Church of Scotland (Lord High Commissioner) Bill

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 19th March 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

That the Bill be now read a second time.

[The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Smith of Basildon) (Lab)]

My Lords, the Church of Scotland (Lord High Commissioner) Bill is a short but important piece of legislation that removes a legal barrier preventing Roman Catholics holding the office of the Lord High Commissioner to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland. This historic legal restriction applies specifically to Roman Catholics and not to people of different or no religious faith.

For noble Lords who may not yet be acquainted with the role of the Lord High Commissioner—although I suspect from looking around the Chamber that most noble Lords know more than I do, even though my mother is Scottish and Church of Scotland—I shall try to shed light on the position. I note that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, who will speak later today, held that office between 2015 and 2016, being appointed by Her late Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. I hope he will bear with me while I provide a brief explanation, and I look forward to his contribution.

The Lord High Commissioner is the sovereign’s personal representative to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland. The General Assembly is the governing body of the Church of Scotland. It meets each May in Edinburgh, to hear reports, make laws and set the agenda for the Church of Scotland. The Lord High Commissioner is appointed as an observer to attend proceedings and to inform His Majesty the King personally about the business of the assembly. The Lord High Commissioner also undertakes important ceremonial duties, including addressing the General Assembly at its opening and closing sessions and attending the daily business on the sovereign’s behalf. The Lord High Commissioner undertakes official visits in Scotland, as well as hosting engagements at the Palace of Holyroodhouse.

Historic legislation currently prevents the appointment of Roman Catholics to this role. The Claim of Right 1689 sets out restrictions against Roman Catholics being appointed to public offices in Scotland, which include the Lord High Commissioner. The Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829 removed many legal restrictions on Roman Catholics. Crucially, however, it explicitly did not remove the restrictions against Roman Catholics holding the post of Lord High Commissioner. Therefore, there remains a legal barrier that prevents Roman Catholics undertaking this role. This Bill is concise and narrowly focused, and will deliver a straightforward but important change by enabling Roman Catholics to undertake the post of Lord High Commissioner.

The immediate impact of the passing of this Bill will be to facilitate the appointment of Lady Elish Angiolini, who is a Roman Catholic, as Lord High Commissioner for 2025. Lady Elish’s distinguished career encompasses law, justice and academia. In 2011, she was honoured as a Dame Commander of the Order of the British Empire for her outstanding contributions to the administration of justice. Since 2012, she has served as principal of St Hugh’s College, Oxford, and she was appointed pro-vice-chancellor of the University of Oxford in 2017. In 2022, Her late Majesty the Queen appointed her to the Most Ancient and Most Noble Order of the Thistle, and she participated in the Coronation in 2023. Should this Bill pass, she will make history as the first Roman Catholic to be appointed Lord High Commissioner.

Lady Elish’s appointment would be a historic gesture of unity, good will and collaboration between the Church of Scotland and the Catholic Church in Scotland, following the St Margaret declaration signed in 2022, as well as a continuing declaration of friendship between the two Churches. This combined effort between the two denominations is a welcome demonstration of how people from different religions and backgrounds in our society can unite to emphasise the values and issues that unite us all and can acknowledge our differences with respect and dignity. I note that the appointment of Lady Elish to the role of Lord High Commissioner has been warmly welcomed, including in the other place when this Bill was debated, taking note of her distinguished career and personal achievements.

The legislation is before the House today on an accelerated timetable, which is necessary to ensure that Lady Elish’s appointment can be made ahead of the General Assembly in May. Subject to Royal Assent, the formalities of the appointment will begin. This process will include a formal commission for the office, accompanied by a royal warrant.

I can reassure the House that the UK Government have worked closely with key stakeholders in the development of this legislation. While the Bill concerns a reserved matter, my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster spoke to the First Minister of Scotland and representatives of the Church of Scotland in advance of bringing forward this legislation. We thank them for their constructive and collaborative approach to this issue. The Government also engaged with the Catholic Church to ensure that it was kept informed ahead of the introduction of the legislation. My right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster also discussed the matter with Lady Elish directly and we have absolutely no doubt that she will be an excellent Lord High Commissioner.

I will briefly summarise this two-clause Bill. Clause 1 makes provision to allow a person of the Roman Catholic faith to hold the office of the Lord High Commissioner to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland. Clause 2 sets out the territorial extent of the Bill and the commencement of the Bill, including that it will commence on Royal Assent.

To conclude, this Bill has a welcome aim and delivers a concise, albeit narrow, objective. I hope the Bill will receive support from all sides of the House. In that spirit, I commend it to the House. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, it has been an absolute pleasure to be part of today’s debate and to listen to the contributions made. It may have been one of the easiest debates I have taken part in, such is the unanimity and warmth around the House. Lady Elish will know from the comments that have been made about her the support she has from across Parliament —it was the same in the other place—in the position that this legislation will enable her to take up.

What I have found so impressive about this debate has been not just how passionate many noble Lords have been about the issue but the way in which the humanity and humour has come through, as well as some history lessons. As a mere Englishwoman, there is a lot that I have to learn. I declare that I am half Scottish.

The noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope, said that he hesitated before standing up to contribute. I think that English voices are welcome, as this is something that affects us all. Some of the stories and accounts that we have heard today show just how important, symbolic and valued this legislation is. I am really pleased to hear such strong support for the measures in the Bill, and that we can make progress towards removing a historic, and in many ways shameful, legal barrier.

I will respond to some of the comments that were made in the debate. The noble Lord, Lord True, was the first to make clear his strong support for this measure. He made the point that we should celebrate our unity but respect our differences; the two are not exclusive in any way at all. We have brought this legislation forward because of the practical and immediate effect that it will have, but noble Lords are right that there are a few—not many, now—historic restrictions. We will look into those, and, when I can report back to your Lordships’ House, I will do so. It is right that we do not want to be in this position again.

I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, for declaring his interest. It was very helpful to the House, as was his knowledge of Lady Elish. It was with some relief, as I listened to him and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, to learn that I had not got it badly wrong, given the experience they have both had. They both spoke of the progress that has been made.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, obviously enjoyed his time in this role. It was a delightful speech—the memory of the fountain will remain with me always. He has explained to Lady Elish what will come and what is to be lost. The trappings of office are short-lived in many ways, but his description of the duties of the office was very helpful to the whole House. The voice of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London was welcome in this context, as well.

The noble Earl, Lord Dundee, made a strong case for co-operation between religions and across the board, including in your Lordships’ House. He spoke from the Law Society brief about the Lord Chancellor’s role and asked why it was not included here. I reassure him on that point that the Lord Chancellor’s relief Act was made obsolete by the 1974 legislation. I understand the desire to tidy up legislation, but the 1974 legislation had the practical effect of ensuring that there is no bar on Catholics taking on the role of Lord Chancellor. I hope that reassures him on that particular point.

The speeches of the noble Baronesses, Lady Alexander of Cleveden, Lady Goldie and Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, all showed, in powerful and passionate ways, the progress that has been made in society, but also how far we still have to go.

As a child growing up, I was not aware of the same kind of sectarianism as other noble Baronesses. I saw a taste of it as a Northern Ireland Minister and it was quite illuminating for me. My noble friend Lord Browne and I served for a number of years together in the Northern Ireland Office. I remember talking to a group of schoolchildren where the Catholic boys’ school and the Protestant girls’ school had come together. They were doing events together and meeting; it was great. But when I asked the boys whether they would they date a girl from the other school, a couple of the Catholic lads said to me, “Oh no, we couldn’t”. That was some years ago now, but it just showed me how ingrained some of these things are, how hard we have to work and how we should never, ever take progress for granted as we make it but should always to fight to make further progress. I thank all those who spoke on that particular point.

Religious hate crime is something that we can never tolerate, should never try to explain and should always do everything we can to deal with. On religious discrimination, for my noble friend Lady Kennedy of The Shaws and the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, to have grown up feeling puzzled or frightened is completely unacceptable. We would not want any child to be feeling that way ever again.

I thank my noble friend Lady Kennedy of The Shaws for reminding us about Lord Mackay of Clashfern. I remember hearing him speak about this. This was a man of enormous ability, compassion, humanity and values. I think it was a great sadness to him that in a church that he had been a member of for so long he was no longer able to worship because he, rightly, wanted to show his respect to friends who were Catholics by going to their funeral. It remained a sadness to him. Given his values and his humanity, just think what he would think of this Bill today. I think he would be enormously proud of it.

There is probably little more I can say, because the speeches we have heard today have spoken for themselves. It has been an absolute privilege to engage in this debate. I think the point my noble friend Lord Browne made was that here we have an Irish Catholic woman taking on this role by sheer strength of her abilities and aptitude, and that has been welcomed. My noble friend Lord Browne also made a comment about how the King has opened up to different faiths. It just took me back to the Coronation, where four Members of your Lordship’s House representing four faiths had quite a central role, and what that said about the country we have become and the country we want to be.

It has been a privilege to engage in this debate. We have other stages to go through, but it is an honour for me to move that this Bill be now read a second time.

Bill read a second time and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 12th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Swire (Con)]

My Lords, I am now genuinely confused by this Bill. It seems to me that the purpose of this place, if it has any purpose, is to look at bad legislation—bad proposals—and seek to improve it. Every time we try to do that for this Bill, we are accused of filibustering. If the Government are simply not prepared to listen to anything we are saying, or to take into account any of our amendments, we are all wasting our time. I am equally confused as to what is really—

[The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Smith of Basildon) (Lab)]

The noble Lord said that the Government accused him of filibustering. He will have heard from every Minister who has responded from this Dispatch Box that we welcome these discussions. I think the point that my noble friend made was that some contributions seem a little long, but we on the Front Bench would not accuse anybody of filibustering.

[Lord Swire (Con)]

I am not saying that the Front Bench has accused anyone of filibustering, but we have been accused of filibustering when we have probed the reasoning behind some of these rather strange proposals.

To be honest, I am equally confused as to whether this Bill is about reducing the numbers in this House or whether it is about getting rid of the hereditaries. We have heard that the hereditaries contribute far more than some life Peers who do not attend this House. So is the Bill about getting rid of the hereditaries or about reducing numbers? It seems to me that it is not about both.

I have a real problem with this clause. We can argue until the cows come home about what “participation” means; some of the speeches have already conflated “attendance” and “participation”. I fully endorse what my noble friend Lord Blencathra said. During my early days in this Chamber, we listened to the electric exchange between the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and the noble Lord, Lord Winston. I did not understand what they were talking about—and neither did my noble friend, so he confesses. As he said, I do not think that those in the Box understood a word of what they were talking about, and Hansard probably had to stay up overtime to work it out. It was on such a different level that only a fool would have intervened at that point. I was reminded of the adage, which has been attributed variously to Abraham Lincoln and Mark Twain, that it is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.

That makes me think about “participation” as defined in subsection (3)(a), in the new clause proposed in Amendment 26, which refers to “speaking in the Chamber”. Will we really judge noble Lords by how often they speak in the Chamber? Without naming names, we all know that, among our goodly number, there are people who pop up on every occasion to speak. Are we to judge the validity of their existence by the fact that, like Zebedee, they bounce up and ask a question on every topic? Alternatively, will we be a little bit more circumspect in how we judge noble Lords’ contributions?

I heard what my noble friend Lord Bethell said about his forebears, but that is nothing compared to John Erle-Drax, the MP for Wareham in the mid-19th century, who was known as the “Silent MP”. He made only one statement in the House of Commons: on a particularly hot evening, he inquired of the Speaker whether it might be possible to open the window just a bit. He is not recorded as ever having said anything before or since. This ought to be a question of what noble Lords say, rather than how often they say it.

The other issue I have been going on about is the quality of noble Lords’ speeches. I know that not everybody has a background in public speaking, has served in the other place or has the natural fluency and eloquence that the gods vested on my noble friend Lord Hannan. But, increasingly in the Commons—and, I am afraid, here—speaker after speaker gets up and reads out a pre-prepared statement. That is not a debate. That just means that they want to publicise what they have decided; or, worse, what they have been handed by a foundation—very often the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, I regret to say—or some PR outlet. I have sat in this Chamber and heard a speaker read out what was clearly provided to them by some kind of lobbying group, and they got their text muddled up between what “we want”, “they want” and “I want”; it was clear that they had not even previously read what they were reading out. We need to improve the quality of debate in this Chamber, and not judge people on how often they pop up and ask a question.

On

“serving on committees of the House”,

there are not enough committees for all Members to serve on. Are Members who are not fortunate enough to serve on a Select Committee going to be penalised because they do not?

On “asking oral questions”, that is perfectly good, but you do not always get in on an Oral Question session; you have to jump up and down very often, and you are lucky if your hit rate is high.

On “tabling written questions”, let us not look at the quantity of Written Questions; let us look at some of the Answers—let us try to get an Answer. I have noticed over the years that Answers are masterful in their evasiveness. They do not even attempt to answer the Question, and if the Question is too difficult, they say it is at disproportionate cost to gather the information. Why do we bother asking some of these Written Questions, particularly when they cost hundreds of pounds to the public to provide a non-Answer? But we can all do that, if we are going to be judged on asking Written Questions. We can do it remotely, lie in bed and table hundreds of Written Questions. Lo and behold, we will all be judged to be doing terribly well in terms of participation. I rather think not.

The amendment talks about

“any other activity which the Committee considers to be participation in the work of the House”.

What does that mean? That is an all-encompassing statement. What can it possibly mean? This is a terrible amendment.

We should concentrate far more on the quality of what and how we debate here, on the quality of the speeches and levels of engagement. To seek to prescribe and identify how each and every one of us—individuals here for completely different reasons—should behave in some hideous template way to be decided by a committee is not the way to improve what goes on in this place.

--- Later in debate ---

However, the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, raises a further interesting point about the title itself. We know that the honour of a knighthood can be removed. It strikes me that there may be appropriate circumstances in which the conferral of a peerage should be subject to the same outcome, depending on the circumstances.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, this has been a short but interesting and thoughtful debate on the amendments trying to probe these issues. The comments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, on how the House can deal with this matter were very helpful.

Currently, as the noble and learned Lord said, under the House of Lords Reform Act 2014, a Member of this House automatically ceases to be a Member if they are convicted of a serious offence—that is, if they are given a non-suspended prison sentence of more than a year. We have already heard about the House of Lords (Expulsion and Suspension) Act 2015; the Standing Orders of this House and the Code of Conduct deal with that very clearly. If a Member receives a prison sentence—of any length and regardless of what the sentence is—that is deemed to be a breach of the code.

There has been a general view across the House about having some strengthening of their roles but, as the noble and learned Lord has said, a number of factors have to be considered in the round. For example, would it be right automatically to expel a Member if the Crown Court considers that the offence is not sufficiently serious to warrant a custodial sentence? Are there particular offences that the House may consider should be treated more seriously, or as being incompatible with membership of your Lordships’ House and warrant automatic expulsion?

Noble Lords also raised the question of somebody being prosecuted overseas. As well as what we might determine malicious or political prosecutions, somebody could be prosecuted overseas for something that is not an offence in this country. Further debate is needed on how we can strengthen the rules. Another factor that I will take into account is the rules across both Houses. It was interesting that the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, set the threshold in his amendment lower than the recall conditions for Members of Parliament, but the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, set it higher. Some consistency across Parliament would be helpful.

The noble Lord also raised a very interesting point about the removal of peerage. I am sure I am not the only noble Lord to have heard this point—the noble Lord, Lord True, may have had similar correspondence: if somebody has been stripped of another honour, why do they remain a Peer? In fact, that has nothing to do with the membership of the House of Lords. Someone can retain a peerage. That is not a matter for this House, but I think that those comments should be taken on board as well.

That indicates that we would be willing and happy to maintain an ongoing dialogue on this particular matter—

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

The manifesto mentioned “disgraced” Peers. I know that the noble Baroness may be consulting on this, but can she indicate what she means by “disgraced” Peers? Is it only those who have committed serious criminal offences?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

It is hard to look at this without looking at criminal offences, but if noble Lords have other examples they would wish us to consider, we would be happy to do so. Ultimately, these are matters for the Code of Conduct and further dialogue, so I respectfully request that noble Lords do not press their amendments.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, we have spent 15 minutes on this, so I hope we will not be accused of filibustering in this small but rather important debate. I take on board the complexities that my noble and learned friend Lord Keen of Elie and the Minister have described. Nevertheless, it has been a worthwhile debate.

There has been a surprising amount of consensus over the deprivation of titles. If one can take away a knighthood, it should be possible, in very controlled circumstances, to take away the title of Peer. It is a matter for this House in conjunction with the Commons, because the Titles Deprivation Act 1917 said that a Joint Committee of privy counsellors from both Houses should look at peerages and decide who had aided the enemy. If we had removal for serious offences, however we determine “serious”, again, it would be determined by a committee of privy counsellors from both Houses. And it would not be automatic; we would not be looking back at someone like Lord Montague and automatically doing it. The committee would determine whether the seriousness of the offence, whether in the last few years or further back, was worth taking forward. It would not be an automatic removal of title.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Finn (Con)]

My Lords, this is an interesting amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Blencathra. To continue the Lloyd Webber theme, he has certainly been a diamond in our dull grey lives today.

As my noble friend described, this amendment seeks to provide a mechanism by which resolutions passed by this House on matters such as retirement age, attendance, participation or criminal convictions could be translated into statute through regulations. I know that my noble friend, as a former and long-serving chair of our Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, makes this suggestion with a great deal of knowledge and consideration for the workings of our House.

This amendment also reflects an important principle that we have discussed throughout our debates: that constitutional reform should be done with consensus and that your Lordships should have a say in any reforms that affect your Lordships’ House. However, we must also acknowledge that the House of Lords is an unelected body, and allowing it to self-regulate its membership with legal force would raise democratic concerns and risk undermining trust in our institutions. Traditionally, and rightly so, significant changes to the composition of the Lords have been matters decided by Parliament as a whole, not merely by your Lordships’ House.

While I understand the spirit of the amendment, I have some practical concerns—for example, about the proposal to require that resolutions be translated into statute without any alteration. Some House resolutions, though well meaning, can contain ambiguities or practical challenges that would need refining before they could be translated into statute. By requiring strict adherence to the wording of resolutions, there is a risk of making ineffective or impractical law and creating unintended complications.

To conclude, there is much to commend in the principle of this amendment, namely that your Lordships’ House should have a meaningful role in shaping its own composition and standards for the future. However, allowing the House to self-regulate its membership in this way would raise democratic concerns that have not been satisfactorily addressed today. That said, my noble friend’s proposal rightly challenges us to consider how we can translate our internal deliberations into actionable reforms, should there be consensus to do so.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, it has been an interesting debate. One thing that strikes me is that the House itself wants to lead on the issues of participation, retirement age, attendance and criminal conviction. The noble Lord, Lord Newby, said that legislation was not the way forward, and the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, was very suspicious of legislation, because he thinks that it is not going to happen. It is interesting how Members are now much more engaged in these issues than we have been in the past, so I am grateful for those comments.

On the noble Lord’s amendment, I feel the hand of mischief here a little. It feels a bit like a Henry VIII power; I wonder whether noble Lords are comfortable with an unelected House passing a resolution and then saying to the elected House, “You must put this in statute”. It goes against the grain of every speech I have ever heard the noble Lord make on that issue, with which I have always agreed, so it is a curious amendment—but just a probing one, I am sure.

On the issue of the House making these arrangements and looking at how it can do that—including whether we can do things more quickly—there are always arrangements in our manifesto for legislation. But if noble Lords can find a way to agree on a way forward on the issues in the noble Lord’s amendments, I am sure the House would be willing to have those discussions.

I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising those issues. As I say, this amendment raises constitutional issues. In any other aspect of the work he has done, I do not think he would ever have agreed to it, but I thank him for his contribution and hope he will seek leave to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

Can I ask the noble Baroness a couple of questions? First, as I read my noble friend’s amendment, the duty on the Government would be to put the matter to the vote, not put it in statute. So the House of Commons would have a controlling vote over whether these changes happen.

Secondly, in response to what the noble Lord, Lord Newby, said, is it the noble Baroness’s understanding that the current arrangements would allow us to change the Standing Orders so that we excluded Peers on the basis of non-attendance or non-participation—or would that require legislative change?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

In our Standing Orders we are already able to exclude Peers for non-attendance. That right exists at the moment. The discussion we have had is about whether it is at the right level, but we could do that through our own Standing Orders.

I am not sure that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, is right in the first point he made, because the amendment says:

“Where a resolution is passed by the House of Lords in accordance with subsection (1) … a relevant Minister must, by regulations made by statutory instrument, amend this Act”.


So there are instructions for the Minister to amend the Act—there would have to be a vote, I am sure, but it is an instruction.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for making that clear. It would be an instruction for the Minister to lay it as a statutory instrument but, of course, there would be a vote on it in the House of Commons at any rate.

My noble friend Lord Northbrook asked about the mechanics of the resolution. We write Standing Orders and they are perfect, so we would draft a new Standing Order on whatever it may be; the resolution of the House would then ask for that Standing Order to be a statutory instrument, which the Government would implement.

My noble friend Lady Finn was worried that we would impose on the Government the wording of this statutory instrument but get it wrong. If I may say so, there is a better chance that the House of Lords will get the wording of a statutory instrument right than any government lawyers; that has been my experience in the past. I welcome my noble friend Lord Lucas’s support.

I am sorry to disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Newby, but I believe that we are capable of drafting sufficient regulations on some of the issues in my amendment and that we do not need an Act of Parliament. I regret that I put the criminal convictions in—that was a step too far—but, hypothetically, surely we should have the power to do as I have suggested as far as the retirement age and a participation rate are concerned. Those things do not need massive outside consultation or an Act of Parliament. As the House of Lords, it should be within our power, if the committee of the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, comes up with metrics on participation—or if the suggestions from the noble Earls, Lord Devon and Lord Kinnoull, on retirement ages and transitional rules come up—to say, “These are the rules that we want”. In the current circumstances, we would say that to the Government. If the Leader of the House, on whatever side, said, “Jolly good idea”, he or she would then go to the Government and say, “This is what the House of Lords wants to change. Can we please have an Act of Parliament sometime to make these amendments to our rules?”.

I am suggesting that we would not need to go through that palaver if we built in a tightly constrained regulatory power. It may have to be tweaked—I am not suggesting that my wording here is perfect; clearly, it is not—but, if we gave ourselves the power to change our rules on retirement ages and participation rates, say, and that regulation power could go to the Government, as I suggest, the Government could then put it in an SI the way we have worded it. The House of Commons could then vote on it. I suggest that this would be a simple solution but, as I think I am the only one here with an amendment, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Business of the House

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Monday 10th March 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

That Standing Order 44 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be dispensed with on 11 March to enable the Supply and Appropriation (Anticipation and Adjustments) Bill to be taken through its remaining stages that day.

Motion agreed.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 10th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Strathclyde (Con)]

My Lords, I have signed the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Newby, but I really enjoyed listening to my noble friend Lord Blencathra, who raised many sensible points. The noble Lord, Lord Newby, did not quite give the case for a democratic House as much justice as it deserved. I am sorry to see that most of his Benches seem to be relatively deserted. On the whole, his party has not turned out to support him as ably as I will now try to do.

It is interesting that today we very much turn to a new phase of discussion of the Bill. Last week, we discussed the issue of heredity and whether to fling out certain Peers. I think the Committee broadly agreed, overwhelmingly, that heredity was no longer an acceptable way of choosing a House of Parliament, but there was substantial disagreement about transitionary arrangements, grandfather rights and creating life Peers. No doubt we will return to those at length when we meet again and discuss those amendments on Report.

When discussing a democratic mandate for this House, it is always worth having a look at history—what my noble friend called the institutional memory. I do not think that any of us can go back to 1911, which may not have been the first time that democracy was discussed for this House, but it is a key point because it led to a statute of Parliament which fundamentally reassessed the relationship between the two Houses.

What is important about the 1911 Act is its preamble. I will not quote it exactly, but it said that we should substitute the House of Lords for a Chamber constituted on a popular, instead of a hereditary, basis. That was in 1911 and here we are in 2025, and we are no further to getting that. In the 1920s, after the First World War and the devastation it produced, several commissions looked at the case for an elected House, which came to nothing. In the 1930s, there were other matters. In the 1940s, there was of course the Second World War.

The extraordinary Parliament in 1945, with all those radical Labour policies under Attlee, did so much. Of course, with only a few handfuls of Labour Peers, that Labour Government managed to pass everything they wanted to through this House, which goes to the nub of my noble friend Lord Blencathra’s argument that convention plays an important part in the relationship between these two Houses of Parliament. However, I am not entirely sure that my noble friend was quite so keen on those kinds of conventions existing. They were very powerful in the 1940s, and they are still powerful now.

In the 1950s, there was the introduction of the Life Peerages Act which, at a stroke, fundamentally changed how this House was viewed and injected a good deal of new blood into it. That is what has kept us going ever since. But the dream of democracy did not quite die. Lord Longford introduced a Bill in 1968. That Bill was talked out in the House of Commons by two MPs: Enoch Powell and Michael Foot. They decided that the reason there could not be a democratic mandate for the House of Lords is that it would compete with the House of Lords, and that level of competition was completely unacceptable. The noble Baroness is trying to intervene.

[The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Smith of Basildon) (Lab)]

I only wanted to correct the noble Lord. He said that they could not have an elected second Chamber as it would compete with the House of Lords; I think he meant the House of Commons. He just misspoke—that was all.

[Lord Strathclyde (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness for putting me right.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I just proved I was listening.

[Lord Strathclyde (Con)]

Anyway, that took us to 1998-99 and the promise in the 1997 Blairite manifesto that there would be a democratic reform. Here we are, 28 years after that, and there is no further movement at all. At the beginning of the century, there were various royal commissions and White Papers, which came up in favour of a more democratic House, but none was pushed forward. I think Prime Minister Gordon Brown had an attempt in 2009-10 at a democratic House. But it was not until the Government of my noble friend Lord Cameron that we saw the introduction into Parliament of a Bill for real democratic mandate—an 80:20 elected House—and the noble Lord, Lord Newby, explained very well what happened to that.

It is worth pointing out in this debate about the democratic mandate that the amendment I have signed is not for an 80:20 elected House; it is for a 100% elected House. That would mean that the House would lose the benefit of the Cross Benches. I think having 20% unelected is extremely important. The Cross-Benchers bring something to this House which no democratic mandate would be able to do. You just have to look at the Cross Benches for an example: former judges, trade unionists, businesspeople, churchmen, archbishops, and so on. They would never dream of standing for an election, but they bring their knowledge and experience to bear to the workings of this House and legislation, which is extremely effective. I am in favour of an 80% elected House, not a 100% elected House.

Secondly, the noble Lord, Lord Newby, made the case for a directly elected House. I wonder whether it is worth considering, and whether the noble Lord has considered, that, given the enormous changes in devolution over the last 25 years in our major cities and, of course, in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, there may be a case for looking at the capacity of this House to accept some form of indirectly elected Members, which would perhaps go to stopping what my noble friend Lord Blencathra regarded as too strong a democratic mandate that would challenge the House of Commons.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, and I both grew up in the post-war era. When I sat in front of our coal fire as a little boy, I used to love pulling at the threads of my woolly jumper and holes appeared elsewhere. My mother, who had knitted it, was furious and pointed to those holes. So it is with this Bill that would create an all-appointed House; holes appear elsewhere, and it is perfectly reasonable for your Lordships’ House, which is uniquely affected, to address some of the consequences.

The noble Lord, Lord Newby, in advocating work on a democratisation of the House—he is doing just this thing—follows a position long taken by his party. The preamble to the Parliament Act was referred to, which said that the House of Lords should be supplanted by a House constituted on a popular, instead of a hereditary, basis. It so happened that Asquith and Lloyd George, who believed in strong government, were not that keen on PR. In fact, Lloyd George, famously told CP Scott that PR was

“a device for defeating democracy, the principle of which was that the majority should rule, and for bringing faddists of all kinds into parliament and establishing groups and disintegrating parties”.

That was a wise man. Probably the father of the noble Lord, Lord Newby, did not know Lloyd George.

Asquith’s Government did not take democratisation forward, although, as the noble Lord said, Sir Nick Clegg and my noble friend Lord Cameron did go for reform in 2010. At the time, the Liberal Democrats saw that as part of a programme to entrench a Lib Dem hold on future Governments, with a PR wedge in both Houses. That did not succeed, but that potential Lib Dem lock is probably why many here, on both sides, would regard a Lords elected by PR as a less than enticing prospect.

However, beyond the principled arguments we have heard in this debate, put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Newby—and it is a legitimate, principled argument—and by others, such as the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Llanfaes, there are two reasons why calls for democratisation might intensify after this Bill. They may appear to be in contradistinction, but they could interlock.

The first is potential overreach by an unelected Chamber. I remember that, when most hereditary Peers left in 1999, the then Leader of this House, the noble Baroness, Lady Jay of Paddington, declared that the new House, stripped of most hereditary Peers, would be “more legitimate”. Will the new House created by this Bill, freed of the drag anchor of so-called illegitimate hereditary Peers, be more assertive? Will it view itself as the rather more expert House, one with more wisdom and authority than an inexperienced House of Commons, where 335 Members are new and only one in 10 was a Member more than 15 years ago? I sincerely hope not.

Will the new House be more confident in pressing its arguments? In the absence of sensible working arrangements such as I have suggested, that is possible. Indeed, the current campaign in the Guardian shows what is already being said about the legitimacy of the unelected House, life Peers and hereditary Peers alike. Faced with challenge, an elected Government might see merit in pressing forward with reform. Which takes one to a second, very plausible scenario, where successive Governments, copying the precedent created by this Bill, simply tear groups of Peers out of your Lordships’ House to adjust numbers here to their party-political convenience.

I have spoken about this before. When I did, the noble Lord, Lord Newby, challenged me to say what other groups might be taken out of the House. I cited an example of Peers who have served for over 15 years, term limits being a very popular proposal for Lords reform. I checked what the effects would be if term limits came in in 2029 without grandfather rights, as this Bill plans for hereditary Peers. Removing in 2029 all Peers who have served over 15 years and denying them grandfather rights would deliver the Conservatives a significant net gain of nearly 70 over the Opposition parties and some 190 against all groups in the House. It would remove 59 Liberal Democrat Peers, which is throwing out more than 75% of them. What about that as a prospect? Before anyone says “threat”, it is not threat but fact. There are really grave dangers and deep unfairnesses in this game of “remove a chunk of Peers here and there”, and they are redoubled if grandfather rights are denied. I do not think that any unelected House could long survive such manipulation. The calls to allow the public, rather than the Government, to choose political Members of the House would inevitably grow. So, like it or not, the debate about democratisation posed by the noble Lord, Lord Newby, will not be shooed away simply by removing hereditary Peers.

After the 1999 Act and the challenge to us on a stage 2 House, my party, as my noble friend Lord Strathclyde reminded us, came forward in 2002 with an idea for an elected Senate of 300 members, with 60 seats reserved for unelected Cross Benchers to damp the electoral mandate. Our manifestos in 2005 and 2010 maintained that, and we sought to put it into action in the coalition Government. As we have heard, that attempt was frustrated, but what is the Labour position? It is the party in power. It is the party proposing, in its manifesto, replacing your Lordships’ House. The gracious Speech for the 1998-99 Session said that the 1999 Act would be

“the first stage in a process of reform to make the House of Lords more democratic and representative”.

Labour’s 2001 manifesto pledged a “more representative and democratic” House. Sounds familiar: is that not the line that we keep hearing spun by the party opposite on this Bill and this package of reforms? I did not believe it then, I am sceptical now and I think that the noble Lord, Lord Newby, has every right to ask for the kind of work that he is proposing. So I must ask how the Minister will respond—I hope that she will.

After succeeding Tony Blair, whose party had been publicly advocating for a democratic second House for years—and then voted against any element of election at all in 2003—Gordon Brown tried to revive Labour’s idea of a representative House. In Labour’s 2009 Bill, he looked to end the entry of new hereditary Peers, but he included grandfather rights: a provision that all existing Peers should stay. It was a different Labour Party then, perhaps. Instead of backing plans for election put forward by the coalition, however, Labour allied with rebels in the Commons to frustrate progress. Given the track record of the party opposite, I am a little sceptical as to the future. Will the Minister set out her plans in detail when she responds? If not, can she place a letter in the Library of the House?

The absence of a stage 2 destination overshadows the whole debate on the Bill and provokes many of the questions being asked. When Sir Keir Starmer became leader in 2020, he pledged the abolition of this House in his first term in office and the creation of a new elected Chamber. He was ecstatic when Gordon Brown’s commission reported in December 2022, acclaiming the idea of a new assembly of the nations and regions and, as he put it, rebuilding trust by

“replacing the unelected House of Lords with a new, smaller, democratically elected second chamber”.

Yet Labour’s 2024 manifesto merely said that

“Labour is committed to replacing the House of Lords with an alternative second chamber that is more representative of the regions and nations”.

The word “democracy” was not there. Where in the long grass is it now?

In conclusion, I will ask the Minister some specific questions. Can she confirm whether Labour’s alternative second Chamber will be wholly or partly elected by the people? The manifesto said there would be a public consultation on this Chamber, but you cannot have a meaningful consultation without a proposition on which to consult. When will consultation start? My noble friend Lord Blencathra asked for one form of consultation: a referendum on an elected House of Lords. Does the noble Baroness leave the door open to such a referendum?

Can the Minister tell us whether the Government will publish a White Paper, or any other guidance, to inform your Lordships as we move towards Report? As my noble friend Lord Moylan said, what is the current timetable envisaged for replacing your Lordships, as the manifesto pledged? It is causing concern and confusion on all sides. Will the Minister, who is Leader of the whole House—a responsibility she carries out, in my judgment, with a high sense of responsibility—set out a clear direction as to the Chamber that will replace us before we come to Report?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful for what has been a long and interesting discussion; I thank the noble Lords, Lord Newby and Lord Blencathra, and others, for giving us the opportunity to have it. As with most debates we have had on the Bill, it has gone rather wider than the precise amendments in front of us. The noble Lord referred to some of the things he mentioned at Second Reading, the King’s Speech and other debates. I welcome that there is a focus on other issues beyond the Bill, but that is not what is before us now. However, they are all worthy of longer-term consideration.

The amendments in this group raise the introduction a democratic element to the House. Amendment 11, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Newby, Amendment 72, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Llanfaes, and Amendment 90D, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Brady of Altrincham, all seek to impose a duty on the Government to take forward proposals to ensure a democratic element of your Lordships’ House once the Bill has passed.

Amendments 11 and 72 would require the Government to consult specified persons and bodies, including from this House and the other place, on proposals for introducing elected Members, whereas Amendment 90D would not require consultation and focuses on legislative proposals for a far smaller House of Lords elected under a first past the post system. I am not sure, if we were elected under any system, that it would be a “House of Lords”; I cannot remember which noble Lord said that they were tempted by the title “senator”, but it certainly would not be a House of Lords if that was the proposal. Amendment 90D also asks the Government to bring forward a draft Bill. A very similar amendment was placed in the other place, which was resoundingly rejected by a majority of 262.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Strathclyde (Con)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

No, I will not take an intervention. I have listened to everybody with great courtesy throughout the whole debate. Would the noble Lord mind letting me answer the questions?

[Lord Strathclyde (Con)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I shall take one short intervention. I am sure the noble Lord would not want to detain the Committee any longer than necessary.

[Lord Strathclyde (Con)]

My Lords, I intervene simply to say that I have long been a supporter of an elected House, as many noble Lords are aware—certainly since 1997. I am on the public record. I supported the Bill in 2012.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I am happy to be corrected on that, and I am sure noble Lords will welcome his support.

I found Amendments 11A and 11B from the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, really interesting. Amendment 11A seeks to impose a requirement on the Government to include in its consultation

“the implications of securing a democratic mandate for the House of Lords for its powers and conventions”.

The interesting thing about his amendments is that he was the first in the debate to talk about the functions of a second Chamber rather than the form. Other noble Lords then commented on that, but he was the first and he did so in some detail. My starting point on a second Chamber has always been: what does it do, how does it do it, why does it do it, and how do we best fulfil the role? I was pleased that some noble Lords mentioned the role of the Cross-Benchers, because we all welcome that role, and I think the public would too if they were asked. However, the noble Lord would also require a referendum on the principle of an elected second Chamber. If I understood him correctly, if that principle was endorsed it would have to be followed by a further referendum on the methods of election.

The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, spoke significantly more widely than her amendment, which seeks to place a duty on the Government to lay before Parliament a review of the implications of Act for the appropriateness of an unelected Chamber. She complained that she could not get the functions into her amendment, but the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, expressed surprise at how wide amendments could go on membership when the terms of the Bill are so narrow. But that is the ruling we have: anything to do with membership of the House is seen to be in order, which leads to quite a broad approach.

Underlying all those amendments is the argument that further reform of this House is required. I welcome that, because although this Bill is narrow and noble Lords have commented on the next steps, the Labour Party’s manifesto was clear. I am surprised that noble Lords seem so surprised. The manifesto talks about the steps. It says—I think the noble Lord, Lord True, read this out—that we are committed to replacing the Chamber we have now with

“an alternative second Chamber that is more representative of the nations and regions”,

and that we

“will consult on proposals seeking the input of the … public”.

The noble Lord, Lord True, seems to expect me to have a ready-made proposal to bring forward. I do not; this is a longer-term proposal, and I would have thought noble Lords would welcome the opportunity to have an input into it, which, obviously, they will have. There is a range of proposals. We have already heard today that even those who support an elected second Chamber have a range of ways they would do it, so there is no ready-made blueprint: there are lots of thoughts and suggestions, and we have put forward suggestions in the past, but we want to consult more widely. That is a manifesto commitment.

However, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Newby, said himself, this Bill is not the right vehicle for delivering that proposal and we would not accept those amendments. This is a focused Bill that seeks to deliver the manifesto commitment by removing the right of the remaining hereditary Peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords. I remind noble Lords that that principle was established 25 years ago. This is the final part of that principle. My noble friend Lord Grocott seemed surprised this has taken so long and asked why people had made interventions on a range of other issues. This is a focused Bill on immediate reform, following the principle established 25 years ago.

We heard quite a lot about the history of different parts of legislation. The proposals that matter at the moment are those in our manifesto that we are delivering with this Bill, but the Government are committed to more fundamental reform, as I have said. More geographical representation is clearly part of that.

I come back to the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra. I also thought that the noble Lord, Lord Brady, made a thoughtful speech. I know the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, was not proposing an elected second Chamber, but the primacy of the first Chamber is about its elected status. It is accountable to the electorate. If I understood the noble Lord, Lord True, correctly, he thought this Chamber should have a more enhanced role because we have been here longer and have more expertise. You could also argue that an elected Chamber is more in touch with the electorate who have more recently elected them. That is a very important principle.

The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, raised a number of points to be considered during a consultation on the form an alternative second Chamber should take. One point, of course, is primacy. I am intrigued by the idea that we could have a Prime Minister in a second Chamber; I will not apply for any such role. The noble Lord made an important point about the conventions that apply to an unelected second Chamber. Those conventions have stood the test of time through many changes, and they remain. They serve this House, the primary Chamber and democracy well. I anticipate no change to those conventions; it would be a different kind of Chamber if we did not abide by them. The hereditary Peers leaving in 1999 did not alter the conventions, and it will not alter the conventions now either. It is those conventions that protect the primacy of the Commons, which is extremely important.

These issues are not for your Lordships’ House today in this Bill. The Government are making an immediate start to reform this House with this Bill. Part of the reason why there has been no progress over the past 25 years is this argument that nothing can be done until everything is done. But nobody can agree, even in the debate we have had today, on what “everything” is and the result is that we do nothing. Completing this part of the reform shows good faith and good intentions.

The noble Lord, Lord True, tempted me on a number of points, and I want to challenge him on one. He referred to the exit of some Peers—that is, losing our hereditary colleagues—as being some kind of political attack because it affects the numbers. I ask him: did he feel the same when his party racked up appointment after appointment, creating a much larger disparity between the two main parties than we have ever seen before or than would happen under this Bill? What he suggested is not our intention. I have been very clear in Committee, as well as in Select Committee and in the other place, that this House works well with roughly equal numbers between government and opposition parties—and that is not a party-political point at all. Because of the work we do, we should be a more deliberative and engaged Chamber. The noble Lord is laughing at me, and I am not quite sure why; I am making a serious point about how this House works best. It is important that we do our best work and that we figure out how we can do that.

[Lord True (Con)]

The noble Baroness challenged me on one thing, and perhaps I can make it clear for the Hansard record that I was certainly not laughing at her, even if other noble Lords were. I think she acknowledges that from a sedentary position.

The noble Baroness asked whether I was concerned about certain things. I did not particularly like it when Sir Tony Blair created the largest number of life Peers ever known, but that was his prerogative. The point I am trying to make—this is a House point, not a party-political point—is that a very dangerous precedent opens up when it is felt that a group can be dismissed from the House. That has never happened in this way, and the Conservative Party has never removed people from other parties. I will not repeat what I said in my remarks, but I believe that this is a profoundly dangerous precedent, and we should find ways to avoid setting it.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a party-political point. I was trying to make the very non-party-political point that the House operates best with roughly equal numbers. It has taken 25 years to get here. The principle was established when the hereditary Peers left in 1999—I have to say that any trade union would have snapped up Viscount Cranborne in a moment—and, in effect, 92 of their number remained in perpetuity. Those were the arrangements then. This Bill will end those arrangements, so that the House can move forward.

The noble Lord talked about a term limit, an issue on which some noble Lords have put down amendments later. That would have to be discussed and debated by this House. That is not one of the proposals we are putting forward, but if someone wants to propose that during the consultation we will have on an alternative second Chamber, they are at liberty to do so. I think there would probably be quite lengthy arguments about the duration of a term limit, but that is not included the proposals before us today. Although 25 years is perhaps quite a long time to take to move forward, it is right that we take time to consider these issues.

I am grateful to noble Lords for the points they have made. Certainly, some useful points for the future have been made on how an alternative second Chamber may be constituted. That is not before us today, but in due course, when we are able to come forward with proposals, we will consult quite widely. At this stage, I respectfully ask that noble Lords and Baronesses take their amendments back and reconsider them, and I beg leave to ask that they not press them.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I thank everyone who has spoken, and I slightly apologise for initiating such a long debate. I am grateful to noble Lords who have supported our proposal, and doubly grateful to those who have supported me today who have never supported me before—I thank them very much. I obviously cannot deal with all the points made, and I will try to be brief.

The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, made the classic argument for not having an elected House of Lords, the nub of which relates to the primacy of the Commons. The only thing I would say is that, in 2012, the House of Commons voted by a majority of 338 to have an elected House of Lords, so presumably, it did not think its position was being fatally undermined at that point. The noble Lord was the first person to raise the possibility of Cross-Benchers being included under our proposals, and they absolutely would be. There was a provision for Cross-Benchers in the 2012 proposals, and having them would be perfectly possible under my amendment.

On the question of looking at functions, as I said in my introductory remarks, there is no bar to that happening during the consultation period. However, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, that, at worst, wherever one ends up, one is likely to get a crunching of gears rather than a car crash.

Business of the House

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Wednesday 5th March 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

That Standing Order 44 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be dispensed with on 19 March to allow the Finance Bill to be taken through its remaining stages that day.

Motion agreed.

Business of the House

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Wednesday 5th March 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

That in the event that the Church of Scotland (Lord High Commissioner) Bill has been brought from the Commons, Standing Order 44 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be dispensed with on 24 March to enable the Bill to be taken through its remaining stages that day and that, in accordance with Standing Order 47 (Amendments on Third Reading), amendments shall not be moved on Third Reading.

[The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Smith of Basildon) (Lab)]

My Lords, it might be helpful if I say a few words about this Motion. It refers to a fast-tracked Bill, so I want to set out the arrangements for the Bill that have been agreed in the usual channels previously. The Bill has just had its First Reading, as noble Lords will have heard. Its Second Reading will be on 19 March, and all other Lords stages on 24 March. Given the short gap between Second Reading and the remaining stages, noble Lords will be able to table amendments for Committee from today after the Bill has been read for the first time and printed. The deadline for the first Marshalled List will be the usual time of 4 pm on Thursday 20 March. If amendments are tabled, they will be debated in Committee. If further stages and tabling arrangements are needed, they will be announced by the Chief Whip in the usual way on 24 March.

Motion agreed.

Ukraine

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Tuesday 4th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Smith of Basildon) (Lab)]

My Lords, I shall now repeat a Statement on Ukraine made by the Prime Minister yesterday in the House of Commons. The Statement is as follows:

“It is less than a week since I called on this House to show the courage of our predecessors. We see before us clearly the test of our times, a crossroads in our history. With permission, I will update the House on my efforts to secure a strong, just and lasting peace following Russia’s vile invasion of Ukraine.

It begins in this House, where on Tuesday I announced the biggest sustained increase in defence spending since the Cold War—a recognition of the fact that, once again, we live in an era where peace in Europe depends upon strength and deterrence, but also a rediscovery of the old post-war argument, long held on these Benches, that economic security is national security; because the demands we now have to make of Britain must come alongside a new foundation of security for working people.

The tough choices that we made last week are not done. We must use the process of getting to 3% of our national income spent on defence to fundamentally rebuild British industry, using our investment in military spending to create new jobs and apprenticeships in every part of our country. That is why, last night, I announced a deal that perfectly symbolises the new era: a partnership with Ukraine that allows them to use £1.6 billion of UK Export Finance to buy 5,000 air defence missiles, manufactured in Belfast. That means UK jobs, UK skills and UK finance pulling together for our national interest, putting Ukraine in the strongest possible position for peace, and protecting innocent civilians from the terror of Russian drones.

My efforts continued on Thursday, when I met President Trump in the White House to strengthen our relationship with America. Now, what happened in his subsequent meeting with President Zelensky is something that nobody in this House wants to see. But I do want to be crystal clear: we must strengthen our relationship with America. For our security, for our technology and for our trade and investment, they are, and always will be, indispensable. And we will never choose between either side of the Atlantic—in fact, if anything, the past week has shown that idea to be totally unserious. While some people may enjoy the simplicity of taking a side, this week has shown with total clarity that the US is vital in securing the peace that we all want to see in Ukraine.

I welcome the opportunity for a new economic deal with the US, confirmed by the President last week, because it is an opportunity that I am determined to pursue. I welcome the positive discussions that we had on European security, including his clear support for Article 5 of NATO. I welcome the understanding, from our dialogue, that our two nations will work together on security arrangements for a lasting peace in Ukraine. I also welcome the President’s continued commitment to that peace, which nobody in this House should doubt for a second is sincere.

I now turn to the events of this weekend and the moving scenes that greeted President Zelensky as he arrived in London on Saturday. I saw for myself that he was taken aback when the crowd in Whitehall cheered at the top of their voices. They were speaking for the whole of our country—a reminder that this Government, this House and this nation stand in unwavering support behind him and the people of Ukraine. We resolved together to move forward the strong cause of a just and lasting peace for Ukraine.

Then, on Sunday, I hosted European leaders from across our continent, equally committed to this cause, including President Macron, Prime Minister Meloni, the leaders of NATO, of the European Commission and of the European Council, and the Prime Minister of Canada—a vital ally of this country, the Commonwealth and Ukraine, responsible for training over 40,000 Ukrainian troops. I also had the privilege beforehand of speaking online to the leaders of Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia, each of whom, close as they are to the front line with Russia, stressed the urgency of the moment.

It was a productive summit. Together, we agreed a clear strategy: that the UK, France and our allies will now work closely with Ukraine on a plan to stop the fighting, which we will then discuss directly with the United States. It is a plan with four clear principles, which I will now share in full with the House. First, we must keep the military aid to Ukraine flowing and keep increasing the economic pressure on Russia. To that end, alongside our partnership on air defence, we are doubling down on military aid. Already this year, we have taken our support to record levels. On Saturday, we also agreed a new £2.2 billion loan for Ukraine, backed not by the British taxpayer but by the profits from frozen Russian assets. Secondly, we agreed that any lasting peace must guarantee the sovereignty and security of Ukraine, and that Ukraine must be at the table when negotiating its future—that is absolutely vital. Thirdly, we agreed that, in the event of a peace deal, we will continue to boost Ukraine’s defences and Ukraine’s deterrence. Finally, fourthly, we agreed to develop a coalition of the willing, ready to defend a deal in Ukraine and guarantee the peace.

After all, the Ukrainian position is completely understandable. For them, the war did not begin three years ago; that was merely the latest and most brutal escalation. They have signed agreements with Putin before. They have experienced the nature of his diplomacy and the calibre of his word. We cannot accept a weak deal like Minsk again. No, we must proceed with strength, and that does require, urgently, a coalition of the willing. We agreed on Sunday that those willing to play a role in this will intensify planning now, and, as this House would expect, Britain will play a leading role—with, if necessary, and together with others, boots on the ground and planes in the air. It is right that Europe must do the heavy lifting to support peace on our continent, but to succeed this effort must also have strong US backing.

I want to assure the House that I take none of this lightly. I have visited British troops in Estonia, and no aspect of my role weighs more heavily than the deployment of British troops in the service of defence and security in Europe. Yet I do feel very strongly that the future of Ukraine is vital for our national security. Russia is a menace in our waters and in our skies. They have launched cyberattacks on our NHS and made assassination attempts on our streets. In this House, we stand by Ukraine because it is the right thing to do, but we also stand by them because it is in our interests to do so. If we do not achieve a lasting peace, the instability and insecurity that has hit the living standards of working people in Britain will only get worse, and Putin’s appetite for conflict and chaos will only grow.

A strong peace, a just peace and a lasting peace: that has now to be our goal. It is vital, it is in our interests and, in its pursuit, Britain will lead from the front. For the security of our continent, the security of our country and the security of the British people, we must now win the peace. I commend this Statement to the House”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I too thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement. The adage that a week is a long time in politics has rarely been so graphically demonstrated than over the past seven days. In that time, we have seen the brutal treatment of the Ukrainian President by the President of the United States, the suspension of all US military support for Ukraine, and the beginnings of a co-ordinated European response to this new and dangerous situation.

In all of this, the Prime Minister has played a statesmanlike and positive role, and we commend him for it. No doubt we all found his presentation of the letter from the King to Trump cringeworthy, but there is no doubt that it helped to create a positive atmosphere for the talks which ensued. It was a small price to pay for a relatively positive outcome.

Nothing can excuse the new American position. It not only rips up the basis of our support for Ukraine but undermines Europe’s assumption that the US would in all circumstances be a strong and dependable ally. Today’s comments by JD Vance, which disrespect UK forces and their contribution alongside our American allies in Iraq and Afghanistan, are just the latest evidence of an arrogance and an ignorance that are chilling.

The response which the Prime Minister is adopting—to try to broker a re-engagement between the US and Ukraine while seeking to put together a coalition of the willing to defend Ukraine—is to be strongly welcomed. But I think it is a mistake to believe, as the Statement does, that under this presidency our relationship with America, at least in terms of security, can be strengthened to any significant extent.

Trump has made it clear that he does not accept a continuing responsibility for the security of Europe. We need to accept this and plan accordingly. This has major and unpalatable consequences in terms of military expenditure, but also provides opportunities for the UK to regain a leading position in Europe and for our defence industries.

In the short term, we welcome the loan to Ukraine backed by the interest from frozen Russian assets and the use of UK Export Finance to fund the purchase of missiles to be manufactured in Belfast. But these are relatively small interventions and much more is going to be needed.

One idea which is gaining traction is the establishment of an international rearmament bank, which would facilitate access to private sector capital for Ukraine’s ongoing struggles. Do the Government plan to pursue this?

Another proposal which we have discussed often in your Lordships’ House is for the seizure of Russian assets—the capital, not just the interest. In yesterday’s questions on the Statement, the Prime Minister said that this was being looked at but that it was very difficult. At the moment, this proposal seems to be being taken only half-seriously. I accept that legislation might be necessary to enable it to happen, but I am sure that Parliament would fast-track such a measure. Can the noble Baroness give us any indication of the timescale for further work on this proposal and whether the Government are prepared to legislate to implement it?

For the longer-term move to 3% of GDP for defence spending, we have suggested that the Government should initiate cross-party discussions to see whether a consensus can be reached on how this might be funded. Do the Government have any plans to do this?

Every passing day demonstrates that the UK and our European allies are going to have to accept a step-change increase in responsibilities for our own defence. The Prime Minister clearly accepts this also, and he has our firm support in moving to achieve it.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for their comments about the role of the Prime Minister. I know that the pride in how the Prime Minister has acted has not been confined to this side of the House and I am grateful to noble Lords from across the House who have sought out me and my colleagues to make that point. It is when things are at their most challenging that we see the best in those who step up to take the action that is needed. Even when that can be very difficult, it is always better to make those attempts to make things work better than to walk away or, as the Prime Minister said, to take sides on the issue.

The noble Lord, Lord True, made a similar comment and spoke of his pride in the Prime Minister and our Government. I can tell him that the Prime Minister spoke to both President Trump and President Zelensky on both Friday night and Saturday night. Both noble Lords are right that witnessing the—I do not know quite how to describe it—meeting between President Zelensky and President Trump was uncomfortable for everyone. But the first reaction of the Prime Minister is: how do we mend this breach and how do we take things forward from here? I think that is the only response that a Prime Minister should have to something like that.

On the frozen assets, which both noble Lords raised, the Prime Minister spoke about this. I think the noble Lord, Lord Newby, was, uncharacteristically, a bit churlish about it. It is very difficult: it is not a case of just bringing forward legislation in this country; other countries have to be involved as well. Indeed, there have been discussions, as you would imagine, this week, but there is ongoing work on that that will continue at pace.

On the Chagos Islands, there is no deal at present. This would be brought to your Lordships’ House as a treaty in the normal way. There is nothing to comment on regarding finances for that.

The noble Lord, Lord True, asked me to say something more about the pause. To be honest, this is so fast-moving at the moment—he will have seen President Zelensky’s statement that he made tonight, and we do not know yet if that has had an impact. We have not got any information about what that pause may engage and what it may mean at this stage. When we do, we will be happy to share that information, but the noble Lord will appreciate that, from when the Prime Minister made his Statement yesterday, I have been getting updates during the course of the day, because things are moving quite quickly, and I would not want to say anything that was wrong.

I thought the description from noble Lord, Lord Newby, of the Prime Minister’s invitation from the King to the President as “cringeworthy” was not appropriate. The Prime Minister and the King have been very clear in their support for President Zelensky, and I thought the meeting of the King with President Zelensky was one everybody welcomed. The Prime Minister said yesterday—and I have spoken to him about this as well—that, when President Zelensky came to Downing Street, the spontaneous response from the public was quite emotional. Zelensky was very moved by it, but I think the Prime Minister was as well. It is an emotional time for President Zelensky; his country and his people have been through a lot. We have seen that emotion in him and how he rises to the occasion. It is challenging, but I think all efforts must be welcomed.

The noble Lord, Lord Newby, also asked about the rearmament bank. That was raised in the House of Commons yesterday, and the Prime Minister’s response then was very positive. It is one of the issues that the European leaders discussed, along with issues around what comes next. He is right: this is not the end of it; this is the start of it. It is going to be difficult. The idea that Europe has to step up and take a greater responsibility for our defence is something that everybody now recognises, and that is what we will continue to do.

I am not aware of any plans for cross-party discussions on government budgets at present, but we are aware of the impact and implications of this. We have been clear that we are seeking to move to 3% of GDP on defence spending in the next Parliament, and that commitment remains. At the moment, we are very determined that we give Ukraine all the support it needs. Key to that support is the sovereignty of Ukraine, and any deal on its future must involve Ukraine around the table.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

My Lords, the Prime Minister has shown himself, by general acclaim, to be a superlative diplomat over the past few days, but he is dealing with a moving target. Since that Statement, we have had both the pause in the supply of military equipment from President Trump and the conciliatory response from President Zelensky. The lawyers will say that one’s intention is shown by the consequences of one’s actions. Clearly, one consequence of the pause of the supply of US matériel has been a major tilt in favour of Russia in the battlefield as Russia tries to gain more territory before an eventual ceasefire. Surely this cannot be the intention of President Trump.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I am not sure I got the last part of the noble Lord’s question.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

Essentially, if the intention is shown by the natural consequences of one’s action then it is clear that the natural consequence of the pause is to give a major advantage on the battlefield to the Russians. Surely that cannot be the intention of President Trump.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I would hesitate to guess what President Trump’s intention is. We have been clear that our support for Ukraine is unwavering, but we do not know yet what is involved in the pause, or indeed whether the pause will take place. We have seen the same reports, but if I get more information, I will be happy to come back. Whether President Zelensky’s response has had an impact, we are not yet sure.

[Baroness May of Maidenhead (Con)]

My Lords, I commend the Prime Minister for the stance that he has taken and the work he has been doing with European and other allies; this is extremely important. The proposal to bring together a plan for a just and lasting peace, which is acceptable to Ukraine and which denies Putin a victory, is essential work. However, as we have seen from the announcement by the White House about the pause in military support to Ukraine, that work is ever more urgent. Can the Minister reassure this House that the Government are redoubling their efforts with their allies to come forward with a proposal that can be put to the United States of America? Can she indicate whether the Prime Minister has received any suggestion or indication from the Trump White House that it is willing to consider seriously any proposal that comes forward?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is right: we have to redouble our efforts. President Macron and the Prime Minister in particular are working on a plan at some pace. I do not know the details of all the Prime Minister’s conversations with President Trump; I know they are frequent at present. At every stage, the Prime Minister has said that we will present this to President Trump and the American Administration, and we will urge them to support a plan. President Trump has made it clear that Europe has to stand up and that is what Europe is doing. Countries are working together. That is the start of a process and there will be further meetings of those European leaders represented there. But the noble Baroness is absolutely right; it is very important that we get a plan and then take it to President Trump to seek to get agreement for that.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, I join in the praise of the Prime Minister’s performance in the last few days, which has drawn a great deal of admiration. It is clear that he is operating in very difficult circumstances, and one understands some of what he feels he has to say. Of course the transatlantic relationship is very important, not least in security, but the Prime Minister referred to President Trump’s “clear support” for Article 5 of NATO. Unfortunately, that is not something that many of us perceive. Can the Minister tell us whether the current circumstances are giving a real boost to the attempt to have a reset with the EU, including on security and defence co-operation? What news can she give us on that front, not just on the very welcome intergovernmental co-operation with our European allies but on us plugging into some of the EU defence-industrial co-operation?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

The noble Baroness’s description of the Prime Minister’s “performance” and of him feeling that he has to say things do not do justice to the gravity of the situation. It is not a performance; the Prime Minister holds strong views that we will work with our American allies, because the most important thing here is that we work with President Zelensky to seek peace. We want a stable and enduring peace, with Ukrainian sovereignty. Yes, the President did commit to Article 5 of NATO. and yes, one of the Government’s early commitments was defence and security co-operation with the EU.

[The Lord Bishop of Norwich]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for the Statement and echo other comments in your Lordships’ House about the leadership that the Prime Minister has shown in recent days. In Norfolk last week, I spent time with some of the brave Ukrainian men and women who are being trained, over a very short five-week period, by the Irish Guards and instructors from a range of international allies under Operation Interflex, learning the vital skills that they need to defend their nation in the face of Putin’s illegal invasion. Will the Minister give assurances that this commitment to Operation Interflex and to train Ukrainian men and women remains absolutely ironclad and will continue for as long as it is needed?

Although support for the uplift of the defence budget has been shown on this Bench, we are disappointed that it has been achieved, after little debate, by taking from the overseas development budget. Building on the question from the noble Lord, Lord Newby, will the Minister accept that, if and when we go further and spend 3% of GDP on defence, we will need to have a wider public conversation about how that will be funded?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate. I think that most people are not aware of the depth and breadth of the support for Ukraine. He made a powerful point on training and Interflex. The answer to his question is yes, that does continue and we are committed to it. I understand the disappointment around the cut to the ODA budget. It was a great disappointment to us as well; it was done with no pleasure or glee. The right reverend Prelate may be aware of the comments made by the Prime Minister in the other place yesterday that he wants to

“work with others … across the House … on other ways of raising money and finance for development and aid overseas”.—[Official Report, Commons, 3/3/25; col. 29.]

He has already met with the president of the World Bank to look at some of the options. We have a deeper commitment to returning to 0.7% as we are able to do so.

I think that the public are becoming more aware of the need for defence spending. It has been taken for granted for many years. We had the dividends of peace post the Cold War. The world is changing. We have to be part of that discussion and that awareness by doing our bit to explain to the public and engage with them on why this is necessary.

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, on that very point, is it not the case, if we do increase defence expenditure substantially to replace the withdrawal of American expenditure to some extent and for other reasons, as it seems we have to, that this represents a totally different situation from that which existed last July, at the time of the general election? Is it not the case that pledges given not to increase taxation in those circumstances have less relevance today? Surely it would be fairer all the way around if the cost of defence expenditure fell on the broadest shoulders that can bear it, not on the poorest people of the world.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, there are two points there. First, the strategic defence review is coming up, and we will have the response of the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, who is not here at the moment. He has spoken already about the strategic defence review that he is leading, and the Government will be informed by that. It is probably above my pay grade to touch on the Chancellor’s toes before the next Budget. The Government are taking all these issues into account to look at how we can best do this, but we have also had quite stagnant growth in this country for some time. Increasing the growth of our economy will be crucial to looking at how we fund all our commitments overseas and public services here.

[Lord Howard of Lympne (Con)]

My Lords, I join the unanimous support that the House has given to the efforts of the Prime Minister, and we all congratulate the Prime Minister on what he has sought to do in the past few days. Alas, however, his efforts have not yet met with success—and it is clear, is it not, that even in the few days that have elapsed since this House last responded to a Statement in the other place on this issue that the crisis has become more acute and that, though it grieves me to say so, we cannot rely on the United States under this President. I quite understand why the noble Baroness cannot say that and why the Prime Minister cannot say that, but it is, sadly, the truth. Is it not clear that, given what has happened even in these last few days, however difficult it may be, we have to have an urgent increase in the defence budget, greater and sooner than the Prime Minister indicated last week?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord. He is right, and it is at times like these that any Prime Minister would be tested to ensure that we get the best for our country. The first duty of any Government is the safety and security of their citizens, and we must do what it takes to achieve that. The Prime Minister, reaching out across the Atlantic but also across Europe, has taken a leadership role with other European leaders, which has been really important for this country as well. The noble Lord will know that defence spending is not something that you can turn on like a tap, and in getting to 2.5% there is a lot of work to be done, but we will be led by the strategic defence review, which will indicate where we are leading. But the Government will always take a change in circumstances into account.

[Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)]

My Lords, I join others in commending the Government for their Statement and their actions in recent days. It is perhaps symbolic that Belfast will be at the heart of the UK support in the aid that we are providing to Ukraine, because it symbolically shows that support from Ukraine is not just from all quarters of this House but from all parts of our nation. I agree with the Government that we want to see peace, and a just and lasting peace, but the Government are also right in saying that the best opportunity for that is through strength and deterrence. In the light of the pause in support from the United States, which many of us fear will be a long-term cessation rather than simply a pause, what assurances can the noble Baroness give the House that this country and other participants in the coalition of the willing will be able to ensure that there is sufficient aid going to Ukraine and, vitally, that it flows quickly enough to ensure that a gap is not created that Putin’s regime can try to exploit, leaving Ukraine vulnerable?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

The noble Lord is right—and I do not want to say anything more about the pause at this stage, because we simply do not know enough, and we do not know the impact of President Zelensky’s response. But we are well aware of those challenges. I mentioned the strategic defence review, and a national armaments director will be in place soon to look at those issues as well. But the security of Ukraine is not just about aid to Ukraine; it is also about the security and protection of this country. We need to be aware of that at all times. If we ignore the security of Ukraine issues, we have seen on our own shores before—as we saw in Salisbury, for example—that Russian aggression is an issue for this country, not just for other countries overseas. So we will work with Ukraine.

The point was made, which I reiterate, that the Prime Minister has brought together the coalition of the willing across Europe. One thing that has been a problem in the past is that we tend to move as slowly as the most reluctant member, and the Prime Minister is saying that we have to lead from the front and ask, “Where are the willing?” So we have the coalition of the willing so that we do not delay in any way at all and do as much as we can as quickly as we can.

[Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)]

My Lords, I remind your Lordships’ House of my interest as a member of the Army Board. I welcome the Government’s commitment to spending £3 billion in military aid until 2030, but my plea is that we are smart in how we spend it: first, that we ensure that we use it to re-energise the land industrial base in the UK, which we have allowed to atrophy over many years; and, secondly, that we recognise that the nature of warfare has changed. Historically, in the land domain, the depth of the battlefield was 80 kilometres; it is now 800 kilometres, and capabilities need to change to adapt for that. Can we ensure that we use this money as a catalyst to develop our own capabilities so we can then use those capabilities to ensure that we meet the Chief of the General Staff’s aim of doubling the lethality of the British Army by 2027?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

The noble Lord makes an important point. It is the purpose of the strategic defence review to look at all those issues and bring them to government. There is also an issue around defence procurement and always ensuring that we get the best value. I used to represent a constituency that had a defence industry and I am well aware of the problems that have existed with procurement. By reviewing procurement and being informed by the strategic defence review, we will do our best to get these issues right.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

I warmly welcome the tone of the Leader of the Opposition Benches tonight, and what the noble Baroness, Lady May, said. The Prime Minister’s measured public tone deserves applause; I join those who say that he is handling this crisis very well. The measured public tone entitles him to send private messages, and the bit of his statement that I most liked, I think, was that the Ukrainians must be at the table when their future is negotiated.

Thirty years ago, American peacekeepers negotiated at Dayton, very successfully, a solution to the Bosnian war. Richard Holbrooke was brilliant. All parties were there in Dayton, Ohio. We were there—the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Jones, who is not here tonight, was there. The warring parties accepted US mediation: there was an understanding among them that the US and its allies would be there to enforce the deal and ensure that all parties respected it. That was what enabled parties to come to an agreement. It would be very good if the Prime Minister would encourage the President of the United States to maintain open channels of communication with Kyiv. That is rather important. We should not criticise the President for talking to Moscow. That is a perfectly sensible thing to do. What he said to Moscow, of course, I do not know.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for his experience of these issues; we would all do well to heed him. He is right: a peace negotiated without Ukraine at the table will not endure and be sustained. He is also right to refer to a security guarantee, which has been part of the issue in negotiations. The important thing is that everybody strives for peace. It is clear that there are different ways and different views on how that can be achieved. The two crucial points that the noble Lord mentioned—Ukraine at the table and a security guarantee—are the only way to have something that will endure.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I agree with the Prime Minister’s comments on President Putin’s appetite for chaos. I assume that the Government believe that he should not be rewarded for that. I should like to ask the Leader two questions. First, there are other countries in the near neighbourhood of Russia which are very anxious because the UK has been a critical supporter in resilience to the interference of Russia, whether it is in Moldova or the Baltics. That has been under UK’s ODA. Can the Leader ensure that the UK’s ODA support, which is up to £500 million under the integrated security fund, will be protected from the cuts to ODA that are proposed to fund defence expenditure?

Secondly, on the assets that we are seeking to use the interest of, I am assuming that the Government believe that Russia and the Kremlin’s apparatchiks should not have that money back. In that case, we should be receiving, as my noble friend Lord Newby said, the capital interest, with the capital itself going towards funding the Ukrainian recovery.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

The noble Lord makes an important point. The security of the Baltics and Moldova is extremely important, which is why the Prime Minister has had long conversations with those countries recently. He has also spoken to them about how they can be better engaged and we can ensure that we have wider engagement when we talk about Europe as a whole. That will be very important. He has assured them in these conversations that we will look again at the configuration of meetings with those states and other allies to ensure that they are properly represented and their views can be heard, particularly because of their vulnerable position.

The noble Lord will understand that I will not make commitments on particular areas of ODA. My noble friend Lady Chapman talked today about how important the ongoing work is; it is not just a case of pulling the rug out from under people—there has to be a proper discussion and we must look at the impact. It will take some time to work this through carefully. I will draw his comments to her attention.

On Russian assets, we are using the interest now and there are ongoing discussions about that. If it were easy, it would have been done already. It is not through reluctance that it is not being done. It is being actively pursued.

House adjourned at 8.25 pm.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 3rd March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

Certainly, the question of conflicting mandates will be uppermost in our minds when we debate the later group about a wholly elected House. If we introduce an element of election, particularly a proportional election, there will certainly be those who favour different voting systems that say one method of election is greater than another, but that is a debate for a later group.

[The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Smith of Basildon) (Lab)]

My Lords, it is an interesting group of amendments and I praise the ingenuity of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, in coming up with their proposals. I say at the beginning, however, that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, the noble Lord, Lord Strathcarron, and the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, spoke specifically to the amendments before us. I have to say that the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, spoke in more of a Second Reading way on a wider debate about other issues.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

I am very happy to be rebuked, but I have spoken only once so far today. If the noble Baroness wants to provoke me to speak a second time, that is another matter. I think I spoke clearly to the import of what my noble friend Lord Lucas said, which is the introduction of an element of democracy, the importance of doing that and the context in which it sat, all of which I thought was very pertinent to the amendment. I am sorry the noble Baroness feels she has to disagree with me and rebuke me about that.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

The noble Lord is very sensitive. It was not a rebuke; it was more of an observation that his comments went wider. I think he would agree that he wanted very much to know what comes next. I also think he accused me of being silent—I made some notes of his comments. It may not have been the term “silent”, but it was something about my having nothing to say or bringing the shutters down on what he said.

I will talk to the amendment, but I have been clear from the beginning of the many debates we already had on this issue that there is a process, with this as the first stage. It is not surprising that talks and discussions about Lords reform have so many times, as the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, said, been driven into the ground and gone nowhere. Focusing on what is in front of us and what can be achieved by a single Bill is very important, but we seem to want to talk about what comes next and after that. Amendments later on will address some of these issues, but I say to noble Lords: there is a Bill before us with specific amendments and I will mainly address my comments mainly to them.

That does not mean what comes next does not matter, but I can think of no other area of policy or manifesto commitment where the Minister proposing it is constantly demanded to say what comes next and in what order we will do things. I have been quite clear from the very beginning that this is the first stage. It was in the manifesto and there are two stages following that. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, cannot help himself; I am beginning to love the sound of his voice. I look forward to hearing from him again.

[Lord Strathclyde (Con)]

My Lords, I hope the noble Baroness does not feel that I have spoken at length. I have not. I have spoken many times to make short points; perhaps I can take up another now that I have mentioned before. I do not think any of us would be putting forward amendments on “What next?” if the Government had not themselves mentioned ideas for what is next in their manifesto. If they had published a White Paper, or even a Green Paper, it would make life so much easier and would allow the noble Baroness not to answer these questions.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I think the noble Lord labours the point a bit. I will address the amendments before us today and, in due course, as we move on, there will be other issues to discuss as well. I am not shying away in any way from our manifesto commitments; they remain and stand. The noble Lord is not one of those noble Lords who have discussed details of them, but others have, and I have been grateful for their suggestions and ideas for moving forward.

Let us look at these specific amendments. I think I said that they were quite an ingenious way of looking at things. I must admit that I interpreted one of the amendments differently to the way the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, did. That might have caused some confusion. Basically, the noble Lord’s amendment seeks to continue with by-elections but, instead of replacing hereditary Peers with others, any member of the public on the register in the United Kingdom—I assume that means overseas voters who are on the register in the UK as well—could stand to be a Member of the House and the electorate would be Members of your Lordships’ House. The by-elections would continue and anybody who won one of those elections, if I have understood him correctly, must then be recommended for a peerage by the Prime Minister. The noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, then looked to amend the criteria for potential candidates, and to have process and procedures on that.

These are creative amendments that raise an interesting and useful point about how we can get some of the best and most able people into your Lordships’ House if they wish to contribute to its work. I sometimes think that we look too much at what people have done in the past and not to what they will do in the future, when they are here.

I took some issue with his comment that the hereditary Peers are, by virtue of being hereditary, always more independent-minded. There are other amendments on the Order Paper, some of which we have heard already, about how Members on the Front Bench or who hold official positions should be able to continue in your Lordships’ House. Being a hereditary Peer does not guarantee the independence of any Member, and Members across the House who are hereditary are affiliated to political parties, which does not render them to be called independent. It may be only the Cross-Bench hereditaries who can claim to have that independence.

The noble Lord will understand why I cannot accept his amendment. It removes Clause 1 of the Bill, which is one of the crucial parts of it, and therefore retains the right of the current excepted hereditary Peers to continue to sit in your Lordships’ House. It is a bit like the Grocott amendment: there would be a by-election, but it would be for any member of the public.

I have some sympathy on how we get the best people to represent the House. The noble Lord, Lord Murray, commented that, in not having hereditary Peer by-elections, an avenue is closed, and this would open up another avenue for bringing Members into your Lordships’ House. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, made the point that, with such an exclusive electorate, this does not really open it up in a way that the members of the public who could put themselves forward would be happy with.

The commitments in our manifesto are quite clear. One of those was to reform the appointments process. Part of that is to look at the quality of candidates coming forward and the national and regional balance of the second Chamber. Members may have noticed in the last list of Peers that was announced by the Prime Minister—not all appointed by the Prime Minister—that all had a citation of why they had been appointed to the House. That was the first time it had happened. I remember saying to your Lordships’ House at Second Reading and even in the debate on the King’s Speech that that was something I was very keen to see. Previously, the only information given about somebody appointed to your Lordships’ House or a hereditary Peer who was elected, was just a line, which did not say anything about them at all. Now there is at least some information being made public—a small change, but an important one.

We are looking at other ways on the appointments process. We have already had discussions about moving forward on the other issues: the second part, looking at retirements and participation. Both will move ahead, but those are not the issues before us today. On this particular amendment, which I think is quite ingenious, while I understand the noble Lord’s reasons for bringing it forward, I am sure he will understand why I am not able to accept it. I urge him to withdraw.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I look forward to reading Hansard, because I wrote down the word “reject”. If the noble Lord did not use it, I apologise profusely, but that is what I heard.

My question for the Government relates to the Cross Benches. What I am suggesting might happen can easily happen in respect of my party and the Conservative Party. If a number of additional life peerages are made available, we can decide, as parties, how we want to allocate them, but this does not apply to the Cross Benches. If the Government said that they were going to give, say, 10 or 15 life peerages to the Cross Benches, they would have to decide who they are, would they not? Or are they going to suggest another process, by which the Cross-Benchers decide who they are?

I have sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord True, to the extent that we do need to tease out some of these next stages. This is one area where, during the passage of the Bill, it would be helpful if the Government could be a bit clearer about the mechanism they might adopt if we retain some of the most outstanding hereditary Peers who are Cross-Benchers.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, this has been an interesting discussion, but for me, it feels like a lesson in failure. It was a failure of the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, who was not able to get his Bill through the House previously. It was a failure on my part that, having persuaded my party to support the Grocott Bill in its stages through this House and ensure that it got on to the statute book as best we could, I was unable to persuade the party opposite that they should accept the Bill. It was a failure of those Members of the House who are hereditaries, who, having said to me and my colleagues that they wanted that Bill to go through, were not able to persuade their own party that it should. For all those reasons, for all those failures, we are here today discussing this amendment now.

I take the noble Lord’s point that he could not go against his party’s policy, which is now against the Grocott Bill—and he is now trying to get me to go against my party’s policy. I understand that, but it is a shame, because otherwise we would not be here today having this discussion. Our colleagues who were hereditary Peers at that point, or at any point in the last nine years, could be here now as, in effect, life peers, had the by-elections ended, and we would not be in this place.

I wrote an article for the House magazine probably around five years ago in which I said that if the Conservative Party, the then Government, continued with the by-elections, continued bringing in a significant number of new Peers to be Ministers, and continued making appointments in a greater proportion for their own party than for my party—which is why, as I mentioned, we had a numerical disparity of over 100 when we took office—the only recommendation to a Prime Minister would be that they had to end the right of hereditary Peers to sit in the House of Lords. All those warnings were there. We tried to avoid that, but the party opposite refused to accept it, and that is why we are here now.

I must say that in some ways it is a shame, because I recognise the value and the contribution that hereditary Peers have made to this House. The noble Lord shakes his head at me, but I say that genuinely. Otherwise, we would not even have bothered trying to support, and getting my party to support, the Grocott Bill and to help it through both Houses. We offered to do that. What a shame that that offer was not taken. I appreciate the way the noble Lord has brought this amendment forward today, but we could have done this a number of years ago.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

But we can do it now. What does the noble Baroness say to the more than 150 Peers who have arrived since the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, last had the opportunity to give his Bill a Second Reading? As my noble friends Lord Mancroft and Lady Finn said, more than 150 Members of your Lordships’ House have not had the opportunity to express an opinion on that Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Grocott, reminded the Committee of those who have arrived recently. After three and a half years and 150 noble Lords, we could do it now.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

But we are not going to, because that time has passed. The opportunity was there; it was rejected so many times and that is why we had a manifesto commitment. It was not just to end the by-elections, it said that as an “immediate” first step, we will do this. The noble Lord said he could not go against his party at the time, because that was its policy. We have a policy now, but that policy came about because of the intransigence of the party opposite. The noble Lord may be aware of many hereditary Peers from his party and other parties who say, “Can you not get them to accept this?” We tried. Sometimes, as I said, you have to admit failure. I understand why the noble Lord wants his policy, but it did not come forward with support from the party opposite until there was an alternative proposal in our manifesto. I will give way one more time. It is getting late and I think Members want to hear my response.

[Baroness Meyer (Con)]

I just want to say that that was then and we are where we are now. The situation is different. Why do we want to evict a lot of people who the noble Baroness’s party admits are doing good things, with just a click of the fingers? Is that not too cruel?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

The noble Baroness has made her point. There are times in life when you have to seize opportunities to make things happen and, sometimes, if you fail to take that opportunity, that time passes. The party opposite is suggesting this now only because an alternative proposal came forward. Had the noble Lord come forward before our manifesto, I would have bitten his hand off and gone with it. It is a shame that he did not.

Looking at other points that were made, the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, was someone who had lots of amendments, as I recall, to the Grocott Bill, although he did not speak to them. It is a shame. I actually stopped coming to the Chamber to listen to the debate because it was the same thing time and again—there were so many amendments. So, here we are now because 25 years ago, the principle was established that hereditary Peers would no longer have the right to sit and vote in the House of Lords. That is what has brought us to this point now.

To answer some of the questions, the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, talked about some of the characteristics of hereditary Peers and the work that they do. The same applies to life Peers, as I am sure she will readily admit. There has always been scrutiny in this House, not just from hereditary Peers but from across the House. This House has always discharged its duties and will continue to do so.

The noble Lord, Lord Newby, asked the noble Lord, Lord True, for his response, which he received. I have always said that there is no barrier to Members of your Lordships’ House who have hereditary peerages receiving life peerages. That does not have to wait until the end of the Bill. If peerages were offered tomorrow by the political parties, they could be made life Peers. It is different for the Cross Benches. I do not think it is for me or the Government, if there was to be a proposal for other Members of other parties, to say who they would be, but there is a way of working this out and I will discuss this with the relevant parties. I accept that the Cross Benches are in a different position and would need different arrangements as well.

The noble Lord, Lord True, talked about his four-stage plan, some of which I had heard before but some of which was new to me as well. He says that this is a way of offering greater security for the Government to get their business through. I am sure that with his normal courtesy it would not be, but I hope that is not a suggestion that, if we do not do this, we will not get our business through. I just want to confirm this. Because he is aware of the conventions of the House—and I hope I understand him correctly—I think he is looking to seek further protections in terms of ping-pong, but if he could confirm that to me at some point, that would be very helpful, because I am sure he does not mean it to sound in any way as a threat. I am sure that is not what he intended, but it did come out a little bit like that. I will read Hansard, or we can talk further on that to make sure we have got it absolutely clear.

I have to be honest with the noble Lord. I understand why he has put this through, but I wish he would have come to this conclusion earlier—I really would have welcomed it—and I ask at this stage that he withdraw his amendment.

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all those who have spoken, and of course to the noble Baroness the Leader of the House. We began today with what I thought was a generally very good-tempered debate, one where I felt on both sides that there was a willingness to seek a way forward. I am sorry that we have ended in a slightly scratchy way, which I do not think was characteristic of the day, and I would rather not dwell on the recent words. I will bring this proposition back to the House, subject to whatever discussions we may or may not have before Report, because I suspect that the House—which has a say in this matter, not just the two political parties—might well believe that this is not an unreasonable approach, tempered in the way that I described earlier by agreements on one of the strands of my proposals to address the question of numbers, including by retirements.

I prefer to dwell not on failure but on the future. All I know of the noble Baroness the Leader of the House is her care for this House and her concern for the future, and that is where I am coming from. I do not do threats, and I do not make threats, but anybody who has been present in the worst parts of the debate today can see that people are feeling that there are strong passions on both sides. We heard them from the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, and we heard them from others. Those of us in leadership positions in the House must find ways to calm that, to reach agreements and to find a way forward.

I hear again that it is not possible for the Government to consider this, and that the horse has gone, or the boat has left—or whatever it is. This last weekend, the Prime Minister made a great act of statesmanship and, frankly, political courage, in which he took the incredibly difficult decision to cut spending on aid to protect our country and secure it for the future. The Prime Minister adopted a powerfully held position in the interests of the whole. I hope that we will, in the next few days and weeks, not rule out any route towards finding a solution to this problem, and that includes, as I said in my earlier speech, aspects tempered by ameliorative action on numbers.

It was a very impressive debate. I asked at the start whether it was about numbers; we can deal with that. If it is about ideology or firm places, we will have problems—but they will not necessarily be with me. That is not a threat; it is true that people will oppose that position. I hope that we are better than that.

I very much appreciated my noble friend Lady Finn’s powerful appeal to reason.

I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, might come back after dinner in a slightly more generous vein than before, so perhaps I can recommend him a better accompaniment to his food. The argument of “When you go, you go” is his view. As was aptly pointed out, if you are an MP, you can come back; our colleagues who are being excluded have only an exit door.

My noble friend Lord Hamilton of Epsom rightly pointed out that there are many younger, active hereditary Peers who do a great service to this House.

The noble Lord, Lord Newby, asked me two questions. He asked whether the Conservative Party was planning some exclusion. The fact is that the noble Lord is voting for exclusion, so he should not be too surprised that some other party might look at another group. I said that the Conservative Party never had—and, I hope, never would—go down that route. However, there are other parties on the block—there are other kids on the block—so if we make it, “Yes, you can come in and you can take out a group”, you could, for example, introduce 15-year term limits, which is very popular in the House. You could get rid of anybody who served for more than 15 years. We heard the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, say earlier that lots of people have been around here a long time. What would be the effect of that on composition? I would go. I do not know who else would go, but someone might pick up that plan and, looking at what was done in 2025, say, “No transition, no grandfather rights at all”. I am just warning that it could happen, and it might not be a party represented in this House that would want to do it.

Finally, I must refer to the great speech of my noble friend Lord Shinkwin. The Committee was absolutely silent listening to what he said, informed by his extraordinary life experience and courage, and the wisdom that has come from that. Some of us will have heard his words in different ways but, having heard what my noble friend said, surely we must show openness and inclusion to all our Members. Let us not rule out anything, even tonight; let us come back and consider the best way of solving this conundrum. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 3rd March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howard of Lympne (Con)]

My Lords, in considering the purposes of this Bill, it is necessary to remind ourselves of the circumstances in which our hereditary colleagues continue to sit in your Lordships’ House. They are here because of an agreement which was reached in 1999 that they would continue to sit in your Lordships’ House until stage 2 of the projected reform had taken place. The late Lord Irvine said that that agreement was binding in honour; he said it was a guarantee. He gave those undertakings as—

[The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Smith of Basildon) (Lab)]

I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but I think he said “the late Lord Irvine”; I remind him that the noble and learned Lord is not late.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Mancroft (Con)]

My Lords, I must admit that the thought of the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, representing my noble friend Lord Strathclyde has slightly set me aside for a moment. I was wondering which particular bit he represented. Was it the bit from the neck up, from the waist down or everything in the middle? I am sure we will learn that over time.

The Government explain this Bill on the basis that it fulfils their manifesto commitment to end the right of Peers to sit and vote in this House by dint of an hereditary peerage. That commitment is apparently sacrosanct. In truth, that measure is already clearly set out in Section 1 of the 1999 Act. The principle was accepted then and is accepted now. This Bill neither affects nor improves on it—but is selective. The Labour Party manifesto also included a commitment to implement a retirement age of 80, but the Government have, at least temporarily, resiled from that part of their commitment, because they have quite rightly concluded that most turkeys, particularly those on their own Back Benches, will not vote for Christmas. It seems, therefore, that the manifesto is not sacrosanct after all.

The Bill breaches, as we have heard, the commitment made in honour that my noble friend Lord Howard talked about and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, made with Lord Cranborne in the 1999 Act. It is argued that, with the passage of time, this agreement has become obsolete and, furthermore, that no Parliament can bind its successors. But no agreement of this kind does fall away simply by the passage of time. I am afraid things just simply are as not as easy as that. Nor did it and nor does it bind a future Parliament. It was an agreement willingly entered into by both parties and it still stands, so, without the agreement of both parties, it cannot be changed—although, of course, one party can breach it and thus demonstrate its dishonour, as my noble friend Lord Howard suggested. That is the Government’s choice.

I accept that the obvious solution to the Government’s dilemma is not easy, but nor is it that complicated either. The condition of that agreement was that Labour would embark on a full second-stage reform of this House, as we have heard. But, despite 14 years in opposition and now seven months in government, Labour does not appear to be able to do that. Although in opposition Sir Keir Starmer seemed to favour an elected second Chamber, in government he has clearly moved in the opposite direction.

We will debate that in the next amendment, in the name of my noble friend Lord Caithness, and later after Clause 1 in the amendment in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Newby and Lord Wallace of Saltaire, and my noble friend Lord Strathclyde. I will be supporting that, although I am very much looking forward to the Liberal Democrats explaining exactly how supporting a Bill that establishes an appointed House is the best route to achieving an elected House.

If the Government wish to explain what plans they have for the future of this House and even to start to implement those plans, it would be difficult to object to this Bill. But they have not. An alternative, and the simplest way to achieve the Government’s objective, would be, as has been suggested, to enact the measure contained in the various Private Members’ Bills from the noble Lord, Grocott, which, again, the House will examine later in this Committee. Suffice to say that, regardless of the merits or otherwise of that proposal, for some obscure reason the Government believe that the proposal from the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, has passed its sell-by date and can no longer be enacted, although I have been unable to find anyone who can explain exactly why this is so. I rather think it merely suits the Government’s purpose to advance that theory, but it is clearly not the case.

It is also worth pointing out that, although the Bill from the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, may be familiar to some of us, it was last debated in this House some four years ago and only got beyond Second Reading six years ago. Subsequently, over 160 new Members have joined this House who will never have had the chance to debate, discuss or understand that Bill. Perhaps it might help the House if they were able to do so now.

This Bill seeks to achieve an object that has already been achieved. It is currently divisive, unpleasant and wholly unnecessary, but that could all be avoided. Like my noble friend Lord True, I hope that, rather than spending a long time arguing every point, the Lord Privy Seal and my noble friend might find a way upon which the whole House could agree.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful for the comments that have been made and for the different tone from the noble Lord, Lord True, which I welcome. I will just say one thing. The noble Lord spoke about a passing political Executive. He will know, as I do, that that is actually known as the Government, in all cases. I think it was beneath him to make a comment such as that and I am sorry he did. His other comments were welcome, and I am grateful to him for making them.

The noble Lord’s amendment, as he said, seeks to provide a description of the purpose of the Bill. He will know, as I know, that a similar amendment was debated in the other place. It was rejected by a majority of 277 because it is an unnecessary amendment, as we have seen.

We have heard a couple of repeats of Second Reading speeches. The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, repeated some of his comments from Second Reading, as did the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. I am not going to go into another Second Reading speech, but I will comment on what they have said. I will, of course, clarify the purpose of this legislation, which I think will be helpful.

I spoke at Second Reading—and we have heard from noble Lords opposite—about the agreements put in place by the House of Lords Act 1999, which were then expected to be temporary arrangements for 90 remaining hereditary Peers, with a system of by-elections. There would be 92 in total but by-elections for the 90, with the exceptions being the Earl Marshal and Lord Great Chamberlain. Those arrangements were never expected to still be here a quarter of a century later, but they are.

I looked at the amendments and listened to the comments made by noble Lords. I expect my noble friend Lord Grocott will be possibly delighted but also somewhat dismayed by the sudden conversion of so many noble Lords to a Bill he tried so many times to bring forward. There were numerous debates on those Bills and noble Lords who sat through them will recall them well. In those Bills, my noble friend said that he wanted to bring an end to the system of by-elections but would allow those hereditary Peers among us, particularly those who have contributed to this House, to remain in the House for life as life Peers.

For some reason that I do not understand, those who now say that that was a good Bill and ask why we cannot go back to it put so much effort into destroying that Bill that it never got on to the statute book. Had that Bill been agreed then, we would not be here now. What we would be doing is having the discussions the noble Lord and I have had on other occasions about the other issues in our manifesto and finding a way forward that would benefit the House. However, there was a small number of noble Lords who frustrated the passage of that Bill and got us to this point, and I regret that.

The principle that we should not do anything until we do everything—and, in effect, do nothing—is not an acceptable position to hold. That time has gone. I remind noble Lords that this was a manifesto commitment, but I also say, as noble Lords have heard me say time and again, there is nothing at all that is a barrier to those in your Lordships’ House who are here as hereditary Peers to having life peerages. I have said that time and again. I appreciate that the route for that is different for the Cross-Benchers from how it is for the political parties. I am sorry that has come up again, but I have to make the point that there is no barrier to them returning as life Peers. Therefore, the purpose in the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord True, is not necessary in the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord—I always enjoy listening to his entertaining contributions—but we are discussing a specific amendment at the moment. He is making comments on things we will come to later in considering other amendments. This seems to be a Second Reading speech. I do not want to be discourteous, but I see that he has a lot of notes and I wonder whether he wants to address the amendment, rather than giving a wider speech.

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

I am doing precisely that by talking about the hereditary principle and the removal of the hereditaries. Both are central to what I am speaking about. I gave my experience from the point of view of a hereditary, and I am now addressing the key point about the Bill being very narrow with regard to the future of the hereditaries. My argument is simple and clear: it should be wider. My view is that by narrowing it as much as we have, it becomes a political numbers game Bill. I am much more in favour of looking at how best this House can fully scrutinise, shape and improve legislation for the Government of the day, and challenge them to think again when necessary.

The point has been made already that this House operates best through consensus, yet the much-heralded usual channels have regrettably become frayed and fractious of late. There must be a way for the leaders of the four main groupings in your Lordships’ House—the Government, the Opposition, the Liberal Democrats and, critically, the Cross-Benchers—to consider how the Government’s objective of numerical majority, for example, over His Majesty’s Opposition, with which I largely agree, can be achieved. For there is a better way to achieve the outcome that is sought in this Bill. There are many Peers, as has been mentioned, who have announced either their intention or willingness to retire, or who would do so if approached on the basis that if they remained, they would henceforth be required to participate actively in this House. The latter could be judged by criteria in a Bill which addressed minimum levels of attendance and contribution. This would also remove the sitting rights of those many life Peers who, at the time of their elevation, promised their respective leaders that they would be active in this Chamber and these Committee Rooms, but who all too soon became notable only by their absence.

So, it is possible to achieve the outcome by combining the end of the sitting rights of the hereditary peerage with the implementation of a decision to reduce the size of this House and still leave the Government with a majority over the Opposition. This solution, based on the principle of self-determination, is surely better than one which vests in the Prime Minister of the day the authority to approve each and every Member of this House, creating the worst of all worlds: a second Chamber without democratic legitimacy, built on short-term, present-day political patronage but shorn of the independence, the reputation and the authority that it currently enjoys. That is why I support this amendment.

[Lord Strathclyde (Con)]

My Lords, I think it is a little bit much for the noble Baroness to give my noble friend Lord Moynihan a hard time for making what she said was a Second Reading speech. The fact is that we had Second Reading nearly three months ago—there is no reason for the delay. Why were we not dealing with this Bill in January and February? Why has it taken so much time? I began to think that the Government had forgotten about this Bill or had changed their minds and were not taking it forward.

The noble Baroness in her reply—also a reply to a Second Reading speech—did not really look at the merits of the amendment itself, which concerns the

“connection between the possession of a hereditary peerage and obtaining membership of the House of Lords”.

When the noble Baroness said that she is happy for discussions to take place, she said discussions with conditions, and that this Bill has to be passed and agreed to in all aspects before there can be a discussion. That is not a sensible or equitable way to have a discussion—

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I hate to intervene on noble Lords, but I do so because I do not like to be misrepresented by the noble Lord, or any other noble Lord in this House. I did not say that noble Lords have to pass the Bill before any discussions take place. I said that I was happy to have ongoing discussions, but that I did not want to see any procedural shenanigans. I need to see some good faith on the part of the Opposition, as well. I say to the noble Lords, Lord Strathclyde and Lord True, that I did answer the amendment. I said that it was unnecessary—it is actually pretty much contained in the Long Title anyway—but if he is going to describe what I have said, he should at least get it right.

[Lord Strathclyde (Con)]

I am more than happy to agree with the noble Baroness on procedural shenanigans, which I must say I do not recognise at all over the course of the last few months. I am not doing any procedural shenanigans; I am actually replying to the noble Baroness, but I have made the point I wish to make. Are there no procedural shenanigans from anybody in the Labour Party actually engaging in the debate just started by my noble friend Lord True? I certainly give way to the noble Lord, Lord Grocott.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

Order! I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, was giving way; he had sat down. The time had already been exceeded under the rules of the Companion. In terms of the Companion, is it not time that the noble Lord, Lord True, indicated whether he was pressing his amendment.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I just want to make a comment. At the moment, the Prime Minister is on his feet at the other end, as the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, pointed out, talking about issues of national security and the defence of the nation. Our debate does not hold up terribly well against that. The noble Lord opened it in a moderate and helpful way. If noble Lords wish to continue debating the amendment, they are at liberty to do so; I just ask them to reflect on how the world outside sees the debate.

[Lord Swire (Con)]

Hear, hear to that—I could not agree more with the Leader of the House. We should not be debating this at this time at all, and we are in risk of rendering ourselves irrelevant and foolish by debating these matters when things of far greater importance are going on. But I just say to the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, that he must accept that the composition of this House is very different from that of the time when he first introduced his Bill. Many of those who are now in this House would have supported it at that time. Surely it is only right that we have the ability to debate these matters, for the first time in many cases, now.

--- Later in debate ---

The noble Baroness always worries that someone is misinterpreting, but I am not. If I have misspoken, I apologise. I think what the noble Baroness said was, “Well, the House of Commons has voted on this, so there is no point in sending it back to them”.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

It may be pedantic to point out that it was rejected in the other place by 277. I never said that it was not in the ability of this House to send back an amendment if it chose to do so. I pointed out what happened in the House of Commons. The only Front-Bencher whom I have heard say that the House of Lords should not pass an amendment to a Bill from the House of Commons was the noble Lord during the Elections Bill.

[Lord True (Con)]

If I may borrow a phrase from a more prominent person than I, did I really say that? The joys of social media and smartphones are very wonderful. I stand corrected by the noble Baroness, but the point remains that there resides great wisdom in this House and there remains the opportunity to reach an agreement which serves all parties and none, but the House collectively.

If such an approach were agreed, it would be easy for someone as formidable and dedicated as the Lord Privy Seal to persuade her colleagues in Cabinet that a generous and thoughtful approach, which offers advantage to all parties, should be followed. I sincerely hope that is what may happen in the days and weeks ahead. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

I respectfully disagree with the noble Lord. I think this is about more than numbers; it is about a constitutional principle. It is right, as my noble friend Lord Caithness has done, to point out the powers that the Bill will give to the Prime Minister in the interim, and for those of us who remember how long the interim was after the 1999 reforms to caution the House about accepting a promise that ends with a full stop and says no more. However, what the noble Lord says about the spirit of consensus is important and, in that spirit, I shall conclude my remarks there and allow the noble Baroness to respond to the debate.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for proposing his amendment. I will come back to the comments made in the debate, but basically the noble Earl seeks to put an overview of the Bill in the Bill. I make the same comment that I made to the noble Lord, Lord True: I am happy to provide that overview.

There will probably be some repetition in what I say about this amendment and the previous one, a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace. Yes, the Bill seeks to remove the right of hereditary Peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords. That is why we feel that the amendment is unnecessary, because that is quite clear.

I dispute the noble Earl’s overview, which does not fairly reflect the situation; nor do I accept the comments made on this by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson. The noble Earl and the noble Lord are right that for the Lords temporal, appointed under the Life Peerages Act 1958, it is for the Prime Minister, as the King’s principal adviser, to make recommendations to the sovereign on life Peers. However, by convention, the Prime Minister invites those nominations from other parties—although perhaps we saw fewer from some Prime Ministers on the other side than we had done in previous years—and it is party leaders who consider who is best placed to represent their party in the House of Lords, and choose who to nominate.

If we are looking at Prime Ministers’ appointments, my noble friend Lord Collins and I were both appointed by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, because he happened to be Prime Minister at the time. My noble friend Lady Anderson was appointed by Liz Truss, who was a fairly short-lived Prime Minister but still had time to appoint my noble friend. So I do not accept the idea that the Prime Minister of the day has this absolute power that they channel by funnelling hundreds of their own appointments into the House.

In terms of numbers, I remind noble Lords that when the Labour Party left office in 2010, we had, I think, 12 more Peers than the party opposite. When the party opposite left office in 2024, there were over 100 more Conservative Peers than Labour ones. In that respect, the point made by the noble Earl has some merit: although most Prime Ministers have behaved and treated the system with the dignity and honour that it deserves, that cannot be said for all of them.

The Prime Minister also invites the House of Lords Appointments Commission to make nominations to the Cross Benches. The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, made the point that just over 20% are Cross-Benchers, and she is right; I think it is slightly more at the moment, 23% or so. I have always said I think that is a fair figure, and that would not change. The commission then accepts those applications from across the UK and nominates individuals that it believes bring depth and merit to the House of Lords.

I take issue with some of the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, I think, about the background of Members and who should come into the House. It is not just about what people have done in the past; it is what they are prepared to do when they are here that really matters. We all want those noble Lords who are appointed to this place to play a full and proper role.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

Does the noble Baroness the Leader of the House accept the arguments from the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, that if his Bill had been passed we would now be left with 25 hereditaries? That would be a decent number and you would not need to get rid of them. Can I get it from there that the noble Baroness would actually agree to 25 life peerages?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I do not always admire the noble Lord’s ingenuity, but I do on this occasion. I think the point the noble Lord was making was that had that been accepted at the time, we would not have any hereditary Peers, in effect, because all would be here as life Peers. I do not know whether the numbers that would have remained was an accurate figure; it was a sort of a guesstimate.

That was the first stage. On the second part, I am grateful to noble Lords around the House who have engaged with me on this issue already. I have a number of thoughts on how it might be achieved, going forward, and there are some helpful amendments in the course of the Bill. It would be nice, would it not, to find a way that gained some kind of consensus around the issues that others mentioned, such as participation and the retirement age? If there was consensus around the House prior to legislation, it would be a helpful way forward, so I am grateful to those who have engaged with that and come forward with suggestions already.

Then there is a longer-term proposal, which is also in the manifesto. It says that in the longer term to look for a way to have a “more representative”—and I think it says an alternative—second Chamber. It was quite clear that there are those three stages.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

Is that “longer term” during this Parliament?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I do not know. It has to be when the policy is determined but I would certainly have thought that the second part of it, around participation and retirement, is something that we can look at quickly. If the House came to an agreement, it could be done quickly as well.

I turn to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, about the grouping of amendments, as the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, raised this. The normal process is that the Government suggest groupings, as we did. In this case, the Opposition said they had their own groupings. They cannot speak for anyone else around the House but had their own groupings. I think there were originally around 18 government groups. The Official Opposition did not accept that and wanted—I think, the latest is—about 46 groups of amendments. The Government have accepted that, because we accept it if Members wish to degroup and have more groups.

My point was—as I think the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, has understood correctly—that a number of themes run through this legislation and if it is possible to debate those in groups, it is easier. At the moment, we have six groups of amendments on the commencement of the Bill. If it is what the House wishes, I would not deny it the opportunity to have those debates, but that seems to be quite a lot. I think three of those groups are single amendments but if that is how the House wishes to debate it, it is open to the House to do so. The Government did not deny the Official Opposition the right to have as many groups they wanted. I have to admit to being a bit surprised at how many there were, given the themes that run through the Bill, but we will see if that was helpful or not going forward.

The noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, wants to lock me in a room with the noble Lord, Lord True—

[Lord True (Con)]

That is not fair to the Leader.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

The noble Lord is resisting that temptation but I say to him, as I say to all noble Lords, that I have always been open to discussions. But I need assurances, so when we see degroupings, filibustering and threats on different things, that does not give the confidence that allows me to have those kinds of discussions. To have them, I need some confidence that the Opposition want to do this in a proper way.

[The Earl of Caithness (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness the Leader of the House for her reply. We have some useful additional information from her. However, I would take issue with her, just as she took issue with anybody who tried to misrepresent her in the debate. I did not in any way imply that the hereditaries were better than the life Peers or the life Peers better than the hereditaries. The purport of my amendment was solely that once you get rid of the hereditaries, there is increased power to the Prime Minister on appointments and nominations to this House, because the element of the hereditaries has gone.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I do not accept that at all. There is no change whatever in the powers of the Prime Minister at that point. I have explained the process. I think the noble Earl is saying that it is not everybody in the House. Currently 88 Members are here because of their ancestors being here, on the hereditary basis. The Prime Minister cannot appoint those now and there will not be those places in the future, but it does not increase his actual power at all.

[The Earl of Caithness (Con)]

As a result of this Bill, there will be a greater percentage of the House appointed by the Prime Minister than now.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords—

[The Earl of Caithness (Con)]

Can I just finish? My point was that this could be abused. If I recall rightly the noble Baroness said, and I agree with her, that most Prime Ministers have behaved very responsibly, but on some occasions it has not been quite as we would have hoped. I am grateful for her support on that.

I am grateful for what the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, did. As she will have noted, the amendment is carefully drafted to say nominations—nominated by the Prime Minister—rather than appointments. I focused on appointments rather than nominations, but I think I covered the point that she raised.

The memory of the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, seems to have failed him a little, I fear. He said in response to my noble friend Lord Strathclyde that he had wanted to get on with his Bill and was in a hurry to proceed. That is slightly contradicted by the fact that a few minutes earlier he had taken the House to a Division and appointed Tellers for both the Contents and Not Contents, after the amendment had been withdrawn, and wasted a considerable amount of the House’s time. I think his memory is not quite as good as it used to be.

I am grateful to all those who took part in this debate and beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Finn (Con)]

My Lords, it is with reverence for our traditions and institutions that I support the amendment in the names of my noble friend Lord Strathclyde and others, and to defend the continued membership of this House of the Earl Marshal and the Lord Great Chamberlain. This is not merely to defend two historic offices but to uphold the enduring wisdom of our constitutional framework, as my noble friend Lord Howard just pointed out.

The ancient offices of the Earl Marshal and the Lord Great Chamberlain are not relics of a bygone age; they are pillars of our constitutional order, deeply woven into the fabric of our United Kingdom. Their removal from this Chamber would be an act not of modernisation but of heedless vandalism. From the solemnity of a monarch’s funeral to the grandeur of a Coronation, the Earl Marshal is responsible for orchestrating the great state occasions that define our nation’s story. The funeral of Her late Majesty the Queen was not only a moment of national mourning but a masterclass in dignity and order. This was in no small part due to the office of the Earl Marshal and his own tireless efforts to ensure that it was so. Indeed, as my noble friend Lord Strathclyde reminded us, the Earl Marshal also oversees the State Opening of Parliament in this place.

There has been an unbroken line of Lords Great Chamberlain from 1138 to the present. The office has changed over time, but for hundreds of years they have attended this House with the right to sit and vote. The Lord Great Chamberlain ensures that this very Palace functions with the decorum and tradition that befit the mother of Parliaments. Together, they are not merely witnesses to history but actors within it. Together, they ensure that the solemnity and dignity of our state endure beyond the politics of the moment. Together, they have active responsibilities that demand knowledge, experience and deep engagement with the institutions of the state. As my noble friend Lord Northbrook said, they are a vital link between the monarch and Parliament.

To exile these officers from this Chamber is to diminish their ability to discharge their duties effectively. Yet this Bill would remove them from this Chamber, as if their roles could be executed in absentia and as if their knowledge and service could be distilled into a parliamentary pass and a seat in the Public Gallery. The Lord Privy Seal has assured us that this Bill will not affect their ability to carry out their functions, stating that

“there is no legal or procedural requirement for either officeholder to be a Member of this House in order to be able to carry out their functions”.—[Official Report, 11/12/24; col. 1723.]

However, there is a profound difference between what is legally permissible and what is constitutionally sound. While statute may not require their presence here, precedent, wisdom and good governance do.

These offices are not purely symbolic; they require ongoing engagement with the legislative process to ensure the seamless operation of state functions. Without a seat in this House, they will be unable to contribute their unique expertise to debates on matters directly affecting their responsibilities, the Crown and Parliament. This was reinforced by my noble friend Lord Hailsham. Would we insist that the Lord Chief Justice never enter a courtroom, the Archbishop of Canterbury conduct his duties from a lay pew and the Speaker of the Commons be heard only from the corridors?

The holders of these offices have a range of functions. I will not detain the House by setting these out in full, but I will set out just two examples to demonstrate why their presence in your Lordships’ House is both useful and important. The Lord Great Chamberlain is entrusted with custody of the Palace of Westminster, and he is one of the three keyholders of Westminster Hall, who decide who may address both Houses of Parliament in Westminster Hall—the others being the Speaker of the Commons and the Lord Speaker. These decisions have been high profile, with international significance in the past. Would it not be odd for decisions about who may address Parliament be made by a Peer who is not a Member of either House?

Turning to the Earl Marshal, in addition to his duties at funerals and coronations, he oversees the College of Arms. The college is the organisation responsible for heraldry in England, Wales, Northern Ireland and across the Commonwealth. Occasionally, issues pertaining to heraldry come up in your Lordships’ House, most recently during Committee on the Football Governance Bill, during which my noble friend Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay expertly argued that the Government had made an error in their drafting. The noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk, was following the debate closely, as was the college itself. There is something to be said for retaining the person responsible for overseeing our heraldry in the House, so we can draw on their knowledge and experience in the future.

This artificial separation risks creating a situation where those responsible for key constitutional duties are sidelined from the very discussions that shape them, diminishing the effectiveness of both their roles and this Chamber. The argument for reform is often cloaked in the language of modernisation, but modernisation must not be pursued at the cost of effective governance. These hereditary offices play a crucial role in the functioning of our state, and their direct experience, knowledge and responsibilities make their presence in this House a matter of practical good sense. The Earl Marshal and the Lord Great Chamberlain do not just inherit their positions; they assume great responsibilities that require them to be familiar with the traditions and mechanisms of governance. The offices are defined by responsibility, not mere title. That responsibility is sharpened, not diluted, by a seat in this House.

Let us not ignore the precedent this sets. Reform, when done without care, rarely stops at a single step. What is dismissed as a minor adjustment today becomes the justification for wholesale destruction tomorrow. We must be wary of any proposal that makes our institutions less effective, less informed and less rooted in the traditions that give them strength.

Beyond our domestic affairs, there is also Britain’s international standing. Our constitutional system is admired worldwide, precisely because it blends continuity with progress. Our state occasions—the Coronation, royal weddings and funerals of heads of state—are watched by billions across the globe. They are not just moments of ceremony, they are demonstrations of national unity and the continuity of the state. The Earl Marshal is responsible for ensuring these moments are executed flawlessly, reinforcing Britain’s soft power and global influence. Denying him a seat in this House would not just be a symbolic loss; it would strip him of the access, authority and insight that enable him to perform his role at the highest level, weakening the very institution he is tasked with upholding on the world stage.

The Earl Marshal and Lord Great Chamberlain must retain their places in this House, not as anachronisms but as a vital component of our constitutional heritage. Let us not mistake removal for reform and let us not diminish this House. Let us say with conviction that those who have served this nation’s highest traditions shall not be dismissed, but upheld, valued and entrusted to continue their vital work. In preserving their place, we preserve the dignity, continuity and wisdom that have long guided both this House and this nation.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for their amendments and for the comments that have been made. I think I can offer some of the reassurance that is sought. Certainly, in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, I can say that we respect and regard the work that they do. We do not wish to hamper that all.

At Second Reading, I addressed some of the concerns raised. There is no contradiction with what I said at the time. I spoke to the Lord Speaker—it is a courtesy to do so, given the role that he plays—and I have spoken to the commission as well. I should clarify that the Bill will not affect the offices themselves and neither does it affect the ability of the officeholders to fulfil their important functions. I have gained the agreement of the commission and I have written to both the noble Earl and the noble Lord to confirm that they will have access. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Rising, that it certainly will not be a case of seeking permission from the commission. That permission has been granted. They will have full access to the Palace to carry out their functions. There will not be an issue there. I wrote to them both today.

[Lord Howard of Rising (Con)]

I think they should have it by right, not by permission.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

If agreed by the House, it will be a right. There has been some misunderstanding that the only way they can fulfil their functions is by being a Member of this House and having the right to speak and vote in the Chamber. That is not the case. If we go back in time, there have been cases where neither officeholder was a Member of your Lordships’ House. Peter Burrell was the Lord Great Chamberlain from 1781 to 1820. He was not a Peer until 1796. More recently, William Legge was the Lord Great Chamberlain from 1928 to 1936, but only inherited his title at the end of his time as Lord Great Chamberlain in 1936. Hugh Cholmondeley performed the office of Lord Great Chamberlain from 1966 due to his father’s ill-health. He succeeded to his father’s peerage in 1968. The current Earl Marshal took leave of absence from your Lordships’ House from 18 January 2021 for the remainder of that parliamentary Session—and we know that was a very important parliamentary Session in terms of the monarchy.

So I am confident that both noble Lords will be treated with the respect they deserve—and have earned— and they and their officeholders will be granted access to your Lordships’ House. It will not, in any way, impinge on their responsibilities and duties. I respectfully ask noble Lords to withdraw their amendment.

[Lord Strathclyde (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Finn, who spoke with great authority and skill. The more she spoke, the more convinced I was that I was right to move the amendment in the first place. Her knowledge of history and precedent in this matter is exemplary.

I am also very grateful to the noble Viscount and the noble Lord who signed the amendment—the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, and my noble friend Lord Northbrook—and for what they raised, and the question that my noble friend Lord Howard of Rising raised. It does seem absurd that these great officers of state, who have a role in Parliament, will be able to come into the House only when they go to the pass office and ask for their pass, which is no doubt countersigned.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

They will have access to the House, however that is arranged. They are not going to have to troll up to the pass office and get a daily pass that they stick on them. They will have the access that is required for this House. All Members of the House would want to show that respect. The only loss will be that they will not be in your Lordships’ House to take part in debates and to vote. They will not be in the Chamber to participate in the proceedings of the House.

[Lord Strathclyde (Con)]

My Lords, I am reminded of the debates that took place many years ago on the future of the Lord Chancellor, when he was removed from your Lordships’ House. It was the law of unintended consequences. There was much work undertaken to try to keep all of that and I predict that the same will happen again. But I think the noble Baroness has heard what we have had to say. She will no doubt consider, with the Clerk of the Parliaments, what needs to be put in place in order for these two great officeholders to continue to do the work that they are required to do in Parliament. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Business of the House

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Thursday 27th February 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

That Standing Order 38(1) (Arrangement of the Order Paper) be dispensed with on Wednesday 5 March to enable debate on the report from the Conduct Committee on the Review of the Code of Conduct and the Guide to the Code of Conduct to begin before Oral Questions that day.

Motion agreed.