Lobbying Transparency (In-house Lobbyists) Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Barker and Lord Hayward

2nd reading
Friday 3rd July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to speak in the gap. I did not put my name down to speak because I was at a Madonna concert last night and I was not absolutely certain that I would be available. That is relevant, in that I was a guest of a major company. That company was Grindr, and the question about lobbying is relevant in terms of the actions of major companies. I noticed a number of noble Lords’ response to my presence at the gig last night; it looked like jealousy.

The important thing about this welcome Bill from the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, is that it raises questions about how people lobby now. We have heard a lot of contributions about how circumstances have changed, particularly concerning those people who are paid but do not, at the moment, have to declare the fact that they are actually lobbying. One of the groups that comes to mind is lawyers. Lawyers will claim client confidentiality or say that it is a peripheral interest, but if they are paid to represent a particular view or to advise in relation to a particular issue, it is appropriate that major law firms—or small law firms, for that matter—should be obliged to disclose what they are doing in the same way that others who will be affected by the noble Baroness’s Bill should be required to disclose their actions.

In conclusion, I agree with the questions that the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, raised about some of the implications of the Bill, because it is easy to pass a piece of legislation and think, “Oh, it doesn’t affect small businesses”; there has been reference to small businesses. Every bit of regulation that impacts on a small business adds to cost. Therefore, there are two ways of looking at, or exempting, certain circumstances or occasions that have been cited about private conversations and the like. One way is to ask whether they are paid to do so, and the other is some form of de minimis turnover that might apply in relation to small businesses. It is just too easy to say, “Oh, well, it’s just a little sum of money”. Lots of little sums of money can send a lot of small businesses under and we certainly would not want that to happen. But in broad principle, I welcome the Bill’s objective because it brings us up to date with where we are in terms of lobbying in 2026.

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Barker) (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, is hoping to take part remotely, but he has been having audio problems. It appears that the problems have not been resolved, therefore I call the noble Lord, Lord Pack.

Northern Ireland (Executive Formation) Bill

Debate between Baroness Barker and Lord Hayward

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard - continued): House of Lords
Monday 15th July 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

My Lords, perhaps I may help to expedite matters at this point. I listened to the contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Morrow. It is important to note that we have disagreed on a number of aspects of the legislation over the past few days and will probably continue to do so. However, on this matter, as far as I am concerned, the intention is to take the protections we have both for those who hold religious views and individuals on the other side who may have particular views, and protect them as well. We are talking here about the same thing: taking what is essentially in place in England and Wales and transferring it across to Northern Ireland. I have no idea of precisely what the Minister is going to say, but it is my view and that of others from where we stand.

[Baroness Barker (LD)]

My Lords, I speak as someone who has had the great joy of recently being married under the legislation as it applies in England and Wales. I simply observe to the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, that, as someone who wished to be married, I had absolutely no wish to do so in a place or in circumstances that other people would have found offensive. That would have been deeply offensive to me. I wished to celebrate in my community, and I did. I was quite happy to abide by the laws of this country, which insist that my marriage had to be completely secular. It was a wonderful, wonderful experience and I hope that many other people, including my brothers and sisters in Northern Ireland, will be afforded the similar dignity.

Like the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, I think we are closer on this than we are on other issues, but my one concern is this. It is to be found in proposed new subsection (1A)(e) in the amendment, which refers to education. I understand that in the preceding proposed new paragraphs, the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, seeks to obtain the same provisions that obtain in England and Wales, but I am not sure that how the proposed new paragraph is worded is exactly the same. It may go further, because in England and Wales we debated the matter of schools elsewhere. I simply say to the noble Lord that I have concerns about that aspect of his amendment, but I hope that the Minister will be able to accept the majority of what the noble Lord has put forward and address this matter in his response.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Barker]

I am suggesting that these matters could have been put before Members of the Assembly. Indeed, as has been said, they have already been put before the Assembly, which failed to move them forward. I return to the point I made in earlier speeches. At the moment, there are people in Northern Ireland losing hope because no one is expressing views about the things affecting their lives. The amendment simply returns those people to a counsel of despair.

[Lord Hayward]

My Lords, I will briefly follow the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, and echo what she said about blocking amendments. I take the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, about time pressure, but there is what one might describe as somewhat unparliamentary or unlegislative language in the first condition. The amendment then goes on to refer to,

“the proposals in each of the regulations”—

in other words, you consult on each regulation individually with each of the MLAs and other people. Therefore, the effect of this amendment is not to have a broad consultation. In reality, it is a blocking amendment. That is the only way this can be read, even if one reads it as having been drafted in the inevitable speedy circumstances to which the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, referred.

I was trying to be helpful on the previous amendment. On this amendment, I am afraid that I find myself looking at what I regard as nothing more and nothing less than a blocking amendment.