traditional recognise aristocratic variety, then by what virtue, on what basis, do we continue to appropriate the name. This is actually a question that has been faced before. The Lord protector was always trying to bring the aristocracy back into government, he wanted to sustain the legitimacy of his role by returning, his problem was none of the laws would agree to serve.

Actually, if memory serves, there was one, the sixth Baron, a parliamentary soldier, who inherited his title when the fifth Baron, who was a distant cousin of his, was a wireless soldier, was killed on the battlefield at Marston mower. 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 conventions we have to this day, of how the two chambers refer one to another. If you do not have any lords in the Cromwellian sense, don't you face exactly the same dilemma? We can probably do better than the other house as a title, call ourselves the Senate.

But it does seem to me utterly extraordinary that we should pretend to the authority and legitimacy that comes from a very old institution when we have deliberately come and by the way, in contravention of promises made in the act of the ballot box, when we have deliberately torn at that thread in two. So, I really would like an answer to this, when ministers come to respond. Please let's hear your
15:52
Baroness Hayman Portrait Baroness Hayman (Crossbench)
-
-
I am grateful to the noble Lord. I've resisted so far the temptation to participate in the debate upon this bill. But I shall keep to that, in the sense that I will resist the temptation to follow the noble Lord on the byways of nomenclatural for the House itself. I would like very briefly however, to urge the government front bench to think seriously and respond positively on two issues raised by the noble Earl of Devon. One is the inappropriateness of this House in anyway 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 do agree it would be far better for the judicial Council of the Privy Council to take on that responsibility. And of course, we would need to right the wrong that has been implicit in the hereditary peerage, in terms of the sexist discrimination against generations of women, who should have inherited not only the title, but the estate.

Which, in many ways, is much more important. So, I hope the government will give us some hope that they will make progress on that. I talked about inheriting the title. The other thing of course is the noble Lady, Lady Deech, pointed out the other anomaly of the out the other anomaly of the Barons. For myself, I don't think we should 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.

It doesn't seem to me to make a great deal of sense or to be progressive in anyway. So, I would just stop anyone giving their partner title, because of something that they have inherited are achieved.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I am by the way a hereditary peer but I am not here to hereditary peer but I am not here to try and stay here or whatever. Whatever happens, happens. The Whatever happens, happens. The reason I am the other 91, 92, stay was to ensure democratic and proper reform of the House of Lords, that was the promises given, it wasn't just to set aside 25 years later. The whole point is you are trying to The whole point is you are trying to do one bit, and I bet we won't see more, which is why amendment 55 is actually central to try and start putting a timetable on the reform happening.

Because after this, otherwise nothing will happen, you will end up with a house with no democratic legitimacy. That has come democratic legitimacy. That has come
15:56
Earl of Erroll Portrait The Earl of Erroll (Crossbench)
-
-
to be a problem. I just wanted to declare my support for amendment 55. declare my support for amendment 55. Amusingly, I am a peer because my mother was appear before me. She was one of the first to sit here, when one of the first to sit here, when they allowed them to sit, in their own right. Quite amusing. My mother and father used to have trouble getting tickets on the train. The travel from Perth, where they knew them, they could travel down in the them, they could travel down in the same compartment, but if they book same compartment, but if they book from London, they had to go up as Mr and Mrs, otherwise they would not allow it, they didn't allow that sort of behaviour.

In fact, cabbages wouldn't give them a room, a night of their honeymoon, for the same reason. This has been a perpetual problem. But there was always that, my mother was also high Council of Scotland, that has been in the family since around 1340 or whatever. And as such, a Coronation, when the Queen went up to receive when the Queen went up to receive when the Queen went up to receive Allowed to carry the sword because it wasn't thought suitable for a woman to do that, so the Earl carried a deputy, but she stood next to the Queen, as the Queen received the Honours of Scotland, because she had to be there to supervise it.

To make sure it was done properly. So, as a woman, there was no martyr, what was considered a male position, and there should be no future to do so either, so I support the amendments in the name of my noble friend, Lord Deben, -- The Earl of Devon, and I was going to talk about how things get taken over. Because my father always told me, lists to cover red, -- Communists took red because it is the Kohler of nobility, so what they were doing was usurping the nobles, taken over the mantle and taken over the structure.

So, that is why the communists wave a red flag. Anyway, personally, I'm looking forward to the further future of reform of this House to make it proper and bring it forward into the 21st-century and onwards with a proper format. Not just appointed by one person, who may be so-called democratically elected, but not by the majority of the country. It is wrong.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise briefly to support the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise briefly to support the noble Lord, Earl of Devon's amendment, and firstly, as a hereditary peer, and second, having three daughters and no son. I promoted the succession of the peerages and Baronesses bill, and peerages and Baronesses bill, and what it said was that daughters should be able to inherit a title when there were no sons. This upsets when there were no sons. This upsets when there were no sons. This upsets the House. And I think they felt the mood was that the eldest child should be able to inherit titles, regardless of sex, as per the Royal family.

My concerns with the Earl of Devon's amendment is, as he says, existing expectations, as per his amendment, and matters like long established family trust. I am not sure also about children born to unmarried parents. This might lead to some title hunters. But I like the amendment that gives some flexibility. As regards to the name of the House, I feel perhaps it should be called the Senate. And perhaps go with the way the commission aims LPs, Lord or ladies of parliaments, or senators.

of parliaments, or senators.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To the Earl of Devon's amendment 31, until the Lords were removed from the House, these peerage claims from the House, these peerage claims were decided by a committee in which the Lord will accept, or members of the Lord will accept, or members of the House who were not laws were not allowed to vote on these committees. So, he would in fact be restoring

**** Possible New Speaker ****

So, he would in fact be restoring the position to what it almost used to be. My Lords, I rise to speak in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I rise to speak in support of amendments 55 and 62. As
16:00
Lord Sandhurst Portrait Lord Sandhurst (Conservative)
-
-
support of amendments 55 and 62. As the first modest steps to build in a safeguard as to the future composition of this House. The noble Lord, Lord Inglewood's, speech amount and the other circumstances and the speed with which the Republic was replaced by a bullying minority government. And I say that, not, and I really mean this, to cast aspersions at the party opposite wall of the present government. We cannot take anything for granted and constitutional matters, and who knows will be in office in five or 10 years time.

When there may be difficult economic circumstances. There may be big problems, residual problems from the waves of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The The mood The mood of The mood of the The mood of the country The mood of the country may The mood of the country may be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The mood of the country may be much worse than it is now. Without safeguards, a populist government, supported by, let's say 34% of the electorate, in such difficult economic times, and under such pressures, might seek to pack this pressures, might seek to pack this House if there are no upper safeguards in the constitution and who is put here, and drive through who is put here, and drive through dangerous legislation. Beware a dangerous legislation. Beware a house of nodding donkeys.

So I commend these two amendments as a first step to securing our parliamentary democracy and the constitution which we love. Those who believe in a constitutional democracy and the rule of law must take nothing for granted. take nothing for granted.
16:02
Baroness Smith of Llanfaes Portrait Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (Plaid Cymru)
-
-
My Lords, I rise in support of amendment 97 in the name of the noble Lord, the Earl of Devon, for which I have signed. It invites consideration of the suitability of consideration of the suitability of the name house of Lord after the removal of Hereditary Peers from Parliament. Lords is a word associated with aristocracy and a class-based society that stands for the feudal system. The name of this House and using titles bridges a further gap between citizens and Parliament.

If we are removing the right of Hereditary Peers to sit in the house, which this bill does, the house, which this bill does, which I support, the name of the second chamber should reflect that. When further reform takes place, the name should also reflect the make-up and composition of that chamber. As of March 2025, the inter Parliamentary Union database contains details of 187 active parliaments worldwide, and 81 of them were bicameral. Names will include the Senate, National Council, House of Councillors, national council of regions and districts and ask the House of Lords.

Senate is the most popular, with 54 countries going by that name for their second chamber. The work of the Labour Party favoured the council of regions and nations. The name house of it is discriminatory regarding gender. Although the name does not reflect the make-up of the chamber, with women allowed to be peers, it feeds into a narrative that places of power are reserved for men and men of important social status more specifically. This comes back to my argument about achieving more reform that would see people from every kind of background and walk of life having the opportunity to be seated in a second chamber.

While renaming alone would not address deeper concerns about democratic legitimacy or accountability, it could serve as a symbolic, meaningful step towards broader constitutional. That is why I urge this House to support amendment 97.
16:04
Lord Wrottesley Portrait Lord Wrottesley (Conservative)
-
-
I stand to speak to amendment 62 in the name of my noble friend Lord Lucas. I wish to comment on my support for his amendment. I am grateful to him for bringing it forward. I declare an interest. I am an accepted, or as the noble Earl of Devon calls us, elected hereditary. I also build on the analysis of my noble friend presented earlier in committee. As I mentioned at second reading, I feel the issue of composition of the House needs serious consideration.

You I expect would disagree. What has troubled me in our discussions is too often measures in this bill have maybe measures in this bill have maybe been drafted and offended based on past trends, not principle. I believe we deserve better. I support a review of the House of Lords composition. My understanding from what the Leader of the House said during the passage of the bill thus far, currently the Labour Party believe they are not represented fairly in this house.

I would like to look at the numbers to see if the Labour Party's claim stands up to scrutiny. At second reading I suggested the composition should be based on a weighted average of composition parties in the other place over 25 years. Which was a period of time I suggested is a time limit. Also in line with what is widely recognised as a generation. Perhaps reviewers could consider this as a metric. Some simple mathematics. Since the Life Peerages Act 1958, there have been 42 years of Conservatives in government.

24 years of labour. It breaks down as 64% against 36% respectively. In the same period, each party appointed 924 and 745 peers respectively. 374 were appointed by Sir Tony Blair when the hereditary principle was done away with. It breaks down as 55% against 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 3040% of the seats in this house.

With hereditaries expelled it will drop to 31. -- 34%. The proportion held by Labour will rise from 25 up to 28 %. The proportion of crossbenchers, many of whom are may be concerned, When the reality is they are very much of an independent mind. As the last government who really won votes when often the crossbenchers were massed against them. Under these proposals, crossbenchers will drop slightly from 22%, down to 20%. In this analysis, simple mathematics really, under current plans, the Labour Party I believe are with one hand demanding balance, and on the other tipping the scales in their favour.

By expelling the hereditaries, this Labour government will be redressing the balance in their favour. But and this is why it seems they will not be rebalancing, and it seems more like what we have heard before in committee and by getting rid of 85 peers that are in opposition, all of the nonlabour Hereditary Peers, they will again skewer 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 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. Nobody really knows what is coming next. Nobody will tell us. My noble friend Lord Lucas has a sound amendment. Let us carefully review who is here. Who will remain here. We must be sure that this evolution may be in the revolution that the Labour government speaks of in our great 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 to deliberately 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 used the guise of constitutional reform or modernisation to remove dissenting voices. We know it is too late for voices. We know it is too late for the majority of us hereditary peers, and to paraphrase, I am not long for this House but I believe a proper review for those who understand this place can offer protection against what seems to be the Labour Party's modus operandi.

And I hate to put forward, to quote a Taylor Swift

**** Possible New Speaker ****

lyric, I fear death by 1,000 cuts. My Lords, I rise to speak on these amendments relating to review of appointments, composition, claims of appointments, composition, claims to peerages in this House and indeed the very name. I thank all noble Lord for their contributions to this Lord for their contributions to this debate. At the heart of these debate. At the heart of these amendments lies a common impulse and a desire to reflect, scrutinise and a desire to reflect, scrutinise and reassess.

That instinct is the defining virtue of the course of this house. We are not a body that accepts institutions, policies or conventions without question. We test, examine and refine. That is our duty. Scrutiny should lead to improvement, not distraction. We should consider these amendments in the context of broader debate about the future of your Lordships' House. I turned to the noble Lord Inglewood's proposal, calling for an
16:11
Baroness Finn Portrait Baroness Finn (Conservative)
-
-
And decomposition of this house. We acknowledge the composition is an ongoing topic of debate. It is ongoing topic of debate. It is crucial this House reflects a range of voices and expertise to represent the diverse concerns of the nation. We understand the desire for a more We understand the desire for a more We understand the desire for a more comprehensive the review -- review comprehensive the review -- review Appointments based on judgement, a cornerstone of a functioning, flexible system.

Ultimately it is the diversity of thought and expertise are not just demographics which guide appointments. I would be interested to hear from the noble and learned Lord, the Attorney- General on how the government sees the balance between reflecting perspectives and retaining the autonomy political leaders in making appointments. The noble Lord Inglewood makes a valid point that the Prime Minister has great powers of patronage. To determine the legislature and that the removal of Will place even greater powers of patronage in the Prime Minister's hands.

At second reading and Lord Wrottesley has raised this, I raised the point that judge by legal status alone, none of us can be secured that our future will not be cut short in the executive and I look forward to hearing the views of the noble and learned Lord on this subject. I now turn to the amendment of Lord Lucas which seeks review of the overall composition of this house. Again this is a fair question. Should we not periodically take stock of who is sitting here and how they are appointed and what the balance should be? It has commanded support from several noble lords including Lord Sandhurst to give added protection.

Let us examine this more closely. If we did conduct such a review what is it for? There are those who argue this House is too large. At size alone does not determine effectiveness. If this House is to be judged, let it be judged on ability to scrutinise legislation. Revised policy. Hold government to account. Beware the temptation to equate numerical reduction with institutional improvement. Others might argue the party balance needs adjusting. But we must be cautious about posing artificial solutions.

Our strength has always been that this House evolves over time and reflects experience and judgement rather than improved arithmetic. A review risks turning the question of appointments into a metal process, political engineering, rather than wisdom. In reality, the composition is already subject to ongoing reflection. I Prime Minister's, leaders of parties, and the House itself. We have argued throughout it is vital reform and review should be carried out through consensus and with full discussion. Finally the amendment in the name of the noble Earl Lord Deben, 91 and 94, as we have heard, raises the plight of gender equality for hereditary peerage claims.

I listened with interests the arguments made on both sides of the house. It is a delicate issue with merit on both sides. It is also a private, personal matter. As Lord Hanun made clear and 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 and this is an intriguing suggestion. Words of power and name shape perceptions. The title of this House evokes centuries of history and tradition.

It is reasonable to ask if that still reflects the institution as it is today. I would say the reputation of this house, credibility, authority, will never be determined by its name. It will be determined by its actions. The quality of debate, the sharpness of scrutiny and the seriousness of deliberation. 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.

We value the input of new voices and perspectives in appointments and the overall composition of this House but it is equally important we do not compromise on the expertise of those appointed. If we are serious about the future of the house, let's focus on what really matters. Let's focus on scrutiny, legislation, the real business of holding governments to account. That is what the public expect. That is where our credibility lies. We look forward to hearing the views of the House on

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can I thank all noble Lords for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can I thank all noble Lords for their contributions. Amendments 55, 62 and 97, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood and Lord Lucas, the noble Lord, Earl of Devon in this group, all seeking different ways to place a duty on the government, to review and report on the impact of legislation, after it receives Royal legislation, after it receives Royal assent. My Lords, as a matter of principle, applied in the right case, for the right reasons, obligations to review and assess legislation cannot serve a very valuable public function.

For example, the scope or size of the subject matter of the bill might give rise to arrange, not just of predictable outcomes, but a material risk of adverse impacts in the real world, which cannot be adequately assessed at the time of passage of the bill. Those impacts can be wide-ranging or could be wide- ranging. For example, they could be financial, environmental, or entrench any manner of inequality. While of course 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.

But 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 its singular. It is 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. It will be the loss of those peers. I mean enosis respect of the public service of those peers to say their loss will not give rise to unforeseen significant adverse consequences.
16:18
Lord Hermer Portrait Lord Hermer, The Attorney-General (Labour)
-
-
That come anywhere close to the sort of justification we would want to the measures sought by these amendments. We know from experience amendments. We know from experience what the impact will be. Because your Lordships house has already experienced a far more significant experienced a far more significant reduction of hereditary peers, following the 1999 act, which I know following the 1999 act, which I know itself had no post-legislative reporting requirements to scrutinise impact. There has been little impact. There has been little suggestion that those reforms produce any detrimental impact, let produce any detrimental impact, let alone ones that were -- That would justify the steps in these amendments.

The House continued to function effectively then and whilst we truly value the work of hereditary peers to date, this house will continue to function when in this reform is completed. As the Leader of the House said at the second reading, the bill does not alter any core functions of your Lordships house. Now, my Lords, I hope those points addressed the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood. And I thank you for clarifying that his is a probing amendment. And I thank him for the thoughtful contribution he made at the important points he made about our constitutional framework.

But the noble Lords amendment is not simply confined to a review and reporting requirement. But one that would, if adopted, continue in perpetuity, or any subsequent legislation, which alters the composition of your Lordships house. In other words, a requirement to undertake reviews indefinitely, after any general election, until the end of time. With the greatest of respect, I suggest that would be a disproportionate measure. But I hope the brevity of my response is not mistaken for a lack of gratitude for his thoughtful contribution to the debate.

What insurance policy they noble Lord ask is there in place? My Lords, I would hope there are several. Not least the government making play that this reform, completing the work as we put it, is the beginning of steps for further reform of your Lordships house. The next being close consultation across this House, as consultation across this House, as to the shape of further reform. I agree with very many of the sentiments raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Finn.

It is important as we go forward 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. And the reassurance I give is that it is our intention to consult widely and negligently -- Widely and collegiate Lee in the steps ahead. Can I turn briefly to the constitution of the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, who I've known for a long time, prior to coming into this House, and a noble Lord notes, I greatly respect him and our friendship.

But I am afraid I consider that his remarks, drawing a comparison between this bill, and the risks of the Weimar, facing the Weimar Republic, are quite misplaced. All of us in this House, no doubt, are acutely aware that this is a delicate moment for liberal democracies. At this House, 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, it is limited in scope and we serve ourselves well to remember that. And not to rhetorically overreach. My Lord, turning now if I made to amendment 97, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Deben. The House of Lords will continue to be called the House of Lords, following the passage of this bill. The removal of the rights of registry peers to sit and vote in this place does not change the fact that members of this House, save for the Lord Spiritual, will continue to consist of peers of the realm.

My Lord, in answer to, if I may say so, the eloquent speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, the answer as to why that is simply a literal one. Could I turn... Sorry, I should say, if I may, in answer to the point raised by the noble Earl, the Earl of Devon, a dictionary definition of the House of Lords, that I would respectfully suggest that that version of the dictionary, like this House, requires some subtle updating. My Lords, I now wish to address amendment 91 and 94.

Which have joined this group to accommodate the noble Earl, who is sadly not available for the final day of committee. And I hope I accurately capture the amendments to say they address a narrow point on the one hand, about the power to refer disputes to the committee of the Privy Council. At also, wider point that seeks to address gender inequality in succession to peerages. Can I address the narrow point first about referrals to the Judicial Committee. Which I will come to again substantively when we discussed the amendments to clause 2, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, next week.

As your Lordships no, this house committee has a role in handling complex and disputed peerage claims, under standing order 77. At the aim of clause 2 of the bill is to remove that role. Intention is in future 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 section 4 of the Judicial Committee Act of 1833.

Now, the effect of the noble Earl's amendment would be to place the issues arising out of inheritance and the title, irrespective of complexity, to the Judicial Committee, in which the government and indeed the Privy Council's would perceive to be an unacceptable burden on an already exceptionally busy body. It would, in short, amount to an unnecessary and disproportionate use of their resources and expertise. For those reasons, and also the points, if I may say so, with respect to the noble Lady, is why we cannot except the amendments.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I may have misunderstood, my

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I may have misunderstood, my amendment is merely to ensure that when the Judicial Committee to the Privy Council is exercising the functions it will exercise following functions it will exercise following the passing of this bill, it does so in a way that doesn't discriminate in a way that doesn't discriminate against claimants, due to their gender. Nothing more than that. I am not adding any work, I just wish that women could inherit hereditary titles.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Are thankful for that. I'm going to turn to that point now, but the actual wording in the noble Earl's amendment would have the effect of all disputes, not just complicated and contention disputes, being referred to the Judicial Committee. There was a very practical objection to it. But I now turn to the white one, which I know is the one of the most interest to the noble Earl. I'm going to deal with both the amendments in turn, starting with amendment 91.

Because this come in the government's view, and excessively seeks to -- Seeks to review the committee, how it exercises its jurisdiction in regard to gender take, and it imposes an obligation on them to report how that obligation has been discharged. I say 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, then the committee must apply it accordingly. If I leave that aspect, turn to amendment 94, can I recognise of course the importance of the issue the noble Earl is seeking to raise through these good-faith amendments.

The government very much shares his unease at the inequality that is baked in to so many hereditary peerages. The fact that there are fewer than 90 hereditary peerages created, which allow women to inherit the titles, is something that I know members in both houses across this House are not comfortable with. The government is committed to the principle of greater equality. But on careful reflection, not least through the engagement the noble Earl has had with my noble friend, the Leader of the House, we do not see it that the amendment 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 married parents. And children born via assisted conception, using donors. And that is before we enter into the issue of whether any future reform should protect the expectation of living areas, or manage property rights. We consider these 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.

In the face of amendment 94, there was an additional objection of a constitutional nature. It seeks to oppose on the committee council a requirement to consult, certain requirement to consult is how the law should be applied on peerage claims cuts across the independence of the Judicial Committee in a very significant way. I appreciate of course, that is not the noble Lords intention, but I do 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.

But as I have said, nothing in my response to these 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, nor this bill. Turning briefly, if I may, to the issue raised by the noble Lady, Baroness Deech. As the contrasting contributions of Baroness Heymann demonstrated, there is no consensus on this point and it underlines, if I may say so, with the greatest of respect, that this bill is not the place to determine that question.

And for those reasons, I respectfully request all the noble Lords withdraw their amendments. Lords withdraw their amendments.
16:30
Lord Inglewood Portrait Lord Inglewood (Crossbench)
-
-
Can I begin by thanking the noble and learned Earl 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, we are living in a time, delicate political times. And it is incumbent on notes to think about the worst possible eventualities that might emerge long after the passage of this bill. I suppose, I as a hereditary peer was trying to do something that lawyers say you cannot do, which is issue commands beyond the grave.

But I do think the extreme eventualities are things we should bear in mind. Because the one thing that is certain is this reform is not the last reformer. This is not a dialectical process, ending up I thank all those who participated in the wider debate. There appeared to be a strong divide between those thinking along the lines I described and those thinking rather more differently. And I think the noble Earl of Devon got it right. He said in the future we will be concerned about titles and sex because that was what a great deal of discussion was in fact about.

Finally, the Isle of Devon, who is a personal friend, made me feel very inadequate. -- The noble Earl of Devon. My hereditary peerage did not exist at the time I was born. This is a very great contrast to the noble Earl. All I would say is, and I hope this gives pleasure to the noble Lords, I came pleasure to the noble Lords, I came into the world as Citizen vein --

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Vain, and I'm very happy to leave it as such. Is at your Lordships pleasure that this amendment be withdrawn? that this amendment be withdrawn? The amendment is by leave withdrawn. Amendment 56, Lord Wolfson of Tredegar.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Tredegar. I rise to move my Amendment 56

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to move my Amendment 56 and move my Amendment 57 which seeks to ensure that senior members of to ensure that senior members of judiciary are appointed as Life Peers with the right to vote in Your Lordships' House. May I declare an interest and also a non-interest. Firstly, the non-interest. I have no intention of becoming a judge. And did, 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
16:34
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar Portrait Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Conservative)
-
-
bit old. Although, of course, we all know that the Cabinet office, at know that the Cabinet office, at that time, obviously, kept a very close eye on the impropriety of people moving from nonpolitical post people moving from nonpolitical post into others in our constitution. But into others in our constitution. But the interest I have is as a lawyer and I want to make this house work and I want to make this house work as well as it possibly can.

Now, the historical position is this. For over 600 years, from 1399 to 2009, the House of Lords was the highest appeal court in the land. This house had a vital judicial function and between 1876 and 2009, that function was served by the Lords of appeal in ordinary. From 2000 and, the Supreme Court of the UK pursued that jurisdiction and the 12, that then 12 Lords of appeal, the Law Lords as they were called, were the first justices of the Supreme Court and they were disqualified from sitting or voting in Your Lordships' House.

With a retired from the Supreme Court, they could return to the House of Lords as full members, which they were, but newly appointed justices of the Supreme Court do not have seats in Your Lordships' House. And from that point on, apart from the grandfather rights, if I can use a success term in light of the previous group, apart from the grandfather rights given to existing Lords of appeal in ordinary -- according to the 1876 act, the link between this house and the judiciary was severed.

And did, the last Low Lord was created in 2009 -- Law Lord. The previous house preserved a distinction between the Law Lords role. When Lord Lyndhurst considered himself bound in his judicial capacity to decide the famous leader capacity to decide the famous leader Healy's charity appeal -- lady Healy's, it turned into a topic I fear to venture into for the purposes of charity law. He held himself responsible to decide that point with legal orthodoxy and he did.

He then introduced as Leader of the House of Lords a bill, the nonconformist chapels act 1844, to remedy, indeed overturn, the perceived injustice consequential on his own judicial decision. Why are we in the position we are? Of course, the great absences afternoon, if I may say, is the noble and learned Lord Lord Faulkner because his constitutional is responsible for quite a lot of frankly the constitutional mess that we now find ourselves in. But the fact that this 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 house, in the way, if I may say this without nominating myself for the private I order the -- order of the brown nose,.

And I remember when I sat on those benches, I was not sat on those benches, I was not worried about the barrage I might receive from the opposition benches. I certainly was not concerned about the rather occasional small arms fire from the Liberal Democrats. What I was worried about was the What I was worried about was the incoming missile from my right, from the judicial members of the crossbenches. That's what I was concerned about when I was a minister.

And without this amendment, it will be unclear on what basis peerages will be awarded to those who reach those lofty judicial height. What we must avoid at all cost is any impression that peerages are given or withheld by the Prime Minister of the day to the Prime Minister of the day to senior judges depending on how particular cases have been decided. And the only way to avoid that, I suggest, is to have clear rules as to when a period will be awarded -- a period will be awarded.

-- a peerage. This is why we should attach a peerage to those offices. I see the impressive legal twin strikeforce of my noble friends who have taken my amendment and added all supreme court judges. I will listen carefully to what they have to say. The principle underlying our amendment is, I suggest, the same. One final point. The amendment also disapplied section 173. We don't need that provision. We manage perfectly well under the old system. The problem we have now, I would suggest, 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.

Even the law, and I know this is shocking to Your Lordships' House, even the law moves on. The law does change. And the way that law is done and what the law is simply not the same now as it was five years ago or 10 years ago or 20 years ago. That is especially the case in areas like family law. I remember when I took the domestic abuse bill through this house and I picked 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, this house, which -- would I suggest benefit from this. And my suggestion to this committee. These amendments will improve our debate, it will improve our membership and I therefore back to move. -- Bank to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed, insert the world is printed on the Marshalled world is printed on the Marshalled List. The question is that this amendment be agreed to.
16:41
Lord Banner Portrait Lord Banner (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment be agreed to. I rise to speak to Amendment 68 which takes the premise of the noble which takes the premise of the noble Lords amendment 56 and drove it out I support the replacement of the committee with the UK Supreme Court. I believe that was the right decision. In a modern democracy, oh courts and particularly the final Court of Appeal must be seen to be separate and independent from other branches of the state. However, a collateral and the unintended effect of this, as has been outlined, has been significantly reduced.

The pull of crossbench legal expertise has been reduced. By the turn of the millennium, sitting members of the committee did not speak in debates and didn't otherwise participate in relation to controversial matters. They sat on committees to some degree. Those that remain so do make a valuable contribution to the work of this is. Because of the case that prior to this, by virtue of being members of this has, members of the committee would have a further understanding, first-hand understanding of the procedures of Parliament, which, as my noble friend indicated, is excellent -- may have assisted the judges in the consideration of the case in the second litigation.

Now that the final quarters outside of this has, its members no longer need to receive a peerage upon being appointed. Contrary to what had been advocated in some quarters, no convention to that effect has been established. In recent years, only the president has been by convention awarded a peerage or the Lord Chief Justice who occasionally sits in that court has also been by convention awarded a peerage. The result of this has been to reduce the pipeline of top tier charges able to contribute to the work of the South -- top tier judges.

The amendment seeks to rectify that. I would envisage that during their tenure on the court, they would follow the committee's former convention. Sitting judges don't speak or participate in conventional aroma controversial matters -- controversial matters.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. And very grateful to
16:44
Lord Murray of Blidworth Portrait Lord Murray of Blidworth (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. And very grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I rise to speak to amendments 56, 57 rise to speak to amendments 56, 57 and 68 in this group to which I have added my name. I should declare an interest as a member of the bar and a special interest in the fact that across the corridor in my Chambers is the room of Lord Drayson who was the first member of the Supreme Court who is not the beneficiary of a peerage under the Appellate a peerage under the Appellate Jurisdiction Act.

-- Lord Dyson. This, in my view, was a great loss. As having memory -- have been many members. Even among the politically engaged general public, when they read of public pronouncements from the likes of Lord Dyson, they are under the assumption that the super members of this house because, of course, when the Constitutional reform act came into the force, there was a question about what title one gave to the justices of the Supreme Court. So when Sir John the Supreme Court.

So when Sir John Dyson became a member of the Supreme Court, there was a need to differentiate him from the members of the Court of Appeal and to give a special title to those members of the Supreme Court. The answer was something of a British fudge. Her Majesty signed a warrant which allowed the people appointed as Justices of the Supreme Court to be styled with a Lord surname. That has been the practice ever since. The reality is that they are not peers in the way that noble Lords our peers.

This leads to an element of confusion, which is one factor that my noble friends amendments in this group would rectify. It would also rectify an enormous gap, I suggest, from noble Lords appreciation of up-to-date legal issues for the reasons that noble Lord Lord Wolfson One of the most hopeful documents that the Lords of library produced was a note from 2009 which outlined the history of why it was Justices of the Supreme Court upon retirement not to be considered.

And I suggest noble Lords the reality is this consideration simply fell down the back of the sofa when the time came to consider it. In July 2008, that the Labour Government for forward white paper on the House of Lords from and noted in the white paper that any justice of the Supreme Court appointed after the Supreme Court begins work will not be in the bed the second chamber, however will be open to the Appointments Commission to consider justice commission for appointment in the normal way.

That was the answer we normal way. That was the answer we

**** Possible New Speaker ****

were given. We will address it. I sorry, they are going to have my Noble Friend, I very much supported, but does he believe, as I supported, but does he believe, as I do, that after 2005 there was an understanding between the Labour Government and the justices of the Government and the justices of the Supreme Court that they would all be made members of the House of Lords appears in their own right? But would not sit in the House of Lords until after they had retired.

And if until after they had retired. And if that is an understanding it would that is an understanding it would solve a great deal of problems. I hope the Noble Lord and the Attorney-General might give us an answer, if he knows or if there was

**** Possible New Speaker ****

an understanding after the 2005 act. Very grateful to my Noble Friend for his intervention under very much hope there was such understanding, hope there was such understanding, but I am afraid I cannot find a trace of that agreement. Turning to trace of that agreement. Turning to the answer given to the question put to Jack Straw on this question in to Jack Straw on this question in January 2009 Lord Woolf, the Noble January 2009 Lord Woolf, the Noble Lord Wolf asked him about the future of the justices of the Supreme Court of the justices of the Supreme Court and Lord Woolf noted that the reforms performed an important function in the legislative process and asked the then Lord Chancellor what the position would be once they had retired along lines outlined by my Noble Friend and that is suggesting there was an informal agreement that this would what would occur.

The Lord Chancellor's answer was of course as one of the arguments that was raised against change and I can see the case and then he said it crucially depends on whether we continue with an appointed House of Lords, so the answer was they park the issue saying it is all dependent on what was going to happen to the future of the House of Lords, and of course he then goes on to say if we go for a 20 appointed chamber which was one of the things than being considered that the number of noble Lords would be fewer, so that was why he refused to commit at that in answer to that question.

The issue was raised again in July 2009 and the question from Lord Pannick was answered by Lord Bach, the Parliamentary Under- Secretary of State for justice. And he said just as the Supreme Court were appointed after October 3 they will not become automatic numbers of the timber but will be considered for the appropriate commission. It is fair to say they will be able to take their places in retirement from the Supreme Court and it is right that the House needs lots of expertise, particularly in that field.

Of course he was right in that respect. The reality is that has not happened. Everyone looks at the appointments that have been made by the former justices of the Supreme Court had not remembered highly amongst their former appointments. And this has been a very significant omission and now is the moment, I suggest, to your Lordships, do rectify that error. And at the very least there will some easy compromise of giving. Just as the deputy president of the Supreme Court should be strongly considered by the Government but I would suggest that it should go more widely than that and that every member of the 12 bar court should receive life peerages on appointment, that should be convention.

There will be no need for these courtesy titles and one they retire they will hopefully become engaged and active members of your Lordships house.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I will make one brief

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I will make one brief contribution to this debate which is likely to go on for some time and it likely to go on for some time and it is that I enjoyed listening to the contributions from I think it was entirely lawyers, Lord Strathclyde. entirely lawyers, Lord Strathclyde. They had one thing clearly in common They had one thing clearly in common stock which is that none of them had any reference whatsoever to the subject of Hereditary Peers being removed from this House.

They are entitled, of course, to their amendments because of some ruling that came from somewhere not quite determined or discovered yet which says because conceivably under remote circumstances the membership of the Hereditary Peers could relate to other parts of the constitution of course I accept that might be the case in some remote circumstances, but it is very difficult for me to understand how in any sensible conversation the idea of adding in total these amendments and 25 protected places in the House of Lords and what relevance that has to the subject of this bill.

I do not want to lump it because I obviously do not want to promote debate. But I really do think that if in future legislation such a loose definition as to what is included and what is not, it seems to me that on the same logic you had a bill to reduce class sizes it would be entirely within the scope of the bill to discuss university admissions processes because obviously if you reduce class sizes, may be that gives an opportunity for children to develop more effectively and stand a better chance of getting in to university down the line.

So, I am sure they could do that, they are capable of doing that, but I really do think that in the interest of commonsense, really, more than anything else, that if an amendment has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject of the bill, then there is a general principle that it would be a good idea to determine those amendments were out of order. were out of order.
16:53
16:55
16:55
16:55
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay Portrait Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Conservative)
-
-
I think was the last person to receive. Under the jurisdiction in receive. Under the jurisdiction in 1967, so I welcome the amendment that he has put. My amendments are 58 and 59 which are in this group 58 and 59 which are in this group which are not designed to disagree with the proposition that senior lawyers are very important and lawyers are very important and useful people, but simply to point out the useful and important people out the useful and important people can be found in other walks of life as well.

I do think there is much as well. I do think there is much sense that noble and learned Lord friend have tabled and my Noble friend have tabled and my Noble Friend Lord Banner with them. I agree with my Noble Friend Lord Wilson said that a lot of the mess that we are in stems from the 2005 constitutional reform act. I think 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 as the answer to the question, the point that the the question, the point that the Noble Lord has raised.

It is important when embarking on constitutional reform to try to think of the implications. That is why I welcome the fact that noble Lords are scrutinising the bill and its knock-on effect in many other areas. And 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 debate on the constitutional reform act.

I can see a bit about a more recent experience working for Downing Street under my honourable friend Lady May. Noble Lords know that when he was Lord Speaker of the Noble Lord Fowler established a committee to look at the size of the House and propose non-legislative ways that it can be produced. And not everyone agreed that the size of the House was a problem but a clear majority did, including those who have spoken in a well attended debate held on the committee 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 corresponding to the report, as well as to the points that were made in the debate in December about it. She acknowledged that if noble Lords were to be persuaded to embrace retirement and innovation that 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 letters to Lord Fowler my Noble Lord give that assurance and stuck to it. She and Gordon Brown were the only premises in modern times under whom the size of the House of Lords has gone down rather than off. As part of her policy of restraint when Noble Friend said, and I caught from her letter, that she would operate on the basis that there is no automatic entitlement to. From any holder of higher public office. That is the reason why senior judges have not, as they might have expected, come to your Lordships house automatically in addition to the Parliamentary and so that was highlighted by Lord Murray a few moments ago.

This has certainly been disappointing and it has denied your Lordships house of the valuable contributions that they would all undoubtedly have made, in his member are -- memoir Lord Deighton records are very good with his displeased movement was been the last in the role for two centuries, not to sit in your Lordships house. Only death presented others from doing so. His success, the Noble Lord has come here and played a very vital role indeed in the work of this House. As my Noble Friend Lord Murray says, Lord Deighton was also the first justice of the Supreme Court not to come to this House first cohort were, of course, so entitled to return to his house on their retirement.

Unlike my Noble Friend would banner I won of those Friend would banner I won of those The House and I tend to view the cases that some of those that we saw in the Brexiteers ward, I think, 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 the Noble Friend suggest that we would be adding a tally of 20 new crossbenchers, 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 of 2005 Thatcher the judiciary and parliament should be more separate. My Noble Friend is Lord Wilson and others in their amendment 56 just only that there should be. Just ex officio for the debt president and president of the Supreme Court. Stepping aside from the debate on numbers, I think crucial and sensibly they suggest that the peerage should be punted on appointment and not at the end of their time on the judicial bench and as I said at the second reading there are dangers in allowing politicians to pick the judges on whom they wish to restore the favour, but that same danger relates to other key public servants such as chiefs of the defence staff, commissioners of the Metropolitan Police, heads of the intelligence agencies, Cabinet secretaries and many more.

The less I have included in my amendments 58 and 59 are purely indicative that the case can be made for many others. We want those people, as with senior judges, to be able to do their jobs, to stand up to Governments independently without inducement of reward or for your of retribution. While I welcome the intention of my Noble Friend to ensure that your logic house retains a certain level of senior judicial experience, I would caution against the occasional tendency of lawyers to believe in the exceptionalism of their profession.

It is certainly useful to have the noble and learned Lord to bring the wisdom of their experience in applying statute to new legislation but it is just as helpful to have the practical experience of senior figures from other walks of life who can explain how the policy intent of legislation might work out of practice or some of the pitfalls which ought to be of the pitfalls which ought to be I do think that the present I do think that the present situation, the and categorisation -- uncategorisation needs some further reflection.

Lady May did nominate several chief justices. Both peerages were announced alongside Along with other senior judges. And her resignation this, keen to ensure that the judicial experience of Your Lordships' House should remain fresh, my noble friend also nominated Baroness Hallett. In addition to her distinguished services in the Court of Appeal, the noble and learned lady has shared a number of important enquiries into debts sustained on 7/7, Northern Ireland and she is chairing another important enquiry now into the handling of the pandemic.

Without betraying any confidences and wishing to imply that noble and learned lady is anything other than an excellent addition to Your Lordships' House, I can say that the process about taking soundings of potential candidates reflected the difficulties that are inherent in giving discretionary rather than automatic peerages. It reminded me that just as the law is too important to be left to lawyers alone, the dark arts of politics are not only practised by politicians. While I welcome efforts to set out a more formalised process in this area, I think some of the points raised through their amendments apply more widely than just to judges.
17:03
Lord Anderson of Ipswich Portrait Lord Anderson of Ipswich (Crossbench)
-
-
Although another lawyer, I will be brief because Lord Grocott has a People are required to be appointed to this house by offices that they have held. As a former holder of the least distinguished of the officers in the Parkinson's generous amendments 58 and 15 and, I did not feel entitled to such elevation or whether work I did in that office did embolden me to try my chances with HOLAC. The glory of the cross benches, if that is not too strong a word, lies in a very -- the very diverse backgrounds of those who are here.

The 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, to which I have spoken previously and debate. But I would, with respect to Lord Parkinson, make an exception for the very senior judges named in the amendments of Lord Wolfson for the reason that Lord Wolfson gave. Judges at that level often have to determine impartially cases to which the government, sometimes even the prime minister, as a party.

And that is what distinguishes them from cabinet secretaries and so on. They have to choose in any case, on the basis of the law, whether they are on the government -sized -- site or not. That is why they have to be screwed busily evenhanded. -- Scrupulously evenhanded. Such judges should not be appointed to this house any more than they should be given knighthoods or dame hoods simply because the government of the day like the cut of the jet.

Something this arbitrary is required. -- Simply because the government of the day likes cut of their jib. If that is thought to be to reach a diet, the honour should be rationed as proposed by Lord Wolfson on the basis of RAC. Stronach as the noble Lord has just said

**** Possible New Speaker ****

As the noble Lord has just said, I find the amendment extremely I find the amendment extremely attractive I hope the government
17:06
Lord Garnier Portrait Lord Garnier (Conservative)
-
-
attractive I hope the government will find it in its wisdom to reach a conclusion similar to that of my noble friend. Quickly while Lord Grocott still in the chamber, on the... He is never far from it. Insofar as this series of amendments doesn't appeal to him as it doesn't deal with a headed theory -- hereditary peerage is, I can say in the chamber Viscount Hailsham who demonstrates the agility of the British constitution that although a hereditary peer, he sits here as a life peer.

I do think it is very important, however, to recognise that although our constitution is odd and strange and in many ways not very neat, it does function and it functions all the better, it seems to be, by having people variety of backgrounds in this place. The fact we don't any more regularly have the presence of the justices of the presence of the justices of the Supreme Court is a disbenefit to us. There was a time when the gains an advantage by being here, and discerning the political mood of the moment.

This is a case where they are dealing with cases which deal with public policy. I suspect that we have missed a trick by informing the Supreme Court and our being informed by the Supreme Court in our respective deliberations.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Am very grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. If you will Lord for giving way. If you will recall, when we both became MPs recall, when we both became MPs about the, we attended APPGs on a regular basis. It was customary to regular basis. It was customary to see a number of sitting Law Lords in attendance.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

attendance. My noble friend was obviously a keynote member of APPGs. I was not. I'm sure he is right. Nevertheless, I think it is important that we in this house and the Supreme Court, for their part, should mutually benefit from each other's membership. I do hope that the government will accede to my noble friends amendment. Lord Wolfson asked for in his. There were two particularly hurtful and outrageous suggestions that I heard this afternoon. Was from my noble friend Lord Wolfson that he was not the least bit bothered by the submission from members of his own backbenchers

**** Possible New Speaker ****

when he was a minister. I meant the opposition as then

**** Possible New Speaker ****

constituted. It does take a lot of effort. The other outrageous thing was my noble other outrageous thing was my noble friend Lord Parkinson claiming that friend Lord Parkinson claiming that exceptionalism from lawyers was something to be criticised. I find something to be criticised. I find it very distressing. What I do think, and I will finish on this point, I cannot compete with either my noble friend Lord Wolfson ordered banner -- Lord banner. Certainly not waiting in judgement now.

The last time I appeared in Supreme Court was in 2019 when I had the honour of being against my noble friend Lord can easily and I had the privilege to describe him as the defendant.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. Crossbench.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Crossbench. My Lords, I hope the noble Lord
17:11
Lord Hope of Craighead Portrait Lord Hope of Craighead (Crossbench)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I hope the noble Lord will forgive me for intervening. I agree with a great deal of what he agree with a great deal of what he is saying in terms of relevance to this bill. I think I should say something. I'm a former holder of two of the offices that are being referred to in these amendments. First of all, as Lord President of the Court of session and then as a Law Lord. I'm concerned as to what these amendments might mean.

Lord Wolfson alert arm Denis and will be alarmed to know that I received a period not when I was a judge but when I had surgery -- served as president for five years. Then, after that, a few years later, I after that, a few years later, I brigade -- became Lord of appeal. 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, I was greeted by an announcement on the television set that the body to which I belonged was being abolished and the new Supreme Court had been created.

And so it was when the constitutional format was enacted, I became disqualified according to became disqualified according to section 137. It was only after I retired that I was able to come back here because the disqualification was lifted. I don't remember the issue or on account of agreement at some stage that the justices would be granted peerages at some stage. I think in 2003 when the whole issue blew up, there was a very strong resistance to the judges being in the Lords at any time, whether serving or retired.

And Lord Faulkner certainly was that resistance and I do not recall any undertaking, nor is it buried under the sofa because it was a strong feeling at the time. There it is. That is what the position was at the time. Insofar as the amendments are concerned, can I say what about the Lord President? Lord President's piece of work as a judge in Edinburgh, I found it extremely demanding and time-consuming. I did come here after I received my period to take the oath and I came later to make my maiden speech, but I can't remember coming at any other stage.

My predecessor was much the same. He received a peerage after he had been serving as Lord President. He very rarely, if ever, came to speak. These are the pre- devolution days. Things have changed markedly because the role of the president has devolved and much of the role is having to look at its devolved law. I think certain occasions for the Lord President feeling justified in taking time to come to London and speak in the House of Lords would be very few and far between.

I think the same would be true, if I may say so,... As serving judges, that place would be very difficult to justify. Insofar as the Supreme Court is concerned, that place of work is not here. Just across Parliament Square. I worked there for four years, it does seem a very long way from this house. You have to fight your way house. You have to fight your way through the crowds and then all the problems of finding a place and finding occasion to speak.

One of the things we have lost is the connection with the house, which I felt very strongly as a serving Law Lord when I came here to listen to debates and understand what was going. The connection and the wish to participate has been lost. That brings me to the various amendments on offer. On the whole, I rather favour the amendment in favour of Lord Murray granting the peerage on appointment to all of the justices. I think to limit it to the Supreme Court and the deputy, of which I was I think that reform cannot be considered without the rules as a whole for a very particular reason, that one of the points are all interested in is we are all about participation.

And I rather think that a large number of those who that a large number of those who would be made Life Peers would not want to participate, therefore we are dealing with a difficult decision. I am not sure how much the present precedent would really want to take part hereafter retirement. We do run the risk of not really feeling out the That has been left behind by the Lord. I asked the noble and learned Lord to perhaps think about these things.

It is a matter, really, for as iteration, but certainly as far as Northern Ireland and Scotland are concerned I really doubt them being nominated as Life Peers on appointment and as far as justice is concerned I think participation is a real revolution that cannot be considered at all which is why Noble Lord is quite right in saying that actually the debate is not really subjected this particular bill.
17:17
Lord Newby Portrait Lord Newby (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
I very strongly agree with that.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Ivory strongly agree with what the Noble Lord hope said, particularly his last comment. There particularly his last comment. There is, clearly, as long as we have independent Crossbench Peers in your independent Crossbench Peers in your Lordships house, a very strong argument for having former senior judges and civil servants as part of judges and civil servants as part of their number. But I have three their number. But I have three reasons for disagreeing with these amendments. I realise that as a mere lip I will not have the Noble Lord Wilson at this point shaking in his Wilson at this point shaking in his shoes, but I hope that the House will let me have a go.

The first thing is that I am opposed, in principle, to the idea that should get a peerage just because of their formal title. And position. And the reason was explained in part by the Noble Lord hope because although some people in that position will come and play an active part in your chips house, others will treat it as an honour. And we will not see them and they will not play a part. And I think one of the things that has gone through the debate on this bill is a view that everybody who is a member of your Lordships house in future should play a part in this activity and I simply do not believe that these proposals of automatically granting people places would achieve that end.

The second argument is the slippery slope argument. In a way, my Noble Friend Lord Wallace of tank and ices amendment demonstrated there is a gap in what was already proposed, so he came up with somebody else or another category who might justifiably form part of it. And in respect of Lord Parkinson's amendment, once you start specifying a greater range of people, I think that becomes a more difficult problem. I see the Noble Lord Macpherson in his place and I certainly think for the permanent secretaries to the Treasury, there is a general rule, probably to have a greater claim to membership of your Lordships house and the director-general of the BBC but I think that just demonstrates that once you try to start specifying, once you try to start specifying, much as I respect the Noble Lord, that just demonstrates the problem in my view of specifying the individual placeholders who should get a place in this chamber.

And, thirdly, the Noble Lord Wilson made a valiant tenant to explain why there is a separation of powers. The only thing that I would say, the separation of powers was legislated for the act of 1873, a provision that was not implemented when Disraeli became Prime Minister the following. And as in many other things I prefer to Gladstone to things I prefer to Gladstone to Disraeli. And this may or may not have been within policy for 152 years but it actually beats our commitment to having the directly elected House of Lords in terms of the longest commitment continuously held by political party before it was implemented.

And I see no reason why we should change from that position.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Of course, the first life peerages were conferred under the jurisdiction act of 1876. Which remained in force until the impact of the constitutional reform act of 2005. It is perhaps notable that the
17:22
Lord Keen of Elie Portrait Lord Keen of Elie (Conservative)
-
-
2005. It is perhaps notable that the first three appointments as the Lord of the bill for Scottish lawyers it is also notable that the next three appointments, as the Lords of appeal, were Irish lawyers. However, 15 years later, a suitable indicium lawyer was identified and appointed. And against that background I turn first of all to the amendments in the name of my Noble Friend Lord Wilson, 56 and 57, to which I have given my name.

And I must first of all note 2 points. First of all, I expressed a degree of surprise about the advice he received from the Cabinet upon his appointment to Government. There is a long and perhaps dishonourable tradition of Attorney-General solicitors general and Lord advocates assuming high judicial office after their service in Government. And, indeed, in the case of the Lord forget it was invariable the practice of until the 1960s that he would appoint himself to the most senior judicial office available, there being no conflict of interest.

But there are very good reasons why it is of benefit to this House as a little cult house to have the benefit of those who have served in high judicial office. Whether they do it following their retirement or at an earlier stage. And was a point made by my Noble Friend Lord Garnier and touched upon by the noble and learned Lord hope. While Lords can sit in this House they would do so with a self denied ordinance. They would not engage in matters that were potentially controversial from the perspective there judicial office.

For example, you would not have seen them engage in debates with regard to the Human Rights Act and other similar matters. But has the Noble Lord 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 upon them when they came in due course to address what were controversial political issues that were raised to a point of law, so I would suggest a significant benefit in having such qualified persons in this House, albeit it may be appropriate that there should be after the traditional retirement age of 75, and up to the government's retirement age of 80.

I see some of the Government backed ventures wintering at that but understand that is the intention. So, I support the points made by the noble and learned Lord Wilson. I do not go so far as the amendment proposed by my Noble Friend Lord Banner and Lord Murray and I do not take the point made by the Noble Lord Grocott that we are dealing here with protected places, but what we are dealing here with those which 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 there are two elements. There is the element conferred upon those that are granted high judicial office and that is already reflected in the fact that the present president of the Supreme Court had appeared to confirm upon his appointment. And the fact that the Lord Chief Justice had such an honour bestowed upon him as well. And, frankly, I would be confident that those that have held high judicial office and have been public servants for so long are 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, so I do not agree with the Noble Lord newbie that there should be no link between the peerage and that office which has been held, a distinguished office which has been held.

I do not believe we had to go down a slippery slope. And I acknowledge, however, that the separation of powers has been noted and acknowledged, albeit Montesquieu was talking about the United States system and not our own, and even there there are changes afoot, so I invite the Government to consider very seriously amendments 56 and 57. And to comment upon the other intended amendments which would bring those who held high public office and distinguish public servants into this House, almost invariably onto the crossbenches.
17:27
Lord Hermer Portrait Lord Hermer, The Attorney-General (Labour)
-
-
I am grateful to all noble Lords for their contribution which in this group concerned the appointment of specific public servants to your Lordships house. Can I start, if I may, with the amendments that concern the peerages or serving members of the senior judiciary tabled by the Noble Lord Wilson? Lord Banner and Lord Wilson of token S. And can I start from a happy place of consensus? Set out so eloquently by Lord Wilson and Lord Banner, Lord Anderson, the noble and no learn at Lord's.

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. And that benefit is not just limited to the contribution of judges. As all of that noble Lords that I have just listed demonstrate, the contribution of eminent practitioners in the law as to your Lordships house but there was no, if I may say so, finer reflection of the importance and the contribution from your logic tells the contribution made by Lord Hope of The thought is that I am in competition with Lord Wilson and others for a private I/O award.

There are three reasons why we cannot agree to these amendments. The first is that the government's intention is this is and will remain a single purpose-built to give effect to our manifesto commitment, to remove Hereditary Peers from participation in this House. I will not live at that point because it has been made in respect of so very many amendments and reiterated by the contribution of my Noble Friend, but we do not consider it appropriate or desirable to seek to piggyback quite separate proposals for reform onto the bill.

And that brings me to the second reason which is that the question of the future composition of your Lordships house, beyond those of the proposal in this bill is a matter that is best considered around and the Government has committed to consult on an alternative second chamber and indeed before that with further reforms in due course. And it is, of course, highly likely, one can anticipate, the Prime Minister's of all parties will wish to continue to appoint retired senior judges to your Lordships house.

Before more compressive reform, because it appropriate that other appointments remain for now at the discretion of the Prime Minister. Of course, if there are to be changes to that, we entirely accept the point made by the Noble Lord Wallace that logic dictates respect of judges it should of course be extended to Northern Ireland if it is extended to Scotland and England and Wales. The third reason why we do not accept these amendments, without wishing to close down or limit any further in cetacean, is that we consider that the immediate appointment of sitting judges, not simply retired judges, risks undermining modern nations of The amendment would unpick the connection.

The visible separation of the legislature and judiciary is in the government's view constitutionally important. Beyond that, the importance of independence of court from politics and its importance was settled in the 2005 act which was not a mess but rather represented a move towards modern constitutional orthodoxy. Of course, separation does not mean complete detachment. Is important that the world's of the legislature and the Lords understand each other. These amendments in the government we would tip the balance too far away from the necessary constitutional separation.

Responding to the question raised by Lord Strathclyde, I confess that I am unaware of any agreement of the nature raised. It may be thought surprising that if such an agreement was in existence, it would not have been aired in the intervening years, not least in circumstances where there have been repeated suggestions that Your Lordships' House would benefit from the presence not least of retired members of the senior judiciary. Turning then to amendments 58 and 59 table by Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay.

He attempts to broaden out the list to serving in future leaders of public services, including the head of the Armed Forces, security and intelligence services, p services, the Civil Service and the head of the Civil Service and the head of the BBC -- piece services -- peace. There are many among these ranks who would make excellent members of Your Lordships' House. However, creating a system of automatic entitlement to peerages, would as matters stand, fetter life peerages and that is a matter which the government considered is best considered when we consult on reforms to Your Lordships' House and move to consultation on an alternative second chamber.

There is no urgency to the appointment of those individuals. That is evidence not least as there were no proposals under the last government to bring any of this into effect. Although secondary to the issue of principle that I followed, I would also ask the noble Lord to consider whether it would be wise to allow such officeholders, albeit distinguished and qualified to serve as legislators -- legislators. There is an analogue but not perhaps as pressing or exact with judicial officeholders.

Currently, individuals who have helped such posts as described in the amendments usually come after the vacated their role. An arrangement which allows them to bring their wisdom and experience Your Lordships' House whilst avoiding what would only be an appearance. All the points raised in the debates raised both the merits and the demerits of the arguments as to what further reforms should take place that would shape Your Lordships' House. Lord Anderson raises the real care that must be given before fixing categories, whether or not that is a good idea in principle and if so how they should be fixed.

Lord Newby raises the important point about why it might not be the nature of the office, it's your commitment to participate that should dictate. All of these are matters for careful and collegiate consultation. Of course.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm very grateful to the noble and learned Lord. The answer he proposes is that the Prime Minister proposes is that the Prime Minister retains the discretion to appoint retired members of the Supreme Court retired members of the Supreme Court to this house. How does that answer the points raised by Lord Hope that the points raised by Lord Hope that this appears to place a choice on the Prime Minister where he is the Prime Minister where he is convening a favour on a judge.

There

**** Possible New Speaker ****

convening a favour on a judge. There can be no suggestion that suggestions are made which would favour them. I'm grateful for that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm grateful for that intervention. I can well anticipate that if this is an issue that arises that if this is an issue that arises upon consultation, there may be a distinction and to my mind, a distinction and to my mind, a constitutionally important distinction between the appropriateness or otherwise of appropriateness or otherwise of appointment of senior judges on appointment of senior judges on 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 answers at least in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

part. Can I... I thank the noble Lord. He draws a distinction between appointment for the Lords on taking own office for the Lords on taking own office and appointment to the Lords at the and appointment to the Lords at the end of office being served. I've heard already that the current president of the Supreme Court was appointed to this house on assuming appointed to this house on assuming the office of President of Supreme the office of President of Supreme Court.

Does the noble Lord say that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

is unconstitutional? The Constitutional Convention is between judges who sit upon cases where they said government legislation -- the constitutional tension. This seeks to exemplify the merits that may take place during consultation. It does not reflect any view of the government as to where that may ultimately land. Can I just raise one final point in respect of Lord Parkinson's amendment, drawing on the wider point I made a moment ago about the merits of looking at this in the round.

It is worth reflecting that if that were to come into effect today, it would create a very significant number of new members of Your Lordships' House, putting aside traditional -- traditional 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 only been for women judges, members of the committee.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The point really I was making with my amendment was not to make the case for all of those but to tease out what is the distinction tease out what is the distinction between the constitutional point he between the constitutional point he identifies in relation to the necessity of appointing judges on appointment, and maintaining the independence of action of senior independence of action of senior public servants who might want to curry favour with the ministers who have the power to put them in the House of Lords after they complete their jobs.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

My noble Lords intervention just exemplifies the important conversations that lie ahead as we conversations that lie ahead as we try to unpick those tensions. As I said, there are, of course, as I've said, there are, of course, as I've just alluded to, wider questions about the future composition of this about the future composition of this house and the government is committed to other reforms, not committed to other reforms, not least the alternative second chamber set out in our manifesto.

There is set out in our manifesto. There is no doubt that this can tell -- this house will continue to be blessed with legal expertise and no doubt any appointment to Your Lordships' House now or in the future the expertise offered by the former members of the senior judiciary will be a blessing to Your Lordships' House. And whilst the noble Lords have pressed an important point and this has been an important conversation, I would respectfully ask that noble Lords withdraw their amendments.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

May I kindly ask him to comment on Lord Grocott's claim on this group that these amendments are to wide ranging in scope? Clerks have wide ranging in scope? Clerks have been clear that they are in scope on the basis of the removal of one group of members of closely connected to and has repressive effect on the wider membership. I believe it is against the practice believe it is against the practice of the house to implicitly criticise clerks on the floor of the house, clerks on the floor of the house, which the noble Lord appears to be doing.

Apparently come on 12 March, government tabled amendments to change the scope and title of the Employment Rights Bill. The government has done it on another bill. There is no need for the concern of Lord Grocott on this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

bill. I thank the noble Lord for his question on behalf of the government. It's not appropriate for the government benches to respond. The class have been clear. -- The clerks have been clear. We are two clerks have been clear. We are two groups of 12 today.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

groups of 12 today. I'm going to move forward by thinking everybody who contributed to that very interesting and to that very interesting and informative debate. I did not declare an interest as a practising
17:41
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar Portrait Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Conservative)
-
-
declare an interest as a practising barrister, although I am. I don't have any outstanding cases from the Supreme Court. The reason for that is that I received judgement 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 judgement that they had been very kind about how well I had argued it. That is always fatal, when they are nice about the way you argued with -- argue it, they are going to rule against you.

I'm grateful for all the support I received on these points from various parts of the House. Particularly from the noble Lord Anderson of Ipswich who brought his own experience to bear on the point. I listened extremely carefully to what Lord Hope of Craighead said about participation. That is, of course, real issue. I was somewhat course, real issue. I was somewhat alarmed to hear that when the law Of it, it was on TV and 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-called employment status. It's such a shame that the noble Lord Lord Faulkner is not among us. As far as Lord Newby is concerned, the answer to the point he gave about individuals was precisely the point that Lord Anderson made and was made thereafter by my noble friend. I do confess whenever it comes to a bust up between Gladstone and Disraeli, I will invariably be on the side of Disraeli.

I'm grateful for the Disraeli. I'm grateful for the support from Lord Keen by way of name to my amendment and also from the frontbench. I wonder whether the... Was because I was a minister and not a law officer. Extremely grateful to the Attorney General for his response. He is right that there appears to be a consensus across the house that we need to find a way to have more traditional members at the right time here.

I therefore look forward to continuing the conversation. I would only make one final point. My understanding is that so far as unamended bills are concerned, in the last session, only for bills went through entirely without amendment. To money bills. One was an emergency bill. And the last was a bill on animal welfare which had cross-party support. I think it is a somewhat worrying approach for a government to set before actually listening to the debate that it really will brook no amendments at all even if they have cross-party support in principle as this one had.

With that caveat, I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

will, of course, withdraw my amendment. Is it your Lordships wish that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is it your Lordships wish that this amendment be withdrawn? this amendment be withdrawn? Amendment 57, Lord Wolfson, not made. Amendment 58, not made. made. Amendment 58, not made. Amendment 59, that Parkinson, not Amendment 59, that Parkinson, not moved. Amendment 59 B, not moved. Amendment 60, Lord Wolfson.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to move my amendment 60 which seeks to ensure that any person who holds the office of Lord 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 Lordships' House must be recommended by the Prime Minister for a life by the Prime Minister for a life When we walk through PS entrance and walk up the steps, between the staircase and appears entrance and the Princess chamber, we see the the Princess chamber, we see the arms of successful Lord's Chancellor painted beautifully for posterity as a record of their service.

The much quoted Lord Irving is there. To Hailsham's are there, and as we heard in the last group from noble and it friend Lord Garnier we are fortunate to have third law Hailsham with us in a different guise. The Earl of Kinnoull is there, Lord Birkenhead is there. And the very last of that noble line, the noble and learned Lord Faulkner is also there. Although it is a shame he is not here. Now, prior to new Labour's constitutional activity, the Lord Chancellor sat on the side and oversaw our debate.

He was akin to the Lord Speaker and was integral to the work of the House, but since the passing of the Constitutional reform act 2005, which I do continue to describe something of a mess, the Lord Chancellor and your Lordships house have been kept apart. Now, the Lord Chancellor invariably sits in The Other Place. Prior to the passage of the 2005 act, I believe the last person to serve as Lord Chancellor who was not a member of your Lordships house was Charles your, the member of Parliament for Cambridge University in the great days when Oxford and Cambridge University returned their own MPs.

Who died three days after being appointed and before the seal had been fixed to the letters patented raising him to the peerage. Now, of course, putting history to one side, removing the Lord Chancellor from the House of Lords was, of course, a corroborate of new labours decision to take the world of your Lordships house at the highest appeal court in the land away from it. And deposit to the Supreme Court on the other side of Parliament Square. All of these parts of the Constitutional reform act 2005 have to be read as a But what we have lost is this: the Lord Chancellor occupied and, to an extent, still occupies, an important role in our constitution and in our Government.

Judges do not take an oath which refers to the rule of law. There is someone who does. And that someone is actually Lord Chancellor. The Lord Chancellor takes an oath with three distinct parts. The first references support the rule of law. The second underpins the independence of the judiciary still understood deals with the provision of resources for the efficient and effective support of the courts. And those three parts are, of course, interlinked. Section 1 of the Constitutional reform act 2005 declared that nothing in the act adversely affected the existing constitutional principle of the rule of law.

So far, as constitutional feeling is concerned, that might be right. At the same act which deluded the position of Lord Chancellor of significant parts of its historic and political authority, did, adversely, affect the protocol and day-to-day implementation of the principle of the rule of lawful. Historically, of course, the Lord Chancellor wore three hearts. He was head of the judiciary and presided over the committee of the House which was, as that Supreme Court, until it crossed Parliament Square. He was a member of the Cabinet, head of the department dealing with courts, legal aid, and Constitutional affairs.

And he was also a member of this House and sat perhaps somewhat anachronistically, if I can say, as a speaker. No, I am prepared to accept that reform is needed. In this day and age, do not think you can have a member of the Cabinet as a sitting judge. But it is undeniable that the reforms in 2005 act has led to a diminution in the role. And in the respect within Government given also to the Lord Chancellor. And the creation of Justice Secretary two years later in 2007.

While understandable, further undermined the office of Lord Chancellor. And this is compounded by the statutory requirements for a person who holds a position of Lord Chancellor who need not be a lawyer at all, never mind a senior lawyer. And the undeniable consequence, it seems, is that the role of Lord Chancellor has changed from being in office which would conclude a career, a destination job, if I can put it that way, or a grand terminus for a glorious locomotive, to being little more than an intermediate station stop.

A resting point before the political journey continued on to greater things. And, indeed, sometimes I have to say in recent years the grand trade embodied by the person of the Lord Chancellor has more resembled a replacement bus service. Now, I do not suggest that we can return to status quo. That metaphorical chain, unlike many real trains under this Government, has actually left the station. But I do not think that we have gained from a system with which you can be Lord Chancellor on Monday, but then be promoted and, for many people, this would be a promotion to be Secretary of State at DEFRA or DCMS, I have nothing against DEFRA or DCMS.

The fact is the Secretary of State of DEFRA or DCMS do not take an oath to respect the rule of law. And it is the rule of law which underpins our constitutional settlement and also standards of policy and behaviour in public life and within Government. I would like us to consider returning to a system in which the position of the Lord Chancellor is, again, one of the great things in our constitutional settlement. In the first way of doing that is to restore the position of Lord Chancellor to this House, to make it clear that this is a destination job which would end, conclude, a career.

And not, as I say, with merely one ministerial position within an ongoing career. Finally, I should note that on the podcast of which I am an avid listener which the noble and learned Lord Faulkner shares with the Noble Lady Baroness Kennedy of the Shaws, it is a great podcast. It is called Law and Disorder. It is not always entirely clear to me which of them is Pine which of those titles. It Baroness Kennedy agreed on a recent podcast with my position that the loss of the Lord Chancellor from this House was something to be regretted and the omission, the absence of the Lord Chancellor from the centre of Government as it then was at the position is something to be regretted and should be reconsidered.

And I would suggest to the committee that any point on which the Noble Lady Baroness Kennedy the Shaws and I agree, must surely be right. And there is no greater example of a point commanding widespread support than that. I have raised this point before in your Lordships house was of the last time I did it from the Government benches and the noble and learned Lord judge who we all miss rightly commented with that twinkle in his eye. This was, he thought, the best job application ever made on the floor of the House of Lords.

This is not meant to be a job

**** Possible New Speaker ****

application. But I do beg to move. Amendment proposed after close one, insert the new clause as proposed on the Marshall list.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

proposed on the Marshall list. I sympathise with a very great deal of what the noble and Leonard deal of what the noble and Leonard friend has said. I too regret the fact I speak with a certain family background and the diminution of the background and the diminution of the broadband status of the Lord Chancellor, but that said, we are Chancellor, but that said, we are where we are and we cannot sensibly address this amendment without address this amendment without asking ourselves what the role of the Lord Chancellor is and should be.

And since 2007, the Lord Chancellor has also been Secretary of State for Justice, sitting in the House of Commons. And the Secretary of State for Justice has a very large number of responsibilities, which touch on the constituency interest of Members of Parliament. And I find it very difficult to believe that Members of Parliament believe that Members of Parliament would accept the Secretary of State for Justice sitting in the House of Lords. No, that takes one directly then to the role.

Are we to separate the role of the Lord Chancellor to the Secretary of State for Justice? That is certainly possible, it could
17:56
Viscount Hailsham Portrait Viscount Hailsham (Conservative)
-
-
be done, but what other departmental responsibility but the Lord responsibility but the Lord Chancellor then have? I accept that Chancellor then have? I accept that there are some senior officers that can be represented in this House, if I may say so to the noble and learned Lord attorney, he does so with distinction. It has been proceeded in this House by other attorneys in this House and I regard that as perfectly proper. Because there are relatively few there are relatively few constituency interests which would engage members of the House of Commons.

And then, to a lesser extent, that was also true of the Foreign Secretary. Our Noble Friend, my Noble Friend, occupied the role of Foreign Secretary with great distinction. It caused problems in the House of commons as, indeed, did the role of the Noble Lord Cardington. At the time of Lady Thatcher's Government. In both cases, it had to be met by having a very effective deputy, but again the Foreign Secretary raised, although hugely important, raised relatively few constituency interests.

My point really is if the Lord Chancellor is to have a serious departmental responsibility, which has constituency interests engaged, so far as numbers of the House of Commons is concerned, that Lord Chancellor Secretary of State for Justice or whatever, has got to be in the House of Commons. And if this committee accepts that, one is then driven to ask what, if any, departmental role would in you Lord Chancellor have? And I find it very difficult to identify one, and if that is the case we are diminishing the role of the Lord Chancellor and while I agree with an awful lot, I can't back him on this one.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Had my name on the amendment that committee is currently considering. committee is currently considering. It seems to me that the proposal by the Noble Lord Wilson in this regard the Noble Lord Wilson in this regard having the Chancellor by law to be a member of your Lordships house is a
17:58
17:59
Lord Keen of Elie Portrait Lord Keen of Elie (Conservative)
-
-
I to support the amendment proposed by the noble and learned Lord Wilson 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. I question whether it would involve him sitting as a speaker in this House. They clearly do have a role that he could perform effectively only if, as the novel and Leonard 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, as a final step in the distinguished political career, and by that means he could also be appointed the 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 has been the case since 2005. And yet it is devolved since 2005. And yet it is devolved to the Cabinet to some extent to the Ministry of Justice in some respects there is a clear case for identifying someone who is in the position to discharge the role of Secretary of State from those affairs.

And a suitable person appointed to such an office would also resume the position, the great Lord Chancellor's occupied in the Lord Chancellor's occupied in the He would not only be adviser to government but he would be the moral conscience of the government as well. And that is a role that is difficult to define until it is absent, and it is a role that a suitable cancer sitting in this house would be able to perform. With the strength to speak truth to power, something that has sometimes been absent with an executive government in this country, as we have faced various constitutional challenges.

So I heartily endorse the amendment proposed by my noble and learned friend. Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, can I thank Lord Wolfson and all your noble Lords for your and all your noble Lords for your contributions to this debate. We don't accept amendment 60 for three reasons young to the fact that they fall outside the intended scope of what is a single issue bill. First, the amendment seeks to fetter the the amendment seeks to fetter the power of the Prime Minister to shape the cabinet according to his or her own choosing. Under this amendment, as has been the case for every Lord Chancellor since 2007, the Prime Minister wishes to -- would wish to choose a sitting MP to select -- to act as Lord Chancellor.

The prime minister would be required to separate roles of Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice. In the government's view, that would be inappropriate constitutionally, factoring of the Prime Minister was my discretion to pick a cabinet of his or her own choosing. Second reason is this. There is no constitution or public policy rationale to justify a position to take us back to the position that we were in prior to 2005. One cannot properly, for the reasons set out by the noble Lord Lord Hailsham, simply without going wholesale back to the 2005 position, putting the Lord Chancellor as a senior judge, without that you can't simply pick and choose.

What else is left of the Lord Chancellor's role? So it cannot
18:04
Lord Hermer Portrait Lord Hermer, The Attorney-General (Labour)
-
-
simply be a rational driven by no more, no less to have a member of more, no less to have a member of more, no less to have a member of the Cabinet committed to the upholding of the rule of law. There should be a commitment consistent with the ministerial code of all with the ministerial code of all members of the Cabinet. But if I may say so, I also said quite properly say so, I also said quite properly as the role for Attorney General.

As the house will be aware with a minister and the monarch 's great minister and the monarch 's great permission, the role of Attorney General was changed when I took it to include an express commitment to to include an express commitment to the rule of law. The third reason is that the amendments failed to address what we would respectfully say are the most important attributes for the Lord Chancellor in the post-2005 eight. Those attributes were identified by the Constitution Committee, which considered the Lord Chancellor plus macro and report from two years ago.

And I acknowledge the committees current position. That report, in its final analysis, it said this : character and a commitment to the rule of law are the most important attributes for a Lord Chancellor to possess. My Lords, we agree. 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 Lord Chancellor exemplifies the qualities of the great officeholder committed to the rule of law.

More widely, as she has made clear, this entire government sees the rule of law as our lodestar. I have no doubt the premise has appointed in my right honourable friend, has appointed her in the confidence of the house in which she sits is no hindrance to the discharge of her vital has additional responsibilities. And so, for those three reasons, I respectfully request that noble Lords -- that the noble Lord withdraws his amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm grateful for the contributions in this short but important debate and I will make the
18:06
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar Portrait Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Conservative)
-
-
point, it really ought to go without saying but I will say for the avoidance of any doubt. None of this is any reflection of 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 moved to the principled, and that is what my amendment is directed at. Now, 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 whom to have in the Cabinet. It doesn't. The p.m. Can still appoint anybody to the role of Lord cancer. The Prime Minister and appoint anybody. Not limited to the house -- the members of the House of Commons. Someone can be parachuted, so to speak which has happened on numerous occasions. There is no fetter at all. That is a good red herring. The second point is what would the Lord Chancellor do? This is Viscount Hailsham's point.

The Lord Chancellor would be there to oversee the important parts of our constitution. Constitutional affairs, evolution, human rights, international treaties. We should go back, therefore, to the Lord Chancellor being in charge of a department of constitutional affairs. And as to the last point that the current attorney is the first person, first attorney to add into the old a commitment to the rule of law, of course I share with him a commitment to the rule of law although I think our interpretation sometimes may differ.

That's not a matter for now. Certainly, so far, as statute is concerned, the Lord Chancellor is in a generous position. To continue to think we have lost something. Something important. In the 2005 act. I hope that this conversation also may

**** Possible New Speaker ****

continue but of course I withdraw the amendment this evening. Is it your Lordships pleasure

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is it your Lordships pleasure Amendment 61, withdrawn. Amendment 61, Lord Lucas, not moved. Amendment 63, $$TRANSMIT.com well, already 63, $$TRANSMIT.com well, already debated, not move. Amendment 64, Earl of Devon, not moved. Amendment 65, Earl of Devon, not move. 65, Earl of Devon, not move. Amendment 67, not move. Amendment 67, Baroness Laing.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to move the amendment in my name on the Order Paper, amendment 67, regarding the amendment 67, regarding the potential appointment of temporary ministerial members of Your
18:08
Baroness Laing of Elderslie Portrait Baroness Laing of Elderslie (Conservative)
-
-
ministerial members of Your Lordships' House. And I thank Lord Rennard for his support of this amendment and for having added his name to it. And 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, 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, my Lords, that a significant number of government ministers should be members of this House. And equally vital that a significant number of members of the site should be government ministers. Our duty to hold the government to account is accomplished, as your Lordships are well aware, in a variety of ways. The most obvious of which is asking questions of the government Minister at the dispatch box. In recent years, 36 ministers have been directly appointed to this house as ministers so that they have common and made their maiden speeches at the dispatch box as ministers of the Crown.

I'm not for a moment suggesting that there is anything wrong with that. Our Prime Minister is entitled to appoint the person he or she considers best for the job. It is in our interest and in the interests of the country as a whole to have ministers carrying out the business of government who actually 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 Parliament to become part of the government.

It surely... We all accept that winning an election is not the only attribute of a good minister. 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. As president, the only possible appointment to this house is as here for life. I put it to the house that there should be an alternative.

That the Prime Minister should be able to appoint a person to be a government minister and that they should be a member of this house during their tenure of their ministerial appointment and only for that time. Of course, I will give way to my noble friend.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

She is making a very strong case and argument. But when they leave the appointment as Minister, would they still keep their title or not?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

they still keep their title or not? I thank my noble friend for that very pertinent question. I think the answer is yes. A title is an honour answer is yes. A title is an honour but a title, we've discussed this in but a title, we've discussed this in various aspects of this bill and the changes that we are all considering, that there is no harm in a title. It's the presence of being in this house, having the ability to vote and so on that is really the point at question.

And so, indeed, a title once conferred, I think, would be kept forever. It is a great honour to be appointed to this house but please consider, my Lords, that an appointment for life means something rather different to a person aged 30 than to 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 as yet.

It might be that there are bright young things out there who could serve a few years is very effective members of the government but who do not wish to undertake the duty of being a member of this illustrious house for the rest of their lives. Our recent prime ministers have vowed that they want to reduce the size of Your Lordships' House. Letters try to help the Prime Minister to do that by giving him the option to appoint ministers on a temporary basis -- let us.

It would be a modest step towards a 21st-century house if the government will consider adopting amendment 67.
18:14
Viscount Trenchard Portrait Viscount Trenchard (Conservative)
-
-
Amendment proposed. After clause 1, insert the new clause on the list of the amendments. Amendment 67. of the amendments. Amendment 67.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, my noble friend proposes the creation of a new class proposes the creation of a new class of members of Your Lordships' House as ministerial members. It's not as ministerial members. It's not clear from her very eloquent speech whether such persons would be whether such persons would be created peers or not. She did 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 doesn't address the problem of unpaid ministers in Your Lordships' House, and I'm not so sure there would be many volunteers for such posts in the absence of a salary, a peerage, although I would hope my noble friend will clarify whether on reflection these temporary ministers would be -- would get peerages or rates to set after retirement from ministerial

**** Possible New Speaker ****

responsibility is. -- Just to clarify it as set out in amendment 67 that such a person amendment 67 that such a person would be created here but not APR for life. And that although the for life. And that although the title might continue, the right to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

title might continue, the right to sit in your Lordships house would not, once the ministerial appointment had ended. Think my Noble Friend for her clarification, but I wonder whether clarification, but I wonder whether the creation of yet another type of the creation of yet another type of peer would, I wonder how many people would be happy to be creative in that kind of peer if others have created and been appointed as Ministers were created probably as for life. It might be a bit difficult.

And I will, if I may, comment on the amendment of my Noble Friend, Lord Brady, is going to move his amendment 90 C. He seeks to abolish the lot Ministers altogether. Who would speak for the Government in your Lordships house? My Noble Friend clearly has it made a very different role for the House

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and I look forward to his hallucination of that. I am grateful to my Noble Friend
18:17
Lord Brady of Altrincham Portrait Lord Brady of Altrincham (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am grateful to my Noble Friend for introducing that so capably. But I would hate to disappoint him. My I would hate to disappoint him. My intention is to speak to Baroness Laing's amendment 67, not to move the amendment which stands in my name. I tabled really intending for it to sit with the earlier amendment that I propose which we debated at an earlier stage. Intention was to draw out a broader debate about the importance of a separation of powers.

We heard earlier about the separation between the judicial legislature but we do not often speak about possible separation between the executive and the legislature and that is the debate that I was wishing to have but I do not think it really sits comfortably in this point in our proceedings but I do very strongly support my Noble Friend Baroness Laing is amendment which I think serves quite an important purpose and which very naturally sets with the avowed intention of this bill. I think that most of us across the House recognise that the odd process of Hereditary Peers, exempted Hereditary Peers being chosen by buyer action become very difficult to justify.

It has been widely said previous stages it had already really fallen into disuse and most people, I think inhabited 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 the least as anonymous.

We strongly support my honourable friend in her intention was to think, as she has said, it would actually increase the freedom of Prime Minister's to bring in people to act as Ministers from a much broader field, a much wider spectrum of life experience. And it would not have the unintended consequence of constantly swelling consequence of constantly swelling

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the ranks of your Lordships house. May I just make two points. Firstly, with regard to what has just been said. I have strong just been said. I have strong support for the idea of time limited persons in this House. Whether they are Ministers, appointed for a particular short term, or might own personal favourite is that persons appointed should be appointed for appointed should be appointed for fixed terms, say 10 years, which addresses some of my Noble Friend addresses some of my Noble Friend points.

Turning to the amendment that was not moved by my Noble Friend, amendment 90, that one is seriously bad. Because if this House is to really perform its functions as a provider to chamber, scrutinising legislation, it is absolutely essential that the Government of the day is represented by competent Ministers who can by competent Ministers who can answer questions from opposition or, indeed, their own ventures. And if indeed, their own ventures. And if my Noble Friend, which he did not move, was about to find favour, the move, was about to find favour, the role of this House would be hugely in demand.

in demand.
18:21
18:21
Lord Rennard Portrait Lord Rennard (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
House has been enabled since 2015. Until now. To make even minor and Until now. To make even minor and sensible reforms to our composition. There were several sensible amendments to the bill that go beyond removing the hereditary basis beyond removing the hereditary basis for membership and I support the principle of this one. I have looked principle of this one. I have looked at ministerial appointments, made by creating a new peerage, just since 2015. There have been 29 of them in this period of which nine, or approximately one third of them, have lasted as Ministers for less than one year.

Only seven of the 29 new peerage is created in this way have lasted as Ministers for more than two years. 76% of them have not lasted as Ministers for two years but all of them have been granted lifetime membership of the House. I have then looked at the record of those appointed Ministers in this way, after they seized to be Ministers. 11 of the 29 have gone on to make fewer than 10 spoken contributions. And only 12 of them have made more than 50.

15 of the 29th did not serve on a committee. And 17 of the 29 took part in fewer than 50 divisions and only eight of them in more than 100 divisions. It is a great source of frustration to many in the House that we have seen so many that we have seen so many apartments that approve the granting of life peerage and the newly appointed Ministers lasting only a very short period of time in office and then, mostly, disapproving -- disappearing without trace from the chamber but without choosing to resign from it.

If ministerial appointments created in this way continue at the same rate over the next decade, they will be adding another 30 members to the House, which would make the hereditary members less justified if it was simply about numbers. One ministerial. Would be created for every three Hereditary Peers removed. At that ministerial peers are likely to be of less value to their house in the long run. All the evidence is that peerage is created to enable ministerial appointments, inflate our size, whilst not invariably providing members who are very active beyond the turn of their ministerial office.

We need to end the link between 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 size of the House of Lords is too large. And that it is not well served by having members who inflate our numbers without involving proper participation in our work. I hope, therefore, the Government will look favourably on ending the link between a life peerage and ministerial office.

It could, at least, at the very least, expect any new Ministers appointed in this way at the end of their term of ministerial office to either remain as active in the House of the standard at least expected by the House of Lords 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 able step will be the case would be able step pending more white ranging reforms of the House.

And it would make such an amendment as this less necessary and avoid further debate.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am sorry. I hold my Noble Friend is a puzzle to these amendments and have a God, but they display this understanding of the relationship between the Lords
18:25
Earl Attlee Portrait Earl Attlee (Conservative)
-
-
relationship between the Lords minister and other members of your Lordships house. And turning to Noble Lord Brady's amendment I do not understand how the House work in my noble friend's amendment was accepted. What would be the point of being in the House of lords if we were unable to influence the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister on a peer-to-peer basis? Had I moved in I wonder whether

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Had I moved in I wonder whether it occurs to my Noble Friend that it would be possible to bring Ministers from another place to answer questions here.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

questions here. I could not exist -- not resist having a pop at the Noble Lord. My having a pop at the Noble Lord. My Noble Friend mentioned it is his 36th direct appointment and the Noble Lord Rennard in his important contribution said more about that. The underlying cause of that is 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 would have a very serious and adverse effect on the culture of the House.

In all my time in your logic house I have looked decades ahead and I can given example. In the 2001 Parliament, we had a perfectly decent, hard-working and effective Minister of defence as our Lord's defence minister. At the time, we were momentarily overcommitted. And at the question time I asked for how many years have we been operating outside of the defence planning resurgence? Unfortunately, he misled the House by Saint my Lords, none. And sat down.

Unfortunately, that was the wrong answer. No, I could have wickedly arranged for the Minister to come to the Dispatch Box immediately after prayers and apologise to the House for misleading it. I did no such thing. What I actually did was to locate the crestfallen minister and say do not worry. Just put it Ministerial statements in the back and it will be fine. So, nine years later, when I accidentally cut a £1.7 billion electrification scheme, it was my pals in the Labour Party, including the Noble Lord, who said do not worry John, you have another question tomorrow and you can clarify the situation.

And in the past I have very closely worked with parachuted in Ministers and I am doing so now. Working very closely with the Noble Lord on prison. It parachuted in minister. This is the House of Lords. Our role is to revise legislation, be an additional check on the executive, and the source of expertise. We cannot perform this role unless other members of the House and Ministers work together collegiate league with

**** Possible New Speaker ****

mutual trust and in accordance with the accords. I support Baroness Laing's

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I support Baroness Laing's amendment. Let me begin by pointing
18:29
Lord Vaizey of Didcot Portrait Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Conservative)
-
-
out two problems with her proposal before I give her my unwavering support. First, I called the Wolfson problem, perhaps the Timson column, which is that we have a problem where we have a point extremely experienced people to fill in ministerial role and discover when they leave that role they are going to be extremely distinguished able members of our house for the rest of their lives. And I gave three cheers when my Noble Friend Lord Wolfson came into this House. And I give three cheers for three excellent Ministers appointed by the new Government to the Frontbench also each with huge expertise in their particular areas and I particularly agree that one of them is the Noble Lord Timson.

I have absolutely no doubt that they will continue to make extremely distinguished contributions to the House long after they have left their ministerial post. At the Wolfson problem is easily solved by converting those temporary Ministers into full-time life peerages at the discretion of the Prime Minister of the day. Second issue.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The reason I left my ministerial office was because I resigned from it. The prospect of the Prime Minister of the day, thereafter Minister of the day, thereafter appointing me as a life peerage, might be regarded as somewhat remote.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

remote. Somebody who left the because of the capriciousness of that then Prime Minister managed to get Prime Minister managed to get restored and put into the House, there are ways around that problem, particularly with the extremely particularly with the extremely clever arguments put forward on their behalf. Anyway, I digress. The second point is actually what lies at the heart of the bill that we are debating which is the sort of capricious element. It may be that there are hereditary peers sitting in the House for capricious reasons dating back hundreds of years.

There are certainly Life Peers, like myself, sitting here for capricious reasons. Based on how document with the pre-minister over 24-hour is explain it or should have a job for It seems invidious to single out those who are doing a specific ministerial role and kicking them out when we don't kick out people who are appointed on a whim of a Prime Minister who may only serve for a few weeks in that office. for a few weeks in that office.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

He stopped being honourable. My noble friend, I thank him for giving noble friend, I thank him for giving way. I was trying to be brief in my remarks and I did not go into great detail. This amendment would not detail. This amendment would not apply to all ministers. It would simply give the Prime Minister the simply give the Prime Minister the ability to appoint some ministers on a temporary basis, it would not a temporary basis, it would not oblige the Prime Minister to all ministerial appointments to this ministerial appointments to this House on a temporary basis.

I hope that would reassure my noble friend.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Noble Baroness was effectively my first employer when I was 21 years old and we have this telepathic understanding that she has understanding that she has seamlessly introduced the main point I wish to make in my remarks, which is I wanted to turn it around and is I wanted to turn it around and say precisely picking up on what say precisely picking up on what Lord Rennard was saying, I think if we move to a system where the Prime Minister rather the government of Minister rather the government of the day could appoint temporary ministers to this place, it would give the Prime Minister and the government of the day a huge amount of flexibility to fill government posts with genuine experts with effective ministerial power to carry out their functions.

There must be a small niggling doubt when a Prime Minister is coming to fill positions even including the distinguished people appointed in recent months and as they are thinking if they are appointing too many people that will fill these benches for the rest of their lives. If I have the freedom to appoint 12 or 13 experts in the field to fill specific ministerial roles, knowing at the end of those ministerial roles they will leave this House, it will sit better with public opinion, give me more freedom, serve the country better that I am able to appoint these experts to carry out these functions by definition as junior ministers to carry out these functions and help the government of the day.

I think that is a powerful argument. There would be a discretion to convert those ministers into life peerages at the end. I had not considered if they would have a peerage when they entered this House. My conclusion is they should not, they should be called ministers in the Lords and they can aspire based on their service as ministers and their contribution to the House to get a peerage after they have served as ministers in the Lords. The final point.

The final .1 of my noble friends pointed out about how many people would be attracted to the unpaid role of being a minister in the Lords. First of all, it does not need to be unpaid. That is a matter for the government, if they have the courage to face down public opinion and expand the number of paid ministerial positions. But I do think giving the Prime Minister and the government of the day that freedom to appoint temporary ministers in the Lords is something that this House should certainly seriously consider.

seriously consider.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am grateful to Baroness Langley. I will not say much about Langley. I will not say much about the amendment 90 other than to note the amendment 90 other than to note that I think the answers noble Lords that I think the answers noble Lords get to their questions would be far less satisfactory for people if they less satisfactory for people if they had less authority to seek or determine answers and scrutiny of legislation would be diminished if legislation would be diminished if the ministers responding did not have the authority to make changes and compromises based on the arguments they heard.

We live in hope we persuade ministers opposite of the need for changes and compromises on the bill presently before the Committee. I will focus on Lady Laing and Amendment 67. It has more going for it and it is valuable to be able to bring in people to government who might not have had the inclination or opportunity to stand for election. The present government has made good The present government has made good use of that. Mention has been made of Lord Timpson with his distinguished career in business but also helping those who have been in the penal system.

A more pertinent example would be Lord Vallance of Balham and Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill who would distinguish public servants in their field before they dip their toes into more political waters. Similarly the Attorney- General stepped away from a successful career at the bar to provide council and public service in parliament and governments of all colours provided and were able to persuade distinguished people from all walks of life to pause or abandon their career in order to serve the country.

I do think what my noble friend says is right that we could dissuade more if it was not accompanied by a life sentence into the legislature while some noble Lords who have given service and government remain active members of the House drawing on expertise they added in office. Others do not. I was struck by the figures that Lord Rennard quoted about the rate of continuing participation by ministers. When I look down the list of those that served in Conservative led government is of the previous 14 years, I'm struck by the number who have chosen no longer to sit on these benches and I remember one difficult conversation with one noble Lord who will remain nameless who was anxious to step down as a
18:38
18:39
Lord Collins of Highbury Portrait Lord Collins of Highbury (Labour)
-
-
interesting debate. I'm not going to address Lord Brady's amendments because he has not moved it. That because he has not moved it. That makes life a little bit easier but he did support amendment 17 tabled he did support amendment 17 tabled by Baroness Laing which seeks to by Baroness Laing which seeks to allow individuals to be appointed on the temporary, as temporary peers in order they can service ministers order they can service ministers after which they depart from this House.

While the government seized the reasoning by the amendment, we do not see it as a way of achieving our objective of a smaller, more active chamber. Ministers are appointed to the government because of the experience and expertise that they bring to this House. The House benefits hugely from that. Some ministers appointed to this House who were former Members of Parliament bring both 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 the day-to-day workings understand the day-to-day workings of each other.

Certainly I think that is a really important point stop others appointed as ministers in recognition of the value of their experience outside of government in the private sector and other areas of public service. As many have said, we are lucky to have the number of experts on the benches with us. Lord Timpson was recently appointed to this House to serve as Minister and the noble Lord Lord Wolfson in the last Parliament. I think noble Lords would agree long after they cease to be ministers and this deprives the House of often considerable experience.

I understand the sentiment of this amendment. New peers appointed as ministers or not do increase the size of the House. Because of appointment being for life. The size of the House has become too big. What the House has found frustrating is when ministers are appointed and come into this House, they leave ministerial posts quite quickly and don't make any further contribution. I think that is not the case of Lord Wolfson, but certainly not the case of Lord Keen and certainly the noble Lord who resigned from government on a matter of principle and they have continued.

We would not have had the benefit of the noble Lord in the debate today if he had been subject to the noble Ladies amendment. I think this is an important point to make. Lord Agnew has contributed. Lord Keen has been contributing in the debate today. I think I hear what the noble Lord Vaizey says and I suspect that they don't have his unique skills in terms of persuading the Prime Minister to keep them in. That is an important point.

I think it really is an important point. I do not think the noble Lady 's amendment is the way to address the problem of the size of the House. We must make a smaller, more active chamber that represents the country it serves and as we have said throughout this Committee stage the government believes 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 commitments and this amendment would pre-empt that dialogue.

I urge the noble lady to look at the evidence before us. This isn't the first time I haven't congratulated the dissipation of Lord Wolfson and it would be terrible if we did not have it here in today's debate. I beg that she withdraws the amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I wonder if I could ask if he would consider raising with the Prime Minister the suggestion I made about a statement along the lines I about a statement along the lines I indicated in my speech which would enable the Prime Minister to make enable the Prime Minister to make ministers create a peerage, but only continuing in such a role if they undertake regular participation in undertake regular participation in the House in future and if they did not, they resign their membership of the House.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

the House. We will look at participation generally and we must engage in a proper dialogue and consultation. I do not accept the point, but I do hope the noble lady withdraws her amendment. amendment.
18:44
Baroness Laing of Elderslie Portrait Baroness Laing of Elderslie (Conservative)
-
-
I thank the Minister for his assessment of the amendment that I put before the House. It had not had any intention of argument ad hominem and I was not looking backwards in my tabling of this amendment to inject from the House any particular former minister and certainly none sitting here.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

As far as I am concerned, the copy of Hansard is going directly to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

my mother. In consideration of the feelings

**** Possible New Speaker ****

In consideration of the feelings of the noble Lords mother, let me make it absolutely clear that I shared the Minister's admiration for shared the Minister's admiration for recent ministers on both sides of the House and indeed those who were the House and indeed those who were ministers and shadow ministers the quality of personnel who take charge of this House is exemplary and magnificent. Do you think that will magnificent. Do you think that will I hope it will also be enough to reassure the noble peers that I was not looking backwards in this amendment but looking forwards to simply make it possible for a Prime Minister who had a serious concern not to increase the general numbers of the membership of this has to still be able to appoint a good person who is not an hours of comments to be a minister because that is often what we need as the Minister himself has given many examples as other noble Lords have also done.

But I appreciate that the Minister has considered my amendment. And I thank the House for having considered points in the amendment, especially my Noble Friend Lord Brady answered Vaizey who rose to supported, as indeed Lord Rennard gave us some extremely valuable statistics on the matter. And having fully considered this matter, I hope that as the Government looks forward as to how the gaps that are going to be left by the departure of the predatory Pierre is will be filled in the future and while the Government gives consideration as to their balance of the membership of this House that Ministers will remember that house rather liked amendment 67, but for the moment I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
18:47
Lord Ashton of Hyde Portrait Lord Ashton of Hyde (Non-affiliated)
-
-
If it is your Lordships pleasure that amendment 67 be withdrawn, amendment is, by leave, withdrawn. Element 68, Lord Burnett not move. Amendment 69, Lord Ashford.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

1934, Perseus Short patented the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

1934, Perseus Short patented the cat's eye. The ubiquitous reflective road stood that we all recognise, one of the most perfect inventions. And recognised as one of the top 10 British design icons, along with, amongst other things, the Spitfire, amongst other things, the Spitfire, the telephone box, and the World Wide Web. It is simple, effective, Wide Web. It is simple, effective, self-cleaning, and, most importantly, was wholly beneficial 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 nonpolitical. Non-courtesan. It applies to all noble lords, whether elected hereditaries are Life Peers in the Noble Lady the leader of the like this it addressed the view of the Labour manifesto that, and I quote, 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 the bill. In one that faces all leaders and the convener of the Crossbench Peers.

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, is sensitive subject and IP tribute to those peers who made the difficult brave decision to retire for that reason. But mental capacity is not that 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 API to retire if he or she signs a letter which is witnessed and addressed in Parliament. The Catch-22 situation is that the peer has to have in the opinion of the Parliaments the mental capacity to be able to, legitimately, signed the retirement letter. Even if there is a lasting place in place, the attorney cannot send the retirement letter on behalf of the peer who has lost mental capacity.

So, we have the perverse situation that an attorney can sell the peer's house attorney can sell the peer's house or use his or her money to pay for long-term care but has to leave the tempi are able to speak in Parliament, even if their mental capacity continues to reduce steadily. I think everyone would agree this is not good for the reputation of the House. Potentially unkind to the peer who may still attend the House when frankly they attend the House when frankly they should not.

Not all peers will have a lasting power of attorney, of course, even though I believe we should all at least consider it. But if they have thought about it and made the decision to establish a lasting power of attorney while they still have mental capacity, this amendment will remove all doubt and allow the Parliaments to accept the attorneys signature on the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

resignation letter. I beg to move. Insert the following new clause, retirement from the House of Lords retirement from the House of Lords in section 12B of the House of Lords Act 2014. After peer, insert or
18:51
18:52
Lord Wallace of Saltaire Portrait Lord Wallace of Saltaire (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Certainly interesting because a peer who was extremely kind to my wife and myself and we were young and was himself and the senior diplomat as that was the case in point, but I have to say this is something that needs sorting. Either it can be sorted by a change in standing orders, or by an ordering council, or if that is not allowed it needs legislation. We have just passed a short bill through this House from the High Commissioner Church of Scotland which covered one extremely small element forgotten, or not allowed by the Church of Scotland in the 1829 disabilities act.

If we can do that we can add, if necessary, a short amendment to the bill to have that effect. As I walked to the lobby the other day another peer who happens to be a relative of the peer said to me this is not just a simple case. Until we have agreed a retirement age, we are likely to be facing this again and again with others. And we do all know that there have been cases of PS 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 the power of attorney for me to act on her behalf and discovering that her paralysis had reached a point where she was unable to sign. And thus not being able to confer the power of attorney. In spite of the fact that she was completely in her right mind. This can be done. And I think we are entitled to ask that by report stage we have a clear advice on whether this has to be done by legislation or can be done by an ordinary counsel.

I know there is conflicting advice on this as I have taken some interest in the case. But just one more thing to the Government, I know that the government's preferred, is that there should be no amendments to this bill, but this is a bill about some further reform of the law and we are unlikely to see it otherwise for some time. I think that this House is entitled to say, as it goes through, that we are interested in some further reforms and some further limited reforms might appropriately be attached to this bill which is what we are discussing.

When we start report stage I look forward to the announcement that the Government will then make to help us through will then make to help us through the report stage and what further changes than the structures, standing orders, and procedures of the House been proposed, what further consultations or legislative changes it has in mind and when it proposes to make those and 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 it needs making, it is simple to make it and it should be done.

it and it should be done.
18:56
Lord Garnier Portrait Lord Garnier (Conservative)
-
-
In the amendment I wondered if I can make one or two points in support of my Noble Friend. 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 and health and welfare the attorney can deal with the daily routine, washing, dressing, eating. He can make arrangements for your medical care, from moving into a care home, and for life-sustaining treatment.

And they can do that. They can use that power, make use of that power. When you are unable to make your own decisions. Under a property of financial affairs lasting power of attorney, it can be used as soon it is registered and with your permission and that allows the attorney to manage a bank or building society account to pay bills, to collect benefits or a pension. And, as I think my Noble Friend Lord Ashton mentioned, sell your home. Big decisions in both types of power of attorney.

But what they cannot do, as my Noble Friend pointed out, 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 come of it in January, it appeared to me and perhaps to a number of other members of the committee that loss of mental capacity is something which this House is going to have to come to grips with and deal with in a humane but nonetheless determined fashion.

And if I may say to the Noble Lord Harrison of Haringey, had he been making that point about this being out of the scope of this particular bill in a court, I would have said that was only a pleading point and shall we just get to the substance. The substance is that this is an issue and the Noble Lord Wallace of Saltaire was right to deal with it. The substance of the point has got to be dealt with, if not within this bill 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 can make up their own mind they would do so. But what we need to cater for is those who have lost the ability and the capacity to make that decision. So, I do urge the House if they do not accept the amendment in its current terms, to understand that this is a problem that faces us and we must deal with

**** Possible New Speaker ****

it as a house. I wonder if I could just say if you weren't as the predecessor because as chief for the Government because as chief for the Government in this House serving particularly under the noble Baroness Lady May, under the noble Baroness Lady May, in particular she was very keen to make sure that the numbers in this make sure that the numbers in this House did not increase exponentially and we have the Noble Lord in his place today to thank for a very good
19:00
19:02
19:03
Lord True Portrait Lord True (Conservative)
-
-
I have booked my name to the amendment and as he said, a former Chief Whip and Lord Taylor of Holbeach, a former Chief Whip, a former leader, myself as a former leader, we know this is a serious issue of law and principal must be addressed here and I agree with the wise words from Lord Wallace of Saltaire. Lord Harris took exception to a speech made in outset of these debates and part of that speech there are several parties to this piece of legislation.

One is the government desire which we accept to stop the inflow of hereditary Peers and the other views of other parties in the House but there is an overriding interest of the House and this is a House of parliament, there is a bill before us which directly affects Your Lordships' House and it is absolutely reasonable as Lord Wallace of Saltaire made the submission, it is absolutely reasonable that this House of Lords should put forward propositions for sensible and limited amendments to legislation which will improve potentially the reputation of the House.

I believe this proposal fits fairly and squarely into that and I look at the simple principle that those that cannot conduct their own affairs should not conduct the affairs of Parliament and if this is not addressed, then one day it risks bringing disrepute on this House. The clear intention of the House of the time of the 2014 act which has been referred to that brought in retirement was that those Life Peers no longer wish to take part in the House or perhaps felt their powers to do so were declining to prevent the effect and might retire permanently from the House.

A sensible, useful reform, but it has been described, a problem has arisen as described by a number who have spoken that in the 2014 act it is clear they will personally sign a witness document saying that they want to retire. That was the clear advice I received from House authorities when I was leader. Where a peer has seized control of affairs by means of everlasting power as explained by Lord Garnier, doubts have been expressed as to whether the clerk of Parliament could accept the point as conclusive in relation to retirement.

As my noble friend said, in extreme use, and attorney might sell the property of an individual or move their bank and contents anywhere and put them into a retirement home would not affect the request for the peer to retire from the House. It is quite extraordinary. The worst imaginable case, an attorney might know that they are wholly incapable of managing their own affairs and not prevent that fear from coming to the House to take part in directing the nations affairs.

There was no valid document of retirement of the House and some circumstances should never and some circumstances should never arise and will never be accepted in any House of parliament I think in most other countries of the world and I simply disagree with the view expressed that the 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 place into your House on behalf of the government found that the government did not agree with the purpose that I had involvement for that the bill, the vehicle, might be useful for making changes to the betterment of the public wheel.

If there is before us a useful vehicle in relation to this House which could enable us to do something swiftly and easily would be useful for this House and useful for Parliament and I believe we should take that opportunity. It is not a question of variation or causing difficulty, but it will be a 15 minute debate at report if we get an agreement on the way forward if that is necessary and the bill provides an obvious opportunity to put the law beyond doubt.

It is the on doubt and it is conflicting advice, we have a vehicle we can make it clear. There is no relevance to politics or the contentious issues in the bill and in my submission the Commons sense and the amendment in that no one could conceivably take exception to and I trust very much that your Lordships will support my noble friend and take advantage in the opportunity to set this small but important matter beyond doubt. If that is indeed necessary to do.

I know that the noble Baroness the Leader of the House who I have had the opportunity to discuss this and other matters in our normal conversations does take this matter seriously and I know she will give full consideration to the argument of my noble friend and it is my submission that this must not leave the House as it is a difficult and sensitive matter to be sold swiftly, clearly and permanently with the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

utmost clarity. I am grateful to Lord Ashton of
19:09
Baroness Smith of Basildon Portrait Baroness Smith of Basildon, Leader of the House of Lords and Lord Privy Seal (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am grateful to Lord Ashton of Hyde for raising this issue and we had a brief conversation about it. I had a brief conversation about it. I heard from two former chief whips, two former leaders of the of how serious an issue this is an I think for me it is a matter of the dignity. When you have a situation of members unable to participate in the House particularly those members who had distinguished... I hate to use the word career, but distinguished service to the House and should be able to leave with dignity.

I am slightly ahead of noble Lords stop one of the first things I did as Leader of the House knowing the problems in the House seek further legal advice on this matter and I'm still seeking advice on that and I think there is a way forward. There is not much more I can say at this stage. It is an issue that these careful consideration and I'm sorry that this debate must be on this bill, and I think the best way forward is to look at how we can do it quickly to affect some of it and I don't care what the vehicle is.

If we can do it more quickly or if we have to wait for passing of legislation, but what I can say is that it is more legally, -- complex and it is not what is required and maybe we can do it for the House itself. That is the issue I am looking at at the moment and I can say I am looking at ways to effect to this and I would ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment by giving reassurance we will return to this issue.

It is not one we talked about in our conversations and I raised it early on when I became leader. It has been around for too long and it needs resolution as quickly as possible. I think a number of issues that this engages, but I give assurance to the House I take this away and will bring something back in one form or another. I asked the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment today and I assure him that I will not drop it and I work on it to get a resolution and I work on it to get a resolution as quickly as possible already.
19:11
19:13
Baroness Smith of Llanfaes Portrait Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (Plaid Cymru)
-
-
Smith, not moved. Amendment 71, Baroness Smith.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

While I welcome second reading of the bill, the efforts in common the the bill, the efforts in common the composition of the House, I am perplexed as to why they have not seized the opportunity to go further seized the opportunity to go further and my amendment 71 supported by and my amendment 71 supported by Lord Wigley aims to address that. Most of you will be aware of Plaid Cymru's position that this nation be Cymru's position that this nation be Cymru's position that this nation be abolished with and replaced with a democratic alternative.

It is the position of the party prior to the election in 2024. The government can and should go so much further. Still we remain with a thin bill and no commitment to further reform in this term. This utilises so much parliamentary time for not that much change. Am I not alone in this? Even some on the benches have expressed the view. Lord Hain told the Guardian on the third of March that time was of the essence of any possible changes.

He said if you do not do it in your first term, when are you ever going to do it? We have far to go. Amendment 71 six to ensure momentum is not lost and there is a firm continuance of reforming the place and ensuring the mission is not dropped. My amendment is simple to require the Secretary of State to publish the next stages of reform in this place within six months of the day this act is passed. What is there to disagree with? It is imperative to seek commitment from the government for further reforms in the future.

We need certainty and action. Further reform must stand from consultation with the citizens. Those lives are shaped by the decisions 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 in the modern age and the purpose is to review procedures, standards and working practices.

In the fermentation of amendment 71, perhaps there is a strong case to be made for the establishment of a similar Committee in this place, but that has not been defined in this amendment and will be up for the government stop it will be a modest but meaningful step towards a second chamber that would be more accessible for a broader range of people in our society I can vouch to the fact that being a member of the House of Lords is not a position designed with the younger generation or those of other backgrounds.

Instead of accepting the status quo and excluding participation, should we not be changing the system to enable broader and more meaningful participation? I have heard the arguments loud and clear throughout Committee against this place being about representation which I simply disagree with. People affected by the laws we make here deserve to be here. Lived experiences matter and I will not apologise for making the case for a second chamber that is gender equal and includes people gender equal and includes people A chamber with the a Jesus is 71, where it is a 70% one and a balanced number had the experience of private education is not that.

-- Where the average age is 71. Only to dismiss it as unrealistic. This is inherently flawed. If we truly believe that a meaningful reform is impossible, then I must asked, why are we in politics at all. Politics is synonymous with change. We come here every day amend laws, to alter society and to improve the lives of those we serve. Changes our purpose. Others have argued that the bill is a mere distraction from the issues have substantially more impact on the lives of the electorate.

However I must contend nothing has more impact on the lives of the electorate. Then those holding the levers of power. We cannot separate decision-makers from the decisions in themselves. Whoever is in power dictate the policy that shapes every facet of daily life. The economy, public services, civil liberties and justice. To suggest that constitutional reform is a secondary to these matters is to wilfully ignore the very mechanism that, through which they are decided. So I look forward to hearing the case of amendments 81 and 85, in due course.

This bill does not go far enough and we must ensure that there is a firm commitment to further reform. And my amendment to one that does just that. Perhaps even passes the sensible and limited test, previously referenced by the noble Lord, Lord True. I urge his Majesty's government to be transparent and brave with their plans to reform this House. I hope they see this as a reasonable amendment, that helps us to get to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the end of this bill. I beg to move. In assert the following new
19:18
Duke of Wellington Portrait The Duke of Wellington (Crossbench)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

In assert the following new clause. Amendment proposed, after clause 1, in assert the following new clause, as printed on the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

marshalled List. I firstly apologising for being absent in the chamber, earlier this absent in the chamber, earlier this afternoon, 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, so many noble Lords, from all sides of this House have told me that in their opinion it is unlikely that the Government will take Lords reform any further.

And I think that reform any further. And I think that is regrettable, I think there is considerable support, throughout the House, for further reforms. I think it would be sensible for the Government to introduce further reforms and therefore and of course, it was also in the Labour party manifesto, there would be other reforms. So, therefore, it does seem to be that as mentioned in the manifesto, a retirement age has become controversial, I realise. The handling of misconduct, by members was also.

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. I have put, in my amendment, 24 months. The noble Lady has put six months and at the noble Lord, Lord Fowler has put 18 months. I have put four months, to give governments the time. I am purposely not specifying what reforms should be in the next piece of legislation, because I well understand that the Leader of the House, that the leader wishes to insult, extensively -- consult extensively on these matters.

We have, during the committee stage of this bill, discussed at some length, possible further reforms and, as I said earlier, the manifesto did include certain specific further reforms. But it is right that these matters should be considered, probably outside of this chamber, by wise heads and at a sensible pace. 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 Lord's. They should be more ambitious and find a way to bring here men and women, prepared to undertake public service, in this House and who would be unlikely, this is the important point, to be nominated by party political leaders.

So, My Lords, I do ask the Government to consider this amendment, I do not believe that the other place would necessarily object to this amendment and although I'm sure they will reject many other amendments, which may or may not be passed at this important stage. This amendment could find favour in the other place and I do hope Ministers will consider it and a big to move. will consider it and a big to move.
19:23
Lord Fowler Portrait Lord Fowler (Crossbench)
-
-
My amendment 85 is in my name and I'm going to be extremely brief. I originally had written down that I agreed with some of what Baroness Smith had to say. Having a listen to her, I'm not sure that the fully explained my position, I am now myself, having a sympathy lesson lesson with what she had to say in lesson with what she had to say in her proposal. I have much more in a sympathy with what The Duke of Wellington has said.

Because I think Wellington has said. Because I think he has put the case extremely well. I think it is always a great privilege, I think to follow the Duke and it is a very good for my reputation, with my children, that I can last say I am supporting the Duke of Wellington, in the House of Lords last night. Even more, I support the provision is that it puts forward. I think, it was right of the Government to set out what it wanted to do.

I think it was right that what they are doing is the proper course to take. My only concern is that this three line bill is us spending on the floor of the House of Lords. There are a number of very important points, that have been followed and I pay tribute to Lord True, in his definition of what Lord True, in his definition of what can be and should be amended. I think what he concedes is not everything in the bill can be added to and can be amended.

And that really is my point, it is not really the point in a sense before this bill, but it is certainly the handling of this bill. I take the view that the whole value of this House is not just as a revising chamber, it is because we have here acknowledged experts and areas like defence for example, they can give their advice. That advice goes not just to us, but goes to the country, as well. That is a very important function that the House of Lords function that the House of Lords has.

And so, my advice would be, we should have is much debate as we can, which will enable for people to say why the House of Lords should listen, but why the public should listen. And yet we do know that with this bill, it is extremely difficult to get debates on the floor of this House, in other issues. What problems that creates. I mean debates with speeches, with proper time for those speeches, rather than a Parliamentary Questions.

And yet, here, it is seems at this point in time, in our history there is a particular need for the House of Lords to try to act as a final, for the concerns that have been put forward, at this time. A time of unbelievable tension, in the world. A time with the House of Lords and the experts within it can make their contribution and yet I fear we are going to spend four or five sessions here, talking just about the House of Lords and I think that is a pity.

I think that is excessive, considering what the other issues are and that means we will not be talking and having a long debates about the situation in Palestine, or about the situation in Palestine, or the position in Syria, or the other 100 issues of their art. I propose that we should deal, as expeditiously and generously as we can, the way that the Leader of the House suggests, with the issues that can be can be contained, in this bill.

That we should recognise that not all can be contained. My own amendment says that the government, within 18 months of the day in which the bill is passed, then a draft bill should be put before Parliament, which limits the size of the House of Lords. That seems to me is frankly noncontroversial, at the moment. It is a most important thing as a my noble friend, behind me knows, if we know what the numbers are, then we can make sense.

We need legislative proposals, from introducing an age of retirement, for members of the House of Lords. The age authority on age and as far as it is concerned. I think there should also be proposals, even if Ministers don't agree, about electing a proportion of the membership of the House of Lords, which some parties I know hold very dear. My proposal, therefore, is that we should 1st to support the government bill and in the future take that bill with this.

Then we should add to that, a rather different concern that we should now different concern that we should now add to it. And that we should we should, once the bill is out of the way, going for a serious consideration of the other issues that the Lords might now consider. I agree entirely with what the Duke of Cambridge coming sorry of the Duke of Wellington, get my dukes muddled up. The Duke of Wellington was saying. I think that it is, we cannot stop here.

We have come a certain way, with reform, but it is not enough. Simply to say, goodness knows it has been on the books now since the 19 books now since the 1997. That is insufficient and inadequate. We should go to the other issues as well. That I fear means the Government making proposals on these issues and the issues that I have set out. I think the House would approve of that and I think also so with the public.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

All the amendments in this group seek to bind the government to undertake some further reform of
19:31
Viscount Trenchard Portrait Viscount Trenchard (Conservative)
-
-
undertake some further reform of your Lordship's House. They are variously covered some of the other manifesto commitments, which the Labour Party are made before the general election. And as one, one of those who sit here, as the sand in the shoe, 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 The bill seeks to achieve the reverse. None of these amendments see real democratic reform and amendment 71 is non-specific of what changes to the composition would be proposed.

Amendment 70 was proposed by Lady Smith and Lord Wigley on the 10th of March and contained proposals on unelected House on a proportional representation model. The noble Baroness of the legislature, the only chambers are the House and the Parliament of Lesotho. I believe she forgot to mention Canada. The noble Duke of Wellington allows the government for two years to lay the bill before Parliament and amendment 81 would not bind them to enact any substantive changes such as what were envisaged in 1999.

Lord Fowler allows the government 18 months to produce proposals covering three areas including size of the House and retirement age with the election of the proportion of members. All of these areas were referred to in the Labour Party manifesto including a retirement age provision included in the first paragraph containing matters the government would address first. I am not sure the models proposed in any amendments contained the best way forward but I am certain it is a mistake to change the composition of the House before deciding the direction in which we should move.

It is arguable the public should be invited to endorse referendum.
19:33
Lord Newby Portrait Lord Newby (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Whether or not one agrees with the noble Lord, many issues we have been debating shouldn't have been debated and with every passing hour the arguments will gain more support amongst the House. One thing they have done which should help the government is teased out the views of the House on a whole raft of issues which the government in the manifesto said it would legislate for later in the Parliament. The government is in a better informed position of what the House things on issues such as retirement age and what is acceptable behaviour than it was at the start.

We should all be relaxed because the government has a manifesto commitment to do these things that we broadly agree and during the lifetime of this Parliament. The problem is a number of noises emanated from the government side that perhaps they won't actually do it and this might be the end point. This is why people are getting nervous because the other things the government is committed to on which there is a consensus virtually in the House may not actually happen and that is why these amendments have come forward and I completely support the principles behind them.

It basically says in a certain time the government should come forward with unspecified things that gets you desperately far. Even though the last component of it mirrors in some respect our own amendment, I think it is of a different order. There is not a consensus in the House about unelected House of which we would like it and it must be dealt with separately from all of the issues and we need to be making progress. I hope if not tonight, but certainly at some stage we have a clearer idea from the government what the timetable is forgetting to the next stage.

It would ease a lot of the current debates and the issues of which we agree may not be progressed in a timely manner. I look forward to hearing the noble Baroness as we keep at it and let us know the pace the government intends to adopt in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

doing so. We speak in the group of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We speak in the group of amendments and amendment 81 stating my interest in the register as a
19:37
Lord de Clifford Portrait Lord de Clifford (Crossbench)
-
-
my interest in the register as a hereditary Peer. We looked at the noble minister on the Frontbench and it has one action to sit in the House. On the first day of Committee stage when lordships spoke on this, the remaining days were spent on reform of the House of Lords. Many proposed it like a turn length for possible retirement age or participant requirement, a longer view of an elected chamber with regional participation. The manifesto mentioned the removal of hereditary Peers that were debated and will most likely go through and I support it in spite of the good work they have done in the House.

work they have done in the House. The manifesto sets out some other options for a lack of retirement age and participation. The long-term view to replace this chamber in the House. By nearly 20 hours by the end of Committee stage, you would have looked at the reform and that is why I support the amendment. They come back at some point in the future to say when the next reform will take place and therefore not waiting the time speaking on this Session of Parliament discussing reform.

They will agree some form of reform and is not good as hereditary Peers remained here for 25 years. Amendment 81 in the name of the Duke support wholeheartedly is a simple clause bit like this bill that requires... It requires the Secretary of state to legislate reform of the House of lords within two years. It does not set out details should it propose legislation as it forces the government to take stages forward from which the Committee stage appears most agree needs to happen.

The Leader of the House encouraged us all to engage with her on the future of the House and I thank her for the time she spent. These amendments may add to the workload in that it puts a deadline on making decisions and some proposals have been set out in the manifesto. All it does is set a deadline for things to happen. Without deadlines, things continue on and on and that is why I believe a date would help take reform forward and it is important.

The forum may not be perfect, but for the length of time we have debated the issue, it would not be a solution and not everyone would agree, but some reform is wanted and a deadline is appropriate at this stage. That is why I support this amendment and continue lords reform amendment and continue lords reform after removal for hereditary Peers.
19:40
19:41
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar Portrait Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Conservative)
-
-
I rise from these benches to respond to these amendments which all look at the manifesto commitment as were used in the House of Lords and I mentioned that in second reading speech on the bill. I can be brief because the essential point was made by the noble Lords who moved these amendments. We have heard much of the government plans. There has been a lot of talk in these debates on importance of punctuation in the government manifesto, but the central point is the government should give the House reassurance that the wider reform will come and importantly it will come soon.

When the reform 99 was passed, the government claimed the compromise to some hereditary Peers remaining in the House would act as an encouragement to the government to complete its reform of the House. We are now more than two decades on and still the government has not brought forward to this House as opposed to a few sentences in a manifesto, and it has not brought forward to the House anything approaching proper reform. Why? That is the obvious question. The government often says as we seek to change everything, we run the risk of changing nothing.

The truth is as we all know that legislative time is precious. In NSW one, the most value commodity is parliamentary time on the Floor of the House and we have seen governments failed to deliver second stage reforms and why would it be different this time? As Lord Newby pointed out, the noise is off as it is not encouraging at all. I completely understand the concerns of the noble Baroness and noble Lords who brought the amendments and we should reasonably expect the government to give the House a clearer sense of when in its already busy legislative timetable does it 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 and I hope she can be more definite than saying at some time in this Parliament.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I smile because I got to the point where the noble Lord said the party had done nothing for two party had done nothing for two decades but for 14 years of those he was in government and we weren't. That is the way you take action on That is the way you take action on that. I would like to thank the noble lady Baroness Smith and Lord noble lady Baroness Smith and Lord Fowler for the amendments because Fowler for the amendments because what seems to be clear and I welcome this is a bit of momentum about change which has been lacking for a long time.

The party opposite, the only proposal in the House of Lords was to move this House to York while the rest of Parliament stays in London which is not a helpful or constructive suggestion. We seem to be moving to a collegiate way of doing things and I grateful for that. Noble Lords, and this has been raised several times, why this particular proposal first? I think I've explained that this is the first stage, but the reason is that it was described as immediate in the manifesto and it completes the start of something that started 25 years ago.

The principle of hereditary Peers, it was established 25 years ago and it seemed straightforward even though we had long debates of the other issues around it. I'm not criticising. It is a matter of fact. This completes the principle. On the issue of participation and retirement age, there is not certainty about what the House would want and I will come forward with proposals on how to do that in a more structured way than we have done so far but I am grateful for the many conversations and I want to put on record, first of all, that I welcome the noble Lords and their widespread support now, for the kind of issues, that six months ago, when we raised in our manifesto, there wasn't support for.

People are now saying that seems like a good way forward. The three amendments before us, some of them a little bit further than the manifesto. The noble Lord Fowler, there was nothing in the manifesto about elections and to the House of Lords, elections. The other matters he raises are ones that were in the Whether a draft bill or a timescale is also required, we could look at that. I don't think it needs to be on the face of the bill, because what I am seeing and what I'm hearing, which I'm very pleased to note is that there is a determination, around the House and a desire to address those issues.

I think it is always difficult to reach a consensus on one of the things I think we have heard from the many debates we have had is if the issue of, for example, participation is debated, there are lots of different views on what that may be and how that may be taken forward. Likewise, the retirement age, our manifesto states retirement age, at the end of the parliament, which authority was 80, or somewhere between 80 and 85. And yet, noble Lords haven't pointed out that creates a cliff edge at the end of the parliament, were lots of noble Lords would leave at the end same time, is there a better way of doing that well maintained and the commitment to the retirement age.

Those are the kinds of issues at that how we implement that, the engagement of the House would be welcome. Can I thank noble Lord Clifford for his comments, he said as a hereditary peer he supports the bill. I think he is right to make the point that Hereditary Peers and the Hereditary Peers also want to know what happens next and what the next stages of reform, I think it is perfectly reasonable. Lord Trenchard describes the hereditaries as the sand in my shoe.

So far I've heard stone, pebble and stones in my shoe. Can I assure him I'm happy to be here, I do not need any sandal pebbles. There is a manifesto commitment and our party had made it clear. I think we are encouraged by the response, from the House on this issue of wanting to address these things. One thing this bill have done is bringing people together, to want to look at these issues seriously, to how they may be implemented. I find that very welcome.

I'm not sure a draft bill isn't necessarily the way forward. The noble Lord Newby had some suspicions about legislations previous comments. About freedom to suggest the participation level. The House of Commons retirement age, to amend that. I would like to see what the House can, with first and see how we take that forward. I can give the assurance of the House that I do certainly not want this issue to drop and I am grateful that there is such a momentum now, behind a further reform.

The noble Lady spoke about an elected house, that wasn't part of our manifesto, as an elected house. What we spoke about was an alternative second chamber. She is right, we need wide engagement, we also spoke about how to engage the public on that. There are different ways that can be done. That is for the longer term. The immediate term are forcing a Hereditary Peers, I would like the House if we can reach an agreement, try a legislation on issues like participation, retirement age.

I think the size of the House is something that is quite interesting. I think that follows on from those two. Can I just say to thank the House for such support, for the next stage of reform, I do not think we need on the face of the bill, but I will return to these issues... The noble Lord Strathclyde hasn't spoken during this debate, apart from a secondary decision, he sits and mutters and says it ain't gonna happen. Such cynicism in one

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I feel deeply flattered by the noble Baroness. I always thought she was younger than me, but there we was younger than me, but there we are. In her introductory remarks, she did accuse the Conservative she did accuse the Conservative government, of the last 14 years, of not having done anything. Of course, not having done anything. Of course, she has forgotten the 2012 bill, that was introduced in the House of Commons, past second reading, with Commons, past second reading, with flying colours and then because of the lack of support, from the Labour the lack of support, from the Labour Party, and a timetable motion, it didn't go any further, at all.

Surely, surely my Lords, the noble Baroness should show some humility, that the Labour Party, which in 1997 promised a further reform and again at the passage of the 1999 act have done a no thinking whatsoever, since then.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think the noble Lords memory may need a little jogging. We are talking about a time when there was a majority, the Conservative government wanted to push that government wanted to push that through, it would have been able to through, it would have been able to do so. I stick to the proposal, I think it came from Michael Gove, to move the House of Lords to York, was move the House of Lords to York, was really a nonsense. It did not help the reputation of this House, or the reputation of the government.

Fundamentally understood how this House operates. I think what we tried to do is look at how the House operates. We are fulfilling the manifesto commitment, but also fulfilling what started 25 years ago. The noble Lords are critical that we did not do it sooner, well it is here now and the proposals further to come forward at the next stages. He can park is a cynicism for now, we will come back and see who gets this right. Can I thank the noble Lady and both noble Lords, today is helpful.

I'm grateful to them. I respectfully ask that the noble Lady withdraws her amendment, at this time.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I was at one with the noble Baroness the leader, with Michael Gove and York. Can she claim which can't blow the dust of the Royal can't blow the dust of the Royal commission report, report and just

**** Possible New Speaker ****

implement that? Some time ago, but I'm happy to look at it as we go forward. And look at it as we go forward. And further consideration. I think the House today should come to the view on what the House today would like on what the House today would like to do. He gave the list of failures to do. He gave the list of failures of his government on the House of Lords, I suggest one of them was not accepting at the Grocott bill, as well.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I thank everyone who

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I thank everyone who has spoken in this debate and I'm grateful to all noble Lords who have supported the proposal brought forward. I would be able to refer to forward. I would be able to refer to each point made, but I will try and respond briefly. To the noble Lords, respond briefly. To the noble Lords, the Duke of Wellington, who noted that there is a consensus, around that there is a consensus, around the House for further reform, inside this House and outside this House, I think there is a very important point to note.

Something we should push forward. The noble Lord, Lord Fowler, although he may disagree with my reasonings, at least we with my reasonings, at least we agree on the outcome. That we can't stop it. Viscount Trenchard, rightly pointed out that my amendment 71 does not provide a specific model, however by amendment 70 previously debated does and this was on purpose. And was, is down as more of a probing amendment and I hope that the Government doesn't bring forward a clear timetable, on the next stage, before report stage.

And in the noble Lord, Lord Newby pointed out that if the Government does publish a plan, then there would be a lot less remembrance at report stage. I do think we need a plan. Lord Clifford, just to thank the noble Lord, for the support to the amendment and the group with amendments. Noted that from outside the house, some reform is warranted. Clearly there was a Goodson census there, from around the House. The Leader of the House welcomes the momentum, for the change and I hope she will join and a leader that momentum.

So my Lords, I welcome the government's commitment to removing Hereditary Peers we must push for a fully democratic second chamber. One that is chosen by the people it
19:55
19:56
19:56
19:57
None Portrait Statement: Heathrow Disruption Lord Moylan (Conservative)
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the noble Lord the Minister for advanced site of the Minister for advanced site of the statement, made yesterday. The remarkable thing about this event is remarkable thing about this event is what it was a knot. It was a not a what it was a knot. It was a not a hostile, terrorist attack. But in the first few moments, no one could the first few moments, no one could have known that. Indeed, the natural suspicion would have been that it was.

And that circle stance 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. We are, all of us very grateful to them and all the others who pulled Heathrow back from this incident, for what they did. I think it is worth also saying a word of thanks, I would like to say a word of thanks, to the staff of Heathrow Airport. It may seem a fairly simple thing to switch an airport off, and then, a while later, just to switch it back on later, just to switch it back on again.

But in fact on the rare occasions this has happened before and I'm thinking of the example of Bangkok airport, in 2,000 and a, when in occupation, by protesters, for a week caused the airport to be shut down, deliberately. To be shut down. On that occasion, once it was safe to do so. It took a full five days to restart the airport safely. And the fact that the staff at Heathrow were able to respond so well and so effectively, to the electrical changes, I can't describe them, or imagine them, but the changes in the electrical work, required to operate the airport, do it so quickly and so safely.

In fact I think shows their skill and abilities and something which 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 he went back to bed. But of course, the people who could not relax with 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 1000, 350 flights.

-- 1350 flights. Does the Minister think that they have received adequate apology? Of course, many of adequate apology? Of course, many of them will be receiving compensation, 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 that they have got their conversation, they have got their refund, we don't actually need to apologise? I haven't seen a great deal of apologising going on to people who were very seriously affected and disrupted, in their Turning to the specifics of the incident, it raises questions about the resilience of Heathrow and the safeguarding of critical infrastructure.

The fact that the airport was reliant on this electrical substation that proved so vulnerable is concerning and it is a stark reminder that Energy Security is not only about affordability, but also about assuring the physical safety and reliability of our infrastructure. I would like to hear what the Minister has to say about that reliability and security and I will say immediately that I recognise 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 judgements to make and all of that redundancy costs a lot of money and I know they make difficult judgements about it. I would like it to hear in what direction the government is going in making those judgements and whether it thinks it has got the balance right and what should be done. Given the essential role of airports to our economy, what discussions has the noble Lord 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 the Minister tell us what the timeline is for the review being undertaken, the Kelly review, being undertaken on behalf of Heathrow airport.

Does he expect the findings to be fully publicly accessible? Finally, will the government assess the incident in the broader context of the Heathrow expansion? I'm not referring exclusively to plans for 1/3 runway. Heathrow has a significant expansion plans that full short of the third runway and are progressing with securing the planning for. Does the noble Lord the Minister believe the current infrastructure challenges in Heathrow raise wider concerns about the viability and resilience of that expansion and what steps would be taken to ensure that any future expansion has not exacerbated the vulnerabilities exposed by this recent disruption and what steps will be taken to ensure any future expansion does not...

I have said that a second time, but what steps will be taken to ensure that expansion does not increase the role mobility -- vulnerability of the airport to this sort of event.
20:04
Earl Russell Portrait Earl Russell (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
I rise to thank the Minister for the statement and I join him in paying tribute to the firefighters and emergency services and everyone who works to extinguish a significant fire and return services to normal. This affected Heathrow but also cut power to 63 homes and a Hundred residents were evacuated. The Minister is correct. This is an unprecedented incident. I welcome the intention to learn more lessons that arise from this incident and the Heathrow internal inquiry and the news of a six-week initial investigation that have been announced.

A single incident should not have been able to shut an airport. The fact that the save was not prevented offers wider opportunity to ask 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 resolved with 25,000 litres of oil based systems overheating. The significant fire required 70 firefighters to get under control and resulted in a series of events that meant that more than 1350 flights cancelled and we have to understand at the point of ignition what caused the fire.

Are there design flaws in the design? What caused it to overheat? Why does it appear 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 could have alerted people to the problems and prevented the fire? I welcome the involvement of the counterterrorism police who had the skills to make rapid assessment of the causes and I know in the last few hours that it was confirmed that this incident is no longer being treated as potentially a criminal matter.

There is some confusion on the interpretation of events and that concerns me. The government said that while one of the main substations went offline, to will turn tips remained available to provide the power required and additional reserve generating capacity at the airport gave further capacity at the airport gave further limited capacity. Heathrow looked at the energy supply and it was insufficient for the safe and secure ongoing operation and proceeded to reconfigure the internal electricity network. The need to reconfigure the internal network meant in effect that every computer and safety system had to be turned off and back on again.

It is this that caused the impasse. I asked the Minister did Heathrow gameplan and stress test the falling offline of the whole of this substation, and if so, what were the predicted impacts of the consequences, and if not, why not? When the inquiry is expected to be able to give initial findings? Will the inquiry work with and have some access to the findings of the inquiry? How will fundamental disagreements between the two findings of the two enquiries if they exist to be addressed? When will the government be able to respond to the National Infrastructure Commission report developing resilience standards in UK infrastructure? To conclude, wider, systematic and broader national risk to the National Grid and critical energy infrastructure must be considered.

Considering known terrorism-related attacks in 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. It's susceptibility, resilience, level of redundancy and vital transport services and other services such as hospitals, key computer systems and Telecom computer systems and Telecom occasions. -- Telecommunication.
20:09
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill Portrait Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill, Minister of State (Department for Transport) (Labour)
-
-
I chair the sentiments -- share the sentiments expressed by noble Lords who have just spoken, to the firefighters and other emergency responders who went to the site of the fire when it first broke out and brought it under control. They are undoubtedly brave and it was not clear what they were facing when they arrived. It is all the more brave for tackling it directly. I share Lord Moylan and his thanks to those workers at the airport and those that work for airlines as well who worked hard to get the airport back online and dealt with further disruption caused to flights not only in Heathrow but across the globe.

I express sympathy for those whose flights were cancelled or disrupted and those Lord Moylan referred to and those who had personal and business activities would have been delayed and disrupted due to this very extraordinary outage and I am very happy to express sympathy to those people and I hope that it is now returning to normal that their returning to normal that their travels have been resumed. Both noble Lords referred to the two enquiries.

Lord Hunt sitting beside me, the Minister of State for Energy Security and net zero has commissioned the national energy system to look at the power outage and it will deal with the power outage and understanding the wider lessons from that and noble Lords will know that Heathrow airport limited own and operate the airport and a former Secretary of State for transport will undertake a review of internal resilience. A number of you will look at robustness and execution of the crisis management plan and the response to recover the operation.

The first report from NES will be made to the energy secretary in the next report. The Secretary of State for transport has asked to see a copy of the report and Heathrow agreed to that and we will report back in due course. Lord Moylan asked if I thought compensation was adequate. And whether the passengers needed an apology. They need an apology because if you were waiting to fly and every reason to fly is different but all of them expected to be treated to fly at the time on their ticket and they deserve an apology even though this was an extraordinary event.

Do I think the compensation is adequate? Well, the compensation for airline delays is set out and depends in part on which airline it is, but not only are people legally entitled to a choice between a refund in seven days or alternative flights to their destination including flights from another airline, but they are entitled to care and or overnight accommodation whilst waiting for a rerouted flight. I think the questions about the reliability of supply and security and judgement that must be made by airport operators will undoubtedly be addressed by the reviews that have been talked about.

Noble Lords asked about the timelines. We do not know what they are, but it would be better to be thorough and quick. Very often you have to dig deeply to find out the root causes and find out what can be done. There is no doubt the number of systems in the modern HR huge and sophisticated and it will take time to discover if you can get them restarted any better. Lord Moylan asked about the expansion plan and the projected third runway but the expansion of terminals and there will be a relationship with this and we have two expect Heathrow airport to have resilience plans to be scaled up to the capacity of the airport and I would expect the Kelly review to would expect the Kelly review to look at how any expansion would be dealt with.

And indeed if expansion might make it easier to invest in such systems and resilience to stop something like this happening again. Lord Russell is right to refer to the 63,000 people affected by the power outage. Many not for long, but even in the middle of the night people need power for various reasons including medical reasons and our sympathy goes to them. As the interaction and the confusion about capacity of the airport's ability to recover, and the time it takes when the power supply was cut of, we expect these reviews to see if there is a gap between their being a question of if they are comprehensive.

I am sure the Heathrow review will undoubtedly look at if there was a gameplan at Heathrow and how much they stress tested their systems and I do not have anything further to say until they have reported. The noble Earl is right in saying the Metropolitan Police recently reported that they do not believe it was a criminal act and are not pursuing that line of inquiry and I'm sure that is a relief. I will look forward at the government response of the National Infrastructure Commission report and if I have anything to say I will if I have anything to say I will
20:16
20:18
20:19
20:21
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill Portrait Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill, Minister of State (Department for Transport) (Labour)
-
-
I thank the noble Lord for their contribution and of course, it is hugely inconvenient to have your flight turned around in midair. I absolutely agree with him that clear communication is really quite necessary. I think the first duty of communication is communication to those directly affected did, of which flies in midair, that is a really timely thing to do. And to all of those affected as ticketholders, to stop them going to an airport where they can't take off.

I would like to think, from what we have seen that that communications effort, which is a combination of the airport itself and the airlines was pretty good. I know that other transport modes helped to, because there were clear notices on tube stations and at railway stations saying do not go to Heathrow, because there aren't flights. But I do except in timely that clear and timely communication is the essence of what you need is in the circumstances, to those affected.

Communications about what has occurred and what the background is, inevitably comes out, over time. Because the first job should be to communicate, to those affected. If you have got literally hundreds of you have got literally hundreds of thousands of air passengers, then it is they who deserve this clear information, completely. I do not think anybody finds the prospect of the chief executives of organisations, apparently contradicting each other, in public, particularly helpful, but that is a wide area to enquiries, to get to the bottom of what has really the bottom of what has really happened, to get to the bottom of how much planning they should have been, how much planning there was, what was in those plans and what could feasibly be done to sort of put place of the public and economic importance.

The CAA does have a duty to execute economic, it's a duty of economic regulation and safety regulation properly. I have no doubt at all that they will very carefully at the outcome of the Cali review and draw the appropriate conclusions for the appropriate regulation of for the appropriate regulation of this airport and other airports too.
20:24
20:25
20:26
20:27
20:27
20:28
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill Portrait Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill, Minister of State (Department for Transport) (Labour)
-
-
Noble Lord may know that I'm not terribly -- that I am terribly familiar with the flight to mainland England, Wales and Scotland, because of the connectivity review. And in particular of course I had to answer a question, quite recently about the first flight on Monday morning, which clearly contains quite a large proportion of members of both houses here. Which I repeat, I strongly recommend to the operator, come what may they operate that flight. They operate nothing else.

I do not know currently what is going on, in other airports, in Britain, to look at resilience. What I have no doubt about is that both the outcome of the Killeen review and the outcome of their, get the right initials, NESO review will be closely studied by all of those airports, because it is undoubtedly the case. I think that your noble Lord ships can be reassured that the transport community, as a whole, pays very close interest what happens in one place.

I've seen incidentally, when you might have expected me to, a review started on Saturday morning, about the resilience of its own supplies, because you would, in these circumstances. We would start those sorts of reviews, before you even knew what the course of it was. That is a perfectly rational thing to do. I have little doubt that is going on, I do not know that is going on, whether or not it is going on in respect of other UK airports, currently, I have absolutely no doubt that they will be studying very closely the results of the Killeen review and the any SCO review.

I would rather not use of the issues and it is too easy to do -- lesser review. -- NESO. All as resilient as they should be.
20:30
Baroness Buscombe Portrait Baroness Buscombe (Conservative)
-
-
I'm very tired because IT was very badly affected by this incident. The incident itself was deeply unfortunate. One of the issues, the key issues that is so lacking, in rigour is customer support, other principal carrier, full terminal five. I have to say, that there is clearly a problem, in terms of rigour, in the contracts, between the carriers and Heathrow Holdings Limited. There must be, because firstly, the systems and processes, for security and processing customers and Heathrow are so antiquated and I have had the luck of being through a number of airports come in the last few weeks that make Heathrow look an embarrassment.

In comparison and in terms of support for customers and making the life of customers, through the airport, a pleasant Will the Minister in referencing the state where the government is acutely aware of the need to ensure passengers are well looked after, will the Minister press on the Secretary of State that the importance of using this seriously important opportunity to demand the possibility of looking at the contracts between the carriers and Heathrow holdings themselves? Because each time there is an issue, this is not a peculiar issue in terms of lack of customer support.

It is a daily problem at Heathrow. There is always the issue of British Airways constantly abrogating responsibility, blaming Heathrow holdings limited for problems, and this is a chance for the government to say that we have to understand who is responsible for what. Customer support. My noble friend spoke about the need for communication, but it is not only communication in the middle of a crisis. People who were passengers for British Airways were left high and dry with a phone line only available from nine until five and a lack of support at various airports, sitting and looking at planes in the middle of the runway doing nothing when it Heathrow is back and open.

when it Heathrow is back and open.
20:33
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill Portrait Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill, Minister of State (Department for Transport) (Labour)
-
-
I am a willing to have great sympathy with the noble Baroness about the experiences and travel is really important. It is personal, recreational, for business, and the government recognises that it is important for the British economy for the major airport in Britain to run smoothly, no doubt about that. There is also no doubt that it is a challenge to deal with so many customers disrupted at one time. It is not just one planeload of passengers.

It is well over 1000 flights that were cancelled and delayed on the Friday the airport was closed. That is a challenge that Heathrow airport limited and the carriers including British Airways should be able to rise to. They are commercial companies and there is a limit to what the government can do between them and I have seen some passing comment in the media over the past couple of days about what compensation is due between the parties and I hope it reflects what will trickle to the customers of the carriers otherwise looks like an unseemly debate from various commercial organisations.

There is a limit to what the government can do, but it does want people to move smoothly through Heathrow particularly because it is so important to the British economy. What the noble Baroness referred to would save the issue of Heathrow, it is full of planes and people and it is no surprise and it won't be a surprise when Heathrow comes forward with an expansion plan simply because it is harder to deal with passengers because there is virtually no expansion space left and I will have sympathy with that.

We must rely on them for them to do their job properly and seamlessly and it should not be that passengers feel they are at odds with each feel they are at odds with each other when a successful aeroplane flight depends on both doing their job 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 have been badly delayed.
20:36
20:37
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill Portrait Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill, Minister of State (Department for Transport) (Labour)
-
-
I think the British public is entitled to expect the airport to run properly no matter who owns it. I think we are entitled to expect as I think we are entitled to expect as a major piece of public that actually they are capable of examining their own systems and recommending if they are adequate. The CIA will look at the report. I The CIA will look at the report. I do not see why the civil aviation authority itself needs to be examined.

If we are not careful we will examine everything when in circumstances it is clear the airport was responsible for its own systems and there was a power issue outside of it and these enquiries will look at both. The civil aviation authority will draw conclusions from the Kelly inquiry. It is responsible for economic regulation and safety but not for running the airport itself which we have to expect Heathrow airport limited to be able to do itself and we will see where that goes.

We have no doubt they will examine this. It is an exceptional experience and it is the case that the airport does not fall over like this and they will need to look at the results and see what extent it can be improved and what the appetite is to do so. We wait for the outcome of the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

report to make that judgement. As we are not due to return to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

As we are not due to return to the bill and tell 20:55, I beg to move the House adjourned during pleasure until that point.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the House will resume at 20:55. As many are of that opinion will say, "Content". Of the contrary,
20:39
None Portrait House Adjourned During Pleasure
-

20:56
20:56
Earl of Dundee Portrait The Earl of Dundee (Conservative)
-
-
contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. Amendment two 74,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the Earl of Dundee. The purpose of this amendment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The purpose of this amendment is... Instead preserve and preserve is... Instead preserve and preserve the high standard of the present the high standard of the present House. This is our successful ability and legislative scrutiny in holding the government of the day properly to account. It is proposed properly to account. It is proposed that the House 620, with 600 temporal peers and 20 Lords Spiritual. While as indicated in subsection a, and 74, the Lords Appointment Commission recommend 200 temporal peers, one third, as a nonpolitical crossbenchers.

Subsection B of Amendment two 74 also confers duty on the commissioners to consult on an ongoing basis, with both the leader and shadow leader, the leader of the third largest party political group in the House and with the Convenor of the Cross Benches. An electoral college representative of all parts of the UK, indirectly elected 400 temporal peers, or two thirds of 600, as political members. The Government and opposition parties having exactly the same number, and having exactly the same number, and As stated in subsection 3, of amendment 75.

While the other political parties chiefly comprising a Liberal Democrats, from a hundred, or 25% of 400. This means, laws, that at 200 of a nonpolitical crossbenchers have 50 more members, than either of the government opposition parties, and 150 each. That in turn ensures a far better standard of legislative scrutiny, than otherwise would have been taken in a reformed house, either the government or opposition political parties, had a majority instead. The two reasons, indirect elections, 400 political members are much preferable to direct elections of 400 political members.

Firstly, since a direct elections would lead to conflict, with another place, the House of Commons, where as indirect elections avoid that. As a result and secondly, arising from direct elections, such competition, and 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 erasures of indirect elections, subsection 1B, other members 75, puts a duty on the set country of state to ensure that that indirect elections are conducted with integrity, fairness and transparency.

400 places for political members and given the 2023 statistics indicate the total UK population 68 million, 265,000. England, which represents 80.5% of that would be allocated 338 places, Scotland that represents 32 places. Wales and 4.5%, 18 places and Northern Ireland at 3%, 12 places. Northern Ireland at 3%, 12 places. As detailed by subsection 2 of Amendment two 75, the electoral College comprises the selected participants, who become the electoral laws. These would include some House of Commons parliamentarians, some from each of the three regional parliaments in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

And some English local government representatives. Turning to amendment 79, on a consultation, regard for effect. It subsection is a B, two, three and four refer to connected areas of advantage, which at the House, if a reformed and a competent manner, should have reduced, thus. As detailed in a subsection a, in preparing the necessary draft bills. The duty of the Secretary of State to consult for group leaders, in the House to ensure that this happens. These ensure that this happens.

These errors would not fit personally the quality of government legislative scrutiny that House provides. The balance between his Majesty's government, parliament and the example that the UK sets to the Commonwealth. ECHR member states, the Council of Europe and the rest of the world. The national transition period, as your Lordships are well aware, in this report the noble Lord Lord Burns, whose and 82 we fully support presents a good In a given year the collective title writers who retire or die are replaced at 50%.

This means that in a natural way over. Of years the current number appears which is now just over 800 will come down to around 600. Obviously it comes down more quickly if Life Peers are coerced to retire at 80 or 85. However it is surely font wiser not to enforce that instead with the retirement age of 90 transitional period would be over more years than otherwise yet with huge advantage of enabling some new peers in the reformed house when they first begin to serve the 15 years to do so alongside sufficiency of existing Life Peers thereby which association all the more could help new members to develop and uphold the skills, usefulness and democratic nature of this House as a revising chamber.

That is why within this group subsection B of amendment 77 indicates the limited number of 70 which are transitional house six to achieve by reducing present number of just under 800. Advocating in section a that in a given year the collective number of Life Peers who retire or die is therefore replaced and in section C that new peers whether coming during the transitional period or after presented would serve for a maximum of 15 years. In some -- summary this group of amendments comprises a arrangements both of the reformed and transition house.

The objective is referred to in amendment 79 is to preserve and improve the ever high standard of legislative scrutiny and standard of legislative scrutiny and other attributes was this is accomplished through a temporal house of 600 members of which 200 or one third are appointed as nonpolitical crossbenchers at 50 more than either the government or opposition parties which is that exactly 150 each, and along with the Liberal Democrats and other political parties altogether numbering 100 members then make up the combined political element of 400 within a reformed house of 600 members these 400 political members being indirectly elected by an electoral college representative of all parts of the United Kingdom.

Taking into account recent discussions on this bill it may be that the various elements in this group of amendments already partially acceptable to your Lordships. For example the Leader of the House has said that she supports the government and opposition parties having equal numbers. The opposition Leader of the House has also said he adopts a flexible approach towards members will stop the Liberal Democrat party has taken useful steps to assess how reformed house can best serve the United Kingdom democracy.

The recent leaders Lord steel of Aikwood and Lord Campbell of Pittenween with are themselves the architects of a formula for an electoral college rub sensitive of all parts of the United Kingdom to indirectly elect the proportion of political members to the House was during our current discussions from their benches Lord Newby along with Lord Hailsham and others from different groups and parties are in favour of the crossbench amendment tabled by Lord Devon and Lord Anderson of Ipswich was these being through an appointments commission to increase the numbers of nonclinical members in the House.

Yet there may be strong consensus all of your Lordships is on the central point, running through all stages of deliberations and emphasised by many including Lord Moore Vatican, Lord Inglewood and Lord Tugendhat, this is that whether in the planning stage or in its delivery of a transitional house or a completely reformed once the priority is to sustain high quality of function, to which at all times composition of membership should remain secondary and subservient consideration. These amendments correspond to that way of thinking, I beg to move.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

And and proposed after clause 1 insert the following new clauses set
21:06
21:06
21:06
Lord True Portrait Lord True (Conservative)
-
-
I agree with the remarks made by Lord Attlee about the Wacom commission report which certainly deserves congratulation. I do congratulate my honourable friend on his set of amendments, he has clearly thought extremely carefully about his approach and I fully agree with him that as we go forward we should be primarily guided by the functions of the House and their effective performance. And how we should be constituted should flow primarily from that. And a mode of transition towards it.

He proposes indirect elections and I fear it may be a personal spoke to me to think that should never be enacted element in the upper house that should be directly elected by the people. Though I do well understand the considerations that left -- led my noble friend the conclusions he has reached. And a number of the themes in my noble friend amendments have been discussed as he acknowledged under the specific heads in other groups on this bill, my noble friend will therefore forgive me if I do not pursue them again now.

However while I write -- welcome his view that a strong independent element should remain in the House, the figure he suggests of over 30%, one third larger than the number of peers allowed the government under his scheme, is surely too high. If we were ever to have a written constitution, which I venture to hope we should not, I am sure that the framers would wish to consult the noble Earl on the details of what might be put proposed in respect of the House of Lords given his careful consideration of the matter.

In the interim I thank him for his thoughtful and considered reflections and I am certain they will be studied carefully by those
21:09
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Portrait Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Labour)
-
-
in the future who are genuinely contemplating reform. contemplating reform. Ingenuity and ambition in the tabling of these abundance. In addition to the careful thought and consideration he has given in 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 understand that we cannot accept them. We are currently engaging in wider discussions with noble Lords from across your chips house about a way forward.

The noble Earl will be aware of the government's long-term ambition to a more fundamental reform by establishing an reform by establishing an alternative second chamber that is more representative of the regions and nations of the UK for that the government's manifesto makes a commitment to consult on proposals in order 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 Earls amendment 79 does not include the public in the list of people whom the Secretary of State would be obliged to consult.

The government is open to differing views of what an alternative second chamber could look like, nothing on this matter settled and it is right that we continue the debate including with the public at large. With the greatest of respect to the Yale his amendments would put the cart before the horse bring forward complaints a package of reform not only before the public as at the chance to have its say but also with a pre-empted outcome. I therefore respectfully request that noble Earl withdraw his amendments.

withdraw his amendments.
21:10
Earl of Dundee Portrait The Earl of Dundee (Conservative)
-
-
I'm very grateful to the kind remarks both Front Benchers and I very much take on board the comment of Lady Anderson about the public should be consulted and perhaps at report that is one of the first things that might be constructive to do which is to bring back a revised amendment which incorporates that consideration. If we agree that what really should come first and foremost is legislative scrutiny quality and other high standards benefit of this House which membership conversation is secondary and subservient.

Then in the light of that prescription and with this grouping, three aspects should perhaps be brought back at report. Firstly 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 the president legislative scrutiny what is as good as it is in spite of the political pawn system which points numbers here indiscriminately. However that section -- system would surely undermine a reformed house with which good quality results are likely to be sustained all the same provided that prospective numbers are established in the first place such as those opposed from nonpolitical crossbenchers at 200 having 50 more members than those in the two main clinical parties and 150 each stop having said that I do appreciate again the comments of Lord True, who takes the view that that might not work as perhaps the view I take that it probably could be made to work.

Then while through HOLAC or a statutory appointments commission is the way to achieve -- increase is necessary the numbers of non-critical members in a reformed house nevertheless at report further amendments is needed for safeguarding the reputation of the commission and as usual procedures of appointments against judicial challenge. Equally for the reasons already outlined, although an electoral college indirectly electing 400 political members protects the United Kingdom democracy better than direct elections of 400 political members would do, members 75 and 79 should still be revisited at report, yet in connection with further evidence supporting in comparison with -- house of 600 temporal members, greater usefulness, authenticity and public benefit of the formula proposed which consist of indirect elections of 400 critical members combined with commission appointments for 200 nonpolitical members.

Meanwhile I beg leave to withdraw these amendments.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment is withdrawn. And 75

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment is withdrawn. And 75 not moved. 76 not moved. -- Amendment. 77 not moved. 78 to amendment 80 en bloc not moved.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment 81 The Duke of Wellington. I have to say to the leader that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I have to say to the leader that I would like to reserve the right to table the amendment again at report stage.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment 81 not moved. Moment 82 Lord Burns. -- Amendment.
21:14
Lord Burns Portrait Lord Burns (Crossbench)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lord Burns. -- Amendment. We had spent many hours examining individual proposals for reform including term limits, age limits, participation limits and the strengthening of HOLAC. I would like to bring together these threads and argue that none of them can be entirely effective in the long run unless we can establish a ceiling on the Size of the House of Lords. A ceiling on the Size of the House is the keystone for around which we can build the other elements of reform we have discussed.

That keystone will be difficult to stabilise the number of members and we will likely encounter a problem of increasing size again. I should say at the outset I am less committed to the precise number for the ceiling and more with the principle of the 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 and until we reach this limit there will be only one appointment for every two levers.

Want to emphasise this amendment does not intend to delay the passage of the bill, which I support. I apologise to Lord growth would -- Lord Grocott for joining in the seminar of the future reform of the House, possibly the longer seminar House, possibly the longer seminar I've ever participated in. One striking feature of the period since introduction of life peerages in 1958 is the upward trend in the number of life members will top for example there are 200 more Life Peers in the House to date compared with the year 2000.

Over the past 25 years have been recruiting at an average rate of 30 per year while a departure rate has not been much over 20. Furthermore the appointments have often been disproportionately directed towards the government of the day. Following changes in government a new government rapidly increases its own number to match or overtake its main rival, leading to the observed increase in the number of Life Peers. While a participation requirement and an age limit have the potential to reduce the Size of the House and there was some support for both during this debate, my amendment aims to address these issues as a whole.

The Lord Speaker's Committee argued that for the long-term we need a number of changes to ensure the House size remains below the House of Commons. This can be achieved with a statutory ceiling on the Size of the House reported by mechanisms for a suitable requirement rate and a matching appointment rate for the number of levers. The committee argued that the most reliable way to generate sufficient levers was through assessment term limits for new members, for example house of 600 you would eventually generate an average 40 levers per year with 15 year terms or 30 levers per year However a workable option it would be reappointment for the shorter terms, party groups would then have to decide whether reappointment for a shorter term or a new appointment for 15 or 20 years, whichever was chosen.

The committee also suggested that the new appointment should be shared on the results of the latest general election. Initially they should be crossbench or nonaffiliated. The noble Lady the Leader of the House has mentioned several times her view that the House functions best when a number of the two parties will be two people. This approach to sharing a new appointment meet that objective. The arrangements, sorry, it would offer several advantages. Since they would constrain the number of appointments they can make it can motivate prime Ministers and party leaders to limit to members who were likely to be active members.

The party government changes. During the early stages of this committee significant attention was devoted to the concern after the departure of the Hereditary Peers, the House would be entirely nominated by the Prime Minister. The previous debates I've expressed my concern with that present arrangements which allow the Prime Minister to determine the number of appointments to the House, total and the party composition of those moments. This practice seems rather anonymous for House that scrutinises government legislation and helps government to account.

A limit on the size of the House would reduce at the discretion of the Prime Minister but it would not change the constitutional recommending to the Crown, who should be appointed. To conclude, for me, a limit on the size of the House would restrict appointment be no higher than the number of leaders, it would incentivise at the House to establish mechanisms to increase the average numbers of levers, annually. And it would encourage party leaders to appoint individuals, who would add most deliberations to the House.

I beg to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

move. Amendments proposed, after clause

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendments proposed, after clause 1, in a certain following a new clause, as printed on the marshalled List.
21:19
Lord Northbrook Portrait Lord Northbrook (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

List. Arrives to speak to 110 in this group, the report of the Lord Speaker's committee on the site of Speaker's committee on the site of the House was published in 2017. As most noble Lords are sitting here before them no, the Lord Speaker was tasked with exploring methods for reducing the size of the House. From the start it took the view 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 which is intended to keep the reduced membership, within a fixed cat, for as long as the House remains an appointed chamber, whilst also allowing it to be refreshed and rebalanced in line with general election results, over time. It has been strongly supported, by the campaign for effective second chamber. At the Imposed 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 the survey did not propose time limits, or compulsory retirement for existing members.

The report propose setting the cap on the size of the House to 600. A reduction in existing a membership of more than 1/4. Smaller than the House of Commons. The committee report proposed, as per than a Lord Burns amendment, that until the target of 600, now Lord Burns equates to fit 650, there should be a guiding principle of two out and one in. By one half of all departures, retirements and desk will be in March for reducing its size and the other half allocated to new appointments, distributed between the groups, and a fair basis.

Once a target had been reached, all would be allocated to new appointments, one out, one in system. In order to meet the aim of reducing the size of the House in a reasonable timeframe, the committee believed it would be necessary to agree the rate of departures, from the House. The extent to which the rate was to be increased, and better for the House to decide, will 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 also necessary to agree the basis on which future members should be appointed. Moreover the current and new systems can be interwoven, in a way that worked effectively. Two other key areas, in the report, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Burns, with fixed terms for 15 years for new members, to generate sufficient turnover. The second was a fair allocation of appointments, to reflect the result in the recent general election. The fifth report of the committee were published in July 2023, detailed progress since 2017.

Initially, 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 reducing the size of the House. The number departures continue to be a line for the benchmark, the number of appointments far exceeded them. Predominantly to members of our party. Also concerned, the Conservatives now had so many more members of the labour, the next Labour Prime Minister would appoint a larger number of new peers, in order to get the government business through the House.

Of course this has come to pass. So Keir Starmer having created, I believe a 45 new peerages. The committee summarised the lessons learned over the previous six years, now accepted that its original timetable, for transition to House 600 was too slow and vulnerable to political events. We felt that one of the lessons of the previous six years, was a little point in going through a difficult point of reducing the size of the House, if the progress is undone, by excessive and new appointments, subsequently.

Particularly if those appointments are not fairly balanced between the parties, in the way proposed by the committee. Instead, they believed 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, to introduce term limits for appointments. Ideally, the committee emphasised this should be achieved, through legislation. Because they felt it would not be a government priority, that could be a formal agreement, between the two, the main party leaders, for the time being.

This would ensure that retirements were not cancelled out, three excess future appointments. Thus encouraging more members to take retirement, with confidence. The committee focused also on the process for appointing the Crossbench Peers. Stating that the system is in a model. The regime introduced by Tony Blair, involve the House of Lords Appointments Commission, HOLAC, appointing most of the Crossbench Peers, and the Prime Minister making up to 10 no HOLAC crossbench peer appointments per Parliament. By 2023, this is no longer been preserved.

There has been a great number number of prime ministerial appointments, while HOLAC has been limited to a maximum of two or three appointments, per year. With another tall, five out of the last 10 years. While HOLAC appointed 59 peers, in its first 11 years, is only been granted 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 exist within the House of Lords. Also helping ensure that the House fully represents diversity within our country.

In Britain's suitable effort to select and vetting of people and best meeting the needs of the House stop and show a willingness to participate regularly. HOLAC's vital task would not be achieved with a small number of appointments made over the last 11 years. The Prime Minister shall refer to a maximum of 10 on the HOLAC crossbench appointments, per Parliament. An increase in the number of amendments, which allow HOLAC to appoint. So in summary it is amendment that seeks to follow three key elements of the 2023 fifth report.

Firstly a cap on the size of the House. 600 could be optimistic, in the short term stop secondly there should be 15 or 20 years term, a refreshing rebalancing of the House. Thirdly there should be a fair allocation of party appointments. Fourthly, it should be a mandatory retirement age, which is not in the report. Emphasised by the government earlier. As per their manifesto, although they are rowing back on this, as the largest number of overrated political peers are labour. They have appointed several Labour peers, over the age of 80.

The combination of all four I believe it bring the House size down to the level required in a draft bill should be published implement these proposals, before the end of this session. this session.
21:26
21:28
21:28
21:30
21:31
Lord Newby Portrait Lord Newby (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
On these benches we strongly agree with the central thrust of Lord Burns amendment which is that the House is to be and should be reduced in size. 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, then we would not be now faced with the House of the size faced with the House of the size that we are.

One of the bits of elegance about the original Burns Report was that it was a way of dealing with the Size of the House without legislation, and at a time when no legislation was likely to be forthcoming. This is obviously not the case now, we've got this bill, but we are also looking at having a retirement age and having a bar for participation, both of which measures even if retirement age is phased in, will have a very significant impact on the size of your Lordships house.

I think that although the noble Lord makes the case that his amendment dovetails with those, I think one could equally argue that they drive a coach and horses through its. Not that I wish to disagree even in the interim with the principle of it. But the one thing it doesn't deal with and is an extraordinarily difficult problem with or without the Burns approach is what the balance of the composition of the House would be. We are in a five party political system at the moment, leaving aside the nationalists in Scotland and Wales, 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 full stop he can have a principle that says there should be parity between the two largest parties, but beyond that there is no principle which has ever been mentioned while I've been in your Lordships house is how you deal with all the other parties.

This is a real problem and under Lord Burns amendment there is not even a hint of how you would deal with this conundrum of balance. Under it, the Prime Minister could if you wished replace every two departing peers with the New Labour peer. He could do any variety of mixture and that is, seems to me a real problem. Noble Lords will not be surprised to know what we favour having elected house because we do not believe there is a logical defensible way around the conundrum of the prime ministerial whim deciding on the composition of the second chamber in a mature democracy.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lord Burns with a mammoth 82 proposes an immediate restriction on proposes an immediate restriction on appointments, to out warning policy until this House reaches 650 members at which point it could transition at which point it could transition to A1 out warning model. Lordships Report. Once again the noble Lord makes a compelling case with his usual eloquence. My noble friend usual eloquence. My noble friend Lord Northbrook Persaud -- pursues a similar objective by different means, he would require the covenant draft a bill before the provisions of the current legislation can take effect.

Reflecting on both of these amendments I would venture this, it is not size that matters but the perception of it. Before turning to the substance of the amendments... Before turning to the substance of the amendments before us allow me to 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 during unfavourable comparisons with other second chambers around the world, but before we lose ourselves in the arithmetic of armchairs let us consider a fume -- rather more revealing figures.

Since 1999 the average daily attendance has never exceeded 197 members. Last year the figure was just 397 peers, barely 51% of the total membership. Even in are most heavily attended boat on the European union notification withdrawal bill just 634 members to parts, these are not numbers of a bloated overbearing assembly, they are the numbers of the House that flexes with the rhythm of expertise and interest, that breathe in and out according to the demands of scrutiny. We are not and will never meant to be a full-time house, it is neither expected nor desirable that every peer attend every day.

Many noble Lord spring with them noble Lord spring with them outstanding amendments 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 a revise and improve legislation. Some of us are generalists able to contribute widely, other specialists drawn on whether knowledge is most needed. That blend is not accidental, it is Cap on our numbers particularly one tied to the size of the House of Commons would not enhance our
21:37
21:38
Baroness Smith of Basildon Portrait Baroness Smith of Basildon, Leader of the House of Lords and Lord Privy Seal (Labour)
-
-
I thank the noble Lady for injecting some humour, can I say that it seemed to be the female members of the that found that funnier than their I say the male members of the. Perhaps Passover that quite quickly and move on. The figleaf, it continues. It's an interesting discussion here, first of all I think Lord Burns uses amendment to refer back to his committee of the Speaker's Committee when he looked at the Size of the House and related issues that might be addressed.

His particular amendment focused on the two-out one in my thinking spoke more wisely -- widely to the report which was helpful to the House. Come on that moment. Lord Northbrook was actually wanting to delay the commencement of the bill. I looked to see, does he think we should look at, have a draft bill first to implement the Burns committee, I look to see whether his interest in the Burns committee, I'm surprised to see even he thought it so important in delaying this bill until the draft bill of the Burns committee, that he didn't speak on the Burns committee when it was debated in your Lordships house, I think he did refer to it during the Grocott bill.

But I think it's an interesting point but not one that would be able to accept because it's just delaying the spell. Lord Burns they raised some interesting issues. What I thought was useful, when we debated the Burns committee report there was widespread support around the House that. Looking back during the debate I wasn't sure that every member was fully signed up to every part of the report, what there was was a real view that something had to be done and going in the right direction how much stress the issue.

The noble lady makes a point about size, one of the things I would say to her, she says 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 don't expect every member to be full-time. Members come in, they got outside interests and we don't expect everybody to be here all day every day and neither should we do so. I think it would be unhelpful to the House of every member was always here and we were all full-time politicians, we bring different experiences in different issues to the House.

I'm distracted slightly. We do agree that the Size of the House should come down it's a bit about perception, we read regularly about the size, the boat of the body and how the second largest assembly in the world and actually we are not if you look at the active membership of this House, members who attend reasonably regularly then it's not that size, it's much smaller. I think the two measures we are looking at in terms of retirement and in terms of the participation go a long way to addressing some of the criticisms that are made, that's why I'm so keen, as I said I come back to the House on that, a mechanism for making sure the House can reach agreement on what that may look in practice.

We had some discussions about that already. Lord Moonie -- Lord Newby make some points and we discussed this before when we had the bill about his suggestion that 20% of the House should be crossbenchers. Why think that's a fair figure for crossbenchers in the House to have one group within your Lordships house which there is a mechanism in effect for saying this is what the size of that group should be it doesn't do anything about the size of other groups.

One of the things that I have looked at with some dismay over the years is how the government party has grown and grown and grown and the noble Lord said he had only three new members most of them very recently for his group, on my said the House I think at one point we had coming back to an earlier debate, more new ministers appointed in some cases very short-term in office than we had appointments in the whole of that time on the side of the House.

I think getting a better balance between the two parties. Noble Lords absolute right I do think the House the sum of its best work, but we are not playing the numbers game to say we got more the new we can win votes. We got into bad habits during some of the coalition years when there was an automatic majority and we saw some of the appointments were made under particularly Boris Johnson we saw large numbers coming when boats were lost by the government answer was to appoint more peers.

It didn't have the effect that the government wanted to have. My own view is the House of his best work when we are roughly equal numbers between government and opposition parties and we are more deliberative in our approach rather than thinking everything has to be resolved by voting. I think that deliberative approach is what the House was designed to do. I do think the Size of the House is larger than it needs to be and doesn't actually reflect the work we do or how we operate.

I would say to Lord Banner think you did the House a great service with this report, he focuses minds. These issues we will return to going forward and he established the principle which is very important, the house should look at dealing with some of these issues and is very important that we do because I think our views of how we should operate goes back to earlier debate but the skills required as well, the kind of make up the House, the experience, we have that debating the moment I'm sure with Lord Blencathra's amendments, I think this is an important debate and I'm grateful to both noble Lords their amendments but I would respect -- respectively urge them to withdraw them both.
21:44
Lord Burns Portrait Lord Burns (Crossbench)
-
-
I'm very grateful for the comments that have been made about the Speaker's Committee report and in response to the amendment. I'm grateful to Lord Hain who supported these things throughout this process and has been important for us to ensure that we did really have cross-party support. Lord Newby raises the question about the allocation of places. I thought I would mention this in my remarks and certainly set out in some detail in the Lord Speaker's Committee which was that new appointments should be allocated according to the proportion of the votes and previous general election and that would certainly reflect in our, in terms of the Liberal Democrats.

I appreciate where there would be a problem is that there was suddenly a very big shift in terms of the voting behaviour and a new party emerged, then of course there would be some issues then about balance. Baroness then -- Baroness Finn emphasised the whole question of does it ready matter what particular size the House is but needs to come and go. According to the rhythm of the place. But the reality is that without a ceiling on the House we have seen over the whole period and there have been life peerages the numbers have just gone on up and up.

There is no control mechanism that There is no control mechanism that Whatever we do in the short-term to bring down the numbers, if we do not have equipment to what we want the size of the House to be and mechanism for keeping it there then I can see nothing that than that numbers will continue to rise. I find when I go around speaking on the subject, which I have to do from time to time, I think I can make the case for an appointed house but I think I also have to acknowledge that one is pushing the tolerance and the public about so much of what they read about the House.

The absence of a retirement age. The absence of requirement to attend regularly. The ability for someone, for example, to be in the House for 50 years or more of the idea that there is no limit to the size of the House. These are all very difficult things to sell to people for a legislative chamber. And I take my message from in fact I was just watching a Netflix, there is a new series, a version of The Leopard that has just started.

I was that has just started. I was reminded by the famous phrase everyone things to stay as they are, things will have to change. I very much feel that is necessary for going in the balance and maintaining public opinion, meanwhile I picked withdraw my amendment.
21:47
Lord Blencathra Portrait Lord Blencathra (Conservative)
-
-
It is by leave withdrawn.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment 83. Lord Blencathra. I rise to move Amendment 83 in my

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to move Amendment 83 in my name. I first met Skerry a lodge of that 129 of the suggested nucleus descended on us in one fell smooth -- that is not my intention. Let me -- that is not my intention. Let me explain what I am coming from. First of all I work on the assumption that we will reduce the numbers in this we will reduce the numbers in this House by possibly 250 and by the end of the Parliament and to retirement of the Parliament and to retirement those who failed to turn up and failed to participate and I am old enough and cynical enough to say that with absolute certainty I am afraid no Prime Minister will ever implement the Noble Lord barons report, so we need to reduce numbers so other way.

That is true of in comparison to the House of Commons. We have lawyers, doctors, farmers, financial experts, rarely situated surveyor, pure, veterinarians, and other specialist stop at we do not have the full range of specialist we could use. The public will is just at the names of these 129 professional chartered institutes and Royal colleges so that noble Lords concede the wide-ranging of just what we could be missing. At first glance noble Lords will say we can't have all these people here.

What would it bring? Actually, I challenge any noble Lords to see the president or vice president of any of these Royal colleges or chartered would have nothing valuable to contribute in some of our expert debates. Of course we all have our personal views and biases of which ones are more important and prestigious and when we have some snobbish putdowns. This reminds me of the tender 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 may have more to contribute in a debate about the system than say the Institute of waste management, probably. However they have a view as well, but in seeking, for example, a better design Holocaust than that monstrosity they want to inflict on us than I would prefer to hear from the Institute of design is rather than any distinguished Royal colleges. It is cautioned for caution and in the House of Lords we have an awful lot.

But what expert select committees embark on the new enquiry and need to interview experts and collect evidence and it is to many of these organisations that they will turn. Look at the evidence submitted, for example, and you will see the names of many of these organisations on the list. When the Government goes out to consultation and every one of these organisations will be on the distribution list as a stakeholder for the relevant subject area. So, I suggest that if the Government consults these organisations as knowledgeable stakeholders then we should have one of their numbers here on a short-term peerage.

We have very able accountants and financiers and every day this House and these committees would benefit, I suggest, from having pure from the Association of candidates, the Institute of Management candidate, the chartered internal auditors, public finance accountancy, the taxation Institute and if I Navy so politically to suggest may be the Chancellor could give some advice as well at the moment. We have got the long-running problem that after 17 years we still cannot get on with restoring this bill. Perhaps if we had PS from the Association of project management the chartered Association of building engineers, the chartered archaeology, architectural technology, the plumbing and heating engineers, procurement of supply, structural engineers, building and service engineers, mechanical engineer handlers and 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 for trading standards and environmental health. And the environment we somehow see already that we could do more from the chartered in ecology and environment management, horticulture, environmental management, the Institute, landscaping Institute and the Royal agricultural Society of England and waste management. Last week in the Grand Committees we had the digital regulations and the biometric information regulations. Today in the Grand Committees we debated, but I did not debate, could not understand any of it, but we debated the draft electronic communications networks and services designated vendor directors penalties order 2025 on your Lordships time and that was followed by draft eco-design for energy-related products and energy information amendment Northern Ireland regulations 2025.

No, I accept I may be the only P in this House who would not have a clue what these regulations seek to do. But perhaps if we had some experts from the Institute of engineering and technology this Institute of physics, the energy Institute and the British computer Society then we would have a much more informed debate. Please look down the list at amendment 83 and you can see some of the central priorities that the Government has for education needs in this priority differ we have an Institute such as housing, science, education holds range of disciplines as well as logistics.

Now, it is all right, because get some of them already if they are nominated through Holland. Yes, but it is very hit and miss, requiring someone to nominate someone who may or may not be up-to-date or an expert in any of the 129 disciplines. And that person, like the rest of us, will serve until death or retirement but as my amendment would ensure and you expect from the Institute every five years. The key point of my amendment is that these peers nominated by their respective Institute would serve for five years.

That would ensure we were getting a constant flow of experts who were up-to-date with the areas of expertise and what I did not put in the amendment is the logistics of doing this. I suggest that we could bring it up to 26 per annum over a period of five years. So they did not all arrive in one fell swoop and depart at the same time. In order of introduction that could be done. My amendment states that the Prime Minister cannot substitute his own preference but I neglected to say that Holland would still have the final say of propriety and if Pollock rejected the nomination the Institute would then have to propose someone else who satisfied the proprietary nest.

They would all be crossbenchers and be instructed that there were no spokespersons for the Institute that individuals giving us their personal expertise based on their own professional expertise which the Institute nominated in the first place. In our debate on an elected house if unite to go if you 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 I propose, then we would be introducing and I think a direct element that would be more democratic, I suggest, than just the Prime Minister making the point.

I would also hope that we would not need individual nominations through Holland or the Prime Minister because it would appear with experience and taxation of archaeology or any one of the other 129 disciplines. Of course the Prime Minister will still make political appointments, but my system amendment would guarantee that in five years time the House at 129 experts from these professional bodies currently constantly renewing their expertise with addition to any other noble Lords would be appointed. I also suggest that this gives us a more regional spread since it is likely some of the appointees will be from countries of the United Kingdom other than England and indeed seven of these institutions listed here are not English.

So, in conclusion, I suggest that this suggestion is not as frightening as it first appears when one looks at the martial list for 129 organisations. Those experts introduced to the House every top up to 26 per annum and changing every five years would have us a whole new cabinet of experts and at least 100 professionals that we do not have here at the moment. If noble Lords understood this then I would remind that house that Prime Minister's introduced 45 new peers in its first 150 days as per minister and we can expect another large much of politicians and it in next reminisced as and the last Prime Minister's.

Naturally, of course, my amendment will not be accessible, possibly by all sides of the House, but I do suggest quite humbly I think I have got a gem of an idea here which with, refinement, could give us what experts can widen the franchise, and not allow the Prime Minister be Sony in charge of large appointments. Essay that we need

**** Possible New Speaker ****

experts. Then it is proven. I beg to move. Amendment proposed after close

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed after close one insert the following new close

**** Possible New Speaker ****

as printed on the martial list. The Royal agricultural Society,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The Royal agricultural Society, Scotland, Wales, and Northern
21:57
21:58
21:59
22:00
22:01
Lord True Portrait Lord True (Conservative)
-
-
I'm very touched by Lord Harris is determination to hear from me and I'm very happy to act as a performing seal to keep noble Lord happy for hours on end if he wishes, but that has never been the intention of the party on the side and if you look carefully at Hansard you will see me having said from this Dispatch Box that there was no question of our Frontbench dividing this House at any stage during the committee, and I hope that message has been relayed to members opposite.

Lord Blencathra did raise an interesting issue in his typically creative way, though I did rather French like others when I saw the long list of bodies in his amendment. -- Flinch. It does undermine -- underlined the range of depths of skills there are still in this great country. Having listened his argument I do realise it's a probing or perhaps more of scattergun amendment that he has put before us. He is quite right that we it's vital that we have a wide range of expertise to be called upon as and when it's needed.

That expertise or the ability to analyse and deploy it is obviously one reason why Lordships house has the authority that it does. It is actually why though it's not germane to this particular amendment I am actually rather most empathetic to the occasional expert contributor we have among us done some who measure participation by quantity only. Of course it's an ingenious proposal that doesn't seem to have found favour, Lord Blencathra temporary peerages be granted for representatives from each chartered professional body.

We also had another interesting postal earlier this evening from -- proposal, from Baroness Laing in relation to temporary ministers earlier. Which I found fascinating proposal. One might actually even moderate these proposals to consider if we are a modern chamber and 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. Here is the place there where the judges come at State Opening on writs of assistance to be present in the chamber, it's not technically part of the chamber.

Could we not moderate the kind of proposal that Lord Blencathra has put forward occasionally if we are discussing something highly technical to have people come here to advise and respond in our chamber to inform our proceedings? It's just an idea. If we are thinking in the future let's be open without necessarily as my noble friend says, having to call people here for a long period with a permanent peerage. Certainly if we were ever to consider anything along my noble friend line I would say he is surely right in proposing at any such appointment be temporary to keep people at their most relevant and allowing a degree of flexibility within each sector to propose their representatives.

So I admire my noble friend ingenuity in asking us to reflect on the expertise that we do have, the expertise that we need and also the expertise we stand to lose of course as Lord Lester said, the proposals to exclude all the hereditary Peers and all peers over 80 to go forward. We should have a mind to the expertise we might lose as we consider any proposals for change and transition but I think my noble friend will not be surprised at the House would be surprised when I say that despite my great respect for his intentions and ingenuity I'm afraid we on this side from the Frontbench would not be able to support his specific proposals.

I feel appointing representatives from all chartered professional bodies in this way would make the House a bit too corporatist for my liking and he leaves out other great institutions of the land. That being said I think we should reflect on other ways in which we could have witnesses occasionally to advise us on technical matters when we are considering important pieces of legislation. If we are to have this great modernisation, let us also consider innovative ways in which we might draw on great wisdom of the British people.
22:06
Baroness Smith of Basildon Portrait Baroness Smith of Basildon, Leader of the House of Lords and Lord Privy Seal (Labour)
-
-
It's been an interesting debate and there hasn't been very much support for the proposal. I have to say one thing that impressed me, he may have gained a record at least a foreign the spell that he managed to produce an amendment that was longer than the bill itself. I don't think I recall that happening before. It's quite clear that the different backgrounds and different experiences of knowledge of noble Lords from around the House is really valuable in our deliberations.

There are indeed past presence of societies sitting in the House at the moment. The noble Lord has been present at the Royal astronomical Society. Baroness Rafferty and Lady Finlay the Royal College of Nursing and the Royal Society of medicine's respectively Lord Trees from the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons. They have enhanced the debates, Lady Rafferty hasn't been here very long but we look forward to more contributions from her, she has proved herself already. Those appointments are always welcome to your Lordships house.

Where I struggle with the noble Lords amendment is that all the other organisations, Neville Taylor got it right, once you get a list you then look at the lists you are excluding. I don't think the chartered institutes and rural societies are the only people who provide such expertise. I would also note that had all these appointments be made that he speaks of it would be about 30% of the House crossbenchers and I think Lord Norton which was roughly the idea that most people were talking about was around 20% so he would take it well over that, it would probably be larger-than-life with the two parties of government.

The noble parties of government. The noble Lord Thurston made the point that I would make but he got there first, it's obviously a very good point to make because it was the one I was thinking, why are we here? Are we here for experience, for knowledge, for contributions we make, but we are basically here for our judgement. We listen to people who are experts who are, the public retaken ball those things and ultimately we all have to act on our honour to make a judgement on the information before us.

Lord Davies pointed out the expertise, how much the expertise of members bring to this House would cost if it was outside but I don't really want house of experts. I don't know where the noble Lord got that from I don't think we are 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 is the noble Lord says, to find judgement.

We want members to not just become one issue they have an expertise on, we expect members to look at a range of issues while they are here. I have to say I'm also uncomfortable with the idea of temporary membership of the House. Baroness Laing raised that earlier as well, it seems to me you want members, all members should be equal and have equal status here and have some members who are temporary and some not. I'm sure he made his amendment with the best of intentions but I do ask him to withdraw it.
22:09
Lord Blencathra Portrait Lord Blencathra (Conservative)
-
-
The tax that my suggestions not received universal acclaim. I would received universal acclaim. I would say to my noble friend Lord Taylor he was my superb Chief Whip, I'm sorry if I missed out the Royal agricultural Society of Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland, that would bring it up to just 100 and 30/129 full stop he doesn't like lists, this bill is nothing but a list of 88 people to chuck outside suggest this bill is also a list as well.

To The Earl of Stair shall well. To The Earl of Stair shall quite simply, his esteemed organisation is not charted into the Royal Society. As I say to the leader one has to create a cut-off somewhere. There are lots of other amongst the piers. I note the points made by my noble friend the Earl of Leicester and I largely concur. Lord Davies of Brixton I think Telstra Felt strongly for he didn't want these experts in here he preferred to pay them to speak to us.

Can I put it this way, suppose over the next years HOLAC had nominated each of these individuals, why would they nominate? They were nominated because there are experts in their field and we sent jolly good welcome here we need your expertise. Of course this House needs expert and course this House needs expert and expertise as I say the noble Lady, I'm not suggesting 650 technical experts, I'm suggesting 129 experts plus any others we may have and that would leave another 400, 500 piers to exercise our judgement.

Two Lord True I agree with him that we need to look at innovative ways, I daresay I had a germ of an idea here, most people think this germ should be disinfected and done away with immediately I suspect, there is a possibility here to do things differently. He said my plans were . I thought he said to corpulence which the House is at the moment in that it's too large. Clearly I'm not going to succeed I don't intend to bring this back report, it was floating an idea and I think at some time in due course in a few years time the House may wish to look at this.

I'm grateful for the response of the leader and in view of the attitude tonight I beg leave to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is at your Lordships pleasure that the amendment is withdrawn? Amendment by leave withdrawn. Amendment 84 has been withdrawn, amendment 85 Lord Fowler not moved.
22:12
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay Portrait Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Conservative)
-
-
amendment 85 Lord Fowler not moved. Moment 86 Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay not moved. A moment 87 Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay full stop

**** Possible New Speaker ****

-- Amendment. I rise to speak to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

-- Amendment. I rise to speak to a moment 88 and 89 which also form part of this group. These have elicited a lot of attention from elicited a lot of attention from noble friends since I tabled them, noble friends since I tabled them, Lord Forsyth singled them out during our debate on amendment one when he our debate on amendment one when he promised that he wouldn't speak on them and it's good to see him in this place to fulfil that promise this evening.

I want to make clear from the outset that I have nothing 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. But I do think that the role of a member of your Lordships house is different, this house is calmer, quieter, more consensual than the other place, it respect the primacy of the elected house and it recognises that with nobody in the majority here the way to get things done is by constructive debate and by compromise.

Some of the best advice that I received when I took my place in your Lordships house was to hold off on making a Maiden speech and to spend some time in the chamber learning not only the rules of the House but it's ways, it's tone. It's very easy for those who have watched too many of the proceedings of the House of Commons to assume that that is the way that we behave here as well. But it's not, we are less partisan, less pointed, less pugnacious though it's very easy to slip into those habits and I know that I have done so myself on too many occasions.

Those habits are even harder to give up noble Lord to have served for many years with distinction in another place as are the Mo -- more innocuous but still alien habits like 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 the way that 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 all of not all of that has been clawed back. We are in a constant state of flux the new members arriving all the time bringing new perspectives and new ways of doing things. As a self- regulating house it. All of us to protect those courtesies and conventions that we think are important. That is why I lament the way this bill will expel so many long-standing members who know how important those conventions are and many more recent arrivals learned by watching them as apprentices before they were elected.

I only overlap tear briefly with the noble Countess Lady Morris but it was long enough to know how valuable a role she played keeping us all on the Lady Morris 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 crossbenchers. Many others have served on the previously if they are to go as this bill proposes we are going to have to work even harder to hold onto some of those subtle traditions which make this House such a pleasant and productive place to legislate.

By doing so at a time when the proportion of the House drawn from the other chamber is rising in recent years it's risen to more than 1/5 of the House. Our current 21% is a record and it shows Because the pressure on prime Ministers of all parlays will always be great. My Noble Friend alluded earlier to his success in lobbying for a promotion to these benches. Sometimes it is free up to seat for a favourite son or daughter, sometimes the opportunity to rid oneself of Colin, I will not hazard a guess as to who it was in my Noble Friend case.

And former Members of Parliament bring great and Bible experience to our proceedings here. They are well-versed in Parliamentary procedure. They are under no illusions about the long days in the late nights that are involved. They have as constituency representatives and as election candidates spoken to many thousands of their fellow citizens and have a keener sense of public opinion than most of us. We should be and should be seen to be more than just a retirement home for former MPs and special advisers.

There are many other bodies from which we can draw experienced and willing legislatures. While your logic has currently has 181 former MPs, we only have 11 former members of the Scottish parliament, seven members, 12 members of the Northern Ireland party, 11 London assembly members and 44 current former or current council leaders that compares to more than 300 principal local authorities. And while my Noble Friend Lady Finn will I know mount a STAG defence of that much maligned class of special adviser from which she and I both draw, that she would agree that our number should be limited as well, as with MPs, special advisers come in all shapes and sizes.

When looking at my amendments noble Lords might have envisaged a 20 or 30 out of the thick of it, former special advisers are to be found in every corner of your Lordships house, Lord Donoughue, Lord Stevenson, on the Are found even on the cross benches to people at the noble Baroness Lady Hogg. I think that between us vendor some useful service to the deliberations that we have had in your Lordships house but I do think that if we are not to be seen as a house of professional politicians I will come at the Baroness lady privy seal said about that earlier.

Then our numbers ought to be rationed as well. So, when she comes to respond or from the treasured bench will do so I hope that they will be able to see if they think I have got the limits to high or too low it would be useful to hear some indication of what they think the correct proportion of former MPs and former special advisers should be in your Lordships house. The noble Baroness has spoken previously of her desire to see roughly equal numbers between the two principal parties.

I do not know if she has a sense of former MPs, how many it is ideal to have an your Lordships house. I welcome her

**** Possible New Speaker ****

thoughts on it. And those of my many Noble Friends who have caught me in the corridors to tell me already. I beg to move. Amendment proposed after close
22:19
22:20
Baroness Finn Portrait Baroness Finn (Conservative)
-
-
I would like to 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 of the police or a special advisers in Government. I say this with a smidgen of self-interest as a former special adviser myself, and in full benefit may Noble Friend Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay served as special adviser to my Noble Friend Lady May of Maidenhead who is caused not only a former member of Parliament Pieter former Prime Minister.

Your logic has benefits a deal from their service as it does from many others who have come from The Other Place or through Government. Nonetheless, my Lords, I think these amendments raise the interesting question of what this House is poor. It is reasonable to consider the broader experience we need to fulfil our responsibilities. It is important that this House remains a distinct second chamber and that we do not let the lines between the two houses. Your mod chips house benefits from a large membership with broad experience and expertise stop whether that be for my Members of Parliament or otherwise but that is a plus has produce useful research in this area which tells us that 21% of noble Lords had previously served as MPs in the House of Commons.

As 181 former MPs. And, unfortunately, perhaps fortunately, the House of Lords library does not provide information on the number of former special advisers. But, as we know, there are at least two, if not three of us in the chamber this evening. So, I can understand why some noble So, I can 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 is amendments.

That they would be beneficial ensuring a balanced perspective and experience in your logic toes. The expansion of our hereditary colleagues would pry bust of the huge amount of private sector experience which cannot be easily replaced. This bill stands to exclude chartered accountants and surveyors, president of the heavy transport Association and former managing director of Chase. There are so many more examples of businessmen, entrepreneurs, and industry titans whose perspectives we will greatly miss stuff we should not take their experience and expertise for granted.

It is vitally important for the scrutiny of legislation that affects businesses, markets, industries, industry workers and employers alike and our wider economy that the private sector is properly presented by those who know and understand its operation. But, of course, having a background in politics does not conclude one from have other types of experience and indeed it is valued experience itself stop some of our most effective members have been in August and have learned over the gas had to get things done in parliament and across Government.

Critical skills in legislative chamber. The other suggestion we have discussed today is what I would consider a cooling off period as proposed when my Noble Friend Lord Parkinson's amendment 87. It is an interesting suggestion that might alleviate an external perception of political patronage. And, perhaps late in the pressure on premises to confer such patronage. However, I do not believe that it would be right for this has to limit the ability of a democratic elected minister to a democratic elected minister to , as my Noble Friend pointed out, these amendments do cause us to consider the House of Lords as our second chamber.

We fulfil a role that is very different to 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 obviously respecting the will of the elected house. This House is one of the highest quality revising chamber is in any democracy and it is the role that the House rightly takes very seriously. Your Lordships house has constructed a consensual way of doing things. It should desist from becoming more party political and more punch and Judy -like than noble Lords might be used to.

We should wary of any such trends. The House works best when we treat each other with respect, making revisions and posing questions constructively. One of the very many negative effects of using our hereditary peers is that we will lose a great number of those who act as the custodians of 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 do understand and super-size 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 from the removal of our hereditary colleagues. It is also right to reflect on the unique role that your Lordships house has in Parliamentary democracy and the need for us to uphold our distinct customs and conventions to continue that role. I think my Noble Friend for giving us the opportunity to reflect and proposals.
22:25
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Portrait Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Labour)
-
-
This is an intriguing set of amendments. Particularly given the professional experience of the Noble Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay and I should declare my interest as a former member of Parliament myself. I hope, as far as the Noble Lord athlete, the noble Earl Attlee is concerned, it would be my stratospheric reputation that I am here. Albeit, my Lords, I may be slightly too young for the retirement home that the Noble Lord Parkinson referred to for ex- members.

Since I joined your Lordships house, I have had an unusual aspiration, and that is to get the word puts power into hassle and I look forward to them spilling it and I do think the noble Lords forgivingly such an opportunity. We are very, very lucky in your budget has to drawn a range of expertise from across public life, law, science, academia, and the arts and cultural sector. We have former president secretaries, former or current vice chancellors of universities. News editors and a number of presidents of esteemed institutions as was outlined in the last group.

We even have after winners amongst us. It is true that significant proportion in this chamber are for Members of Parliament and the last count 21%. We also have a number of former special advisers in this place, some are sitting on the benches opposite my. I also 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 logic is houses predominantly apolitical 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 represent them. It is likely that many of the people they nominate have a background, a special advisers, former Members of Parliament, members of the Scottish parliament, the Senate or the wider assembly. Both houses work most effectively when we understand the day-to-day workings of the other. As a former MPI have certainly found the experience of The Other Place very useful as we consider how this House can work best.

And also how much more effective we can be 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 Parliament sent the work that we do and how it affects the delivery of public services. Former special advisers, recent or otherwise have valuable experience to bring to your Lordships house. For some peers there time as a special adviser or political adviser was one role amongst any that have led to your Lordships house and it is not necessarily the reason why they were in pointed.

The Noble Lord is an obvious example before he became an MP but I do not believe that is the reason he was appointed to your Lordships house. He was also an adviser and many posts in Former special advisers from across the House to bring valuable insights to our boy, both from their days as a special adviser but also often outside of this experience. Such perspectives are incredibly valuable in this place. It deepens and enriches our ability to scrutinise legislation and hold the Government to account.

As someone who regularly signs of a significant number of written Parliamentary Questions I often reflect a genuine concern the insight of my former Ministers and advisers about the mechanisms of Government they bring a genuine level of scrutiny. It is, of course, important that we maintain nonparty political elements in the House of Lords. The crush benches especially provide expertise and insights we would not always find on the political benches. As the Government has said repeatedly during these debates, it is what about the PSP into the House going forward and their willingness to contribute to the proceedings as to their experience and achievements before they came to this place.

I would also note that the Noble Lord Parkinson literally proving his worth by his extensive contributions to this debate throughout Committee stage. It is up to party leaders, including the premise that, to decide who best represents them and the parties in the House of Lords. It is right that their able to choose who is most suitable, restricting party leaders ability to choose knowledgeable experienced figures to sit in the House just because they have a political background would be a disservice to us all.

I respectfully request that the Noble Lord withdrawals these amendments. amendments.
22:30
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay Portrait Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Conservative)
-
-
I am very grateful to the Noble Lady for that reply and, indeed I think the most generous defensive special advisers that I have heard outside of the Thursday evening drinks that were used to have in the pub with the special advisers when we used to get together for a chinwag. And I do accept all the points that she makes, not just about special advisers but about Members of Parliament as well and the great contribution that they bring as I acknowledged in my own speech I see that as well.

I am grateful to my Noble Friend Lord Attlee for his constructive drafting suggestions and to my Noble Friend Lady Finn for engaging not just with the literal interpretation of the words in my amendment as she put it Grateful to the noble Lady for so delicately pointing out my chutzpah at bringing these amendments, I did so with the self-awareness but I should at least be grateful that she didn't call me a schmuck. I note that we didn't see an answer to the question, for now! I just note I didn't hear an answer to my question about what the government's view on the ideal number of former special advisers and members of Parliament advisers and members of Parliament is, I think as we pass this bill, which gives such unbridled powers to the Prime Minister to appoint whomever he wishes to Lordships house which should be mindful of the growing and accelerating trend to put former Members of Parliament and special advisers here, but with that and thanks to the noble Lady I beg

**** Possible New Speaker ****

leave to withdraw my amendment. That the amendment is withdrawn. Amendment by leave withdrawn. Amendment 88 not moved. Amendment 89

**** Possible New Speaker ****

not moved. Amendment 90. After what I acknowledge was not a popular measure I hope this one will find some more support on both will find some more support on both principal benches of your Lordships house. My amendment 96 to address house. My amendment 96 to address the long-running problem that we all acknowledge in your Lordships house about the number of ministers serving in this House who were not serving in this House who were 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 that it allowed me to pay. Some 40% of my colleagues on the front bench in the last Conservative government were on salaried, that meant not only were they not taking home a salary at the end of the month they weren't paying into their pension, the national insurance contributions were not being made and in some of the cases because of this and also 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 of the major parties when we are in government, it dates from the ministerial and other salaries act of 1975, written with a very noble aim to ensure that the executive doesn't 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 where ministers and House of Lords are assumed to be drawn from the landed gentry. We are not any more 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 Lord Forsyth and many others have raised in previous parliaments and in this I know it's 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 that this may be opportunity for us to solve the long-running problem that is causing problems to governments being able to find Front Benchers, and also to draw people from all walks of life from modest backgrounds to be to serve their country in government.

I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

beg to move. After clause 1 insert the new clause is printed on the marshalled List.
22:35
Lord Blencathra Portrait Lord Blencathra (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

List. I rise briefly to support my noble friend, he is absolutely right noble friend, he is absolutely right in what he says. If I got my figure is correct, this Labour government is only abusing four Lords ministers. The last Conservative 11 Lords ministers by not paying them. That is simply not right. Part of the problem is that prime ministers like to stuff the department's full of MPs, paid MPs and of course then they have the DPS as well to help them, the larger the payroll of MPs in the common Commons the less likely there is to be a rebellion full stop pays for any government to have as many MP Members of Parliament as popular -- as possible and the PPS is about 35 years ago as a junior whip and I encountered a colleague who is very concerned that he was not fully involved in policy development in his department.

He said to a Secretary of State he like to be more fully involved, he was told you are just the PP make-up US, your job is to reply to all the letters of people whingeing about not getting the bus pass and that put him in this place. The noble friend is right this been a large expansion of the role of the US and others, and personally I think that is wrong. It also this view that peers can do, they can afford to do it for free so as many paid MPs as we can within the ceiling of the allowance and get peers to do it for free, that's utterly wrong.

Many can't do it for free, noble Lords of 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 the Viscount, I think he and like my noble friend the olive how ministers with 30 or 40 years between them I doubt they got paid for two or three years all of that. Job after job after job and did it unpaid. It's not right that any government Conservative or Labour should abuse

**** Possible New Speaker ****

peers in that way. Public service in the old days used to be quite a different thing,
22:37
Lord Bethell Portrait Lord Bethell (Conservative)
-
-
used to be quite a different thing, my forebear the Admiral Robert Barlow used to be the superintendent of the Kassem shipyard and he ran those shipyards through his personal account and took quite a lot of the government money to build large houses for himself and for his family. We are now in the 21st- century and we should be doing things in a different way. We shouldn't be relying on public servants to pocket cash, we should be having a modern meritocratic form of government.

It is therefore completely and utterly wrong that we expect ministers to work hard for no expect ministers to work hard for no pay at all, and I pay tribute to Lord Hanson of Flint, Lord Timpson, Lord Ponsonby, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, Baroness Corston and to Lord Hendy, all of whom are up there on the ministerial list with the words the ministerial list with the words the ministerial list with the words I was one of those ministers, I had my name on the ministerial list with the words unpaid underneath it.

And it was a complete humiliation. I found it completely undermining that it was thought in government that I The salary that others were paid. I wasn't worth the £81,000 the Minister of State got, I wasn't worth the £71,000 that AP US got, and it hit me in my department that I wasn't taken seriously in that respect. This is an old-fashioned system that we need to end of the 1975 act was well-intentioned but it is out of date. We should be supporting a merit quickly, 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 to have the job got the place and that is in this day and age, quite wrong. I know the leaders very keen not to amend this bill but my goodness, this is such a right -- ripe opportunity to undo a serious injustice in the way in which we do government and I begged the leader to take this opportunity and to accept this amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I would like to declare a personal interest in this in terms personal interest in this in terms that my son-in-law Lord Johnson of Lainston acted as an unpaid Minister of State in the previous government. I am very grateful to the fact that he didn't look to his father-in-law to subsidise him in return. He managed to survive without looking managed to survive without looking to me. The fact is that it is all to do with the number of paid jobs do with the number of paid jobs there are in any government, and the reluctance of government to extend that number of jobs, a hard decision I accept, but one that I've always been an assured this covenant is prepared to take.

The sooner they get on with the better because it is as has been pointed out by my noble friend's, a complete inequity that people should be asked to serve for nothing and very often they give up as has been pointed out by my noble friend, the job which 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 this as soon as possible.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My noble friend Lord Parkinson and his ever ingenious way has found a route to raise this question of a route to raise this question of ministerial salaries in the House of Lords. Having heard the strong Lords. Having heard the strong feelings expressed, I think that it is a matter that needs to be dealt is a matter that needs to be dealt with. There are a number of issues
22:41
22:42
Lord True Portrait Lord True (Conservative)
-
-
in the government's manifesto. Surely if we can address any of these issues for the good of the House, for the good of the government, for the good of the country we should find a way to do so. Of course government ministers so. Of course government ministers in the House of Lords whatever party is in office should be paid. I give is in office should be paid. I give particular thought he is not here in particular thought he is not here in his place, to people like my noble friend Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon.

A truly outstanding servant of this House, and of this 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 is a decent way to carry on.

The problem Rises from the interrelation between 250-year-old statutes who often told old law should be re-examined, the ministerial and other salaries act of 1975 which limits the total number of paid ministers to 109, and House of Commons disqualification act also of 1975 which limits the number of ministers in the House of Commons to 95. If the House of Commons takes up all of its 95 allocation, then the effective limit for your Lordships house under a limited 95 is 14 there is clearly not enough between 1979 and 2019 the total number of Lords ministers and whips fluctuated between 21 and 27.

There are further complete occasions arising from overall limits on the numbers of ministers of state. A system needs review. When I was leader of this House I had discussions in the usual channels with other parties on this. It was clear then that there was a broad agreement that the injustice should be attended to. It surely could not be right in the 21st century that you should need private means in order to serve as the Minister of the Crown.

In saying that I take nothing away from the high sensor public duty that led many noble Lords under successive governments, including some under this one who undertake public service without undertake public service without reward. When a number was given the noble Baroness indicated that it was not true but I had thoughts and forgive me there were some in this government who were unpaid, whether that is drawn not under any government the self-sacrifice and public sense of duty of those people should be honoured, respected, and remembered.

It need not be forever replicated government after government. I do believe that in the context of a reasonable settlement for the future of this House as we go forward from this bill that 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 orchards 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.

That's not happening today under this government it will happen in due course as the demands on patronage growth. They actually included four of my noble friend, Earl Howe, the Earl of Minto, Viscount Camrose and Lord Roborough, who were then working unpaid whose public service now is to be requited by the current bill as drafted by being expelled from parliament. There were others as we have heard you previously had performed for I always sought to be honest with the House and I attach the highest importance to the good of the House across this House and I refer to this matter with the leader on the floor and it was not popular, I can tell you, with some of my Commons colleagues.

But I found it a shameful position and I particularly regret that when I requested for support for the chortle to correct this it was rejected at the top of that then Conservative Government. And when I sought alternative means to address it with the rules of the allowances payable within your Lordships house it could not, in the end, be agreed, as I understood it, because of difficulties at some levels in that then Labour opposition. Now, my Lords, we have two find ways to go beyond those setbacks.

We cannot neglect this issue. And I deeply appreciated the cooperation of the noble Baroness opposite in trying to find a solution and I offer her the prospect of reciprocal engagement today as and when good relations allow, so I am very grateful to my Noble Friend for raising this important matter. I do not expect the noble Baroness lady of the House to respond in detail today. It is not appropriate. We should discuss these matters outside the chamber as we have in the past.

But I did want to put on record the shame I felt at the situation that occurred while I was Leader of the House. And I do hope that we may find a collective way forward to open the ability to serve as a minister in your Lordships house in the 21st century to every one of our members, irrespective of their private needs.
22:47
Baroness Smith of Basildon Portrait Baroness Smith of Basildon, Leader of the House of Lords and Lord Privy Seal (Labour)
-
-
I am grateful to the Noble Lord Parkinson for raising this issue. It has been raised in your Lordships house previously. I think the Noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition has raised some of the legal issues around the number of the legislation that causes part of the problem I have to say, and think the Noble Lord would say the same I am immensely proud of the work that my ministerial colleagues do and I think if you look across Parliament there are few Ministers that work as hard as Lords Ministers and it is Lords Ministers that have to cover the whole, I look at the team, what a team, it is Lords Ministers that cover a range of issues, that all the issues come from their colleagues the advance the issues on any issue raised across the Department.

And I think the respect I have for the work they do is enormous and the problem does lie with legislation that is 50 years old but limits the number of Ministers overall. Limits the number in the House of Commons and then limits the number of different categories of minister and it has been the case for a number of years that a small number I am pleased to say we have made some progress. We do have 5p and esters of stating your Lordships house now and significantly fewer unpaid Ministers, but I do take the point I do not think any minister should be unpaid and it is not just the issue of respect you gain with doing so role.

The noble Lords refer to arrangements and he tried to come through with his Government they prefer to do so but also how he and I have spoken. Have to say the reason we did not address all the issues that need to be addressed it was considered that it was a stopgap measure to get us to the short pay. That S&M that is very much on my agenda, my colleagues notice on my agenda, and think it is the case. It is a principle that will get paid for the job they do and that should be the case.

I have got to say though it is not related to this bill. It is quite a stretch to get it to the bill but the effect of the amendment would either be if it was to pass and immediately reduce the number of Ministers in the Commons, lose Ministers for this place or the third option is to change the legislation and put it a bit above my pay grade for now, but I can see these letters are under discussion and I will do what I can with my colleagues to ensure that all of them get the proper support they should get when doing their jobs, good for now I asked the Noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

The Noble Lady since down structurally it would be possible if structurally it would be possible if she is not prepared to accept my noble friend's amendment to have a noble friend's amendment to have a one clause bill which simply alters the number and which was agreed between the usual channels and could be as adjusted both houses. This is something that is very hard to understand why it could not be done. understand why it could not be done.

She may say when you were in Government you did not come up with my Noble Friend the former Leader of the House has made it perfectly clear the effort that was put in and I would have thought a Labour Government would actually stand for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the principle that everyone should receive equal pay for equal labour. The Noble Lord is right, if there

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The Noble Lord is right, if there was agreement across both houses of he could persuade the Leader of the Opposition to support this in The Opposition to support this in The Other Place as well, certainly I would talk to the pro-minister, but it is something that I think has to be done cross-party and not party be done cross-party and not party political made out of it and we need to see a bit more about the work that the Noble Lord Ministers do. As that the Noble Lord Ministers do.

As nobody in the House does not hold blood Ministers in the highest regard, perhaps we would see that
22:51
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay Portrait Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

regard, perhaps we would see that our colleagues in The Other Place as well. I very much agree with the final words of the noble Baroness, the Leader of the House, and I agree with what she sees and I see the hard-working team of Lord Ministers when they go into the departments tomorrow. I'd after the long debates they will have a diary full of meetings and a box full of papers prepared with the expectation they should be here at 11 o'clock the evening before, so I agree very much with her about what she said and I welcome particularly the willingness to look at this issue across the party basis.

I know there is never a good time to legislate to let Asians that this is a problem that has been kicked down for half a century and is causing problems to the social composition, the sense of fairness about Governments and I do hope they would be able to act on it and very grateful particularly to my Noble Friend Lord True for his candour about the effects that he made as leader of your Lordships house and about the sense of shame and frustration that he feels that he was not able to persuade our colleagues to do it.

With this bill before us there is an opportunity I think to right this wrong and I hope the noble Baroness in my Noble Friend Lord True will indeed take this away and continue those discussions. If not, I see there is an employment bill that we will be able to set our trade union rights in the future. But with that I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
22:53
Lord Strathclyde Portrait Lord Strathclyde (Conservative)
-
-
Is at your Lordships pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn? Amendment by leave withdrawn. Amendment 98. Lord Strathclyde.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The night is young and there is still plenty of time, so it is a real delight to the able to move real delight to the able to move this amendment 90 a and to do so if this amendment 90 a and to do so if I may say so in front of an audience of the Labour Party on its ventures. of the Labour Party on its ventures. I have two tell noble Lords that their own front bench have been their own front bench have been working valiantly during the course working valiantly during the course of the days we have spent on this bill when we have deserted backbenchers and it has been rather depressing just in the last few minutes to see the achieve going around tapping the odd folk on the shoulder and just 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 appropriate. It is a helpful amendment, designed from a problem that has been haunting the House of Lords for very many years indeed and my Noble Friend Lord Fowler, the Noble Lord burns, Lord Butler, this evening referred to it looking for imaginative ways of dealing with the issue and the numbers in the House. What this amendment does at a stroke is confined the solution to that.

And does it in several ways. First of all, this is an amendment which is already in statute law in the 1999 House of Lords. It is therefore extremely well precedented. We have demonstrated within the past it can work. What it allows for and perhaps noble Lords were around 25 years ago will remember that the then former convener of the crossbenches Lord Wetherall moved an amendment which became known as the Wetherall amendment to reduce the number of Hereditary Peers to that 92 that exist at that moment.

This amendment seeks to remove that to reduce the size of the whole house to some 600 odd people. The bishops, incidentally, ask to do that. It does it by election. It is a well tested method. Reducing the size of the work it worked extremely well in 1999. And tonight I offer it up to the House. 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 and I hope that when the noble Baroness Leader of the House applies I know she will find it very difficult to accept but perhaps she will indicate that she finds the real attraction, finding an election, an electoral way of reducing the size of the House without relying on a kind of formula which so many noble Lords are trying to do in the past.

I offer it to the House and a very much hope that it has brought forward in a future bill

**** Possible New Speaker ****

in due course. I beg to move. Amendment proposed after close

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed after close one insert the new clause as printed on the Marshall list. I congratulate my Noble Friend

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I congratulate my Noble Friend Lord Strathclyde on tabling his very Lord Strathclyde on tabling his very sensible amendment 90 a. This amendment should find favour on benches because, as my Noble Friend said, it takes so many boxes. First, said, it takes so many boxes. First, it ensures that the Hereditary Peers that 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 II would provide some substantive reward and
22:58
Viscount Trenchard Portrait Viscount Trenchard (Conservative)
-
-
move the houses composition in the direction of a popular basis as direction of a popular basis as stated in the 1911 Parliament at. It introduces some democratic introduces some democratic legitimacy by allocating seats according to party blogs based on according to party blogs based on the average number of those cast in the last three general elections. I believe that position ensures that believe that position ensures that the composition of the House will provide a balanced major shift in provide a balanced major shift in public opinion which results in wide disparity in the House of Commons that is elected on a first party basis.

It gives a nod to PR since the voting strengths are determined on the basis of those cast and ensure that your Lordships house would provide stability and help to avoid dramatic shifts in policy, supported by the public, only if ever really. It should be supported by those of Lordships who agree with the Noble Lord burns as few 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 and that some members of the body in a different manner 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 which we enter your Lordships house.

It treats all holders to the writ of summons of the Parliament in an fashion. It would result in a house employing greater democratic legitimacy that would 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 who make a greater contribution. I think it is an excellent amendment and I ask the noble Baroness the Leader of the House to consider it seriously.
23:00
23:01
23:01
Lord True Portrait Lord True (Conservative)
-
-
I think at this hour and it's unfortunate in a way that my noble friend is carefully thought out amendment has come forward at this hour and at this time, it does draw on existing practice as was done in 1999, it does provide a way to get towards a number that the House of Lords might content might be content with it does address numbers apart -- issues of party balanced I take what the convener has just said about the specific interests and concerns of the crossbenchers.

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 of the fact that there is a lot in this bill about a finality, about an alleged completion of unfinished business. There are differences about what bit of businesses being finished or unfinished. What is absolutely clear, as I said at the start of our debate, is that the future of the House remains a floor.

Do you have to bend our thoughts and considerations to the future, as considerations are put forward by The Duke of Wellington and others in earlier amendments. We cannot have ease in this House, we cannot have security in this House unless the kind of arrangements, the kind of patterns of governance and composition, the kind of things that are addressed in my noble friend amendment. The way I always thought he was a passionate advocate of an elected house I have to say, he may well still be under the circumstances I don't know.

We really do have to find a way and noble Baroness earlier was talking about consultation and there was no specific timescale given in response to any of the amendments from Baroness Smith or from Lord Fowler or the noble Duke and what sort of timescale we might see some of the fog about our future lifted. There has to be some model, some mechanism, it might be close to what we have now, it might be something nearer to what my noble friend Lord Strathclyde suggests. We cannot have closure.

Unless we have an opening to the future and a better opening to the future than we have heard debates on this bill so far. debates on this bill so far.
23:04
Baroness Smith of Basildon Portrait Baroness Smith of Basildon, Leader of the House of Lords and Lord Privy Seal (Labour)
-
-
Again I think this is an ingenious amendment and I congratulate the noble Lord, I'm not sure if he wins the prize for tonight, or maybe lawn Lancaster does but both amendments are actually longer than the bill which is -- Lord Blencathra, which is an achievement when drafted legislation. On the point Lord of the opposition made, I want to say some thing I've raised several times, it is a three stage process from the manifesto. The first is from the manifesto. The first is this which was a completion which of reform started in 1999 around Hereditary Peers the second issue debated tonight and many times not for this bill but moving forward on the issues like participation and retirement, there is not an exact timetable we would get clear to that on the processes we go to report stage was then a longer directive consult a to the wider public on alternative second chamber.

It's not rocket science, I've been quite clear around that. This amendment though, and I say create a house of 600 members which I'm not sure that figure has been raised before by the noble Lord but happy to be corrected on that. To have elections, self- perpetuating elections by members of this House at the beginning of each Parliament and the only people who can vote will be members of this House. It also undermines the purpose of this bill because Hereditary Peers will be able to take part in those elections and stand for election and vote.

I think his proposals for future composition are interesting, taking into account points made by the convener. Doesn't address the wider issues of the House but I know the issues 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've given commitment to that earlier on tonight. But this amendment would underline that dialogue and engagement. I asked the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment. to withdraw his amendment.
23:06
Lord Strathclyde Portrait Lord Strathclyde (Conservative)
-
-
-- Undermine full stop I thank all noble Lords who have spoken. I say to Lord Newby I haven't given up the idea of an elected house but I am a realist. I don't think there is much thirst for it in this House and I'm not entirely convinced there is very much thirst for it in another place either. The fact that it didn't appear in the manifesto of the Labour Party rather indicates that you. We are still relying on the preamble for the 1911 act, and I join Lord Newby in trying to encourage a long-term solution around that.

I think 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 you can bring in but none of those are popular either. The idea of an election but it does work. It has been tried and tested and I hope that on reflection the noble Baroness the Leader of the House will feel that there is some purpose in this kind of amendment then brought forward that would change the whole debate about the size and number of 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

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to withdraw the amendment. Is it your Lordships pleasure that the amendment is withdrawn?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that the amendment is withdrawn? Amendment is by leave withdrawn. I beg to move the House to now be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

resumed. The question is that the House be now resumed. As many are of that opinion say, "Content", and of the contrary, "Not content". The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

contrary, "Not content". The I beg to move the House do now adjourn.
23:14
None Portrait Oral questions: Suspension of arms exports to Israel which they suspended, following remarks by Baroness Chapman of Darlington on 3 September 2024 Lord Howard of Lympne (Conservative)
-

23:14
23:14
None Portrait Oral questions: Suspension of arms exports to Israel which they suspended, following remarks by Baroness Chapman of Darlington on 3 September 2024 Lord Howard of Lympne (Conservative)
-

23:14
23:14
None Portrait Oral questions: Suspension of arms exports to Israel which they suspended, following remarks by Baroness Chapman of Darlington on 3 September 2024 Lord Howard of Lympne (Conservative)
-

23:14
23:14
None Portrait Oral questions: Suspension of arms exports to Israel which they suspended, following remarks by Baroness Chapman of Darlington on 3 September 2024 Lord Howard of Lympne (Conservative)
-

House House of House of Lords House of Lords - House of Lords - 25 House of Lords - 25 March House of Lords - 25 March 2025.
23:36
This debate has concluded
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page