House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 25th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Northbrook (Con)]

Before the Minister sits down, may I kindly ask him to comment on the claim by the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, that the amendments to the Bill in this group are too wide-ranging in scope? The clerks have been clear that amendments on the composition of your Lordships’ House are in scope on the basis that the removal of one group of Members is closely connected to, and has repercussive effects on, the wider membership. I believe it is against the practice of the House implicitly to criticise the clerks on the Floor of the House, which the noble and learned Lord appeared to do. Apparently, on 12 March the Government tabled amendments to change the scope and long title of the Employment Rights Bill. The Government have therefore done it on another Bill, so there is no need for the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, on this Bill.

[Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)]

My Lords, on behalf of the Government, I thank the noble Lord for his question. Obviously, it is not appropriate for the Government Benches to respond. The clerks have been clear, and we are discussing all amendments as laid out. We are on the second group of 12 today, so I beg we move forward.

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

My Lords, I am going to move forward by thanking everybody who contributed to that very interesting and informative debate. I did not declare an interest as a practising barrister—although of course I am—because I do not have any outstanding cases from the Supreme Court. The reason for that is that I received judgment in my last case in the Supreme Court only last week. Full disclosure—I lost. I knew things were bad when I saw in the draft judgment that the court had been very kind about how well I had argued it. That is always fatal; when the court is nice about the way you argue a case, it is going to decide against you. It is an immutable rule of English jurisprudence.

I am grateful for all the support I received on these points from various parts of the House, particularly from the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, who brought his experience to bear. I listened extremely carefully to what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, said about participation; that is a real issue. However, I was somewhat alarmed to hear that the first the Law Lords heard of the demise of that venerable institution was on the TV and that they had not been told in advance. I would have thought that a Labour Government would have wanted to tell people about any change in their—so to speak—employment status. Again, it is such a shame that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, is not among us.

As far as the noble Lord, Lord Newby, is concerned, the answer to the point he gave about individuals was precisely the point that was made by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, and that was made thereafter by my noble friend Lord Murray. I confess that whenever it comes to a bust-up between Gladstone and Disraeli, I will invariably be on the side of Disraeli.

I am grateful for the support from my noble and learned friend Lord Keen of Elie, both by way of him adding his name to my amendments and from his position on the Front Bench. I wonder whether the reason I received the advice that I would be effectively barred from becoming a judge—although the prospect of Wolfson J was always somewhat theoretical—was because I was becoming a Minister and not a law officer. I was a little surprised, but there we are.

I am extremely grateful to the Attorney-General for his response. He is right that there appears to be a consensus across the Committee that we need to find a way to have more judicial Members here, at the right time. I therefore look forward to continuing the conversation. I would make only one final point: my understanding is that so far as unamended Bills are concerned, in the previous Session only four Bills went through entirely without amendment. Two were money Bills, one was an emergency Bill and one was a Bill on animal welfare that had cross-party support. It is a somewhat worrying approach for a Government to say, ab initio, and before listening to the debate, that they will brook no amendments at all, even if they have cross-party support in principle, as this one has. With that caveat, I will withdraw my amendment.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 25th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I agree with my noble friend Lord Attlee’s remarks about the Wakeham commission report, which deserves examination.

I congratulate my noble friend Lord Dundee on his set of amendments. He has clearly thought extremely carefully about his approach and I fully agree that, as we go forward, we should primarily be guided by the functions of the House and their effective performance. How we should be constituted should flow primarily from that.

My noble friend has set out an ingenious and comprehensive scheme for reform and a mode of transition towards it. He proposes indirect elections. I fear it may be a personal fault in me to believe that, should there ever be an elected element in the upper House, it should be directly elected by the people, although I well understand the considerations that have led my noble friend to the conclusion he reached.

As my noble friend acknowledged, a number of the themes in his amendments have been discussed under their specific heads in other groups on the Bill. He will therefore forgive me if I do not pursue them again now. However, although I welcome his view that a strong independent element should remain in the House, the figure he suggests of over 30%—a third larger than the number of Peers allowed to the Government under his scheme—is surely too high.

If we were ever to have a written constitution— I venture to hope we should not—I am sure that the framers would wish to consult my noble friend on the details of his proposals for the House of Lords, given his careful consideration of the matter. In the interim, I thank him for his thoughtful and considered reflections. I am certain that they will be studied carefully by those in the future genuinely contemplating reform.

[Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)]

My Lords, I admire the ingenuity and ambition of the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, in tabling these amendments, in addition to the careful consideration he has given in presenting a package of reforms. He poses a range of questions about the future composition of your Lordships’ House. However, the noble Earl will understand that we cannot accept them, as we are currently engaging in wider discussions with noble Lords from across the House about the way forward.

The noble Earl will be aware of the Government’s long-term ambition for more fundamental reform by establishing an alternative second Chamber that is more representative of the regions and nations of the UK. The Government’s manifesto makes a commitment to consult on proposals to provide an opportunity for the public to contribute their views on how to ensure that this alternative Chamber best serves them. As an aside, I note that the noble Earl’s Amendment 79 does not include the public in the list of people whom the Secretary of State would be obliged to consult.

The Government are open to differing views on what an alternative second Chamber could look like. Nothing on this matter is settled and it is right that we continue the debate, including with the public at large.

With the greatest respect to the noble Earl, his amendments would put the cart before the horse and bring forward a comprehensive package of reform, not only before the public have had the chance to have their say but with a pre-empted outcome. I therefore respectfully request that the noble Earl withdraws his amendment.

[The Earl of Dundee (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful for the kind remarks from both Front Benches. I very much take on board the comment of the noble Baroness, Lady Anderson, about how the public should be consulted. On Report, perhaps one of the first things that it might be constructive to do is to bring back a revised amendment that incorporates that consideration.

If we agree that what should come first and foremost is the quality of legislative scrutiny and other high-standards benefits of this House, to which membership composition is secondary and subservient, then in the light of that prescription and within this grouping, your Lordships may agree that three aspects should perhaps be brought back on Report: first, the proportions and numbers indicated for different Benches in a reformed House; secondly, the role of the Appointments Commission; thirdly, that of the electoral college.

Fortunately, in the present House, the quality of legislative scrutiny is able to be as good as it is in spite of the political patronage system that appoints numbers here indiscriminately.

However, that system of indiscriminate appointments of numbers would, surely, undermine a reformed House, within which good-quality results are likely to be sustained all the same, provided that respective numbers are established in the first place, such as the proposed 200 non-political Cross-Benchers, having 50 more Members than the two main political parties, with 150 each. Having said that, I appreciate the comments of my noble friend Lord True, who takes the view that that might not work, while my view is that it could probably be made to work.

Although HOLAC or a statutory appointments commission is the way to increase as necessary the numbers of non-political Members in a reformed House, nevertheless, on Report a further amendment is needed to safeguard the reputation of the commission and its usual procedures of appointments against judicial challenge.

Equally, for the reasons already outlined, although an electoral college indirectly electing 400 political Members protects United Kingdom democracy better than direct elections of 400 political Members would, Amendments 75 and 79 should still both be revisited on Report, in connection with further evidence supporting, in comparison with direct elections for a reformed House of 600 temporal Members, the greater usefulness, authenticity and public benefit of the formula proposed, which consists of indirect elections for 400 political Members combined with commission appointments for 200 non-political Members.

Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 74 and will not press my other amendments in this group.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Finn (Con)]

My Lords, I start by making it clear that we value the contributions of all noble Lords in this House, regardless of whether they have served as Members in the other place or as special advisers in government. I say this with a smidgen of self-interest, as a former special adviser myself, and in full awareness that my noble friend Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay served as special adviser to my noble friend Lady May of Maidenhead, who, of course, is not only a former Member of Parliament but a former Prime Minister. Your Lordships’ House benefits a great deal from their service, as it does from many others who have come from the other place or through government.

None the less, these amendments raise the interesting question of what this House is for. It is reasonable to consider the broader experience that we need to fulfil our responsibilities. It is important that this House remains a distinct second Chamber and that we do not blur the lines between the two Houses.

Your Lordships’ House benefits from a large membership with broad experience and expertise, whether from former Members of Parliament or otherwise. The House of Lords Library has produced useful research in this area, which tells us that 21% of noble Lords have previously served as MPs in the House of Commons; that is 181 former MPs. Unfortunately—or perhaps fortunately—the House of Lords Library does not readily provide information on the number of former special advisers, but, as we know, there are at least three of us in the Chamber this evening. I understand why some noble Lords might consider a cap on the number or proportion of ex-MPs and special advisers, as proposed by my noble friend Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay’s amendments, to be beneficial and to ensure a balance of perspective and experience in your Lordships’ House.

The expulsion of our hereditary colleagues would deprive us of a huge amount of private sector experience, which cannot easily be replaced. The Bill stands to exclude chartered accountants and surveyors, the former president of the Heavy Transport Association and a former managing director of Paperchase. They are among many more examples of businessmen, entrepreneurs and industry titans whose perspectives we will greatly miss. We should not take their experience and expertise for granted; it is vital for the scrutiny of legislation that affects businesses, markets, industry, workers and employers alike, and our wider economy, that our private sector is properly represented by those who know and understand its operation.

Of course, having a background in politics does not preclude one from having other types of experience. Indeed, it is valuable experience in itself. Some of our most effective Members are those who have been here the longest and who have learned over the years how to get things done within Parliament and across government—critical skills in a legislative Chamber.

The other suggestion that we have discussed is what I consider a cooling-off period, as proposed by my noble friend Lord Parkinson’s Amendment 87. It is an interesting suggestion that might alleviate an external perception of political patronage and perhaps lighten the pressure on Prime Ministers to confer such patronage. However, I do not believe that it would be right for this House to limit the ability of a democratically elected Prime Minister to make the appointments that they wish.

As my noble friend pointed out, these amendments cause us to consider the House of Lords as our second Chamber. We fulfil a role that is very different from that of the other place. We have the time and ability to scrutinise and revise legislation in a way that the House of Commons does not, while respecting the will of the elected House. This House is one of the highest-quality revising Chambers in any democracy, and it is a role that the House rightly takes very seriously.

Your Lordships’ House has a constructive, consensual way of doing things. It should desist from becoming more party political and more like Punch and Judy than noble Lords are used to. We should be wary of any such trends. Your Lordships’ House works best when we treat each other with respect, making revisions and posing questions constructively. One of the many negative effects of losing our hereditary Peers is that we will lose a great number of those who act as the custodians of the conventions and manners of this House.

To conclude, I do not support the literal interpretation of the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, but I understand and sympathise with the intention with which they were tabled. We welcome the contributions and experience of all noble Lords, but it is right that we should reflect on what we will lose with the removal of our hereditary colleagues. It is also right that we reflect on the unique role that your Lordships’ House has in our parliamentary democracy and the need for us to uphold our distinct customs and conventions to continue that role. I thank my noble friend for giving us the opportunity to reflect on and debate these thoughtful proposals.

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

My Lords, this is an intriguing set of amendments, particularly given the professional experience of the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay. I declare my interest as a former Member of Parliament myself. I hope, as far as the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, is concerned, that it would be my stratospheric reputation that earned my place here—

[Noble Lords]

Hear, hear!

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

—although I may be slightly too young for the retirement home for ex-Members that the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, referred to.

Since I joined your Lordships’ House, I have had an unusual aspiration: to get “chutzpah” into Hansard—I look forward to seeing its spelling. I believe that the noble Lord’s amendments have given me such an opportunity. We are very lucky in your Lordships’ House to draw on a range of expertise from across public life, law, science, academia and the arts and cultural sector. We have former Permanent Secretaries of government departments, former or current vice-chancellors of universities, news editors and a number of former presidents of esteemed institutions, as outlined in the last group, and we even have BAFTA winners among us.

It is true that a significant proportion in this Chamber are former Members of Parliament: at the last count, it was 21%. We also have a number of former special advisers in this place—some are sitting on the Benches opposite me. I should declare at this point that I have many friends who are current and former special and political advisers. I do not think that is such a bad thing. Your Lordships’ House is predominantly a political house. The Prime Minister invites party leaders to nominate individuals to this place, and party leaders choose who should best represent them. It is likely that many of the people they nominate have a political background as special advisers or former Members of Parliament, Members of the Scottish Parliament, the Senedd or the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Both Houses work most effectively when we understand the day-to-day workings of the other. As a former MP, I have certainly found the experience of the other place very useful as we consider how this House can work best—and how much more effective we can be than some of my former colleagues in the other place. In addition, a number of noble Lords who have been Members of Parliament have also been Ministers. They have a deep understanding of departments and how the work we do here affects government and the delivery of public services.

Former special advisers, recent or otherwise, too have valuable experience to bring to your Lordships’ House. For some Peers, their time as a special adviser or political adviser was one role among many that have led to their appointment to your Lordships’ House and is not necessarily the reason they were appointed. The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, is an obvious example. He was a special adviser before he became an MP, but I do not believe that that is the reason he was appointed to your Lordships’ House. The same could be said on my Benches for my noble friend Lord Reid, who was also an adviser but held many posts in government.

There are many other former special advisers from across the House who bring valuable insights to our work, both from their days as special advisers but also often from outside this experience. Such perspectives are incredibly valuable in this place. They deepen and enrich our ability to scrutinise legislation and hold the Government to account. As someone who regularly signs off a significant number of Written Parliamentary Questions, I often reflect—to my genuine concern—on the insight held by former Ministers and special advisers about the mechanisms of government. They bring a genuine level of scrutiny and insight.

It is, of course, important that we maintain a non-party political element to the House of Lords. The Cross-Benchers especially provide specialist expertise and insights that we would not always find on the political Benches. As the Government have said repeatedly during these debates, it is just as much about what Peers bring to this House and their willingness to contribute to proceedings as about their experiences and achievements before they came to this place. After all, I note that the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, is truly proving his worth with his extensive contributions throughout Committee.

It is up to party leaders, including the Prime Minister, to decide who best represents their political parties in the House of Lords. It is right that they are able to choose who is most suitable. Restricting party leaders’ ability to choose knowledgeable, experienced figures to sit in this House just because they have a political background would be a disservice to us all. I respectfully request that the noble Lord withdraws his amendment.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply and for the most generous defence of special advisers that I have heard outside of the Thursday evening drinks we used to have at the Two Chairmen pub when I was in government, when the special advisers used to get together for a chinwag. I accept all the points she made, not just about special advisers but about Members of Parliament and the great contribution they bring, as I acknowledged in my speech. I see that as well.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 12th March 2025 Lords Chamber

One of that dozen was somebody who, I must admit, I had not heard of. I will not name him, as I think it invidious to single out individuals, and I understand that he does not enjoy good health. But he is named in today’s Guardian, which points out that he came to your Lordships’ House at the recommendation of the House of Lords Appointments Commission in 2007, did nothing at all in the previous Parliament and claimed more than £27,000 for doing it. There may well be good reason for that, and I just take that as one example to illustrate what we all know is an awkward and inconvenient truth of a phenomenon that can be seen, sadly, on all Benches in this House. If we are seeking to reduce the size of your Lordships’ House and to improve its public standing, I suggest that that is the place to start.

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord. I fear I have been set a challenge by my Leader to try to get Andrew Lloyd Webber’s lyrics into my speech, but with very little notice, so no one is going to cry for me today.

Before I start, I wish the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, a very happy birthday. I am sure he could think of no better way to spend his birthday than to be in a debate with your Lordships.

Since I joined in 2022, one of my favourite parts of being a Member of your Lordships’ House is the fact that every week I learn something. The calibre of debate in your Lordships’ Chamber is exceptional. When I am asked about it by my friends—who do not necessarily follow our debates as much as they should, although I believe my mother now watches every one—I suggest that, at least once a month, I have the privilege of listening to my own version of a Reith lecture. That is the quality of the debate that we have in this House, from those who the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, highlighted as high impact, and from noble Lords across your Lordships’ House. It is a privilege to be part of it, and I welcomed very much that part of the debate.

I thank all noble Lords who have contributed. The debate on this topic has been valuable and insightful. I am aware that the next group of amendments looks at different ways of devising a framework for the changes that have been discussed, so I will try to keep my remarks brief and confined to the attendance requirements outlined.

From debates that we have had in the past, as well as the one we have had today, it is clear that there is broad agreement that Members should attend and participate in the core functions of this House. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Newby, highlighted, that looks very different internally and externally when it comes to quality and the demands that we may make on each other.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, for sharing his data with the Committee and the Government, particularly my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal. It has provided a structure for the conversations that we are having.

As noble Lords will be aware, there are existing measures to remove Peers who fail to attend the House once during a Session, and this Government have indicated their intention to go further in relation to requiring participation. Although this Bill is not the right vehicle to make such a change, this debate has been very helpful in examining the ways in which it might be achieved.

There is rightly a public expectation—and, having listened to the debate today, an expectation among your Lordships—about how Members should contribute. That is why we are developing a new participation requirement, a process which could include looking at the attendance of Peers. It is my hope that we can work together across your Lordships’ House to define what this new participation requirement should look like and how often Members should attend. There are genuine arguments about the quality of attendance and participation, as the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, highlighted. The range of amendments tabled on this topic and those in the next group, which considers other forms of participation, demonstrates that, although we are not at that point yet, we are focused on finding some agreement. As the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, stated in his opening remarks, not even he has a firm view.

The amendments that we are debating in this group all identify attendance as the metric through which to judge a Member’s contributions to this place. As we will see when we come to debate the group of amendments concerned with participation, attendance is not the only way in which contributions could be measured. Is a simple requirement to attend the House for a certain amount of time, as proposed in the amendments tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Blencathra and Lord Lucas, the noble Earl, Lord Devon, and the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, a reasonable measure of participation, or should we be more specific about the type of activities that need to be undertaken? I will refrain from pre-empting the later debate on this point, but this will be an important matter to consider when we look to clarify what is expected of Members of this House.

Before we consider the means by which we introduce a new participation requirement, I suggest that we should think not about the previous attendance records of the current membership, as the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, has suggested in his amendments, but about a long-term solution that is fair to Members. A priority is to ensure clarity on what the right and expected level of participation is, whether it be attendance or some more specific contribution, and to ensure that this is adhered to in the future.

Briefly, I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, for the series of amendments that he has tabled to further shape the proposals for an enhanced attendance requirement. He has made a number of sensible suggestions that should be considered when addressing the matter of participation, such as whether a Member is on an agreed leave of absence. Any work on this area will need to include reasonable exceptions, such as those identified by the noble Viscount. There is a question about the implementation of any enhanced attendance requirement: should the requirement be comprehensively set out in legislation, or should the detail be left to this House to decide and subsequently set out in our Standing Orders, as proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas?

I will briefly address the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, on the commencement of the Bill—Amendments 101E to 101G. I addressed these amendments during Monday’s debate. They would bring forward removal of the hereditary Peers to Royal Assent of this Bill, and make the noble Lord’s other amendments subject to a further resolution of the House, potentially delaying the measures indefinitely should both amendments be successful. The Government cannot support this change to the commencement of the Bill. The arrangements currently set out seek to balance the timely delivery of a manifesto commitment that promised an immediate reform, while not undermining the business of the House. As I have previously noted, they follow the approach set in the 1999 Act.

It is clear that the Committee wants to discuss this issue, and we welcome the suggestions that have been brought forward as part of that. There is positive momentum behind ensuring that there are clear expectations of Members, but this Bill is not the right vehicle to introduce this change. I therefore respectfully request that noble Lords do not press their amendments.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to every noble Lord who has taken part in this debate. Again, as with retirement ages on Monday, we might be seeing some consensus on the proposals from the noble Earl, Lord Devon, supported by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull. I will very briefly rocket through the comments of some of those who have spoken.

I take the point made by my noble friend Lord Hailsham on retrospectivity. Others made that point as well and I think it would be possibly better. Well, the House would never approve that in any case—any changes would be for the future. He also made the point that there is a danger that a threshold would cause Peers to come in to speak just to get past the threshold.

The noble Earl, Lord Devon, with his idea of 10% of sitting days in the future, may be on to a winner. Of course, the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, again supported that. It was a very good point about the Writ of Summons. It is not something that occurred to me—that the Writ of Summons would suggest that we should attend more frequently than some noble Lords do. I think my noble friend Lord Dundee also said no retrospectivity, and he also supported the 10% agreement in future.

My noble friend Lord Astor said there is a danger that it would encourage people just to turn up. And what about those brilliant young men and women, the executives, who could not afford to do 15 days per annum? I say to my noble friend that a threshold of 15 days per annum is not too high for brilliant whizz-kid young executives. If they boast about doing 18 hours a day in the City, I am sure they could manage to turn up here for 15 days per annum.

Oh—I am sorry. I should say, first and most importantly, a happy birthday to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire.

The noble Lord, Lord Newby, was highly supportive of a minimum threshold level, but I suspect that his strong support from the Lib Dems will not enamour him to my noble friends behind and around me. Nevertheless, he did say that we would need future legislation on this. I say to the noble Lord and other noble Lords: look at my Amendment 32, coming up later, because there I see that, in order to avoid future legislation, we can take a special delegated power, a regulation, to make any amendments the House decides in future without further Acts.

My noble friend Lord Strathclyde also said no retrospectivity, and I think he supported 10% as well. My noble friend Lord Trenchard suggested about 15%, so long as the House does not change its sitting hours, and that is a valid point. My noble friend Lord Hannan made a brilliant speech as usual—tremendous rhetoric—and I agree entirely with him. Having 850 Peers on the books is not a real problem, and it is not a problem if only 450 turn up regularly and the others do not come. They are not claiming any money and there is no cost to the system. But the reason we are here, I say again, is that the Government say it is a problem. The Government say there are far too many Peers. The Government want rid of Peers and their solution is to get rid of 88 hereditaries, 70 of whom do turn up. I suggest it is better, if we want to reduce the numbers, to do it through the measure I propose here.

My noble friend Lord Dobbs supports the noble Earl, Lord Devon, and says that the Government should reach out across the House to try to reach agreement. The noble Lord, Lord Sentamu, criticised having these amendments to the Bill—but, as I said at the start, it is perfectly legitimate to amend any Bill. The Government have drafted it very narrowly. They do not have to draft it narrowly; it is legitimate to amend it.

My noble friend Lord Bellingham again supported the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull. He liked the idea of excluding those who do not turn up for six months at a time, following the Local Government Bill. It is an idea to be explored. My noble friend Lord Bethell said that parliamentarians need to appreciate—he thanked me kindly for raising this concept—that it is right that Peers do turn up.

My noble friend Lady Lawlor said that the Government should seek consensus across the House. I am grateful that my noble friend Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay said he found the Excel spreadsheets useful. He made a brilliant and witty speech. But I am not quite sure what percentage he would recommend to the House. If I missed that, I am sure I will be corrected later on. He played a very careful sitting-on-the-fence game, which is an important political skill.

As for the Minister, I like her generally warm welcome for the concept of a threshold, and I think she was being very honest and sensible in saying that. Of course, she says it is not for this Bill. Again, I refer her and noble Lords to my Amendment 32, which may solve that problem.

So I am pleased to have tabled these amendments and I take credit for two things. I think my amendments have provoked and prompted better amendments from some other noble Peers, and of course the Excel spreadsheets have given us all something of substance to talk and argue about. Without those spreadsheets, we would be talking in vague generalities.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 10th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Tugendhat (Con)]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Brady spoke very eloquently, but he did not refer to his Amendment 90C:

“A person can only be a member of the House of Lords if they are not a Minister of the Crown”.


I do not know why he did not refer to that, but it is a very bad idea.

One of the most striking features of politics in the more than 50 years since I was elected to the House of Commons is that as the diversity in gender and ethnicity has widened—which is a good thing—the diversity of life experience has narrowed considerably. When I was first elected to the House of Commons, there were people who had a lot of business experience, people who had been active in trade unions—

[Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)]

My Lords, the amendment that the noble Lord is speaking to is actually in group 18, whereas we are starting with group 1. We will debate Amendment 90C later.

[Lord Tugendhat (Con)]

Then I will move to the other amendment which I wish to speak to and take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Newby.

Democracy is the central feature of our governing system, and the House of Commons must always be the superior House. However, precisely because MPs’ experience has narrowed to the extent that it has, we have seen that the House of Commons has given up on its scrutiny function over time. When I was first elected, guillotines were very rare. They are now very common. Bills come up to this House that have barely been scrutinised.

My question to the noble Lord, Lord Newby, and those who support his amendment, is: would an elected House be interested in the scrutiny function? The House of Commons has its representative functions. It does a great deal of useful work in different areas, but in terms of scrutiny it has rather given up the ghost. That has been left increasingly to the House of Lords. That is not a desirable situation, but it is the situation that exists. Would an elected House have the interest in scrutiny that we need? If we did not have scrutiny in the second Chamber, we would not have enough scrutiny at all.

It would be wise to consider that a democratically elected second Chamber is not the only way forward. It may well be better to look at some alternatives and at the function first rather than the form. At the moment, we are all talking about the composition and the form of the House but not its function. If one looks at the function of the House, what system of election, selection, appointment—whatever—would be most appropriate?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

Before the noble Baroness sits down—

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

I apologise, my Lords. I think it might help everybody if I confirm the normal courtesies of the House. This is a debate and Members can take interventions, but they can also choose not to; that is in section 4.29 of the Companion.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

The noble Baroness made a very passionate speech in favour of democratic accountability. Why then did she not stand for the House of Commons instead of coming here?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Mancroft (Con)]

Before my noble friend sits down, will she join me in congratulating the Government Chief Whip on the brilliant management of business in the House this afternoon, whereby there is virtually nobody sitting on the Government Benches? Apart from the wonderful noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, and the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, representing the dinosaurs, I do not think a single Government Back-Bencher has spoken in support of the Government’s Bill today. They have now even brought in Ministers to sit behind the Front Bench so that everybody watching on screen thinks that the Government are being supported. This is not the sort of management of business that we expect to see in your Lordships’ House.

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

My Lords, what is so unfortunate is that I was about to welcome and celebrate the tone of the debate that we had just had. So I am going to move on with the tone of the debate and celebrate the contributions that noble Lords have made, which have been—in overwhelming number— thoughtful and considered. I am grateful for that. I think all noble Lords—as the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, highlighted—want the same thing for this House: colleagues who meet the highest standards of public service, who are dedicated to our country and who want to ensure that our legislation is fit for purpose.

The amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Newby, and the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, allow HOLAC to veto the Prime Minister’s and party leaders’ nominations to the House of Lords. The amendment from the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, also specifies HOLAC’s composition and purpose in statute. The Government are grateful for the discussion on these amendments today. We committed in our manifesto to reform the appointments process, but we cannot, unfortunately, accept these amendments, which fundamentally alter the roles and responsibilities in the appointments system.

Constitutionally, it is on the advice of the Prime Minister that the sovereign appoints new Peers, but it is not just the Prime Minister who makes these nominations. The Prime Minister, by convention, invites nominations from other political parties. After all, as was pointed out earlier in Committee, I was appointed by the former Prime Minister Truss. It is the responsibility of party leaders to consider who is best placed to represent their party in the House of Lords. This is an important principle. The Prime Minister and other party leaders are democratically elected and accountable to Parliament, and ultimately to the electorate, for the political nominations they make to the House of Lords.

The House of Lords Appointments Commission vets all nominations for life peerages to ensure the highest standards of propriety in this House. The amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Rising, would seek to make HOLAC’s advice defunct. If HOLAC recommended a nominee, the Prime Minister would be unable to proceed with their appointment. I hope it is obvious to your Lordships’ House why we cannot accept this, not least given the conversation we had earlier about People’s Peers. HOLAC’s proprietary advice is important to the Prime Minister as he discharges his duty to advise the sovereign on life peerages, and he of course considers it carefully. The Government are very grateful for the work that HOLAC, led by the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, does to provide this advice.

This advice, however, forms part of a process that also ensures democratic accountability in the appointment process. Party leaders must accept responsibility for their appointment. We cannot and should not expect HOLAC to take on that responsibility. Handing HOLAC, an unelected body, the role of recommending new life peerages directly to the sovereign, or giving them the power to veto the Prime Minister’s recommendations, as in the amendment put forward today, would undermine that accountability.

The Government believe that nominating parties should be properly held to account for their nominations to the House of Lords. As my noble friend the Leader of the House set out on the first day of Committee, we have already taken a straightforward but important step to introduce a requirement on all nominating parties to provide public citations that clearly set out why individuals were nominated. I was pleased to see the first set of citations published on GOV.UK following the recent peerage list in December of last year.

The amendment from the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, seeks to introduce a new oath for new Peers and requires HOLAC to be satisfied that new Peers will participate. This is a thoughtful suggestion, but, as a reminder, new Peers already sign our Code of Conduct when they take their seat. As we have said during the passage of the Bill, we are working on developing a participation requirement to ensure that we become a more active Chamber. It matters less what Peers say they will do than what they actually do when they come here. I am, however, grateful to noble Lords for their suggestions on how this could work and ways to take it forward.

More widely, the Prime Minister has made clear that he is committed to restoring trust in Parliament and takes the advice of all ethics bodies seriously. The Government are committed to keeping our ethics bodies under review and, where necessary, delivering reforms to ensure the highest standards in public life. Indeed, the Government have already demonstrated their willingness to strengthen the independent protections provided by the standards landscape. The Prime Minister has, for example, significantly strengthened the remit of the Independent Adviser on Ministerial Standards, ensuring they have the ability to initiate investigations into ministerial standards without requiring the Prime Minister’s consent. However, as I have made clear, the amendments proposed today would undermine the manifesto commitment to look at the current system and the democratic lines of accountability that currently exist in the appointments process.

I now turn to the amendment from the noble Earl, Lord Devon, which would give HOLAC the power to recommend 20 individuals to the sovereign for non-party political life peerages over the next five years. The Cross-Benchers bring expertise and diverse perspectives to the House, which I welcome, and I thoroughly enjoy working with many of them. They make valuable contributions. Retirements and other departures mean that new Peers will always need to be appointed to ensure that the Lords has appropriate expertise, and I acknowledge that the Bill will have a particular impact on the number of Cross-Benchers. As my noble friend the Leader of the House said to the Committee last week, she has committed to discuss this with the relevant parties.

As it stands, new Peers can be appointed to the Cross Benches through nominations by the House of Lords Appointments Commission. HOLAC runs an open-application assessment process to identify and select new Cross-Bench Peers, and the Prime Minister passes HOLAC’s nominations to the sovereign. Many excellent Peers have come to your Lordships’ House this way. The number of Peers that HOLAC is able to nominate is decided by the Prime Minister, and in doing so he of course takes into account the political balance of your Lordships’ House. Prime Ministers can also recommend a limited number of additional Cross-Bench appointments over the course of the Parliament for those with a record of public service. As with all new Peers, they are subject to propriety vetting by HOLAC.

I note that the noble Lord’s amendment allows HOLAC, rather than the Prime Minister, the role of recommending 20 life Peers to the sovereign. As I addressed earlier, constitutionally it is for the Prime Minister, as principal adviser to the sovereign, to recommend new life Peers. I appreciate that the purpose of this amendment is to ensure that the Cross-Benchers remain a significant presence in your Lordships’ House. To give HOLAC, an unelected body, the role of providing advice to the sovereign, even in this limited way, would, however, be a clear break from our constitutional arrangements—one that would require careful thought, as today’s debate has demonstrated, and one that the Government do not support or think necessary.

As we have repeatedly stated, the Government committed in their manifesto to reform the process of appointments to this place, to ensure the quality of new appointments and to improve the representative balance of the second Chamber so that it better reflects the country that it serves. We have heard—and I am sure we will continue to hear—interesting proposals from across the House, and we welcome the discussion on appointments. However, it is right that we take time to properly consider how to take forward our manifesto commitment to reform in this area, as part of the wider standards landscape, in a way that reflects the importance of those lines of democratic accountability. It is also not a debate for this Bill. As has been stated, this is a focused Bill that delivers the Government’s manifesto commitment to bring about an immediate reform by removing the right of the remaining hereditary Peers to sit and vote in your Lordships’ House. It is not the vehicle to consider all reforms to the House of Lords. I therefore respectfully ask noble Lords not to press their amendments.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for a typically interesting debate. As I said at the outset, we were not seeking a fundamental reform of the way that HOLAC operates; we were seeking to do something uncontroversial that I thought nobody could possibly disagree with. I have been in your Lordships’ House for only 27 years, so what do I know?

I say to the noble Lord, Lord Butler, that our amendment does not break the link between the Prime Minister and the monarch. The Prime Minister would still make the recommendations. I am sure there are many other areas in which the Prime Minister gives advice to the monarch where that advice is constrained by various outside bodies, so I am not persuaded by the noble Lord’s argument.

In a way, the problem was set out by the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, who said that the Prime Minister does not act alone. The truth is that he did act alone in this case. That is why we have the amendment. There was no constraint on the Prime Minister in making some proposals. HOLAC could not then do anything about it. I am not saying that it was a whim of the Prime Minister, or done without thought, but it was certainly his decision and his alone.

--- Later in debate ---

I found myself struck by the comment from the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, that we could do with a few more professors and a few fewer professional politicians. The trend he has identified of us becoming more a House of professional politicians is one that we have not taken consciously, but he is right to point out that we are sleepwalking into it. I am, however, pleased to say that we are not currently a House of professional politicians and I hope we do not become one. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s view on these amendments.

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

My Lords, it has been an interesting debate to listen to. I was brought up properly and told that you are never to discuss a woman’s age, but, in the context of the debate today, it does feel slightly relevant given my own, and that of the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson. I believe we are currently in the prime of our economic earning, in the phrase used by the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell.

The current average service of your Lordships’ House is 13.74 years, and the average age on appointment in the last Parliament was 56. I will be 57 if we get to 15 years of service, so I would be leaving very quickly and would still be a very young member of your Lordships’ House.

With regard to the substance of the debate today, these amendments concern the imposition of term limits, as we have discussed. It may be useful to summarise what the themes of the amendments in this group have been, not least because they demonstrate that there is not yet a consensus on next steps.

Amendment 13, tabled by the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth, provides for a 15-year term limit for life Peers. His proposal includes the possibility of applying to HOLAC for reappointment while providing that no Member can sit for more than 30 years in total. The noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, has sought to further amend this by proposing that Members can apply for reappointment only during the Parliament in which this Bill passes and not beyond. His amendments also seek to limit the length of reappointment to five years, therefore reducing the original total limit proposed by the noble and right reverend Lord from 30 to 20 years.

Amendment 66, tabled by the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso—in an excellent speech—goes for a term limit of 20 years, but also for life peerages granted after the end of this year. Amendment 73, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Llanfaes, would require the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament a draft Bill with proposals for a term limit of up to 10 years.

The underlying intent of the majority of these amendments is to reduce the size of your Lordships’ House—an aspiration the Government share. Some noble Lords, including the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, made clear that they were motivated by the principle that no one should automatically be a Member of this place for life. Both he and I have experienced that at the other end, so making it happen here seems appropriate.

The smattering of amendments in this group demonstrate a range of different ways that term limits could be introduced. It is clear there is not a settled view among your Lordships on the arrangements of introducing a term limit. More importantly, however, the Bill before this House today is not the legislative vehicle for implementing these issues. The Bill is focused solely on removing the right of hereditary Peers to sit and vote in this House. These amendments, while both thoughtful and considered, are not the central issue of this Bill.

Furthermore, the Government’s view is that the introduction of retirement age, as promised in our manifesto, is a more effective way of reducing our numbers, rather than the introduction of a term limit. As your Lordships are aware, my noble friend the Leader of the House has been having an ongoing dialogue with the House on how the manifesto commitment of introducing a retirement age can best be implemented. The Leader has already had in excess of 60 meetings and she is keen for that dialogue to continue. With respect, these amendments would cut across those conversations. With this in mind, I respectfully ask noble Lords not to press their amendments.

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

I beg leave to withdraw the amendment standing in my name.

Patrick Finucane Murder

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Excerpts

Thursday 12th September 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement on the murder of Patrick Finucane, made in another place yesterday by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. The Statement is as follows:

“Patrick Finucane was a human rights lawyer. On 12 February 1989, he was brutally murdered in his home in north Belfast by the loyalist paramilitary group the Ulster Defence Association, in front of his wife, Geraldine, who was wounded, and his three children, one of whom is now the honourable Member for Belfast North. From that day onwards, Mrs Finucane and her family have campaigned tirelessly in search of answers about the killing of their loved one.

In 1990 an inquest was opened and closed on the same day with an open verdict. Subsequently, a number of investigations and reviews were conducted. In 2001, following the collapse of power-sharing, the UK and Irish Governments agreed at Weston Park to establish public inquiries into a number of Troubles-related cases, if recommended by an international judge. Judge Peter Cory was appointed to conduct a review of each case, and in 2004 he recommended that the UK Government hold public inquiries into four deaths: those of Rosemary Nelson, Robert Hamill, Billy Wright and Patrick Finucane. Judge Cory also recommended that the Irish Government establish a tribunal of inquiry into the deaths of former Royal Ulster Constabulary officers Bob Buchanan and Harry Breen. Inquiries were promptly established in all those cases, with one exception: the death of Mr Finucane.

Meanwhile, in 2003, the third investigation by Sir John Stevens into alleged collusion between the security forces and loyalist paramilitaries had concluded that there had been state collusion in Mr Finucane’s killing. That investigation was followed by the conviction in 2004 of one of those responsible, Ken Barrett. With criminal proceedings concluded, the then Northern Ireland Secretary, Paul Murphy, made a Statement to Parliament setting out the Government’s commitment to establish an inquiry, but despite a number of attempts, the Government were unable to reach agreement with the Finucane family on arrangements for one.

In 2011, the coalition Government decided against an inquiry. Instead, a review of what had happened, led by Sir Desmond de Silva QC, was established. Sir Desmond concluded that he was left

‘in no doubt that agents of the state were involved in carrying out serious violations of human rights up to and including murder’.

The publication of his findings in 2012 led the then Prime Minister, David Cameron, to make an unprecedented apology from this Dispatch Box to the Finucane family on behalf of the British Government, citing the

‘shocking levels of state collusion’—[Official Report, Commons, 12/12/12; col. 296.]

in this case.

In 2019, the Supreme Court found that all the previous investigations had been insufficient to enable the state to discharge its obligations under Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The court identified a number of deficiencies in the state’s compliance with Article 2. In particular, Sir Desmond’s review did not have the power to compel the attendance of witnesses; those who met Sir Desmond were not subject to testing as to the accuracy of their evidence; and a potentially critical witness was excused from attendance. In November 2020, the then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland announced that he would not establish a public inquiry at that time, pending the outcome of continuing investigations, but that decision was quashed by the Northern Ireland High Court in December 2022.

This Government take our human rights obligations, and our responsibilities towards victims and survivors of the Troubles, extremely seriously. The plain fact is that, two decades on, the commitment made by the Government—first in the agreement with the Irish Government, and then to this House—to establish an inquiry into the death of Mr Finucane remains unfulfilled. It is for that exceptional reason that I have decided to establish an independent inquiry into the death of Patrick Finucane, under the Inquiries Act 2005.

I have, of course, met Mrs Finucane and her family—first on 25 July to hear their views, and again yesterday to inform them of my decision. Mrs Finucane asked the Government to set up a public inquiry under the 2005 Act, and, as I have just told the House, the Government have now agreed to do that, in line with the 2019 Supreme Court ruling and the Court of Appeal judgment of July this year.

In making this decision, I have, as is required, considered the likely costs and impact on the public finances. It is the Government’s expectation that the inquiry will, while doing everything that is required to discharge the state’s human rights obligations, avoid unnecessary costs, given all the previous reviews and investigations and the large amount of information and material that is already in the public domain. Indeed, in the most recent High Court proceedings, the judge suggested that an inquiry could

‘build on the significant investigative foundations which are already in place’.

As part of my decision-making process, I also considered whether to refer the case to the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery. The commission has powers comparable to those provided by the Inquiries Act to compel witnesses and to secure the disclosure of relevant documents by state bodies—powers identified by the Supreme Court as being crucial for the Government to discharge their human rights obligations.

The commission was found, in separate proceedings in February this year, by the High Court to be sufficiently independent and capable of conducting Article 2-compliant investigations, and while I am committed to considering measures to further strengthen the commission, I have every confidence in its ability, under the leadership of Sir Declan Morgan, to find answers for survivors and families. However, given the unique circumstances of the case, and the solemn commitment made by the Government in 2001 and again in 2004, the only appropriate way forward is to establish a public inquiry.

Many of us in this House remember the savage brutality of the Troubles—a truly terrible time in our history—and we must never forget that most of the deaths and injuries were the responsibility of paramilitaries, including the Ulster Defence Association, the Provisional IRA and others. We should also always pay tribute to the work during that time of the Armed Forces, police and security services, the vast majority of whom served with distinction and honour, and so many of whom sacrificed their lives in protecting others.

It is very hard for any of us to understand fully the trauma of those who lost loved ones—sons and daughters, spouses and partners, fathers and mothers—and what they have been through. There is of course nothing that any of us can do to bring them back or erase the deep pain that was caused, but what we can do is seek transparency to help provide answers to families and work together for a better future for Northern Ireland, which has made so much progress since these terrible events. I hope that the inquiry will finally provide the information that the Finucane family has sought for so long.

The Government will seek to appoint a chair of the inquiry and establish its terms of reference as soon as possible, and I will update the House further. I commend this Statement to the House”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Suttie (LD)]

My Lords, I too welcome the Minister to her place and look forward to working constructively with her, not least on legacy issues, over the months ahead.

From these Benches we strongly welcome yesterday’s Statement by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland for both its measured tone and its content. We welcome that there is finally to be a public inquiry. The brutal murder of Patrick Finucane was one of the most shocking and controversial incidents that took place in Northern Ireland during the Troubles. The Finucane family has had to wait more than 35 years for justice, and we can but hope that this inquiry can begin to result in some closure for them after all these years.

It is extremely important that the public inquiry being established will have the confidence of the public and all the powers necessary to carry out its job in full. In that regard, can the Minister confirm that the inquiry will be able to compel witnesses and secure all relevant documents? Can she say a little more about the likely process, conditions and timetable for appointing the chair of the inquiry?

On wider legacy issues, the Minister will recognise that there are so many other families in Northern Ireland who are still waiting for truth and justice. With the ICRIR in place, and the commitment of the Government to repeal the immunity section of the legacy Act, it is important that we have clarity on these matters as soon as possible, including how the inquiry will relate to the ICRIR. Can she say how and when we are likely to be informed about the process and timing of repealing the immunity section of the legacy Act? In his Statement, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland said that he was committed to considering measures to “further strengthen” the ICRIR. Can the Minister say how and when she expects this to take place?

Finally, I welcome the response of the Northern Ireland Secretary to my honourable friend James MacCleary MP yesterday that there will be close co-operation with opposition MPs on wider legacy issues. Can the Minister provide reassurances that Members of this House will also be kept fully informed at every stage of this process?

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Caine, for his extensive service—the decades of work for peace in Northern Ireland—and I look forward to working with him to ensure that his legacy, and the legacy work that we will do, goes forward. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, for her welcome. I look forward to working with them both, and with all Members of this House, on all the issues raised today.

As this is my first outing at the Dispatch Box, before I move on I want to thank the many noble Lords who have worked to deliver peace in Northern Ireland. I was born in 1979. At the time of the atrocity we are discussing, I was nine years old. This is my history, and all of our history, but I lived through the benefit of peace because of the work done by so many noble Lords. I, and many others, are grateful for it.

The murder of Patrick Finucane was one of four cases for which the Government committed to establishing a public inquiry following the findings of Judge Cory. It is important to remember what was agreed at Weston Park. Inquiries were established in three cases—the murders of Rosemary Nelson, Robert Hamill and Billy Wright—but not in the case of Patrick Finucane. This is how we can complete the promises and pledges made in this House and to those families as we move forward with the next stage of legacy.

I wish to put on record my deepest sympathies to the Finucane family and to all those touched by the Troubles. It is the considered view of the Secretary of State, and a commitment that the Government have made this week—having held this view consistently since 2001—that there will be a public inquiry into the case of Patrick Finucane. Although the court found that the previous investigations did not meet our Article 2 obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights, they did help provide crucial information, and, as was the case following the third of the Stevens investigations, a successful prosecution of one of those involved in the murder.

As was set out in the Statement, the Government have full confidence in the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery, under the leadership of Sir Declan Morgan, to deliver for victims and families. As has been published by the commission this week, and referenced by the noble Lord, Lord Caine, 85 families have already approached the commission with their case—a positive endorsement of the new body. Eight of those requests for information are now at the information recovery stage.

As has been set out, the commission has powers comparable to those of a public inquiry—namely the powers to compel witnesses and to secure the disclosure of relevant documents by state bodies. Crucially, the courts have ruled that the commission can deliver investigations compliant with Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights. For these reasons, as was set out to Parliament by the Secretary of State, the Government have chosen to retain the commission. However, we have listened to the concerns of victims and families, and acknowledge that many wish to have a choice as to which avenue they pursue to get the answers and justice that they deserve.

That is why, in his Written Ministerial Statement to Parliament just before the Summer Recess, the Secretary of State set out his plans to propose measures to allow inquests that were brought to an end by the legacy Act to recommence, and to reverse the Act’s current prohibition on bringing new civil claims. The Government are also exploring how we can further strengthen the independence and powers of the commission, in addition to repealing the conditional immunity provisions in order to build public confidence in the commission across all communities.

I now need to answer the questions that were asked. I was asked about repealing, and how and when we will do it. We are currently consulting with all parties and all communities on what will work for them, and what they need to give them confidence in the commission. As the noble Lord, Lord Caine, said, the commission is now established—it exists. We need to ensure that it has the trust of all communities, some of which is lacking, and to establish what additional powers we need to give to Sir Declan Morgan to ensure that there is confidence across the communities.

Timings regarding the public inquiry that we have announced will follow in due course, but let us be clear: the Finucane family have waited 35 years for answers, and we will do everything we can to ensure that the process is as speedy as it can be. We wanted to update the House before 27 September, which was the legal deadline agreed, to make sure that your Lordships’ House was aware of the next steps. I will return to the House once we have appointed a chair, and with that chair negotiated and agreed the terms of reference.

The noble Lord, Lord Caine, asked about the costs associated with the commission. He knows better than I that a huge amount of work has already been done on the Finucane case, some of which is publicly available and some of which is not. On that basis, we believe that the terms of reference can be negotiated and delivered in such a way that costs can be managed, and that we can work with the family and all partners to ensure that this can be delivered on time, quickly, and, I hope, to budget.

The Government are mindful of the many years that Mrs Finucane and her family have been waiting for this inquiry, and of the decades that have passed since the commitment at Weston Park, which was signed by my noble friend Lord Reid. As such, we are keen to deliver the inquiry as quickly as is practicable, as it is the only outstanding case. However, as noble Lords will appreciate, due process must be followed, and it will inevitably take some time to work through all the necessary stages and preparatory work in setting up the inquiry.

We all remember the savage brutality of the Troubles and their legacy—a truly terrible time in our history. Peace can never be taken for granted. We must work every day to ensure that the Troubles remain part of our history, not of our future. By ensuring that families have access to all available information, and working together on delivering the promises of Weston Park and the Stormont agreement, we can ensure that the building blocks of legacy help us to deliver peace and reconciliation in the future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

My Lords, I want to put on record my tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Dodds. His comments demonstrate the level of hurt that we are still touching on every time we discuss the Troubles, and the pain that so many people are still experiencing. There is very little I can say to give reassurance in terms of the specifics of his pain and that of those he touched on, but I reassure him that there is no hierarchy here. This is a unique case that was discussed and agreed in 2001 at Weston Park. We are ensuring that we deliver, as we did on the inquiries for Billy White, Robert Hamill and Rosemary Nelson. The case of Patrick Finucane is the only case in which this long-standing commitment to establish an inquiry had yet to be met, until yesterday. However, I appreciate the noble Lord’s concerns and look forward to working with him to ensure that the rest of the legacy programme is fit for purpose and that every person who was touched by the Troubles feels that they have the appropriate access to justice and truth.

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

My Lords, I welcome my noble friend to the Front Bench and the decision of the Secretary of State to grant a public inquiry into the murder of Patrick Finucane, an incident I recall well. I also point out that all murders in Northern Ireland, carried out by paramilitaries or state forces, were totally wrong, inappropriate and unacceptable. I have two questions to ask the Minister. When will there be a repeal of the legacy legislation and a definite move towards inquests, investigations and inquiries to solve the problems and challenges faced by victims and survivors of the Troubles? Will the Government withdraw the application by the previous Secretary of State for a judicial review of the decision of the coroner in March this year into the case of Sean Brown, which was also mired in collusion?

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend Lady Ritchie for her questions. The Secretary of State has made it clear that the Government will repeal and replace the legacy Act, including by reversing the prohibition on bringing new civil proceedings and proposing measures to allow inquests that were previously halted. As the Secretary of State said in the other place yesterday, the Government are now in the process of consulting all interested parties about how to give effect to the repeal and replace the commitment in the gracious Speech. We will bring that forward as quickly as possible. The Government are also in the process of addressing the incompatibility findings of the High Court and, when parliamentary time allows, we will lay a draft remedial order under Section 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998 to remove the offending provisions from the statute book.

It would not be appropriate for me to comment here on the specific case mentioned by my noble friend, but I reaffirm the commitment made by the Secretary of State yesterday that the Government will carefully consider each individual case in order to reach a sensible way forward.

[Lord Rogan (UUP)]

My Lords, I, too, welcome the Minister to her place. In an article published in today’s Belfast Telegraph, John Finucane, the son of Pat Finucane, writes:

“Everyone on our island who has been affected by horrific past events are entitled to full truth and justice”.


I wholeheartedly agree. The Finucane family, having previously turned down an inquiry in 2005, have now secured one on their terms. However, countless other families who lost loved ones to terrorism in Northern Ireland will never receive such preferential treatment. As the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, asked, can the Minister explain to those families why their lives and those of their fathers, mothers, sons or daughters mean less to the Government than the late wife of Pat Finucane? Further, noble Lords will note that in his article, John Finucane calls for everyone on “our” island to be given full truth and justice. As such, will the Minister update the House on what discussions her colleagues are having with their counterparts in Dublin, with a view to the Irish Government co-operating fully with a public inquiry into the Omagh bomb that claimed the lives of so many, on both sides of the border?

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, for his questions and note his pain and disappointment. I am grateful for his comments about the Finucane family and for recognising the steps we need to take. On the specifics of his question, I can only say to all families of the Troubles that my heart goes out to them, and that this Government will do everything in our power to ensure that they have access to justice and to the information they need to ensure a level of personal peace and closure. We will review every case as and when it comes in front of the Secretary of State. If the noble Lord would like to discuss anything specific with me, I look forward to meeting with him. On the issues about all of Ireland, members of the NIO meet the Government of Ireland regularly to discuss this and all matters, and we will continue to do so to further the cause of peace.

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

In welcoming the Minister to her job, I tell her that she is going to be very busy, particularly now that we have lost the Windsor Framework Sub-Committee, which I hope can be brought back. The Minister must understand that this will be seen by many people as a kind of hierarchy of victims. Many victims, particularly in rural areas, saw their families destroyed by IRA terrorism, and there has been nothing—no inquiries, no money, nothing spent—to get to the truth of that. We must make sure that everyone feels that they are being treated equally. We must make sure that the money spent on this is spent in a way that ensures that we get to the truth. I think we have already got to the truth. I see no unique circumstances, and I wonder whether, as was asked earlier by another noble Lord, she can say what the unique circumstances are, after all the other inquiries and all the money that has been spent. Of course, I think we all know what the unique circumstances are that the Government are referring to, but that will not satisfy people in Northern Ireland. Given that we all have confidence in Sir Declan Morgan, and that the Secretary of State made that clear in his Statement, I do not understand why this could not have been sent, as it should have been, to the ICRIR. This is sending out a message that the Government do not believe that Sir Declan Morgan could handle the case, and that is very sad indeed.

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

My Lords, I want to make it clear and put on the record that there is no hierarchy of pain or justice. Everybody touched by the Troubles deserves answers; it is why and how we engage in legacy that is so important. Yesterday’s decision by the Secretary of State is the fulfilment of our commitment made at Weston Park 23 years ago—many years before the establishment of the commission and the appointment of Sir Declan Morgan. However, I am delighted that Sir Declan Morgan has the confidence of the noble Baroness, and I look forward to working with her in the months and perhaps years ahead, depending on how long my appointment lasts, as we discuss these issues in great depth.

[Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)]

My Lords, I welcome my noble friend to the Front Bench. I am sure she will do a wonderful job as the spokesperson on Northern Ireland. When I was Secretary of State, I received the Cory report, which recommended four public inquiries. We agreed on three, but then deferred the Finucane inquiry for a bit longer because of prosecutions. Then, 20 years ago, as stated in the Statement, I made a commitment in the House of Commons to hold a public inquiry. For various reasons, that did not happen. So it is timely that that is happening now. I very much welcome this Statement and hope it will be the end of a very painful matter. I ask my noble friend, first, about the timescale for this—although she has touched on that—and, secondly, about the consultation that has been held with Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Northern Ireland Executive. It is extremely important that there is a great deal of their involvement in this, and also—it has been test-run by the noble Lord, Lord Rogan—with the Irish Government and the Government of the United States of America.

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

There are so many noble Lords in this House who participated and delivered peace in Northern Ireland—none more so than my noble friend Lord Murphy. I am very grateful, both for his mentorship and for the work that he did throughout his time as Secretary of State and that he continues to do to ensure that these matters are raised on a regular basis.

On the specific questions that my noble friend raised, he will know much better than I, given his former roles, that on the timescale, as fast as we may wish to go, we have responsibilities under the Inquiries Act 2005, which we will follow, and we will report to the House in due course. We hope to establish the public inquiry as quickly as possible, and I look forward to returning to your Lordships’ House with more detail as quickly as I can.

With regard to the consultation on future legacy arrangements that I believe my noble friend was touching on, we will of course be working with the Northern Ireland Assembly and Executive to make sure that they are fully engaged in our future arrangements, and that any future changes to the legacy Act have their confidence to deliver for the people of Northern Ireland. On that note, I want to put on record how delighted the Government are that both the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Executive are up and running and that their programme for government was published this week. In terms of engagement with the Republic of Ireland, before we announced the inquiry, the Secretary of State engaged with the Tánaiste, Micheál Martin, and spoke to the First Minister and Deputy First Minister in Northern Ireland to make sure that everybody was up to date and informed before a decision was made.

[Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)]

My Lords, I join others in welcoming the noble Baroness to her place. She said that the Finucane family had been waiting for many years—30 years—for answers. Well, my family has been waiting 48 years for answers. Nobody has been brought to court. No one has been charged. Yet we are left with the same heartache and heartbreak that they say the Finucane family has. The Finucane family has already had millions of pounds spent on investigations. Is the message from this Government that there is a hierarchy of victimhood in Northern Ireland and that, as far as the Government are concerned, the ICRIR will be good enough for the rest but not for the Finucanes? Is it “he who shouts the loudest” who seem to be the only ones that hurt?

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

My Lords, I am so sorry to hear of the heartbreak and heartache that the noble Lord has had for the last 48 years. Every victim of the Troubles deserves information, peace and closure. We will do everything that we can to support every victim in making sure that they know the reality of what happened and how it happened. As I have said, there is no hierarchy in this area—no hierarchy of pain, no hierarchy of justice. We made a commitment in 2001 to four public inquiries. We are delivering on the one that is outstanding, following on from the court decisions and the processes that have been followed. With regards to the commission, I am aware of the noble Lord’s previous concerns about the legacy Act. I look forward to working with him and Members across the House as we move forward with amendments to the legacy Act and we seek to ensure that it and the commission have the confidence of every member of the community.

[Lord Austin of Dudley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, and pay tribute to the work he has done over so many years in this area. Of all the appointments made by the Government since the election, none has pleased me more than to see my noble friend on the Front Bench, although I do not envy her the work she will have to do on this. I am sure she can look forward, for example, to families in Birmingham renewing their demands for a public inquiry into the pub bombings in 1974. It sems to me that the only beneficiaries now are the lawyers. These inquiries always take longer and cost more than the Government think they will. So at what point will we draw a line under all of this and use this money instead for economic development in Northern Ireland, for investment in schools, jobs, reconciliation and peacebuilding, and bringing young people from both communities together, so that the people of Northern Ireland can look forward to an even brighter future?

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for his incredibly generous comments. We will see whether I live up to them—or not—in due course. Given the noble Lord’s role in the last Labour Government, he will be aware that every penny we can spend on economic development and regeneration itself acts as a bridge to peace and to moving on from the Troubles. However, people still need answers. One of the things we have heard in your Lordships’ House today is that people’s hurt is still tangible. We need to do everything we can to provide closure and to move forward on behalf of all the families and all those touched by the Troubles throughout my lifetime.

[Lord Caine (Con)]

My Lords, as there are a few seconds left, I thank the Minister for her answers this afternoon. When she looks at Hansard, she may notice that she missed one or two of my specific questions. I would be very grateful if she could go away with her officials—some of whom I spy out of the corner of my eye—and possibly write to me with some detailed answers to the questions I put.

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

Of course, I apologise if I did not get to all of your Lordships’ questions, and specifically to the noble Lord, Lord Caine. I will check Hansard for the full debate and respond appropriately.