House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 9th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)]

My Lords, I was going to intervene briefly anyway, but, in response to the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, I do not think it is customary for any Member of this House to start to question the clerks, who do not have the ability to speak for themselves. As the noble Lords knows, if this amendment were not allowed, it would not have been possible to table it.

The only point I want to add was prompted by something my noble friend Lord Caine said. I do not think it has been reflected in this debate. Before we decide how to respond to my noble friend pushing his amendment, the noble Lord Caine made the point that, when a Member of this House becomes a Minister, even an unpaid Minister, they have to give up all their outside interests. There is another factor that it is worth us being aware of: the same Ministers are also subject to the ACOBA restrictions for two years after they stop being Ministers. So their employment prospects also have some constraints put on them, after they have not been paid for two years and they have had to give up any outside interests as well. That is something else we should take account of.

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

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord True, for raising this issue again, following the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson. It is one of those issues. He and I have discussed it many times, including when he was Leader of the House. I think the principle of paid Ministers is an absolutely sound one and I welcome the noble Lords, Lord True and Lord Forsyth, to the Ministers’ union, for which I am happy to supply application forms in due course. As much as the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, is an unlikely shop steward, I am sure he would be very welcome.

This comes to the heart of the issue. I have to disagree with my noble friend Lord Foulkes; the clerks did rule it in order as an amendment. There was some surprise about the range of amendments we have had on the Bill, but that is not to say they are not in scope. We have to accept they are in scope, however wide they go from the original title of the Bill.

I am glad the noble Lord, Lord True, tabled his Amendment 13A. I think he did so, recognising that the consequence of Amendment 13 would be that not only would we lose Ministers from the Government if it passed, but we would lose them from your Lordships’ House as well. They would have to go immediately, as Ministers, so I welcome his amendment.

First, it is right to say that the work of a Lords Minister is one of the most difficult jobs in government.

[Noble Lords]

Hear, hear.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My noble friends agree with me—both paid, I hasten to add; both Foreign Office Ministers and our Defence Ministers are paid Ministers but are still here in the Chamber, recognising the duty and responsibility they have to the House, as well as to their departments and the Government.

As I say, the work Lords Ministers do covers not just their ministerial work in the department but any other work related to the Government, and they will answer questions on behalf of any issue affecting their department. I have great pride in the Ministers we have in our Government, and indeed I think the House has always respected Ministers from all the three parties who have been in government in the past.

I disagree with the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, when she quoted somebody else who talked about it being “hard to find someone good”. Actually, we do find good people, but they make a sacrifice in order to do so—she is nodding that she did quote somebody, and I accept that.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

To be clear, I also completely disagree with that, which is why I went on to say that I had worked with excellent Ministers, and we have excellent Ministers today.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I did not think that was what the noble Baroness said; I thought she was quoting somebody else.

On the points made about ministerial pay, again, there was a very spirited and valuable defence from the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth. I have to say that the noble Lords, Lord Forsyth and Lord Hunt, went rather wider than this particular issue, as did the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, in talking about the respective merits of the House of Lords and the House of Commons. That just shows the appetite for looking at these issues across government.

As the noble Lord, Lord True, confessed, we have been able to make some improvements in this Government. Before the general election, there were 31 Ministers in government in your Lordships’ House, of whom only 17 were paid and 14 were unpaid. We have been able to improve that situation; we now have only nine unpaid Ministers out of 20 Ministers. The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, asked for an assurance from me that I would use my best endeavours to persuade colleagues to try to find a way forward in delivering this. He will know, as does the noble Lord, Lord True, that I have done so since I have been in post and did so before, which is partly why the position is so much better than it was under the last Government. I look forward to further improvements in that regard.

The noble Lord, Lord True, gave his three principles. The first was a fair day’s pay for work done, and the second was equal treatment. Actually, there is not equal treatment between the two Houses. He will be aware that the ministerial salaries that Ministers receive in the House of Commons are in addition to their salary, whereas in the House of Lord there is a choice in the sense that Ministers who are unpaid claim, or can claim, the daily allowance. So if we say that they are completely unpaid, we understand what we mean by that but those outside the House may not.

However, it is also worth looking at the fact that, since 2010, there have been no incremental or cost-of-living increases in ministerial salaries. That has meant that Ministers whom we term unpaid, particularly if they live in London, can be earning more than Ministers who are paid. So there are a number of issues to be addressed. I am not citing exact figures, but it is a very similar amount. I am pointing out that there are a number of issues to be addressed in the inequalities between both Houses. I think we all agree that no one should be prevented from serving.

So I am not disputing the principle behind the amendment; I am saying that we cannot support the amendment. If the noble Lord had as his amendment that he wanted to amend the Ministerial and Other Salaries Act to increase the number of Ministers overall, that would certainly help guarantee an increase in the number of Ministers. But it has always been the case since then that there has been a small number of unpaid Ministers in your Lordships’ House; it grew under the last Government. However, if this amendment was passed, it would not mean that any currently unpaid Lords Minister would receive a salary—it would have no impact. It would not increase the number of salaries available for Lords Ministers, therefore it is not a practical solution to what we all agree is a problem. It would also put limits on the ability of the Prime Minister to choose the Ministers he or she seeks to choose.

This amendment would have no effect and we cannot support it. It is an issue to be addressed, and the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth—who is leaping to his feet as I speak—sought an assurance that we are addressing it. He can take some comfort that this is a significantly better situation than under the last Government. Before I ask the noble Lord, Lord True, to withdraw, I will take this urgent intervention.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

The noble Lord makes an interesting point. My understanding—I look to the clerk—is that we will vote on Amendment 13A first, and the noble Lord, Lord True, has said that he regards Amendment 13 as consequential and would not seek to press it. It would have to be a vote for or against Amendment 13A, rather than Amendment 13.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

I am most grateful to the Leader of the House. The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, may have some validity. He said that, in practical terms, it probably means increasing the number of Ministers in order to deal with this issue. That would be a one-clause Bill that could be agreed between both Front Benches and would go through very quickly, I would suggest. Will the Leader explore with her colleagues the possibility of doing that? My noble friend Lord True tried this with the last Government and, unfortunately, there was a view taken at the top of the party, which did not understand this place, not to agree to it. In fairness, there is overwhelming support, and anyone in the House of Commons who understood this issue would surely find it possible to vote for such a Bill without difficulty.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

The noble Lord makes an interesting point. I know the draft Bill under the last Government that he refers to. We were never approached about that draft Bill—I am not aware of any discussion. The noble Lord, Lord True, spoke to me about it, but, as a party in the other place, we were never approached about it and it was never discussed.

There are two ways of dealing with this: an overall increase in the number of Ministers, or some way to ring-fence the number of Lords Ministers within the total number of Ministers. The noble Lord made an important point when he said that the number of Ministers overall in government is growing and asked whether that is necessary. A discussion could take place around those two issues—that is the better way—but we want to secure, for this House, the right number of Ministers to do the work that is required of us.

Having said that, this amendment is not a way to achieve this. It would not take us any further forward. The noble Lord’s suggestion is actually better, and I would be happy to take that forward. I urge the noble Lord, Lord True, to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all those who spoke in this short debate. I have been struck above all by one thing: absolutely nobody who spoke has disagreed with the principle behind this amendment. It has had universal support. We had a startling intervention from the Liberal Democrat Benches, to say that they supported the principle but would vote against the amendment.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

The noble Lord said his amendment has universal support, but it does not. I talked about the principle of supporting our Lords Ministers, and said that I preferred the way forward suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth. I do not support the amendment, but I do not think anyone disagrees with the principle of ensuring that we have the right support for our Ministers.

[Lord True (Con)]

That was exactly my point, and the noble Baroness has reiterated it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

My Lords, the point raised by this amendment is very short, and I will therefore make only three short points on it. First, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said, it is unfortunate that we do not have sight of the relevant legal advice. Here, the Government are not relying on legal advice that is covered by the normal principles of confidentiality; this goes directly to how the House is going to vote on this matter, and it is unsatisfactory and unfortunate that we do not have sight of that legal advice.

Secondly, whatever view one takes on the underlying position, we now know that there are two contrary and conflicting legal opinions out there. That necessarily gives rise to ambiguity, which is something we should avoid if we possibly can. That brings me to the third point: we can avoid ambiguity here, because this amendment makes very clear what the position is going to be going forward, and we have the ability to put the matter beyond any doubt. Given that the Bill is already going back to the other place in respect of a number of points, I suggest that this amendment ought to be accepted. If the Leader of the House is unable to accept it, these Benches will support my noble friend in the Lobbies.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful for that, and perhaps I can offer a helpful way forward. This amendment is identical to one tabled in Committee, except that it seeks to permit Peers to retire by allowing a person holding a lasting power of attorney to sign the notice of retirement, which is then given to the Clerk of the Parliaments.

The debate we had in Committee was very useful. As I think the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, said, it was an example of the House at its best, coming together to resolve an issue concerning the dignity of our Members that we all need to be resolved. There was cross-party support for addressing this issue, which has lingered unresolved for far too long, and which the House should have addressed a long time ago.

At the Dispatch Box last time, I made a commitment to report back to the House, and I am able to do so positively today. I will give some of the background of why this matters to me: I was concerned about it before I was Leader of the House, when I was Leader of the Opposition. I know that previous Leaders and Chief Whips were given the same advice as I was—that it was not possible for somebody to be retired by lasting power of attorney or by power of attorney.

I had a case with a colleague whose health was declining, the family wished that Member to retire, and when they approached the Clerk of the Parliaments they were told that the Member could not be retired but he could take a leave of absence. I found that completely and totally unacceptable, because we did not give that Member the opportunity to leave this House with dignity. I investigated further, and I was shocked to discover that they would not even accept a power of attorney. Given that the circumstances in which a power of attorney is accepted are significant, for this House not to accept it seemed rather strange, and I thought it was unacceptable. You can sell your family home, you can resign somebody as a director of a company, but you could not retire from the House.

I raised this matter with the Clerk of the Parliaments, but I also sought my own government legal advice. I have discussed the matter with noble and learned colleagues around the House and the Clerk of the Parliaments, and we reached an immediate practical solution. Members may or may not have seen the Procedure and Privileges Committee’s report. The Clerk of the Parliaments contacted me to say that, having reviewed the legal advice available to him and his predecessors, subject to safeguards—which I will come on to—he would be willing to accept the notice of resignation submitted to him on behalf of a Peer who has lost capacity, holding either a lasting power of attorney covering property and affairs, executed under Section 9(1) of the Mental Capacity Act, or an enduring power of attorney made prior to the 2005 Act coming into force. The safeguards were that the clerk would see the power of attorney, which is a standard procedure in all cases, and that if there was any doubt or any concern, he would raise that with the Whips.

[Lord Garnier (Con)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I have a number of other points to make that might be helpful.

[Lord Garnier (Con)]

I will be brief. What is the basis of the clerk’s—

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

As to the noble and learned Lord’s impatience, I ask him to bear with me as I go through this.

The basis of that is the legal advice received on that. I understand the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, about not sharing legal advice, even though that is a commonly held view in government, but I will come to that as I may have a way forward that will help him. I think he understands the risks of sharing legal advice and knows full well why the Government do not share it.

We have moved on, and it is now possible. There are families of noble Lords who presently are looking at this to ensure they can retire Members who are ill. That decision is based on a lasting power of attorney or an enduring power of attorney, so we are clear that we can accept both of those.

The noble Lord referred to the risk that the position may change again. The matter has already been considered and approved by the Procedure and Privileges Committee, of which the noble Lord, Lord True, is also a member. The report that I showed was published on 24 June with details, and the relevant amendments have been made to the Companion. To state the obvious—I am sure that noble Lords understand this—to reverse that would require further consideration by the committee and then notification to the House. I am confident that the position is practical and sustainable and will not be reversed. The House has a clear view on this matter: Members should be able to retire with dignity through power of attorney. We should let that work through and ensure it takes full effect.

Having listened to the discussion that has taken place, I want to proceed further. I have long held the view, and have discussed it with noble Lords across the House, that this House should take some responsibility for managing its own affairs. The question is: does this have to be in statute in order to take effect? As I have said previously on issues such as retirement and participation, I want the House to step up to its own responsibilities.

I question whether we need primary legislation to resolve this, and I do not think we should pass legislation that is not needed, but I am also concerned that as drafted, the amendment could risk unintended consequences. Unlike the report of the Procedure and Privileges Committee, this amendment makes provision only for lasting power of attorney. This is part of a broader area of law that involves both enduring power of attorney, which is recognised in the Procedure and Privileges Committee report, and other forms of legal authority, such as the ordinary power of attorney, more regularly used when someone manages an individual’s affairs when they are temporarily abroad or unwell.

There are also the provisions that the noble Baroness referred to in the Mental Capacity Act 2005, and legislation prior to that which was carefully developed and set out when a lasting power of attorney or an enduring power of attorney should or should not be relied upon. Those ensure that safeguards are in place. By singling out just the lasting power of attorney and making it so that a notice signed by a person holding one is effective in all circumstances, the amendment makes no provision for the wider context. This is a complex issue. I have to admit to noble Lords that when I first embarked on this, I thought it was a straightforward issue, and the more I have looked at it, the more complex it has become. I am wary of looking at simple legislative fixes for what are complicated issues.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

The noble Baroness has been extremely helpful. In the period before Third Reading, if the noble Lord, Lord Ashton, agrees with that approach, would she be prepared, at the very least, to share with the House, or with those who are interested in this issue, the substance of the legal advice, so that we can understand what the issues and uncertainties may be?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I think the best way forward would be for the government lawyers to talk with lawyers in the House with an interest, including the noble Lord, so that we can find a way forward. It is in the interests of the House to resolve this and for lawyers to talk to lawyers. I am not a lawyer and I have no intention of becoming a lawyer, although the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, once accused me of being a lawyer —I say that with some pride—but I think we are all in the same place and want to find a way forward.

[Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)]

Before the noble Baroness the Leader sits down, has any thought been given to the fact that the law of Scotland may not be precisely the same as England’s? I was not able to catch what she was saying in her original statement as to what the formula is she is using, but care has to be taken to see that the law of Scotland would be covered by whatever solution is being put forward.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

The noble and learned Lord is right and I am grateful to him for the discussions we have had on this point. In the legislative solution, there would have to be reference to Scotland as well. That is why I am confident that our current position, for the Procedure and Privileges Committee, is the right one and works.

However, I accept the views of noble Lords who want to put this matter beyond risk. If it is possible to do that through discussions then, as I have said to the noble Lord, I am happy to delay Third Reading to enable those discussions to take place. That is a way forward on this. I hope it is available to the noble Lord, because we want to get this right. None of us wants to be in a position in which a noble Lord whose family think it is appropriate for them to retire is in legislative limbo and cannot do so. If we pass this today, we would be in that position. I am very happy to have discussions with government lawyers between now and Third Reading to resolve the matter. I urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Ashton of Hyde (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I thank everyone who spoke in this debate, including my co-signatories—a formidable legal team. I repeat my thanks to the Leader of the House, who spent a lot of time discussing this with me. I am very grateful for her offer to work further on this matter over the coming weeks, and I am willing to accept that. However, I am afraid I do not think the commitment she has made, though generous, is enough, and I noted that it quite understandably included the ominous phrase “if agreement can be reached”.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I am sorry to intervene on the noble Lord. To be clear, if he puts his amendment to the vote, we cannot support him in that amendment and therefore we cannot have discussions on it between now and Third Reading, because it will be part of the Bill. We would have to wait until ping- pong and have discussions then, which is why this is a better route forward. I am sorry if noble Lords do not quite understand the procedure around how we would have to manage this, which is why I suggest we have discussions. We are even prepared to delay Third Reading to allow for those discussions to take place, so that we can reach a solution that satisfies the whole House. It is a perfectly reasonable way forward.

[Lord Ashton of Hyde (Non-Afl)]

It is a shame that it is take it or leave it, as far as discussions are concerned.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

The noble Lord is a former Chief Whip and he will understand the procedures of the House. If he puts his amendment to the vote today and it is not agreed, the vote we had in Committee stands and the clerk has accepted it. If his amendment is agreed, it is therefore part of the Bill and we cannot address that until it has been to the House of Commons. It is not that we are saying take it or leave it; we are saying that we are unable to do so within our procedures. The way that the House can have the discussion is at Third Reading. It is in the noble Lord’s hands.

[Lord Ashton of Hyde (Non-Afl)]

I do not agree with that exactly. It would be perfectly possible to have discussions, even if it was in the Bill. Even if there are particular problems, once it is in the Bill it can be brought back at Third Reading.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, to assist the House, paragraph 8.153 in the Companion says that:

“An issue which has been fully debated and voted on or negatived at a previous stage of a bill may not be reopened by an amendment on third reading”.

[Lord Ashton of Hyde (Non-Afl)]

There is still ping-pong. However, I accept what the noble Baroness the Leader of the House has said.

I am quite surprised there is such controversy about what I thought was a fairly common-sense amendment. We would like to get a solution that everyone could agree on. There is a principle here that errors or problems with legislation should be addressed by legislation. If we have something that we all agree is wrong in a Bill then it should be corrected in the Bill. I have accepted what the noble Baroness has said about having discussions before Third Reading and that the Third Reading could be delayed to enable those discussions. I am sure that we will come to an agreement if we discuss this sensibly. I am therefore prepared to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

That is true, but it would have been open to my noble friend to make the decision that he felt was best in terms of how he could best serve his country: by continuing the work or by bringing that experience to the debates that were present before your Lordships’ House. This is why we have the leave of absence provision. Those who serve in the Diplomatic Service make use of it at the moment.

As I said in Committee, we understand the no-less-noble demands on the time of our colleagues who serve as husbands and wives, as parents and grandparents, and as carers—they help reflect the population we all serve—but the Government and the House are right to insist that we all take our duties here seriously and that we are seen to be doing so. We already have a minimum attendance requirement through Section 2 of the House of Lords Reform Act 2014. That, as the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, said, requires just one day of attendance per Session, which he and others have rightly argued is not really commensurate with the command that we have received from our sovereign.

That Act became law in 2014 thanks to a consensus and an initiative taken here in your Lordships’ House. Incidentally, the initiative was taken by a former leader of the Liberal Democrats, Lord Steel of Aikwood, who would, I think, be staggered to hear the argument advanced by the leader of the Liberal Democrats here today that he supports the principle but does not want to take this opportunity to make this change. If that is the pace of change favoured by the Liberal Democrats, it is no wonder that they have not finished the job they set out to do in 1911.

Under the 2014 Act, which your Lordships decided, 16 noble Lords have been removed for failing to clear the very low hurdle that it established. We do not criticise them; we know that some of them were seriously ill. Perhaps that Act helped them take a decision that it would have been rather painful for them to take more actively. However, it still leaves a large number of people who, in the words of the Government’s manifesto,

“do not play a proper role in our democracy”.

In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Newby, reminded us that we are summoned here to give counsel not just on the topics on which we consider ourselves experts but on the certain arduous and urgent affairs that change throughout the course of a Parliament. Also in Committee, my noble friend Lord Bethell reminded us how the collective deliberative act of parleying that we all undertake here requires getting to know one another and establishing bonds of trust and understanding—not just turning up and disappearing into rival Division Lobbies. That is how we establish the consensus that the Leader of the House rightly wants us to achieve.

There is, I think, an emerging consensus in your Lordships’ House that the current attendance requirement of a single day per Session, without having to speak, vote or sit on a committee, is too low. Thanks to the spreadsheets compiled by the Library at the request of my noble friend Lord Blencathra, we know who we are talking about without having to name names or point fingers. We can proceed calmly and empirically. The Convenor of the Cross Benches is among those who have looked very closely at those numbers and been satisfied that a 10% requirement would not affect what he called in Committee the

“low-frequency, high-impact Members”—[Official Report, 12/3/25; col. 719.]

who bring sparing but specialist experience, particularly to the Cross Benches.

I have to say to my noble friend Lord Gove—sadly, he was not yet among us in Committee, so he missed my quoting “Evita” in citing the example of our noble friend Lord Lloyd-Webber—that I have much sympathy for what he says. Lord Lloyd-Webber was driven from your Lordships’ House and attacked for being a composer first and a politician second; as I said in Committee, I found it disappointing that he was not able to be here with us, when the pandemic hit, to give his experience on behalf of our performing arts, the West End and the theatres around the country that were facing plight. I must say, the 10% threshold that the Convenor of the Cross Benches has looked at would raise the bar slightly but would not prevent us having the expertise of people like Lord Lloyd-Webber joining us sparingly, but importantly, for our debates. I think that my noble friend Lord Gove will find that our noble friend Lady May of Maidenhead will clear that bar quite easily.

There are certainly some further questions that the House will need to address in future—for instance, how we turn attendance into more active participation so that we are not encouraging people to game the system by simply making speeches for the sake of appearing in Hansard, and so that people are not just turning up and reciting speeches written by lobby groups into the pages of the Official Report. We are all embarrassed by our colleagues from all corners of the House who turn up to lurk below the Bar for a few paltry minutes or skulk off after the first Division of the day—it would be a disgrace for us to expel hard-working Members from your Lordships’ House and not address that problem—but we can do this in bite-sized chunks, as the Leader of the House said.

There is no reason why proper consideration of those issues, whether through a Select Committee or future debates on the Floor of the House, should prevent us taking this initiative today, saying that we expect better and raising the bar a little higher. As the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, put it earlier, here is another mischief that we can rectify through this Bill. I think that this amendment, in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, would be a sensible and timely upgrade to the 2014 Act. We have seen that Act in operation for a decade now. We can strengthen it in the light of what we have seen over the past 11 years. It would provide the authority that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, says will be necessary if we are to make progress on this important issue. We can allow ourselves the time to consider other matters without delaying taking a step that would, I think, genuinely improve the standing and function of your Lordships’ House.

I do hope that the noble Earl will press his amendment when the debate is concluded and that we can all embrace this important, timely and modest improvement to the functions of your Lordships’ House.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, for raising this issue again today. I am grateful for the discussions that we have had on it and, indeed, for the discussions that we have had in your Lordships’ House on a number of occasions. My sense is that there is a lot of support—I have been encouraged by it—for a participation requirement, although I do not think that there is consensus on what the level should be. The noble Earl seems happy with 10% but, in our previous debates, a number of noble Lords have been against 10% and been concerned that attending once a fortnight, as it would turn to be, might cause ridicule to the House. I have to say, I do not know what the appropriate figure is, but it is right that we discuss it and look at what it could look like.

Noble Lords have raised a number of issues in this debate. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and others said, requiring attendance once in a Session does not really invite participation. There is an issue here: we all think that we know what we mean when we talk about participation and what levels are appropriate, but quantifying that is different. This is why I think that having a debate around one particular field—in this case, the figure of 10%—is very helpful.

The noble Lord, Lord Gove, said that it would reduce the range of voices. It does not reduce the range of voices if they are the voices of people who do not attend this House. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, that the noble Baroness, Lady May, would easily score on that point as well. We have to consider how best to address this issue.

The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, asked an important question about something that I raised last time— I just want to emphasise that. I have said a number of times that if the House can take responsibility for its own behaviour and actions then it should do so. As for what the House could do with its Standing Orders, that is not 100% clear. There are lots of things that we can do via Standing Orders and, where we can, we should take responsibility and do it. However, it would be appropriate for a Select Committee to look at participation/attendance and retirement in the round and to find an appropriate way forward, and at what needs legislation and what could be done prior to or without legislation. That would be a valid way to move forward and one that I could commit to.

The noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, is very keen to set a figure in stone and in statute. I am not keen to do that. I have gone round the houses a little on this and said it before, but this Bill is before the House as it is because the principle of this was discussed 25 years ago, and the Bill completes that part of the reform. On attendance and participation, particularly the areas that have been discussed, there is consensus that something should be done, but I have not seen consensus around the House on a particular number. It would be worthwhile for Members across the House to look at this and see how it could be done. It may be that 10% is the appropriate figure, but we have not said what it should be for participation. That is something which the House needs to look at. How do we do it? Should it be in statute?

The noble Lord, Lord Newby, raised what might happen at the other end. If we sent an amendment to the other place saying that we want 10% attendance, those in the other place who attend a lot more regularly might think that 10% was difficult to justify and might have other views on it.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

The other place did pass the 2014 Act, which requires us to turn up only once per Session.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

That was a long time ago. I do not think that it anticipated that people would turn up just once per Session.

Despite the inventive proposal from the noble Lord, Lord True, to have Peers who do not have to attend at all, as the Prime Minister stated recently—the Opposition have said something similar—our expectation is that Members of this House want to play a role in this House, participate in our activities and engage, as the noble Lord said, with other Members. It is not just about sitting here listening to other people debating but about playing a full role. The point about expertise is an important one, though we are not all here just for our expertise, as we do not have an expert on every single issue. We are here for the judgment we bring, having listened to debates.

The timescale for a committee of the House to look at these issues is important. If we let the momentum drop when so many noble Lords are keen to progress on this, we would be failing in our duty. I anticipate setting up such a committee very soon after Royal Assent, to look at these issues in the round and make proposals for your Lordships’ House to consider, and to consider whether we can move more quickly on things that can be done without or prior to legislation.

I assure the noble Earl that I am very keen that we make progress and deal with these issues as quickly as possible. I hope that reassures him that I have no intention of putting this issue on the back burner. All the points that he has raised are entirely valid. It is not just the reputation of the House we are concerned about but the value of the work that we do. It is impossible to do that work if somebody turns up only occasionally, possibly just to vote or to be here for only one amendment. If we are dealing with legislation, they probably should see that legislation through in its entirety, as a number of noble Lords do.

I am grateful to the noble Earl for raising this and hope that it is a view that he will put to the committee when it discusses these issues. I respectfully ask that he withdraw his amendment.

Black Rod

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Wednesday 9th July 2025 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I have to acquaint the House that His Majesty has appointed Lieutenant General Ed Davis to be Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, in succession to Sarah Clarke, and that he is at the Door ready to receive your Lordships’ commands.

[Noble Lords]

Hear, hear!

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

As we have done previously, the usual channels will make brief tributes to the retiring Black Rod. Sarah Clarke took up her appointment as Black Rod in February 2018, joining us directly from a position as championships director at Wimbledon. Her uniform here was definitely more formal attire, but who would have thought that managing Wimbledon and dealing with Centre Court personalities would be good training for her role here? It could be said that she went from tennis rallies at Wimbledon to ping-pong in the House of Lords.

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I liked it.

When the office of Black Rod was created in 1361, the decree stated that the post should be held by

“a gentleman famous in arms and in blood”,

a reference to the postholder being a man who had served in the military. Sarah Clarke made history as the first Lady Usher of the Black Rod.

On taking up her appointment, Sarah had rehearsals for the part of the role that the public and MPs will be most familiar with—having a door slammed in her face as part of the historic theatre of the State Opening. At her first rehearsal, she marched along to the Commons and walked straight in: they forgot to slam the door. At the second attempt, they remembered to slam the door, but the timing was not quite right and she was a hair’s breadth away from a broken nose. Sarah also believed that there should be a hard, robust knock on the door so that it could be heard in Central Lobby. The result was a rather stern email from the heritage team along the lines of, “Do not knock splinters off the door, please”.

Sarah’s tenure here since 2018 has been a momentous time in our nation’s history and she always discharged her duties with diligence, dedication, care and professionalism. In just under seven and a half years, she has led 252 Introductions to your Lordships’ House; there have been six State Openings and seven Prorogations. One of the highlights of our parliamentary calendar is a state visit and all of us know the huge logistical arrangements required behind the scenes. They are organised by Black Rod and her team to ensure a seamless visit. Sarah has overseen five state visits to this Palace, ensuring that visiting dignitaries enjoy the experience. Even on her final day in post, she was here to welcome President Macron.

However, it was Sarah’s leadership and calm professionalism, following the death of the late Queen Elizabeth II, when she worked tirelessly—literally around the clock—with the Royal Household to ensure that the lying-in-state and final journey of Her late Majesty reflected the mood and respect of the nation. Hundreds and thousands of members of the public walked through Westminster Hall to pay their final respects, and hundreds of millions watched on TV from all over the world. This would not have been possible without the fantastic support of the House staff, particularly the Yeoman Usher, Brigadier Neil Baverstock, and the Deputy Yeoman Usher, Fiona Channon. It is impossible to refer to that time without mentioning our excellent doorkeepers, many of whom became familiar faces when the lying-in-state was livestreamed on TV and proved to be most compulsive—and certainly most emotional —viewing.

Sarah’s leadership and commitment at that time were the embodiment of the truly excellent public servant that she is. We have enjoyed and valued our time with her. I have spoken of her professionalism, her dedication and her leadership, but we also remember her forthrightness, her friendship and her sense of fun. After Sarah and I spoke last week about her departure— I confess it was over a small gin and tonic—she emailed me, and I hope she will not mind if I share that email with your Lordships’ House:

“It has been the greatest honour to serve as Black Rod. I have deeply appreciated the huge support the House and Members have given me in over seven and a half extraordinary years with so many historic moments. I leave knowing I did my best to deliver my duties, met and worked with incredible people and certainly had a truly memorable and enjoyable time here. I could not have asked for more”—


neither could we. While we might fondly imagine that Sarah will have more time at home to spend with her partner Catherine and her two dogs Marge and Wilma—they really are called Marge and Wilma—I am certain she will fill her new role with the same dedication and commitment that we have seen.

Finally, I warmly welcome our new Black Rod, Ed Davis, to your Lordships’ House. As a former Royal Marines officer and a former Governor and Commander-in-Chief of Gibraltar, he brings a wealth of experience. We are confident that his previous diplomatic experience will serve him well in juggling the competing demands of this role, and we look forward to working with him.

[Lord True (Con)]

It is a pleasure, on behalf of these Benches, to follow the Lord Privy Seal, who spoke beautifully for us all as our Leader in her generous tribute to our outgoing Black Rod, Sarah Clarke. I rather liked the joke; I wish I had thought of it myself.

By a curious coincidence, I found myself sitting last night in the evening sun watching Carlos Alcaraz display his dominance of Centre Court. As I looked round that historic arena, packed with 15,000 contented people—well, perhaps not quite so contented, because he was playing a British tennis player—I thought: who in their right mind would exchange that glorious theatre for a dingy 19th century building riddled with mice and moths? Who would swap Centre Court’s giant retractable roof, costing just £70 million—

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 9th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman (CB)]

My Lords, I rise to speak briefly in support of this amendment, to which I have added my name. The noble Lord, Lord Burns, has come up with an elegant formulation—as he did several years ago in the committee he chaired—for a way out of the conundrum that we have. However good our provisions in terms of people leaving the House are, if we do not have any constraint—any guardrails at all—on people coming into the House, when we have a general election where there is a large majority, we will always see the ratcheting effect. We have seen that recently; there is every possibility that we will see it again in the future. It is tremendously important that we try to take some steps now.

The size of the House overall does matter. I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Gove, is in his place, and I am delighted that he obviously has become deeply affectionate and committed to the work of this House. I disagreed with most of his speech, but one thing he said that was incorrect was that the House was in danger of being bullied by those outside into thinking that it was too big and had to change. That is not the situation. As the noble Lord, Lord Young, just said, this House has repeatedly recognised the need for it not to grow exponentially, and has repeatedly recognised the danger of it being larger than the House of Commons. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Gove, that other second chambers across the world manage to find the right combination of expertise and experience without rising in their overall numbers to pretty near four figures—which is where we are in danger of going.

I believe it is tremendously important. There are those who say, “Oh, it doesn’t matter. Look at the average attendance figures. People aren’t claiming their allowances. None of this matters”. I spent five years as Lord Speaker and, in those five years, I do not know how many speeches I made about the House of Lords. The thing that most people knew about the House of Lords was not that it was brilliant at scrutiny, and not that it had fantastic Select Committees, but that only China’s National People’s Congress, in the whole world, had more members.

That issue of reputation should not be the only one that drives us; we should recognise that we need a House peopled with enough Members to do the job we ask it to do, but we do not have to have an expert on every single issue in the world. We have Select Committees that can call for evidence; we can hear that expertise. We need a House of a reasonable size and I suggest that it should be no larger than the House of Commons. Others have suggested much smaller Houses. They look at the United States Senate. They look across the world and say that other people manage with less. I believe that, as a part-time House, we need larger numbers because not everyone is here all the time and that is important—

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

The noble Baroness saw me shaking my head. I was doing so only because I always refute that we are a part-time House. We are a full-time House with long hours, but many of our Members do not have to be here full-time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

This is the first time I have been angry in this debate. The noble Lord is casting malign intent on me and others in my party about the Bill. I hope he will retract and rethink what he said.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

I am sorry if I have angered the Leader, but this comes from conversations I have had with noble Lords in other corners of the House about amendments on the Bill. They worry—and I know she will take this seriously, because she will not want them to worry—about the consequences of how they vote and how they are perceived to vote, particularly hereditary Peers sitting on other Benches with their future uncertain. I am sorry if that has angered her. It should anger and concern us all. I know she will say it should not need saying, but I know she will also not want any noble Lord to have that fear as they approach this Bill or any other.

The noble Lord, Lord Burns—who, as my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham has pointed out, performs his duties here without any fear or favour—has been asked to look at many important issues for our nation. He has worked harder and longer than anyone to find a way to tackle the question of the size of your Lordships’ House, not least in chairing the Lord Speaker’s committee established by the noble Lord, Lord Fowler. The recommendations that he and his colleagues from across the House made show that it is possible to address the size of the House without changing the law, and the Prime Minister at the time, my noble friend Lady May of Maidenhead, showed that it was possible too with the restraint that she exercised. The actions of subsequent Prime Ministers of both parties show that not all occupants of No. 10 have been persuaded to do that, and the current occupant of No. 10 has not made any commitment, notwithstanding the words that the noble Baroness used when she was Leader of the Opposition in winding the debate on the committee of the noble Lord, Lord Burns.

If the House is serious about reducing its size and asserting its independence in the face of the Executive, I hope the noble Lord will continue to press the matter that he has been pressing on behalf of a House that asked him to do it for so long, and I hope the noble Baroness will be able to give us the reassurances that I know we all want to hear. I am sorry if it has angered her to ask for them, but I think it is important that she is able to reassure noble Lords on that point.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I can reassure noble Lords on a number of items, but I will say that that is the first time in this debate that we have had such discourtesy from a Member of the party opposite, with his allegation that somehow I will punish those who take a different view on this. He should look at his words again and rethink them, because the tone of the debate has not been like that throughout. I am sorry that he descended to that level.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Burns, for bringing this forward. He has been consistent throughout about the issues of the size of the House and prime ministerial patronage. Others are perhaps more recent converts on those issues, but he has had consistency. He and his committee looked at these issues forensically in a way that the House could respect, because it was based on facts and numbers, and they looked at this in a sensible way.

On hearing what the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, said earlier, I am tempted to ask whether perhaps he was thinking that I should say we should do it “My Way” and no other way. For the final time, to follow a theme, “A Little Less Conversation” sometimes could be more helpful—I just like to lighten the mood.

I say to the noble Lord, Lord Burns, in addressing some of the other comments that have been made, that I think it would be completely wrong if departures from this House, whether by hereditaries or due to retirements or participation, should merely create vacancies to be filled. We have manifesto commitments, and I think it has been the will of this House, that we should reduce the size of the House—not because of the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Gove, and the things he put forward, but because we are all looking at how we as a House do our best work. How do we properly contribute to debates? How do we ensure voices are heard around the House? When the House gets too large, there are concerns that not all Members are playing a role. When he talks about reducing the size of the House, he is right to say that temporary reductions are not what the House is looking for.

I have reflected on the comments I made when I responded to my noble friend Lady Hayter previously. I have a concern that if the Select Committee becomes a kitchen sink of issues, it becomes a talking shop and no progress is made. I think everybody is trying to avoid that happening. But I do think—and I spoke to her and the noble Lord, Lord Burns, on this—that retirement and participation are obviously two major drivers for reducing the size of the House. It is implicit in that that, if we are looking to reduce the size of the House, we do not then seek to merely create vacancies to be filled. It is an opportunity to reflect on the ideal size and look forward to that.

There is always an issue about how much you constrain the Prime Minister’s patronage, and that has to be taken into account in the committee as well. The noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, said the Prime Minister is the sole person who proposes Members for this House. He knows that is wrong, as I know that is wrong, as the Prime Minister passes on the nominations from other parties. It was made clear in the Statement—which I think the noble Lord was quite disparaging about—that the ability to nominate Cross-Benchers will remain and, through the Prime Minister, those nominations of people who have first-rate public service can also come to the Cross Benches as well.

I will address some of the other points. The noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, said—and I may have misunderstood her when she was speaking, so she can correct me—that it has always been accepted that the Government would be the largest party but not the overall majority. My party is not the largest party, though we are in government. I have used these figures before in your Lordships’ House, and I think it is part of the reason we are now discussing the size of the House. The relative size of the parties—the relative numbers across the board, including the Liberal Democrats—is as important as the size of the House. After about 12.5 years of a Labour Government, my party, the then government party, left office with, I think, fewer than 30 more Peers than the Conservative Party. When the Conservative Party left office in 2024, there were over 100 more Conservative Peers than Labour. I find that totally unacceptable. It has never happened before in that way, and the disparity between parties is partly why we are discussing these issues now.

The noble Lord made it as a party-political point about hereditary Peers; it long predates that. The Grocott Bill that we tried to put forward previously was rejected by the party opposite—not by everybody, as I had several noble Lords today ask why their party did not take advantage of this before. There has to be an issue about how you get a balance of numbers across the House. I have the view that this House does its best work when the two parties of government—the main party of government and the opposition party—have roughly equal numbers and we abide by the conventions of the House. That is when I think we have the most respect, we work at our best and that works well. The only other time—

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

The Leader of the House has been consistent in saying this in opposition and in government. Is that therefore a firm commitment that she does not want to see the Labour Party outnumbering the main party of opposition in this Parliament?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I am not in a position to make a firm commitment. The House absolutely does its best work when the two main parties have roughly equal numbers, but it also depends on the House fulfilling its responsibilities and abiding by the conventions of the House. The noble Lord will know that, when we were in opposition, we would never have got up to the shenanigans that we have seen from the party opposite. I do not think, for example, that we ever proposed a closure Motion halfway through discussing an amendment—that was the first time I had seen that happen—so we do abide by the conventions. The noble Lord, Lord True, used to say to me regularly that what goes around comes around; I think he was right in principle, but perhaps not in action these days.

[Lord True (Con)]

The Minister loves this word “shenanigans”; whenever I see a briefing in the newspapers, I know where it has come from. She cited one shenanigan; can she give another? The Opposition have made repeated offers, and we are negotiating in the usual channels to deliver the Government’s legislation. The Minister knows the commitments that we have given. We do not discuss usual channels on the Floor, but can we please put “shenanigans” to bed and get back to good relations?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I am afraid that my use of the word “shenanigans” has been copied by many others since, and it was not original on my part. To go down a bit of a rabbit hole, we have seen a lot of raw degrouping of amendments in this Session of Parliament. That aside, we are all looking for the House to do its best work, and to be treated responsibly, listened to and engaged in legislation.

The only time I recall a threat of introducing so many new Peers—we have talked about in the past—was when Jacob Rees-Mogg was Leader of the House of Commons. I had just become Leader of the Opposition, and we were threatened with 1,000 new Peers on the Brexit issue, but it never materialised. It was recognised then that the best way of dealing with things is in the way that the House normally does.

The noble Lord, Lord Butler, made a very good point about quality. Appointments should consider quality and commitment. We are not just a House of the great and the good; we are people who are committed to the work that we do, and we bring judgment to the issues we debate. The noble Lord is right to look at that. The comments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, on Front-Bench appointments in particular is one of the issues that deserves further consideration. This is an issue that the Select Committee would look at more broadly to ensure that we do not just create vacancies to go back to a larger House.

I understand the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and I completely accept the purpose of putting it forward. I would say that one flaw in it is that his proposals—and I think this might have been the point that the noble Lord, Lord Newby, was making—do not take into account the relative strength of political parties. Under this proposal, when a Peer departs, the party of government could always appoint a member of their party and not look at the balance of the House overall, and we do need to look at the balance of the House overall. Therefore, I understand the sentiment and I think the noble Lord is right to say that this needs further consideration, but I would ask that he withdraw his amendment. This is something that merits further discussion.

[Lord Burns (CB)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to all those who have taken part in this debate, and indeed for the degree of support for the principle of constraints on appointments and the need for guard-rails. I appreciate the remarks of the Leader of the House, who I think indicated, as I hoped, that we would be in a position with the Select Committee to discuss the issue of the relative size of appointments and those who are leaving. I do not want to press this to a Division today, as it is not the right vehicle for such a change. The amendment also needs to be considered in the context of other proposals to encourage departures and allocate appointments, as the Leader of the House has said.

Although I did refer to it in my remarks, at this stage I have not tried to deal with the issue of the allocation of vacancies to the different parties. That was set out in the Lord Speaker’s committee report, which said that the allocation between the parties should be made according to the number of votes and seats that they achieved at the previous general election. I still believe that that is a very effective mechanism. It is one that stabilises the numbers and allows for a shift in the proportions depending upon the political success of the parties during an election, so you get movement.

--- Later in debate ---

I hope that now this Bill has been amended, and is going back to the other place, the noble Baroness will feel able to accept it. After all, it simply takes the Government at their word: that they want a Select Committee to devise proposals to form the basis of a Bill. If the noble Baroness cannot accept it, and my noble friend tests the opinion of the House, we on this side—and, I hope, Peers on all sides who are interested in tying down the nature, scope and timing of reform—will support him in the Division Lobby.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

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

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

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

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

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


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

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

I hope I made it clear in my speech that the House would consider the options. The House would then come up with a firm vote on what they may be, and not give the Government a range of options to legislate on. It would be the decision of the House on the retirement age, the participation rates or the threshold. We would consider the options and end up with firm recommendations.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

The noble Lord’s amendment is uncertain, because I did not read it like that. It says:

“Where a select committee of the House … has been established for the purpose of reporting on possible retirement ages … and that committee makes recommendations to establish or change”


certain conventions,

“a relevant Minister must, within 12 months of the committee reporting, take the action set out in subsection (2)”.

Therefore, the noble Lord will not be empowering the House; he will undermine the House by removing it as a body from the equation. Even aside from that point, however, I disagree that matters of this importance should merely be considered by the Select Committee through a statutory instrument. I am sure our statutory instruments committee would have quite a bit to say about that power and whether it was relevant at all.

The establishment of a Select Committee is a matter for the House; if the House does not want it, it will not be set up. It seems to me that it is a good way forward for the House to provide a view on these issues. Where we can take things forward more quickly, we will do so. Where we can act prior to legislation, we could do so. Where legislation is required, an agreement from your Lordships’ House makes that a smoother process. I think the amendment before us today is unworkable in practice and risks undermining the very role of this House by trying to bypass the House. It may not be what the noble Lord intended, but it is what his amendment would do. It would bypass the House; what happens in a Select Committee is then enacted by secondary legislation. That would be an extraordinary move and one that this House has never seen before. I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Dundee (Con)]

I was hoping to put this in context; my noble friend Lady Finn in her remarks did just that too, saying that we really want to make sure that we can continue the very high standard of legislative scrutiny of our present House in a reformed House.

I will just finish my remarks. As already alleged, these respective portions would provide a good balance for sustaining and carrying on our present high standards. This formula could also seek the backing of public consultation and approval to which the noble Baroness very helpfully referred in Committee.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I am sorry to interrupt the noble Earl, but the debate has concluded and I think he is just about to say whether he wishes to press his amendment to the vote.

[The Earl of Dundee (Con)]

I am grateful to the Leader of the House for her interest. I am not going to be tempted to press to a vote, but if I could possibly finish my remarks, we may be able to round off the context.

I am grateful too for the contribution from the Opposition Front Bench and from my noble friend Lady Finn, and within this grouping for the useful amendment from the noble Earl, Lord Devon, on post-reform House of Lords nomenclature. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 26.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord—I think it has been good natured generally, apart from one slip-up that I referred to earlier. The noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, is not in his place—I have scared him off. He will not do that again.

I am grateful to the noble Lord for introducing his amendment. It was the most unusual introduction I have ever heard to an amendment in your Lordships’ House. He started by saying that it does not do anything and does not ask the Government to do anything. That is an unusual way to introduce an amendment to any legislation. He seeks to put a preamble at the start of the Bill, as he said.

The substantive issue that he addresses here is introducing an elected element into a second Chamber. The recollection of the noble Lord, Lord Newby, does not fail him: only last week the House rejected that proposal, although the proposals in the Labour Party manifesto for an alternative second Chamber do not mention elections, so I fear that putting something like this in—although it would make no difference—seeks to pre-empt any outcome of further discussions.

This kind of preamble is now obsolete—although it may have happened in 1911, and I know there is a tendency in your Lordships’ House to look backwards at what happened. There have been some excellent historical references in the House this evening and indeed last week. There is a good reason why this has become largely obsolete: it is completely unnecessary, because the Long Title indicates the purpose and substantive clauses are provided in the legislation. The noble Baroness, Lady Jay, who took similar legislation through your Lordships’ House in 1999, said:

“Words that do not mean anything have no place in modern legislation”.—[Official Report, 26/10/1999; col. 276.]


Taking the noble Lord’s own introduction—saying that it does not do anything and does not mean anything—I ask that he withdraws his amendment.

[Lord Strathclyde (Con)]

My Lords, I cannot hide my disappointment that the noble Lord, Lord Newby, and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith—the Leader of the House—have not accepted my words. But I am pleased to have heard the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, ask some totally appropriate questions and remind us of what happened at the end of the First World War with the Bryce Commission. Of course it would be possible to recreate a Bryce Commission and, under the Labour Government that ended in 2010, a Joint Committee of both Houses sat and discussed this. Prior to that, there had been a royal commission. There have been many occasions over the last 100 or so years when people have referred to this preamble and looked at what could be done to put in place some kind of elected House—and none of them has come to anything.

My purpose was simply to continue that historical reminder that this was the broad intention. This is an echo of the noble and learned Lords, Lord Irvine of Lairg and Lord Falconer of Thoroton. So many other Peers have referred to it over the last 115 years. However, I recognise that I am beaten on this one. I said I would not call a Division on it and I will not. Therefore, on that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Business of the House

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Tuesday 8th July 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 10 July to allow the Supply and Appropriation Bill (Main Estimates) (No. 2) Bill to be taken through its remaining stages that day.

Motion agreed.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 2nd July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, are we going to hear all day the cry of “Front Bench”? In this House, the tradition is that those on the Back Benches are permitted, as fellow Peers, to contribute to our debates. Also, if I may say so, I have never heard the proposition that someone who is a hereditary Peer should have to declare that. I very much hope, if that is the principle that is being pushed, that when we come to debate the principle of a democratic House, those who are life Peers will declare their interest—responding to the noble Lord, Lord Newby. This is not a profitable way to go. As was said by the Captain of the Gentlemen-at-Arms very wisely earlier, we should conduct our debates with amity, respect for each other and a degree of tolerance.

History matters; it matters greatly. It was no accident that, in 1999, the then Labour Government decided, outside the discussions that we were having about the elected Peers, to leave an ex officio place for these two great and ancient hereditary offices in our Chamber. It was a wise decision then, and I think it would have been wise to replicate it now. We have heard the long history of these great offices and, more importantly, their current relevance, set out ably by my noble friend Lord Roberts of Belgravia and underlined by the noble Lord, Lord Moore of Etchingham. I agree with my noble friend that we diminish the ceremonial part of our state at great peril to ourselves and to who we are as a people. As was said by my noble friend, it is one of the things that we do amazingly well, which attracts huge income from tourism and, far more deeply, deep respect and interest in our country.

This Parliament is a Parliament of three parts: the Commons, the Lords and the Crown. The Earl Marshal and Lord Great Chamberlain are visible embodiments of that. They are a part of our parliamentary constitution that can be traced back to early medieval times. They are every bit as important today, and they must be able to fulfil their duties at State Openings of Parliament and all the other events and places where they serve us, our House and our country.

When I look back on the great and moving events that took place in our recent memory after the demise of the late Queen and the accession and Coronation of His Majesty King Charles, I well remember, as we all do, the active, practical and dedicated part that the Earl Marshal and Lord Great Chamberlain took in making those events possible and so memorable. I record my personal thanks as then Leader of the House to the noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk, and to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and his predecessor, the Marquess of Cholmondeley. They are also ex officio here by a separate provision of the 1999 Act; they are Members of the House. They have often, over the years, brought great insight here. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell. When I went home late last night, the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, was in his place, having made a full, practical and helpful contribution to the House.

Those of a longer memory will well recall the 17th Duke of Norfolk, referred to by my noble friend, who won the Military Cross under fire in 1944. As a career major general and director of service intelligence, he brought immense wisdom to our discussions of military affairs. With an Earl Marshal responsible for our State Openings of Parliament and a Lord Great Chamberlain in control of much of our estate—the Robing Room, the Royal Gallery, the Chapel of St Mary Undercroft—and their relevance to restoration projects, these officers of state will need unfettered access to the Chamber and the resource and office space needed to fulfil their roles on our behalf. I agree that they should never have to queue for access or beg for a pass.

As others have argued, given that the Earl Marshal and the Lord Great Chamberlain have such an intrinsic role in our House and its ceremony, much the best way forward would have been to allow them to remain as full Members of our House. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Moore of Etchingham, that their ability to serve us can only be strengthened by knowing and sharing the experience of our Members and staff. It worked for many hundreds of years and it seems a shame to change it now.

The unnecessary removal of these ex officio Members, separate from the 90 elected Peers, is to be regretted. However, I know that the noble Baroness the Lord Privy Seal has been talking to colleagues about this, and about the best and properly dignified way of enabling them to go about their important services to the Crown and to this House in an unfettered and unimpeded way in the future. We should all be open to hearing what she has to say.

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

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, for an erudite and entertaining speech. His amendment is similar to one that was tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, in Committee. I think the cries of “Front Bench”, which we do not hear too often, were made in eagerness to hear the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord True. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Rising. He came to see me about this matter, and I am grateful for that discussion, which was very helpful. Looking at the comments that have been made, I can satisfy noble Lords on some points, but there is one particular point on which I cannot, which I will come to.

This is something that has arisen many times during the passage of this Bill. I completely recognise the important roles played by noble Lords in those offices and the historic link between the monarch and the second Chamber. However, the point remains that in order to fulfil their functions and responsibilities they do not need to speak in the Chamber or to vote.

The noble Lord, Lord Roberts, is right that it would be appalling to suggest that they would have to queue up at the Pass Office or seek permission every time they come in. I can give him the categorical assurance that that will not happen, now or in the future. The commission has agreed that both office holders have access rights on the Parliamentary Estate. They will be able to perform their duties as they do now and engage with Members as they do now. That includes the ability to sit on the steps of the Throne, to listen to debates, to access catering and to access the Library. That level of access will ensure that they can engage with Members. In no way should their responsibilities or their abilities to do that be fettered in any way. I can discuss with the House authorities the possibility of office space—there is no office space at the moment—in the House, if required.

I know that some noble Lords have voiced doubts and questioned whether both postholders, now or in the future, would have to come back to the commission each and every time. I reassure the House that that will not be the case. The commission has confirmed the position for current and future postholders, so they would not have to come back. There should not be any impediment to their fulfilling their responsibilities. I assured the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Rising, that I would make that commitment from the Dispatch Box and, as he requested, I am happy to do that.

To correct something that was said, the postholders will not be excluded from the House. They will be excluded from participating in the proceedings of the House but they will not be excluded from coming into the House, so I do not think that this amendment is necessary. There is certainly no criticism of the roles they play.

The noble Earl, Lord Devon, raised three points. I can satisfy him on two of them, but on one, I cannot. He asked what discussions have taken place. I have had at least one discussion with both postholders and probably more than that. He asked whether they have been consulted. Yes, they have, and there has been wider consultation. The point I cannot satisfy him on is the one raised by the Earl Marshal about more diversity. These are both hereditary roles, and they will continue to be hereditary roles. The position of Lord Great Chamberlain rotates through three hereditary positions so, in terms of diversity and inclusion, they will always have to be men at the moment. I know the noble Earl has particular interests and perhaps one day we can make some progress on that, but at present I cannot satisfy him on the diversity role because, as hereditary Peers, they will always be male.

[The Earl of Devon (CB)]

The point that I think the Earl Marshal was making was that the seat in the House that he might occupy would perhaps be open to more diverse occupants, not his role as Earl Marshal.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

That is a valid point. The Earl Marshal has been very clear that he is perfectly content with this.

I do not think this amendment is necessary. I assure the House that those postholders are essential. We will not in any way hamper or impede their ability to carry out their functions or their roles. The noble Lord, Lord True, made the point that we are grateful to them for doing that. They engage with Members of the House as well. I hope that, having heard the explanation and the assurances that I have been able to give, the noble Lord will be prepared to withdraw his amendment.

I want to add a more general point about issues that will come up in later debates. It is not entirely relevant to this amendment but, because so many of these issues are interconnected, I think it will be helpful to set the context to assist the House. Noble Lords are aware that, prior to the commencement of the Bill and throughout its passage, I have had more than 50 meetings, some as one-to-ones, others with much larger groups. I listened very carefully in those engagements and throughout Committee. Much of our discussions and debates have been on issues, such as this one, that were in the manifesto but are not in the Bill. I think the House is seeking reassurance that the plans for the next stage of reforms will not flounder and that the Government are serious about their intention for further reforms.

I have been greatly encouraged by support for two specific issues that have been mentioned many times and on which we have amendments later: retirement and participation. It has been 25 years since the first stage of this reform, and I think the House would be somewhat intolerant if we took another 25 years to bring anything further forward. We all value that this House is self-governing and I am keen that we take some ownership as a House in moving forward on other issues. I am sure we will discuss this issue further on other amendments.

I feel, having reflected on discussions and advice, that we need a formal, recognised process that is supported by the House. I have considered the mechanisms that we could use, and I have concluded that the best way forward would be to establish a dedicated Select Committee to look at those specific matters on which noble Lords have indicated that they are keen to make progress. I am open to discussing other mechanisms, but that is the way forward that I think may work the best.

Obviously, I will discuss this further with the usual channels before putting any such proposal to the House, but I hope that the House could set up such a committee within three months of the Bill gaining Royal Assent, and by this time next year it would be able to consider the committee’s findings. I am keen to see how quickly we can move on other issues as well without legislation, or prior to legislation, with a committee that could make those recommendations to the House. I say that at this stage to be of assistance to the House so that, when we get to those issues, the House has had time to consider them. In the meantime, I thank the noble Lord—not least for raising Andrew Marvell, perhaps one of my favourite poets—and ask him to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

Before the noble Baroness sits down, the proposal is to set up a Select Committee to consider the issues that have been discussed with her. Those issues include offering life peerages to hereditary Peers. Is that something that the Select Committee would consider?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I do not imagine that that would be discussed by this Select Committee, which will look at the two specific issues that have been raised. We will debate the matter that the noble Lord refers to later on the Bill.

[Lord Strathclyde (Con)]

My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, what authority will this committee have? Would it be regarded by the Government as having authority? In other words, would its conclusions, if passed by the House, be carried on by the Government, or would it be what I rather suspect it will be: a very good and highly-qualified talking shop that will not, in the end, lead to anything because the Government will easily be able to ignore it completely?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I really hope that would not be the case. One of the reasons why I said we wanted to see what could be done more quickly is that some things may be able to be done by the House itself. If the House comes to a conclusion on matters that need legislation then it is easier to put through legislation if the House has taken a view. So I am keen to have the House express a view—which noble Lords have asked for many times—and the Government will listen, but there may well be things that we can do without legislation. If that is the case, we can proceed. Where legislation is required, I will take that advice from the committee because we have a manifesto commitment for legislation, and we are determined to press ahead on these two issues.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, I welcome the setting up of the Select Committee. It is a great step forward. As the noble Baroness knows, I have been particularly concerned about the question of retirement age. I must declare an interest, by the way.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)]

No, I used to be director of Age Concern Scotland, so I have a particular interest in this. Could my noble friend confirm that this Select Committee would be able to consider all aspects of a retirement age—for example, whether it should be different for current Members and new Members, and whether it should be on the edge of a particular birthday or at the end of the Parliament in which the birthday takes place? All these issues can be considered and recommendations made to this House, and the decision could be made by this House.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I would say to my noble friend that we all have an interest in the retirement age because we all hope to approach one at some point in our lives. He is right. I am not going to set any preconditions on that. The manifesto at the last election said that someone would retire at the end of the Parliament after their 80th birthday. I have said repeatedly that I think a cut-off would create problems for the House when lots of Members reach that age at the same time and retire. If there are better suggestions, I would be happy to consider them. I am not going to put any parameters on what can be discussed within those two areas. I wanted to give the House the opportunity, when we come to discuss these issues, to consider what I have said and see whether noble Lords think it is helpful when we get to those amendments.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

Before the noble Baroness sits down, will the new committee consider the whole question of the relative powers of both Houses? There is no point in talking about changing the membership unless you decide what they are going to do.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

No, my Lords, that would not be in the remit. It would be purely on the issues of participation and retirement age.

[The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)]

Before the noble Baroness sits down, I am sorry to intervene further but there are a number of other issues in the various amendments that we are going to consider. Would it not be logical for the Select Committee to think about those issues as well, in particular some of the things that were referred to in the Labour manifesto at the last election?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I am keen to make progress on these issues in what I call bite-sized chunks. I have always referred to these two issues as being stage 2. They are the two issues that have been raised most often in Committee and again now on Report. There seems to be a consensus around the House that they are specific issues that the House wants to deal with. I have chosen them because they have been mentioned so often by noble Lords.

[Lord Swire (Con)]

If the noble Baroness is trying to present the Select Committee as being in part an answer to some of the long-term questions about the future of this House, would she be open to considering outsiders joining it who may have an interest in the future of our bicameral legislature? I point out that, according to current polling, the Reform Party is likely to get 271 seats at the next election, against Labour’s 178. Should parties like that not be included in looking at the long-term future governance of this country?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Lord did not mention the number of seats his own party is projected to get, but I think it is a little irrelevant. Members of this House are best placed to understand its requirements. One thing that has emerged from the debate many times during the passage of the Bill is that Members would like greater input on this. I am not proposing to provide answers; I am asking questions of the committee. How does a committee of Members of this House, who know the day-to-day running of this House, think these things could best be achieved?

[Baroness Hayman (CB)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness the Leader of the House was very specific about the issues she wants the Select Committee to focus on, but, as she knows, one of the major issues that has been discussed for decades in this House is the size of the House. It was mentioned in the Labour Party manifesto, and we have seen very clearly the ratchet effect that changes of government can have on the size of the House. If it is not to be considered in the Select Committee, how are we going to make progress on that?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a question of stages, and these are certainly issues we should make progress on. The more issues we discuss, the less likely we are to move forwards, as we have found so many times before. I am proposing a Select Committee on these two issues, but that will not stop us having further committees or looking more at such issues. I take great interest in the size of the House, and we need to address it.

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

My Lords, is it not really a matter for the Select Committee to determine what issues it wants to consider?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I would say no, because the danger is that the issues get wider and wider, and no decision is taken. Looking at these things in bite-size chunks in order to reach a conclusion and make recommendations is helpful to the House. I am not opposed to looking at other issues as well, but if this committee focuses on two specific issues, we can, I hope, make progress. I hope we can make progress quite quickly, too, because I think that is what the House is really looking for.

[Lord Roberts of Belgravia (Con)]

I welcome the assurances given by the Minister and will not seek to test the opinion of the House. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord True (Con)]

The Prime Minister has no power to exclude. Prime Ministers have the power, by royal prerogative, to recommend appointments to the monarch, but no Prime Minister in the world has the power to exclude. The only other House of Parliament in any way similar to ours is the Senate of Canada, and there is no power for the Prime Minister to exclude a Member or group of Members.

The debate ranged widely, but the decisions that we always make as people who make law must be on the face of the paper before us, the proposed Act of Parliament, and it is the Bill before us that the noble and right reverend Lord raised. In a few minutes, what each of us privately has to decide is not whether entry by heredity is over—it is—but whether we assent to the expulsion of over 80 of our comrades on all Benches. These are people we know and whose worth we know, as no one outside this House knows them. They are people we respect, as no one outside this House respects them, as we have seen them sitting on the Woolsack, on our committees and on the Front Benches, as my noble friend said, in service as Ministers over the decades. They are people we like, although that is a small thing in relation to their service and the holes that their departure will leave in our ranks.

When the Bell goes shortly, we will all rise from our place and we will go this way or that. We can go and say, “Out with you all”—that is what the Bill says—“and you must go for one wrong about which you could do nothing: by whom you happen to have been conceived”. Or else we may, by quiet assent or our active move into the other Lobby, say, “Yes, we agree that we will have no more new hereditary Peers but we do not wish to hurt those who serve now or to hurt our House. We value who you are and what you have done and may yet do for this House, and we should like you to stay, sit with us and serve as our Peers”. That is the choice we will make in a few minutes.

It is not about who comes here. That is settled; it is history. No other hereditary Peer will ever take the oath at this Dispatch Box. The decision we make is about who goes. It is simple and binary, and it is a decision that each of us in this great House of Lords—which, as the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, said, has the right to make this decision about its composition and its future, and to suggest a way forward to the other place —must now make, with our unique sense of this House that we love and the good that the people we are discussing do for it. We must make a decision about those people we know who have been, often for decades, are and, I submit, should continue to be our fellow Peers.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, we have had a bit of a rehash of a debate that we had previously in Committee on a similar amendment. Amendment 2 today is almost identical to the previous amendment, seeking to amend Clause 2 and return to what is commonly known as the Grocott Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, possibly alone in the House, has the benefit of consistency on this issue, in that, as I recall, he consistently supported the Grocott Bill as a way forward.

I think I understand the emotion displayed by the noble Lord, Lord True, on this issue, but he will now probably regret not taking up my offer to ensure that the Grocott Bill could have passed all its stages and got through the House as a Private Member’s Bill. I gave him my party’s guarantee that we would do that. The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, frowns at me, but I gave the guarantee of my party that we would support that Bill and do our best to get it through the House. So we could have done that, but the opportunity was lost, and that is a shame, but that is where we are now. We are now debating a manifesto commitment from the Labour Party.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

The noble Baroness said that I frowned. The reason I frowned is that I do not really understand the argument that says, “You should have taken my offer but you didn’t, so we’re going to throw all these people out of the House of Lords”. If you thought it was okay for Parliament to continue, having got rid of the hereditary principle, why is it any different now?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, there was an opportunity for this House. Had we not had the by-elections since 1999, there would have been far fewer hereditary Peers in this House then. Since my noble friend Lord Grocott introduced his Bill, there have been a number of by-elections and there are now 28 hereditary Peers who are here through those by-elections. I think the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, referred in his comments to them being here by an accident of birth.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

Does the noble Baroness also recognise that there are 257 of us who have also arrived here since the last time there was a vote on this and who would really like the opportunity to take the offer that was not given to us?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

The noble Lord has tabled an amendment and is offering it at this point now, although, had he been in the House when this was debated, I doubt he would have voted differently at the time from the leader of his party, who was very much against it.

[Lord Mancroft (Con)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I will take one more intervention. I have listened with great care to noble Lords and have not intervened on anybody, and I want to respond to those who have spoken. I will take the intervention from the noble Lord because he used to be quite nice to me, but that will be the last intervention that I take. I think it is in the interests of the House for me to wind up the debate.

[Lord Mancroft (Con)]

I am most grateful to the noble Baroness the Leader of the House and I hope I will continue to be nice to her. I just wanted to make the point that, although the opportunity may have been available to the House of Lords to pass the Grocott Bill in the previous Parliament, it would not have gone through because it could not possibly have got through the House of Commons.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

Members of my party would have supported that Bill in the House of Commons. The noble Lord has little faith in the House of Commons, but I take his point. I think the noble Lord, Lord Newby, made the point in a previous debate —I know the noble Lord has been here for a number of debates on this issue—that when we send amendments to the House of Commons, how it responds to them is a matter for the House of Commons.

I was actually paying the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, a compliment, praising him for his consistency—he should take them while he can.

I want to move on to a number of the issues raised in this debate. The noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, tried to depart from the view of the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, of an accident of birth being the route by which hereditary Peers have moved here. He said it was accident of birth and a by-election. Even taking the amendment from his Front Bench today, I think those elections have been discredited.

I know that the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, looked at by-elections in the House of Commons, but I would probably liken the by-elections to this House to those from Dunny-on-the-Wold in “Blackadder”. They brought discredit to the House and Members were embarrassed by them.

The noble Lord, Lord True, said that he and the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, came to me with the proposal to end the by-elections. They did but that was after the manifesto was published and after the King’s Speech. I was grateful to them; I think it was the sensible thing for the House to do, but the by-elections are just suspended, not ended. If the Bill does not become law, we would return to having the by-elections and the House would have to take a separate decision to stop them. They were just suspended—I think the noble Lord was quite keen that they should be suspended—because we do not really have the power in current legislation to end them.

The noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, made the point that we should not be seen to be looking after our friends. There are many hereditary Peers in your Lordships’ House whom I regard as friends; they might not regard me in the same way at the moment, but I have regarded them as friends for a long time. That is not the issue here; it is a matter of principle, which the Labour Party set out clearly before the election. It is not a criticism of any noble Lord in your Lordships’ House. It is a criticism of the system that has been allowed to continue for so long.

I often agree with the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, but I shall take issue with him on a number of things. He said that Labour has brought in 45 new Peers since the general election; his party have had 21 new Peers since the election. Another statistic that I think is helpful to your Lordships’ House concerns the appointments. Like others, I exclude the noble Baroness, Lady May, from this. When we left office as the previous Labour Government in 2010, the difference between the party of government, as we had been, and the Official Opposition, which then became the Government—the Conservative Party—was fewer than 30 Members. When we came into government in 2024, the difference between the two political parties was over 100.

It is a point made very well by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman. This is not just about exits; all leaders should exercise restraint. I am on record as saying— I stand by it—that this House works at its best when the main government party and the main opposition party have roughly equal numbers and we abide by the conventions of the House. That is when this House does its best work.

The Opposition have 286 Peers but the noble Lord thinks that when the hereditaries leave this House—and, contrary to what a noble Baroness said, they will not be expelled immediately but at the end of this Session of Parliament—his party will not be able to field a Front Bench from the remaining Members. My party had to field an Opposition with far fewer than that—probably about 100 fewer—and I think we were a pretty effective Opposition. It is not always about numbers.

This argument that if the hereditaries leave we will then come for other groups of people is utterly ridiculous. I think the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, made that point. We are talking about legislation that was in the manifesto and trailed by the manifesto. Which other groups are we talking about: everybody with red hair or those who wear the wrong-coloured jacket? It is a nonsense. This was clearly defined. The noble Lord is chuntering at me from a sedentary position. He had a long time to speak but he wants to jump up again.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

It is only because the noble Baroness the Leader of the House said that she would take no further interventions. The current government manifesto commits to excluding the over-80s at some point, so we know that this Government intend to remove further Members from your Lordships’ House. The examples given in the debate were about future Governments, of neither of our parties, who might come for more of us for other reasons.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, that is always in the hands of the electorate when they have the manifesto published before them. But again, on the retirement age, we have set that out as a clearly stated manifesto commitment. I have said, and have been clear, that the House should come to a decision on that as a House. We ought to be taking far more responsibility for, and ownership of, matters that affect the House. We tried to do that under the Grocott Bill but, for various reasons, the party opposite would not support it and we did not get that far.

The noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, raised the issue of Members not speaking on different issues. I have to say to him that all Members of the House, when they are here as Members, are equal and can speak or vote on issues as they wish, and should do so within the Code of Conduct. When Members declare an interest or their interests preclude their participating, that is in the Code of Conduct; otherwise, we are in the same place.

There is a real issue here. We are talking about the principle, established 25 years ago, that the hereditary principle would not be a route into your Lordships’ House. That does not decry any individual Member who has arrived by that route, but the time has come to an end. The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, who I cannot see in his place at the moment, said in an earlier debate that he was surprised it had lasted so long. It was trailed in our manifesto. I said from the Dispatch Box many times, as Leader of the Opposition on the other side, that if the House failed to pass the Bill that my noble friend Lord Grocott was suggesting to end the by-elections, the consequence would be a Bill of this kind.

This is where we are now. It is a chance—the noble Lord, Lord True, is absolutely right. Members of your Lordships’ House have an opportunity today to make a decision. Do they accept the words of the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, about an accident of birth followed by a by-election, as the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, says, or do they think that now this has to end? We are not criticising any individual Member—

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

Those are exactly the words I wrote; we can check Hansard later. The noble Lord’s amendment is a way to slow down the process so that all those Members remain here. I speak to my party’s manifesto commitment, which was made quite clear before the election, and urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness and all who have spoken in this debate. I will not detain the House much longer; we have debated this for many years. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for the interventions she has taken.

Frustratingly, however, today’s debate has rather missed the point. My Amendment 2, like the Bill from the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, is titled

“Abolition of by-elections for hereditary peers”.

If we pass this amendment, those by-elections will be permanently abolished. We have already discontinued them. There will be no new people coming to your Lordships’ House because they have inherited their title and won a hereditary Peers by-election. The noble Baroness takes exception to the phrase “accident of birth”; others have used other phrases. The principle is that, if we pass this amendment, the Government’s manifesto pledge to remove the right of hereditary Peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords can be fulfilled, but it can be fulfilled in a way that is kinder.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I took interventions, so the noble Lord can accept one and be helpful. He is wrong in his premise. Hereditary Peers would remain as hereditary Peers because all that happens in his amendment is that the by-elections will end permanently.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

But we will have ended their right to sit and vote in the Lords and they will leave in the same way as the rest of us, including the over 80s, who at some point, following the recommendations of a Select Committee, may leave your Lordships’ House as well. They will leave in a way that is consistent with the way the Law Lords continue to sit here until they choose to retire or leave through another means. They will leave in a way that is consistent with the way the Irish representative Peers left, after rendering great service to this country. This will be the first time that a category of Peer has been removed with no exceptions and no way back. The proposal is to do it at the end of this Session.

I am happy to continue to call this the Grocott No. 2 Bill, and I was glad that the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, spoke. We saved a space in the list of supporters in case he could be tempted to add his name. I understand why, after many years of campaigning, he is frustrated and has chosen not to. He said that he prefers the No. 2 Bill because it does the job more effectively. The question is: what is that job?

If the job is to expel the remaining hereditary Peers from your Lordships’ House as quickly as possible and to move on from the guarantee given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, in 1999 without any further reminder of it—we heard not a mention of it from the Leader of the House in her winding speech —then the No. 2 Bill does that job better. However, if the job is to improve the standing and function of your Lordships’ House, and to keep some of the expertise—not just on the Opposition Front Bench but those who serve as Chairmen of Committees and Deputy Speakers on the Woolsack; those who are the custodians of the conventions and kindnesses of this House—then the proposition put forward for many years by the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, and many other noble Lords from all corners of the House, is a better way of doing it.

I was raised to believe that it is never too late to do the right thing. If you are someone who, like the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, is exasperated that we have taken so long, or someone who has previously opposed it and rues that and repents now at leisure or if, like me, you are one of those 257 noble Lords who have never had the opportunity to vote for this kind of modest change that would allow us to say farewell to our colleagues in a more organic way, then I hope you will join me in the Division Lobby and support this amendment. I would like to test the opinion of the House on this matter; it has been too long since we last had that chance.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 2nd July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, Amendment 5 is in the names of my noble friend Lord Newby, me and others. In preparing for this, I was also looking at preparation for Friday’s debate on a report from our Select Committee on the Constitution, Executive Oversight and Responsibility for the UK Constitution. That report in effect says that the chief responsibility for maintaining constitutional behaviour in Britain rests with the Prime Minister. That is to say the Prime Minister, who is the all-powerful Executive, is also responsible for making sure that the Executive behave themselves. That, of course, is one of the underlying problems with our unwritten constitution: it relies on our Head of Government being a “good chap”, or a “good chapess” in the case of Liz Truss. The responsibility, authority and power to appoint Members of the second Chamber also lie with the guardian of the constitution and Prime Minister, more or less unchecked.

The Written Statement we had the other week—quietly put out on the Government’s behalf—suggests that future party appointments to this House should require the party nominating them to provide a short note on the qualifications for the—

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

My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord but, just as a matter of accuracy, I think he is talking about the citations that are already in place and were used in the last list to come forward.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My apologies. The Prime Minister in future would have to justify overriding the House of Lords Appointments Commission. This perhaps is some control mechanism on the Prime Minister’s power of appointment, but we have lived through a difficult period in which we have had Prime Ministers who did not particularly pay attention to constitutional conventions and did override the advice on the integrity and suitability of nominations presented by the Prime Minister.

I think the long-term answer to this is clear: we change the way in which this House is constituted. The Bill we presented when we were in the coalition in 2011 and 2012 suggested that we would do much better to have a second Chamber elected in thirds for 15-year terms. That would resolve a lot of these problems, but in the meantime, with the very slow pace of partial reform that we have on these occasions, we need a number of interim measures to limit the Prime Minister’s prerogative and to guard against the real risk that we might again have a Prime Minister who is not a good chap or chapess.

Over the last 30 or 40 years the British have constructed a number of what are called constitutional guard-rails to limit the Prime Minister’s untrammelled prerogative power. We have the Committee on Standards in Public Life, the Independent Adviser on Ministers’ Interests and the House of Lords Appointments Commission itself. The Labour Party’s manifesto committed to construct a new ethics and integrity commission that will also be a means, yet undefined by the Government, of checking the Prime Minister’s untrammelled authority and holding the Prime Minister to account.

We are all painfully conscious that not all Prime Ministers or presidents respect constitutional or ethical constraints. We have experience in this country, the United States has an extremely painful experience at the moment, and we might again have the experience after the next election, so this interim measure seems to many of us necessary and highly desirable. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Finn (Con)]

I thank your Lordships. So there were to be only 10 of them per Parliament, and they were meant to be for public service; I think they were meant to allow Cabinet Secretaries to be appointed here—which is marvellous, of course—and various others. But there has been a slight change in approach, and I would be very interested in the Minister’s views, following the comments of my noble friend Lady Stowell, on this idea that there might be a two-tier Cross-Bench peerage process: those that HOLAC judges suitable versus those that the PM judges suitable. It is interesting, because this raises a new question of what the criteria for suitability are, if these appointments are supposed to be non-partisan. The more Peers the Prime Minister appoints to the Cross Bench, the more he risks potentially undermining the status of that section of the House. I think that is worth bringing to the attention of the House. As I say, I would be interested in the Minister’s views. That was a small digression, I suppose.

To refer to the amendments in the group, although I have sympathy with the two conditions proposed by my noble friend Lord Hailsham, particularly the latter, in light of the Bill’s move to expel some of the most active participants of our House, I point out that the current system balances expert scrutiny with democratic accountability. HOLAC exists to advise, and the Prime Minister decides. I am sure that the Prime Minister, like his predecessors, will continue to place great weight on the commission’s careful and considered advice, but HOLAC must remain an advisory committee, and its remit should not take the place of a Prime Minister.

Finally, Amendment 19 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Devon, like his amendment in Committee, seeks to encourage HOLAC to recommend 20 new life peerages for the Cross Benches. I appreciate the sentiment of this amendment. Your Lordships’ House is set to lose a considerable amount of experience and expertise from the noble Earl’s Benches—not least his hugely respected convenor, the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull—if the Bill passes unamended. Other amendments are still to come from various noble friends, and they seek to resolve this problem in a similar way but for the whole House. I hope that colleagues on the Cross Benches will consider lending their support to these amendments.

In conclusion, I appreciate the strength of feeling across the House on HOLAC and appointments to your Lordships’ House but, as I said in Committee, the balance we have preserves scrutiny and responsibility, and we must be wary of trading one form of discretion for another, particularly when it moves away from democratic oversight.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate, and to those who tabled amendments. We have had a very thoughtful and helpful discussion.

I will pick up on a couple of points, because a range of views has been expressed this evening and questions asked. The point about what is your Lordships’ role in this House has come out quite clearly. There are those who said we are a House of experts, while the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, was quite clear in asking what is wrong with politics and political parties, even though she does not represent a political party. It just strikes me that, yes, we have a number of experts in your Lordships’ House and we value their expertise, but we are not all experts. The reason we have a number of experts is that we listen to their advice and the information they give, but we are all here to exercise our judgment. That judgment is what we should all bring, and that is the seriousness with which we take our role.

I have considerable sympathy with the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Newby. I think we are trying to get to roughly the same place, to ensure that those who are appointed to your Lordships’ House will have the confidence of this House and the public that they are here to do a role and exercise their judgment in the right way. I think the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, goes further than that, because he is seeking to completely remove the Prime Minister or any democratic accountability from the process of giving the sovereign advice on appointments, instead giving it to a commission that has no accountability—he is nodding; that is the correct interpretation. I think that I and a number of other Members struggle with the idea that that is appropriate. The noble Earl, Lord Devon, is looking to give the commission a new power to advise the sovereign on 20 new non-party-political appointments over the next five years.

Let me address some of those points. The Statement that the Prime Minister issued really clarified the role. This comes to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell. There is no change in the arrangements for HOLAC for appointments to the Cross Benches. For those appointments that come through the Prime Minister, whether to the Cross Benches or from the political parties, but go through the Prime Minister, HOLAC is asked to assess for propriety.

It would be totally wrong for any Prime Minister to use that route to make party-political appointments, and I have spoken to the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, about this, giving an absolute assurance this Prime Minister would never do that. It would be completely inappropriate. There is no change: it is exactly as it always has been. The rules are those that other Prime Ministers should have followed—and have in most cases, I am sure—for that route through to the Cross Benches via the Prime Minister. There has been a slight change. I think that originally it was for public servants, but both the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, and the current Prime Minister said that it was for people who have a track record of proven public service. Our recent appointments show dedicated public service. Four excellent appointments have been made to the Cross Benches. They are not necessarily public servants, but public service is important. That was a wise move by the now noble Lord, Lord Cameron, and by the Prime Minister to reconfirm his interpretation of that. HOLAC has a role on suitability in the appointments made by HOLAC to the Cross Benches.

Those are the appointments where HOLAC will also look at suitability, as well as propriety. The Prime Minister also mentioned in his Statement a pretty unlikely event which reminds us of the prime ministerial prerogative on this issue, something I think some noble Lords are seeking to remove. It would be a very serious and almost completely unprecedented step, but there has been one occasion when a Prime Minister has gone against HOLAC on propriety. We have set out the process that the Prime Minister should follow and been transparent about that. I think it is quite a serious step to take.

If the Prime Minister were to make an appointment against HOLAC’s advice on propriety, he would be completely transparent on the reasons why, and he would be held to account for that decision. He would be held accountable—that accountability is the issue that has been raised. He would write to the commission to explain the decision and HOLAC would write to the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Select Committee to notify Parliament that that advice had not been followed. The key there is accountability, as set out in the ministerial Statement.

[Lord True (Con)]

May I ask the Minister a clarifying question? I think this is important, irrespective of which party is in office. I think she has described the situation very fairly and clearly. Obviously, this prime ministerial power, which is not new, of direct appointment to the Cross Benches, raises the question of how those are assessed. I do not quite understand the internal procedures of the Cross Benches, but I know of people who sit on the non-affiliate Benches who have been put through some kind of process. The Cross-Benchers may think that they are a bit too close to one party or another. If the Prime Minister—I am not saying necessarily a Labour Prime Minister or a Conservative Prime Minister—used this procedure, would the Cross Benches be able to say, “We think that this woman or this man is too close to the Conservatives” or “too close to the Labour Party”? How would that operate? Do the Cross-Benchers have a say in who is appointed to the Cross Benches in terms of their background?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

It is probably more of a question for the Cross-Benchers than me, and the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, is ready to leap to his feet.

[The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)]

I thank the noble Baroness very much. This is obviously an issue that has arisen and has been the source of considerable correspondence, which predates me—Lord Judge began it. It would obviously not be proper for the Cross Benches to be part of some approval process, but we have been able to lay out sufficient rail track so that, certainly for my part, I feel very comfortable that the Prime Minister is going to appoint only people suitable for the Cross Benches and have no recent record of involvement in party processes.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

The noble Earl will know more about the history of non-aligned appointments. I do not think we have appointed anybody who is not aligned at all.

Interesting points have been made about accountability and suitability. Political parties must be responsible for the suitability of those whom they put forward, just as HOLAC is responsible for the suitability of its appointments. Partly because they are largely my idea, I think citations are a good thing because there is more information in the public domain about why somebody has been appointed. However, it would be a regrettable situation if a political party was then to say, “Oh, we don’t test suitability. That’s a matter for HOLAC; we don’t take responsibility for our appointments”. All political parties should take that responsibility rather than pass it on to HOLAC.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

Is the Leader of the House comfortable with the fact that Reform commands 36% of popular support in the polls and has no representation whatever in this House?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, there is a whole issue around this because the SNP has no representation in your Lordships’ House either. The noble Lord has spoken about Nigel Farage being offered a role. Given that Mr Farage’s policy is now to abolish the House of Lords, he may not have been willing to accept that role. The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, made this point well. There should be a diversity of opinion. The noble Baroness, Lady Bull, made the same point. There are a range of diversity issues that we should look at, including diversity of opinion. We make better decisions because of that. However, as my noble friend Lord Rooker said earlier—I have used this line, having heard him use it in debates here—in many ways we are a sub-committee of the House of Commons. We can only recommend suggestions and changes to the House of Commons. We bring our judgment to those decisions.

To finish the point that I was making beforehand, we do not believe that the amendment for 20 new life Peers is necessary. The number of nominations is a matter for the Prime Minister, but he will take into account the political balance of the House when making those decisions. It is essential for the House. The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, was a little cross with the Cross-Benchers, perhaps because they have not invited her to join, although they may reconsider that now. A Private Member’s Bill tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Norton, proposed the Cross Benches being roughly 20% of the House. That is a fair figure for the House. The noble Lord has heard me say time and again that the House works best with those kinds of figures, with roughly equal numbers of both political parties of government and when we abide by the conventions of the House. That is when we do our best work.

In some ways, I appreciated the honesty of the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, in his amendment about removing the Prime Minister from the process and having HOLAC deal with this, but he also spoke about participation and the role that we expect Members to play. He is absolutely right that we should expect all Peers to participate in support of the core functions of this House. That means not just turning up to vote occasionally but taking the role as a Member of your Lordships’ House seriously. That is one of the qualities mentioned in the Prime Minister’s Statement—willingness to contribute and play an active role in the House. It matters how Peers get here, but it matters more what Peers do when they are here and how seriously they take that role. Although participation is not a matter for this Bill, I have set out—we will discuss this later—a proposal that may allow us to take that forward.

The noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, talked about the independence of the Cross-Benchers. I think there is a role both for independents and for party politics in your Lordships’ House. I do not think any of us would say that we slavishly follow our party. I think sometimes we wish more did, and I am sure the Opposition Front Bench may say the same, but we do bring judgment. I just keep coming back to that point. Our judgment and integrity are important on these issues.

My final point is on the suggestion from the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, of a new oath for all appointments. I think I understand why he has raised that, and it is a thoughtful approach, but we do not consider it necessary. When a Peer takes the oath in this House and they sign as a Member of this House, that includes a commitment to uphold the Nolan principles of public life so, in a sense, that oath is already there. The Nolan principles are important, and I trust noble Lords to take that commitment to the Nolan principles as seriously as they would take any extra oath, so I do not think it is necessary.

I understand why the proposals have been put forward. The noble Lords, Lord Newby and Lord Wallace, have been sincere in this, but I wonder whether it is a stretch too far. There has been only one case where a Prime Minister has overridden the propriety advice of HOLAC. I think it is wrong to do that. It is hard to envisage circumstances where it would be appropriate, but I think that ensuring absolute transparency, if it were to happen, is the appropriate way forward. I see the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, is about to leap to his feet, so I will give way before he asks.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

Before the Minister sits down—literally in this rare instance—I am grateful to her for the comments she made about the Prime Minister’s Statement and the clarification she gave. She alluded to it, but, just for clarity, is she saying that our four new Cross-Bench colleagues are Cross-Bench Peers selected by the Prime Minister rather than Cross-Bench Peers recommended by HOLAC? I think that is what she was alluding to, but it would be good to have that.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

Those four Cross-Benchers have come through the route of public service, and there is still obviously the expectation that HOLAC would have its appointments done separately. I think that was quite clear in the Statement. I am sorry that that was not clear to the noble Lord before.

Having answered questions again, I respectfully ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, this debate has gone a good deal wider than our modest amendment. Perhaps we will come back to oaths, and the question of the balance in appointments of Cross-Benchers, between the great and the good and people’s Peers, is another thing that we should clearly come back to.

I was very struck at various points in the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, particularly when he was discussing the difference between liberal democracy and popular democracy. Liberal democracy is where those who govern do so with a degree of checks and balances to make sure that decisions are taken with due consideration and that policy does not swing with popular opinion too rapidly from one to another.

When the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, says that we should not have unelected judges holding Governments to account, he is actually saying that the rule of law should not be a check on the tribune of the people, whoever the President or Prime Minister may be. In this amendment, we are talking about a check. We are not saying that HOLAC should make all the nominations. We are saying that, when the Prime Minister makes nominations, HOLAC should advise and the Prime Minister should accept that advice.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

The noble Lord says this is not about all nominations but just those from the Prime Minister. However, the only other nominations other than the HOLAC-appointed ones come through the Prime Minister from the political parties, so which nominations is the noble Lord referring to?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, there is a sense of déjà vu all over again when we discuss these issues, as we have done a number of times. The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, has the distinction of proposing the only amendment I have ever seen that was longer than the Bill itself, when he looked at the options. We are grateful for his contribution this time and for the spreadsheets he produced before.

I was slightly puzzled by a number of the points the noble Lord made, including that we had dropped things, the issue of retirement, and why we are going to consult so many people when this House knows best. I am not sure he was here when I spoke earlier but I hope my comments will reassure him. He also mentioned a number of phrases that he said I had said, but I never said them. I will check in Hansard; he may be mistaking me for somebody else.

The noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, made a couple of really important points. He and I have spoken about judges and he knows I am aware of that issue. He also spoke about the issue of a cliff edge. This is partly the reason, as I have said many times before in your Lordships’ House, that we have a manifesto commitment that is very clear: those who turned 80 would retire at the end of the Parliament in which they did so. As others have pointed out in my discussions with them, one of the issues is that it is quite a significant cliff edge for the House if Members leave at the same time. The noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, raised that issue—sorry, there is a wasp that keeps flying at me.

In my discussions and consultations in your Lordships’ House, it has been very clear—notwithstanding some very good points made by those who are not supportive of a retirement age—that there is a general consensus around the House that a retirement age is a good thing, but it was a matter of two Peers and three opinions of how that could be implemented. Tonight’s debate has raised this issue and the noble Earl himself said it should be only for new Members rather than existing Members, and if you come in at a certain age you could stay longer. These are all variations on a theme. What is the best way of reaching a decision when you have variations? I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Newby, on bringing forward legislation that said, “These are the various options. Discuss them and come up with something”. I went through the pretty unedifying experience of House of Lords reform in the House of Commons; MPs trooped through the Lobbies again and again, rejected practically everything and accepted nothing—we got nowhere very fast.

The noble Lord and I discussed what the mechanism could be. I have been discussing this with other noble Lords and developing how the House could take a bit more ownership of the issues and decide what could be a way forward. The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, said the best people to look at this are Members of your Lordships’ House, who understand how the House works.

I am prepared to accept variations of an implemented manifesto commitment. I do not know how we implement a participation requirement. I have very strong views on how it might be done; I might not be right. Other noble Lords have made suggestions around attendance and participation. I think the noble Lord missed this point in my comments. When I mentioned a timetable for a Select Committee, I referred to moving at pace. It seems to me there is no reason why it could not be set up within three months of Royal Assent.

I said that I hoped that this time next year, the House could discuss any proposals coming forward from that committee. It may be sooner, it may be later, but I do not want to curtail any committee because it is for it to say, “This is what you’ve set us to do, these are the terms of reference you’ve given us, how long will it take us to do that?” So that is a discussion for the usual channels. It should be set up in the same way as any other committee of the House.

The noble Lord asked about hereditary Peers; he seemed to think they were leaving on Royal Assent. If he reads the Bill, he will find it is not on Royal Assent but at the end of the Session. That would be for the parties that nominate to make a decision on who they want on that committee. Noble Lords have said they are interested in this issue, but if they are genuinely serious about making progress on it, I would be very interested to hear what they say.

The noble Lord says that a lot can be done by Standing Orders. Maybe some things can, but it may be that other things need legislation. This could be one of the remits of the committee. If it needs legislation, then what better way to get legislation through your Lordships’ House than if we have a settled view on what the outcome should be?

I have discussed with noble Lords across the House whether there is a way that this House can come to a view on a way forward that we are broadly agreed on, that we can implement more quickly where we are able, and where we are not, that we have the fallback of legislation where there is agreement around the House. Sometimes the House says that we have to have legislation to do this—but if there are things we can do more quickly and more expeditiously, and the House agrees with that, why not do it? That is the purpose of setting this out, and I hope that answers the questions from noble Lords.

I know there are some noble Lords who think that if you come in at a certain age, it should be later, but the committee can look at those kinds of issues and would have the usual representation. It is important that we do not let these issues just drop away and that we do not just say that there are lots of options. Let the House reach a decision on this and do something about it.

I hope that assurance answers the noble Lord’s questions. I am sure that as time goes on, he will have many more—but those are the sorts of things we will come to as we try to set it up. If he has a better idea than a Select Committee to do it, I am open to suggestions, but I want Members of this House to take ownership of decisions that affect this House.

I am also mindful of the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Newby—previously and this time—that if we send legislation to the other place with an age, it may have a different view. This is something that we can do more quickly, but if we have a settled view, I am sure the House of Commons would respect that as well.

I hope that, having heard that, the noble Viscount is willing to withdraw his amendment, and we can continue to look at this issue as we move forward.

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

My Lords, I very much welcome the suggestion that there should be a Select Committee addressing some of the issues covered by Amendment 7. With your Lordships’ consent, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Howard of Lympne (Con)]

My Lords, I support the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Hailsham and the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington.

Earlier today, my noble friend Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay reminded your Lordships’ House about the assurance given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, when he introduced the legislation that removed the majority of hereditary Peers from your Lordships’ House. He gave an assurance from that Dispatch Box that the remaining hereditaries would not be removed until stage 2 of reform of your Lordships’ House was in place. He was asked what weight could be given to that assurance—what credence could be placed on it—and he told your Lordships’ House that it was a “matter of honour”. He could have said that the assurance would last only for 25 years, but he did not. He could have said that it would last only until a Government were elected on a manifesto pledge to remove the remaining hereditaries from your Lordships’ House, but he did not. He said neither of those things. He said it was a matter of honour.

Earlier today, in our very first debate, the Leader, for whom I have a great deal of respect, gave your Lordships assurances about the future from that same Dispatch Box. I have no doubt that she gave your Lordships those assurances in good faith. But if any noble Lords were just a tiny bit sceptical about the durability of those assurances, they might perhaps be forgiven in the light of what happened to the assurances given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

If it helps the noble Lord, I think he is talking about some 25 years ago. I am talking about a rather shorter period of time —a matter of months—to set up a Select Committee. He might be reassured by that, because I am not likely to forget that in a matter of three months.

[Lord Howard of Lympne (Con)]

I was not talking about those assurances; I was talking about the assurances the noble Baroness gave in our first debate about the durability of the status of the Earl Marshal and the Lord Great Chamberlain.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

That is not my assurance; it is the assurance from the House of Lords Commission, from Members of all parties across the House.

[Lord Howard of Lympne (Con)]

I dare say, but the noble Baroness repeated those assurances from the Government, from that Dispatch Box, and that carries as much or as little weight as the assurances given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, when he introduced the original legislation.

--- Later in debate ---

If it were not this late hour, and if the response were not crystal clear and without space for prevarication and evasion about a Bill, and the noble Duke were not satisfied, perhaps he would have asked the opinion of the House, pending what the noble Baroness replied. In that case, I might have supported him in the Lobbies. I hope we will have a clear response from the noble Baroness that will include some clear route map to the kind of legislation the noble Duke has rightly challenged the House to see.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, once again, we have had a wide-ranging and very helpful debate. I can think of no other legislation before this House or the other place where there is more interest in what the next piece of legislation will be than there is in the current piece of legislation. Nevertheless, I will do my best to help noble Lords.

First, I am grateful to the noble Duke, because he has had discussions with me on a number of occasions, and I know his commitment to reform. I will come to his amendment as well. Where I would depart from him is that he wants something brought forward within the next two years; I would like to move more quickly. His amendment does not specify any detail of what should be in the reform, as he said. It compels the Government to lay before Parliament further legislation within two years of a Bill receiving Royal Assent. I know he is seeking to provide latitude in his amendment and trying to be helpful. I do not think the amendment necessarily does what he intends it to do, because it depends on the length of the Parliament and when the next King’s Speech will be. He will also know that no Minister will ever commit to, or hint at, what will be in the next King’s Speech or the one after that. The assurance I can give him, as I have said, is an absolute determination to deal with these issues.

The noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, seemed very welcoming of a Select Committee. The noble Lord, Lord True, seems more sceptical. I do not know what the Select Committee will say. I have heard noble Lords say, “It’ll make so much fuss out of this”, and, “It’ll take so long that you will never get another Bill to reform the House of Lords”. That is an irresponsible attitude to take. I want to see further reform. I am determined that we make progress on these issues. The reason why I have proposed a Select Committee—it is up to the House if it wishes to take advantage of it—is so that there is an opportunity for the House to come to a decision on the particular issues.

I look at these things in bite-sized chunks, because I think that is how we best make progress. Those two issues are stage 2, which I think is quite clear in the manifesto, but perhaps those of us who helped draft it were not as clear as we thought we were. I think it is quite clear. There has also been increased consensus around this House during the debate that Members want action on participation, attendance and retirement. If the House is serious about wanting that and can come to a conclusion on it then that will certainly make it much easier to take legislation forward, because we will have an agreed view.

The noble Lord is right; I would have those discussions with my colleagues. I would expect the House of Commons to listen carefully to what this House has to say to any reasonable proposals within the bounds of our manifesto. I would also ask the Select Committee to look at what is possible, and if it is possible—it may not be; the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, is right that, until a committee has legal advice, it cannot be absolutely certain—to take action more quickly without legislation or prior to legislation. I think that would apply in particular to the issue of participation. I think that would be welcomed.

That does not rule out the opportunity of legislation. However, the best way to get legislation through is not, as the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, suggested, through very long amendments, and lots of different suggestions and options. If we have a clear view, then that will give us a really good opportunity to get some legislation through on a focused Bill.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

I was not suggesting a long-winded series of amendments. I merely suggested a short SI to implement whatever the Lords recommend. If a Select Committee is going to recommend things around retirement and participation, can she not just use an SI to implement it rather than new legislation?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I appreciate the noble Lord’s impatience; I was going to come to that point, so bear with me. Part of my problem with his amendment—I have not quite finished dealing with the noble Duke’s amendment—although I fully agree with his direction of travel and intention, is that I am not too comfortable with removing the role of this House. I think there is real benefit, as the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, said earlier, in that the best people to do some of this work are Members of this House—obviously taking advice as any committee sees fit. I am keen that we should do that.

If that does not work, then there is still legislation. We still have the option and the manifesto commitment, but I think it is easier and quicker to get something through if we have a settled view from this House. If we can do things without legislation or prior to legislation then we should do so to move quickly.

The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, is nothing if not inventive. I have always admired his ingenuity, but he will know as a former Deputy Chief Whip in the other place—

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

Chief Whip.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I apologise; I was demoting him. He was a Chief Whip, so he should know even better that a Third Reading amendment is brought back only if the Minister offers to keep something open at Third Reading. I will tell noble Lords why I cannot do that on his amendment. I will be very clear about this. We had a discussion earlier and spoke about the problems of legislation by SI and Henry VIII powers. The noble Lord proposes, within his way of working, that we should take decisions on quite serious and important issues by SI. It is inventive and it is a way he would want to do it, but I do not think a simple resolution such as that is the appropriate way forward. It would also give the other place the opportunity to reject it as well; I do not think that is appropriate. The existing mechanisms or primary legislation would be a better way forward.

The noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, has been very thoughtful throughout this debate. His amendment stipulates that the next stage of reform requires, among other things, changing the appointments process to limit the discretion of the Prime Minister and party leaders. We have already discussed that, and I think the House made its view clear on the previous vote, so I do not want to repeat the same arguments. As I have said before, we are committed to strengthening and clarifying the roles and responsibilities in the appointments process, which we discussed earlier.

The noble Viscount also talked about term limits and a size cap on the House. As I have said before, the Government’s preference is for a retirement age. That is something, along with participation, that a committee of this House could look at. His amendment does, in effect, deal with the size of the House, which is a very important issue. I am afraid that the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, went way beyond some of the issues we are discussing here, but I noted the comments that he made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Howard of Lympne (Con)]

I am grateful to the Leader of the House for giving way. Does the caveat that she has just entered about future Parliaments apply to the assurances she gave on behalf of the Government from that Dispatch Box earlier this afternoon on the future status of the Earl Marshal and the Lord Great Chamberlain?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

It does not, because that is not the legislation we are talking about. That is a decision of this House, and I find it very difficult to understand why anybody would want to change that position in this House. I have faith in your Lordships’ House, so it does not apply, and I think the commission has said that in relation to those officeholders and future officeholders as well. If, at some point in the future, this House took a different decision, I would oppose it very strongly—I think it would be totally the wrong decision, and I find it impossible to consider that it would happen. But when it comes to legislation, it is the case that one Parliament does not bind another. Indeed, I think his party has changed its mind on the Grocott Bill from the last Parliament to this one, so we do see changes as we move forward.

My impression is that, as the noble Duke has said, the House wants to make progress as a matter of urgency. None of us knows our longevity in any position or any place, but we are talking about a very short space of time. The noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, raised this issue with me. I would have thought that a Select Committee could be up and running very soon after Royal Assent. The normal Select Committee rules would apply. I think the terms of reference are quite clear: there are two specific issues. I understand what other Members have said about the need to broaden this out, but the danger there is that we do not get anywhere —which has happened time and again. The House has to make a decision: does it wish to make further progress or not? I think and hope it does. I want to, and I hope noble Lords will not press their amendments.

[The Duke of Wellington (CB)]

My Lords, I am most grateful to those who have contributed comments on my Amendment 8. I must admit that I have not quite persuaded the Leader to go as far as I had hoped she might, but I have to accept—and I know that she spoke in total good faith—that it is her intention that we should carry out further reforms. She believes the best way to do it is through a Select Committee, which, as she just said, could be prior or leading to legislation, and I must take her words as she just stated them. I hope that all her government colleagues sitting next to her on the Bench have heard what she said—including, if I am not mistaken, the Attorney-General, which is very good.

So I thank the Leader again for her efforts to move to where I hoped she would be, with a categorical assurance that there would be a second Bill. She certainly tried and, in that spirit, I withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Finn (Con)]

My Lords, this has been a short but important debate and I thank my noble friend Lord Lucas for bringing the House’s attention once again to an unavoidable consequence of this legislation. We are heading towards a fully appointed House, with all the appointments made by the Prime Minister. I appreciate that political parties nominate, but the ability to decide the number and timing of appointments rests solely with the Prime Minister. It is therefore of some concern that the Prime Minister, with such powers of patronage, is attempting to remove more than 80 parliamentarian opponents through the Bill.

We will have a debate—another one—on the size of the House next week, so I will not comment specifically on numbers at this point. However, when the Lord Privy Seal spoke on this amendment in Committee, she was critical of the “We have the numbers and can get this through” approach that she felt previous Governments had taken, and encouraged the House of Lords to adopt a more deliberative approach. That is exactly the approach that we are seeking to take with this Bill and others, and we should not be criticised for doing so.

Having heard me speak in the HOLAC debate, noble Lords will be aware of my views on retaining the discretion that Prime Ministers have to appoint the Peers they wish to appoint. But my noble friend Lord Lucas is right to bring back this important issue of the balance between the parties and to seek further assurances about the responsibility of the Prime Minister to behave reasonably.

I am sure that the current Prime Minister will continue to do so, and I hope that this amendment will never be necessary, but legislation should seek to look to the future and anticipate that future Prime Ministers might not behave in such an appropriate way in terms of appointments. It is a shame that we find ourselves in this position, but I look forward to hearing the Leader’s response.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I listened to the noble Baroness with increasing incredulity. Even she had a smile on her face as she came up with some of that. I thank my noble friend for his points. In terms of history, he did not go back nearly as far as many other Members of the House have this evening, but it is always worth looking back at the Great Reform Act 1832 and what was achieved for this country by that legislation.

The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and I are very much of the same mind on this one, but I do not agree with his mechanism for getting there. He talked earlier about the relative proportions of the House. He is absolutely right. The noble Lord, Lord Norton, talked about the Cross Benches. This is probably about right. But to put into legislation a proportion for just one group of the whole House is not necessarily talking about relative proportions. I know that he understands that. I stand by previous comments that I have made. This House works at its best when both parties have roughly equal numbers. This depends very much on the normal conventions applying and the way the House operates, but that is when the House does its best work.

The noble Baroness talked about “holding the noble Baroness to that kind of view”. I remind her of the last Government’s actions on this. Even with this Bill, the Government will comprise only 28% of your Lordships’ House. Part of the reason for that is that when we left office in 2010, we had 25 more Members of the House than the Conservative Party; I used these figures earlier in the debate. At the end of the parliamentary Session before the election, before we came into office, there were over 100 more Members of the Conservative Government than of my party. That does not serve this House well.

The noble Baroness is right that I said that the House should be more deliberative. That is when the House does its best work. A couple of weeks after I became Leader of the Opposition, about 10 years ago, I was in Victoria Street having a pizza when I got word that Jacob Rees-Mogg, as Leader of the House of Commons, had issued a statement that he intended to appoint 100 Members to this House to force the Brexit legislation through. That is not in the best interests of this House. He did not do it in the end.

I stand by the House being more deliberative in its approach. Members should be more active, participate properly and not just turn up to vote when they have not been around and participating in the work of the House. There is a better way forward on this. Even if the party opposite has come to this lately, I genuinely welcome that conversion. We should operate in a more collaborative way. I agree about the relative proportions, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said, but I ask him respectfully to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

Does the Leader intend this to be a subject for her Select Committee?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I do not think so, not directly. However, if the committee is looking at retirement and participation, we would want to ensure that, post any decisions that it takes and actions that this House might take on legislation, we maintain a balance around the House. It would be completely inappropriate to say, “This group is losing more than that group”, and for any party to use that as a way to gain a political advantage. Maintaining the proportions must always be in the minds of the Government and the Opposition, and I would ensure that.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for her reply and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

G7 and NATO Summits

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Tuesday 1st July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, the Statement improbably begins by discussing the Government’s woes on social security, which of course have absolutely nothing to do with its real subject matter. We welcome the Government’s U-turn there, but I do not think that this Statement is the context in which to discuss them, not least because they have been coming so thick and fast that I am afraid I cannot keep up.

There is a wide measure of agreement that the UK faces greater and more diverse security threats than it has for decades and that we are all greatly indebted to our Armed Forces and other government agencies that are working so hard and effectively to combat them. The headline outcome of the NATO summit was the commitment to spend 5% on national security. In the Statement, this is referred to as a “defence investment pledge”, but it clearly includes expenditure on many non-defence items.

In the national security strategy, the definition of “national security” includes

“the health of our economy … food prices … supply chains … safety on the streets”

and the online world. This definition seems so wide as to be virtually meaningless. Can the Minister explain what is within the definition? The Prime Minister says that we will reach 4.1% spending on it in 2027, so he must know how he reached that figure. Will the Government therefore give a breakdown of the 4.1% and then explain how they intend to get to the 5% by 2035?

One obvious item to include in the definition of expenditure that promotes national security is overseas development assistance, particularly in areas such as conflict prevention. To what extent is ODA included in the new definition of “national security” and do the Government have any plans to increase it as they increase all other aspects of security expenditure?

The Statement goes on to say that UK foreign policy

“answers directly to the concerns of working people”.

What specific concerns of working people are meant by that phrase? To what extent are working people affected by foreign policy in different ways from the rest of the population?

One of the biggest challenges ahead is not just to increase expenditure on national security but to ensure that the money is spent as effectively as possible. In that context, can the Minister explain why we are prioritising the purchase of 12 F35A jets capable of carrying nuclear weapons? These planes are extraordinarily expensive, even if they are not quite as expensive as the F35Bs, and for decades we have not judged it necessary to have this capability. As the noble Lord, Lord West, said at Questions earlier today, this change presumably means that we need at the very least to update our nuclear doctrine. Do the Government plan to do so? Will they publish any new doctrine when it has been adopted?

On Ukraine, we welcome the commitment to repeat last year’s commitment on expenditure and also the funding of additional air defence missiles from frozen Russian assets. Can the Minister confirm that this funding has come from the interest on those assets and that no progress has been made on freeing up the capital, which could be transformative to Ukraine’s success?

In the Commons, the Prime Minister said it was very difficult to access the capital because not all countries were in agreement on how to proceed. Estonia has proposed a way forward on this. Will the Minister commit to looking at Estonia’s proposals as a matter of urgency?

The Statement rightly stresses the need to build up the Armed Forces. So does the Minister accept that there is still a crisis of recruitment, particularly to the Army? Will the Government therefore look sympathetically at the Lib Dem proposal to pay a £10,000 signing-on bonus for new recruits as a way of rapidly boosting recruitment?

On Iran, we welcome the current ceasefire, but it needs to be made permanent. The Foreign Secretary recently met the Iranian Foreign Minister, along with EU counterparts, to promote a ceasefire. Do HMG foresee any future role for the UK in securing a longer- term solution?

Finally, on Gaza, we agree on the need for a quick ceasefire, but there is absolutely no sign of this. In the meantime, deaths and starvation continue. Our ability to affect events in Gaza is limited, but we could at the very least recognise the state of Palestine, which is a necessary precursor to a two-state solution. The Prime Minister says that the Government are waiting for the “right time” to do this. The fear is that in the Government’s view there will never be a right time. We should act now.

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

My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for their comments. I thought the noble Lord, Lord True, although he made an elegant entrance, enjoyed himself too much at my party’s expense. The focus of today, and what people are looking for in the Statement, was about the G7 and NATO.

I do not think we have seen such a complex and difficult international situation in the lifetime of most of us here. It is not an easy time. Across the world we have existing conflicts, new conflicts, and they seem to escalate quickly and change with new eruptions quickly. What we can do nationally and internationally to help bring peace trumps any other issue we may want to discuss, so I will focus on those issues.

I have to say that the noble Lord was uncharacteristically churlish about the role that the Prime Minister has played on the international stage. I can recall very early on in the days of this Government facing criticism from the party opposite about the Prime Minister going to international conferences, building relations with leaders of other countries, and I said at the time—and it still holds true and has proved to be true—that it is only by building up good relationships that you can have the difficult discussions when they are needed. My party and I are proud of the role that our Prime Minister is playing on the international stage, and I can remember when we have been less proud of a Prime Minister’s or Foreign Secretary’s role on the international stage. So, I make no apologies for the role he is playing. We are grateful to him for doing so.

The issue of the transformative and generational increase in defence spending by the NATO summit was really important. Five percent is greater than it has been for many years. I am surprised that the noble Lord, Lord True, was querying the new 1.5% target. The noble Lord, Lord Newby, raised this as well. It is almost impossible to divorce national security from resilience. They are both about our security, and our safety in this country is dependent on both. The idea that we could spend national resilience money on pylons for green energy is a frankly ridiculous point for the noble Lord to make. But we must ensure that we have supplies of energy throughout the country for business, domestic and military use.

We have seen what has happened in other countries when there has been a failure of supply of energy. It is vital that we maintain that. To try to make a political point about green energy and the environment is not what this is about. I hope the noble Lord will understand how important a role the issues of supply chains and energy play in national security and resilience. If he does not understand that, we can find more information for him that he might find it useful to look at.

The noble Lord asked specifically about finance. We went through this last week. We will have fully funded plans to increase defence spending in this Parliament from 2.6% from April 2027 to at least 4.1% of GDP on collective defence and security by 2027. That target, I said before, is 3.5% on core spending and 1.5% on security.

I also make no apology for the Chagos deal. I have said this before: the idea that a country would spend a lot of money—and it is a lot of money—if it did not consider it vital and essential to national security is, quite frankly, a ludicrous argument to make. It is because it is so essential that the Government have been prepared to spend the money. We should recognise that and recognise the importance of it. When noble Lords talk about the cost of living, I will take no lessons from a party that gave us the Liz Truss Budget, which did so much damage to the people in this country and to the cost of living. The noble Lord can mutter away, but it really affected the economy of this country, with working people up and down the country seeing their bills and their mortgages rising dramatically.

The noble Lord also asked about the trade deal with the US. Yes, the tariffs were of enormous concern. The fact that we have managed to get them down to the levels they are is something that has been achieved by negotiation and would not have happened otherwise. The noble Lord also made a rather strange point about the F35A. He may have only heard some of the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker. Yes, they are less expensive than the F35Bs. That means that the money is available for other defence spending. He made that point earlier today. The fact they are cheaper is an asset rather than something to complain about.

I thank the noble Lord, however, for his comments about the Government’s comments on the BBC. Those who watched Glastonbury were quite shocked at the comments that were made by one particular group. The BBC does have questions to answer on why it did not act more quickly. Lessons should be learned from that.

I am just trying to read my handwriting, which can sometimes be difficult. The noble Lord, Lord Newby, asked about the crisis in recruitment to the Army. It has been a serious issue. I can remember days when you would go down the high street and there would be an Army recruitment shop. In our schools and colleges there were people looking to recruit to the Armed Forces, and a number of my friends joined up. We have not picked the noble Lord’s suggestion of a golden handshake, as it were, but I am assured by my noble friend Lord Coaker that they are working at pace on this issue. They recognise that something has be done to make up the numbers that fell to such a dangerous level under the last Government.

I think I have addressed most of the questions. If I have missed anything, I am sure we will come back to it. These summits are just so important for countries working together. It is clear that, for some of the most dangerous places in the world—places of conflict—the only way forward will be negotiated arrangements and settlements, and working towards peace at pace.

[Lord Beamish (Lab)]

My Lords, I attended last week’s NATO summit in The Hague, as a vice president of the NATO PA. I must say to the noble Lord, Lord True, that that is not the position I saw in terms of UK standing. I saw a country that is now again respected and is working very closely with all its allies to engage in the important fight against Russia. In meetings with heads of delegations and foreign Defence Ministers, they all commended the UK on the leadership it has taken, including that of our Prime Minister.

The position of increased expenditure is welcome, but one of the issues that is very important in terms of the fight against the Russian invasion of Ukraine is its financial ability to rearm. So what more can be done to ensure that sanctions do bite and that we ensure that the rearming of Russia is thwarted?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord. Certainly, his impressions of the leadership that the Prime Minister has shown chimes with what I have heard from other people at similar conferences. In fact, in our support for Ukraine, the Prime Minister was able to bring European leaders and others into London in support of President Zelensky. Indeed, immediately after the NATO statement, President Zelensky came to London and met the Prime Minister and the Speakers of both Houses. This gives a sense of the leadership that is shown, and also of how close our relationship is with Ukraine.

On sanctions, he is absolutely right. First, he will be aware of the money that has been spent—I cannot immediately recall the amount. As the noble Lord, Lord Levy, said, it is from the interest on the Russian assets. I will come back to that point. It is the interest on those assets that has been used to provide more weapons, including missiles, for Ukraine. It is important that we do that. The Government are still working at pace and have not ruled out legal action to ensure that we can get access to that money for Ukraine where it is needed.

The noble Lord made a point about sanctions. It is an important point. The UK has now introduced new sanctions that target Russia’s shadow fleet. We have blacklisted 20 additional vessels, as well as 10 individuals linked to the country’s energy and shipping sectors. Again, we have seen our partners also taking decisive action. Canada has listed over 200 vessels, and the EU has moved forward with its 18th sanctions package at some pace as well. So, sanctions are an important tool in the armoury supporting Ukraine against Russia. We must never forget the danger that is posed to the Ukrainian people. The Ukrainian people are at the forefront of the fight for freedom that all of us have to respect and know that we can also be in danger if we do not protect Ukraine.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, I agree with the Minister that leadership on the international stage is crucial, and I welcome the Prime Minister’s attendance at both conferences because you have to be present at the most senior level to ensure that your voice is heard. There is a deep symbolism in the role that the United Kingdom plays on the world stage.

On Ukraine, I am sure the Minister will equally recognise the leadership of successive Governments and the solidarity across all parts of your Lordships’ House on the importance of standing with Ukraine. In that respect, can she share some of the specific conversations that have taken place with our colleagues in the United States on getting peace in Ukraine, in particular on the role of the United Kingdom’s leverage with the Ukrainians, the respect we have and the new relationship that President Trump has forged with President Putin to bring this conflict to an end? I draw attention to my work as chair of the International Communities Organisation, which is committed to resolving conflict around the world.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. His work in this area is particularly respected by this House. It has been a strength of the UK’s response that, whichever party is in government, we have been united across the divide but also across both Houses. I know the noble Lord was there when President Zelensky visited our Parliament. He spoke to both Houses and some of us were privileged to meet him afterwards. You get a sense of not just the huge pressure but, for a man who could never have expected to be in the position he is in, how he has responded to that. That is why he has received acclamation around the world for the stand he has taken.

The noble Lord is right about the symbolism of the UK’s role in this. It is important that we maintain that special relationship with the US, because it is so important to support for Ukraine. There is ongoing dialogue. The ongoing conversations and meetings that the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have had with American officials have been important in that regard. They will continue. I think the whole House will say that we should not at any point detract from or retract our support for Ukraine in any way. We will urge others constantly to ensure that support remains solid, robust and united.

[Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for what she said about Glastonbury and the BBC, but it should be remembered that more than one act engaged in vile, pro-violence, pro-terror remarks. This Kneecap outfit from Belfast also needs to be condemned and called out for their pro-terrorism activities.

I also welcome what the Prime Minister said about aligning security objectives and plans for economic growth and renewing industrial communities, but given that the Northern Ireland aerospace and defence sectors contribute an estimated £2.2 billion to the economy, will the Minister decry and deplore the remarks today of the Sinn Féin Economy Minister, who said that money should not be spent on defence at all but on public services, whatever that means? Can she ensure that, despite the ideological nonsense of Sinn Féin and the way it behaves, Northern Ireland’s vital defence industries and the people who are contributing so much will be worked with, because this is important for our security and our economy?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I do not know whether the noble Lord was in the House when Kneecap was raised previously, but I strongly condemned their behaviour at that time and continue to do so. On the other issue he raises, it seems to me that the greatest public service that any Government provide is to keep their citizens safe. That includes, as I said before, defence spending and resilience. Citizens who work in the Armed Forces or our defence industry take on a public service to keep people in this country safe, and we should support them in doing that. I know Northern Ireland has an important defence industry. To say that it is less important does not recognise the threats the world faces at this time. I think we would all love an ideal world where there were no threats, no violence and no areas of conflict, and we did not spend money on defence. That is not the real world. We have to protect our citizens. If we fail to do that, we fail in the first duty of any Government.

[Lord Harper (Con)]

My Lords, in his Statement, the Prime Minister linked economic security, national security and what he called social security. He said that welfare reform was urgent and that the system was failing people every single day. Is not what has happened at the other end of the building a demonstration that the Government’s credibility is shot to pieces? They have literally taken out of that legislation almost all the reforms that they proposed, so their credibility is damaged on that important issue. That matters to our defence commitments, because our credibility in promising that increase in expenditure in the rest of the Statement is now damaged because the Government have demonstrated that they cannot find those savings. That demonstrates that those things are connected. The Government’s credibility is damaged, not just on welfare reform but reputationally on these important national security issues as well.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

The noble Lord will not be surprised that I fundamentally disagree with the point he made. Every time our Government have made a commitment to defence spending, we have kept that commitment. That is an absolute commitment. The noble Lord wants to tie that in with welfare reform. I have not heard anybody say that the situation that this Government inherited on social security and welfare spending is not one that needs to change. There are many measures within that Bill that practically everybody in the other place has supported. An example is the idea that somebody who gets a PIP and is disabled who wants to try to work should not go to the back of the queue and have to go through the system again if working fails. They should be able to try work to see whether it is suitable for them. The system that we have inherited needs change, and that change will continue.

The Bill has passed tonight. People agreed on the issue of reform. They now want to look at the detail. That is the process of legislation. The noble Lord was a Chief Whip in the other place. He knows how the process of legislation works. He lost enough votes himself to recognise how difficult it can be. What can never be accepted is that it is right to write some people off in the system and say that, even though they want to work, we are not going to help them to do so. Those are the measures that we are going to put in place. To link this to the Prime Minister’s comments about economic, national and social security, all these things make up what is good about life, the importance of life and the resilience we all need. Our safety, our resilience and how we treat the nation all link together, and that is how you have a healthy society that supports each other.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

My Lords, we should be relieved that we have a Prime Minister who is taking a leading role in the world, where we are and are seen to be a force for good. The UK is a leader on the world stage again. I welcome the Statement, including the fact that there is now an opportunity to push for a ceasefire in Gaza. In the meantime, my noble friend may be aware that more than 170 charities and other NGOs have today called for the controversial aid distribution scheme in Gaza, run by the Israeli and US-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, to be shut down. Will our Government make the case to ensure that, in future, aid is once again distributed by UN organisations?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is absolutely right. Noble Lords may recall that, when this issue was raised in the House in a Question that I answered a few weeks ago, I said that we had grave concerns about trying to set up an alternative to the tried and tested methods. Aid agencies that had working in Gaza, desperately trying to get enough aid in, were not being used. We know that there were pretty devastating consequences. To deal with that part of the region, the hostages must be released, aid must get into Gaza and then there has to be negotiation. The only way these issues can be resolved is through negotiation and discussion. It is hard work. I entirely agree with the noble Baroness’s point. The aid agencies are absolutely right: they know what matters and how best to get aid to those who need it. They just need to be allowed to do so.

[Lord Verdirame (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Leader of the House for that statement. The Statement says that we need to

“ensure a complete, verifiable and irreversible end to Iran’s nuclear programme”.

Israel identified two existential threats arising from Iran. One was the nuclear programme; the other was the ICBM programme. First, what is our assessment of the extent of the damage caused by the Israeli and US strikes on those two programmes? Secondly, is it also our policy that Iran should not resume the production of ICBMs on the scale at which it was doing before the strikes?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

The answer to the noble Lord’s second question is yes, we do think that. Our assessment, which has been quite widely covered, is that the damage done was significant. We are strongly of the view, and I think it is a worldwide view, that Iran cannot have nuclear weapons. The danger to the world of Iran having nuclear weapons is enormous. Therefore, the point that he makes about the damage done to those facilities is important.

[Lord Liddle (Lab)]

My Lords, I welcome what the Lord Privy Seal has said about Ukraine, the role of the Americans in Ukraine and—if I might add—the role of the British in keeping the Americans onside in support of Ukraine. But is it not the case that, if one looks at this period as a historical episode, what is most significant is the agreement to European rearmament?

All the nations, with the exception of Spain, have agreed to this very bold defence target, led by Chancellor Merz of Germany, the new Chancellor. This European rearmament is crucial, and it is something of which we have to be a part. There are industrial opportunities and jobs there. It is very interesting to see that Europe has opened its defence market to Canada. Can I have an assurance that we will work closely with our NATO EU allies on making sure that the best use is made of the funds for rearmament, and that the threat of Putin can be repelled?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

The noble Lord makes a really important point. What it comes down to is that if we were to let Putin succeed in Ukraine, the deterrent effect of NATO’s plans would be fatally compromised, so we have to harden our resolve. He mentioned the industrial opportunities, and there are those industrial opportunities, but the work we are doing with NATO and the UK-EU pact shows a real determination that we are not going to let Putin succeed.

It is a change, is it not? For many years now, we have taken defence and security for granted. More people now realise that the world is becoming a more dangerous place. The role that we play as a nation, and that our Prime Minister plays on the world stage—of being thoughtful and considered, of looking to broker peace and trying to get negotiations—is all the more crucial, but there has to be that defence capability to back that up.

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend the Leader of the House for bringing forward this Statement. It strikes me that some of the carping that we have heard from the Leader of the Opposition here today rather misses the point of what has been happening in the last few weeks. We have had a series of strategies and statements issued by the Government in a number of different areas. Following on from the defence review, we have had an industrial strategy, a trade strategy and a national security strategy. These are all beginning to form a cohesive whole, which demonstrates that what we are trying to do as a nation is bring all these policies together in the interests of protecting our country and its people. Is that not a very positive element and one of the things that we should read from the way in which the Prime Minister is able to operate on the world stage in these areas?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

The noble Lord makes an important point about how these strategies have formed together. The changes across the world, in the strategic defence of the world and how we have to respond to that, are really important. If we look at the industrial strategy and our national security strategy, on which I spoke last week, we see the linkages there and how they work together.

The defence spending review is something that we should be really proud of. We are able to take that, build on it and use our strategies to deliver it. As they link together, you see a cohesive whole. As the noble Lord, Lord Harper, said, these things do link together in how we protect our nation. If we do not draw all these links together, we will be weaker and poorer for it.

National Security Strategy

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Thursday 26th June 2025 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. The Statement is as follows:

“Today, the Prime Minister attends the opening day of the NATO summit. That summit is expected to agree a new commitment to grow spending on national security to 5% of GDP by 2035, to be made up by a projected split of 3.5% on core defence spending and 1.5% on broader resilience and security spending. This will mark a new resolve among NATO members to make our countries stronger and, as we have always done before, the United Kingdom will play our part.

NATO’s member countries meet at a time when the security situation is more in flux than at any time in a generation—a time when Ukraine is in its fourth year of resisting Russian invasion; a time when we in Europe have been asked to do more to secure our own defences; and a time when security can no longer be thought of as just the traditional realms of air, sea and land but as technology, cyber and the strength of our democratic society.

As we have seen in recent days, it has been a time of renewed military action in the Middle East, with Israel and the United States acting to try to stop Iran developing a nuclear bomb. News of a ceasefire is welcome, but, as we have seen even in recent hours, the situation remains fragile. The focus must now be on a credible plan to stop Iran developing nuclear weapons.

It is of great pride to my party that NATO was founded in the aftermath of the Second World War with the strong support of the post-war Labour Government. Ernest Bevin, the Labour Foreign Secretary at the time, said

‘we must face the facts as they are’.—[Official Report, Commons, 22/1/1948; col. 386.]

Today, in this very different age, we too must face the facts as they are. The generation that founded NATO saw it as a powerful expression of collective security and solidarity: alliances abroad matched by capacity at home. Our national security strategy, published today and made for these very different times, is inspired by those same values and aims.

Every Member of this House understands that the first duty of any Government is to keep the country safe. That is and always will be our number one priority, and the national security strategy sets out how we will do that. The world has changed fundamentally and continues to change before our eyes. This is indeed an age of radical uncertainty, and the leadership challenge in times of such change is to understand, respond and explain. The British people understand that. They recognise that we are living in a world that is more confrontational, turbulent and unpredictable than most of us have experienced in our lifetimes.

When the Prime Minister spoke to the House in February, he promised to produce a national security strategy that would match the scale of the task ahead, and the published strategy does that with a plan that is both clear-eyed and hard-edged about the challenges we face. It sets out a long-term vision about how we will do three crucial things. First, we will protect security at home by defending our territory, controlling our borders and making the UK a harder target for our enemies, one that is stronger and more resilient to future threats.

Secondly, we will promote strength abroad. This means bolstering our collective security, renewing and refreshing our key alliances and developing new partnerships in strategic locations across the world. It also means a clear-eyed view of how we engage with major powers such as China, where we must protect our national security and promote our economic interests. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary will make a further Statement on the China audit shortly.

Thirdly, we will increase our sovereign and asymmetric capabilities. We are building our defence industries, training our people, focusing investment on our competitive strengths and using our exceptional research and innovation base to build up advantages in new frontier technologies.

All this will make us a stronger and more resilient country, but delivering on each of those commitments will be possible only if all parts of society are pulling in the same direction. Our manufacturing, science and technology industries have to be aligned with national security objectives. Our industrial strategy will help to play to the UK’s strengths and deepen our capabilities. The investments that we announced in the spending review also deepen our resilience and strength as a country.

A health service strong enough to cope, safe and secure energy supplies, modern housing and transport for our people—all these contribute to a strong United Kingdom. That is why it is so important that all parts of the Government and business, big and small, understand that cyber security is national security, and that our core systems and the revenues of business are being targeted by our adversaries. It is why we as legislators have to ensure that our own laws, from borders to trade, fit with national security. That will take a whole-system approach that reflects today’s reality. National security means strong supply chains, controls on immigration, tackling online harm, energy security, economic security and border security. It transcends both foreign and domestic policy, and it all plays a role in how we make Britain a safer, more secure and more sovereign nation.

The document provides the blueprint of how that fits together. The strategy brings together everything we are doing across the full spectrum of national security: the commitment to spend 5% of our domestic economic output on national security by 2035, meeting our NATO commitments once again; the more than £1 billion that we are investing in a new network of national biosecurity centres; how we are stepping up in areas like cyber capabilities; our anti-corruption strategy to counter illicit finance and corruption; the expansion of our legal and law enforcement toolkit; the largest sustained investment in our Armed Forces since the Cold War; our plan to unlock real benefits for working people from this defence investment; how we prioritise NATO explicitly in our defence planning; a vision not only for deepening our alliances with the US and the EU but for growing our relationships with other emerging nations; the money we are investing in our brilliant research and development base over the coming years, such as the £750 million to be invested in a supercomputer at Edinburgh University; and our ambition to gain a competitive advantage in cutting-edge technologies and to embed national security in our agenda for artificial intelligence.

We do not underestimate the size of this task. The world is a more dangerous place than at any time since the end of the Cold War, yet it is also a place where Britain’s values, capabilities and alliances can make a positive difference. Since we came to power, we have taken a step-after-step approach to prepare Britain for what lies ahead: record investment in defence, backing our allies and resisting the false choices put before us that would only have weakened and diminished our country. This strategy represents an important contribution to all that work. It recognises that our long-term growth, prosperity and living standards all depend on national security becoming a way of life for people and businesses in the UK. This is a plan for how we protect the British people. It is a plan for today’s times but rooted in long-held values, and it is a plan to defend our national interests, deepen our international alliances and increase our sovereign capabilities. I commend it to the House”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I also thank the Leader for repeating the Statement. Most people in our country take for granted the liberties and freedoms we enjoy. In a way, that is a good thing, as they do not need to concern themselves with the need for vigilance against the threats we face. We enjoy our way of life as a result of the tireless work of those who have dedicated their careers to making us safe, and I pay tribute to them. Many distinguished servants of commitment are represented in this House, and I thank them too.

We therefore support a great deal in this strategy—its judgment on the threats we face and the changing security landscape, both in potential conflicts and in the emerging dangers through technological change, and the need to address them across all of government, the economy and society as a whole. There should be, of course, a high level of cross-party support. I hope the Government will bring regular updates with clear action plans of the many workstreams that fed into this strategy so that we can monitor and appraise for progress.

In many ways, the UK has a unique security need. But in many others, we can act as a global, open and interconnected country only if we secure the support and partnership of others. As an island nation, our shipping and data cables keep our economy alive. We were the first country to lay subsea communication cables, 175 years ago. Today we are almost exclusively reliant on them for communications. Shipping contributed to our growth in the Industrial Revolution, and today our consumers are reliant on shipped imports and key sectors on shipped exports.

This is why, for example, I was very happy to see Taiwan mentioned in paragraph 21. Taiwanese security and the openness of the South China Sea are critical to our technology industry and wider trade. I welcome the aircraft carrier task group currently in the region. It is a key shipping route, essential for our economy. I will refer to China a little later, but the Leader of the House may not agree with me on those aspects.

We agree that the way forward comes with the need for increased defence and lethal capability. We support the Government on increased defence expenditure, as the Leader knows. It would be helpful if she could indicate the breakdown of the sources of the 5%. What is the assumed level of growth of the size of the economy to meet the level of expenditure we expect to be necessary?

We do not depart from the level of funding, but we do say, with respect to the Government, that it should not have been transferred from the official development assistance budget. With respect, this is a strategic mistake, and we are seeing considerable reductions in programmes that have been part of the UK national security platform, and successfully so, for many years. It is no surprise to me that, in recent weeks, we have seen public statements from former defence and military leaders and chiefs, diplomats, and heads of the intelligence community of the UK, appealing to the Prime Minister not to cut the very programmes that have been national security focused in conflict prevention and conflict resolution, and in supporting allies to build resilient civil society and institutions against malign interference.

The western Balkans is rightly raised in the strategy. Twice in the Chamber I have asked for clarity on the continuation of the western Balkans freedom and resilience programme, funded by ODA. I hope that it is not under threat. If the Leader can provide reassurance on our posture within the western Balkans, that would be appreciated.

The FCDO network and our excellent diplomats were raised, and rightly so. I welcome what was said, but we have to recall that, in the spending review, there are year-on-year cuts to the operational budget of the FCDO going forward.

On other threats, such as biosecurity, I agree that we are less of an island than many might hope. Last night, I looked back at the UK’s first biological security strategy in 2018. DfID and ODA were mentioned on almost every single page—a recognition that biosecurity in the UK is weakened if it is also weak in countries where we have a large diaspora community or travel relationship. There was a reason why, 10 years ago, Ebola did not become Covid: it was because of the UK, through DfID and ODA. But this document makes no mention of it at all. In fact, with regards to official development assistance, there is only the most passing reference in paragraph 30.

We welcome the elements on research and development and the reconnection with Europe to regain the ground that we lost considerably under the previous Government. Page 11 says that we will go

“further than the agreements we have already struck”

with the EU. That is good news. In what areas will new agreements be sought?

We will consider the China audit next week, but the Leader may know that we on these Benches are concerned about the Government’s approach. In January, the Chancellor hailed £600 million of growth to our economy from extra trade with China over the next five years. In June, the Government announced £600 million for security agencies to tackle the threat from China. This is literally a zero-sum relationship this year. We would like to see legislative action on transnational repression suffered by people living here in the UK. The director-general of MI5 has made public warnings that China exploits education agreements and sovereign funds for espionage on an industrial scale. Although we welcome the first scheme, the noble Lord, Lord Hanson, has heard me say that we regret both that China is not on the enhanced tier and that education and sovereign funds are exempted.

Finally, I want to look further to the future. The convulsive violence in the Middle East, Sudan and elsewhere will have a lingering effect here in the UK. Community cohesion and reducing tensions will now have to be a critical part of our national security strategy, because we know from previous conflicts that there is a lag, whereby young people affected by it now may well be radicalised in the years to come. Activities such as the Chamberlain Highbury Trust that bring communities together are examples of good work that we are doing in the UK, but, regrettably, as a result of the heightened conflicts that this strategy rightly seeks to address, we may well see further radicalisation within our shores in the future. Investment now is necessary so that we do not pay the price later.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord for their comments. I will do my best to respond to as many as possible in the time available.

Both were right to recognise the work of our security services but also of those in our embassies and diplomats overseas. The noble Lord rightly raised soft power. The soft power embedded in our embassies and the work that they do can never be underestimated; it is an absolutely vital part of keeping the country safe and improving relations across the world.

The noble Baroness was uncharacteristically a little uncharitable to describe this as “a wing and a prayer”. This is a serious strategy document, and it brings together numerous other documents that the Government have been working on—some of which have already been presented to this House. The industrial strategy is part of that, but there are a number of them. This is not a wing and a prayer; it is a serious commitment. Both noble Lords talked about the 5%. The noble Lord’s point at the end of his comments was important. In looking at our national security, what happens here at home—community cohesion but also the resilience of our infrastructure—is equally as important as what we do overseas. This is not a wing and a prayer; it is an absolute commitment to these figures.

The NATO pledge commits to hitting a headline ambition of 5%, and we are talking about the Parliament after next, in 2035-36. Some 1.5% of that is around security and resilience spending and homeland security and resilience, which is an important part of national security, and 3.5% is core defence spending. We estimate that we will get to over 4%—about 4.1%—the year after next, and that information will become clearer. What is important in all this is that it is a collective national enterprise, as I have said, across industry, business, our embassies and the work here. This is an overarching strategy, at home and abroad.

The noble Baroness asked whether the Government are confident and a number of questions about the China audit. That is the reason why we are having the China audit: those are questions that must be addressed. Whether we are talking about energy infrastructure or anything else—I am sure we will have further questions on this—our relationship with China is one of the most complex bilateral relationships we have in the entire world. There have been various ways of looking at this in the past. There was the golden era, where we said, “Yes, we’re going to work very closely with China”, and then, moving back from that, there was a lack of engagement. Neither of those approaches serves the national interest in the way that we wish. That is why we have the China audit. We have to manage the security implications and our concerns about that but also the economic relationship that we have.

I thank the noble Lord for referring to Taiwan. That relationship is a commitment in the document. I admire his ingenuity—each time he speaks about ODA, he picks a different region that he wants a commitment on. He will understand that, as we travel around the world, if he adds all those up he will get to a point where we are committed to completely the same level of ODA. I know that would be his objective, but I cannot satisfy him on that point and I cannot give him some of the details, as they are still being worked out. The noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, is engaged on work on the global health fund as we speak.

I say to the noble Lord that how we work with other countries, improve their resilience and support them is not just about ODA. My noble friend Lord Collins has spoken about this before; he was telling me earlier about meetings that he has with African leaders. What do they want from us? They want our support for economic diversification. They want our support for levering in private funding for business, so that they can grow their economies. They want us to facilitate and enable. All that work continues, and it is vital that it does. Our relationship with the City of London and supporting them on that also makes a real difference. I assure the noble Lord that those things will continue.

The issue of the Middle East was raised. This has been of enormous concern to Members across the House, and we have had a number of debates on the issue. It is clear that Iran cannot be producing nuclear weapons that put the world at risk, and we are absolutely committed to that. But the noble Lord is right that this plays out in what happens in this country: we see conflict abroad playing out on the streets of London and major cities and towns across the UK. That brings a responsibility to government and the whole nation as well, which is why that 1.5% of the 5% funding is so important. I do not think the noble Baroness touched on this point, but resilience happens in a number of ways: it is our food resilience, energy resilience, telecoms resilience and business resilience. Marks & Spencer had a cyberattack—I am sure there are more noble Lords than me who have not been able to use their Sparks card. The most important thing is the damage that that has done to the economy and to that business. The damage to people’s confidence in dealing with the business is considerable. In all these areas, resilience is crucial.

The noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, emphasised that we need to know exactly where the money is coming from—what is happening on this pound and that pound. More of this will become available as the spending review information is fed out, but this is a commitment and she should not doubt it in any way. I hope that all noble Lords will recognise that if we want to keep the country safe and secure, the first duty of any Government is the safety and security of their citizens, at home and abroad. I am sorry that she thinks this is, to use her words, on a wing and a prayer; I fail to accept that.

The noble Baroness mentioned the money to be spent on Chagos. Governments do not spend this kind of money lightly. They will do so only if they are absolutely confident that it is in the national interest to do so. We have taken the view, and the evidence supports this, that it is absolutely in our security interests as a nation that we have this deal around the Diego Garcia base. That is why we have done the deal. Some of the figures given out are wildly inaccurate. We will have a longer debate on this on Monday, but we are committed to this for absolutely the right reasons, which are national security and national safety.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, describes Iran, North Korea, China and Russia as “a deadly quartet”, all of which have sanctioned Members of the British Parliament, including Members of your Lordships’ House. China, as we have just heard, continues to intimidate Taiwan, to commit genocide against Uyghurs, to incarcerate pro-democracy advocates in Hong Kong, and to use slave labour and transnational repression, both of which subjects are currently under investigation by the Joint Committee on Human Rights of this Parliament. We should not use the deepening of trade as an excuse for diminishing our awareness and response to the threat China poses, which is why Parliament should have been able to see the findings of the China audit and why China should be in the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme.

I have two brief questions for the Leader. First, is the planned £600 million investment in the intelligence and security services a direct result of the findings of the audit? If it is, surely that underlines the reasons for serious concern. Secondly, regarding the mega-embassy, the Prime Minister said in his meeting with Xi Jinping during the G20 last year:

“You raised the Chinese embassy building in London when we spoke on the telephone and we have since taken action by calling in that application”.


Will the Leader confirm that the call-in was as a result of the phone call with Xi Jinping?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

The noble Lord has great respect in this House for his commitment to these issues. I cannot confirm his final point at all. However, I think that the heart of his question is how seriously we take the threat from China, which is absolutely clear from the document. Indeed, this was raised in the House of Commons this week by David Lammy, the Foreign Secretary, when he spoke on the China audit and referred to a quote, which I will quote as well, on page 28 of the strategic defence review. I do not think that we can see this review alone: as I said, it is an overarching review. It states:

“China: a sophisticated and persistent challenge. China is increasingly leveraging its economic, technological, and military capabilities, seeking to establish dominance in the Indo-Pacific, erode US influence, and put pressure on the rules-based international order”.


I endorse and agree with that statement.

The noble Lord asks if our economic relationship undermines our commitment to security. I give him a categoric assurance that that is not the case. We have to manage both relationships, but security is first and foremost: it is of enormous concern, as he will know. We recognise, and I think it is highlighted in the strategy, that China is increasingly eroding the rules that have governed the international system. I do not think we have had a China audit before, but if we look at the history of our relationship with China, under a previous Government—I think it was in the Cameron era—it was a very close relationship. We then moved to not engaging at all. That is not a satisfactory way to proceed. It comes back to the Ernie Bevin quote: we have to deal with the world as it is and the threats that exist now. I give the noble Lord the assurance that we stand by what is in the strategic defence review and we stand by what is in the national security strategy to protect Taiwan.

[Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

My Lords, my noble friend the Leader will be aware that the National Risk Register, published in January, classifies a future pandemic as the catastrophic risk with the highest likelihood of happening. The defence review identifies engineering biology and new pathogens as a clear and present risk. The publication of the strategy came on the same day as the Foreign Secretary announced a contribution of £1.25 billion into the resources of Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance. Thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, we all now know about—or have had our memories refreshed on—the level of investment that the Government have promised to support the new network of national biosecurity centres. I consider all that to be security investment but, in the latter case, over what period will the £1 billion sustain these new centres?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend for reiterating that security is more than just foreign security; it is also health security. One of the issues with Covid was the lack of preparedness within the NHS. We are working on that at pace. A significant preparedness exercise is about to be undertaken and we will again test the emergency alert system. We inherited a number of laboratories in a very poor condition so that their future was in doubt. That is why the investment in biosecurity is so important. So, there is the new biosecurity centre at Weybridge, with £208 million committed to that work over the next two years, but there has to be a complete network of biosecurity centres around the country. That is about disease, but it is also about health and animal products, our imports, and ensuring that we can foster innovation so we know what is coming next and can work towards it, including productivity. The £1 billion is across the current spending review period, which is three years, and it will be reviewed at the end of that period.

[Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)]

Does the noble Baroness agree that the growing Commonwealth network, with its people involvement at all levels, its unifying soft power—and indeed, increasingly, its hard power, as we have recently seen—and its maritime data integration powers, is a key part of our national security, our influence and our adaptation to a totally changed security world that is going on around us? Can she direct me to the page in the strategy where all this is mentioned? I cannot find it.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I am sure the noble Lord has looked very carefully to find it, so this question of which page might be rhetorical. No, I cannot direct him to a page, but if he looks across the range of documents we have produced he will know how much we value relationships. He is right to emphasise the importance of soft power, including that of the Commonwealth. One of the problems we have had in the past is that our relationship with Europe has had to be reset and renewed. Our relationship with America is one that we value, as, of course, are those across the world, including with the Commonwealth. We must have, build and value those relationships. It is not just soft power; it is actually a harder-edged thing as well. I will find it in some documents at some point, I am sure, but the noble Lord has only to hear Ministers speak to know how much that relationship is valued.

[Lord Houghton of Richmond (CB)]

My Lords, I congratulate the Government on the strategy, which is both considered and sobering. It is considered because it strikes all the right balances between reinvesting in the conventional deterrents through NATO—the deterrence of Russia by NATO—and building resilience domestically, on which it is strong. The defining feature of the strategy is that it is a fundamentally grim read. It cuts out any niceties or talk of values and looks as though it has been written to give society an enhanced sense of threat awareness and prepare it for some hard choices.

My first question is: has it been written for that purpose? If so, I further congratulate the Government on it, because the threat awareness of society needs enhancing. Secondly, does the Minister appreciate the degree to which the slowness with which investment is made—with, as the noble Baroness opposite said earlier, very little in the lifetime of this Parliament and most of it in the imagined world of the next—undermines that message? Is it too much for me to hope that somewhere within government there is a hope that this investment might be accelerated?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble and gallant Lord. It is interesting to hear the cheers from the party opposite to his last point, because this is a generational increase in defence spending that the previous Government did not match, although their members are calling for us to go faster and further now, which we always want to do. It is worth noting that, under NATO’s new estimate, we think we will get to over 4% by the year after next.

The noble and gallant Lord made an interesting point that I had not thought of because I was not involved in the drafting of the document. The purpose is different, but he is right that we have to not only make this an issue for government but give a real understanding of how the nature of threats is changing and how we have to work across all branches of government, including local government, and society as a whole. He is right in saying that the document draws that out. It is a grim read, but in some ways it is also an encouraging read, because unless you recognise the threats and understand what you are facing, it is very hard to address them.

What came across when I read it was where the linkages are with other actions across government—whether it is the Department of Health looking at resilience or the industrial strategy looking at resilience, they link together. The strategic defence review has been so important to this country, and I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, and his co-reporters on this. Without that strategic defence review, this document would have been weaker. It has helped to define some of the threats we face and looks at ways to address them. But if assurance is needed, I can give the noble and gallant Lord absolute assurance that we will do everything we can to not only reach these spending levels but, through other avenues of government, enhance the impact they will have.

[Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)]

My Lords, I welcome the wide-ranging nature of this strategy. However, somewhat surprisingly, the National Security Council is not mentioned anywhere, as far as I could see. Can the Leader say what the role of the National Security Council will be in the delivery of the strategy? How will government departments be supported to meet shared security objectives—as she said, it is a collective endeavour—and how will they be held accountable?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

The committee that the noble Baroness referred to is a Cabinet committee and is always engaged in these issues. On the question of who is accountable, at the end of the day the Prime Minister is accountable. Through him, the Foreign Secretary, the Defence Secretary and the Home Secretary all have a really important role in delivering the strategy. As has been said, this is not for one department or one person to deal with; it is a collective government effort and if we fail to bring them together in the correct way, we will not meet the objectives of the strategy. The noble Baroness is right. I do not know exactly what role the National Security Council will have, but it will be key. We want to be held to account on this document, and we will hold ourselves to account through the Prime Minister.

[Lord Grantchester (Lab)]

My Lords, in these dangerous times, will my noble friend the Leader of the House also emphasise the importance of food security to an island nation that produces little more than 60% of its food needs? Can she explain how the Government are redrawing the perception that, as long as cheap food can be accepted and accessed from anywhere in the world, it is to be welcomed, at the expense of the long-term sustainability of home-grown, profitable and healthy food?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend for that. As a farmer, he will have more experience on these issues. On food security for the nation, we talk about cheap food, but I think that most people going to the supermarket these days are seeing prices rise significantly. In earlier questions, climate change was debunked as being something that we just have to deal with, but it has a huge impact on our food security, and that it why it is also part of the strategy.

Supporting farmers on this is key in two ways, the first of which is through our trade agreements. Some of the trade agreements under the previous Government, in particular those with Australia and New Zealand, undermined some of the work being done by farmers in this country. For us, in our agreements with the US and the EU, the welfare standards in which our farmers in this country have invested have been a red line in doing trade deals. My noble friend will also be aware that the noble Baroness, Lady Batters, is leading a new farming profitability unit, tasked with recommending to us how we can reform to increase productivity and work with farmers on that.

It would be remiss of me not to mention the SPS—sanitary and phytosanitary—agreement with the EU, which is making imports and particularly exports much easier and better for our farmers, again increasing their profitability. It is a shame that was not agreed sooner after Brexit.

I could mention other things that I think would be helpful in looking at the profitability of our farmers and ensuring our food stability, including a £110 million investment in new technologies to help farmers increase the profitability and produce of their farms and to help them with seasonal workers. There are a number of ways to address this, but to reflect again on the theme of wider government engagement, the work going on in flood defences and flood protection and the work we are doing to bring down the price of energy should all help our food production and national security issues.

[Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a member of the Army Board. A recent sobering poll showed that fewer than one in three Britons would be prepared to fight for their country. What specific steps are the Government taking to ensure a whole-society approach to national security?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

The noble Lord is right to raise this. There has been quite a fall-off in recruitment to the Armed Forces. I remember the days when the Army had a town-centre presence, where people could go to be recruited. That has been lost, and we are bringing together that recruitment as a whole. As the noble Lord opposite said earlier, most people today do not think about what the threats are, because we feel safe and we have got used to that feeling. There needs to be a resetting so that people understand that there are threats and want to play their part in protecting and serving the nation. I like to talk about people not wanting to fight for their country but wanting to serve and protect their country. We need to provide greater opportunities for people to want to play a part in that, but also show them what can be done. A lot of the work in the Armed Forces brings a whole load of issues around the skills they need and their resilience for the country, all of which will be crucial. We are committed to improving the recruitment levels that we have seen over past years.

[Lord Craig of Radley (CB)]

My Lords, this is an important and wide-ranging approach and deserves both cross-party and national support. I congratulate the authors. It takes a 10-year-plus view, but success will materialise only if intermediate goals are set. How do the Government perceive that the aims of this strategy will be tracked and achieved? At present, the problems associated with illegal immigration are slipping things back alarmingly. Will regular progress reports to Parliament across the piece be made?

The flip side to this coin should be what soft power and de-escalation measures achieve. I am sorry that there appears to be rather less about what influence the Commonwealth might have here, though some such countries are highlighted, or how closer relations with the Republic of Ireland might be to our mutual benefit. Well handled, could not such ideas bring further substantial security gains to the UK?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

The noble and gallant Lord raises an important point about relations with other countries. Our relationship with the Republic of Ireland is solid and welcome; indeed, I saw the Irish ambassador earlier this week and many Members of this House have a very strong relationship with Ireland. The noble and gallant Lord’s point about relationships, including with the Commonwealth, is extremely valid and the Government are committed to that. The issue around soft power and de-escalation is crucial. At the heart of a lot of what we are doing, including in the document, is de-escalation. Part of being resilient and having a strong diplomatic presence across the world is so that you can de-escalate.

The role that the Prime Minister has played recently, the visits he has made across the world and the bilateral and multilateral meetings he has had have been imperative to having the kinds of discussions that are needed to de-escalate. Very early on, I made a Statement on a similar issue and there were criticisms from some that the Prime Minister had made a number of overseas visits. When you visit and have meetings with other countries when relations are good, it helps you to have difficult discussions when things get more difficult and there are important international issues to be considered. The noble and gallant Lord is absolutely right. At the end of the day, this is overseen by the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary, the Foreign Secretary and the Defence Secretary all have an important role as well.

[Baroness Winterton of Doncaster (Lab)]

My Lords, in the foreword to the strategy, the Prime Minister talked about strength on the international stage, which other noble Lords have raised. I make a plea to my noble friend that, as well as their strong support for NATO set out in the document, the Government should be clear that they want to strengthen the role of other international bodies such as the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe. We can use those links with important international bodies and dialogue with other countries to improve our collective international security as well as our national security.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

The noble Baroness makes an important point. A number of Members of this House are members of the OSCE, as she is, the Council of Europe and others, where those relationships at both individual and national level are hugely important. Earlier this week, an official spoke to the OSCE about our commitment to Ukraine, showing how important it is to be part of these organisations and to work together. So she is absolutely right; she has been quite an advocate for the OSCE in the House, as others have been for the Council of Europe and other organisations.

Parliamentary Commercial Department

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Thursday 12th June 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

That this House endorses the Report from the House of Lords Commission Establishing Parliament’s commercial function as a joint department of both Houses (2nd Report, HL Paper 124); and in consequence, approves the establishment of a joint department of the two Houses, under the terms of the Parliament (Joint Departments) Act 2007.

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

My Lords, I am moving this Motion on behalf of the House of Lords Commission. We are asking the House to support and endorse the report published on 14 May establishing Parliament’s commercial function as a joint department of both Houses. I hope that noble Lords have read the report, which provides a clear explanation of and rationale for this decision. The Parliamentary Commercial Directorate is a shared service between both Houses, based in the House of Lords. It is responsible for all procurement and it sets and monitors standards for contract management across Parliament.

In 2022 the noble Lord, Lord Morse, undertook an independent review of financial management, which included looking in considerable detail at Parliament’s shared commercial service. The noble Lord found underperformance in all commercial areas compared with the rest of the public sector. Following publication of his report in November 2022, new leadership was brought in. The new commercial directors developed and delivered significant improvements, and by March 2025 these were rated as being good or better in all areas.

The commercial needs of Parliament are complex and challenging, and likely to become even more so in the future. It is essential that our commercial function continues to improve and has the confidence of both commissions. To achieve this, the next step is the establishment of the joint department. Before reaching this decision, we in the commission sought assurances about the arrangements to protect the joint interests of each House and to continue the improvements already under way. We have agreed a governance and performance framework so that the department will now be accountable to both Houses and will provide information about its priorities, service and performance. The current directorate staff—around 40 people—will be transferred to the new department and employed jointly by the Clerk of the Parliaments and the Clerk of the House of Commons as the corporate officers. The team will be led by a new chief commercial officer currently being recruited. We expect the transfer to take place on 1 October.

In conclusion, I acknowledge and recognise the significant improvements that have been made in the last couple of years following the excellent and very helpful report and review of the noble Lord, Lord Morse. I put on record our thanks for the commitment and professionalism shown by the commercial directors and their team in achieving this. I look forward to working with them to achieve further progress. I beg to move.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

I welcome the decision to make some changes here, but can the noble Baroness tell the House what the cost of the new front door at the Peers’ Entrance has been? Very senior Members of this House and members of the commission have been told repeatedly that they cannot know the cost of the front door, because if they knew the cost of the front door that would enable terrorists to work out what the security is surrounding it. I suspect that the costs of the front door make it one of the most expensive front doors in the world, and it is a front door that does not work. Various Members from all sides of the House protested right at the beginning that this design would not work as it would result in people having to queue outside to get in and they would therefore be more vulnerable. We were told that no, it had been carefully designed and the system had been looked at, but we now discover that we need somebody permanently there to press the button to open the door. The other evening someone in a wheelchair was unable to access the House. It is a complete white elephant and a disaster.

I do not wish to be unkind to any of the staff who serve this House or to underestimate the difficulties of dealing with a historic building of this kind, but it is simply not acceptable that public money should be spent in this way with such disastrous consequences, with no one being held to account and no knowledge of the associated costs. If we are going to have a joint department—and I welcome the appointment of some new leadership in this area—how can we be assured that the necessary commercial competencies will be there, as well as the ability to understand the importance of listening to what this House has to say and taking account of it in making these decisions?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

Can I ask the Leader of the House to investigate the position of access to the Terrace? One of the greatest privileges of the House, apart from the Chamber and Library, is access to the Terrace. Our Terrace is infinitely smaller than the Terrace next door, which I enjoyed as a Member of the other place. It strikes me that many of the places are taken on the Terrace by Members of the other place and their guests, leaving not enough places for Members of this House. I think it should be reciprocal. I am quite happy to allow Members of the other place to use our Terrace on the basis that we are able to use theirs.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, mentioned my diplomatic skills. I now start my audition for a role at the UN.

I will challenge one thing the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, said, which I strongly reject: that we are a part-time House. Those of us who were here at 1.30 am would not think that. We are a full-time House. We do not expect every Member the of House to be full-time, but the work of the House is a full-time responsibility.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

I stand corrected. Perhaps I should have said that, unlike the other place, we are unpaid.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

Round one on my diplomatic interview. A number of points have been raised and I want to try to address them. This has gone wider than the question.

On the door itself, there are two issues: cost and operability. It is completely unacceptable that we have a door that does not operate as it should. I can answer some of the questions. I will deal with the cost first, because there is wildly exaggerated and incorrect information. When you do not give information that is correct, incorrect information gets into the realm, which is unhelpful.

There is normally a rule that information regarding security costs is not provided. I think that does not help in this case at all. In terms of how it came about in the first place, noble Lords will remember—the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, may remember this—the Murphy review. After the death of a police officer at the other end of the building, it was important we considered the safety of those who work on the estate—not just Peers and MPs but all those who work on the estate. Their safety and security are of the utmost importance. We have had incidents that show that is important. The fence was part of the review. Noble Lords have been consulted and advised on that on many occasions. It is about security.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I will give way shortly, but I have a lot of questions to answer.

So, it is unacceptable, but the reassurance I can give is that the directorate is changing. I think that joint working, with a Parliament-wide department to deal with these issues, seems a no-brainer. Why have we not done it before? So many of the services we have are joint. The noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, mentioned catering. To have these individually in different Houses does not seem to be the most cost-effective way of doing things. It is taxpayers’ money we are talking about, but we also need to provide a good service for all of those working on the estate, including Peers and MPs.

On the point about the joint access, I share noble Lords’ frustrations. It does seem to me that it goes in one direction, because even those of us who are former MPs are not now able to access the House of Commons Terrace, or, for those who might like a pint in the evening, the Strangers Bar or other facilities. Yet I find that the River Restaurant at the Lords end of the building is often full of Members of the House of Commons and staff from the House of Commons. We welcome them; it proves we have better food at this end of the building. There is no calorie content on Lords menus, whereas there is on Commons menus, so that might be part of the attraction. But it does seem that we should look at a whole-House approach to these things and treat all Members of both Houses with equal respect.

The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, asked about the door and whether this was the first time for the design. My understanding is that it is not the first time for the design of the pod, but it is the first time—if I am not correct, I will write to him—in terms of having it in a heritage setting with the additional security measures required. I take on board the point he made on that.

On the issue of signing contracts, I will double-check on this. My understanding is that, with most government departments and local authorities, these things tend to be self-funded. I will double-check and come back to the noble Baroness, but that is what normally happens with large organisations. I have a Treasury Minister behind me who will tell me afterwards whether I have got this wrong.

The issue around how, when you have a joint department, you ensure the needs and views of this House are taken into account is absolutely well made. The noble Lord, Lord McLoughlin, raised this issue as well. Where we are getting to on this one is having an oversight body. We have looked at various ways of doing this. I think the noble Lord is absolutely right; the commission is not the best way of doing this. There is too much on the agenda. I think it has to be much more focused. That was the discussion at the commission this week. It will be a separate, bespoke body with expertise from both Houses that will ensure it runs properly and will work with the team to ensure we continue improvements.

I did not quite understand the point the noble Lord, Lord Winston, made about defibrillators. If anybody on the estate is taken ill, whether they be a visitor, a staff member, a Peer or an MP, we would want on any occasion to provide the support they need. We do have defibrillators in the Palace of Westminster; at this end of the building, we have one in Peers’ Lobby, one in the Prince’s Chamber, one in the Public Gallery and one at Peers’ Entrance. Whatever the problem was, it seems to have been resolved. It is not for the House of Commons to tell the Lords where defibs should be in this building—and I am sure the House of Commons would not want to.

[Lord Winston (Lab)]

This was before we had any defibrillators. We were a long time trying to persuade Black Rod at that time to ensure that we did have this sort of support. Eventually, he called in the Serjeant at Arms and other Members of the House of Commons, who told me very firmly that this was not going to be possible. It was only subsequently that we then got defibrillators everywhere. Now, of course, we are well protected, but, in the space of that time, at least two or three Members collapsed, and we did not have defibrillators. I was called to do the medical resuscitation, so I remember this very clearly. It was quite a searing moment.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

Clearly, we have moved on and are in a much better position now.

[Baroness Browning (Con)]

When I was talking about professional indemnity, I had particularly in mind the fact that, apart from the operation of the door, which has been discussed, I have lost count of how many times the specially made glass panel has been replaced—I cannot remember whether it is three or four. Surely whoever signed the contract for that must be in a strong position to make sure that we pay for only one.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

Absolutely; that would be part of what you would normally do if it was a new house—the snagging. Anything that is down to a manufacturer’s fault, such as operability, is down to those who installed the door. We are not at all responsible for any of those extra costs.

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

I welcome what the Leader of the House has said. Given what the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, has been told persistently in relation to the door—and there are other examples as well—I am very interested that the figure was not available because of security matters, and yet the Leader of the House has just provided what are staggering figures, many moons after we were told, over and again, that we are dealing with a security matter. I welcome the joint operation that is being discussed, but this suggests to me an unwillingness of members of management in this building to disclose information to Members of this House and the other House, because it is presumed that Members of both Houses do not need these figures or information. As a number of noble Lords will expect, I will give an example: I have faced exactly the same problem when I have asked questions in relation to the cost of traffic marshals. There seems to be a level of resentment towards the idea that Members should have the right to ask these questions and expect an answer.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, it is an accepted tradition that we do not disclose security information and the costs. Costs on this have been available to Members on the relevant committees, so they were available—and I will probably be sacked later for giving the costs anyway. Given that there was this degree of suspicion about the costs—some of the figures were inflated—and because the door has not been working, it was the view of the commission yesterday that it was important that the costs were made available to Members, so that they have accurate information. When we spend that much money on something that does not work, the key thing is that it is resolved, and that is what I am focused on.

On the new joint department, it is really important going forward that we have the right expertise and the right knowledge. There are things that went wrong here that should be used to inform further decisions, and engaging Members on all these decisions is really important. However, when we engage Members, there are, dare I say it, two Members and three opinions, and a wide spread of views around the House, and sometimes we have to say no to Members because we cannot say yes to everybody. There is a danger that we try to please everybody and end up pleasing nobody.

The words “lessons learned” are currently banned from my office, but there are some points here that we can take away and use to resolve these issues, so that we do not have the same problems in the future. The important thing is to get this joint department up and running, with the proper oversight, and to ensure we have proper and workable security arrangements that protect all of those who work in the Palace and that do the job they are supposed to do.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

I do not want to detain the House, but I am worried about the point from the noble Lord, Lord Hayward. I understand the point about maintaining security, but it is awfully convenient to be able to say that we cannot be told the cost. What is the cost, for example, of the new fence that has been put up, which is hideous? We are being told that we cannot know that because of security, but each and every one of us goes back to where we live—I was going to say to our constituencies—and get mocked about the cost. We are held accountable, and we are meant to be accountable. My worry about this “tradition” is that it means that there is no accountability. When you do not have accountability for expenditure, you get excessive expenditure—and my goodness me, that front door is an example.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

The noble Lord made a number of points. There are always increased costs because of the heritage nature of the building. I do not think any of us is entirely comfortable with having a fence. In the days when I was first a Member of Parliament in the other place, you could walk in without even needing a pass. Times have changed, and that is the reason we have this fence. These things are not unreasonable if there is genuinely a security issue, and I would defend that, but perhaps we sometimes need to stress-test these things a little more, and perhaps that is a role for the commission to undertake.

Sometimes costs seem alarming. Those of us who used to be in local government or who were Ministers will know that, when you account for things and look at the cost, it always seems far more than if you were doing it in your own back garden. This is not just a front door; it is something much more serious than that, and we have to get it up and running. All of us on the commission—a number of us are here in the Chamber today—will take this away, and I know that the Lord Speaker feels the same. We will stress-test those issues. Where information can be made available to Members, it should be, but where it cannot, noble Lords can trust the commission to look at these issues and make decisions with the security people.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, I shall be very brief. It seems that there is an underlying malaise here. The majority of Members of this House, in which I include myself, have very little idea of what the commission does. What communication structures does the commission have in place to ensure that, within the limitations of confidentiality, Members have some idea of what it is doing and what decisions it is making? I think the majority of this House is unclear about all of that.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I am often surprised by this. Within our party groups, we usually get reports of significant decisions made by the commission. The minutes are published, with redacted items, on the internal website, so that information is available. I do not know if the noble Baroness is asking for more information to be made available beyond the minutes and the reports made to her party group.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

Would Members not benefit from a quarterly or bi-monthly publication by the commission of what it has been doing? In the digital age, it could be transmitted to every Member—

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I am sorry to interrupt, but I will try to press forward on that point. The Lord Speaker’s newsletter publishes some of the information. If the noble Baroness wants a quarterly report, rather than the minutes published after the meeting, that can be done, but it will be published in the same way as the minutes of the meeting are published. We will look into that, if that helps her.

[Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)]

I hope the Leader of the House has not overlooked that every moment the unworking door remains unworking, we are haemorrhaging money. There will have to be permanent staff there to press the button, which will presumably require a team of three or four who will have to be salaried. In any normal arrangement, it should be mended tomorrow morning. Can we afford to leave it as it is?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

It is quite difficult to answer that one. Yes, repairs are undertaken from time to time, but there has to be a systematic look at how the door can be made operable ongoing, without repairs being needed. If that cannot be done, alternative arrangements have to be made. That is the very issue I have been speaking about, and which we are looking at. It is a matter of urgency, and I hope that I have conveyed to the House that frustration is felt across the House and is understood.

[Lord Robathan (Con)]

The Leader has done extremely well, if might say so, because she is not responsible for this; she is not to blame. Once upon a time I used to deal in assaulting buildings, and let me tell you that you would not assault a door where two police officers with submachine guns were standing. Now you can assault that door, because there are no policemen with machine guns—you would go round the back, if you wanted to assault it. I am afraid that the advice she was given on security is, frankly, nonsense.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I have to say to the noble Lord that it is not nonsense. There have been officers with machine guns on the door, but that does not take away the need to have a proper door that is secure for the House. I do not know whether the noble Lord has ever read the Murphy review, which covered both Houses—it may have been published when he was in the other place; I am not sure whether he was in this House then. We need to take these things seriously. All of us will have solutions and simple answers and will say, “If you do this, it will be fine”. But let us just look at getting the door up and running. The purpose today is to look to the future, and the issue before us is the joint department. I am grateful for the noble Lord’s comments; I hope that my next job will be at the UN.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach (Con)]

The noble Baroness was talking about the minutes. I have asked the Printed Paper Office if it has copies of the minutes of the commission’s meetings. In fact, I have asked several times. There are some copies, but they date from February; they are on the table where we collect our papers in the morning. It may be that they are available online, but when I have asked the people in the Printed Paper Office, they have said, “Well, they’ll send them to us when they’ve got them to give us”.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

Well, I am not quite sure why there is such a delay. The minutes of the meeting that took place this week were approved yesterday, and they will be available this week. I think the noble Lord may have been misinformed, but they are available as they have been approved. We have changed the process because they used not to appear until the next meeting, which is unacceptable, so in recent times they have been made available online ASAP. I shall check, but the noble Lord can find them on his computer, on the intranet. The minutes will appear later on, but the decisions are available as a matter of course and, if he does not get them, he should come and tell me and I shall make sure that he does.

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

My Lords, may I raise one issue that is not about the door? In the joint workings that my noble friend will be taking part in, will she try to develop what I might call the spirit of comity before the two Houses? The nature, membership and workload of both Houses is different; nevertheless, we represent Parliament as a whole. Some of the other issues raised in these exchanges show that we need a better working relationship with each other. I hope, as I said, that in the spirit of comity my noble friend will be able to achieve that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I do not think that this is just down to me. The point has been made about having the joint department here, and other noble Lords have said how joint departments are, in many ways, a way forward. We have to ensure that we are a working Parliament, from one end of the building to the other, and the support that is available to ensure that we do our jobs properly should be commensurate with the work we do. We have the measures in place to ensure that our interests are properly represented and there is proper oversight from both Houses, and I hope that noble Lords will accept the report.

Motion agreed.

Supplementary Daily Allowance

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Monday 2nd June 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

That:

(1) Members of this House, except any Member who receives a salary under the Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975 and the Chairman and Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees, may be entitled to a supplementary daily allowance after 1 April 2025 as the chair of a domestic committee of the House, or such other body, as may be determined from time to time by the House of Lords Commission.

(2) The amount of the allowance payable shall be the applicable rate of the daily allowance or the reduced daily allowance at the time.

(3) The maximum entitlement applicable for the supplementary daily allowance is 3 additional days per month provided that for any month the total number of days claimed for does not exceed the total number of sitting days of the House in that month.

(4) The provisions of this Resolution shall be applied in accordance with guidance issued under the authority of the House of Lords Commission.

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

My Lords, I beg to move the third Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. This enables a supplementary daily allowance to be claimed by the non-salaried domestic committee chairs of the Conduct Committee, the Finance Committee and the Services Committee. This was agreed by the House of Lords Commission and the usual channels, as set out in the commission report of 29 April this year. It is intended to recognise the significant additional work required of those chairs outside formal meetings, and it works by enabling them to claim a maximum of three extra days a month on top of those they can claim through attending the House or a committee meeting. However, it will ensure that for any month, the total number of days claimed for cannot exceed the total number of sitting days of the House. I beg to move.

Motion agreed.