Business of the House

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Thursday 27th February 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

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

Motion agreed.

Defence and Security

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Wednesday 26th February 2025 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I will repeat the Statement made by the Prime Minister yesterday on defence and security:

“It is three years since Russia launched its vile assault on Ukraine and I would like to address the international situation and the implications for Britain’s national security. In my first week as Prime Minister, I travelled to the NATO summit in Washington with a simple message: NATO and our allies could trust that this Government would fulfil Britain’s and, indeed, the Labour Party’s, historic role of putting our collective security first. I spoke of my great pride in leading the party that was a founding member of NATO, the inheritor of the legacy of Clement Attlee and Ernest Bevin, who not only stood behind Winston Churchill in wartime but won the peace by establishing the great post-war order here and abroad.

It is a proud legacy, but in a world like ours it is also a heavy one, because the historical load that we must carry to fulfil our duty is not as light as it once was. We must bend our backs across this House, because these times demand a united Britain and we must deploy all our resources to achieve security.

As a young man, I vividly remember the Berlin Wall coming down. It felt as if we were casting off the shackles of history; a continent united by freedom and democracy. If you had told me then that in my lifetime we would see Russian tanks rolling into European cities again, I would not have believed you. Yet here we are, in a world where everything has changed, because three years ago that is exactly what happened.

Britain can be proud of our response. British families opened their doors to fleeing Ukrainians, with the yellow and light blue flags fluttering on town halls and churches the length and breadth of the country. The party opposite in government were robust in our response. I supported that in opposition and I applaud them for it now. We have built on that, bringing our support for Ukraine to a record level this year.

We should not pretend that any of this has been easy. Working people have already felt the cost of Russian actions through rising prices and bills. None the less, one of the great lessons of our history is that instability in Europe will always wash up on our shores and that tyrants like Putin respond only to strength. Russia is a menace in our waters, in our airspace and on our streets. It has launched cyberattacks on our NHS and—only seven years ago—a chemical weapons attack on the streets of Salisbury.

We must stand with Ukraine, because if we do not achieve a lasting peace then the economic instability and the threats to our security will only grow. And so, as the nature of that conflict changes, as it has in recent weeks, it brings our response into sharper focus; a new era that we must meet—as we have so often in the past—together and with strength.

The fundamentals of British strategy are unchanged. I know that the current moment is volatile, but there is still no good reason why they cannot endure, so let me now spell out to the House exactly how we will renew them for these times. First, NATO is the bedrock of our security and will remain so. It has brought peace for 75 years. It is as important today as the day on which it was founded. Putin thought he would weaken NATO; he has achieved the exact opposite. It remains the organisation that receives the vast bulk of our defence effort in every domain, and that must continue.

Secondly, we must reject any false choice between our allies—between one side of the Atlantic or the other. That is against our history, country and party, because it is against our fundamental national interest. The US is our most important bilateral alliance. It straddles everything from nuclear technology to NATO, Five Eyes, AUKUS and beyond. It has survived countless external challenges in the past. We have fought wars together. We are the closest partners in trade, growth and security.

So this week, when I meet President Trump, I will be clear. I want this relationship to go from strength to strength. But strength in this world also depends on a new alliance with Europe. As I said in Paris last week, our commitment to European defence and security is unwavering, but now is the time to deepen it. We will find new ways to work together on our collective interests and threats, protecting our borders, bringing our companies together and seeking out new opportunities for growth.

Thirdly, we seek peace, not conflict, and we believe in the power of diplomacy to deliver that end. That of course is most pressing in Ukraine. Nobody in this House or this country wants the bloodshed to continue—nobody. I have seen the devastation in Ukraine at first hand. What you see in places such as Bucha never leaves you. But for peace to endure in Ukraine and beyond, we need deterrence. I know that this House will endorse the principle of winning peace through strength, so we will continue to stand behind the people of Ukraine. We must ensure that they negotiate their own future, and we will continue to put them in the strongest position for a lasting peace.

Fourthly, we must change our national security posture, because a generational challenge requires a generational response. That will demand some extremely difficult and painful choices, and through those choices, as hard as they are, we must also seek unity—a whole-society effort that will reach into the lives, the industries and the homes of the British people. I started this Statement by recalling the era of Attlee and Bevin, and this year we will mark many anniversaries of that greatest generation. We must find courage in our history and courage in who we are as a nation, because courage is what our own era now demands of us. So, starting today, this Government will begin the biggest sustained increase in defence spending since the end of the Cold War. We will deliver our commitment to spend 2.5% of GDP on defence, but we will bring it forward so that we reach that level in 2027, and we will maintain that for the rest of this Parliament. Let me spell that out: that means spending £13.4 billion more on defence every year from 2027.

However, we also face enemies that are sophisticated in cyberattacks, sabotage and even assassination, so our intelligence and security services are an increasingly vital part of protecting both us and our allies. On top of the funding of 2.5% that I have announced, going forward, we will recognise the incredible contribution of our intelligence and security services to the defence of our nation, which means that, taken together, we will be spending 2.6% on defence from 2027.

We must go further still. I have long argued that, in the face of ongoing and generational challenges, all European allies must step up and do more for our own defence. Subject to economic and fiscal conditions, and aligned with our strategic and operational needs, we will also set a clear ambition for defence spending to rise to 3% of GDP in the next Parliament.

I want to be very clear: the nature of warfare has changed significantly. That is clear from the battleground in Ukraine, so we must modernise and reform our capabilities as we invest. I equally want to be very clear that, like with any other investment we make, we seek value for money. That is why we are putting in place a new defence reform and efficiency plan, led jointly by my right honourable friends the Chancellor and the Defence Secretary.

This investment means that the UK will strengthen its position as a leader of NATO and in the collective defence of our continent, and we should welcome that role. It is good for our national security. It is also good for this Government’s defining mission to restore growth to our economy, and we should be optimistic about what it can deliver in those terms. Yet, in the short term, it can be funded only through hard choices. In this case, that means that we will cut our spending on development assistance, moving from 0.5% of GNI today to 0.3% in 2027, fully funding our increased investment in defence.

I want to be clear to the House that this is not an announcement I am happy to make. I am proud of our pioneering record on overseas development, and we will continue to play a key humanitarian role in Sudan, Ukraine and Gaza, in tackling climate change and in supporting multinational efforts on global health and challenges such as vaccination. In recent years the development budget was also redirected towards the asylum backlog, paying for hotels. So, as we are clearing that backlog at a record pace, there are efficiencies that will reduce the need to spend on our overseas programme. None the less it remains a cut, and I will not pretend otherwise. We will do everything we can to return to a world where that is not the case and we can build our capacity on development, but at times like this the defence and security of the British people must always come first. That is the number one priority of this Government.

It is not just about spending. Our whole approach to national security must now change. We all have to ask British industry, British universities, British businesses and the British people to play a bigger part and use this to renew the social contract of our nation—the rights and responsibilities that we owe to one another.

The first test of our defence policy is of course whether it keeps our country safe, but the second should be whether it improves the conditions of the British people. Does it help to provide the economic security that working people need? Ultimately, as Attlee and Bevin knew, that is fundamental to national security as well. We will use this investment as an opportunity that will translate defence spending into British growth and British jobs, British skills and British innovation, and will use the full powers of the Procurement Act to rebuild our industrial base.

As a strategic defence review is well under way, and across government we are conducting a number of other reviews relevant to national security, it is obvious that these reviews must pull together. So, before the NATO summit in June, we will publish a single national security strategy and bring it to this House. As I said earlier, that is how we must meet the threats of this age: together and with strength; a new approach to defence; a revival of our industrial base; a deepening of our alliances; the instruments of our national power brought together; creating opportunity; reassuring our allies; and delivering security for our country.

At moments like this in our past, Britain has stood up to be counted. It has come together and demonstrated strength. That is what the security of the country needs now, and that is what this Government will deliver. I commend this Statement to the House”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, we welcome this Statement. From the outset of the brutal Russian invasion of Ukraine, there has been a consensus across Parliament that we must support the Ukrainian people in their struggle against aggression. We do so not just because they deserve our support in their own right but because success for Putin in Ukraine would simply be a prelude to further Russian expansionism, whether in the Baltics, the Caucasus or elsewhere in eastern Europe.

Nothing which has happened in Ukraine over the past three years has caused us to question this approach—quite the opposite. What has changed is the posture of the United States. It is now clear that European nations cannot continue to rely on the US to support the defence of the continent in the same way as we did in the past. From day to day, it is impossible to know quite what the US President will say next, but in one respect President Trump has been consistent: he expects Europe to pay more for its own defence and he will make the continuation of the US’s military commitments in Europe contingent on this.

We and other European nations are going to have to spend more—considerably more—on defence, and to do so at a time when public sector finances are already under considerable strain. We therefore welcome the Government’s decision to move to a level of defence expenditure of 2.5% of GDP by 2027, and their further aim of getting to 3% in the next Parliament. We need to considerably increase our capabilities and replenish our equipment stocks. As a first priority, the Government should reverse the 10,000 reduction in the number of our troops, over which the previous Administration presided. It is now highly likely that we are going to have to provide boots on the ground in Ukraine; the Army is simply too small at present to be able to do this on anything like the scale required. We must also, however, achieve much greater value for money on equipment development and procurement than we have in the past. We therefore welcome the Government’s commitment to a new defence reform and efficiency plan.

We are, however, surprised and disappointed that the Government have decided that the entire funding of this additional expenditure should come from further cuts to development assistance. This seems to be a strategic error as it will simply reduce further our soft power, leaving space for Russia and China in particular to fill. Given that most aid is preventive of disease, climate change or conflict, it will exacerbate problems which will spill over to us. That is a false economy. Can the Government, at the very least, commit to protecting expenditure on Sudan—not just prioritising it, which is a rather weaselly phrase—given the extraordinarily severe humanitarian crisis now facing that country?

We have suggested funding the increase to 2.5% in a different way—by an increase in the digital services tax from 2% to 10%—but there are other ways of raising the necessary revenue, as we suggested in our general election manifesto, which could be deployed without raiding the aid budget. As for the 3%, we have already suggested that there should now be urgent all-party talks to explore how we can achieve that on a cross-party basis. Can the noble Baroness the Leader say whether the Government have any plans to adopt this approach?

Further to the Question earlier today in your Lordships’ House on the £20 billion of frozen Russian assets in western banks, there is agreement that those should be released to help Ukraine in its continuing military activities and to help rebuild the country once hostilities end. Frankly, nothing seems to be happening to achieve this. The Prime Minister could play a leadership role here by convening a European conference in London to agree on how this can best be achieved and by raising it tomorrow with President Trump. Do the Government have any plans to take such initiatives?

Faced with the changed US posture on European security, all European nations will have to play a greater part in the continent’s defence. This Statement demonstrates that the UK is willing to make that commitment, and we support that stance, but let us not do so by further decimating our aid budget and making some of the world’s poorest people pay.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for their comments, in particular their support for the increase in defence spending. It has been important that since my time as Leader of the Opposition, as the noble Lord, Lord True, said, the House has always been united on this issue. In fact, the whole of Parliament has been united. Many noble Lords will recall when President Zelensky spoke in the House of Commons and some of us were fortunate to meet him afterwards. I remember him coming to a Cabinet meeting shortly after the election, as I know he did with the previous Government. But at all times, it is not just the Government but the entire country and the entirety of Parliament supporting the Ukrainian people.

That is an important message—and not just to Ukraine. It is also a very important message to President Putin, because we stand united in support of the self-determination of the Ukrainian people. Their security and safety is of the utmost importance, and that concerns people in this country. The noble Lord also referred to families taking in Ukrainians who have had to flee their homes. Friends of mine did so. There is enormous pride in the work that they did, but they benefited and gained from hosting a family that was fleeing from such terror and violence.

I turn to the specific points the noble Lords made. It is not GDP for the ODA but GNI—a different measurement. I had to look it up as well to tell the difference. On how the additional spending is allocated, the strategic defence review—I am pleased to see the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, who has led on that, in his place—will lead. I made the point that it is not just the amount of money: how it is spent and used is crucial. That will be aligned with the comprehensive spending review as well, so it is very important that we look at them in the whole, and we will get more information on that.

The noble Lord asked specifically about the money. I am fortunate in having the Defence Minister alongside me today, and I can say that it is a £13.5 billion increase in cash terms from the Budget now to the Budget in 2027, which takes us to 2.5% of GDP in April 2027. He will have heard the Prime Minister’s words that we know we have to go further than that but, on the timescale, we need to ramp up that kind of spending to get the right supply chains, training and recruitment in place. We have heard many times in this House about the lack of recruitment and retention in our Armed Forces, and it is very important that we plan that carefully. The strategic defence review will be crucial to that.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Newby, for his comments. His words about solidarity with the people of Ukraine were important, and he had wise words about how President Putin would take advantage of any weakness in Europe. Strength within Europe is really important. It is not just for the people of Ukraine but for our domestic safety and security as well. He asked specifically about the funding from the ODA. As the Prime Minister said, these choices are not easy, but the primary objective is the defence, security and safety of this country.

I can say to the noble Lord that this will not come into effect until 2027, so the current programmes for 2025 and 2026 remain in place. The protected areas are in Sudan, Ukraine and Gaza. The focus as we plan ahead—there is a particular strategic review on this in the FCDO—will be the planning of how this will happen, working with partners, and we will focus on the impact and outcomes of projects. I can also say to him that the legislation remains in place. We remain committed to 0.7% and want to get back to it, because we recognise that we have a proud history in our party. We are very proud of our role on this, so it is not a decision taken lightly. As we have said, this is a generational shift, a generational change, and we have to respond to it in the most positive way possible. That is why it is so important that we see the increase in defence spending announced today.

[Baroness May of Maidenhead (Con)]

My Lords, I welcome the increase in defence spending which has been announced. I hope that the money will be spent effectively, and I hope that others in Europe will take this sign and also raise their defence spending. Armed as he now is with this new commitment, when the Prime Minister goes to Washington later this week will he impress on President Trump that Russia is the aggressor in Ukraine; that the defence of Europe benefits the defence of America; and that the Ukrainians are fighting for their independence and their sovereignty, principles which should be defended by all of us who value or benefit from economic and democratic freedom?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her comments. She is right: how money is spent is so important. That is why I made the comment about the strategic defence review. I think the Prime Minister is in flight at the moment on his way to Washington; if he has not arrived, he will be arriving shortly. He has been very clear in his comments over the last few days about Ukraine and how the sovereignty of Ukraine is really important. I am sure that will form part of his discussions with President Trump.

[Lord Fowler (CB)]

My Lords, I will raise two brief but important points. I accept entirely that we should make savings to pay for the resources we are giving to defence, and I entirely support the strongest possible support for Ukraine. However, I do not understand why all the savings are concentrated on overseas aid. Out of the whole government budget, why are we concentrating just on overseas aid? Given all the things that we have said on the importance of overseas aid —on both sides of the House; I can see noble Lords here who have spoken on this—it does not seem to be in proportion. We are in danger of affecting the poorest people in some of the poorest nations in the world, very much to their detriment.

Britain has—or had—a very high reputation in this area. My concern is: will this new concentration on cutting overseas aid alone not take away from that reputation? Above all, will it not encourage other nations, which have so far not been very happy on overseas aid, health aid or anything of that sort, to follow suit? That is the question that I think the noble Baroness needs to answer.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for his comments and his support for the additional funding. I think our reputation is enhanced because we are, by having additional spending on defence, standing up to Russian aggression and making that very clear. They are difficult choices; I do not shy away from that at all. That is why we are saying how we will manage the cuts in ODA at this time. It is not a permanent cut; the legislation remains in place and we wish to return to that.

There is a trade-off between diplomacy, aid—I do not always like to use the term “aid”, because in many cases it is not aid but support—development and defence. At this time, the threat is such and the moment is such—it is a generational shift—that we are focusing on the defence budget. We will be informed on how that is used by the strategic defence review. As I have said to noble Lords already, we will also look at the areas that will be protected in the ODA budget. The work of the Government goes on in working with those countries to ensure that we become a force for good and take a leadership role in those areas.

[The Lord Bishop of London]

My Lords, I refer to my entry in the register of interests: I am the chair of Christian Aid. I am very privileged to follow the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, because I think we need to reject this false choice between defence spending and development spending. They are not competing priorities. This is not just about reputation. Properly used development funding helps to prevent conflict. It tackles instability and provides a greater and more just world. We have heard the concern that cutting aid in this way risks exacerbating instability and leads to conflict. Will the Government not just make an assessment of the outcomes of this cut in funding but make a proper assessment about the risk of increased insecurity, instability and conflict as a result of the cut?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I thank the right reverend Prelate for her comments. She asked how the assessment will be made. It will be made on the overall outcomes of the impact that the cut will have and how best to ensure that the best use of the money is being made. We are still talking about £9 billion of international aid, which will go into a range of projects. Between now and 2027 there is an opportunity to look at that, and the FCDO is actively undertaking that work at the moment. She is right; these are difficult and hard decisions that must be made, but we have to ensure that we stand to protect the nation and the safety and security of our citizens and those in other countries.

[Lord Beamish (Lab)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Beamish (Lab)]

My Lords, as chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee, I welcome the emphasis in the Statement on our security services and the extra funding for them. The threat to us from Russia is not only on the eastern European border but on our own homeland through cybersecurity and other threats. Does the Leader of the House agree with me that we will have to keep this under review? Our security services are doing a fantastic job, but they are very busy countering state threats, including Islamic terrorism and right-wing extremism, so we may well have to look again at whether more funding will be needed in future.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for his comments, which come from his experience on the committee. He is right to highlight the threats that exist. People sometimes think that threats in relation to defence issues are happening to other countries and other people—but, no, they happen to us as well. We have seen people attacked in this country because of Russian aggression, including with the Salisbury poisonings. We should not forget that the fundamental first duty of any Government is the safety and security of their own citizens. He also makes the important point that this is not just about the military might of a country; it is also about how we use our equipment and personnel, as well as intelligence and modern technology. Bringing security, in its widest sense, into defence spending—not as part of, but above, the 2.5%—will be very important. Unless we take a stand to show that we are determined and have the ability, the will and the finances to protect our citizens, we will not get respect across the entire world. We have to take the leadership role today that we need to take, and we are able to do so today.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, I suspect that it will not surprise anyone in this House that I welcome the Government’s Statement to increase defence expenditure, although I might have taken a slightly different approach to where it comes from in the budget line. Can the Leader of the House tell us what the Government are doing to look at military expenditure in terms of working with the defence sector and recruitment, so that by the time we increase spending we have ensured that we have let the necessary contracts? Increasing the budget is one thing, but expanding our capabilities may not come about unless we get that right.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is absolutely right: you cannot suddenly turn on a tap for defence expenditure, say it is however many billions of pounds more and then spend it the next day. Supply chains, research and development, and recruitment must be put in place. That is where the work of the strategic defence review that I mentioned will be vital. We totally concur with her important point.

[Lord Howard of Lympne (Con)]

My Lords, the comfortable world in which we lived up to two weeks ago has gone, and we now have to face some harsh realities. The stark truth is that we can no longer rely on a country that votes with Russia, North Korea and Iran in the United Nations for our defence or that of Europe. Does the Leader of the House agree that, while the Prime Minister’s announcement yesterday of an increase in defence spending is welcome, it is just a start? Does she also agree that we need to look radically at the entire remit of government spending to accommodate the very substantial increase in the defence budget, which, alas, is now necessary?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord. He makes the point, which I also made in an earlier answer, that this is a generational shift: the world has changed, and we have to respond to that. The role that the Prime Minister has taken is one of leadership. It is important that we recognise that we want to maintain our alliance with the United States—we hope that that goes from strength to strength—and that we want to work within Europe in a leadership role. Some will try to lead us to make a false choice, but we will not do that. The noble Lord also made the point that this is a step in the right direction; it is not the end. The Government have committed to 3% following on from 2.5%, and that will be important. As a nation, we will have to come to terms with what our defence capability should be, how we fund that and how we maintain that moving forward. He is right to say that this is part of a process; it not the end of the story.

[Lord Boateng (Lab)]

My Lords, the move to 3% is necessary and involves some hard choices, but does the Leader of the House agree that the defence and security of the British people is a three-legged stool that demands defence, diplomacy and development; and that, if you cut one leg, there is a danger of imbalance to the whole structure? Does she agree that there will be a need for smart procurement, there will be a need for innovative funding mechanisms and there will be a need for targeted interventions in development if we are to recognise the facts that the fastest-growing military force in Africa is the People’s Liberation Army and that the Russian Wagner Group has been deployed in not just Ukraine but Sudan, Mali and the Sahel and throughout Africa, and that needs to be recognised?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend; his experience and powerful words are to be listened to. I made the point in an earlier answer that diplomacy, development and defence have to be balanced, and there is a rebalancing here, but we retain that commitment to return to spending 0.7% on ODA. But there is also the point, which my noble friend made, about how that money is spent and used to affect fundamentally those three areas of diplomacy, development and defence. That is really important, which is why issues such as procurement and the effectiveness of the money must be looked at, as must our relationships with other countries and working in partnership with other countries. As I have said and can only repeat, there is a generational shift today in how we look at these issues going forward.

[Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a member of the Army Board. I welcome the rise to 2.5%; it goes some way to delivering the means that the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, needs to balance the ends and ways in the SDR. However, the aspiration to go to 3% after 2030 in the next Parliament is a tacit acceptance that it is simply not enough at the moment. It is no secret that, over the next two years, there will be significant financial pressures on defence, meaning that we will have to defer or cancel capabilities and defer capital programmes. This year, we have already seen announcements from the Government over the scrapping of HMS “Bulwark” and “Albion”, as well as the withdrawal of the Watchkeeper drone programme from the Army. Given that we have identified where this money is coming from—rightly or wrongly, it is coming from the aid budget—I simply ask: why are we waiting until 2027? Why are we not delivering it now?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

The comments and response that I gave to the other Baroness Smith—the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham—highlights part of this issue: you cannot just turn on the tap and spend the money. You work up to how it is going to be spent, looking at supply chains and procurement. We will be very much informed by the strategic defence review in terms of how this money is spent.

[Lord Walney (CB)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Walney (CB)]

My Lords, the Prime Minister’s recognition that the whole of the country needs to step up is critical, as is the recognition that that includes industry and universities. Can the Minister confirm that the Government will show greater leadership in challenging the idea that defence spending is unethical, when in fact it is a foundation of preserving our liberties? Will the Government do more to stop defence companies—and, indeed, the Armed Forces—being menaced off the campuses where they need to recruit the next generation of fighting men and women and employees in the forces?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

The noble Lord’s words are wise ones and are taken on board entirely. I used to represent a constituency that had a defence industry, and I was proud to be the MP of that area. The simple fact that we are announcing an increase in defence spending, and the words the Prime Minister used, show that we are committed to the industry. There is an economic impact from this on the country as a whole, and we should recognise that. I assure the noble Lord that we will show that leadership, as required.

[Baroness Helic (Con)]

I welcome the Prime Minister’s Statement and his commitment to increasing defence spending. The clarity with which he has approached this is encouraging and is good for our long-term security. However, making sure that peace in Europe is not eroded again, as it has been eroded in Ukraine, is crucial.

The western Balkans is currently in the worst possible security crisis since the end of the war in 1995. With that in mind, will the Government consider rejoining Operation Althea? At the moment, our deterrent is both weak and insufficient.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her comments. She is absolutely right, and we accept that. We are currently working with key allies on that area. My noble friend may have something more to say on that at another point, but I entirely take the point she makes.

[Lord Spellar (Lab)]

My Lords, my noble friend has rightly pointed out the need to ramp up supply chains, but that requires a sense of urgency on the part of both the Ministry of Defence and industry. Up to now, it does not appear that they have seized the opportunities or the necessity of this conflict. Are we going to see that major change? Will we see early results?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My noble friend makes a particular point. The certainty of the funding helps industry to meet the challenge. Previously, announcements have been made but there has not been the funding behind them, and that makes it more difficult for industry to make the plans they need to. He is right, and there are ongoing discussions about how industry and government will work together.

[Lord Sharma (Con)]

I of course welcome the increase in defence spending and the resolute support for Ukraine. However, I am disappointed that all this increase seems to have come from the overseas aid budget, which will, unfortunately, erode the UK’s soft power. The Minister has made it very clear that those cuts to overseas aid will not come in until 2027. Can she give the House a commitment that the previous Government’s desire to spend £11.6 billion on international climate finance between 2021 and 2026 will be delivered in full?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I do not have the exact details on that policy; I will write to the noble Lord about it. There will be a lot of ongoing work with the various government departments, particularly the FCDO, looking at how the finance is being spent and how we manage having to make those cuts. I will come back to the noble Lord on the precise point he makes.

Business of the House

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Wednesday 8th January 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

That, in the event of the Financial Assistance to Ukraine Bill having been brought from the House of Commons, Standing Order 44 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be dispensed with on Wednesday 15 January to allow the Bill to be taken through its remaining stages that day.

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

My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I rise simply to seek assurance from the noble Baroness the Leader of the House that we can table amendments to this Bill when we consider it next Wednesday. The Bill asks us to provide taxpayers’ money to assist Ukraine. I entirely support that, as it is vital that Putin does not win. However, the West has immobilised about $300 billion of Russian assets, including about €210 billion immobilised in Europe. The United Kingdom has frozen about £18 billion of assets, and I understand that the United States has frozen only a few billion dollars. Nevertheless, the United States and Canada have passed legislation permitting their Governments, should they wish, to utilise those former frozen Russian assets for the reconstruction of Ukraine. The US legislation is called REPO: rebuilding economic prosperity and opportunity for Ukraine.

Last year the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe unanimously adopted a resolution calling on each state that holds Russian assets to co-operate in the transfer of those assets to an international mechanism to compensate Ukraine for the losses it has suffered. The United Kingdom Government—the previous Government and this one—have consistently said it is clear that Russia must be held responsible for its illegal war. That includes its obligations under international law to pay for the damage it has caused in Ukraine.

I simply want to table a very straightforward and short amendment to the Bill, giving the United Kingdom Government the same powers that Canada and the United States have taken—namely, after the words “money provided by Parliament”, to add, “or out of any assets, reserves or any other property held within the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom, directly or indirectly, by, for or on behalf of the Russian Federation”. I say to the noble Baroness and to the House that it is a simple permissive power. It does not force the Government to do it if they do not want to, but it would give us the same power to utilise those frozen Russian assets. I simply ask the noble Baroness whether it would be possible for me or any other noble Lord to table an amendment such as that to the Bill next Wednesday.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Lord is an experienced parliamentarian. He may be confusing the two Houses. This is a money Bill and the procedure in this House is that there are no amending stages on the Bill. It has already been debated in the other place, so when it comes to this House there will be no opportunity to table amendments.

Motion agreed.

Foreign-owned Social Media Companies

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Tuesday 7th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Chakrabarti]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to restrict the impact of foreign-owned social media companies upon UK democratic politics and public order.

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

My Lords, we are committed to the implementation and integrity of our democracy, but we cannot be complacent. It is a collective endeavour to protect it against threats and ensure that it remains robust. The Online Safety Act creates a new regulatory regime for online platforms and search services, with new duties to act to protect UK users from harm in both the design and operation of their services. These duties apply to overseas services with links to the UK and include offences relating to public order and terrorism, as well as illegal foreign interference that undermines our democratic politics.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for that Answer, not least on her birthday. To reflect the previous Question, does she agree that free speech is given constitutional protection in this country and elsewhere in the Council of Europe by Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights? However, even in the US—famously, the land of the first amendment—free speech does not extend to, for example, the malicious and deliberate spreading of incendiary libels and the incitement of public disorder.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, free speech is crucial, but it brings with it responsibility. I think we would all say that, although people have no right not to be offended, it is important that any comments made, whether on social media or in any other form of media, are factual, accurate and well-informed. It strikes me that on issues that are contentious we should perhaps lower the temperature, not the tone.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

The Leader of the House may be aware that, in the latest incident, Elon Musk has responded to Ed Davey’s criticism in language that Tommy Robinson might well use but, I am sure, Nigel Farage would disapprove of. It is important to have a sense of commonality in public debate. A public broadcasting network on which there can be a national conversation becomes all the more important when misinformation is being put into this country by social media outfits abroad. Can the Leader of the House assure us that the Government will do their best to defend and promote the BBC, which all public opinion polls show is the most trusted source of news for the largest proportion of our population?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I am a great defender of the BBC, not least for its fantastic production of “Wolf Hall”. If we look back through history, we find that misinformation has caused enormous chaos time and again. It is important that all of us see truth, accuracy and decency as a collective responsibility, and that debate is conducted in a way that is conducive to providing information and helping people to understand the issues. I repeat that we should lower the temperature on contentious issues. It seems that some people are sometimes too interested in lowering the tone of the debate, not the temperature.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

My Lords, are the Government looking at whether it is necessary to strengthen the Online Safety Act?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, the first point is to ensure that we bring the Online Safety Act into force in full. That is a foundation on which we can build. It is fairly new legislation that the last Government brought in, which we supported. I hope the Act helps and shows providers the responsibilities they have to ensure that there is a proper debate with good and accurate information. Disinformation is not a new issue, but it is a serious one, because information can travel around the world far faster than it ever has before. Let us see how the Online Safety Act works, make sure that it does and use it as a foundation to build on.

[Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)]

My Lords, has my noble friend the Leader seen that, just in the last couple of hours, there has been a report from the United States that the founder of Meta, Mark Zuckerberg, has announced his intention to reduce fact-checking on his platforms and to move the way in which those platforms operate closer to the way that X, formerly known as Twitter, now operates? I think most people in this House know what that means. Does she agree that, in those circumstances, it is more important than it has ever been for safeguarding within our national environment to be as strong as it can possibly be?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

The noble Baroness makes an important point about fact-checking. I think all platforms will want to ensure their information is as accurate as possible. In fact, the Meta decision does not apply to this country; it applies only to the US and it does not remove fact-checking in Europe, which will remain.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

My Lords, does the Leader of the House think it is time that we looked at the rules regarding foreign contributors to political parties, albeit through domestic companies which they may own, and that we should also perhaps tell our nearest and dearest ally, the Americans, that just as we supported them in their resentment of Russian interference in their elections, so also we should expect American citizens not to interfere in our political process?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

The noble Lord makes a really important point about foreign interference, whether financial or otherwise, in other countries’ democracy. All of us in this country value our democracy and want it to remain robust. The issue of ensuring not just that donations to political parties are legal under the current rules but that the rules are fit for purpose is one that we should take very seriously.

[Baroness D’Souza (CB)]

My Lords, does the noble Baroness the Leader agree that although free speech can be extremely offensive at times, the dividing line is the context in which it occurs, and that the rules governing hate speech in this country—and criminalisation of speech—must always take into account that context? It is the context that determines whether that speech will have further very undesirable outcomes.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

If a matter appears before the courts regarding hate speech, I think that would be taken into account. The context is very important. We have to remember that we should choose our words carefully when we speak, whether that is in public or online. The days when you had a conversation in the pub and went home and everyone had forgotten about it are gone; now it seems that everything is recorded and amplified at speed around the world. There are people who are vulnerable and people who have malign intent. These things happen in real time and people can face real dangers from people not choosing their words carefully.

[Viscount Camrose (Con)]

My Lords, do the Government agree that widespread online media literacy is by far the best defence against misinformation and disinformation online and that, consequently, the more resilient we become to these harms, the less our need to restrict freedom of expression online? If so, could the Minister briefly summarise the Government’s planned approach to drive up online media literacy?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I am not sure that I really understand the noble Viscount’s point. To be media-literate or social media-literate does not stop somebody making inaccurate or offensive comments. The key issue is that we should not say that different rules apply to people on social media. We should look to have public discourse, which is the responsibility of us all, to be at all times courteous and factual, and to conduct debate properly. That is not to say people cannot disagree or debate, or even be offensive. We cannot have what is almost incitement, and people not worrying about what the truth is and what is accurate if it gets a reaction. Sometimes too much of what is being said on social media is designed to get a reaction rather than to help inform people.

[Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab)]

My Lords, the victims of many of the actions that have led to this tsunami of bad words are being revictimised by that sort of language and the way people are talking. I work with many of them—with small women’s groups, particularly in the north, around Doncaster, Rotherham and Newcastle, that are working still with victims who have been abused and violently treated. Is it not time that all of us said that our main concern has to be for them, and to be working to make sure that social media is not a means of abusing and exploiting vulnerable women?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness makes a profound, wise and appropriate point. A lot of the current issues around social media have arisen on child sexual abuse, and there can be no crime more vile or abhorrent than that. If it is used for political purposes or is somehow stirred up, then I come back to the very point I made at the beginning: we must lower the temperature of the debate, not the tone. We should not seek to use such an abhorrent crime for political purposes but, at all times, try to have a debate that moves the issue forward in a positive way and seeks to protect those who are vulnerable.

Intelligence and Security Committee

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Monday 16th December 2024 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

That the House approves the nominations of Lord Beamish, Lord West of Spithead, and Baroness Brown of Cambridge as members of the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament.

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

My Lords, I fully support the Motion in the name of the Lord Privy Seal. Would it be appropriate at this time to ask if it would be possible for the Intelligence and Security Committee to conduct an investigation into H6 and all the allegations of spying by China?

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

My Lords, I do not think it is for the Lord Privy Seal to instruct the Intelligence and Security Committee on its business or how to conduct it. I am sure it will take note of the report, is fully aware of the situation and will do whatever is appropriate.

Motion agreed.

Plan for Change: Milestones for Mission-led Government

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Thursday 12th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Finn (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness the Lord Privy Seal for repeating the Statement, which was delivered in the other place last week.

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

The noble Baroness has thanked me for repeating the Statement, but I am not repeating it. This is questions on the Statement.

[Baroness Finn (Con)]

I apologise to the Lord Privy Seal. We welcome this relaunch and look forward to more in the months ahead. However, the Statement, while undeniably rich in aspiration, is regrettably bereft of a clear plan for transforming its lofty ambitions into real change for the British people.

Few would disagree with the Government’s aims and their six missions. A mission-driven approach to governance makes sense—indeed, it is something that echoes the last Government’s levelling-up missions—but, unless the Treasury waives its dogmatic commitment to rigid silo budgets, it is hard to see it working.

It is encouraging to see the Government recognise the need for clear objectives. There are many words that we welcome, such as growth, value for money, getting rid of waste and accountability. However, as we all know, governance is about more than words; it is about action, and the Government will be judged on what they actually achieve. The Prime Minister has been quicker than most to blame his Government’s shortcomings on the Civil Service, which he describes as being all too comfortable in

“the tepid bath of … decline”.

Yet, while the diagnosis may be accurate, the prescription is notably absent. Indeed, the Prime Minister seems to have been forced into what is known as walking back his words of criticism.

I have spent many years working with civil servants, and I put on record that I believe we have some of the finest civil servants in the world. However, there is widespread agreement—especially among those of us, both politicians and officials, who have had the privilege and responsibility of participating in government—that the Civil Service is not performing to the standards of the modern, effective state. We cannot ignore serious failures identified in several public inquiries: the infected blood scandal, the Post Office Horizon debacle and the handling of the Covid-19 pandemic. In each instance, inquiry chairs identified systemic issues: officials neglecting statutory duties, misleading Ministers and, in some cases, deliberately destroying evidence.

Furthermore, institutional failings have been identified over decades, since the Fulton committee report in 1968 and beyond: the cult of the generalist and lack of enough deep pools of knowledge; churn; the unplanned and random movement of officials without regard to business need; and the resistance to influence and incomers from outside. Yet we have heard nothing in the Statement about how this Government intend to address any of those shortcomings. Instead, we are told vaguely that more will be said about reform soon. Government requires more than promises of future promises, and we look forward to hearing the detail of a serious programme of reform.

I have some questions for the noble Baroness the Lord Privy Seal. First, raising living standards in every part of the UK so that working people have more money in their pockets, no matter where they live, is obviously a good idea, but how is that to be measured? What are the metrics? When will the data be published, and who will be held to account?

Secondly, the Office for Budget Responsibility said that this Government are very unlikely to build more homes than the last one. Why do the Government now believe they will be able to deliver on their commitment to build 1.5 million homes? Is there more money? Have the spending plans changed?

Thirdly, getting children ready to learn is also a good idea, but what do the Government mean by “ready to learn”? What are the definitions and metrics by which they will be measured and held to account?

Fourthly, the missions are notable for what is not in them. The Government have dropped the target to be the country with the highest sustained growth in the G7. There is no commitment on unemployment or getting people back to work, nor is there, as the Leader of the Opposition pointed out yesterday, any clear objective of reducing migration. The Government have chosen these six issues over GP surgeries and A&E or defence. Can the Lord Privy Seal explain the rationale for the choice of government priorities?

Lastly, can the Lord Privy Seal clarify the purpose and function of the so-called mission boards? Who attends them? What powers do they exercise? What decisions are they empowered to make, and under what legal authority do they operate? Crucially, do they work alongside, or in substitution for, the established Cabinet system of government? Why did the Prime Minister break his promise of chairing these himself?

At the PACAC hearing on 4 December, the Civil Service chief operating officer said that

“the governance and the wiring of how we do this might not be immediately observable”,

and made clear that the publication of the membership terms of reference and regularity of meetings was a matter for Ministers. Can the noble Baroness the Lord Privy Seal therefore commit to that information being in the public domain, in the interests of transparency and to monitor progress?

Ultimately Governments are judged not by the promises they make but by the results they deliver. This Government have set out an admirable if incomplete wish list but, without a hard-edged commitment to institutional reform and stronger implementation capability, that is what it will remain. Words without action are a disservice to those citizens who rely on public services and who look to government for leadership.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, in my view, the targets—or possibly milestones—set out in the Statement are laudable, but I have severe doubts about the Government’s ability to meet them. Setting targets is easy but, without a proper plan for delivery, they are so much hot air.

In an attempt to improve delivery, the Government’s focus is on how budgets are used and whether the right systems are used to deliver policy outcomes. That is clearly crucial. In relation to that, the Statement poses the question: is power being devolved enough? Our view is that it is not being devolved nearly far enough, and that, unless power over budgets and tax raising is devolved to a far greater extent than the Government plan, those on the front line will not be in a position to exercise their discretion to deliver policy in the most appropriate way for the communities in which they live.

So I ask the Government: how rigorously are they going to look to devolve power? Will they report regularly, with reasoning, on the extent to which they have considered and accepted or declined to devolve power in individual policy areas? Given that their targets can be achieved only if the Civil Service is highly motivated, how do the Government believe that recent statements by the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, which cast doubt on the competence and enthusiasm for change of civil servants, will help meet that requirement?

Of the six milestones, I would like to question those on health and housing. On health, how do the Government reconcile their milestone of reaching the standard of no patient waiting more than 18 weeks for elective treatment with the Secretary of State for Health’s statement earlier in the week that the NHS should prioritise emergency treatment and “forget targets”? How is the NHS supposed to know what its priorities are if they appear to be changing from day to day? How can any target in respect of hospitals be achieved unless the Government fix the broken care system, which currently sees so many people stuck in hospital who do not need to be there?

Of all the targets, the one which strains credulity most is that on housing. The Government have pledged to build 1.5 million homes during the lifetime of this Parliament. They seem to think that changes to the planning system will be the most significant contribution towards meeting this target. I do not intend to comment on today’s planning announcement, but no planning changes are likely to come into effect until a year after the election at best. So the Government will have to meet their target with a maximum of four years’ increased rate of housebuilding.

This seems implausible, particularly as the Government have said very little about two of the non-planning policies that will be needed to make this happen. First, what is the Government’s numerical target for the building of social homes? Social houses are desperately needed to meet demand but, without a major increase in social housebuilding, it is very difficult to see how the Government can meet their overall target.

Secondly, where will the workers come from to enable the houses to be built? Present skills shortages in the construction sector make a rapid scaling-up of housebuilding literally impossible. Changes to the skills regime will help, but they will not yield a significant increase in new skilled employees until towards the end of this Parliament. The only way to meet the skills gap in the short term is to allow more migrant workers into the building sector. Will the Government therefore replace the arbitrary salary threshold for work visas with a more flexible, merit-based system to enable this to happen?

Finally, having set such clear priorities, what plans do the Government have to report regularly on their achievements? Will today’s Statement be followed by regular updates on progress? Setting targets is easy, but being able to achieve them is vastly more difficult.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord for their questions and comments. Perhaps I should apologise to the noble Baroness; she obviously expected me to repeat the Statement. It may be that that was her mistake in talking about the missions.

The Plan for Change is the milestones. As she will recall, the missions were during the election. They are the long-term ambitions. The milestones—a point that the noble Lord, Lord Newby, made—are the progress we make against those missions. It is the milestones that we can be judged against. Whereas the missions are long-term ambitions, the milestones are those that we can be judged against. I can provide the noble Baroness with more information on those.

The noble Baroness talked about siloed budgets. The Government have to work across government, and the noble Lord picked up on mission boards. When you work across government, so many of the issues you are dealing with are not for one department alone. For example, the noble Lord mentioned social care. It is absolutely the case that, unless people move out of hospital into the kind of care we need, we cannot meet the targets to give people elective surgery in the timescales we have set, which is part of the commitment we have made. So, to be clear, there will be higher living standards across the country. The reason for saying that is that we do not want economic growth to be centred on one or two places and work on the basis that this will spread out; there should be economic growth across the country.

I totally accept that 1.5 million homes is challenging: 90,000 of those, by the way, will be social housing. I do not think the noble Lord was here for the Question earlier, answered by my noble friend Lady Taylor, and for her Statement earlier today. We have already started the process. The National Planning Policy Framework is one of those steps. There is also a new homes accelerator and a new homes task force.

Skills are absolutely crucial to this. The work to ensure that the right skills are in the right place at the right time is already being undertaken across government and with industry because, unless industry buys into this, we will not be able to meet the commitment. The noble Lord’s point was well made, but that work is already going on and part of it will be transforming how the apprenticeship levy has been operating and making it the growth and skills levy, which is one of the things the industry has been asking for.

The noble Baroness spoke about the Civil Service. I think she will be aware, and many civil servants will be aware, of the frustration within the system of moving things along. For every new Minister who is enthusiastic about doing things—this is not a criticism of individual civil servants—the system is sometimes difficult to wade through. We want civil servants who are innovative, creative and professional and we want to help them achieve that.

Quite often, a lot of expertise can also come from outside the Civil Service. I do not think Ministers and civil servants should be wary or concerned about looking to outside expertise as well. When the system works well, it works well together. The relationship between Ministers and civil servants is really important. Ministers should not blame civil servants for their own failings. That does not mean that Ministers always have to take Civil Service advice, but it has to be taken into account.

The noble Baroness raised those issues in the context of the infected blood scandal, Covid and Horizon. I think there is some ministerial responsibility in respect of all those, as well, not least promising compensation without budgeting for it properly. That is what we have had to do in this Budget, and we have welcomed the opportunity to do so. It is absolutely right that those compensation schemes are there, but they were not budgeted for at all.

One of the problems I have with the Opposition is that although they say they support all the things we are putting in place to invest for the future—for growth, the economy and the NHS—when it comes to paying for that ambition for the country, they do not like any of the approaches we are looking at. That is the conundrum at the heart of the Opposition.

We should be held accountable. The noble Lord, Lord Newby, asks how we are accountable. These targets are there for us to be held accountable to, by Parliament and others.

The noble Baroness, Lady Finn, asked four questions, and I hope I got them down quickly enough. First, she said that the OBR said that we cannot deliver the housing. That is not quite what the OBR said, but we accept it is a very ambitious proposal. I make no apologies for the scale of ambition the Government have, and we are determined to meet that ambition. She also asked a rather curious question, on how we will measure whether children are ready to learn when they go to school. That information has already been collected, and it was found to be wanting. That information is already there so we can measure against the current matrix that is undertaken when kids first go to school.

The noble Lord also asked about ambitions on devolution and whether they will match our proposals. I hate to do this, but can I urge patience? Next week, we will publish our devolution White Paper, and there will be information in that I think will address some of the questions he raises.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, I note that in the Statement, the Prime Minister said, regrettably:

“We do not believe that a tawdry surrender to Tory Back-Benchers should be allowed to cut off the dream of home ownership”.


Is it not time we had a bit of honesty, rather than chutzpah, from the Government? The Labour Party, now in government, whipped its Peers in this House to vote for the nutrient neutrality regulations that blocked 120,000 homes. That was the Labour Party’s decision, when the previous Government were seeking to go ahead with home ownership. I hope the Leader of the House will address that point.

Surely, if we really do want to drive up GDP, we need to look at per capita GDP, which has stalled because of uncontrolled and unlimited immigration—which I accept is the fault of the previous Government to a large extent. In that vein, is it not important to have a proper, coherent, time-based and realistic immigration policy to tackle legal immigration as well as illegal immigration, in order to grow per capita growth and the wider economy?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

First, on the nutrients neutrality issue, the noble Lord will be aware that the previous Government’s proposal was to override environmental concerns. We were very concerned that there should be mitigations in that legislation to ensure that it did not just override environmental concerns but took those into account. I have listened to some of the discussions on the environment and housing, and the two should go hand in hand: we should be looking to create good-quality housing and a good environment at the same time. I have looked at some of the proposals. The noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, and I both come from new towns, and there are some great examples and some poor ones. Where you have green lungs in new towns, green gyms surrounding housing and nature areas within developments, those are really important. Our commitment is both to the environment and to increasing housing.

On immigration, I can understand the noble Lord’s embarrassment about the last Government’s record. I think we were all shocked when we saw how much the figures had gone up and how inaccurate the previous Government’s figures were. It is fundamental to our polices that economic growth, secure borders and the security of the nation go hand in hand. Some £700 million was spent on a bound-to-fail, flawed Rwanda immigration policy, and we can all think of ways that could have been much better spent—actually processing asylum claims and securing our borders. The Prime Minister has undertaken work, building up relationships with other countries and looking for agreements with them. Some people leave their country and seek refuge, asylum and a better quality of life here because they are fleeing war or poverty, for example. We should be working internationally to address those issues and not just spending a lot of money on flawed policies.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I was glad to hear the Leader of the House talk about the use of external expertise in moving forward these milestones and missions. As somebody who came from business and has worked within government, I think different perspectives are very helpful. That is particularly important with very difficult challenges on things such as skills, especially in construction and planning. It is obviously vital that we progress that fast, so I welcome the efforts that have been made. I just wanted to pick up something my noble friend Lady Finn asked, which was about how the mission boards would work, who would be attending, who would be involved and how that fitted in with Cabinet committees and so on.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I do not have an organogram in front of me, so that is detail I probably cannot supply. But the purpose of the mission boards is to follow the missions we have in government. This is a way of having cross-governmental working, bringing key people together. If the Prime Minister is not available, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is. On that cross-government working, Cabinet committees work, in some ways, and some may still do so, but we felt that the mission boards better reflected the missions we have outlined and made a commitment on.

[Lord Birt (CB)]

This is territory that I trod for six years when working as the Prime Minister’s strategy adviser. I have also trodden the same territory widely in the public and private sectors. I have a couple of points to make. First, it is entirely right, in any institutional environment, to have ambition—you have to start with that, and it right that this Government have it. A special factor of government is its sheer scale and size, and the multiplicity of departments. The Leader of the House is entirely right to emphasise that challenge. That is why I strongly support the notion of mission boards, which will be operationally not the same as Cabinet sub-committees. I will raise one issue positively and constructively: before you get to milestones, you have to have a holistic strategy that is deeply based on analysis of all the factors in play, which are always dynamic and changing. You always have to refresh your way of reaching ambitious goals.

Secondly, my experience in government was that, overwhelmingly, the Civil Service was properly skilled, very collaborative and fit for purpose—not always but generally. But, dare I say it, that was not always true of the politicians. I have great respect for their skills and experience, but they inevitably sometimes have to recognise that they lack the heavy-duty institutional experience necessary to achieve fundamental reform.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for those comments. He is welcoming the mission-led strategy with the milestones, and he is right to say that you have to measure them and look at what is behind them overall. He has a point about experience and longevity. The Prime Minister has been wise and has spoken about Ministers being in post for longer—I have some skin in the game here. We saw such a churn of Ministers under the last Government, and it gets very difficult for them to build expertise and relationships with civil servants and stakeholders, only to be moved on. I speak as a Minister who has served in a number of departments over the years, and the good sources of information are the civil servants who have been there a long time, as well as new civil servants—who bring fresh experience to you—and past Ministers in your role.

All of us, at any stage in our careers—whether we are new to the job or have been in it a long time, and whether we are politicians or civil servants—need to find that way of learning from each other, building on the best and having respect for different perspectives. We expect civil servants to give that professional advice and guidance and to understand that we are politicians, who need clarity. I hope the milestones bring that clarity to the workings with the Civil Service as well, so that both politicians and civil servants have clarity about what they are doing. My own experience of civil servants over the years has been very positive. I have never known a civil servant to balk when I said that I wanted outside expertise; they have never had any issue with that, and in fact, they have welcomed it in many cases.

[Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab)]

My Lords, will my noble friend take the opportunity to develop the issues around young people? It is tragic that over the last 10 to 15 years the opportunities for young people in this country have diminished rather than increased. Some of that is external, but a lot has been caused by decisions taken by previous Administrations which limited what young people were able to do. Now, in the missions and the milestones, we have the opportunity to bring in mental health expertise, with both the voluntary sector and the NHS—alongside the work of improving buses. I can tell you about a youngster who left the care system and was then in a village nine miles away from the DWP offices and the jobcentre. It took three buses to get there. He missed his appointment and was sanctioned. Bringing everything together will make a difference for that youngster but also for lots of others. That is why the White Paper on opportunities for getting people back into work was so important, but the DWP and the department of health cannot do it on their own. You cannot even do it just from the Cabinet Office; it has to be across departments. I hope that the Government are really working to crack those issues, to give our young people real opportunities.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My noble friend makes a very powerful point. I followed on from her at the Cabinet Office, where we had the v programme in place. I was reminded of that only last week when I had an email from a young man who became a volunteer in my office and is now a mental health worker. He would never have taken that step had it not been for the opportunity to volunteer and the support to do so. She makes a powerful point around linking government together, and I was interested in her comment about mental health as well. Talking to a number of young people, it seems to me that one thing that has quite a significant impact on young people’s mental health is the insecurity of their housing. If we can address some of that to ensure good-quality, secure housing for young people—and that young people are part of the solution in building those homes as well—that goes a long way. The opportunities for young people and the expectations of young people about their future concern us enormously. She is right that the only way to tackle that is across government.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, the Government’s milestones are very much to be welcomed as steps towards progress in the broader strategy over the years ahead. It is somewhat depressing to find—maybe not surprisingly from the Conservatives but more so from the Liberal Democrats—the dismissive tone saying, “You’ll never achieve those aims. They are quite unrealistic”. Surely it is far better to be overambitious than underambitious. The previous Government set targets—I cannot remember what they were called—in a number of areas. They were going to be met anyway and were not stretching. These are stretching milestones and that is important, particularly in the housebuilding programme—albeit there is a need to change the planning system—and in getting three-quarters of five year-olds school-ready, which is not the case at the moment.

My final point is one I am less happy about. The 13,000 new police officers, special constables and PCSOs, with an emphasis on community policing, are very much to be welcomed, but does my noble friend agree that the comments immediately afterwards by the Metropolitan Police Commissioner that he was set to cut police jobs were at best unhelpful—perhaps they were a bargaining chip—and could undermine that process? Can she assure me that Home Office Ministers will meet the commissioner to make sure that this does not undermine the Government’s aims in this area?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My noble friend is right; I suspect the comments may have been perhaps to influence an upcoming spending review. We are absolutely committed to seeing more police officers. I remember when the last Labour Government introduced police and community support officers—named officers in communities—and going to a public meeting in my constituency where they were dismissed by so many as “plastic policemen”, which was quite an insult. One year later, the praise for those officers was off the scale, because they were known to the local communities and their presence was reassuring and had a real impact. We remain committed to that and will seek to deliver it.

My noble friend is right about being ambitious. One thing that worries me about the last Government—or Governments, in a sense, because we had several Prime Ministers—is that people became disillusioned with politics and are now very cynical about seeing politics and political decisions being a force for good. We will do everything we can to meet the ambitions that the country had for us and we have for the people of this country. We know that that these targets are ambitious; they are not targets that will be easy to meet—there would be no point in saying that—but we are determined to meet them, because it is what the country deserves.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, said that few would disagree with the target to grow the economy. However, as Greens we disagree, because we think that the economy should be there to serve people, to deliver a decent, secure life for everybody and care for our natural world, rather than have the Government directed towards the artificial figure of GDP, which is so unequally distributed. With regard to that unequal distribution, I ask the Minister about the first milestone:

“Raising living standards in every part of the United Kingdom, so working people have more money in their pocket”.


Why are the Government explicitly excluding children from having more money be spent on them? Why are the Government explicitly excluding pensioners, most of whom are not working, from this first milestone? Why are the Government excluding those with severe disabilities and illnesses, who may not be able to work? Why are they not included in this milestone?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

If that is the best that the noble Baroness can do, I think that the Green Party will be disappointed by her interventions. Those people are not being excluded, but people who get pay packets are working people, which is why the milestone references working people. If she looks at the other measures that we have about child poverty, the triple lock and support for pensioners, she will see that all those are people for whom we want economic growth. I really am amazed that the noble Baroness thinks that economic growth can come only at the expense of the environment. I do not know whether she was here earlier today when I was talking about how we can have better houses, more houses and homes for people, and a better environment. The two are not mutually exclusive. I am disappointed, because I have to disagree with her: we want economic growth for the benefit of the country and the environment.

[Lord Hendy (Lab)]

My Lords, my question also relates to the first of the six admirable milestones, on having higher

“living standards in every part of the United Kingdom”.

I looked at the document to see how that was to be achieved and saw three bullet points on page 22, the first of which is:

“Deliver growth by working in partnership with businesses”.


Of course, one understands that higher living standards cannot be achieved without working in partnership with businesses, but I was a little troubled by the fact that there was no reference to trade unions or the extension of collective bargaining. Does my noble friend agree that there is no possibility of improving the living standards of the 30 million employees and 4.25 million self-employed workers without the intervention of trade unions and the extension of collective bargaining?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

As a member of a trade union myself, obviously I welcome the role of trade unions in business and working in partnership with business, and the benefits that brings to both, but I do not think that is something missing out here. What is focused on here is working in partnership and making sure that

“every nation and region realises its full potential”,

as well as driving

“innovation, investment and the adoption of technology to seize the opportunities … from artificial intelligence to net zero”,

to help

“people get a job, stay in work and progress in their careers”.

The trade union movement would sign up to all those, I would expect, because it wants the best for its workers, as we do as well.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

From these Benches, I welcome the Government’s progress in making the UK a clean energy superpower. We really welcome the change of tone from the previous Government and the progress that has been made already on onshore solar and removing the de facto ban on onshore wind, as well as the work done on the Crown Estate and in the Great British Energy Bill. Obviously, renewable energy brings us energy security and will help to bring down bills. We welcome also the power to decarbonise power generation by 2030. NESO has clearly said that this is a challenging target, but it is one that we welcome.

I want to make three or four brief points. First, we are still concerned on these Benches about Labour having cut its own budget for environmental matters prior to the general election. A lot needs to be done with urgency and at scale, and I worry that the budget that Labour has available to do all these things is stretched too thinly.

My second point is that this Government need to work to improve their communications and take people with them on this journey, because it is so important. It goes beyond the Labour Party and this Government; our society depends on it. It needs to be communicated and we have to take society with us. That means doing things not just top down but bottom up. It means having citizens’ assemblies, talking to people and cutting our energy bills early on.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I thank the noble Earl for his welcome for this. He has an idea of the broad-brush overview of the policies. Yes, the Budget situation is very challenging; it is more challenging than we anticipated. My noble friend Lord Livermore is sitting next to me, and I am sure he will not mind my repeating that it was very difficult for us to have to address the £22 billion black hole in the current year’s spending. Even the OBR did not know about it. It is a challenging financial situation.

I concur with the noble Earl: improving communications and communicating policies are really important. As politicians we too often talk in numbers and matrices, and we sound very boring and disconnected. I have to say that I am quite emotional about a number of the issues in this document, because improving people’s lives and their environments, giving them opportunities and ensuring that healthcare is there when they need it and they feel safter in their streets are things that strike at the heart of what every citizen wants for themselves and their families. I entirely concur with the noble Earl’s point and thank him for his comments.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 11th December 2024 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

That the Bill be now read a second time.

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

My Lords, there are a number of noble Lords here today who sat in this House when my noble friend Lady Jay of Paddington stood at this same Dispatch Box on the afternoon of Monday 29 March 1999 to open the Second Reading debate for what became the House of Lords Act 1999. Following many long debates, that Act provided for the removal of the hereditary Peers from your Lordships’ House. However, in accepting the principle, an exception was made for 90 of the hereditary Peers, as well as those holding the offices of the Earl Marshal and the Lord Great Chamberlain, to remain.

Subsequently, under the Standing Orders of the House, any vacancy resulting from the death, and later the resignation, of one of the excepted 90 hereditary Peers was to be filled through a by-election. I do not think that at that time, anyone envisaged that the subsequent system of by-elections would still be running a quarter of a century later. Indeed, I think it was envisaged that by-elections would never happen in many cases. Twenty-five years on and those arrangements remain, although the by-elections have been paused for this Bill, and the change started in 1999 has still not been completed, despite opportunities to do so.

Numerous Private Members’ Bills introduced by my noble friend Lord Grocott sought to end the system of by-elections while allowing those hereditary Peers among us to remain for life. Noble Lords will recall that there was strong support for these measures across the House, including from many hereditary Peers. It was frustrating that, unfortunately, rafts of amendments and long debates ensured that those Bills never progressed to the other place, but I pay tribute to my noble friend for his persistent and valiant efforts.

Many of those here today will have heard me say numerous times that we offered our support to the then Government to get that Bill on to the statute book. It was a missed opportunity for your Lordships’ House. The time for more limited measures has passed. The reform in the Bill before us today is now long overdue. The Government are acting decisively to complete this phase of reform, as we clearly committed to do in our manifesto.

The legislation brought to this House in the other place has a clearly defined purpose, a clearly defined aim and a clearly defined objective: to finally remove the right of hereditary Peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords. In being clear about what the Bill does, I also want to be clear about what it does not do. This Bill is not about disrespecting any individual Peer, and it is not about eroding the scrutinising function at which this House excels. It is about completing the work of the 1999 Act, which defined the principle that seats should no longer be reserved purely because of the family a Peer was born into.

In November, the House debated the broader issues relating to Lords reform that go beyond the Bill before us today, and I am grateful for the thoughtful and many well-considered contributions in that debate. I repeat that I welcome that ongoing engagement on the wider issues, and I anticipate that the House will provide constructive scrutiny of this legislation as it progresses.

I am interested to hear the many contributions from those who have signed up to speak in today’s debate. I hope the House will permit me at this stage to single out two—my noble friend Baroness Quin, who is making her valedictory speech as she retires from the House, and the noble Lord, Lord Brady of Altrincham, who will be making his maiden speech. I look forward to hearing them both.

Through my ongoing engagement through questions, debates and meetings, I am able to address some of the issues that noble Lords have previously raised, which I hope will be helpful in the debate.

The Government set out commitments in our election manifesto that seek to return politics to public service and to put the interests of the country first. That includes constitutional reform, some of which relates to your Lordships’ House. These commitments apply across government and across Parliament, and some are already in place or are in play. It is for the Government to decide how best to implement our manifesto, and it is not usually expected that a department legislates for the entirety of its commitments in a single Bill in the first Session. Specifically on your Lordships’ House, the Government’s manifesto states:

“The next Labour government will therefore bring about an immediate modernisation, by introducing legislation to remove the right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords”.


Full stop.

Following that sentence, it continues on to the issues of retirement age, participation, appointments and standards, with a longer-term commitment to consult on proposals for an alternative second Chamber. The intention is crystal clear: to end the hereditary element of the second Chamber before embarking on further changes.

There are those who argue that no reform should take place until everything is agreed, but with no agreement on what everything should entail, nothing gets done. This has created a track record of stagnation and stalled attempts at reform. To continue to assert that wider reforms must be implemented alongside this Bill is a wilful misinterpretation of the manifesto. In this case, as with many other areas of policy, taking a staged approach represents the best and most practical way forward and is entirely in line with the manifesto commitments. It also provides for further discussion on how these wider forms can be implemented, building on the meetings I have had with various noble Lords and the debate we had last month. However, these are not the issues before us today.

It may also be helpful for me to address some of the other misconceptions and perhaps misunderstandings about the Bill. Since it was introduced, some noble Lords have asserted, both inside and outside this Chamber, that it is partisan and will erode the scrutiny functions of this House. I can reassure those with genuine concerns that that is not the intention of the Bill, nor its effect. Noble Lords will continue their constitutional duty to scrutinise and seek to revise. The legislation has no impact on the functions of your Lordships’ House. If the issue is one of concern regarding political balance, the facts deny the claim. Indeed, the removal of hereditary Peers barely shifts the dial on the political balance of your Lordships’ House. The effect of this change will be that the Conservative share of seats will decrease from about 34% to 32%; the Cross-Bench share will decrease from around 23% to 21%; the Liberal Democrats will increase from 9.5% to 10%; and Labour will increase from around 23% to 25%—still considerably lower than the party opposite. So, the bottom line is that the Conservative Party will remain the largest party in your Lordships’ House after the Bill has been implemented, and no party will have a majority.

It was also suggested that the Bill had somehow been “sprung” upon the House and that we are being rushed into a decision. Hardly. First, the principal of this policy was established in the 1999 Act, which removed all but the 92 hereditary Peers a quarter of a century ago. Secondly, the manifesto at the election pledged to remove the hereditary element of the House. Thirdly, the Bill was referenced in the King’s Speech and, noble Lords may recall, formed a significant part of the debate. The notion that the legislation has “snuck up” on this House is not a serious argument, and we should take into account the fact that it is the culmination of 25 years of discussion and debate.

There has also been some concern about how the Earl Marshal and the Lord Great Chamberlain will be able to fulfil their duties given that, as a result, both will cease to be Members of the House. I am pleased to confirm that the Bill will not affect the offices themselves or the ability to fulfil their important functions. As your Lordships may know, there is no legal or procedural requirement for either officeholder to be a Member of this House in order to be able to carry out their functions. However, it is of course right that the Earl Marshal and the Lord Great Chamberlain be able to continue to perform their constitutional roles. I have already raised this with the Lord Speaker to ensure that necessary arrangements can be made. I have also met both officeholders, and I will keep the House updated.

I now turn briefly to summarising the Bill clause by clause. Clause 1 removes the membership of the remaining hereditary Peers in the House of Lords and ends the right to participate and vote. Clause 2 removes the current role of the House of Lords in considering peerage claims, reflecting the removal of the link between the hereditary peerage and your Lordships’ House. Instead, the intention is that complex or disputed claims that would otherwise have been considered by the House of Lords will be referred to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council under Section 4 of the Judicial Committee Act 1833. Clause 3 makes consequential amendments. Clause 4 sets out the territorial extent of the Bill and when it will commence, which is at the end of the parliamentary Session in which it receives Royal Assent. Finally, Clause 5 establishes the Short Title of the Bill.

This Bill stands on its own terms. It delivers an election manifesto commitment and completes the work of the 1999 Act. We have been having this debate for more than a quarter of a century, and the time has come to pass this legislation and allow the House to move on.

From the debates, meetings and many discussions I have had, I understand that some noble Lords feel unable to support this Bill. But I want to be clear. I have outlined why this has been brought forward and addressed some of the arguments that have already been made against the proposals, but this is not a judgment on the work of those who remained after the 1999 Act or who have been elected in those unusual by-elections. The Government are clear, and I am clear, that this is not a slight in any way on the contributions made by hereditary Peers to the work of this House. I do understand the strength of feeling of some noble Lords at the thought of seeing colleagues depart. It is of course never easy, as we work closely with one another across the House. We build enduring friendships, and have respect and affection for many of our colleagues. Indeed, I also regard Peers across the House, including many hereditaries, as good friends. I also know from experience that many MPs in the other place feel exactly the same and also miss those who lose their seats. As I outlined previously, I think we need to consider how better to support all Members who leave and retire from Parliament, and I look forward to continuing constructive dialogue with noble Lords on how best to do that.

This is a reasonable and well-trailed piece of legislation. I believe it commands the support of not only this House but the public. I trust noble Lords will engage in the debate constructively and in good faith, in the interests of both this House and those we serve. I beg to move.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 11th December 2024 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, in closing this debate, I first pay tribute to my noble friend Lady Quin for her excellent valedictory speech. We are sorry to see her go, but we also admire her reasons for doing so. Some may know of her interest in Newcastle, which she spoke about, and the tours she does, which are strongly recommended, but Members may not be aware that she is also a local historian. Her two books about important and influential women in the north-east are not to be missed, and I thank her for the work that she has done on them.

The noble Lord, Lord Brady, has already proved that he will be a welcome addition to your Lordships’ House. In his past roles, he has not been unknown to some controversy, and I am sure he will navigate his way with his usual charm and diplomacy.

A range of views have been expressed today, and I am grateful to those who have engaged in what has been, in many cases, a very thoughtful and constructive manner. However, I have been somewhat surprised and disappointed at some of the language that we have heard in the Chamber today, and it is important that we bear in mind the need to approach our discussions in the tone that the public expect of us. Hearing references to guillotines, assassinations, executions, cleansing and rough passages does not reflect the House at its best.

The other place has sent us a Bill to scrutinise and review that completes the work of the 1999 Act. In the other place, amendments to the Bill were considered and voted on, but none was agreed.

I will concentrate briefly on how manifesto commitments are recognised by your Lordships’ House. I note the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord True, the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, to look again at the conventions of the House. I am happy to see that in a positive light, but the conventions of this House, particularly the Salisbury/Addison convention—I am grateful to the convenor, in particular, for the work he has done on them—are fundamental to our relationship with the other place as the primary and elected Chamber. The Bill alters neither that nor the primacy of the other place. Those conventions survived the 1999 Act and other legislation.

It was suggested by a couple of noble Lords that, somehow, the conventions do not apply because this is a constitutional issue. Yet that argument, rightly, was never advanced during the debate about leaving the European Union, which was also a constitutional issue. To assert that somehow this Bill has a special status that allows the House to ignore convention and embark on a different path is not one that has any credibility.

The Salisbury/Addison convention does not prevent the scrutiny of legislation. I turn to the points raised by the noble Lords, Lord Hamilton of Epsom and Lord Brady, and the noble Baroness, Lady Laing, about the possibility of the Bill negatively affecting the way the House can scrutinise legislation and hold the Government to account. I have already spoken about the balance of the House following the departure of the hereditary Peers and how this Bill does not really move the needle at all in terms of the representation of each party. But I have to say, without in any way denigrating the work of hereditary Peers, that the notion that life Peers are unable to hold the Government to account is just nonsense. Peers on this side of the House have been holding the Government to account for the last 14 years. I do not think that they have done a terribly bad job of it. The claim that hereditary Peers are more independent is probably news to those who have served on the Front Bench and as Ministers. As Chief Whip, my noble friend Lord Kennedy would be amazed at the idea that life Peers are not showing independence when it comes to following his instructions.

The noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, is back on the Front Bench; he was on the Back Benches earlier. He said he had seen the future in the form of the Football Governance Bill. He compared that Bill with previous Bills and quoted the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill and the Online Safety Bill. I have to say to him that both those Bills were considerably longer than the Football Governance Bill. The Football Governance Bill has about 100 clauses. There were 223 clauses in the levelling-up Bill and 262 clauses in the Online Safety Bill. I have no objection to proper scrutiny of legislation. However, I do not think it is always necessary to de-group quite as many amendments as has been done on that particular Bill. However, I repeat that I welcome constructive engagement across the whole legislative programme—a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe.

By-elections have been mentioned as well. These have not been ended. They have been paused during the passage of this Bill. If this Bill is not passed, we will return to the by-elections, because they are paused under the Standing Orders of the House. However, as I said in my opening remarks, this House has had numerous opportunities to end the practice of hereditary Peer by-elections. That would have allowed those remaining hereditary Peers to remain here for life, since without by-elections they would have been life Peers. My noble friend Lord Grocott introduced five Private Members’ Bills to do just that. Those Bills were repeatedly blocked and delayed by a small cohort of Conservative Peers. I said to the then Government, “We will help you to get this through, we will help you to get it on the statute book”. If that had happened on any of those occasions, I very much doubt we would be dealing with this Bill today. The opportunity was there and it was not taken.

Noble Lords opposite may groan, but the facts speak for themselves. That Bill was there and we could have helped to get it on to the statute book, but that was ignored by the then Government. I have to say that it is a little disingenuous to claim that the existence of by-elections means that hereditary Peers in the House today have a different status from their status before the 1999 Act or, as some have said, have a greater mandate than life Peers because they are elected. I have to say that the claim that this brings an element of democracy to your Lordships’ House is not one that withstands proper scrutiny. In the Labour case, for example, it is very easy, as happens on a number of occasions across the House, for there to be more candidates standing for election than people able to vote for them, given that only other Peers can vote.

The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, was amusing and very entertaining on his interest in punctuation in the Labour Party manifesto. I am not relying only on punctuation, but I did smile and laugh at his comments. Perhaps I can recommend to him a book that is on my bookshelves at home. If he does not have one, I will buy him a copy. It is called Eats, Shoots and Leaves. It makes the point that punctuation is quite important. However, I am not relying just on punctuation but the entirety of the manifesto commitment that was put forward by my party at the last election.

The manifesto committed to immediate reform by removing the right of hereditary Peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords. I have heard the suggestion that we should just stop, stay where we are now and just proceed with no further new Peers coming in. That happened with the Irish Peers. That legislation went through in 1922 and the last Irish Peer to leave the House was in 1961. If that approach were adopted today, as my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer identified, it would take some 47 years to complete the process.

In a spirit of co-operation, many noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, and the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, expressed a desire for the outgoing hereditary Peers to be treated with respect, and I wholeheartedly agree with that. Part of this will involve finding the appropriate arrangements for access rights for departing Members, and for support as they leave. I have already engaged with the Lord Speaker on that point. But that is an issue for anyone who retires from your Lordships’ House. I have spoken on this before and I look forward to having constructive dialogue about retirement from the House generally.

On the specific issue of access rights for the Earl Marshal and the Lord Great Chamberlain, I completely recognise that they need access. I have written to the commission to ask that they keep their access passes, and the usual channels have agreed that. I am grateful to them for their support on this matter. There is nothing that impedes the work they do or their roles in this House.

I turn to the comments that have been made on life peerages. I want to be absolutely clear: no one has been offered a life peerage in order to support the passage of the Bill. There have been no aside-comments or dodgy deals whatever. I have said, and continue to say, that it is possible for departing hereditary Peers to be nominated in future peerage lists. Political parties of course have the opportunity to do that. I am sure the noble Lord is talking to his party leader about that as well. I also recognise the importance of maintaining the special position of the Cross-Benchers.

Concerns were raised by some noble Lords—the noble Lords, Lord True, Lord Strathclyde, Lord Parkinson, Lord Howard of Rising and Lord Moylan, the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, and the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen—that the Government were embarking on a piecemeal approach without setting out in detail what the plans are for future reform. The manifesto—punctuation and all—should provide a sufficient guide to understand the direction of travel and how this will work out. The overall objective is to have a smaller Chamber and one that is more active. The point about participation has been made.

Some noble Lords have said they want an immediate timetable for these reforms, they want them in the Bill and it should happen now. Other noble Lords have been very clear in saying that they do not want that now and that they would rather proceed with discussion and debate before we bring forward legislation to try to find—the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Finn —some agreement across the House. I think that, on the balance of debate, Members do want further discussion. I cannot do both of those things at the same time.

On this issue, the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, asked “Why?” The principle has already been established about hereditary peerages but we have not had the debate on issues such as retirement and leave of absence. We have not had those debates and I think the House should have those debates first. If we can find consensus, I am happy to do so and will listen to the various suggestions on how we can implement the measures in our manifesto.

I hope I have a helpful response to the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, about moving forward by the end of this Parliament. I have already undertaken some 50 meetings with Members of your Lordships’ House to gauge the opinion and views on those issues.

The noble Lord, Lord Swire, made some interesting points in his speech that were not directly relevant to the Bill. I take those on board. I have to say that the manifesto is enough to be going on with, but the points he made should be addressed.

The noble Lords, Lord Newby, Lord Foulkes, Lord Parkinson, Lord Burns, Lord Beith, Lord Norton and Lord Lucas, the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, all suggested a greater role for the House of Lords Appointments Commission, and one of the issues raised was assessing the suitability of nominees to your Lordships’ House. We have talked a lot about prime ministerial patronage and it being for the Prime Minister to make recommendations to the sovereign. The Prime Minister does so on behalf of other political parties, of course. As noble Lords know, it is not the Prime Minister who puts forward all the names.

It is for party leaders to do more to consider who is best placed to represent their party and to take responsibility for those whom they nominate. HOLAC should have a role perhaps in seeking assurances from political parties specifically around—and I take this very seriously—issues of participation and suitability; it can check how and whether that is done. However, individuals should be appointed to your Lordships’ House on their own merits. We talk a lot about their experience and expertise, but it is also about their commitment to contributing to the future work of this House, which I think is essential.

Several noble Lords referred to the fact that we announced last week that, when people are nominated, there must be a citation that will be published on a nominee’s successful appointment so that the public can better understand why an individual has been nominated to the House. It is a fairly straightforward and simple change, but one that I think is important. It gives greater clarity to the public on why someone is nominated. I am sure we will return to this issue during the passage of the Bill.

A number of noble Lords noted the importance of ensuring that any reduction in the size of the House can be maintained. I said in the debate last month that there is little point in the House reducing its size by whatever means if that is not a sustainable position to hold—if there is almost an arms race in appointments. I cannot remember which noble Lord it was, but someone said that we are about to appoint 200 Labour Peers to try to seek an overall majority. I assure the House that that is absolutely not the case. I have said before, and I stand by this, that I think this House works best when there are roughly equal numbers in the government party and the main opposition party. It is a sadness to me that, under the last few Prime Ministers, we saw an explosion in what were then the government ranks to over 100 more than the Official Opposition. That does not allow the House to do its best work. It is not about winning votes—I think that is a secondary role in many ways—but about Members contributing in proper dialogue and engagement, which is what we do best.

I turn to what I call second-stage issues around participation, retirement et cetera. The noble Lord, Lord True—who is in a conversation at the moment—and others spoke in support of clarifying the expectation on Members to ensure active participation. I think that we all accept that this is a serious issue, and I hope that we can make progress on it. My sense is that we have all got a pretty instinctive understanding of what participation means, but that can reasonably change from one person to another. The current attendance rules require Peers, subject to exceptions, to attend the House just once per Session, otherwise a Peer ceases to be a Member of this House. Those rules have been in place since 2014 and just 16 members have been auto-retired. My sense is that we all feel that those arrangements are inadequate.

As part of this, I agree with those who said that we should consider our rules on leave of absence, in particular for those who repeatedly renew it. The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, raised this with me in the House earlier this week; I have previously raised this in the Procedure Committee—it did not find favour with his party at the time, but now I am Leader of the House, I am keen to pursue that matter. I recognise there are very good reasons why some Members take leave of absence, and I would not want to deny that, but repeated leave of absence when people do not intend to come back is an issue. I would like to make some progress on that and am in active discussions at present. I think we want a policy that is robust but also proportionate. There is also the matter, which I think he mentioned, of those who are unable to take up or play a full role in the House; I am conscious of that, and we will have further discussions on that as well.

The noble Baroness opposite rested her case for not supporting this Bill on the basis that, a quarter of a century ago, it was said that if the by-elections were in place, they should be in place until there was further reform. It was never expected, anticipated or thought that, 25 years later, no progress at all would have been made.

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

The noble Lords who are heckling should let me answer the question raised. I have to go back to this point: to those who say that they do not want piecemeal reform, if people only want this big bang kind of reform, the consequence is that people say, “We cannot do anything unless we do everything, but we do not know what everything is, so we are going to do nothing”. That is not a sustainable or acceptable position in this House. There is nothing in the Bill before us that means we cannot work as effectively as a scrutinising and revising Chamber in this legislature.

This Bill will deliver the first part of the manifesto commitment, which takes the hereditary element away from the second Chamber. It is long overdue. The point made by my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer was that, in the 21st century, to reserve 10% of places in the House of Lords, part of our Parliament, just for those who are members of 726 families is not a position that can continue. I recognise, however, that this will result in the removal of valued Members of this House. I understand the strength of feeling of noble Lords, who will be sad to see them go. That is not confined to those opposing the Bill: many of those supporting the Bill feel exactly the same on that. There will be time for further debate and scrutiny of the legislation, and rightly so, but, today, the message I take back from your Lordships’ House is that we must make progress on the Bill. It is a small reform, one that is necessary and was committed to. I look forward to the further debates and to scrutiny in a sensible and genuine way.

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

House of Lords: Numbers and Eligibility

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Monday 9th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Fowler]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to reduce the number of peers who are eligible to sit in the House of Lords.

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

My Lords, the scrutiny and challenge role of the House of Lords is important, but the House has grown in size as introductions have increased faster than departures. The Government’s manifesto outlines several measures that could have the effect of reducing the size of the House. The first is the removal of hereditary Peers; further measures include retirement age and participation requirements. I am grateful for the debate that we had last month and the engagement of colleagues from across the House on these issues. I am keen to continue this ongoing dialogue about how best to implement these commitments.

[Lord Fowler (CB)]

I thank the noble Baroness the Leader of the House. If the aim of the Government is to reduce the size of the House, is not the most important action they can take to make an immediate commitment to follow a policy of restraint in making new appointments?

I agree with what I hope was the noble Baroness’s view that hereditary Peers make a big contribution to the work of this House. Against that, there are some appointed Peers who over the years have made little or no contribution to the House. They may be better candidates for removal than the hereditary Peers.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

First, I pay tribute to the noble Lord, who has been passionate on this issue for the same reason most of us are—we want an effective House that does the job it is charged with. His point about new appointments might have been better addressed to the last Government—I know he tried—because when the Labour Government left office after 12 years, we had 24 more Peers than the Opposition, but when the Conservatives left office they had 100 more Peers than the Labour Party. That difference between Government and Opposition, regardless of the parties, is too great. I am on record as saying that the House works better when the main party of government and of opposition have roughly equal numbers.

The noble Lord is absolutely right about participation, and I have been grateful to noble Lords from across the House who have suggested ways forward that we might look at. We will continue that dialogue on how we can have the most effective House possible, to ensure that it does the job it is here to do.

[Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]]

Can Ministers consider the transition arrangements I have called for? They are: a core of 500 salaried voting Members; a further non-voting but otherwise participating group, declining in membership, who are allowance remunerated with some flexibility on age; and an additional, fully participating voting tier of 100, declining in numbers, available for ministerial appointment but free, on loss of office, to move to non-voting status. That transitional reform avoids much difficulty, protects much of today’s membership and potentially reduces costs and numbers, paving the way to a more comprehensive reform. Could it at least be considered?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

The noble Lord has clearly thought long and hard about this subject. I am not sure I followed entirely every proposal he made, but I am grateful to noble Lords who have come forward with suggestions. I think the House would like something straightforward. I must admit that I am not convinced we should have Members of the House with different status, if that is what he was suggesting. I would like to feel that all Members of the House were treated equally.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

My Lords, why is the Minister bringing forward legislation to remove some of the hardest-working Members of the House, when over the last three years 157 Members have turned up less than 20% of the time and there are 21 on leave of absence, some for more than three years? Surely it would be better to take out people who make no contribution than to pick on those hereditaries who make a substantial contribution to this House.

On any day, even in the most controversial of circumstances, on average about 450 Members turn up, out of some 800. Is not the attempt to take out the hereditaries just a piece of gerrymandering by the Labour Party, which, we are told, already has a list of 30 would-be Peers coming to this House?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

The noble Lord cannot resist it, can he? I do not think “taking people out” is quite the language we want to use in the House. As he knows, I have been trying to address across the House the point he makes on leave of absence. I previously proposed a limit on the number of leaves of absence a Member of this House can take without reference to the Sub-Committee on Leave of Absence. That did not find favour with the party opposite, but I still think it is a good thing to look at and I will take that away and look at leave absence.

This is not about doing anything to harm the Official Opposition. The noble Lord pulls a face at me, but if he is saying that his party cannot be an effective Opposition without hereditary Peers in the House, it says a lot about the rest of his Members. I do not agree with him; I think the party opposite is fully able to mount effective opposition. Even after the removal of all the hereditaries, his party will still be the largest party in this House.

[Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)]

The House of Lords badly needs radically updating if it is going to be a fit revising House for modern Britain. The Government seem to be starting with a piecemeal approach, so when the hereditaries are gone, would the next logical step not be to dispense with the Lords Spiritual, an equally anachronistic body who would otherwise stick out in this place like a sore thumb?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

This issue was raised in the House of Commons, and an amendment was tabled by a Conservative Member of Parliament to remove the Bishops. It got a very small vote in the Commons and was rejected; I have not detected an appetite for that in your Lordships’ House, either. On the noble Baroness’s more serious point about a piecemeal approach, we should have a proper discussion about moving forward. I am not one of those who wants a big bang reform—that is what led to inertia and no reform taking place. I think there is an appetite for gradual reform of this House.

[Lord Watts (Lab)]

My Lords, would it be a good idea to ask the Opposition—the Tory party—to reduce their numbers by 75% of those who have been jammed in over the past few years, to make it a bit more equal?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I am sure the party opposite has heard my noble friend’s comments. I think 75% might be a bit harsh.

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness rightly sets store by her party’s manifesto. The Labour manifesto pledged:

“At the end of the Parliament in which a member reaches 80 years of age, they will be required to retire from the House of Lords.”


Full stop, end of paragraph. Will the Government implement this very specific manifesto promise in this Parliament?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, how and when we implement our manifesto is, as it is for every single party, a matter for the Government. One of the things I committed to this House is having discussions on how we implement 80; I said that in the first Answer. There is also the issue of participation. I think the House will want to have a view on those things, and I am happy to accept representations on how they are implemented.

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

My Lords, may I suggest that in future, Peers are appointed for a limited period, say 10 or 15 years?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, that was not the commitment in the Labour Party manifesto, but it has been raised with me by several noble Lords. There are different views across the House on that. I think the Burns report recommended 15 years, and another suggestion was 20 years. There is a choice for the House to make. I have not detected overall support for that. Partly, it has come about because much younger Peers have been appointed, and an appointment for life means that they are here for a very long time. The contrary to that is that hopefully, they will build up great expertise during their time here.

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

My Lords, I am over here on the right wing, for reasons I shall not go into. It is astonishing to hear the Opposition spokesman calling for retirement at 80: that means a whole swathe of the people opposite, as well as on this side, will go. Further to the point raised by the noble Lords, Lord Fowler and Lord Forsyth, whom I agree with, when I raised the question of participation in the debate last time, I mentioned the noble Lord, Lord Botham, whom we never see. I was then immediately attacked in the press by his daughter, who said that it is difficult for him to come down from the north-east of England. Well, if it is difficult from the north-east of England, it is a lot more difficult from Scotland, I can tell you that. We have Members from Orkney, and that is even more difficult. Can the Minister confirm that once we get rid of the hereditaries—and that needs to be done quickly—she will convene all-party discussions to look at all these questions, including that of participation?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord, and I remain grateful to him. He talks about a retirement age of 80. He knows—he was one of the first to mention it—that it is not 80 but the end of the Parliament in which somebody turns 80. We have been having discussions around the House, and I am grateful to noble Lords who have given me suggestions already. I do not want to dwell on individual Peers’ attendance, but we all want every Member to play a full role and be committed to the work of your Lordships’ House.

Business of the House

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Monday 9th December 2024 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

That Standing Order 38(1) (Arrangement of the Order Paper) be dispensed with on Wednesday 11 December to enable the second reading of the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill to begin before oral questions.

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

My Lords, in moving this Motion, I thought it would be useful to set out for the House how proceedings on Wednesday will work. We will sit at 11 am to start the Second Reading of the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill. We will pause proceedings around 1 pm. The House will then sit at 3 pm for Oral Questions in the normal way. We will then resume the Second Reading of the Bill and complete it that day. Currently, we expect that the advisory speaking time for Back-Bench contributions to the Second Reading will be five minutes. We will advertise the final advisory time in the usual way when the list closes at 6 pm this evening. I beg to move.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

My Lords, does the Minister really think it appropriate that, for a major constitutional change of the kind that is proposed in the Bill, we should be limited to five minutes? Of course, Members of the House will realise that that is advisory, so we may be sitting very late indeed.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, the advisory time is based on the number of Members speaking. It is advisory out of courtesy to the whole House. Looking at other debates of a similar nature and time, I am confident that the House can make its views known in that time.

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

My Lords, following what my noble friend has just said, would it not have been better to have had a two-day debate? I declare an interest: alas, because of professional engagements, I cannot get here at 11 am, and I had hoped to participate in the Second Reading debate. A two-day debate would have been altogether preferable.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I am sorry about that; I would have welcomed the noble Viscount’s contribution. However, he will appreciate that two days are sometimes difficult for other colleagues. This was agreed, via the usual channels, with the Chief Whip’s Office.

Motion agreed.