House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Baroness Lawlor Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 9th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, as probably the most recently retired unpaid Minister, I acknowledge the shop stewarding role of the noble Lords, Lord True and Lord Forsyth. Clearly, they raise an issue of principle. As they have set out, the issue is around a Prime Minister’s management of MPs in the Commons and both Acts of 1975. Although I do not think this amendment is really appropriate in this Bill, it is a substantive issue and it is clearly unacceptable that Ministers of the Crown are unpaid. It reduces the talent pool from which to choose, and it has a flavour of cricket 50 years ago and gentlefolk amateurs. That is quite unfair, but it gives a flavour of those compared with professional politicians.

How can this be solved? Of course, Prime Ministers could exercise rather more restraint over the number of Commons Ministers who are appointed—good luck with that. As the noble Lord, Lord True, said, we could also bring forward a little Bill to increase the number of paid Ministers allowed. I cannot believe—and the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, put his finger on it—that a Government would ever increase the number of paid Ministers in the febrile atmosphere in which we currently operate.

It is worth acknowledging that the inflation has gone down a bit. Research from the Library shows that in 2010, the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, had 118 Ministers, which, by my reckoning, means at least nine were unpaid. The noble Baroness, Lady May, had a similar figure in 2015. Mr Johnson had nine unpaid in December 2019, according to a Parliamentary Answer. My figures show that Mr Sunak increased it to 17 unpaid Ministers, 15 of whom were in your Lordships’ House.

Frankly, I am very dubious that we will see any improvement until we come back to the fundamental issue of substantive reform of your Lordships’ House. The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, may shake his head, but the reality is that the Lords is treated in the way that it is because we are not legitimate at the moment. I am afraid that the sorts of amendments from the Lib Dems on an elected House, and even tinkering around in terms of the numbers, is not going to cut the cake until we decide what the role of the second Chamber should be, its powers, how its membership is arrived at and whether Ministers would be appropriate to serve in such a reformed second Chamber.

Finally, the question which noble Lords and all other commentators will never answer is: what are the respective powers and relationships between the Lords and Commons, and how do you resolve differences? Let us get down to the real business and not go ahead with this proposal, which, I am afraid, is for the birds.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, I support these amendments because arrangements in a free economy involve an exchange of labour in return for payment. Since time immemorial, we have accepted that the labourer is worthy of his hire. Not only does payment represent a benefit to him for work done, but it reflects the obligations on the employer to meet certain conditions and take certain responsibilities, as it does on him.

In the case of ministerial salaries, as my noble friends have pointed out, this has long been recognised in law, with limits put on the number of Ministers, of course. The Ministers of the Crown Act 1937 regulated the salaries payable to Ministers. As we have heard today, the 1975 Act expanded on that and on the limits on numbers.

Unpaid Ministers in the House of Lords should indeed be entitled to claim parliamentary allowances under the prevailing rules of Parliament, but they are not. As we have heard, many lose out even on the attendance allowance if they are on business abroad. There is good reason to pay people for work expected of them and done. In my view, it is thrice blessed. It blesses he or she who gives their labour, he or she who takes the money and he or she who benefits from the labour.

I am in no doubt that without payment—I speak as a former director of a think tank and an employer—we cannot expect clear responsibilities to be fulfilled without Lords Ministers and the public being clear about the obligations on all Ministers, including those in the Lords. Parliament and the Executive will not be seen to be responsible to their paymasters.

We need to be clear about what the duties are in this Chamber. We know what they are, but the public are not aware of them. We have heard today about the long hours and the serious grind that is put in by Ministers of the Crown. Therefore, it is in my view very important that this work and this contract of employment—for that is what it is, even if it is not stated—should be set out. People should freely see what is expected of Ministers and that they fulfil their duties. It is very good for democracy, for our constitution and for accountability, so I support the amendments. I also echo what was said by my noble friend Lord True, that they can denounce the payment—I add that they could give it to charity—but the principle should be implemented.

[Lord Markham (Con)]

I was very happy to add my name to this amendment as someone also with personal experience. My noble friend Lord True set out three principles which I think we would all agree with. I think there is a fourth: meritocracy. The best person selected for a position should be selected regardless of race, gender, religion, sexuality or wealth. We all believe in the principle of equality in this House, so why should it not apply in the case of Ministers?

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Baroness Lawlor Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 9th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Lord will not be surprised to know I do not agree with him. We discussed this before and my view, oft repeated, is that we should, wherever we can, proceed without legislation. We can do that with a number of the issues we are debating. As the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, pointed out, the minimum age at which a person can be a Peer was never legislated on—admittedly, it was a bit ago that that was introduced. We need to look at whether it might be possible to introduce a retirement age without fresh legislation. Either way, I do not want to commit to giving the House of Commons the whip hand over what we do about our own rules when we can change those rules ourselves.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, I am intrigued by my noble friend’s amendment. Yes, it would make good some of the failings of the Government, who have not honoured their 1998 pledge to bring forward their proposals for reform before they remove the hereditary Peers. Nor have they delivered on their promise in the manifesto of 2024 to bring forward proposals for reform on composition, in terms of retirement age, participation obligations and so on. It would perhaps be a good way of making good the problem we face, which is the removal of over 80 of the Peers who are most effective in scrutinising the Government and holding them to account. One cannot help but agree with those who see this Bill as vindictive for that reason, and a partisan attack on the ability of this House to fulfil its constitutional function.

However, dare I part company with my noble friend Lord Blencathra? I feel it is a very bad move to have government by committee—even a Select Committee of this House. By their very nature, committees do not have a sense of the feeling of the whole House, or indeed of the country, which is more important. For this reason, I would worry about such powers for a Select Committee.

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I am always very touched when people call for the Front Bench. I am very happy, if I am so popular, to go over to the other side, if that is what the other side would like.

This has been an important debate, although brief, on the next stage of reform. It is really a coda to the very interesting debate provoked by the noble Lord, Lord Burns. All this flows from the firm promise in the Labour manifesto that another Bill would be enacted in this Parliament to exclude Peers who reach the age of 80 before the end of this Parliament, and other promises in the manifesto to address issues of participation and conduct.

In Committee, my noble friend Lord Blencathra was tirelessly ingenious in the proposals for improvement that he put before the House. He spoke from his great creative experience as Chief Whip in another place, his knowledge, which he alluded to again today, of the often unintended, unbankability of government promises, and also his profound love of Parliament. So, I was surprised—but actually, on reflection, I was not—when the noble Lord’s carefully thought out and clever amendment suddenly appeared on our Order Paper following our debates last week.

Many noble Lords who heard the statement of the Leader of the House last week wanted to hear more detail of the scope of what is planned, and also to have more security in what will be the role of this House in determining what happens next. We have had a few advances on that, but no conclusion. My noble friend’s amendment actually offers the House a route to do that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, it has been an interesting debate. I will start with the basis of why I first suggested the Select Committee, as it may help your Lordships. The noble Lord is right that it is always difficult to get extra time for legislation, but it is important that this House has an opportunity to consider how we as a House might want to implement the two proposals—I have always referred to three stages; this was the second—on a retirement age and participation.

I will not repeat things that I have said in the past, but if there is an opportunity for the House to come forward with a view, and a Select Committee to bring forward proposals to your Lordships’ House for consideration, that does not make those proposals easier. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, helpfully interjected earlier and asked me whether there were things we could do more quickly by standing orders, as indicated by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull. That would be something for the committee to look at.

There is an opportunity for a Select Committee to look at those issues, to come forward with proposals for your Lordships’ House, and for us to consider those proposals and decide whether some could be taken forward more quickly. Where it requires legislation, if the House has a view on something on which all noble Lords agree, it would be much easier to persuade the Government by saying, “There’s agreement on this and we want to bring forward a focused Bill to deliver something that the House of Lords broadly agrees with”. That is why it was proposed in the first place.

The noble Lord opposite said that we may not co-operate because there are lots of other things around the issue. I am not quite sure what he means; perhaps we will debate that later. I was clear to the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, that it is implicit that, if we are looking to reduce the size of the House—if we are looking at exits—considerations need to be made about size. That was clear.

The noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, implied that this is being done for political reasons, to make it more difficult for the party opposite to hold the Government to account when hereditary Peers have left your Lordships’ House. Even after the hereditary Peers depart, there will still be 243 Members of her party in this House. My party before the election had 171 Members here, and my colleagues held the Government to account very effectively with that number. I am disappointed if the noble Baroness thinks that—

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

May I finish my point? Do not get too excited—I will give way soon. I am surprised that the noble Baroness thinks that with those additional Members—some 70 more Members than we had when we were in opposition—her party would find it very difficult to hold my Government to account.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness for letting me put my point again. I was referring to all the contributions of the hereditaries on all Benches. I am talking about effective contributions that will now be silenced. I fear that will affect the House.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

That is actually not the point that the noble Baroness made at the time. Many Members of your Lordships’ House make effective contributions, and she should recognise those as well.

I enjoyed the speech from the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra; he is always inventive and engages well on these issues. However, I say to him that I do not recognise the veto that the noble Lord, Lord True, referred to. My reading of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, is that if a Select Committee makes recommendations:

“The Secretary of State must, by regulations made by statutory instrument, amend the following Acts, as appropriate … to give effect to the recommendations in statute”.


The Government must then lay those regulations. In practical terms, if a Select Committee were to charge the House with something—if it said, “We would like the House to consider the following options”—how on earth do a Government legislate for all the options a Select Committee may recommend? That is what he would have in his—

One Hundred Year Partnership Agreement between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and Ukraine

Baroness Lawlor Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd April 2025 Grand Committee

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for his excellent standing in as our chairman when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, was not around. I pay tribute to both chairmen and colleagues on the committee for their dispassionate and open approach to this agreement. It was everything a committee should be. I also thank the officials, who were quite terrific in getting us through the business.

I echo what the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Swansea, said about the lack of substance and the curious nature of a 100-year agreement that has a six-month period of notice. It has defence and security provisions at a time when the position is very volatile. It includes territorial boundaries, the Sea of Azov and NATO membership. All these defence questions, which the noble Lord, Lord Fox, has taken us through, are very much in the air.

I would like to ask the Minister about the background to the agreement and the timing. The 100-year partnership was signed in January this year, in the same month that the new US President Donald Trump was inaugurated on a manifesto that included ending the Ukraine war rapidly—I think at one stage it was in a day—and stopping the dispatch of what he called US treasure. Thus, when this agreement was signed, the context was that the current and future circumstances were and would continue to be fluid. A peace agreement between Ukraine and Russia would potentially render parts of the UK-Ukraine 100-year partnership out of date. Therefore, I would like to probe the Government further on whether the timing of the agreement may add to the doubts about the agreement’s value lying primarily in its signalling rather than its substance, to which the noble Lords, Lord Fox and Lord Anderson, have already alluded.

Our report welcomes the

“efforts to contribute to a secure and peaceful Ukraine”

but notes that the value of the agreement

“appears to lie primarily in its signalling function, and we are concerned by the lack of detail on the substance of the Agreement”.

We add, in paragraph 21, that

“we heard from witnesses that the title is rather meaningless, and risks distracting attention from the substance of the Partnership”—

the stated aim being

“to provide stability and structure to an enduring … relationship”.

Can the Minister therefore explain the Government’s thinking as they went ahead to sign a 100-year agreement, parts of which might need immediate revision in the event of peace being reached? I know that these conversations are secret, but it would be very helpful for Parliament to know whether the Cabinet considered these rapidly changing circumstances at the outset. Did it discuss the wisdom of proceeding with the agreement we now have? Were there reasons to do so? If so, what were they? Can the Minister explain whether there was a desire to rush things through and, if so, why? Did the Government take into account the implications for Britain’s international standing of making commitments to Ukraine under an international agreement parts of which were potentially unlikely to prove durable in the short or long term?

I turn to the economy and the economic implications of this agreement, on which our report has some things to say. One matter highlighted by the IAC report is the lack of detail on the potential economic implications. The Explanatory Memorandum is not short on aspiration. It says that the agreement

“provides a framework to build enduring links in support of the UK’s growth, development, and security objectives”.

That was confirmed by the Minister, to whom I am very grateful for being so generous with his time, coming along to discuss the Government’s position. Giving evidence, he said that his main priorities, beyond the immediate security of Ukraine, lay in the “growth and economic space” to build “business-to-business links” and investment, to create a “better climate” in Ukraine for UK investment and joint ventures.

Our report, however, addresses the articles on the economy and trade. Paragraph 44 refers to

“articles … which deal with economic and trade cooperation (Article 4), cooperation on energy and climate (Article 5) and on science, innovation and technology (Article 8)”.

Our committee stressed that

“there is a need for further work to ensure that the necessary legal and commercial architecture is in place to support these activities”.

Can the Minister tell us what steps are being taken, or have been taken, to ensure that the legal and commercial architecture needed is in place to support these activities, as the report asks in paragraph 44? What do the Government believe should be tackled exactly, and what would make things better?

I refer now to the three articles. Article 4 of the agreement, to summarise what we say in the report, requires that the parties strengthen conditions for investment and co-operation across a range of sectors. The report indicates that this will involve improving the use of the 2020 treaty and the digital trade agreement that came into force last September, which is for free trade, without duty,

“removing barriers to trade, establishing business-to-business partnerships and supporting the development of Ukraine’s financial centre and business environment through sustained … business access”.

The political declaration also

“proposes using UK Export Finance to support priority infrastructure and defence projects”,

such as building bridges in the capital, co-operating on food security and agricultural development, as well as co-operating to develop a database to verify grain shipments

“to identify grain theft by Russia”.

That is in paragraph 46 of the report.

The report outlines that Article 5 of the agreement says that

“the Parties will co-operate on clean energy transition”.

The suggestion in the political declaration is that there will be collaboration on renewables to attract UK investment, and it explores collaboration on low carbon and supporting critical minerals.

Article 8 refers to co-operation in the field of science, technology and innovation—and here the explanation in the political declaration is that this will involve

“developing capabilities in the use of critical technologies”

such as the digital infrastructure, communications and so on, building on Ukraine’s expertise in the area of AI activities, which the report records

“are to be supported … in the field of research and innovation … delivering ‘mutually beneficial’ joint programmes between commercial bodies, universities and research centres”.

That is all very aspirational. We have here a commitment on economic and trade co-operation that sounds very aspirational. If there is evidence that it will work, it is something that we would wholeheartedly support. However, our report stresses that a stable environment for mutually beneficial innovation and growth is contingent on good governance and the rule of law, as well as well-policed public procurement. Although the Minister’s reassurance that work on governance reforms and strengthening the rule of law was encouraging, more detail is needed on how the Government intend to continue the work and whether initiatives will depend on progress. Our report suggests that aid and co-operation under this should be subject to the strengthening of the rule of law and good governance, which is a recommendation that I strongly support and emphasise.

The partnership agreement raises a number of very serious questions, some of which have already been raised by the noble Lords, Lord Anderson and Lord Fox. I close by emphasising the questions about the economic and fiscal implications for the UK economy and for taxpayers who will foot the bill of government commitments; as well as for businesses that may be encouraged to invest in what so far seems to be a one-way agreement in which the UK gives and Ukraine takes, without there being in place the legal, economic and commercial structures to guarantee any return for those footing the bill and investing. Therefore, I probe further on the evidence for any benefits to the UK economically and fiscally.

Since 2022, the UK has given £12.8 billion to Ukraine, £7.8 billion of which is in military support since the invasion and £5 billion in non-military support. The political declaration indicates a further UK commitment of £3 billion a year in military aid until 2030-31 and for as “long as it takes”. That commitment was announced on 10 July last year. I echo the noble Lord, Lord Fox, in saying that this is a very significant commitment.

The political declaration also proposes using UK Export Finance to support priority infrastructure and defence projects. The Government explain that UK Export Finance has already committed £3.5 billion of financial support for critical reconstruction. This, we hear from the Government, has enabled bridges et cetera around the capital to be rebuilt and mine countermeasure vessels to be provided. What evidence is there that there will be a return from this finance to a war-torn country, which as yet does not have the basic legal, commercial and other building blocks in place for sound business, contracts and investment? In respect of UK Export Finance, the Government say quite clearly on their website that this finance will help businesses that could not get private sector money. I am concerned that there will be pressure by Ukraine and businesses to get hold of this UK Export Finance for projects that have not been considered sound by the commercial sector and that we will be indebting the country unnecessarily with projects that, as yet, have no evidence of any return.

I welcome the committee’s thorough examination of this treaty. Like it, I support the Government’s general aim and their proposals, but I am concerned about commitments made in a 100-year partnership that may not be able to be met. Indeed, they may not be able to be met because of circumstances beyond our control, not least the fluid and volatile situation.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Baroness Lawlor Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 1st April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I understand why noble Lords opposite would like to terminate debate, but I think there is a case for going a little bit further. Since noble Lords have allowed themselves some personal reflections, perhaps I can first add one of my own, which is that, when I was introduced to this House, one of my supporters was a Cross-Bench hereditary Peer. I will not mention his name, because I have not told him in advance that I am going to make these remarks. It all went back to the fact that, more than 40 years ago, I used to play bridge with his mother, and when he made his maiden speech shortly after his 21st birthday, I sat with his mother in the Peeresses’ Gallery and listened to him. We remained in touch and so, when I was being introduced, I thought that it was time for some payback. He willingly agreed, adding that he had never in the whole of his time in the House been asked to sponsor anybody at their introduction, so he was very happy to do so.

He has served throughout that time because he survived the Blair cull. He has been committed to the House and he has worked hard. What so many people find unfair—as I said, I have not discussed these remarks with him at all—is that he is to be expelled not because of lack of merit, not because of lack of commitment, not because of lack of expertise, but simply because of the way in which he entered the House. As the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, said, there seems to be an inherent unfairness in that.

I turn to the amendment, which I support. I emphasise that this amendment is not about the hereditary principle. It is about the principle of expulsion. We seem to be taking it for granted that an act of expulsion is sort of okay, whereas, in fact, it is almost entirely without precedent. There is the baleful precedent of Pride’s Purge, and since then the only example of the expulsion of people as a class from Parliament was what happened in 1999. To take that as a precedent so that it becomes, if you like, a normal thing for groups to be expelled from one House of Parliament or another, but more likely from this House, according to—I will not say the whims, but perhaps the vagaries of what might appear in manifestos is a very bad principle indeed. It does not affect only the hereditary Peers; it affects all of us because one can divide and one can create those criteria for expulsion according to, really, anything that fits, and can achieve political and other objectives in doing so.

When we say, “A whole group of us is to be expelled”, we appear to have a precedent for it in 1999, I grant you that, but it is not a good precedent. It is not a precedent that should be repeated. The proposal made by my noble friend Lady Mobarik avoids that and puts that danger at some distance from us. So I think that there are broader reasons for accepting it than simply our admiration of and friendship with the individuals involved in this case. There are broader reasons of principle for accepting it and I urge the Front Bench to consider them on constitutional grounds.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, I support my noble friend Lady Mobarik’s amendment. It is consistent with the Government’s manifesto pledge, in that it accepts the principle of removing the hereditary Peers. I am not sympathetic to that change and I do not go along with the assumptions on which it is proposed. None the less, I accept that the Government have given their manifesto pledge and they have the right to make this change.

That, however, does not preclude the arrangement proposed by my noble friend. If anything, it should open the way for it. Such a major change in the legislature of this country is a matter of constitutional importance, as is the separation of powers and how we are governed. In these matters, an evolutionary approach is best. This amendment opens the way for retaining the expertise of some of the most experienced, knowledgeable and dedicated Peers.

British political history may have been dramatic during its other periods of constitutional change. None the less, the arrangements—whether extending the franchise in the 19th century, Catholic emancipation, or Irish home rule and then the treaty with Ireland—were evolutionary. They incorporated something of what went before by allowing for a gradual evolution, not a violent upheaval.

Similarly, reform of this House has been gradual and saved something of what went before. This brought Britain political stability, and brought stability to our democracy, unlike in the cases of other friends and neighbours, such as France, which is a unitary power like Britain but did not necessarily follow the evolutionary approach. We see reports that this continues, even to the present day.

This Bill is a Labour Party measure. I have nothing but admiration for the party opposite, which emerged as a main party of government in the early 20th century. It accepted the constitutional conventions and it helped democracy in this country to evolve. It was also helped by the restraint of the Conservative leadership, which refused, as one interwar Prime Minister put it, to “fire the first shot”. This was not because of a desire to appease politically but as the means of enabling Britain’s democracy to evolve gradually—and evolve it did.

Labour won power, first in 1924, again in 1929 and then, dramatically, in 1945. It was given a fair crack of the whip to get on with the manifesto pledge and be judged at the end of the Parliament on the whole package of how well it did in power. Similarly, with this House, there has been an evolutionary, not political, change. There is a settled constitutional way of proceeding, consistent with the manifesto pledge. I hope that the Government will accept this amendment—that they will accept the established and successful way of incorporating something that has gone before. I hope that they will, in this way, signify their respect for the consensual approach to constitutional change, and that they will not fire the first shot.

[Lord Porter of Spalding (Con)]

My Lords—

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Baroness Lawlor Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 12th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bethell (Con)]

My Lords, it is a great privilege to speak after my noble friend Lord Bellingham, who makes very clear points very persuasively. Attendance in Parliament has been a long-standing issue throughout British history, and my noble friend Lord Hannan spoke extremely well about the motivations of parliamentarians. Previous monarchs have looked at this issue very closely, and both King James and Queen Elizabeth brought in roll-calls and fines because they struggled so much to get parliamentarians to attend.

Many parliaments around the world have attendance criteria. In Belgium, salaries are docked if you do not attend enough. In Oregon, you get only 10 spare days and if you miss your 10 days you are not allowed to stand for re-election. This is an issue that many parliaments face.

The first three Lord Bethells never spoke in Parliament at all. They regarded it simply as an honour. That is a shame and not at all tolerated in modern times. The British public expect parliamentarians to play an active role, and they are absolutely right. I will say two things on that. First, the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, made the point about “deep and infrequent”. I think that is right and I have enormously valued the participation of some Peers with enormous expertise but other commitments. Secondly, there is a collaboration element to being part of what is a collective House. Scrutinising legislation, our principal endeavour, requires an enormous amount of co-operation between Peers, and that requires a relationship that needs a little familiarity. If people do not turn up at all, you cannot build those bonds of trust and collaboration and cannot do your job properly.

For that reason, I strongly support the spirit of the amendments from my noble friends Lord Blencathra and Lord Lucas, and endorse the comments of the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, we are all here to bring different things, and I am not sure that participation rates are the best way of going about reform. Peers contribute differently. They bring their counsel, as we were reminded from the Cross Benches. Some bring their expertise or knowledge of a particular subject, and most bring their judgment on all subjects.

The options being proposed as we debate this short Bill are very different. Because there really is no agreement on the best way to proceed, I urge the Leader of the House to consider trying to find a consensus across the House to get some agreement, given the extraordinary differences we hear about how best we should proceed.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, I am glad that we are debating this question of attendance separately from the question of participation, because they are materially different. I share the scepticism of the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu, about the Government’s willingness to accept amendments to this Bill and, indeed, his salutary warning about being careful of what we say now and remembering that it is taken down in the official record. These other issues are being raised because we all care very deeply about the future of this House, and one of the great tragedies of this Bill is that some of the people who care most deeply will not be here to give their opinions on the further stages of reform or the Government’s adherence to the rest of their manifesto once the Bill is passed. I know he will understand why they are getting their arguments in early.

As the Convenor of the Cross Benches reminded us, our presence here is not thanks to a democratic mandate of our own or any of our achievements but in answer to a call. We sit here in response to a Writ of Summons from our sovereign, who has commanded us, waiving all excuses, to be at the Parliament holden here at Westminster, to treat and give our counsel on certain arduous and urgent affairs. I agree with the noble Lords who have said that we are invited and treated to give our opinions on arduous affairs, even if they are outwith our own areas of expertise.

It is up to each of us to decide how we answer that call, and it is clear that noble Lords across the House do so in different ways. But we have some insights into how they do so thanks to the spreadsheets of my noble friend Lord Blencathra and to the data dashboard provided by the House of Lords Library. That shows that during the last Parliament your Lordships’ House sat for 701 days. On average, noble Lords attended on just under half—46%—of the days that they were eligible to attend. Of the 966 people who were eligible to attend at least some of the last Parliament in your Lordships’ House, 28 Members did not attend at all. More than 100 Members—116—attended on less than 10% of the days that they were eligible to be here, which is the threshold that many noble Lords have mentioned.

Further interrogation of these data by the Library reveals some interesting points. During our last day in Committee, we debated the ideal age of Peers. The data from the last Parliament show that the younger Peers are more likely to attend than older ones. Noble Lords aged 59 and under attended on more than half of our sitting days in the last Parliament. Noble Lords aged 60 or above were absent for most. While noble Lords in their 80s were with us on 45% of sitting days and those in their 90s managed 31%, those in their 30s were here on 55% of sitting days and the sole noble Lord in her 20s—the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Llanfaes—was here 78% of the time, despite travelling from much further afield than most.

Perhaps most pertinently for this Bill, average attendance rates were highest for our hereditary colleagues, at 49%. For life Peers it was 47%. For the Lords spiritual it was 14%, although we know that the right reverend Prelates have many other duties in tending to their flocks. Our remaining Law Lords were here on just 12% of sitting days that they could have been. These statistics, interesting though they may be, should not be taken at face value. Some may very well think it is better to have 12% of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hale of Richmond, than it is to have half of a thirtysomething.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Baroness Lawlor Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 3rd March 2025 Lords Chamber

It is extraordinary that we have picked out this group of people who, in my view, have more legitimacy in your Lordships’ House than appointed Peers, and decided to get rid of them. It is quite clear that they have given much more of their time and effort and skills to the effectiveness of your Lordships’ House than the great majority of us who have been appointed to it have managed to do.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, I support my noble friend’s amendment. The exceptions to whom his amendment would apply are people who contain and are characterised by many qualities, but I mention only four here: experience, knowledge, constancy and loyalty to this Chamber, and a non-political aspect. This may seem strange coming from the Conservative Bench, but for many of us who have not been part of a party-political machine, it is very important to see how a non-political Front Bench can work to reach out across the Chamber to all sides of this House. It is these qualities of experience, knowledge, constancy and a type of non-politicalness which allows this House to do the work it does, and which brings it respect right across the world, as has been mentioned today. I commend my noble friend for tabling this amendment, and I hope it will be listened to with sympathy.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I think this amendment shows the problem that we were discussing earlier with the groupings, because we have actually been discussing, along with this amendment, Amendment 9 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord True, and they both deal with the question of the future of those hereditaries who play a major part in your Lordships’ House.

The noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, told us what he finds extraordinary. I think the vast majority of the country would find it extraordinary, if they realised it, that 10% of the legislature derives from fewer than 800 families in the country. Most people do not really realise that; if they did, they would be very surprised and most of them, frankly, would be appalled.

I looked at the hereditaries as a group one wet, sad afternoon. I divided them not into sheep and goats but into three: those who were active, those who were partially active, and those who were inactive. In response to the list of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, of those who are very active, I could, but will not, read out to the Committee a list of equal length, if not longer, of hereditaries who are virtually inactive. This is not a criticism of them more than it is of any other group. However, it is the case that some Members in the hereditary group are very active and well respected, but, like in all other groups, there are others who, frankly, are not.

Therefore, if we are looking to what should happen next and whether we should seek to retain some of the expertise that the hereditaries have, surely the way to do it is not as proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Soames, nor by the noble Lord, Lord True, but to encourage the parties to appoint those hereditaries who are very active and eminent in their groups to life peerages as those numbers come up. I hope very much that we will do so in respect of the Liberal Democrats—we have fewer hereditaries than some of the other groups—but that seems to me to be the logical way of doing it. It is what we did, to a certain extent, in our party after the vast bulk of hereditaries left in 1999. That is the precedent that we should seek to follow now, rather than having a broader category of exemptions, as the noble Lord suggests, or a complete continuation along the lines previously proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, which the noble Lord, Lord True, is about to suggest.

Syria

Baroness Lawlor Excerpts

Thursday 12th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

We have had many debates in this House about the role of the BBC, and in particular the World Service. We are absolutely committed to ensuring that it can continue to function. The important thing about the BBC is its independence. It is a reliable voice. It is not for me to comment on it. We must ensure that it is able to continue broadcasting that reliable and truthful voice. All our actions in Syria are through NGOs and other civilian groups. We will continue to support them in humanitarian ways and in other ways; it is an inclusive process that we want to ensure for the future of Syria.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

I thank the Minister for the Statement. Among regional partners, he identified Turkey. What exchanges are taking place with the US Secretary of State, Antony Blinken, who is involved in going to Turkey to discuss in Ankara the clashes between US forces in northern Syria and Turkish-backed rebels?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

Both the Foreign Secretary and Minister Falconer have been trying to ensure the de-escalation of any potential conflicts. We want to see a process of transition that is inclusive. That is what Secretary of State Blinken is ensuring, that is what his discussions are doing and that is what Minister Falconer is trying to do. We are in a very fast-changing situation, but it needs calm heads to stay above it.

House of Lords Reform

Baroness Lawlor Excerpts

Tuesday 12th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Lord Privy Seal for her introduction and for the opportunity to consider House of Lords reform. There are many matters to which a new Government might apply reformist zeal: the public services, the public finances and the UK immigration and asylum system could all do with structural reform, as people from across the political divide agree. But the arrangements for Britain’s separate constitutional powers are not of the same order. They have evolved over time, like a tapestry reworked and mended to fulfil a clear purpose—a function, as has been mentioned—and, in doing so, to protect the democratic freedoms of this country and the liberty of its people.

As we have heard today, there are three powers. There is the legislature, a Parliament of two Houses, of which this House is one and the other is a directly elected Chamber. There is a judiciary recognised for its independence and expertise. It, with this Chamber, is the watchdog of the third power, the Executive—the Government of the day, accountable to the electorate, through the ballot box, and indirectly through Parliament, under arrangements for each House, which, with their functions, have also evolved. Innocuous as they may seem, these arrangements ensure not only that people are governed under laws they have a say in making, by a Parliament and representatives they elect, but that those who govern are accountable and the laws are properly made. Changing the composition of this Chamber, removing certain categories of Peer without simultaneous plans for the alternative, opens the way for a House of Lords packed by the Government and unlikely to hold them to account. We would be back full circle to the cry of Lloyd George and the Liberals when they described the House of Lords as “Mr Balfour’s poodle” only this time it will be Sir Keir’s, and we have had a flavour of how executive power will be used.

This country has slipped into each century as if by accident, evolving gradually and, from the 18th century, without the violence, civil war or bloody revolutions to which our European neighbours have too often been victim. Nor has it suffered totalitarian rule, to which some neighbours have been subject in our own hundred years. The costs of that were great, not only to ordered government but in the assault on liberty and property rights. By contrast, this country, through its separate constitutional powers, extended the franchise, moved to religious and democratic arrangements and accommodated the replacement of the main opposition party, the Liberals, with the Labour Party as one of the main parties of government. When it came to govern, the Labour Party put country before ideology, accepted the arrangements under which it was governed and sought to work with the constitution, guaranteeing freedoms and liberty, not against it.

The Prime Minister has already mentioned regret at some of the failings evident in his first 100 days. Let him now turn the corner and be true to a better Labour tradition, rather than make an assault without due process on how we are governed and why. I hope he will think again before making this reckless move.

Victims and Prisoners Bill

Baroness Lawlor Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 25th March 2024 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Lawlor]

171A: After Clause 54, insert the following new Clause—
“Parole Board proceedings: enabling public scrutiny(1) The Secretary of State has a statutory duty to improve the openness and transparency of the work of the Parole Board and to facilitate a greater public understanding of its statutory framework, procedures and proceedings.(2) The Secretary of State must exercise their powers under section 239(5) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, to require that Parole Board hearings should normally be open to the public unless there are exceptional circumstances for not doing so, as outlined in subsection (5).(3) The Secretary of State has the power to formally direct the Chair of the Parole Board to make arrangements for all Parole Board hearings to be heard in public, as set out in Parole Board (Amendment) Rules 2022 (SI 2022/717).(4) The Chair of the Parole Board may exercise their right to decline this request and direction from the Secretary of State and must outline their reasons for so doing in writing to the Secretary of State, within 28 days of a written direction being lodged with the Parole Board.(5) Such reasons in respect of subsection (4) must be evidence-based and include—(a) where the Chair of the Parole Board believes that such a request and direction would, on the balance of probability and based on evidential information, indicate that the integrity of evidence presented to the Parole Board may be compromised and prevent a true and accurate assessment of the prisoner’s risk being provided by witnesses;(b) that the presence of strong and valid objections from participants, including victims, their families or legal representatives, could jeopardise the cooperation of witnesses, should the hearing be in public; or(c) that to hold a meeting in public might create an unacceptable risk of mental or physical harm to any of the participants.(6) The Secretary of State must formally consider any representations from the Chair of the Parole Board in a timely manner and if they choose to disregard the advice of the Chair of the Parole Board, they must outline their reasons within 28 days of receipt of such advice, taking into account all available evidence, including that provided by law enforcement, victims, their families or legal and other representatives.(7) The Secretary of State must, in exercising their powers, balance the need for openness, transparency and maintaining public faith in the efficacy of the criminal justice system with a commitment to the operational independence of the Parole Board and its members’ deliberations, and with an obligation to reduce recidivism and support rehabilitation and the prisoner’s ability to resettle in the community upon release from a custodial sentence.(8) This section applies only to offences as relevant to public protection decisions and outlined in Schedule 18B Parts 1 and 2 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.(9) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, and annually thereafter, publish an assessment of the efficacy of the policy of open Parole Board hearings and its impact upon openness, accountability, transparency and public support and whether it meets the interests of the justice test.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to consolidate the statutory instrument laid before Parliament on 30 June 2022 (SI 2022/717) to improve openness, accountability and transparency and public trust in the Parole Board by giving the Secretary of State powers to direct the Board to work to a presumption that such meetings should be routinely open to the public, with exceptions; whilst also safeguarding the Board’s independence and the requirement to ensure rehabilitation and resettlement of those prisoners likely to be released from a custodial sentence.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, I support and move this amendment for my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough, who is absent attending the Inter-Parliamentary Union’s 148th assembly in Geneva. He had hoped to move his amendment on 12 March, but Committee proceedings were concluded before he was able to do so.

Amendment 171A seeks to establish the presumption that Parole Board hearings would be open to the public—with exceptions, of course. It seeks, more generally, to improve public faith and trust in the criminal justice system. This is both a probing and permissive amendment, and a natural progression to and consolidation of the reforms undertaken by Ministers over the last six years arising from the public disquiet over the proposed release of serial rapist John Worboys in 2018. That resulted in a review of the parole system and a public consultation published in 2022, and a finding in the High Court in March 2018 that the Parole Board’s Rule 25—a blanket ban on transparency and details of the board’s deliberations—was unlawful.

The Government have moved to address the very serious failings identified by the Worboys case, by allowing summaries of Parole Board decisions to be provided to victims and other interested parties, and to provide for a reconsideration mechanism, introduced in 2019, which allows a prisoner and/or the Secretary of State for Justice to seek reconsideration of a number of decisions taken by the board within 21 days. Victims may now also seek a judicial review on the grounds that decisions are procedurally unfair or irrational.

Significantly, the Parole Board’s 2019 Rule 15 was amended by secondary legislation in 2022 to enable public hearings to be facilitated on request to the chair of the Parole Board, in the “interests of justice”. This test is already used by the Mental Health Tribunal. This amendment is cautious, circumspect, and with caveats in its proposed new subsections (5) and (7). It presumes no absolute right to open the Parole Board hearings to the most serious cases, but presents a balance between the interests of the victim, prisoners and the wider criminal justice system, and imposes a statutory duty on Ministers to take note of the importance of rehabilitation, reducing recidivism, fairness and due process.

Finally, I hope that my noble friend the Minister will articulate the Government’s current thinking on, and rationale for, limited reform envisaged in this matter. I urge that they allow for public hearings to become the default position, and I look forward to his reply.

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, at the request of my noble friend Lord Marks, I will speak to his amendment in this group, which is Amendment 171B about the hearing timeframes for the Parole Board to have some flexibility in this matter. I apologise; I would have said, in relation to the two stand part notices, that there were a number of questions that I asked of the noble Earl. I know it has been only a short period of time—I am sure they are on their way—but I just wanted to remind him. I am sure that his smile tells me that there are going to be satisfactory replies shortly.

I come back to Amendment 171B. The current rules are that the release of prisoners serving a life sentence is determined by the Parole Board on or after they have served their minimum tariff. The first parole review to consider a prisoner for release will usually begin six months prior to their tariff expiry and, if a prisoner is not released at their on-tariff review, they will have a further post-tariff review at least every two years. The Parole Board process is lengthy and can take upwards of six months for the whole process to be dealt with. Their victims are asked whether they wish to submit a personal statement; although the Parole Board does not have direct contact with victims, the victim liaison officer will contact them about submitting a personal statement. We know that there has recently been an opportunity for victims to appear and observe some Parole Board hearings as part of the latest pilot.

For victims and family members, going through the Parole Board process can be a highly traumatic experience, forcing them to relive the original offence and the impact it has on them. While victims and families welcome having a voice in the process through being able to submit an impact statement, many feel trapped and unable to move on when their offender is repeatedly coming up for parole, even when it is clear that the circumstances have not changed.

--- Later in debate ---

I hope that those comments are of help. For the reasons that I have outlined, I hope that my noble friend, on reflection, will not feel compelled to press the amendment.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

I thank my noble friend the Minister for his very thoughtful reply. I should like to reflect, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Jackson, on the very important points that he makes about the sensitivity and the costs, as well as the practicality and the question of time, along with the fact that the Government are working towards greater openness of the Parole Board proceedings. On behalf of my noble friend Lord Jackson, I shall withdraw the amendment, and give further reflection to what my noble friend says.

Amendment 171A withdrawn.

G20 Summit

Baroness Lawlor Excerpts

Tuesday 12th September 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord True (Con)]

On the noble Lord’s final point, which was discussed briefly in another Statement yesterday, the Prime Minister met Premier Li of China. I think it is the first time in four or five years that there has been a meeting with such a high-level member of the Chinese Government, and he was certainly told in no uncertain terms what the UK thinks in relation to human rights, Hong Kong and other matters.

I will not follow his comments on the nature of the Prime Minister. I think the Prime Minister values the relationships we seek to forge internationally across the world. If, by some good fortune, his personality is helpful in a particular relationship, that would be good fortune, but let us not underestimate that getting diplomatic deals is not a matter of sentiment. Of course, one applauds the diversity that one sees in all parties at the moment, but getting deals is a matter of hard negotiation. That is what counts at the end of the day —not sentiment.

I have not seen the reports that Morocco is turning down support, but I will look into the matter and refer the noble Lord’s comments to my colleagues in the Foreign Office. I believe the noble Lord asked another question, which has slipped my mind. I will look at Hansard, if I may, and follow up on it.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for letting us hear the Statement in full. I was very glad to hear him refer to the global involvement of the UK and our accession to the CPTPP. Could he let us know the timetable for submitting our written confirmation of that protocol from 17 July and whether any of the other parties have indicated their timetable for confirming?

[Lord True (Con)]

No, my Lords, I am not briefed to give specific timescales, but I will certainly let my noble friend and the House know if such information is made available. I apologise for that.