Palestinian Refugees
Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts(3 days, 10 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Smith of Basildon) (Lab)
We will hear from the Liberal Democrat Benches.
Baroness Janke (LD)
My Lords, in light of President Trump’s comments about the removal of Palestinians from Gaza, do the Government believe that the Palestinians should be given the right to return to their homes there, and what action are the Government taking about the forceable removal of Palestinians and displacement within the Gaza Strip and the Occupied Territories?
Clerk of the Parliaments
Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts(6 days, 10 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Smith of Basildon) (Lab)
My Lords, on 24 July, I informed your Lordships’ House of Simon Burton’s intention to retire from the office of Clerk of the Parliaments with effect from 1 April 2026. The recruitment process for his successor has now concluded. The unanimous recommendation of the interview board was that Chloe Kilcoyne Mawson should succeed Simon as Clerk of the Parliaments. Her appointment follows an open and external competition which attracted a wide field of high-calibre candidates. A number of internal and external applicants were interviewed by a board consisting of myself, the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition, the leader of the Liberal Democrats, the Convener of the Cross Benches and Dame Elizabeth Gardiner, former First Parliamentary Counsel. I am sure that everyone will join me in congratulating Chloe on her appointment, and we very much look forward to working with her in her new role.
Business of the House
Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts(3 weeks, 4 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Basildon
Further to the resolution of the House of 25 July 2024, that for the remainder of the current Session Standing Order 9(5) (Hereditary peers: by-elections) be amended as follows: leave out “eighteen” and insert “36”.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Smith of Basildon) (Lab)
My Lords, I have a sense of déjà vu in moving this Motion today, so I will say few words about why it appears on the Order Paper.
Last July, following helpful and constructive discussions in the usual channels, the House agreed to suspend hereditary Peers by-elections for 18 months. Those 18 months have now passed, and if we were to do nothing, they would have to restart. We have all listened to the discussions that we have had recently, and the usual channels have agreed that is not desirable to restart those by-elections and that the suspension of the by-elections should continue until the end of this Session. This Motion therefore extends the suspension until the spring, when we expect this Session to end. Having listened to the debates we have had recently on this and related issues, I hope this Motion reflects the will of the House and that Members will be prepared to accept it. I beg to move.
Middle East
Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts(1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, on behalf of the Liberal Democrat Benches, I too thank the Lord Speaker for his work in this House, his decades of public service and the very personal nature of his statement, which highlighted the sacrifice that many of our loved ones and family members make when we carry out our public duties. We look forward to hearing tributes to him and his role.
I preface my remarks, as I did in my first comment as Leader of the Liberal Democrats in this House, by calling for a Statement from the Government on Sudan and the world’s worst humanitarian crisis, and I repeat that to the Leader.
I wish to start my remarks on the Middle East by condemning the horrific incidents of antisemitism that we have seen in our communities. Alas, the most recent has not been isolated, and we must redouble our efforts to ensure that our Jewish community is not only safe but feels safe in our country. In too many situations, it is and has not. Also, too many young Muslims are fearful of Islamophobia, and even if we see the sustaining of the ceasefire and the eventual peace that we all hope for, we must be aware that one of the likely legacies of this war will be seen in our communities for years to come. We must be prepared for that.
The excruciating and sometimes performative press events that we have seen in the last few days, while children without shelter continue to suffer, mean that healing is going to be important. These too frequent political stunts, when there is a humanitarian crisis continuing, should be very sobering for us. The hostage returns are extremely welcome and an enormous relief for the families—it was a reprehensible war crime for Hamas to have held them in the way that it did—and the return of the bodies of those who, sadly, lost their lives may mean some healing for those who have suffered.
The scale of the recovery is going to be enormous, in both physical and mental terms. Eighty years on, in this country, we collectively recall the Blitz and the damage and trauma it inflicted on London. During the Second World War, 20,000 bombs were dropped on London—a terrifying figure. In Gaza, geographically a quarter of the size of London, 70,000 tonnes of bombs have been dropped in two years. The level of destruction inflicted on London then resulted in over 2.7 million tonnes of rubble needing to be cleared, which literally took well over a decade to complete. In Gaza—remember, a quarter of the footprint of London—the scale of the bombardment has resulted in 60 million tonnes of rubble, more than 20 times that of the Blitz on London.
My first question to the Leader is: what role will the UK play in the enormous task of the scale of the recovery that will be necessary, including rubble clearance and the commencement of reconstruction? We will have to operate at scale, and therefore I appeal to the Government again to move towards restoring our commitment on international development assistance. The reduction to 0.3% by the current Government, with the Opposition now stating that it will reduce it to next to zero, is not right. We need to step up our humanitarian support for the reconstruction of Gaza, not leave the room.
The impact on civilians is well reported: the starvation, the denial of anaesthesia for operations on children, and the creation of conditions that have seen Hamas gangsterism continue. Yet the underreported but grim task—with the likely thousands of corpses that will need to be identified under the rubble—is only now commencing.
When I visited the Gaza border last year, I was struck by the constant nature of the explosions, fire, jet aircraft howls and the dull but persistent sound and sight of drones. Imagine our children not having a single night when this has not been ever present for two years. The psychological and mental scars are deep: an entire generation of children are traumatised. Also, we know that Israeli youngsters, who did not want war or had any role in the policy of having a war, have had their national service and served their nation, but they have gone through hell in the process. Two sets of communities are deeply scarred. So when we talk about peace, we need to understand fully what it will mean, because the trauma will be present—and it is deep.
Therefore, I close with a specific appeal to the Leader, which I have raised previously, on what role the UK can play. We need clarity from the Government on what level of support they will provide to the Palestinian Authority, which is likely to be the transitional authority, and what practical measures the UK will be providing. The UK has excellent experience of post-conflict reconstruction, and we have professionalism and good relations—how are we going to exploit that?
What relationship will the UK have with the emerging stabilisation force? As I saw in the work I carried out in north Iraq after Daesh had occupied Mosul, the UK can play a very important role in restoring education and child trauma support, especially the psychosocial support that is needed. Recovery from the horror must be immediate, intensive and accessible, and the UK can play a direct role in having immediate pop-up education and child trauma centres constructed immediately. This should not be an add-on to the process. There is no mention of education and child support in the 20-point plan from the United States. I hope the Leader may be willing to meet me and some colleagues with regard to ensuring that, if we talk about peace, it is for the long term, not just an immediate ceasefire.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Smith of Basildon) (Lab)
I am grateful to both noble Lords for their comments. I will briefly make a comment about the Lord Speaker. He is a personal friend, and I first met him in about 1984, because we were both candidates in the 1987 election for the first time. The reasons why he is standing down go to the heart of the integrity of the man. We will miss him, but we will enjoy working with him as he finishes his term before he stands down.
I thank both noble Lords for the comments they made and their tone, and particularly the support to the Government for the work we are undertaking. This is not a party-political issue: across the world, parties have come together and countries are coming together to take part in the process of the ceasefire and what comes next. We all know from experience that, when you have a plan to move forward, there are times when the next step forward is imperfect, sometimes inadequate and difficult, but that step-by-step approach takes us to a place where people can be safe.
We have seen over the past two years, when the hostages were first taken, that there are things that cannot be undone. We cannot unsee the images we saw on our TVs when we saw those hostages being taken, or when we saw children starving in Gaza and houses bombed, but neither can we unsee the joy and the relief of the families who have seen their loved ones returned after the horrors they went through. The noble Lord is right to talk about releasing all the hostages. It is a tragedy that some are now being returned as bodies to be buried, but, for their families to be able to grieve, they must see all the hostages returned. I hope that international efforts can be brought to bear on that.
The noble Lord said he felt the recognition of the Palestinian state was the wrong thing to do. I would challenge that. I think all these things are process, and the only way forward for genuine peace—with a secure, stable and confident Israel alongside a viable Palestinian state—is to have that two-state solution. The recognition of Palestine, along with other countries, as we saw, was very important in that. It is interesting that, after the other countries and the UK recognised Palestine, we saw the Arab countries also condemn Hamas, which we had not seen before. I say to the noble Lord that the path to peace is often an imperfect one, but it has to be taken to ensure the safety of people.
Both noble Lords asked about next steps. The path to peace is going to be difficult, which is why the Wilton Park conference on reconstruction, identifying the ways forward and the role different countries can play will be so important. More detail on that will become available as the conference progresses. I also say that the role of Sir Michael Barber as the UK envoy for Palestinian Authority governance will be crucial in all of this. The noble Lord, Lord True, for the Opposition, asked about issues such as education and the health service in reconstructing Gaza. There is not a viable state there, in the sense that it does not have the public service infrastructure. Dealing with that, and the point he made about the support needed for young people, particularly in the trauma centres, is all going to be part of having a viable state: you have to have a viable public sector that can deliver the services that people need. The work that he will be undertaking, which is also part of a reform agenda, to strengthen the capacity for delivery and improve the service provision, will be essential for the Palestinian Authority to be able to build an effective State of Palestine and take on the full responsibilities there. We need to empower and help form that Palestinian Authority.
On the other point, about how you ensure this, there will now be more agencies on the ground, and it will be important that we see journalists now having access, so that there can be reports back and public awareness. I can easily restate that there is no role for Hamas in the Government of Palestine. I think the Prime Minister has been very clear on that. It is absolutely crucial that Hamas decommissions its weapons, and that is a precursor to seeing a genuine, sustainable and lasting peace as well.
Both noble Lords made comments on the rise in antisemitism in the country, which alarms us all, but one of the things that alarms me most is the blatant voicing of that—people seem to have a new confidence in expressing antisemitism. I think that goes alongside the rise, but it is equally important to address it. There can be no acceptance of antisemitism or Islamophobia in this country. When our Jewish community does not feel safe, that damages us all. The Government have provided about £80 million funding for CST, and that will continue, but I think all of us have to call out antisemitism, even in its most minor forms, as and when we hear it. It can never be tolerated and it is never acceptable, and we will be failing in our duty to our Jewish community if we do not call it out at each and every opportunity we are called to do so.
Baroness Blackstone (Lab)
My Lords, perhaps inevitably, there is rather little detail in the Statement. However, it does say—I think that this was endorsed by my noble friend the Leader of the House just now—that
“a viable Palestinian state is the only way to secure, lasting peace for the Middle East”.
Can my noble friend say what discussions the Government are currently having with President Trump and his senior colleagues on how to prevent further illegal settlements on the West Bank, which will surely prevent a viable Palestinian state?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
The noble Baroness is absolutely right on that, and it is important that there is a viable Palestinian state across the West Bank as well. She will be aware, as I mentioned in my answer, of the reconstruction conference taking place at Wilton Park, which will bring all countries together, including the US and the UK. At the heart of that discussion are how we bring a lasting peace to the region and what reconstruction, support and action are needed. There is also the 20-point plan—it is called a peace plan, but it is a route to a plan in many ways. Those are very much items that are key to the agenda of the summit.
Lord Pickles (Con)
My Lords, there should not be any doubt that the Palestinian Authority is riddled with corruption from the top to the bottom. It uses formal and informal security forces to intimidate opposition and has been involved in the murder of opposition individuals. It uses its system to promote death against Jews through its education system—the latest books are outrageous. It gives pensions to people who kill Jews. What reforms are the Government going to press upon the Palestinian Authority, which is despised by most Palestinians, to ensure that it can participate in the peace process?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
Across the region, it has been clear, including from President Abbas, that there needs to be change in the Palestinian Authority. One of the roles of Michael Barber is to shore up the Palestinian Authority and ensure that, where there is corruption, it is rooted out. We have to have a reformed state. Unless we have security in Palestine and security in Israel, there will not be a lasting peace. That does not mean that anybody is saying that things are working well or could work well easily; it means there are several challenges, and he has outlined some of those. Unless we make some progress and get some capacity into that state, working across the world—I come back to the Wilton Park conference, in which I think that is absolutely crucial—we are not going to see the progress. There has to be a viable state and the credibility and confidence of the people of Palestine as well.
Lord Stirrup (CB)
My Lords, disarming Hamas will be extraordinarily difficult, but the task will be much harder if, in the meantime, Iran is surreptitiously seeking to rearm it. I would not expect the noble Baroness the Leader to go into detail, but can she reassure the House that sufficient attention will be paid to the potential for further malign Iranian influence in the tragedy of Gaza?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
The noble and gallant Lord makes a valid point. We are talking about quite a wide issue and other players in this have made it more difficult to resolve the problem. He can be assured that that is very much on the agenda and is taken note of in all the discussions taking place.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, I declare my interest as president of the Liberal Democrat Friends of Israel and make a plea for the people of Gaza. We have talked about all the things that can happen in the long and even medium term but at the moment, with the removal of the IDF from areas of Gaza, people are taking rampant action to terrorise the people of Gaza, with the continual help of Hamas. What are our Government and Governments in the region doing to produce a force which will police Gaza and protect the people of Gaza from anybody trying to destroy the reconstruction of the area? It needs to be done sooner rather than put on the back burner.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I hope the noble Lord is not suggesting that anything is being put on the back burner. The conference and the discussions that have taken place show how much at the front of the agenda this is, with not just the UK and American Governments but all those countries taking part. He talked about the urgency of the issues. We had the conference last week and discussions are going on at Wilton Park. It is about how quickly we can get the support and the protections in. I can assure him there is no suggestion whatever that any of these issues will be on the back burner. I am sure he did not mean to suggest that. The priority is very much getting aid and support in, and dealing with those who do not want peace. The priority has to be a sustainable peace, with reconstruction that brings lasting peace but with a kind of normality. We need to have the health service, the education system, and all these public services up and running for the people in Gaza. It is on the front burner, definitely not the back.
Lord Turnberg (Lab)
My Lords, the release of the hostages and the peace in Gaza were greeted with enormous joy in Israel and Gaza. It was a remarkable event. We know it is the first step, but what surprised, and angers and frustrates, me is that there were men and women marching on the streets of the UK, wishing that the peace had not happened. They were supporting Hamas. They wanted Hamas to continue to kill Israelis. What can the Government do to prevent the spread of such malign messaging? It is not simply support for the Palestinians and the two-state solution—which, incidentally, I am fully in favour of. We must stop this malign messaging. What can we do?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
The noble Lord hits on something particularly tricky. I can only utterly condemn those who did not support the process and did not share in the joy of the ceasefire. Marching on the streets of this country in support of Hamas is completely and utterly wrong, and should never happen or be tolerated. He will have heard the words of the Home Secretary on these issues. Let us be clear: the only way forward is to have tolerance, understanding and a demand for peace. Those who try to thwart that are wrong, and we will have to look at how it can be dealt with. There is no place at all for support for Hamas and no role at all for Hamas.
The Lord Bishop of Sheffield
My Lords, from these Benches, I join others in expressing deep appreciation and thanks to the Lord Speaker for his service to this House and assure him of our continued support in the coming months. Noble Lords may be aware that efforts are under way to rebuild the Al-Ahli hospital, managed by the Anglican diocese of Jerusalem. It remains the only hospital in operation in the north of Gaza, but most of its buildings are in ruins following multiple airstrikes earlier this year. Hospital staff have remained in place throughout the conflict. They are now in urgent need of medical supplies to continue to deliver life-saving treatment. I ask the Minister to bring her influence urgently to bear to ensure that financial support and medical supplies reach the hospital so that it can continue to serve the people of north Gaza.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I thank the right reverend Prelate for his comments on that and about the Lord Speaker. He is absolutely right that healthcare, particularly in hospitals, is an acute issue. Some of the support that the UK has already announced is specifically for healthcare and given to UK-Med as well. Healthcare and education are those building blocks of life, without which Gazans cannot flourish or even start to lead a normal life that leads towards a long and lasting peace. I can assure him it is at the forefront of the discussions that are taking place.
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
My Lords, what steps are the Government taking to recognise those Hamas officials and operatives acting within the Palestinian state so they do not try to rebadge themselves as Palestinian Ministers?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
That is a valid point. We have made it clear there is no role for Hamas in a future Palestinian state or in the governance of Palestine. Part of the work at Wilton Park will be to say how we identify that and how we manage this. We have seen it happen in other areas as well. We have to ensure that there is full decommissioning and a state that has the confidence of the people of Palestine and the region, because the region as a whole has to be secure. Israel has to feel safe and secure, as does Palestine.
Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)
I am being heckled, and I am going to continue. I am not going to be bullied by Conservatives. There is an urgent need for aid and there has not been enough emphasis on that. The Rafah crossing is still closed, aid is not getting through and people are still suffering. Medical aid has not got through. There are 20,000 orphan children, at least. What special emphasis will be placed in the discussions on all those children who have nobody, who are orphaned and need special protection? I ask the Minister, as my noble friend did, about the protection for children, particularly in Palestine.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
There were a number of items in there, particularly on the aid being delivered—the noble Baroness asked about the Rafah crossing. It was opened briefly, then closed again; my understanding is that preparations are now being made to reopen it. Though airdrops are clearly a useful way of getting aid in, it has to get in through lorries. I saw either yesterday or this morning that Tom Fletcher was out there working on that as well.
The noble Baroness makes a particular point about the children of Gaza, and she is absolutely right to do so. The traumas many of those children are going to feel from what they have been through will be enormous. Looking at the reconstruction conference taking place at Wilton Park, and the work that Michael Barber is doing as the UK envoy in Palestine, one of the issues has to be looking at the services that are available and how they could be provided at pace, and ongoing. You need recognition that life is not going to be normal; it is not a ceasefire followed by life as normal the next day. The infrastructure of the country is in a dire state. We have heard from the right reverend Prelate about hospitals and schools being destroyed. There is so much work to be done, but the efforts should be in ensuring that those young people growing up now will be part of the future of their country. They can do that only if the right support is in place now and the traumas they have been through, and the tragedies they have suffered, are also dealt with in a way that allows them to play a full part in being the future of their state.
Lord Walney (CB)
My Lords, there will be a different assessment of the role of the United Nations through this conflict. Some will point to the way in which the organisations strive to get aid in; others will point to the many mistakes and failings. But do the Government recognise that the UN has fundamentally lost the confidence of key agents in the Middle East, not least the United States, and Israel itself, and therefore will they commit to working to restore that confidence, including by extensive reform of the institution in key areas?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, it is important that there is confidence in those institutions, and I think changes have already been made, particularly to UNRWA. But it is agencies on the ground that have experience and infrastructure that will be the ones that will be the best at getting that aid in. So we will take that support to get aid in from those agencies with experience. But, yes, there has to be a building of confidence across the whole region, in all the institutions. I come back to the point that we have not seen journalists in Gaza, and I think part of having that public reporting will also be very important going forward.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Ashton of Hyde) (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, is taking part remotely. I invite the noble Lord to speak.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]
My Lords, with a coalition of oil states having agreed to contribute to Gaza’s reconstruction—and it is inconceivable they will do so if Hamas threatens their potential investment—is it not possible that a population tired of conflict will now want to organise for that reconstruction by seeking to exclude the men of violence? To help that process, can we all support the fostering of a new civil and military authority that promotes that agenda, while at the same time avoiding action that accelerates the movement into the West Bank of those identified as committed to violence, where, if we fail to secure movement on an independent Palestinian state, they are likely to regroup in furtherance of their campaign? And can I personally pay tribute to the Lord Speaker, on his retirement notice, for the service he has given Parliament over the 40 years I have known him? Thank you.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his comments, and his comments about the Lord Speaker. I am not sure I fully understand his question, but it is quite clear that those who have been involved in violence, including Hamas, cannot be part of the future going forward. I think that is absolutely clear and should remain the position. There will be no change to that. There will be a temporary, transitional Government—a technocratic, apolitical Palestinian committee—and that is the way to go forward.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, does the Leader of the House accept that rabid antisemitism is being taught in Palestinian schools, which is reminiscent of the narrative of the Third Reich of Adolf Hitler, and that this is actually in part financed by the British taxpayer?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, any promotion of antisemitism, wherever it takes place, is always wrong. The key thing in the education systems of both Palestine and Israel is that they should promote dialogue between the two countries and also promote peace and collaboration between them.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
The noble Baroness made a couple of references to the importance of the press. Could she update the House on exactly where negotiations are about letting in companies such as the BBC, the Times and the New York Times?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I have not got any more specific information for the noble Baroness. We have made it clear that journalists should be allowed back in, because it is reporting: it is the disinfectant of sunlight, in a sense, is it not? Information is the best disinfectant and more information would be very helpful. We are committed to that and we are pressing for it at all times.
Lord Sterling of Plaistow (Con)
It is worth remembering that there are five refugee camps in Gaza alone. Those refugee camps have been there for five generations. Around 90% of people in them have never had a job in their life. The hatred in those refugee camps is immense. It is going to take 50, 60 or 70 years, at least, before we enable normal relationships between Israelis and those living locally. Can the Minister do something about it?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
All of us will do our best. The noble Lord makes an important point, which is that the path to peace is a process. It is never a moment; it is something that is ongoing. Members of the House will recall the process of bringing peace to Northern Ireland: it was not easy. At times, the steps that are taken forward are imperfect, inadequate and unsatisfactory. But they are steps forward. At each stage, we have to recognise where the goal is. The prize of peace, for people in that region, has to be the greatest prize ever for the children, the young people and the old people. Just think about it: people going about their lives saw their loved ones snatched and taken as hostages, and people trying to live their lives in Gaza saw their homes, their hospitals and their schools destroyed. So the path will be difficult and rocky. I do not know whether I recognise the timescale the noble Lord offered, but each day forward when people are not being killed is progress, and that is what we aim for.
Business of the House
Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts(1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Basildon
That Standing Order 44 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be dispensed with on Tuesday 21 October to enable the Deprivation of Citizenship Orders (Effect during Appeal) 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.
Business of the House
Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts(1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Basildon
That Standing Order 38(1) (Arrangement of the Order Paper) be dispensed with on Wednesday 22 October and Wednesday 29 October to enable Report stage of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill to begin before oral questions on those days.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Smith of Basildon) (Lab)
My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. I would not normally remain on my feet after doing so, but I understand that the party opposite—the Opposition—has tabled an amendment opposing the Motion, so I thought it would be helpful to your Lordships’ House to be clear about what the Motion does, what it does not do, and why it has been tabled.
The Motion concerns the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. By agreement between the parties, the Bill starts Report on 20 October—next Monday—and the House will debate and decide amendments over four days. On two of those days, the Government ask that the House considers the Bill for two to three hours before Oral Questions, starting at 11 am. Notice of this was given on 17 September.
The planning Bill is central to the Government’s plan to get Britain building again and to deliver the economic growth that we need to drive up prosperity and improve living standards across the UK—aims overwhelmingly backed by the electorate just last year. It is crucial that the Bill is swiftly put on the statute book, to help us deliver the 1.5 million homes and fast-track the 150 planning decisions on major infra- structure projects that we pledged in the plan for change.
As we know, planning and infrastructure is a topic that attracts interest from all sides of the House. Many of us have spent many hours in this Chamber debating planning reform; Committee on the Bill was no exception. I am grateful to the Official Opposition and to the Liberal Democrats, who worked with us to ensure that Committee was completed in the agreed time, including some very late sittings. We appreciated that.
I know that there can sometimes be what I would call “noises off” about scheduling and what is happening in your Lordships’ House. I recall the fury in the offices of the then Opposition—I acknowledge my noble friend Lord Kennedy in this—after we had agreed the Government’s proposals on the timing of the Rwanda Bill and the then Prime Minister proclaimed that Labour was the cause of the parliamentary delay, which was not true, so we understand that. I say clearly that an agreement was reached at Committee stage and all sides adhered to that agreement. We are grateful and appreciate that.
I turn back to Report. So far, 134 Back-Bench and opposition amendments have been tabled on the Bill for Report. I understand from my noble friend Lady Taylor of Stevenage that there are at least 10 issues that the Official Opposition intend to press further on Report. The reason for tabling this Motion is simply to ensure that the Bill completes Report within the four days and that, on those four days, our deliberations and decisions can conclude at a reasonable time.
These two mornings will provide up to an extra six hours of debate. It is a practical step on a single Bill, reflecting the interest in the topic, to ensure that we are able to effectively discuss and debate the amendments without sitting unduly late. We understand the difficulties that it causes for Members when the House sits very late; we felt that this approach was in the best interests of Members across the House.
The Motion does not permanently change the sitting times of the House, as set out in the Companion to the Standing Orders. I know a number of Members support such a change, but that can happen only through the settled will of this House. This Motion is specifically for two Wednesdays—22 October and 29 October. The Motion does not give these Benches any advantage. I do not want to incur the wrath of my Chief Whip or cast any doubt on his whipping process, but I have to say, looking at the numbers in your Lordships’ House, that the Government might more easily be defeated at midday than at midnight.
As I said in my opening, the Motion does not subvert the conventions of the House. As the Leader of the House, I have no desire to systematically abandon our conventions, as the opposition amendment says. I give the House that assurance. What the Motion says is that the House may consider the Bill before Oral Questions on two days in the next month. On the other 12 sitting days in October, the House will sit at our normal times. On all sitting days, Oral Questions will be at the normal time.
I reiterate: this Motion has been brought forward to be helpful to your Lordships’ House. Suggestions were made to my noble friend the Chief Whip from across the House that it would be easier and better for the House to debate Bills starting at an earlier time rather than later in the night. In that spirit, this Motion was brought forward to be helpful. I hope all noble Lords will be willing to support a pragmatic proposal to ensure proper and effective scrutiny of legislation.
Amendment to the Motion
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I have been very involved in Committee on the Bill, and I have a number of amendments before the House on Report. I think the very fact that the noble Baroness the Leader of the House has brought her Motion before us today shows that four days was insufficient, even before the government amendments were tabled. I very much support the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord True, but I also support the comments made by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull. The Bill originally looked at nationally significant infrastructure projects relating largely to energy; it has now been extended in large measure to water and other projects. The impact on the countryside, which I hold dear, is going to be huge. I believe we owe it to residents of country areas and rural areas to make sure that the Bill is properly scrutinised. Whatever time it takes and however many hours we have to sit, four days is not sufficient.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I thank those who contributed to this debate. The first thing I would say is that it shows a desire from all across the House to scrutinise legislation properly and effectively. The noble Baroness said that extra time is needed. This is why the proposal was brought forward, to provide some of that extra time, at a time of day when Members are perhaps at their best and sparkiest. I certainly think I am better at 11 in the morning than I am at 11 at night.
I want to address a couple of points made by the noble Lord, Lord True. He talked about the planning Bill being far too big. I remind him that I think we had the same discussions about the LUR Bill, which was significantly bigger than the planning Bill. The planning Bill has 111 clauses and six schedules. LURB had 223 clauses and 18 schedules, and a significant part was added. I know he has mentioned before the number of amendments that were tabled to the LUR Bill. There were some 700 on Report alone—no, there were 700 in Committee and 466 on Report, and over 200 of those amendments were from the Government. That Bill just went on and on and late at night. We are trying to provide the time required without having these late nights.
The noble Lord talked about press briefings. I have learned for a very long time, particularly as we get closer to party conference season, not to rely too much on press briefings but to see what amendments actually say. I take the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull: I think that over half of those 76 amendments—some 35 of them—come from discussions with the devolved Administrations to give effect to legislative consent Motions, so it is not an unusually large number of amendments to have.
On the issue of early sittings, so far in this Session there have been 196 sitting days, and we have sat early on nine of them—that is 5%. That was in response to the number of people wanting to contribute, and to the number of amendments. For example, the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill had a large number of amendments and Members wanting to contribute.
I have to say to the noble Lord that, under the previous Government, early sittings were used for Bills, including important Bills. The noble Lord may remember Report stage of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill—which I have mentioned—in September 2023, and the Second Reading and Committee stages of the Illegal Migration Bill earlier that year. This is not anything particularly unusual.
Let us address the elephant in the room. Two of the reasons why we have had so much business, sat so late and had longer hours have been the number of amendments tabled, which has been larger than usual, and the Opposition’s preference for debating smaller groups of amendments. Both those reasons are entirely legitimate. I make no criticism of doing that, and I recognise that they are within the rights of Members and in line with procedure. There is nothing untoward about that, but we have to recognise the reality that it does increase the time taken for discussions.
Some 67 amendments, over half of which are related to the devolved Administrations, have, as usual, been tabled a week before Report starts. They were discussed with the Opposition spokespeople, and I think the Opposition have now asked for a Keeling schedule for the most technical and complex amendments, which we are pleased to provide.
I have been very clear that I have no intention of systematically abandoning—I think that is the word the noble Lord used in his amendment—the conventions of the House, because they are important. The noble Lord talks about further discussions. We would welcome those discussions; they would be very helpful, because moving forward it would not be conducive to good scrutiny for Members or staff to have so many late-night and long sittings. Those discussions can be held.
I say to the noble Lord that the additional time required is provided for in this Motion, but if he wants to have further discussions through the usual channels, we will welcome them. My Motion is an enabling motion. If those discussions can reach an agreement whereby it is not necessary to have earlier sittings, then we will not use what is in the Motion, but we have it as a fallback if those discussions do not conclude in a satisfactory way.
We brought this forward as an offer to the House that is pragmatic and sensible, and in order to assist. Although there was not agreement through the usual channels, we would much prefer to have that. The Chief Whip, my noble friend Lord Kennedy, did receive representations from across the House from those who said that they would rather sit in the morning than have late nights, and we have tried to reflect that in this debate. However, it is a matter for the House. There is a large attendance here today, which is not quite so usual for Business of the House Motions. If Members want to sit here very late, they are fully welcome and entitled to do so. That is a matter for the House, and if that is the will of the House, I look forward to seeing a full House on those occasions.
I have been clear that although it might not benefit the Government, scrutiny at 11 am would probably be a bit more robust and thorough than it would be at 11 pm. Therefore, we offer the option to the House, but it is ultimately for the House to decide. We think it would be helpful to the House. We can continue with discussions, but if we do not need that extra time because the noble Lord and the noble Baroness can reach agreement with the Chief Whip, then that would be great. This is an enabling Motion that may be a fallback if discussions conclude unsatisfactorily. We are responding to requests to scrutinise legislation at a time when we can do our best work.
Clerk of the Parliaments
Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts(3 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Smith of Basildon)
My Lords, I wish to notify the House that I have received the following letter from the Clerk of the Parliaments. It reads:
“I want to take the opportunity to write to confirm what we have already discussed.
My appointment as Clerk of the Parliaments was for a five-year term, which comes to an end on 1 April 2026. At that point, I will retire. While there are several months of my term ahead, I do want to take this opportunity now to say what a great privilege it has been to hold the Office of Clerk of the Parliaments. I am honoured to be the 65th person to do so.
My term has seen many extraordinary events. When I took my Oath of Allegiance to Her late Majesty, COVID restrictions were still in place, and His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh soon passed away. I was the first Clerk of the Parliaments for many decades to see a change of the Sovereign I serve, and to witness both the demise of a Monarch and a Coronation. The House has undergone many other changes during my term too, but the professionalism and dedication of my many hard-working colleagues has been a consistent feature. It has been a great privilege to lead such a wonderful team and I thank them all. And my gratitude to my colleagues, present and past, stretches right back over what will be 38 years’ service in the House when my term as Clerk of the Parliaments ends.
Throughout my term, and in all my work supporting the House and its members, I have remained committed to our values; to delivering a healthy workplace culture; to effective bicameral working; and to responsible management of public money.
I would be grateful if you would convey my deep appreciation to members across the House for their generous help and advice throughout that time. The future holds many challenges for the House, and for my colleagues, not least the continuing need to focus on maintaining and renewing the Palace of Westminster to keep everyone safe and to provide a legacy for future generations. I am confident that the House and those who support the House and its members will rise to meet those challenges.
I wish you, my colleagues and my successor all the best for the years ahead”.
That is the end of the letter. I expect recruitment for the new clerk to launch shortly after we return following the Summer Recess. I am consulting the leaders of the other parties, the Convenor of the Cross Benches and the Lord Speaker to ensure that a recommendation for Simon’s successor as Clerk of the Parliaments is made to His Majesty in good time. As is customary, I will put a Motion before the House nearer the time of his retirement in the spring, and that will enable Members to pay appropriate tribute to Simon’s distinguished service.
Business of the House
Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts(3 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Basildon
That Standing Order 38(1) (Arrangement of the Order Paper) be dispensed with on Tuesday 2 September, Wednesday 10 September and Tuesday 16 September to enable Committee stage of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill to begin before oral questions on those days.
House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill
Baroness Smith of Basildon ExcerptsMonday 21st July 2025
(3 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill 2024-26 View all House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 122-I Marshalled list for Third Reading - (18 Jul 2025)
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Smith of Basildon) (Lab)
My Lords, I have it in command from His Majesty the King to acquaint the House that His Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill, has consented to place his prerogatives and interests, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
Amendment 1
“ResignationIn section 1 of the House of Lords Reform Act 2014 (resignation), after subsection (4) insert—“(5) Where a notice under this section is given and signed by a person on behalf of a peer who lacks capacity to give or sign the notice, the notice must be given and signed in accordance with Standing Orders of the House.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment inserts a new clause which makes clear that a notice under section 1(1) of the House of Lords Reform Act 2014 may be given and signed on behalf of a peer who lacks capacity; and which provides that such a notice must be given and signed in accordance with Standing Orders of the House.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 1 to 4 and 6. In Committee and on Report, the House considered amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Ashton of Hyde, regarding the sensitive matter of allowing Peers who lack capacity to be able to retire through a power of attorney. On Report, the noble Lord agreed to withdraw his amendment so that we could consider and discuss the issue further ahead of the debate today.
I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Ashton of Hyde and Lord Pannick, the noble and learned Lords, Lord Garnier and Lord Hope of Craighead, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Prentis, for meeting me after Report to discuss this issue. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, who has engaged with me on this issue, which many of us have personal experience of and feel passionately about. As I have said throughout, I think we are all trying to get to the same place on this matter and there is agreement across the House on the position that Members who lose capacity should be able to retire from your Lordships’ House with the dignity they deserve.
As I noted in previous debates, after becoming Leader I formally raised this matter with the Clerk of the Parliaments and sought my own legal advice. I had discussed this already with a number of noble Lords, the usual channels and the Clerk of the Parliaments. Following the debate in Committee, where I was grateful for the support across the House, I committed to continue to pursue this and, as a result, a solution was agreed by the Procedure and Privileges Committee. The Clerk of the Parliaments confirmed that he would accept a notice of resignation or retirement submitted to him by a person acting on behalf of a Peer who had lost capacity where that person holds either a lasting power of attorney covering property and affairs, executed under the Mental Capacity Act 2005, or an enduring power of attorney made prior to the 2005 Act.
Following discussions with noble Lords and the debate on Report, it became clear that the view of the House was that it would be preferable to find a solution in statute that would put it beyond doubt that Peers who lack capacity are able to retire via power of attorney. Any solution would also need to ensure that the current position of the clerk could not be reversed in the future.
I as Leader, and we as a House, have a duty to get this right. On Report I committed to engage in further discussions on the issue, and I believe that the amendments tabled in my name now present a solution that will satisfy the concerns raised in previous debates.
I will briefly outline the position for the House. Amendment 1 in my name makes clear that a notice under Section 1(1) of the House of Lords Reform Act 2014 may be “given and signed” by a person acting on behalf of a Peer who lacks capacity, and it provides that such a notice
“must be given and signed in accordance with Standing Orders of the House”.
It would then be for the Standing Orders and any associated guidance in the Companion, both of which will be subject to the approval of the Procedure Committee and then the House, to set out how these arrangements are to operate in practice. That of course will be subject to further work and discussions that I hope will start over the Summer Recess so that the Standing Orders and the guidance are in place as soon as possible. I would expect them to include the details of sorts of instruments under which the clerk would accept a notice of resignation on behalf of a Peer, the requirements on a person when submitting a notice of resignation on behalf of a Peer and the steps to be taken when that notice is received. I will of course consult noble Lords who expressed interest in the area, including those who signed the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Ashton, and the usual channels.
I am very grateful for the support across the House for these amendments. I think these are the only amendments to the Bill to have attracted the support of all the usual channels, and I am grateful for that. This approach aims to provide the certainty that noble Lords have sought on this issue, but it also reduces the risk of wider ramifications for the existing legal framework on capacity and powers of attorney. To return to a subject I have raised before, it also gives the House ownership of the details of these arrangements, allowing us to make modifications as and when required. This is so that the House can remain agile and responsive to ensure that they remain workable, particularly in the event of any future changes.
In resolving this issue and providing legal clarity, I have decided to table amendments to make alterations to the commencement provisions in the Bill. This is to ensure that the families of Peers who wish to avail themselves of these new arrangements do not have to wait until the end of the parliamentary Session. As a result, as we have seen from Amendment 3, I now intend for the Bill to come into force on Royal Assent, specifically and only in relation to the amendments I have tabled on power of attorney. The other substantive provisions of the Bill will commence as planned at the end of the parliamentary Session in which it receives Royal Assent.
I thank noble Lords again for working constructively on this issue. I have listened to the House’s views on this important issue at every point to seek to find a solution. In Committee, I listened, acted and brought forward a solution and, on Report, I listened again. I feel that this amendment provides the certainty and durability that the House was seeking. I beg to move.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, the other amendment in this group, Amendment 5, is in my name. It is a small change, consequential to the amendment your Lordships made during our first day on Report. Since the Bill now seeks to abolish the system of hereditary by-elections and to let those who currently sit in the House leave in the same manner as the rest of us—by one of the routes set out in the House of Lords Reform Act 2014, or by some far higher authority—Amendment 5 changes the requirement in Clause 6(4) for their Writ of Summons to expire at the end of the Session, as originally proposed.
I am very grateful to noble Lords—temporal and spiritual—from all corners of the House who supported this change to the Bill. I believe it is consistent with the Government’s manifesto commitment. As well as being kinder and less abrupt, it is consistent with the ways that we have treated other groups of noble Lords who have had their time in this House brought to an end: the Irish Peers in the 1920s and the Law Lords after 2009.
I thank the Leader for her support and echo the comments made about the amendment on power of attorney. It is often awkward for those of us in this House to debate the composition of our House or to confront the consequences it has for our Members, but she has been clear throughout in her praise for the public service given by our hereditary colleagues over many years. I thank her for saying that throughout and for the consensus she has achieved on the amendments she has brought today. It is a very good thing that an amendment is going to the other place bearing not just her name but those of my noble friend Lord True and the noble Lords, Lord Newby and Lord Pannick. I hope we might be able to find some further areas of consensus still, but I am grateful for this one.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to those who have spoken. It is good we have found an elegant solution—I have rarely been accused of being elegant, but I am happy to take it on this occasion—to a problem we all recognise. It is better in statute, as the noble Lord said. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, that I did not realise there had been an awkwardness in the House about discussing measures in this Bill. It did not feel awkward at the time, but I think I know what he means. I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have supported my amendments—particularly the Leader of the Opposition, who has added his name, and others. In that spirit, I beg to move.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment in my name inserting a new clause after clause 3.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment, which amends the long title, is consequential on the amendment in my name inserting a new clause after clause 3.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, the other place admitted the Bill to this House for our scrutiny in December of last year. Since then, we have spent eight days—nine including today—considering the legislation, which is a total of over 51 hours of scrutiny. A total of 146 amendments were tabled in Committee, with 124 debated and a further 36 tabled on Report. The Government, including myself, are grateful for the debates we had on the Bill. I particularly thank the usual channels for the collaborative effort on the amendments relating to resignation, which we have just had, and regarding the power of attorney, as well as a number of other Members—too many to go through by name—who contributed to the wider debate on reform of this House.
With regard to progressing further reform of your Lordships’ House, I have already spoken about my intention to establish a dedicated Select Committee on the issues of retirement age and participation, and the impact that would obviously have on the size of the House. I look forward to progressing those issues following the passage of this Bill.
Throughout the passage of the Bill, I have been ably assisted by a first-rate Bill team and other officials behind the scenes. I thank them for their hard work in helping me, my noble friend Lady Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent, the noble Lord, Lord Collins of Highbury, and my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General, who stood at this Dispatch Box. I am also grateful to the number of noble Lords who, over several months—even before the Bill came to your Lordships’ House—met me both privately and in small groups to discuss issues about which they had particular concerns or suggestions they had for the Bill.
A number of noble Lords have followed the journey of this Bill from the beginning, and it has been quite a journey. It will now go to the other place with amendments, as the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, said, and will no doubt return to our House for further review. It is my hope that we will deliver on the Government’s manifesto commitments on this Bill and see legislation on the statute book as soon as possible. I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness the Lord Privy Seal for her emollient words. I hope very much that in the time that elapses between now and our return in September careful thought will be given by the Government and the other place to the merits of the amendments and debates in your Lordships’ House. I hope the Government will think positively, even if not in the context of this Bill, about proposals from your Lordships that all Ministers in your Lordships’ House be paid and that we reaffirm the right of the monarch to create peerages that do not require the holder to sit in this place; those ideas are worth taking forward.
For my own part and, I venture to suggest, in the hopes of many other noble Lords, I would like to think that the joint amendment on power of attorney could be the symbol of other accords that might be reached as this reform goes forward. I remain committed to the principles I set out at the beginning of Committee, which include—along with a more reasonable attitude to those of our colleagues who have long sat among us—a voluntary understanding to address the perceived issue of numbers, and a reinforcement of the conventions on the conduct of this House and its relations with the other place. That would liberate this House from the unnecessary late nights that no one here enjoys. I hope that will still be possible, for without the fullest trust, respect and good will between the Government of the day and His Majesty’s Opposition—and I value the candour and friendship of the noble Baroness the Leader of the House—this House cannot function. The brutal reality is that the full exclusion of over 80 Peers does not evidence full respect and cannot be the basis of full good will.
Be that as it may, in asking my colleagues to agree that the Bill do now pass—which I know many on this side in their hearts regret—I invite the whole House to assent to the principle that no person should again enter this House to any degree by right of heredity. That has long been the professed wish of Labour and Liberal Democrat Benches.
My only regret now is that it has not been accompanied, as was promised in honour in 1999, by properly worked-out proposals for reform. The British people have never been asked to assent to an all-appointed House in perpetuity. This Bill, as presented, would have left, along with a sprinkling of Bishops, a House of life Peers created by a statute passed as recently as 1958—an all-appointed House, which is almost unique in the world. No other liberal democracy would long tolerate that a Prime Minister of whatever party—even one such as that of Mr Farage, which is not yet represented here—should have full control of the numbers and people sent here. Add to that the untrammelled power to purge and throw out Members of the sitting legislature. Such a constitutional settlement could not, and should not, long endure.
Lord Mancroft (Con)
My Lords, when I made a short intervention at an earlier stage in the Bill, the noble Baroness the Leader of the House, in reply, questioned—not seriously, I hope—whether or not I still liked her. The answer is that of course I do. I hold the noble Baroness in the greatest respect and indeed affection, as does the whole House, and that respect and affection is unaltered by the passage of the Bill. We on this side of the House do not bear personal grudges against political opponents merely because they are enacting decisions with which we may disagree. I accept, as do my noble friends, that the Government are fully entitled to get their business through and pass their manifesto legislation, even if I do not like it. The Bill removes the process by which new Peers can join the House by further by-elections. We accept that, albeit reluctantly.
But nowhere in the Labour manifesto did it state that currently sitting Members of the House would be summarily removed, which is an additional measure and sets a bad and, in my view, dangerous precedent whereby the Executive can simply remove Members of the second Chamber by dint of their majority in the first—an unheard-of provision that exists in no other modern democracy. The noble Lord, Lord Grocott, said that it would be absurd to suggest that this precedent would ever be repeated, but I suspect he is wrong, as he and his noble friends may well find out to their discomfort and cost in the not-too-distant future.
As this Bill enters its final stages, I ask the noble Baroness the Leader in turn whether she still likes me, or whether there something I have done that so deeply offends her that I and my noble friends should be thrown out of this House like discarded rubbish? We often talk of the dignity of the House, but I cannot think of anything less dignified for the House than what the Government are now doing in this Bill.
I would like to think that I have done my duty over the past almost 40 years. I certainly believe we have stuck to our side of the deal that we made 25 years ago with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine, on behalf of the Labour Party—not a deal that tied the hands of a future Government, as has been claimed, but on which, to their shame, this Government are now reneging.
The House is currently wrestling with the provisions of the Employment Rights Bill. The Government are concerned with the rights of those on short-term contracts but at the same time apparently care little for those of us who have worked here with no formal contract. Although none of us in this House is technically employed to serve as Members of the House, it would be difficult to argue that this is not a place of work, or even part-time work. I suppose one could argue that our Letters Patent and Writs of Summons, taken together, constitute at least some form of agreement. Either way, we are now to be treated in a way that no one else in employment or in any workplace in Britain can be treated. It is rightly illegal to sack anyone on the basis of their birth, except here in the upper House of this Mother of Parliaments.
Before I go, I would be very grateful if the noble Baroness the Leader could tell me exactly what it is that we have done that is so wrong as to deserve being treated in this way. The noble Lord, Lord Grocott, has repeatedly gone out of his way to say that this is not personal, but he is wrong, because it is very personal to each and every one of us to be treated like this by those we considered our friends and colleagues. It is also deeply offensive. I would simply like to know why. Is that really too much to ask?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I had not intended to respond at length, and I will not, given that this debate on Third Reading has been quite a long one. I was reminded earlier that yesterday was the anniversary of the moon landing. Apollo 11 took eight days, three hours, 18 minutes and 35 seconds to complete its mission. I think that is just slightly short of the time we have spent debating this Bill throughout its passage.
A number of issues were raised. Yes, I still have a soft spot for the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, and of course this feels personal to those departing hereditary Peers. It felt very personal to me when I lost my seat as a Member of Parliament, with far less notice. He said that this Bill was not in the Labour Party manifesto. It was. He may recall that, when we debated the Grocott Bill, I said, and I wrote in the House magazine, that we should accept it and that we would help to get it through, otherwise we would be in a position where all hereditary Peers would be removed under a Labour Government. So, he was given some notice of that; he may not have listened to me or read anything that I wrote, but it was said and it was in the Labour Party manifesto.
Nothing about the legislation says that we do not value the work of hereditary Peers, or that of any other Member of your Lordships’ House. That has always been the case, but we were quite clear that the hereditary route is not the route into your Lordships’ House that the country or the Labour Party expects.
I will look again at what the noble Lord, Lord True, said, but I think he said that, if we were not to proceed with the Bill in the way it has been drafted, it would unleash a spirit of good will. I hope that was not an indication that carrying out a Bill that is in our manifesto would unleash a spirit of something opposite to good will. I hope that is not what he intended, but that is certainly how it came across.
The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, was concerned that this Bill opens the gates to further reform or change. I have also heard from other noble Lords that, if we finish with this Bill, nothing will ever happen again. Both cannot be true, but I think this House should take more responsibility for what we can do. If we had taken responsibility for the Grocott Bill and managed to get it through, we probably would not be here today.
On the issue about Select Committees, I know the noble Lord would like to go further and faster. I am a great believer in bite-sized chunks and the House taking responsibility. If we can make progress on those two issues and, by implication, the impact on the size of the House, I think good progress can be made. If we show we can take responsibility for the work of our House as a House, cross-party, we can do so again in the future. So I do understand the views that have been expressed. This is a matter of principle. It was flagged for some time. It was a clear manifesto commitment.
Business of the House
Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts(4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Basildon
That Standing Order 44 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be dispensed with on Tuesday 22 July to allow the Universal Credit Bill to be taken through its remaining stages that day.