Business of the House

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Wednesday 5th March 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

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

Motion agreed.

Ukraine

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Tuesday 4th March 2025 Lords Chamber

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Newby (LD)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

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

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

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

[Baroness May of Maidenhead (Con)]

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

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

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

[The Lord Bishop of Norwich]

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

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

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

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

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

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

[Lord Howard of Lympne (Con)]

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

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

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

[Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)]

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

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

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

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

[Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)]

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

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

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

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

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

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

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

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

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

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

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

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

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

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

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

House adjourned at 8.25 pm.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 3rd March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

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

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

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

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

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

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

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

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

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

[Lord Strathclyde (Con)]

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

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Newby (LD)]

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

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

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

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

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

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Meyer (Con)]

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

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord True (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 3rd March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howard of Lympne (Con)]

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Mancroft (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

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

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

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

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

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

[Lord Strathclyde (Con)]

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

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

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

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

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

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

[Lord Strathclyde (Con)]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

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

[Lord Swire (Con)]

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

--- Later in debate ---

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

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

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

[Lord True (Con)]

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

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

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

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

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

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

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

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

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

Is that “longer term” during this Parliament?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

[Lord True (Con)]

That is not fair to the Leader.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

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

[The Earl of Caithness (Con)]

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

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

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

[The Earl of Caithness (Con)]

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

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords—

[The Earl of Caithness (Con)]

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Finn (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

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

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

[Lord Howard of Rising (Con)]

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

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

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

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

[Lord Strathclyde (Con)]

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

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

[Lord Strathclyde (Con)]

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

Business of the House

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Thursday 27th February 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

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

Motion agreed.

Defence and Security

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Wednesday 26th February 2025 Lords Chamber

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Newby (LD)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Baroness May of Maidenhead (Con)]

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

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

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

[Lord Fowler (CB)]

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

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

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

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

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

[The Lord Bishop of London]

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

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

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

[Lord Beamish (Lab)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Beamish (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

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

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

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

[Lord Howard of Lympne (Con)]

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

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

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

[Lord Boateng (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

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

[Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)]

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

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

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

[Lord Walney (CB)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Walney (CB)]

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

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Helic (Con)]

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

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

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

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

[Lord Spellar (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

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

[Lord Sharma (Con)]

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

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

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

Business of the House

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Wednesday 8th January 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

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

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

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

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

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

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

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

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

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

Motion agreed.

Foreign-owned Social Media Companies

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Tuesday 7th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Chakrabarti]

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

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

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

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

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

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

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

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

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

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

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

[Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

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

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

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

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

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

[Baroness D’Souza (CB)]

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

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

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

[Viscount Camrose (Con)]

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

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

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

Intelligence and Security Committee

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Monday 16th December 2024 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

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

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

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

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

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

Motion agreed.

Plan for Change: Milestones for Mission-led Government

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Thursday 12th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Finn (Con)]

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

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

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

[Baroness Finn (Con)]

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

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

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

“the tepid bath of … decline”.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Newby (LD)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

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

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


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

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

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

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

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

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

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

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

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

[Lord Birt (CB)]

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

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

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

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

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

[Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

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

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

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

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

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

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

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

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

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

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


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

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

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

[Lord Hendy (Lab)]

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

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

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

“Deliver growth by working in partnership with businesses”.


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

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

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

“every nation and region realises its full potential”,

as well as driving

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

to help

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

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

[Earl Russell (LD)]

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

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

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

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

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

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