Parliamentary Commercial Department
Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts(2 days, 19 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Basildon
That this House endorses the Report from the House of Lords Commission Establishing Parliament’s commercial function as a joint department of both Houses (2nd Report, HL Paper 124); and in consequence, approves the establishment of a joint department of the two Houses, under the terms of the Parliament (Joint Departments) Act 2007.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Smith of Basildon) (Lab)
My Lords, I am moving this Motion on behalf of the House of Lords Commission. We are asking the House to support and endorse the report published on 14 May establishing Parliament’s commercial function as a joint department of both Houses. I hope that noble Lords have read the report, which provides a clear explanation of and rationale for this decision. The Parliamentary Commercial Directorate is a shared service between both Houses, based in the House of Lords. It is responsible for all procurement and it sets and monitors standards for contract management across Parliament.
In 2022 the noble Lord, Lord Morse, undertook an independent review of financial management, which included looking in considerable detail at Parliament’s shared commercial service. The noble Lord found underperformance in all commercial areas compared with the rest of the public sector. Following publication of his report in November 2022, new leadership was brought in. The new commercial directors developed and delivered significant improvements, and by March 2025 these were rated as being good or better in all areas.
The commercial needs of Parliament are complex and challenging, and likely to become even more so in the future. It is essential that our commercial function continues to improve and has the confidence of both commissions. To achieve this, the next step is the establishment of the joint department. Before reaching this decision, we in the commission sought assurances about the arrangements to protect the joint interests of each House and to continue the improvements already under way. We have agreed a governance and performance framework so that the department will now be accountable to both Houses and will provide information about its priorities, service and performance. The current directorate staff—around 40 people—will be transferred to the new department and employed jointly by the Clerk of the Parliaments and the Clerk of the House of Commons as the corporate officers. The team will be led by a new chief commercial officer currently being recruited. We expect the transfer to take place on 1 October.
In conclusion, I acknowledge and recognise the significant improvements that have been made in the last couple of years following the excellent and very helpful report and review of the noble Lord, Lord Morse. I put on record our thanks for the commitment and professionalism shown by the commercial directors and their team in achieving this. I look forward to working with them to achieve further progress. I beg to move.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
I welcome the decision to make some changes here, but can the noble Baroness tell the House what the cost of the new front door at the Peers’ Entrance has been? Very senior Members of this House and members of the commission have been told repeatedly that they cannot know the cost of the front door, because if they knew the cost of the front door that would enable terrorists to work out what the security is surrounding it. I suspect that the costs of the front door make it one of the most expensive front doors in the world, and it is a front door that does not work. Various Members from all sides of the House protested right at the beginning that this design would not work as it would result in people having to queue outside to get in and they would therefore be more vulnerable. We were told that no, it had been carefully designed and the system had been looked at, but we now discover that we need somebody permanently there to press the button to open the door. The other evening someone in a wheelchair was unable to access the House. It is a complete white elephant and a disaster.
I do not wish to be unkind to any of the staff who serve this House or to underestimate the difficulties of dealing with a historic building of this kind, but it is simply not acceptable that public money should be spent in this way with such disastrous consequences, with no one being held to account and no knowledge of the associated costs. If we are going to have a joint department—and I welcome the appointment of some new leadership in this area—how can we be assured that the necessary commercial competencies will be there, as well as the ability to understand the importance of listening to what this House has to say and taking account of it in making these decisions?
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
Can I ask the Leader of the House to investigate the position of access to the Terrace? One of the greatest privileges of the House, apart from the Chamber and Library, is access to the Terrace. Our Terrace is infinitely smaller than the Terrace next door, which I enjoyed as a Member of the other place. It strikes me that many of the places are taken on the Terrace by Members of the other place and their guests, leaving not enough places for Members of this House. I think it should be reciprocal. I am quite happy to allow Members of the other place to use our Terrace on the basis that we are able to use theirs.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, mentioned my diplomatic skills. I now start my audition for a role at the UN.
I will challenge one thing the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, said, which I strongly reject: that we are a part-time House. Those of us who were here at 1.30 am would not think that. We are a full-time House. We do not expect every Member the of House to be full-time, but the work of the House is a full-time responsibility.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
I stand corrected. Perhaps I should have said that, unlike the other place, we are unpaid.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
Round one on my diplomatic interview. A number of points have been raised and I want to try to address them. This has gone wider than the question.
On the door itself, there are two issues: cost and operability. It is completely unacceptable that we have a door that does not operate as it should. I can answer some of the questions. I will deal with the cost first, because there is wildly exaggerated and incorrect information. When you do not give information that is correct, incorrect information gets into the realm, which is unhelpful.
There is normally a rule that information regarding security costs is not provided. I think that does not help in this case at all. In terms of how it came about in the first place, noble Lords will remember—the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, may remember this—the Murphy review. After the death of a police officer at the other end of the building, it was important we considered the safety of those who work on the estate—not just Peers and MPs but all those who work on the estate. Their safety and security are of the utmost importance. We have had incidents that show that is important. The fence was part of the review. Noble Lords have been consulted and advised on that on many occasions. It is about security.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I will give way shortly, but I have a lot of questions to answer.
So, it is unacceptable, but the reassurance I can give is that the directorate is changing. I think that joint working, with a Parliament-wide department to deal with these issues, seems a no-brainer. Why have we not done it before? So many of the services we have are joint. The noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, mentioned catering. To have these individually in different Houses does not seem to be the most cost-effective way of doing things. It is taxpayers’ money we are talking about, but we also need to provide a good service for all of those working on the estate, including Peers and MPs.
On the point about the joint access, I share noble Lords’ frustrations. It does seem to me that it goes in one direction, because even those of us who are former MPs are not now able to access the House of Commons Terrace, or, for those who might like a pint in the evening, the Strangers Bar or other facilities. Yet I find that the River Restaurant at the Lords end of the building is often full of Members of the House of Commons and staff from the House of Commons. We welcome them; it proves we have better food at this end of the building. There is no calorie content on Lords menus, whereas there is on Commons menus, so that might be part of the attraction. But it does seem that we should look at a whole-House approach to these things and treat all Members of both Houses with equal respect.
The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, asked about the door and whether this was the first time for the design. My understanding is that it is not the first time for the design of the pod, but it is the first time—if I am not correct, I will write to him—in terms of having it in a heritage setting with the additional security measures required. I take on board the point he made on that.
On the issue of signing contracts, I will double-check on this. My understanding is that, with most government departments and local authorities, these things tend to be self-funded. I will double-check and come back to the noble Baroness, but that is what normally happens with large organisations. I have a Treasury Minister behind me who will tell me afterwards whether I have got this wrong.
The issue around how, when you have a joint department, you ensure the needs and views of this House are taken into account is absolutely well made. The noble Lord, Lord McLoughlin, raised this issue as well. Where we are getting to on this one is having an oversight body. We have looked at various ways of doing this. I think the noble Lord is absolutely right; the commission is not the best way of doing this. There is too much on the agenda. I think it has to be much more focused. That was the discussion at the commission this week. It will be a separate, bespoke body with expertise from both Houses that will ensure it runs properly and will work with the team to ensure we continue improvements.
I did not quite understand the point the noble Lord, Lord Winston, made about defibrillators. If anybody on the estate is taken ill, whether they be a visitor, a staff member, a Peer or an MP, we would want on any occasion to provide the support they need. We do have defibrillators in the Palace of Westminster; at this end of the building, we have one in Peers’ Lobby, one in the Prince’s Chamber, one in the Public Gallery and one at Peers’ Entrance. Whatever the problem was, it seems to have been resolved. It is not for the House of Commons to tell the Lords where defibs should be in this building—and I am sure the House of Commons would not want to.
Lord Winston (Lab)
This was before we had any defibrillators. We were a long time trying to persuade Black Rod at that time to ensure that we did have this sort of support. Eventually, he called in the Serjeant at Arms and other Members of the House of Commons, who told me very firmly that this was not going to be possible. It was only subsequently that we then got defibrillators everywhere. Now, of course, we are well protected, but, in the space of that time, at least two or three Members collapsed, and we did not have defibrillators. I was called to do the medical resuscitation, so I remember this very clearly. It was quite a searing moment.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
Clearly, we have moved on and are in a much better position now.
Baroness Browning (Con)
When I was talking about professional indemnity, I had particularly in mind the fact that, apart from the operation of the door, which has been discussed, I have lost count of how many times the specially made glass panel has been replaced—I cannot remember whether it is three or four. Surely whoever signed the contract for that must be in a strong position to make sure that we pay for only one.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
Absolutely; that would be part of what you would normally do if it was a new house—the snagging. Anything that is down to a manufacturer’s fault, such as operability, is down to those who installed the door. We are not at all responsible for any of those extra costs.
Lord Hayward (Con)
I welcome what the Leader of the House has said. Given what the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, has been told persistently in relation to the door—and there are other examples as well—I am very interested that the figure was not available because of security matters, and yet the Leader of the House has just provided what are staggering figures, many moons after we were told, over and again, that we are dealing with a security matter. I welcome the joint operation that is being discussed, but this suggests to me an unwillingness of members of management in this building to disclose information to Members of this House and the other House, because it is presumed that Members of both Houses do not need these figures or information. As a number of noble Lords will expect, I will give an example: I have faced exactly the same problem when I have asked questions in relation to the cost of traffic marshals. There seems to be a level of resentment towards the idea that Members should have the right to ask these questions and expect an answer.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, it is an accepted tradition that we do not disclose security information and the costs. Costs on this have been available to Members on the relevant committees, so they were available—and I will probably be sacked later for giving the costs anyway. Given that there was this degree of suspicion about the costs—some of the figures were inflated—and because the door has not been working, it was the view of the commission yesterday that it was important that the costs were made available to Members, so that they have accurate information. When we spend that much money on something that does not work, the key thing is that it is resolved, and that is what I am focused on.
On the new joint department, it is really important going forward that we have the right expertise and the right knowledge. There are things that went wrong here that should be used to inform further decisions, and engaging Members on all these decisions is really important. However, when we engage Members, there are, dare I say it, two Members and three opinions, and a wide spread of views around the House, and sometimes we have to say no to Members because we cannot say yes to everybody. There is a danger that we try to please everybody and end up pleasing nobody.
The words “lessons learned” are currently banned from my office, but there are some points here that we can take away and use to resolve these issues, so that we do not have the same problems in the future. The important thing is to get this joint department up and running, with the proper oversight, and to ensure we have proper and workable security arrangements that protect all of those who work in the Palace and that do the job they are supposed to do.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
I do not want to detain the House, but I am worried about the point from the noble Lord, Lord Hayward. I understand the point about maintaining security, but it is awfully convenient to be able to say that we cannot be told the cost. What is the cost, for example, of the new fence that has been put up, which is hideous? We are being told that we cannot know that because of security, but each and every one of us goes back to where we live—I was going to say to our constituencies—and get mocked about the cost. We are held accountable, and we are meant to be accountable. My worry about this “tradition” is that it means that there is no accountability. When you do not have accountability for expenditure, you get excessive expenditure—and my goodness me, that front door is an example.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
The noble Lord made a number of points. There are always increased costs because of the heritage nature of the building. I do not think any of us is entirely comfortable with having a fence. In the days when I was first a Member of Parliament in the other place, you could walk in without even needing a pass. Times have changed, and that is the reason we have this fence. These things are not unreasonable if there is genuinely a security issue, and I would defend that, but perhaps we sometimes need to stress-test these things a little more, and perhaps that is a role for the commission to undertake.
Sometimes costs seem alarming. Those of us who used to be in local government or who were Ministers will know that, when you account for things and look at the cost, it always seems far more than if you were doing it in your own back garden. This is not just a front door; it is something much more serious than that, and we have to get it up and running. All of us on the commission—a number of us are here in the Chamber today—will take this away, and I know that the Lord Speaker feels the same. We will stress-test those issues. Where information can be made available to Members, it should be, but where it cannot, noble Lords can trust the commission to look at these issues and make decisions with the security people.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, I shall be very brief. It seems that there is an underlying malaise here. The majority of Members of this House, in which I include myself, have very little idea of what the commission does. What communication structures does the commission have in place to ensure that, within the limitations of confidentiality, Members have some idea of what it is doing and what decisions it is making? I think the majority of this House is unclear about all of that.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I am often surprised by this. Within our party groups, we usually get reports of significant decisions made by the commission. The minutes are published, with redacted items, on the internal website, so that information is available. I do not know if the noble Baroness is asking for more information to be made available beyond the minutes and the reports made to her party group.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
Would Members not benefit from a quarterly or bi-monthly publication by the commission of what it has been doing? In the digital age, it could be transmitted to every Member—
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I am sorry to interrupt, but I will try to press forward on that point. The Lord Speaker’s newsletter publishes some of the information. If the noble Baroness wants a quarterly report, rather than the minutes published after the meeting, that can be done, but it will be published in the same way as the minutes of the meeting are published. We will look into that, if that helps her.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
I hope the Leader of the House has not overlooked that every moment the unworking door remains unworking, we are haemorrhaging money. There will have to be permanent staff there to press the button, which will presumably require a team of three or four who will have to be salaried. In any normal arrangement, it should be mended tomorrow morning. Can we afford to leave it as it is?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
It is quite difficult to answer that one. Yes, repairs are undertaken from time to time, but there has to be a systematic look at how the door can be made operable ongoing, without repairs being needed. If that cannot be done, alternative arrangements have to be made. That is the very issue I have been speaking about, and which we are looking at. It is a matter of urgency, and I hope that I have conveyed to the House that frustration is felt across the House and is understood.
Lord Robathan (Con)
The Leader has done extremely well, if might say so, because she is not responsible for this; she is not to blame. Once upon a time I used to deal in assaulting buildings, and let me tell you that you would not assault a door where two police officers with submachine guns were standing. Now you can assault that door, because there are no policemen with machine guns—you would go round the back, if you wanted to assault it. I am afraid that the advice she was given on security is, frankly, nonsense.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I have to say to the noble Lord that it is not nonsense. There have been officers with machine guns on the door, but that does not take away the need to have a proper door that is secure for the House. I do not know whether the noble Lord has ever read the Murphy review, which covered both Houses—it may have been published when he was in the other place; I am not sure whether he was in this House then. We need to take these things seriously. All of us will have solutions and simple answers and will say, “If you do this, it will be fine”. But let us just look at getting the door up and running. The purpose today is to look to the future, and the issue before us is the joint department. I am grateful for the noble Lord’s comments; I hope that my next job will be at the UN.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach (Con)
The noble Baroness was talking about the minutes. I have asked the Printed Paper Office if it has copies of the minutes of the commission’s meetings. In fact, I have asked several times. There are some copies, but they date from February; they are on the table where we collect our papers in the morning. It may be that they are available online, but when I have asked the people in the Printed Paper Office, they have said, “Well, they’ll send them to us when they’ve got them to give us”.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
Well, I am not quite sure why there is such a delay. The minutes of the meeting that took place this week were approved yesterday, and they will be available this week. I think the noble Lord may have been misinformed, but they are available as they have been approved. We have changed the process because they used not to appear until the next meeting, which is unacceptable, so in recent times they have been made available online ASAP. I shall check, but the noble Lord can find them on his computer, on the intranet. The minutes will appear later on, but the decisions are available as a matter of course and, if he does not get them, he should come and tell me and I shall make sure that he does.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, may I raise one issue that is not about the door? In the joint workings that my noble friend will be taking part in, will she try to develop what I might call the spirit of comity before the two Houses? The nature, membership and workload of both Houses is different; nevertheless, we represent Parliament as a whole. Some of the other issues raised in these exchanges show that we need a better working relationship with each other. I hope, as I said, that in the spirit of comity my noble friend will be able to achieve that.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I do not think that this is just down to me. The point has been made about having the joint department here, and other noble Lords have said how joint departments are, in many ways, a way forward. We have to ensure that we are a working Parliament, from one end of the building to the other, and the support that is available to ensure that we do our jobs properly should be commensurate with the work we do. We have the measures in place to ensure that our interests are properly represented and there is proper oversight from both Houses, and I hope that noble Lords will accept the report.
Supplementary Daily Allowance
Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts(1 week, 5 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Basildon
That:
(1) Members of this House, except any Member who receives a salary under the Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975 and the Chairman and Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees, may be entitled to a supplementary daily allowance after 1 April 2025 as the chair of a domestic committee of the House, or such other body, as may be determined from time to time by the House of Lords Commission.
(2) The amount of the allowance payable shall be the applicable rate of the daily allowance or the reduced daily allowance at the time.
(3) The maximum entitlement applicable for the supplementary daily allowance is 3 additional days per month provided that for any month the total number of days claimed for does not exceed the total number of sitting days of the House in that month.
(4) The provisions of this Resolution shall be applied in accordance with guidance issued under the authority of the House of Lords Commission.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Smith of Basildon) (Lab)
My Lords, I beg to move the third Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. This enables a supplementary daily allowance to be claimed by the non-salaried domestic committee chairs of the Conduct Committee, the Finance Committee and the Services Committee. This was agreed by the House of Lords Commission and the usual channels, as set out in the commission report of 29 April this year. It is intended to recognise the significant additional work required of those chairs outside formal meetings, and it works by enabling them to claim a maximum of three extra days a month on top of those they can claim through attending the House or a committee meeting. However, it will ensure that for any month, the total number of days claimed for cannot exceed the total number of sitting days of the House. I beg to move.
London Accommodation Costs Allowance
Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts(1 week, 5 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Basildon
That:
(1) Members of this House, except any Member who receives a salary under the Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975 and the Chairman and Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees, should be entitled to an accommodation costs allowance in respect of each day of attendance on or after 1 June 2025 as provided for below.
(2) Members are eligible to claim the London accommodation costs allowance—
(a) if the Member’s registered residential address is outside Greater London,
(b) the Member has a recorded attendance,
(c) as a contribution towards the costs of accommodation in Greater London incurred in staying overnight away from their registered residential address where it is necessary to do so for the purpose of attendance.
(3) “Attendance” means attendance—
(a) at a sitting of this House,
(b) at a meeting of a Committee of this House, or
(c) on such other Parliamentary business as may be determined by the House of Lords Commission.
(4) The daily amount payable to a Member should be £63.
(5) The daily amount can be claimed for each day of recorded attendance or each night which falls immediately before a day of recorded attendance.
(6) The provisions of this Resolution apply in accordance with guidance issued under the authority of the House of Lords Commission.
(7) In relation to the year beginning with 1 April 2026, and each subsequent year beginning with 1 April—
(a) any formula or mechanism included in the IPSA determination for the year as a result of section 4A(4) of the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009 (adjustment of MPs’ salaries) should be treated as applying for the purposes of adjusting for that year the amount of the allowance payable to a Member of this House, and
(b) accordingly, the amount of the allowance payable to a Member in respect of a day of attendance in that year should be—
(i) the amount obtained by applying the formula or mechanism to the amount payable by way of allowance (under paragraph 4 or this paragraph) in the previous year, or
(ii) where no formula or mechanism is included in the determination, the same amount payable by way of allowance (under paragraph 4 or this paragraph) in the previous year.
(8) In paragraph 7(a) “IPSA determination” means a determination under section 4(4) of the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009.
(9) Any fraction of a pound in an amount obtained under paragraph 7(b)(i) should be rounded up to the nearest pound if the fraction is 50p or more, but otherwise should be disregarded.
Allowances
Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts(1 week, 5 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Basildon
That:
(1) The Resolution of 27 March 2024 relating to the House of Lords allowance is amended as follows with effect from 1 June 2025.
(2) For paragraph 4 substitute—“(4) The maximum daily amount payable to a Member should be £125.”
(3) For paragraph (7) substitute—“(7) In relation to the year beginning with 1 April 2026, and each subsequent year beginning with 1 April—
(a) any formula or mechanism included in the IPSA determination for the year as a result of section 4A(4) of the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009 (adjustment of MPs’ salaries) should be treated as applying for the purposes of adjusting for that year the amount of the allowance payable to a Member of this House, and
(b) accordingly, the amount of the allowance payable to a Member in respect of a day of attendance in that year should be—
(i) the amount obtained by applying the formula or mechanism to the amount payable by way of allowance (under paragraph 4 or this paragraph) in the previous year, or
(ii) where no formula or mechanism is included in the determination, the same amount payable by way of allowance (under paragraph 4 or this paragraph) in the previous year.”
(4) In respect of a day of attendance before 1 June 2025, the Resolution of 27 March 2024 relating to the House of Lords allowance continues to have effect without the amendments made by this Resolution.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Smith of Basildon) (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak to the second Motion at the same time, but I will move and speak to the third Motion separately.
In April 2024, the noble Lord, Lord True, as Leader of the House, moved a Motion to establish an overnight allowance to recognise the increased cost of staying in London, away from Peers’ main homes. That scheme set a rate of £100, which noble Lords based outside London could claim as a contribution towards the cost of a hotel. The scheme was welcomed across the House and followed representations from, and discussions with, those who chaired the main party groups and the convenor. It was agreed that it should be reviewed after about a year of operation, and these changes proposed result from that review.
The first change relates to the amount that can be claimed. The scheme was automatically uprated in line with inflation, so it is now £103 a night. It is hard to pick an exact amount, but this figure is not a realistic reflection of the cost of hotels across the capital. The commission therefore recommends an increase to £125 a night. This will continue to be uprated in line with inflation. As previously, claims are linked to attending the House on a sitting day, and receipts must be provided.
The existing scheme covers only hotel-type accommodation. Other noble Lords make other arrangements in London to enable their attendance in the House. The commission and the usual channels have considered this very carefully. We concluded that a new flat-rate allowance of 50% of the hotel allowance was the best way forward. This will again be tied to attendance in the House, with a robust system of verification. For noble Lords whose main address is outside London, they would be able to claim £63 per night to spend at a designated property in Greater London where they stay and are responsible for the costs. To claim, noble Lords must have stayed in the property the day before or the day after attending the House, and the finance team will require documentation to support the claim.
These changes were agreed in the commission and discussed in the usual channels. They are to ensure the original purpose: to assist Members from outside London to be able to attend your Lordships’ House. I beg to move.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness the Lord Privy Seal for making this statement, which I think will be very welcome to the House. She referred to the discussions we had last year when I took the decision to put to the House the reintroduction of the overnight allowance. I was very grateful for her support on that, and I am very happy to reciprocate the full support from this side following the very careful consideration we have had of these issues in the usual channels and elsewhere, under the guidance of the noble Baroness.
It is always difficult to strike a balance, and I think that the commission, in its decision on the proposals put forward by the noble Baroness, has struck a reasonable balance which will support people who come to this House from all over the country, who wish to work hard on behalf of the House and on behalf of the country. Talking of hard work, I may say that my noble friend Lord Howe, who is next to me, last week completed 34 years on the Front Bench in your Lordships’ House. If that is not a definition of hard work, I do not know what is.
There is a lot of loose talk outside this House about people in this House being lazy and lining their pockets. You do not become rich by becoming a Member of the House of Lords; many people here make great sacrifices. We should not claim that we are poor or that we are underprivileged, but it is right that the House makes provision to enable those of us who come here to do a hard day’s work to enable us to do so in the most reasonable fashion. Obviously, there is a duty on us to behave with honesty and clarity, as we all do and will all do, I have no doubt, under these new proposals. I support them.
Rather than wearying the House, I say in advance that I strongly support the noble Baroness’s further Motion, because that also relates to hard-working and valued Members of the House. So again I thank the noble Baroness and commend these proposals unreservedly to your Lordships.
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, I support this Motion. I have a very simple question for the Leader. Bearing in mind what happened during the period up to 2009, have the usual channels thought carefully about what the phrase
“where it is necessary to do so”
means? Will there be some sort of check, for instance, or will it be a pure self-declaration as it used to be before—which led us into a bit of trouble?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I am grateful to both noble Lords for supporting the Motion before the House. The noble Lord quotes “where it is necessary to do so”, but I am not quite sure where he is referring to in my comments or in the report. However, I think his point is about the verification, and I will address that first. He is right to address that because it must be a very robust process of verification. They will require a copy of the council tax statement, and for those many of those who have a second place in London where they stay, it will say “Second Home” on it; it specifies that it is not their main home. In addition to the council tax statement, there will of course be a record of people’s travel patterns back and forward to the House. So it is quite clear that if someone is travelling from another part of the country to stay in London for a few days to ensure they can carry out their duties in this House, that would be another point of verification. The noble Lord is right to raise the point, but this is why the commission took a long time to look at this, to give consideration to ensure that we were confident on that point.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord True. Indeed, I supported him when he first raised this issue last time last year. There is a balance of responsibilities both to the taxpayer and to Members of this House, but we would be the poorer if the only people who could attend your Lordships’ House to undertake their responsibilities were those who either lived in London or had private finance to enable them to stay in London.
This is less than is received in other places in overnight allowance; it is a contribution towards it, and Members will use their daily allowance to pay the rest of it. I appreciate the support from both noble Lords, and I hope that Members will agree that this is a way forward if we are to represent not only those who can afford to live in London.
Lord Geddes (Con)
I wonder whether the noble Baroness can give me clarification. I use as an illustration my own situation, which I know is far from unique. I rent the use of a room in an apartment in London on an annual basis, but, as I read the Motion and the details in the financial support document, I will not be able to claim any reimbursement for the rent I pay for the use of that room. Is that so?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
Depending on the circumstances, that may be the case. It is where somebody is responsible for paying more than just the rent for a single room. I do not know if the noble Lord is on the council tax bill or what other costs he incurs, but it is not for those who stay in rooms of family and friends. It is for hotel bills and for those whose name is on the council tax form to show that they are staying there. The noble Lord will have to discuss that with the finance team, but he may not be covered renting a room in a friend’s house.
UK-EU Summit
Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts(3 weeks, 3 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Smith of Basildon) (Lab)
My Lords, I will repeat a Statement made by the Prime Minister yesterday. The Statement is as follows:
“I will update the House on the three recent trade deals that we have struck in the national interest.
First, however, I would like to say something about the horrific situation in Gaza, where the level of suffering, with innocent children being bombed again, is utterly intolerable. Over the weekend we co-ordinated a response with our allies, as set out in my statement with President Macron and Prime Minister Carney last night. I want to put on record today that we are horrified by the escalation from Israel. We repeat our demand for a ceasefire, as the only way to free the hostages; we repeat our opposition to settlements in the West Bank; and we repeat our demand to massively scale up humanitarian assistance to Gaza. The recent announcement that Israel will allow a ‘basic quantity of food’ into Gaza is totally and utterly inadequate, so we must co-ordinate our response, because this war has gone on for far too long. We cannot allow the people of Gaza to starve, and the Foreign Secretary will come to the House shortly to set out our response in detail.
Let me turn now to the three deals that this Government have struck. The principles we took into the negotiations are clear and simple. Does it drive down bills? Does it drive up jobs? Does it strengthen our borders? In each case, the answer is a resounding yes. These deals release us from the tired arguments of the past and, as an independent sovereign nation, allow us to seize the opportunities of the future—a clear message, sent across the globe, that Britain is back on the world stage.
We have a trade deal with the world’s fastest-growing economy, India, cutting tariffs for British industries, which is a huge boost for our whisky and gin distilleries—their only concern now is whether they can produce enough to sell—and for our car manufacturers, with tariffs slashed from over 100% to just 10%, and no concessions on visas. We have a trade deal with the world’s richest economy, the United States, slashing tariffs, saving thousands upon thousands of jobs in car manufacturing in places such as Jaguar Land Rover, protecting our steel and aluminium exports, and safeguarding the interests of our hugely important pharmaceutical sector.
But I can already see that, when it comes to this hat trick of deals, it is our new partnership with the EU that the Opposition most want to talk about—and given their abject failure to strike a deal with India or the US, I cannot say I blame them—so let me spell out the benefits of this deal, which gives our country an unprecedented level of access to the EU market: the best access of any nation outside the EU or European Free Trade Association.
I will start with our security. When Russian tanks rolled into Ukraine over three years ago, a gauntlet was thrown down, and it is our responsibility to step up. That is what this world demands, and it is what this partnership delivers, strengthening our national security through a new security and defence partnership that paves the way for British defence firms to access the EU’s €150 billion defence fund. That will support British jobs, British wages and British livelihoods.
The partnership also increases co-operation on emissions trading, saving UK businesses from having to pay up to £800 million in EU carbon taxes—once again, backing British businesses. The deal will drive down bills with increased co-operation on energy, because the agreement negotiated by the Conservative Party left us with a more expensive way of working with our neighbours—a needless rupture, despite our grids being connected by undersea cables. This partnership brings those systems together again, benefiting British bill payers and boosting clean British power in the North Sea.
This partnership also strengthens our borders, because, again, the previous deal left a huge gap and weakened our ability to work together to tackle illegal migration—the ultimate cross-border challenge. It closes that gap, including joint work on returns, preventing channel crossings, and working upstream in key source and transit countries, co-operating along the whole migration route to strengthen our hand in the fight against the vile smuggling gangs. It boosts our co-operation on law enforcement, combating terrorism and serious organised crime with closer operational work with agencies such as Europol and better sharing of intelligence and data, including, for the first time, facial imaging.
This partnership helps British holidaymakers, who will be able to use eGates when they travel to Europe, ending those huge queues at passport control. It delivers for our young people, because we are now on a path towards a controlled youth experience scheme, with firm caps on numbers and visa controls—a relationship we have with so many countries around the world, some of which were even set up by the party opposite. We should be proud to give our young people that opportunity. And, not for the first time, this Government have delivered for Britain’s steel industry, protecting our steel exports from new EU tariffs and backing our steel sector to the hilt.
Last but certainly not least, we have a new sanitary and phytosanitary deal, as promised in our manifesto, which will cut the price of a weekly shop, meaning that there will be more money in the pockets of working people, less red tape for our exporters, no more lorry drivers sitting for 16 hours at the border with rotting food in the back, and no more needless checks—the inevitable consequence of the Conservatives’ policies, which made it so much harder to trade even within our own market, between Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
The deal means that British goods that have long been off the menu in Europe can regain their true place, including shellfish, which are hugely important for Cornwall, Devon and Scotland. Not only does our deal on fish provide stability, with no increase in the amount that EU vessels can catch in British waters, but the new SPS agreement slashes costs and red tape for our exports to the European market. We sell 70% of our seafood to that market, so there is a huge opportunity that Britain’s fisheries, in which we have made a £360 million investment, will now look to exploit.
The reaction to this deal from business has been absolutely clear. I do not have time to run through the list of supportive quotes from businesses, but the new partnership has been backed by the Federation of Small Businesses, the CBI, the British Retail Consortium, Asda, Morrisons, Salmon Scotland, the Food and Drink Federation, the British Chambers of Commerce, Ryanair, Vodafone, and producers of meat, milk and poultry—the list goes on and on.
I wonder whether that long list of businesses coming out in support of the deal will temper the reaction of the leader of the Opposition. For weeks now, she has been dismissive of the benefits of any trade deal, in defiance of her party’s history. It is not just the Conservatives that I am talking about here; the honourable Member for Clacton, who is not here, and the right honourable Member for Kingston and Surbiton have both shown, in their own way, that their parties do not get it. If your whole approach to our allies is about striking a pose, you do not get to strike a deal. What that means in a world like ours, where deals are ever more the currency of security and justice, is that you do not get to make a difference, and you do not get to deliver for Britain. That is what this partnership means.
For years, we were told that this could not be done. What the Conservatives meant was that they could not do it. We were told that a deal with the US or India was impossible; what they meant was that it was impossible for them. We were told that a choice must be made between the US and EU; what they meant was that they could not do a deal with both. This Government can and will, because we stay in the room, we fight for the national interest, and we put the British people first. These deals represent a signal that we are back on the world stage—a global champion of free trade, playing our historic role on European security—but above all, they are deals that put money in the pockets of working people, because that is what independent, sovereign nations do. I commend this Statement to the House”.
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for repeating yesterday’s Statement. I begin by associating these Benches with the sentiments expressed in the Statement on Gaza. Recent Israeli action is indeed horrific and requires a response. Yesterday’s actions by the Foreign Secretary are welcome, but the most obvious way in which we can demonstrate our further support for the Palestinian people is to support their demand for statehood. Can the noble Baroness confirm whether this option is under active consideration by the Government?
On Europe, the joint statement issued by the UK and EU begins by pointing out that this was the first UK-EU summit since Brexit, and this is the context against which the outcome should be judged. It was, of course, a real dereliction of duty for the previous Government to turn their back so comprehensively on our largest and closest partner. A reset in our relations is long overdue in the national interest.
Perhaps the biggest achievement of the summit was that it represented a milestone in rebuilding trust between the UK and the EU. For too long, too many in British politics have poured scorn on the EU while placing their hopes on replacing ties with Europe with countries which are now run by unreliable allies. The EU has noticed this and has been understandably wary about treating with the UK as a result. Against this background, the specific outcomes of the summit are to be welcomed, whether on freer trade in food products, energy, security, defence, or youth mobility, and I am sure pet owners will also be cheering to the rafters the return of the pet passport.
It will surprise no one, however, that we on these Benches see these agreements as but small, tentative first steps towards restoring a much deeper, more productive relationship with the EU. The progress on veterinary and plant health requirements is particularly welcome as it will lead to immediate benefits to the food and agriculture sectors; and, as the Statement made clear, it has even been welcomed by the Scottish salmon industry. The return of frictionless trade in these areas is one of the main reasons why yesterday’s deal will add 0.2% to GDP.
However, for firms in every other productive sector seeking to export to the EU, the deal does nothing to make that easier. Before yesterday’s deal we were set to lost 4% of GDP as a result of Brexit. Now we are set to lose 3.8%. This shows how much more there is to do and why movement towards rejoining the customs union and single market is still urgently required.
The commitment to a youth mobility scheme and reassociation with Erasmus+ I welcome, but it is vague as to timing and detailed content. Can the Minister say what the Government’s aspirations are for concluding these new arrangements so that students and young people more generally can benefit?
The agreements on travelling artists, short-term business mobility and mutual recognition of professional qualifications are also welcome but are even vaguer. Given that agreement in these areas would be a clear win-win for both sides, it is surprising and disappointing that more progress has not been achieved. Can the Government say what they envisage happening next to bring about these much-needed easements?
The new UK-EU security and defence partnership is also welcome. At the heart of this is the €150 billion defence equipment procurement fund. The UK will now negotiate to become a participant in this programme. This could significantly benefit the UK defence industry, but there are no details. When can we expect some? In defence and security, and in the other areas covered by yesterday’s agreements, new institutional ties with the EU will give the UK, for the first time in almost a decade, a formal route to influence EU thinking. This is no small gain.
Taken together, yesterday’s agreements, far from representing a surrender of British interests, are an overdue reassertion of them. This view is shared by the British public, who now decisively support closer ties with the EU. The Government now need to build on the progress they made yesterday. That will make the UK more prosperous, more influential and more secure. The sooner and more decisively they do it, the better.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for their contributions on the situation in Gaza. It is dire; it gets worse by the day. Some will have heard Tom Fletcher from the United Nations on the radio yesterday speaking about his fear of the number of babies who could die in the next 48 hours if aid does not get in quick enough. I understand that a very limited amount of aid went in yesterday. There are lorries at the border now waiting to take more aid in. There are containers available, and discussions are ongoing to get that aid in. My noble friend Lord Collins will be repeating the Statement in the House tomorrow so there will be the opportunity to ask further questions on that.
I felt that this debate ran true to form. On the Conservative Benches the feeling was, “You’ve gone too far, it’s terrible”. On the Liberal Democrat Benches it was, “You haven’t gone far enough”. I feel that we have pitched ourselves in the right place. It was an uncharitable and, unfortunately, predictable response from the noble Lord, Lord True. He had questions and criticisms on e-passport use and asked why the deal was so bad last time. He should ask his own party that because the deal was done by his Government.
I will go through some of the issues raised. The noble Lord, Lord True, asked about the emissions trading system. It is a ridiculous situation that British businesses—a trade worth, I think, £7 billion—are at risk of paying what is, in effect, a levy to the EU. That has gone. That has to be in the interests of energy prices and British industry. That money was going straight from UK exporters into the EU budget. There is a better way of doing this. This streamlines the regulatory barriers. CO2 storage is a growth industry in the UK, with enormous potential for investment and jobs. Linking the ETS removes the disincentives for EU emitters to store CO2 in the UK. That makes our industry far more competitive. That is an important point.
On the SPS agreement, I was surprised that the noble Lord, Lord True, was not supportive of it, and I am grateful for the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Newby. It is a huge improvement, and it will have a huge impact on Northern Ireland. The original Brexit deal tried to find a fudge to make this work, with the Windsor Framework. It was a terrible situation where we even had problems exporting between GB and Northern Ireland.
I do not know whether other noble Lords do, but I remember Boris Johnson talking to a group of businesspeople, when he said, “If there are any forms to be filled in, you come and see me; you send them to me”. I suggest that, if they had, he might have disappeared under the pile of forms sent to him. We were speaking to a businessperson the other night who said that, for one consignment, his company filled in 2,000 forms. That is damaging to our industry, and it is damaging to our exports. While those forms were being checked and more forms had to be filled in, produce was rotting at the borders. I know that Members across the House have found this to be an issue in their own businesses. It is absolutely right that we have taken action to deal with that.
The noble Lord, Lord True, questioned how long the deal on e-passports is going to take, and suggested that it is not going to happen. Negotiations with EU member countries are starting immediately to make sure that it does happen to protect and support those in the UK who are travelling. Anyone who has been on their way back from a holiday or business travel, joined a very long queue, and seen others with EU passports wandering through and British citizens not being able to, will be pleased to see that as well.
These are very important agreements. If it helps the noble Lord, in 2024, £14.1 billion of UK agri-food exports went to EU countries. That has a huge impact on British businesses. The noble Lord also went on about dynamic alignment. It might be helpful if I said something about divergence and dynamic alignment, and the rule-taking issue. Research undertaken this May by UK in a Changing Europe showed that the UK has done very little to diverge from EU regulations. That means that British businesses have been sticking to those rules, because it is in their interest since they are still exporting, but the barriers and difficulties they have faced in exporting have had a huge impact on their businesses. The lived reality is that we have had very little benefit from that, which is why this deal has been welcomed by so many businesses. In our trade deal with the United States, we made it clear that we were not prepared to accept, for example, chlorinated chicken, because it would have a detrimental effect on our farmers, who have invested in higher welfare standards. There are always issues that come along on that point.
I probably do not have time to respond to all the questions, but I want particularly to come back to fishing. On the point that the noble Lord, Lord True, raised about the European Court, we will have a role in shaping new rules. No rules will apply in the UK unless they go to Parliament and get its agreement, and any disputes will be resolved through international arbitration and agreement. Where the CJEU has a role is with regards to the interpretation of EU law.
Briefly on fishing, the fishing industry exports 72% of its produce to the EU. It will benefit hugely from the SPS agreement, which will make a difference. Our shellfish people have not been able to export anything. Saying that we can now export shellfish will have a huge impact and be beneficial to those farmers in Scotland, Devon and other parts of the country who produce shellfish, as well to our salmon farmers. On the year-on-year agreement, there was obviously a wish to get a better deal, but it was highly unlikely because we had not reset the relationship. The 12-year agreement provides some certainty, and alongside it is a £350 million investment for coastal areas and the fishing industry to help them invest in technology and grow their businesses.
I think this is an excellent deal. It deals with defence, security and the things that matter to the British people. It takes us a step forward, and away from the argument of Brexit or no Brexit. On the question from noble Lord, Lord Newby, about why we do not further, there will be annual summits to look at these issues; he mentioned some of them. On the customs union, if we were in that union, we would not have achieved the deals with India and the US. People said we could not do it; they said, “You will never get a deal with the EU and the US”. We have done it.
Lord Clarke of Nottingham (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the Government on their progress in strengthening the European arm of NATO in the light of the changed circumstances we have, and on the start they have made on putting us back into a healthier relationship—a soft Brexit—with the European Union, to replace the hard Brexit that has done so much harm to our economy in recent years and continues to do so. But will she acknowledge that this is by no means a final deal, and there are many questions to be asked and many other areas to be opened up, such as benefits that might be brought to other sectors of the economy, to get us back to something like the healthy trading relationship we had with the EU before Brexit intervened? Will she confirm that we can make great progress without in any way compromising the public vote in the referendum? The hard Brexit we had was quite unnecessarily, fiercely anti-European. Can she reassure us that this is only the start of a continuing process of negotiation, so that we see firm detail and more positive results for interest groups in addition to the farmers?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lord, the noble Lord makes an experienced and wise point. There is more flesh to be put on the bones of these particular agreements as well. For me, one of the most important things that came out of this is that now we have a willingness to talk, engage and reach agreement. That has been sadly missing, and this has been damaging to the British economy and the British people. There will be an annual summit as well, and there are a number of issues that are referenced in the documentation. I am thinking, for example, of those in the creative industries, touring musicians, et cetera—that is mentioned as well. There is more detail to be put on paper on the youth experience scheme and all those issues. But, yes, the annual summit is a way to have these discussions, and we are also looking to trade with other countries around the world. We all, I hope, want to see a better relationship with the EU—one that is mature—where we can have those discussions. Where we agree and can move forward, we want to do so. So there are outstanding issues and details here, and we intend to make that progress in the interests of the economy and the people of this country.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend the Minister on the Front Bench and I very much welcome this Statement on SPS, electricity trading and emissions trading. We must not forget that UK energy was looking for a deal on electricity trading and the alignment of schemes in respect of emissions trading. In congratulating my noble friend and our Government on bringing us further towards the European Union, I point out and will ask the Minister about paragraphs 30 and 44 of Common Understanding, which was launched on Monday. It said:
“The European Commission should consult the Government of the United Kingdom at an early stage of policy-making”
in respect of SPS, emissions trading and electricity trading. Can she, at this stage, give us a timeline in relation to this? I declare an interest as a member of the Government’s Veterinary Medicine Working Group. In the fullness of time, I would welcome a resolution in that regard.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I am grateful for the noble Baroness’s comments, and she is right about the importance of these particular issues. I cannot give her an exact timeline, because the summit was only last week. But we want to work at pace on all these issues because, between summits, we want to see progress. We need to put the detail on the bones. But she is right about the issue of consultation, which is what has been missing throughout the time since Brexit. We need this consultation. We have been in government for only eight months, and the progress that has been made in eight months is good and something we should be proud of. But I take the noble Baroness’s point: you need the detail and, as soon as the timeline is available, we will share that information.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, I congratulate the Government on pressing ahead with the youth experience scheme, and indeed with negotiating Erasmus+ —schemes which, in answer to the naysayers, will increase opportunities for less privileged young British people. However, it is disappointing that there are no concrete proposals on creative professionals touring. This is urgent. Many musicians cannot tour Europe, and of course this affects all the other arts too: visual arts, fashion, film and theatre. Finally, will there be discussions about rejoining Creative Europe, which would benefit us hugely, including in film?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Earl, who has been a good advocate for exchanges and touring artists. I can tell him that paragraph 15 of the common understanding says:
“The European Commission and the United Kingdom recognise the value of travel and cultural and artistic exchanges, including the activities of touring artists. They will continue their efforts to support travel and cultural exchange”.
That indicates the direction of travel, and that we do want to ensure that there are such arrangements. I cannot answer the noble Earl him on Creative Europe, as those discussions have not taken place. Not everything was dealt with at this summit, and that is one of the issues that we wish to see progress on.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, the outcome of the summit is welcome, and the restored trust has been vital, although it does leave a lot of detail to be filled in. I fear that the Conservative reaction is insulting to business. There are also limits to what we can get, imposed by the Government themselves. For instance, even though, very welcomely, some red tape will be cut by the SPS agreement—of which we are yet to see the detail—there will still be customs hoops to jump through. Why are the Government maintaining their red lines against the single market and customs union? We know the ideology around that, but what is the practical value? I heard the Minister talk about the India and US agreements, but the volume of the EU market is far more important and the Government are limiting our ability to improve life for businesses and citizens.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I do not accept entirely the noble Baroness’s parameters. We are where we are, and in our manifesto we set out what the clear red lines were, recognising the public vote on Brexit. As well as having an agreement with the EU, we are looking further abroad as well. We have two agreements in place with the US and India, which, as she will know—as she was in those many debates until very late into the night—so many said would never be done if we had any arrangement with the EU, and we have proved them wrong. It is important that we look across the world for agreements as well, and we will continue to ensure that our relationship with the EU is one that is mutually productive.
Lord Lilley (Con)
My Lords, I must declare an interest as a French farmer, in a small way, in my smallholding in France. In any case, I would welcome any agreement that I believed would remove or reduce unnecessary burdens to trade resulting from SPS regulations across the Channel. Indeed, I was party to the negotiations which ultimately culminated in an agreement to which the UK and all 27 members of the EU are party, called the WTO Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures. It says that SPS measures shall not be applied as
“a disguised restriction on international trade”.
Yet that is what EU countries do, and the EU has been found in repeated violation of this agreement. The agreement goes on say:
“Members shall accept the sanitary or phytosanitary measures of other Members as equivalent, even if these measures differ from their own”.
Ours are currently identical. Why, therefore, does the EU not accept them as such? The agreement goes on to say that control, inspection and approval procedures are to be
“completed without undue delay and in no less favourable manner for imported products than for like domestic products”.
We know that does not happen for our exports to the EU.
I ask the Minister why she believes that the EU will adhere to a rather vague and ill-defined agreement that she proposes to reach, when it in flagrant and repeated violation of an agreement that has been in force under international law for some years?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, we are confident about this agreement and confident in our relationship with the EU. All those who export to the EU and have produce going to the EU, as well as all those who bring produce into this country, know how urgent and important it is that we reached the agreement. We have confidence in it, we believe that we will adhere to it, and we will ensure that the EU does too.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
My Lords, will the noble Baroness accept the congratulations that she should convey to our Prime Minister on this very important step in rebuilding our relations with the European Union? They are pragmatic steps, but they open up the way to great future co-operation. For example, the framework of alignment that has been agreed on energy and phyto- sanitary standards is capable of being extended to other sectors of the economy, such as chemicals, pharmaceuticals and engineering, which would be important. Finally, does she note that, at a time when the security situation in Europe is deteriorating fast, and there is talk of President Trump withdrawing from supporting Ukraine, it is crucial that Europe gets its act together on defence and rearmament, and that what is in this agreement will enable that to be done with much greater effectiveness?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I will pass the noble Lord’s comments to the Prime Minister, the Minister for the Cabinet Office and others involved in the negotiations. We will proceed only when it is in the interests of British businesses and the people of the UK. Each case is being taken step by step and on its own merits, and there is certainly scope for mutual benefit. The noble Lord is right to mention security and defence. He will be pleased to know that, in the second paragraph of the second chapter of the Common Understanding document, it was highlighted that, at the heart of all this, is common security and defence. As we have seen with the invasion of Ukraine, it is more important than ever that we have a strong and secure Europe, and that we are all working together to the same ends.
Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)
My Lords, whatever the claims and counterclaims of any deal by any Government, and whatever concerns may be raised today—I share some of those concerns, although some of us see the irony in that some of those raising concerns were very happy, only a short time ago, to see exactly the same conditions imposed on one part of the United Kingdom and to then tell us that it was the best of both worlds—what will be critical will be the practical experience of how this works out in reality.
The Minister is right in identifying that the most significant aspect of this deal is the SPS agreement. Under the previous arrangements that were in place, the Government are due in July to impose a labelling system for goods—food, drink and other SPS products—going from Great Britain to Northern Ireland. That adds an additional layer of bureaucracy, creating the only instance in the UK, or indeed all of Europe, where this will happen. In the light of this new agreement, will the Government give a commitment to end what would be a ludicrous situation of imposing new restrictions in July which are then redundant and will have to be removed at some stage in the next couple of months? Would the Government not be better to pause that, or at least increase the grace period, until this is implemented, so that we are not left with an unnecessary additional burden of the labelling of goods coming into Northern Ireland?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord, who has experience of this. He will know that I have said in this Chamber before that I think it is a great shame that, when the Brexit debate was taking place, so little attention was given to the impact on Northern Ireland. Some people were taken aback, and certainly there were no preparations by the Government for how Northern Ireland could manage this. The SPS agreement removes the barriers on agri-food products. I will take away the point the noble Lord makes—I think it is wider than just agri-food products—see what is happening and discuss it with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, and will come back to him ASAP on that issue.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, there are another five minutes left.
Lord Deben (Con)
Will the noble Baroness accept that this has been widely supported throughout the country, and right across parties, because it shows that this Government have at least lived in the world we live in, and not in some past world? We now go forward to work more closely with our biggest and most important market and our closest neighbour. Will she accept those congratulations and our hope that we can move further forward in this direction?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I am always happy to accept congratulations. The noble Lord makes a very important point about living in the real world. The issue of alignment came up a moment ago. If you look at what has happened already, you find that there has not been the divergence that we were told was going to happen. That is why the paperwork that British businesses have to go through in order to export is such nonsense and a burden for them. This is about living in the real world and doing the best we can for the economy and the people of this country.
Baroness Coussins (CB)
My Lords, the Statement read out by the noble Baroness the Leader said that this arrangement will do away with the long delays faced by lorry drivers with rotting food in the back. Can she say whether it will do away with the long delays faced by coach-loads of schoolchildren on school trips to France? Since the Government did away with the group passport scheme, groups of 40 or 50 school- children all have to get off the coach and be individually checked, which occasionally results in the coach driver hitting the legal drive time limit and abandoning the coach altogether. Will this new arrangement see the reintroduction of the group passport scheme or an equivalent replacement scheme to facilitate educational school trips for children?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
The noble Baroness highlights one of those issues that was never thought of as going to be a problem. I am pleased to hear that schools are still going on trips. I have heard of so many schools not undertaking trips because of the problems, with many schools cancelling trips because of the complications of taking them. I do not think it was discussed at this summit; it is not in the papers I have seen, but I will find out. I will certainly ensure that it is raised in the future.
Baroness Winterton of Doncaster (Lab)
My Lords, during the European Affairs Select Committee’s recent visit to Brussels, it became very clear that it was the constructive and positive attitude of this Government that was opening the way to meaningful discussions, particularly on defence and security. There are obviously some details to be ironed out, but can my noble friend the Leader set out what advice and processes there will be so that the UK defence industry can benefit from the partnership agreements on defence and the funds available?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I am grateful for that question and mindful that I did not properly answer the question on this point from the noble Lord, Lord Newby. When I was a Member of the other place, the defence industry was in my constituency, and I know that it is entrepreneurial, forward-looking and innovative. It does a great deal of technical research that has applications across the board, and the MoD will work with those companies. With the EU setting up the security action for Europe instrument, for which is proposed a €150 billion fund, we plan to make arrangements so that we can be part of it and benefit from it. Exports by the UK defence industry are going to benefit enormously from this, if we can ensure that its skills are recognised and we work in a joint partnership. It is that joint partnership that will allow us to bid for and be part of the €150 billion fund.
Baroness Meyer (Con)
My Lords, to look at the real world, France has a budget deficit of 5.8% compared to ours of 2.3%. France has an unemployment rate of 7.3% compared to our 4.5%, and France has 19% youth unemployment. Germany’s economy is going down rapidly, with exports going down a lot. So, I am confused when the Prime Minister and the Government call this a wonderful deal. How can it be a wonderful deal for our businesses and this country’s economy?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I am slightly puzzled by the noble Baroness’s question, if I am honest. Our economy is doing really well now. We are picking up, having been through a very difficult time over the last 14 years and with, I hesitate to say, a £22 billion black hole in current spending plans. By doing a deal with the EU on trade and the economy—I will answer the question from the noble Baroness if she will let me and not make hand signals at me—we have just done all the things we were told we could not do. We have a trade and co-operation agreement and a defence and security agreement with the EU; we have a trade agreement with India and a trade agreement with the USA. The noble Baroness told us last year that would never happen—it has, and we are delighted that we can deliver for the British public.
Gaza Humanitarian Foundation
Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts(1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)
In begging leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, I declare my interests as shown in the register.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Smith of Basildon) (Lab)
My Lords, it is clear that there is a desperate urgency to get humanitarian aid into Gaza. As the UN has said, it is hard to see how the proposal to distribute aid through private companies would meet the scale of the need, protect civilians, protect aid workers and be consistent with humanitarian principles. The UN and humanitarian NGOs have worked with courage and determination to deliver aid into Gaza since the conflict began. These organisations uphold humanitarian principles and can deliver assistance across Gaza to those who need it most.
Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)
I thank the noble Baroness for her Answer. It is a little disappointing to hear that she does not join me in welcoming this proposal, which should help at least 1.2 million people initially, and then up to 2 million later, to receive humanitarian aid under an independent mechanism. Does she agree that bypassing Hamas to prevent it hijacking the aid is important, especially in the light of UNRWA’s failure to do so and reports such as that from the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, which shows that exploiting hijacked aid has generated at least £500 billion for Hamas’s terrorist operations?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, the blocking of aid into Gaza by Israel has caused enormous suffering. We are aware of the allegations she refers to that Hamas uses humanitarian aid for its own gain, and we have encouraged Israel to share the evidence with the UN and with NGOs. We have not seen any evidence that there is systematic diversion to Hamas and, given the ongoing hostilities, we are unable to verify allegations through direct monitoring. We ensure that all mechanisms are in place for UK-provided aid. The situation is dire; one in five people faces starvation. Aid is available to get into Gaza now if we can unblock those routes. The surest way through is to have a ceasefire, release the hostages and get aid in now. That is essential if we are to protect and save lives.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, is my noble friend the Leader of the House in a position to remove the veil from the recently formed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation? It is less than two and a half months since this company was put together. Can she tell us which private contractors are being set up to take the place of the United Nations and its partners? Are they capable of providing not just the scale but the diversity of aid that the UN and its partners would be able to provide to the Gazans if the Israelis lifted their blockade?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I am not able to satisfy my noble friend on those points; I do not have that information. We have urged the Israeli Government to share that information, because it would be very difficult to make an assessment. We stand ready to work alongside Israel, the UN and our partners to ensure that aid is delivered, but we have to ensure both that they have the expertise to get the aid in and the safety of the aid workers. Over 400 aid workers have died providing humanitarian aid. It is the most dangerous part of the world to supply aid to and in which to be a humanitarian worker. We should express our gratitude and the debt we all owe to those who put their lives at risk to help others.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, is it not plumbing the depths of immorality for the women and girls of Gaza, who have had such brutality inflicted on them, now to submit to the indignity of having to queue up to profiteering mercenaries hired by a shadowy organisation established in Switzerland, which will operate under no humanitarian standards or international mandate and with no accountability mechanisms whatever, to receive sanitation, food, water and medicine? What are the Government doing to stop this terrible idea?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
At the moment, it is an idea. We have seen no evidence that it will go forward. However, the noble Lord is right that humanitarian principles of delivering aid must be consistent across every area in which that aid is being delivered. Today, we are convening the UN Security Council in New York—it is probably meeting now—to look at what can be done to deal with the appalling humanitarian situation in Gaza.
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, the simple, straightforward solution is for the hostages to be released. We can see with our own eyes that the hostages are among the least well-fed people in Gaza. Why are the Government always so quick to believe Hamas and United Nations organisations? Why do they not share the widespread scepticism about Hamas, which is stockpiling the aid and preventing lorries going in? Why do they not note how UNRWA has been infiltrated by Hamas?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I hope that the noble Baroness heard one of my first comments, which was about the priority of getting the hostages out and released. Recently, Eli Sharabi was released; he was a shadow of his former self. There is a lot of suffering—by the hostages who have been kidnapped, the families of those who were killed on 7 October and the people of Gaza. The crucial thing is to get the aid in and the hostages out. Only if there is a ceasefire can we then talk about the future and see what else can be done for a long-standing peace.
Baroness Morris of Bolton (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register. Last week, the Palestinian Authority declared a famine in Gaza. It was caused not by a flood, by a drought or by any natural causes; it is entirely manmade. I welcome what the Lord Privy Seal said about the conference being held next week. Can the UK Government ensure that we point out that aid workers are already on the ground in Gaza who have been working for years, ceaselessly, to help the Palestinians, and that they should very much be part of the solution?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
The noble Baroness is absolutely right. Delivering aid and humanitarian aid is not something that you can do on a whim. These people are experienced, have knowledge and expertise and know the areas on the ground. I was not referring to the June conference but the one taking place today in New York, but the noble Baroness is right: there is aid there now. There is aid at the borders that could be delivered. One in five of the population now faces starvation. It is critical to get that aid in as soon and as quickly as possible. The quickest way to do so would be to stop blocking the aid so that it can be delivered to those who are in desperate, dire need of it.
Baroness Blackstone (Lab)
My Lords, will the Leader of the House accept that the sidelining of trusted aid agencies and the militarisation of aid under this scheme will lead to large parts of Gaza, where the most vulnerable and least mobile people live, being without supplies?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My noble friend says that there is another scheme in place; I am not sure that there is. There are discussions about it, but I have seen no details. There cannot be any aid mechanism that does not have delivering humanitarian aid as its sole priority. It cannot deliver political or military objectives; it is there to help vulnerable civilians. That will be the priority. If there is not action almost immediately, more people will die. Women and children in Gaza face loss of life now. The figure that one in five people in Gaza faces starvation is horrendous. Yes, the hostages must be released, we must get aid into Gaza and that ceasefire must take place. Only then can we look at a longer timespan for peace in the region.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, one of the first things this Government did on coming into office was resume funding for UNRWA, which was suspended by the previous Government. This followed proven allegations that UNRWA employees were members of Hamas and participated in the 7 October massacre. Nobody disagrees with the idea that aid should get through to those who need it, but there are also proven allegations that Hamas has been stealing, diverting and hijacking that aid. Can the Minister assure the House that no British taxpayer’s aid has been diverted to Hamas?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, yes, we resumed funding to UNRWA for the very purpose of having people with knowledge and expertise on the ground to get aid in as quickly as possible to save lives. I said at the very beginning that, for all UK-funded aid, we look at every possible mechanism to ensure that it gets to where it is needed, which is to the most vulnerable. We will always do that, and we will do everything we can to ensure that.
Irish Republican Alleged Incitement
Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, incitement to murder should never be mistaken for art. In the other place, plaques commemorate MPs who were killed while doing their democratic duty. Behind every name on those plaques are devastated families who grieve. Can the Minister explain why the Government decided not to contest the case that would have stopped Kneecap receiving grant funding? Can she update the House on the conversations the Government may have had with the Welsh Government, with whom they are now working so closely, on what steps they are taking to stop Kneecap performing at this year’s Green Man Festival in August, given the risk of further incitement that this invites?
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Smith of Basildon) (Lab)
My Lords, rightly, there is widespread condemnation of two sets of comments: one on the apparent support for Hamas; and one which appears to be incitement to violence against MPs, which can never, ever be acceptable or allowed to happen. We have seen what has happened in recent years to Members of Parliament. We have seen Jo Cox and David Amess murdered, we have seen MPs attacked and we have seen MPs threatened, with people going to prison for threatening MPs. We should not ever take lightly any language that would appear to incite violence.
On the noble Lord’s point about the funding of the organisation, he will be aware that that was the MEGS funding. He is not quite accurate in his comments. In fact, that was an application for funding made and awarded under the last Government and then withdrawn. Following it being withdrawn, the group took the Government to court. It was a very expensive court case, as noble Lords will understand, which the Government lost. I think the court said it was “unlawful and procedurally unfair”. This Government took the decision not to appeal the case because of the costs involved. However, in the light of this, we are now reviewing the operation of the fund.
I have to say that I was surprised at the amount of funding that they received in 2023 and 2024 from different sources. There is something of an irony in an Irish republican group seeking funding from the British Government. The particular stream of funding that was awarded and withdrawn by the then Government, who lost the subsequent court case, is being reviewed by this Government.
Baroness Suttie (LD)
My Lords, from these Benches we utterly condemn these remarks. Incitement to violence against our democratically elected MPs is never acceptable. We should not underestimate the pain caused by these remarks to the families of Sir David Amess and Jo Cox, as well as to the families of Airey Neave and Ian Gow. Does the noble Baroness the Leader of the House agree that measures to promote social cohesion must now be a key priority? Will the Defending Democracy Taskforce take a lead on this?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
All these things must be taken into account, and looking at the way forward is crucial. The noble Baroness is a little younger than me, but she will recall that, if you came home from school and people had been name-calling, it was said that, “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me”. That was wrong. That may be the case for the playground, but it is not the case in real life. Words really do hurt. For David Amess’s family and for Jo Cox’s family, the so-called apology is not enough. Any apology that includes in the statement that there is a “coordinated smear campaign” against those who are issuing the apology has not understood what the word “apology” really means.
It is inciting not just violence but hatred. It is inciting a mood that can lead to violence. Unless we treat each other with respect in the discourse that we have, in this place, in the other place and outside, we will see more of this. It is one thing to be provocative and to be challenging—we are not against being provocative—but the statements here go way beyond that and are totally unacceptable.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, I condemn the words and the alleged actions of Kneecap. As a democratic Irish nationalist, I condemn the assault and the attacks on the people of Gaza. However, undoubtedly, there is no justification for a call to action by Kneecap in respect of the murder of MPs, particularly Conservative MPs. I put that on record as somebody from Northern Ireland. Can my noble friend the Leader of the House say what more Kneecap should do to recognise the offence that they have caused to many people, here and back in Ireland, and to appreciate the responsibility that goes with the music platform that they have?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
The noble Baroness is absolutely right. I am sure that everyone hearing her words will recognise her sincerity in rightly condemning this. I am not sure that I am the best person to give advice to people who have caused offence. If they do not understand how damaging, offensive and wrong their words are—in the two incidents that have been complained about, and which are being investigated by the police, and in an inadequate so-called apology—then they are not in touch with what is happening in society generally. I cannot give them advice, but an apology is heartfelt and can be seen as heartfelt by those who are being offended. We have not seen that in this case.
Lord Caine (Con)
My Lords, clearly the comments attributed to the band Kneecap go beyond anything that is remotely acceptable in a democratic society. While this is the worst example that has come to light, it is the latest in a line of incidents which, in 2022, saw them commission and unveil a mural of a petrol-bombed police Land Rover. Does the noble Baroness the Lord Privy Seal, as a former Northern Ireland Office Minister, agree that the hatred espoused by Kneecap seeks to undermine the actions of those who strive to improve community relations in Northern Ireland and build a stronger society? Does she agree that not only concert promoters but other platform providers should now take stock and assess whether this is a band with which they want to be associated?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord. He and I have met people from across the community in Northern Ireland, in many different circumstances. Indeed, I was the Minister responsible for victims for about two years and I saw the effects on people who had suffered enormously throughout what is euphemistically called the Troubles.
We have all seen across the country protest groups which make their point through protest—sometimes very robustly, sometimes in ways that I do not care for—but a line has been crossed here. I struggle with that line. I was not aware of the incident in 2022, but, if that was the case, I therefore do not understand why the grant was awarded; that was a strange decision, given what the noble Lord has just said. There is a level at which we would want all groups to work together. My experience of Northern Ireland is that a number of people and community groups want all that put behind them. They do not want to hear this kind of language and this kind of incitement.
On the noble Lord’s point about promoters of events, I understand that one event has already cancelled their appearance and, in Germany I think a number of appearances have been cancelled. In any case, I am not sure that this is what people want to hear when they go to a concert. My experience of concerts is that they are happy, joyous and inclusive events. I think the promoters of other events will have heard the noble Lord’s words and those of others.
Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)
My Lords, as a former Member of the other place for 25 years, I was not only a target for IRA murder gangs but actual attempts were made on my life and those of my family. I ask the Leader of the House whether she accepts that this group, named after republican acts of terror, using the rant, “The only good Tory is a dead Tory. Kill your local MP”, openly supporting terrorists such as Hamas and Hezbollah, and propagating other anti-British bile to fill their bank accounts with hundreds of thousands of pounds, must be condemned, and not overlooked, and that the full rigours of the law must be exercised against them. Indeed, the law concerning the glorification of terrorism must be strengthened.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord makes a very powerful point. Where issues have been reported, they are of course being investigated by the police. The issues on terrorism are also being looked at. He is right to bring that to the attention of the House.
Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)
My Lords, is the Leader able to tell the House what has to be done to actually lose government funding in this type of situation? It seems to me that Kneecap are trying to play the country, or the system, given that they put in their public statement:
“Kneecap’s message has always been—and remains—one of love, inclusion, and hope”.
This cannot be supported. I hope that the Leader will consider seriously whether this group should lose their funding and, indeed, be banned.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I have already answered part of the noble Baroness’s question. On the words she quoted, saying something does not make it true. That is certainly the case here. Because of what happened when they were awarded funding before, we are reviewing the circumstances of that fund. It should never, ever be acceptable for a group such as this to be awarded funding by the Government.
House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill
Baroness Smith of Basildon ExcerptsTuesday 1st April 2025
(2 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill 2024-26 View all House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 49-V Fifth marshalled list for Committee - (28 Mar 2025)
Lord Grocott (Lab)
The decision to remove the hereditaries means they are being removed by the electorate —the electorate that elected a Labour Government with this manifesto commitment. The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, will not know, because I departed rather before he did, that there was none of the kind of soft landings in quite that degree when I lost, but I do not complain about that. Man up. Man up is about the right phrase for a men-only section of the House of Lords. Plenty of notice is being given. My noble friend says it should be on Royal Assent. I think someone suggested it should be at the end of the Parliament in four and a half or five years, or at the end of this Session. When is the end of this Session? We do not know. It could be in a few weeks.
The fact is that there will be a date, there will be plenty of time to address it, and no great injustice is being done by following the result of a general election. Great kindness and support are being shown. We have all said, or many of us have said, that there are some very able hereditaries, but the most amusing of the comments I have heard is, “How will we cope with all this talent being lost to the House? Maybe we should set up a review after a year to see what damage has been done to our democracy by these people departing”.
I simply say to that, “Don’t bother”. We have done it; we had a review. Twenty-five years ago, 668—I think that was the figure—hereditary Peers were removed. We are talking about 87 now. We have had a template to see the damage that results from the departure of hereditary Peers. As far as I can make out, in the period since the 668 departed, the earth has still revolved around the sun in much the same way as it did before. The British people have taken it all very calmly and in their stride. I do not recall any demonstrations against it. I have not heard a tangible argument from anyone specifically spelling out what damage was done to the work of this House by the departure of that group of people. I have nothing against them. There may have been an Einstein among them as far as I am concerned, but this House is bigger than it will be when a certain number of people depart for whatever reason. It is suggested that if you throw a group of people out like this, all sorts of other groups will feel threatened. Well, if they do feel threatened, they will get around 25 years’ notice if precedent is anything to go by.
I want to put one final test—I slightly realise the risks I am taking by speaking at all—to people, mainly those on the other Benches. I have to take it at face value, although I have my doubts, that they are desperate for further reform of this House. They are urging the Government at the earliest possible opportunity to bring forward a series of reforms. I have never noticed them arguing for that other than in the present circumstances, but that is their argument, to which I say that if I were advising the Government now, in the light of this debate—where a very narrow, well-publicised, well-rehearsed, well-anticipated reform is taking place and has allowed this Committee over five long days and bits of nights to discuss everything from attendance to statutory commissions, the role of the Bishops and everything under the sun—my advice to them would be to think twice before they bring in any piece of reform legislation whatever because all this stuff was able to be debated this time, apparently legitimately, so they would be running a grave risk to their legislative programme if the same amount of time was given to any further reforms.
The real test will be this. Let us get on with the rest of this Committee. Let us get on with Report. I think three days should be the absolute maximum after five days in Committee.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
My Leader says two and a half days, and I always bow to her suggestions. And let us put some perspective into this. The image we present through the discussions that we have been, and are still, having—that this is the single most important issue facing this House this Session, and that we need to debate it at huge length, which we do not give to every other subject that comes along—is not the best of public relations as far as this House is concerned. I shall not be tempted to get up again, but I did want to inject a bit of realism into our debate.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, it has been an interesting debate. This is the first of three groups of amendments on the commencement. I take the point that it may have been more helpful to debate them together, but we have three different groups, so we will debate them in that way. I will speak to both the amendment and the debate, which may be helpful. My noble friend spoke to her amendment but also about some of the motivation behind it. It seems to me that she felt a little goaded, if I am correct in my interpretation, by how the Bill has been handled across the House, and perhaps some of the talk about delaying its implementation meant that she felt obliged to put the other side of the coin.
I know how noble Lords feel about leaving. The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, drew a distinction between leaving here and leaving the other place rather unceremoniously when we were voted out by friends and neighbours and colleagues. He shares that distinction with my noble friend here and the noble Lord, Lord Hanson. It is not a pleasant feeling; it is emotionally difficult. One day you have a role and the next day you do not, and you do not know when it is coming. The thing about this Bill and the way it is proposed by the Government is that we do know when it is coming.
As many of us have been saying for several years now, the failure of the last Government to accept the Grocott Bill has brought us to where we are today, despite the efforts I made to ensure that my party helped that Bill’s passage through both Houses to get it on the statute books. So, I understand the point, and we tried to avoid it, but we are where we are now. I wrote in the House magazine four or five years ago that, if we failed to accept the Grocott Bill, this would be a consequence. It is not one we took with relish, but it is where we are because of what has happened previously.
I reject that it is nasty and brutal. It is not intended in that way. In fact, one of the things my noble friend said, although she spoke to the amendment, was that she did not want Royal Assent to coincide with the end of the Session. She would rather have Royal Assent and then get to the end of the Session, but, if the Bill took too long, they would coincide. I think the balance we have in the legislation is the right way forward.
I remind the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, that the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, as wonderful, smart and experienced as he may be, does not speak for the Government. He will be aware of that. I am encouraged, because I have heard so much agreement over the five days. My noble friend Lady Anderson has counted 39 hours of debate in Committee and at Second Reading and we have been greatly encouraged by the support there has been for proposals on participation, particularly, and on retirement. That was not there before we had those discussions. That is of enormous assistance in taking these issues forward and, although it may not have felt like it at times during long debates, I am grateful to those who have brought through those issues.
The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, is worried that, with the departure of hereditary Peers, this House will no longer effectively scrutinise the Government. I have absolute confidence that this House will not shirk its duty and will maintain the ability to hold Governments to account. He will know from his time in government that it is not just the opposition parties who hold the Government to account. It is a matter for the whole House, including, as he will have found sometimes, Members from the Government’s own party. So this Government are confident that it will not affect the ability of the House to scrutinise legislation or hold the Government to account.
Having said all that, the effect of my noble friend’s amendment would be that the remaining hereditary Peers would leave your Lordships’ House on Royal Assent. That is beyond what is currently proposed in the Bill. She made the point about ensuring that there is time for the House to make arrangements for those who serve on committees, on the Woolsack and in other roles in your Lordships’ House, and we think that the sudden departure on Royal Assent would be a step too far. The approach we have taken in this legislation is consistent with the approach that was taken in 1999. That is fair and reasonable. I am grateful to my noble friend, because she has allowed me the opportunity to make some points. She made the point that, if the House wants to move on to the other issues, we need to get on with this Bill and see it through—but I can confirm that it is not the Government’s intention to bring forward anything similar to that, but rather to leave the effective date of the legislation as it is now, so I respectfully request that my noble friend withdraws her amendment.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for addressing the debate as well as just the amendment. Will she assure us that that is the general policy of the Government? Otherwise, I am going to have to draft three times as many amendments for the schools Bill to make sure that all the points I want to raise are covered on paper.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I am sorry: I am not really sure I understand the point that the noble Lord is making at all. I am not sure it is relevant at this point anyway.
Lord Lucas (Con)
We were taken to task in an earlier group, and answers were given just to the amendment rather than to the width of the discussion.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I was trying to aid the Committee, but I think the noble Lord would agree that in previous debates the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, was congratulated on her ingenuity but that had very little to do with the Bill. It is entirely appropriate for Ministers to respond in the way that they wish, and to speak to the amendment is the usual way forward. I have broadened my comments out to be helpful to the Committee, but we would normally expect the Committee to speak to the amendment and the Minister to do the same.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all those who have spoken in the debate. I particularly welcome not just the support but the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, which was even more ingenious than some of the others that we have heard. Maybe we can make a little list of which two of us should go out with the hereditaries.
My noble friend the Leader of the House clearly understood exactly what I was saying, which is: if we are not careful then this will be on Royal Assent, because if we go much further then it will be at the end of the Session. That was the point of this debate. I think colleagues know I am not ill-minded or—what were the other words used about me?
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
I am slightly surprised to be called that, I have to say.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, this goes wider than the Bill. That is the second or third time that we have heard the doctrine that this House must never propose or suggest anything that the other House might disagree with. This is the revising Chamber and, even if we fear that the House of Commons might disagree with what we propose, in our wisdom we have every right, on every Bill, to ask the House of Commons to think again.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I do not disagree with the noble Lord, but I remember him saying the opposite from this Dispatch Box.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
Surely the issue is good advice. If I am trying to say anything, it is: can we get on with it? That is really what the amendment is about. We should not be tabling amendments that are out of scope. I am sorry to do this in front of the clerks but, honestly, some of them are not pertinent to the issue. The advice is: can we please get on with this?
I think my noble friend will want to take forward the wider suggestion, but she is clearly not going to do that until we have moved on this issue. So to all those who want more done, my advice—and this was the purpose of the amendment—is not to leave it too long, or it will be the end of the Session by the time this comes in.
I would have loved to have had this amendment debated with the rest. I kept getting draft lists that said “degroup”, and people have clearly been asked to degroup their amendments. I do not know why mine fell out, but I would have much preferred the whole of the idea of commencement to be in one group. Still, frankly, if we are going to have amendments tabled saying that it should go to the end of the Parliament five years on, then of course it must be possible to say, “Are there other dates as well?”
So the purpose of the amendment was to say two things. First, please can we not go on until basically the end of the Session before this comes in? Otherwise, the hereditaries will have no notice of it and the House will have no time to make adjustments. Secondly, can we get it done for the sake of this House moving on? We heard earlier about constitutional amendments. That was in the Conservative manifesto for the election before last, but it never happened. The noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, quite often used to ask about it at Question Time: “Where is this promised thing?” It did not happen.
I have an answer for the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson of Tredegar. What has changed since 2021 is that at that point it had not been accepted. In 2021, we said, “Can we please just stop the by-elections and keep the people in?” That was rejected by the noble Lord’s Government. That is what changed. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, it is a theme we have discussed which regularly goes beyond hereditary Peers. I understand the point the noble Lord has made. The Committee has been useful. I would not have expected the debate to range so widely, given that it was quite clear in the manifesto that there were three stages here—the first being immediate reform to hereditary Peers; the next being to talk about participation, retirement, HOLAC and things such as the citations that we now have for people, which have already been put into place without needing any legislation. We will see more issues coming forward on the kind of things that we can do. Though it was unexpected, the scope of the amendments has been rather wide.
It has been useful—I think the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, would agree if he was listening—if unexpected, because I had not realised quite the degree of interest and concern from noble Lords, and support for bringing forward the other issues on participation and retirement. I think that helps us move things forward. It was unexpected and at times frustrating but it has been very helpful. I am grateful to noble Lords for that.
However, these amendments go further than I would be willing to accept because they all make the progress of the Bill towards Royal Assent conditional on certain actions being taken. That would be a rather unusual step for this House to take. The objection is not that further reforms should not happen—noble Lords will know from conversations I have had with them that I am committed to that, and our manifesto committed to it. There was support from around the House, which had not been forthcoming before, so I was very encouraged by that. But it should not be conditional on the Bill.
The reason why this part came forward—I feel as if I am repeating myself, but it has happened before and it will happen again, and I am not the only one—is the principle established over 25 years ago on hereditary Peers. We signalled this part of legislation several times beforehand—I will repeat myself—but we offered support to get my noble friend Lord Grocott’s Bill through; that was rejected and we said this would happen, and here we are now.
I had not realised how much support there was around the House for the other issues, so we can look at that and, I hope, bring things back some time soon. So this is the immediate reform and it can happen separately, prior to other reform.
The noble Lord, Lord Northbrook, made proposals for a draft Bill along the lines of the Wakeham commission’s findings. I had not heard him speak so often or so eloquently on Lords reforms before this Bill, so I am grateful to him for doing so. The Wakeman commission was in 2002. That does not mean that some of those proposals are not still relevant and cannot be considered, but it was a long time ago and things change, as he will know. But I am grateful to him for his interest in that, which I had not appreciated before this Bill. I look forward to working with him and others on that as we go forward.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, I think his memory is slightly remiss on this one. It was, in fact, in November that the Bill got Royal Assent, and it happened so quickly then—I think this was the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, made earlier—because we had Royal Assent towards the end of the Session.
The noble Lord, Lord Newby, had concerns about this. When he raised this point previously it was almost as if—to coin a famous Tony Blair phrase from a Labour Party conference some years ago—Members heard the sound of pennies dropping. I got the impression that many noble Lords thought that it would be preferable if this House came to an arrangement or to a broad consensus on participation and retirement rather than having legislation on it. I am happy about either. I would like to find a way forward to get some consensus, if that is possible. It may be that legislation has to follow that, or that there will be legislation if there is no consensus. As I say, this is how I would have preferred to deal with this issue had we been in government sooner, but as Leader of the Opposition I made it clear that it was my view that, if the House can come to a consensus and arrangement on how we do things—I hope to be able to talk more about the process—then I would be happy to do so. As I say, I am greatly encouraged, even by noble Lords who have never previously spoken on or shown any interest in Lords reform, that there is a different mood now, and I think Members want to look at this issue.
I want to correct the noble Lord, Lord Newby: the proposals in the Labour Party manifesto were not for an elected second Chamber. It was not so specific. It talked about “alternative” arrangements for a second Chamber, and that would be for consultation. I know some noble Lords from across the House would prefer an elected Chamber, while others prefer other arrangements.
On my own view, I must admit that I am nervous. The noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, has said that he thought we should challenge the House of Commons more, and that greater democracy in this Chamber would make us challenge the House of Commons more. I still think of the House of Commons as the primary, elected Chamber. There is a different role for your Lordships’ House, which brings me to the point that the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, raised, in a rare moment of agreement between us: we have to look at the function of a second Chamber before we move forward too quickly on the arrangements for a fully reformed second Chamber.
There is a debate to be had about that, which is why our manifesto talks about engaging and consulting, including with the public, to do so. It is right to give that careful consideration. We have a proposal before us. I do not think that the commencement of the Bill should be conditional on any of the measures before us, so I ask that noble Lords do not press their amendments.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who spoke in this short debate. All of them were excellent, but I will comment in particular on the speech by the noble Lord, Lord Newby, which I found very interesting and hopeful, in many ways. He is right that many of the measures in the Labour Party manifesto, which many of us are asking to see brought forward, at the very least for debate, would be better dealt with in and through your Lordships’ House than by means of legislation. Indeed, that would make it easier for the Front Bench to bring them forward in a prompt and timely manner. He also opened the door—as did my noble friend Lord True, when he spoke earlier in Committee—to discussions with the Lord Privy Seal about how to take these things forward. The great difficulty we have had so far is that there has been no substantive response to that, but I found what the noble Lord, Lord Newby, said interesting.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord says that there has never been a substantive response. I can be clear that I have always said almost exactly the same words as I have said today, or paraphrased them: I have always thought that the best way is to seek consensus in this House. At the conclusion of this Bill, I would like to reach consensus in this House on other issues that we have been discussing in the manifesto, and I look forward to bringing in some proposals for how we might achieve that. It is up to the House whether it wishes to accept those or not.
Lord Moylan (Con)
Nothing in what the noble Baroness just said contradicted what I said. There has been no substantive response. The noble Baroness might want to proceed by consensus. That is a method of proceeding. I refer to the substance, and there has been no substantive response, despite the fact that it has been perfectly open to the Front Bench to bring forward substantive proposals, at least for discussion, so far.
There is no need for my Amendment 104—again, this relates to what the noble Lord, Lord Newby, said—to be embedded in legislation. The noble Baroness, from her years in opposition, complained that it is designed to hold up implementation of the Bill. She knows perfectly well that, to a degree, it is a contrivance to attach an amendment to a commencement clause in order to allow for a debate, but the plain words of my amendment, which are largely taken word for word from the Labour Party manifesto and include not a commitment to a democratic House but to exactly what it says in that manifesto, could be achieved by the simple expedient of the Government bringing forward exactly the consultation document they promised and exactly the draft Bill that needs to go with it, exactly as it stands in their manifesto, at a time of their choosing but in the near future, as an earnest of what they are doing so that we can see the direction in which they are going. Obviously, the need for legislation or any amendment to this Bill would then fall away, because the Government would have done what the amendment calls for.
We are to some extent going round in circles. We want to hear the Government’s programme. There is no substance to the Government’s programme. I am glad that we have flushed out that there is no substance to it. With that, all I can do is beg leave to withdraw this amendment.
Business of the House
Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts(2 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Basildon
That with effect from Tuesday 22 April, Standing Order 38(4) (so far as it relates to Thursdays) and (5) (Arrangement of the Order Paper) be suspended until the end of the session so far as is necessary to enable notices and orders relating to Public Bills, Measures, Affirmative Instruments and reports from Select Committees of the House to have precedence over other notices and orders on Thursdays.
House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill
Baroness Smith of Basildon ExcerptsTuesday 25th March 2025
(2 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill 2024-26 View all House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 49-IV Fourth marshalled list for Committee - (21 Mar 2025)
Baroness Finn (Con)
Before I turn to the substance of the amendments, I will interrogate the premise that this House is too large and should be made smaller. Time and again in this debate, noble Lords have invoked the total number of Members, drawing unfavourable comparisons with other second Chambers around the world. But before we lose ourselves in the arithmetic of armchairs, let us consider a few rather more revealing figures.
Since 1999, the average daily attendance has never exceeded 497 Members. Last year the figure was just 397 Peers—barely 51% of the total membership. Even in our most heavily attended vote, on the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill, just 634 Members took part. These are not the numbers of a bloated, overbearing assembly; they are the numbers of a House that flexes with the rhythm of expertise and interest—that breathes in and out according to the demands of scrutiny.
We are not and were never meant to be a full-time House. It is neither expected nor desirable that every Peer attends every day. Many noble Lords bring with them outstanding commitments rooted in their industries and fields of expertise. This is not a weakness; it is our strength. It is the very foundation of our ability to scrutinise, revise and improve legislation. Some of us are generalists and able to contribute widely. Others are specialists, drawn in when their knowledge is most needed. That blend is not accidental; it is essential.
To fix an arbitrary cap on our numbers, particularly one tied to the size of the House of Commons, would not enhance our function; it would potentially diminish it. It would risk leaving gaps in our collective knowledge, stifling the very expertise on which this House depends. Without a mandatory retirement age to generate vacancies, restrictions on appointments could become a blunt instrument, blocking the arrival of fresh insight while leaving the door shut to renewal.
Although I maintain that, in itself, size does not matter, I can see that the perception of size is an issue. Public confidence and trust in this House matter, and I do not blame the public for misunderstanding what we do—how could they when so much of our work is invisible, unbroadcast and uncelebrated? We all bear the responsibility for explaining it better, proving our value and showing that the presence of hundreds of Members does not mean hundreds of voices speaking at once but is rather a reservoir of wisdom summoned when needed.
I look forward with great interest to the Lord Privy Seal’s reply to this debate, but I will close with a question: do the Government believe that it is the size of the House that matters, or is it merely a convenient fig leaf to cover a more political ambition—the removal of over 80 hereditary Peers, the vast majority of whom do not take the Government Whip?
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Smith of Basildon) (Lab)
My Lords, this was a short but interesting debate. I thank the noble Baroness for injecting some humour into it. It seemed that the female Members of the House found it funnier than—if I dare say it—the male Members of the House. Perhaps I will pass over that quite quickly and move on.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Collins of Highbury) (Lab)
You need a fig leaf.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
It continues.
There have been some interesting discussions. The noble Lord, Lord Burns, used his amendment to refer back to the Lord Speaker’s Committee, when he looked at the size of the House and how related issues might be addressed. His amendment focuses on the idea of two out, one in, although he spoke more widely on the report, which was very helpful. I will come to that in a moment.
The noble Lord, Lord Northbrook, wants to delay the commencement of the Bill, which is why he tabled his amendment. He seemed to think we should have a draft Bill first to implement the Burns committee’s report. I looked into his interest in the Burns committee, and I was surprised, given that he thought it so important to delay this Bill until there is a draft Bill on the Burns committee, that he did not speak on the Burns committee when it was debated in your Lordships’ House. I think he referred to it in debate on my noble friend Lord Grocott’s Bill. It is an interesting point but not one that we would be able to accept, because it would just delay this Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Burns, raised some interesting issues. When we debated the Burns committee report there was widespread support around the House for it. Looking back, I was not sure during the debate that every Member was fully signed up to every part of the report, but there was a real view that something had to be done and that this was going in the right direction of how we might address the issue.
The noble Baroness made a point about size and how we are not a full-time House. We are very much a full-time House. We sit longer and later than the other place, but we do not expect every Member of your Lordships’ House to be full-time. Members have outside interests, and we do not expect everybody to be here all day, every day—and neither should we. It would be unhelpful to the House if every Member was always here and we were all full-time politicians. We bring different experiences and different issues to the House.
I think we agree that the size of the House should come down. This is a bit about perception. We regularly read about the size and the bloat of the House, and how we are the second-largest assembly in the world, but we are not. If we look at the active membership—Members who attend reasonably regularly—then the House is not that size; it is much smaller. The two measures we are looking at, on retirement and participation, go a long way towards addressing some of the criticisms that are made. That is why I am so keen—and I have said that I will come back to the House on this—to have a mechanism that Members can input into so that we can see if the House can reach agreement on what that might look like in practice. We have had some discussions about that already.
The noble Lord, Lord Newby, made some points about allocation. We discussed this before on the Bill from the noble Lord, Lord Norton, which suggested that 20% of the House should be Cross-Benchers. Although that is a pretty fair figure for the Cross-Benchers, having a mechanism within your Lordships’ House that, in effect, determines what the size of one group should be does nothing about the relative size of other groups. One of the things I have looked at with some dismay over the years is how the government party has grown and grown. The noble Lord said his party had had only three new Members, most of them very recently. To come back to an earlier debate, at one point I think more new Ministers were appointed—in some cases for very short terms in office—to this side of the House than we had appointments in the whole of that time in opposition. We therefore need to get a better balance between the two parties.
The noble Lord, Lord Burns, is absolutely right. The House does some of its best work when we do not play the numbers game and say, “We’ve got more than you, we can win a vote”. We got into bad habits during some of the coalition years, when there was an automatic majority. We saw large numbers come in under Boris Johnson in particular: when the Government lost votes, their answer was to appoint more Peers. That did not have the effect that the Government wanted it to have. The House does its best work when there are roughly equal numbers between the Government and opposition parties, and when we are more deliberative in our approach rather than thinking that everything has to be resolved by voting. The House was designed to take that sort of approach. But the House is larger than it needs to be and it does not reflect the work we do or how we operate.
The noble Lord, Lord Burns, did the House a great service with his report; he focused minds. These are issues that we will return to, but he established an important principle that the House should look at dealing with some of these issues. It is very important that we do, because our views on how we should operate matter. This goes back to earlier debates about the skills and experience required, and about the make-up of the House that we want to see. We will have that debate in a moment, I am sure, on the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra. This has been an important debate and I am grateful to both noble Lords for their amendments, but I would respectfully urge them not to press them.
Lord Burns (CB)
My Lords, I am very grateful for all the comments that have been made about the Lord Speaker’s Committee’s report and in response to the amendment. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hain, who been supportive throughout this process; that has been important to ensure that we did really have cross-party support.
The noble Lord, Lord Newby, raised the allocation of places. I thought I mentioned this in my remarks, and it was certainly set out in some detail in the Lords Speaker’s Committee’s report. New appointments should be allocated according to the proportion of the votes in the previous general election. That would certainly be reflected in the number of Liberal Democrats. I appreciate there would be a problem if there was suddenly a very big shift in the voting behaviour in the country—for example, if a new party emerged. Then, of course, there would be some issues about balance.
The noble Baroness, Lady Finn, emphasised the whole question of whether it really matters what size the House is—it needs to come and go according to the rhythm of the place. But the reality is that without a ceiling on the House, the numbers have gone up and up over the whole period since there have been life peerages. There is no control mechanism with these arrangements. Whatever we do in the short term to bring down the numbers, if we do not have a commitment on what we want the size of the House to be and a mechanism for keeping it there, I can see nothing other than that the numbers will continue to rise.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I am very touched by the determination of the noble Lord, Lord Harris, to hear from me. I am very happy to act as a performing seal to keep the noble Lord happy for hours on end, if he wishes, but that has never been the intention of the party on this side. If he looks carefully in Hansard, he will see me having said, from this Dispatch Box, that there was no question of our Front Bench dividing this House at any stage in Committee, and I hope that that message has been relayed to Members opposite.
My noble friend Lord Blencathra raised an interesting issue in his typically creative way. Like others, I flinched when I saw the long list of bodies in his amendment, although it underlines the depth and range of skills that there are still in this great country. Having listened to his arguments, I realise that he has put forward a probing—or perhaps more a scattergun—amendment. My noble friend is right that it is vital that we have a wide range of expertise to be called on as and when it is needed. That expertise, or the ability to analyse and deploy it, is one reason why your Lordships’ House has the authority that it has. It is why—although this is not germane to this amendment—I am rather more sympathetic to the occasional expert contributors we have among us than some who measure participation by quantity only.
The ingenious proposal from my noble friend Lord Blencathra, which does not seem to have found favour, is that temporary peerages be granted for representatives from each chartered professional body. We also heard another interesting proposal earlier from my noble friend Lady Laing on temporary Ministers, which I found fascinating. One might even moderate those proposals to consider: if we are a modern Chamber, and if we wish to be modern and we speak about reform, can we not think of doing things in different ways from all the other boring assemblies around the world? We are an interesting place. That area near the Throne is where the judges come at State Opening, on writs of assistance, to be present in the Chamber; it is not technically part of the Chamber. Could we not moderate the kind of proposal that my noble friend Lord Blencathra has put forward, so that if we are discussing something highly technical, we occasionally have people come here to advise and respond in our Chamber to inform our proceedings? It is just an idea.
If we are thinking of the future, let us be open without necessarily having to call people here for a long period with permanent peerages, as my noble friend said. Certainly, if we were ever to consider anything along my noble friend’s lines, he is surely right in proposing that any such appointment be temporary, to keep people at their most relevant and to allow a degree of flexibility within each sector to propose their representatives.
I admire my noble friend’s ingenuity in asking us to reflect on the expertise that we have, the expertise that we need and the expertise that we stand to lose, as my noble friend Lord Leicester said, if the proposal to exclude all hereditary Peers and all Peers over 80 were to go forward. We should have in mind the expertise we might lose as we consider any proposals for change and transition. However, my noble friend and the Committee will not be surprised when I say that, despite my great respect for his intentions and ingenuity, I am afraid that we on this Front Bench cannot support his specific proposals.
Appointing representatives from all chartered professional bodies in this way would make our House a bit too corporatist for my liking, and my noble friend leaves out other great institutions of the land. That said, we should reflect on whether there are other ways in which we could have witnesses occasionally to advise us on technical matters when we are considering important legislation. If we are to have this great modernisation, let us also consider innovative ways in which we might draw on the great wisdom of the British people.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, this has been an interesting debate, and there has not been very much support for the noble Lord’s proposal. One thing that impressed me—he may have gained a record, at least so far on this Bill—was that he managed to produce an amendment longer than the Bill itself. I do not recall that happening before.
It is clear that the different backgrounds, experiences and knowledge of noble Lords from around the House are really valuable in our deliberations. There are indeed past presidents of societies sitting in the House at the moment. The noble Lord, Lord Rees, has been president of the Royal Astronomical Society. The noble Baronesses, Lady Rafferty and Lady Finlay, have been presidents of the Royal College of Nursing and the Royal Society of Medicine respectively, and the noble Lord, Lord Trees, was president of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons. They have enhanced the debates—the noble Baroness, Lady Rafferty, has not been here very long but we look forward to more contributions from her; she has proved herself already—and these appointments are always welcome to your Lordships’ House. I think the noble Lord gets that.
Where I struggle with the noble Lord’s amendment is with regard to all the other organisations. The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, got it absolutely right: once you get a list, you look at the things you are excluding, and I do not think the chartered institutes and royal societies are the only groups that can provide such expertise. I also note that, had all the appointments been made that the noble Lord speaks of, they would make up about 30% of the House as Cross-Benchers. I think the noble Lord, Lord Norton, said that the Cross Benches should make up around 20%, which is roughly what most people were talking about, and this amendment would take it well over that. They would probably be larger than either of the two parties of government.
The noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, made the point that I would have made, but he got there first—obviously, it is a very good point to make, because it was what I was thinking. Why are we here? We are here for our experience, our knowledge and the contributions we make, but basically, we are here for our judgment. We listen to people who are experts and those who are not experts, and we listen to the public. We take on board all those things, and ultimately, we all have to act on our honour and make a judgment on the information before us.
The noble Lord, Lord Davies, pointed out how much the expertise that Members bring to this House would cost if it came from outside this place. But I do not really want a House just of experts, and I do not know where the noble Lord got that from. We are not a House of experts; we are a House that comes together to reach an expert opinion. We have experts among us, but not all of us have an expertise. Many do, but others are here, as the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, said, to exercise judgment. We want Members to speak not just on one issue in which they have expertise; we expect them to look at a range of issues while they are here.
I am also uncomfortable with the idea of temporary membership of the House, which the noble Baroness, Lady Laing, raised earlier as well. We want all Members to be equal and to have equal status here; we do not want some Members who are temporary and some who are not.
I am sure that the noble Lord tabled his amendment with the best of intentions, but I ask him to withdraw it.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, my political antenna detects that my suggestion has not received universal acclaim. I say to my noble friend Lord Taylor of Holbeach, who was my superb Chief Whip, that I am sorry if I missed out the royal agricultural societies of Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland. That would put my list up to 130, from 129. He does not like lists, but the Bill is nothing but a list of 88 people to chuck out, so I suggest that it is a list as well.
The esteemed organisation of the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, is not a chartered institute or a royal society. I say to the Leader of the House that one has to create a cut-off somewhere. There are lots of other able organisations, but I wanted to pick those that were officially chartered institutes and royal societies, and which had therefore reached a certain level of acknowledged expertise, possibly among their peers. I note the points made by my noble friend Lord Leicester, and I largely concur.
The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, was quite strongly against my amendment. He did not want these experts in here; he would prefer to pay them to speak to us. Suppose that, over the next few years, HOLAC had nominated each of these individuals. Why would it nominate them? It would nominate them because they were experts in their field. We would say, “Jolly good, welcome here; we need your expertise”. Of course this House needs experts and expertise. I say to the Leader of the House that I am not suggesting having 650 technical experts; I am suggesting 129 experts, plus any others we may have, which would leave another 400 or 500 Peers to exercise our judgment. I agree with my noble friend Lord True that we need to look at innovative ways. I said that I had the germ of an idea here. Most people think that this germ should be disinfected and done away with immediately, I suspect, but there is a possibility here to do things differently. He said that my plans were too corporatist. I thought that he said that they were too corpulent, which the House rather is at the moment; it is too large.
I am clearly not going to succeed. I do not intend to bring this back on Report. I was floating an idea and in five years’ time, say, the House may wish to look at it. I am grateful for the Minister’s response. In view of the attitude tonight, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, for raising this issue. It has been raised in your Lordships’ House previously, and the noble Lord the Leader of the Official Opposition has raised some of the legal issues around the legislation that causes part of the problem.
I have to say—and I think the noble Lord would say the same—that I am immensely proud of the work that my ministerial colleagues do. If you look across Parliament, you find that there are few Ministers who work as hard as Lords Ministers. Partly that it is because Lords Ministers—as I look at the team, I think, “What a team!”—have to cover a range of issues, including for their colleagues. They will answer any issue raised across their department. I have enormous respect for the work they do.
The problem lies with legislation that is 50 years old that limits the number of Ministers overall: it limits the number in the House of Commons and then it limits the number of different categories of Minister. As the noble Lord says, it has been the case for a number of years that there have been a small number of unpaid Ministers. I am pleased to say we have made some progress. We have five paid Ministers of State in your Lordships’ House now and significantly fewer unpaid Ministers. However, I take the point; I do not think that any Minister should be unpaid. It is not just the issue of pay; it is the respect that we gain in doing the role.
The noble Lord refers to arrangements that he tried to come to with his Government and failed to do so, and how he and I spoke. I have to say that the reason we did not reach agreement was that the arrangements did not address all the issues that I think need to be addressed. I considered that it was a stopgap measure that would get us through a short period, but I did not think it was a long-term solution. This is something that is very much on my agenda, and my colleagues know it is on my agenda. It is a good old trade union principle that people should get paid for the job they do, and that should be the case.
I have to say, though, that it is not related to this Bill. It is quite a stretch to get it in the Bill, and I admire the noble Lord’s ingenuity. However, the effect of his amendment if it were to pass would either be immediately to reduce the number of Ministers in the Commons or to lose Ministers from this place. The third option would be to change the legislation, which is probably a bit above my pay grade for now. I can say that these matters are under discussion, and I will do what I can with my colleagues to ensure that all of them get the proper support that they should get when doing their jobs. For now, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
Surely it would be possible, if the noble Baroness is not prepared to accept my noble friend’s amendment, to have a one-clause Bill which simply alters the number and is agreed between the usual channels, which could pass through both Houses. It is very hard to understand why this could not be done. The noble Baroness may say, “When you were in government you did not do it”, but the former Leader of the House, my noble friend Lord True, made perfectly clear the effort that was put in. I would have thought a Labour Government would stand for the principle that everyone should receive equal pay for equal labour.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
The noble Lord is right: if there was agreement across both Houses—if he could persuade the leader of the Opposition to support this in the other place as well—I would certainly talk to the Prime Minister. But this is something that has to be done cross-party and not with party-political capital made out of it. We also need to say a bit more about the work that our Lords Ministers do. There is nobody in this House who does not hold Lords Ministers in the highest regard. Perhaps we ought to be saying that to our colleagues in the other place as well.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I very much agree with the final words of the Leader of the House and what she says about Ministers. I see how hard-working her team of Lords Ministers are. When they go into their departments tomorrow bleary-eyed after these long debates, they will have diaries full of meetings and boxes full of papers—prepared without the expectation that they should have been here at nearly 11 pm the evening before, so I very much agree with her.
I particularly welcome the noble Baroness’s willingness to look at this issue on a cross-party basis. I know that there is never a good time to legislate to pay politicians more, but this is a problem that has been kicked down the path for half a century. It is causing problems to the social composition and the sense of fairness about Governments. I hope we might be able to act on it. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord True for his candour about the efforts that he made as Leader of your Lordships’ House, and the sense of shame and frustration he feels that he was not able to persuade our colleagues in government to do it.
With this Bill there is an opportunity to right this wrong. I hope the noble Baroness and my noble friend Lord True will take this away and continue those discussions. If not, I see there is an employment Bill coming down the line and we will be able to assert our trade union rights in the future. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, it is unfortunate, in a way, that my noble friend’s carefully thought-out amendment has come forward at this hour and at this time. It draws on existing practice, as was done in 1999; it provides a way to get towards a number that the House of Lords might be content with; and it addresses issues of party balance—I take what the convenor has just said about the specific interests and concerns of the Cross Benches.
We are not going to have a serious or thoughtful examination of this significant amendment at this hour on this particular day. What it does do, however, is remind us that there is a lot in the Bill about a finality and an alleged completion of unfinished business. There are differences about what bit of business is being finished or left unfinished, but what is absolutely clear—as I said at the start of our debate—is that the future of the House remains a fog. We have to bend our thoughts and consideration to the future; considerations were put forward for us by the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, and others in earlier amendments. We cannot have ease or security in this House without the kind of arrangements and patterns of governance and composition—the kind of things that are addressed in my noble friend’s amendment. By the way, I always thought he was a passionate advocate of an elected House, and he may well still be under the surface; I do not know. But we really have to find a way.
The noble Baroness was talking earlier about consultation, and no specific timescale was given in response to any of the amendments—from the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, or the noble Duke—for when we might see some of the fog about our future lifted. There has to be some model or mechanism; it might be close to what we have now or something nearer to what my noble friend Lord Strathclyde suggests. We cannot have closure unless we have an opening to the future—a better one than we have heard in our debates on the Bill so far.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, again, this is an ingenious amendment, and I congratulate the noble Lord. I am not sure whether he or the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, wins the prize tonight, but both amendments are longer than the Bill, which is something of an achievement when drafting amendments to legislation.
On the point that the noble Lord opposite has just made, I will say something I have reiterated several times: there is a three-stage process from the manifesto. The first stage is this, which is the completion of the reform started in 1999 around hereditary Peers. The second is the issues we have debated tonight and voted on many times—they are not for this Bill but for moving forward—on issues like participation and retirement. There is not an exact timetable, but we will get clearer to that in the process as we get to Report. Then there is a longer-term objective for consultation with the wider public on an alternative second Chamber. It is not rocket science; I have been quite clear around that.
This amendment would create a House of 600 Members—and I am not sure that that figure has been raised before by the noble Lord, but I am happy to be corrected on that—we would have self-perpetuating elections by Members of this House at the beginning of each Parliament, and the only people who could vote would be Members of this House. It would also completely undermine the purpose of this Bill, because hereditary Peers would be able to take part in those elections, stand for them and vote.
The noble Lord’s proposals for future composition are interesting, but I take into account the points made by the noble Earl the Convenor. It does not address the wider issues of the House, but I know the issues that he is trying to get to. We will continue that dialogue and formalise that in due course around other issues that have been raised, and I gave a commitment to that earlier on tonight. But this amendment would undermine that dialogue and engagement, and I ask the noble Lord to withdraw it.
Lord Strathclyde (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken. I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Newby, that I have not given up on the idea of an elected House, but I am a realist, and I do not think that there is much thirst for it in this House—and I am not entirely convinced that there is very much thirst for it in another place either. The fact that it did not appear in the manifesto of the Labour Party rather indicates that view. We are still relying on the preamble to the 1911 Act. I join the noble Lord, Lord Newby, in trying to encourage a long-term solution around that.
The noble Lord, Lord True, is right. At some stage we need to find a real solution. Of course, there are age limits and all sorts of other things that you can bring in, but none of those is popular either. The idea of an election works; it has been tried and tested, and I hope that, on reflection, the Leader of the House will feel that there is some purpose in this kind of amendment, which would change the whole debate about the size and numbers in the House, and keep people in who have the support of other Peers to remain in the House for the rest of their lives.
Having heard what everybody has said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.