King’s Speech

Baroness Jay of Paddington Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd July 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jay of Paddington (Lab)]

My Lords, I join all other noble Lords who have spoken in warmly congratulating my noble and learned friend Lord Hermer and my noble friend Lord Khan on their government appointments. My experience in your Lordships’ House, both in government and as previous chair of the Constitution Committee, is that your Lordships will always give very detailed scrutiny to any business described as constitutional, and your attention is particularly assiduous when measures refer to the House itself. Therefore, it is not surprising that many speeches this afternoon have concentrated on the composition of the House and the proposed exclusion of the remaining hereditary Peers.

Now, perhaps because I see myself almost as the grandmother of the current proposal, I am clear that this admittedly rather belated proposition is simply a completion of the terms of the 1999 Act—terms which allowed an agreed number of hereditaries to remain on a temporary basis. Those arrangements were agreed specifically as a temporary compromise, part of a well- understood process of transition. To quote the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, Lord Chancellor at the time, from Hansard of 11 May 1999:

“The transitional House which will be created as a result of the Bill will be exactly that: transitional and not permanent”.—[Official Report, 11/5/1999; col. 1092.]


I suspect I am not alone in not expecting that transition to last for 25 years—a quarter of a century—but I am extremely pleased that the new Labour Government are now acting so quickly to achieve further reform.

Several noble Lords have already said, and I agree with them, that over 25 years we have all been aware of the important contribution made to the House by several of the 92 hereditary Peers who have remained. I certainly recognise that and pay tribute to their contribution. However, I echo my noble friend Lord Grocott in saying that I do not think even they can have felt comfortable with the very odd process of by-elections for succeeding hereditaries, a process that sometimes has meant that the number of candidates for succession has exceeded the size of the electorate, and which, I am afraid, has undoubtedly damaged the reputation and standing of the House.

Today, acting to exclude the remaining hereditary Peers may appear a simple proposal but I have no doubt—and it has been suggested this afternoon—that there will be many detailed debates on the exact meaning and terms of the original transition proposal, and the rights of today’s hereditary Members. I look forward to those discussions but hope we can avoid some of the frustrating moments of earlier proceedings. For example, I vividly remember long debates—and, indeed, votes—about whether the 1999 reform should refer to “an” hereditary Peer or “a” hereditary Peer. There were times when legitimate scrutiny verged on delaying tactics.

Having made those points, and while I wholeheartedly welcome these limited proposals in the King’s Speech, I wish the Government had also included some of the related manifesto commitments. I would particularly have liked to see other measures to improve the appointments process and to manage the size of the House. In my view, both could be achieved by extending the remit and powers of the House of Lords Appointment Commission—improving HOLAC, in other words.

This week, I pulled out from the cabinet the 2001 White Paper optimistically called Completing the Reform. Perhaps not surprisingly, the same sorts of further measures that are now in the 2024 manifesto are explained and spelled out there. The earlier White Paper could almost be a blueprint for further contemporary action. The then Government proposed, for example, a statutory appointments commission, a cap on the overall size of the House—the number proposed was 600—and guaranteed numbers or proportions for the independent membership. It would be easy today to incorporate these proposals in another Bill, which could be rapidly introduced.

On the controversial issue of retirement from the House or rules on the length of service, I would certainly qualify for the Labour manifesto proposal that Peers should retire at the end of the Parliament in which they reach their 80th birthday, and personally I would be happy to accept this. But as a matter of policy, I would prefer the proposal of a 15-year term of service, and I hope this will be further considered.

Twenty-five years has certainly been a very long time for this transitional House to exist, but I have very high expectations that this Parliament can now achieve further proper reform. I look forward to that legislation and to the success of the Government’s entire programme.

Assisted Suicide

Baroness Jay of Paddington Excerpts

Wednesday 25th June 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I very much expect that there will be a debate. I responded to a profound debate introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, two years ago. Albeit the speakers were limited to one minute, there were concise and impressive arguments on both sides and I hope that the House will have an opportunity to hear these arguments again.

[Baroness Jay of Paddington (Lab)]

My Lords, following the point raised by the noble and learned Lord, in view of the Supreme Court judgment this morning, does he agree that one of the issues we debated at the time he referred to—that there should be much greater clarity about the prosecution policy for healthcare professionals—should now be looked at again? One of the inhibiting problems in this area is the sense that healthcare professionals who may be able to give proper and sensitive help to people in this position are inhibited from doing so.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, it is important to make a distinction between clarifying the policy and changing the law. The role of the Director of Public Prosecutions is not to change the law—that is a matter for Parliament. However, the Supreme Court encouraged the Director of Public Prosecutions to consider the policy. They did not think that she should be required to review it but offered her encouragement to do so. Obviously, as it has been less than six hours since the judgment was delivered, I am not sure what the Director of Public Prosecutions will do. However, I fully expect that she will want to give careful consideration to what the justices said.