Intelligence and Security Committee

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Monday 16th December 2024 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

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

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

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

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

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

Motion agreed.

Plan for Change: Milestones for Mission-led Government

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Thursday 12th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Finn (Con)]

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

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

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

[Baroness Finn (Con)]

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

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

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

“the tepid bath of … decline”.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Newby (LD)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

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

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


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

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

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

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

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

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

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

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

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

[Lord Birt (CB)]

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

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

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

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

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

[Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

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

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

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

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

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

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

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

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

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

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


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

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

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

[Lord Hendy (Lab)]

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

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

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

“Deliver growth by working in partnership with businesses”.


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

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

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

“every nation and region realises its full potential”,

as well as driving

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

to help

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

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

[Earl Russell (LD)]

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

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

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

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

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

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

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 11th December 2024 Lords Chamber

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

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

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

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

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 11th December 2024 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

That the Bill be now read a second time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Full stop.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Business of the House

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Monday 9th December 2024 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

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

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

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

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

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

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

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

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

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

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

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

Motion agreed.

House of Lords: Numbers and Eligibility

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Monday 9th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Fowler]

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

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

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

[Lord Fowler (CB)]

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

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

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

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

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

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

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

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

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

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

[Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)]

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

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

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

[Lord Watts (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

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

[Lord True (Con)]

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

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


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

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

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

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

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

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

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

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

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

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

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

G20 and COP 29 Summits

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Monday 25th November 2024 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I will repeat a Statement the Prime Minister made last Thursday:

“Thank you for your earlier words about John Prescott. We woke today to the deeply sad news that we have lost a true giant of the Labour movement and of this House; a man who fought for working-class ambition because he lived it. As one of the key architects of a Labour Government, John achieved that rare thing: he changed people’s lives and he set the path for us all to follow. I will always be grateful to him for that. He did it in his own way, with humour, pride, passion and total conviction. He truly was a one-off. There will be a moment for fuller tributes, but today I send my deepest condolences to John’s wife Pauline and his family, to the city of Hull, and to all those who knew and loved him. His legacy lives on in all of us.

I would like to update the House on my engagements at COP and the G20. We live in a dangerous and volatile world. We all wish that that were not the case, but it is, and it means that global problems are reaching into the lives of our constituents more and more. Climate change causes extreme weather, such as the terrible floods that we saw in September, and drives down economic growth; conflicts drive up the prices of fuel, food and energy and threaten our stability and security; and both are drivers of migration. To serve the British people we must tackle these problems head-on, because they do not stop at our borders—and that is the fundamental point. At every meeting I had at COP and the G20, and in every agreement I entered into, my focus was on tackling these problems to deliver growth and security for the British people.

At COP, I made the case that we must act on climate change and nature loss as some of the greatest long-term threats we face, and in doing so we must seize the opportunities of the low-carbon economy for investment, for UK businesses and for British workers. At COP, I was proud to announce the UK’s new nationally determined contribution, with a 2035 target to reduce all greenhouse gas emissions by at least 81% on 1990 levels. I called on other countries to match that ambition to limit global temperature rises to 1.5 degrees, and I made the investment case for the transformation that we are leading here in the UK.

By launching GB Energy, creating the National Wealth Fund to build new energy infrastructure and setting a path to clean power by 2030, we will not just boost our energy security and protect bill payers, but put Britain in pole position to claim the clean energy jobs of the future. That is why at COP, I was able to announce a £1 billion wind turbine investment that will support 1,300 local jobs around Hull—something of which John would have been proud—and produce enough clean energy to power 1 million homes. That is in addition to the recent investment in carbon capture in Teesside and Merseyside, which will create 4,000 jobs, and the investment announced by my right honourable friend the Chancellor for 11 new green hydrogen projects across Britain.

Tackling climate change is a global effort, of course, so at the G20, together with Brazil and 10 other countries, I launched our global clean power alliance to speed up the international rollout of clean power, accelerate investment, and cut emissions around the world.

We came together at the G20 to meet other challenges as well. I was pleased to join President Lula’s Global Alliance Against Hunger and Poverty to bring an end to the lost decade in that fight, because this is also an investment in stability and in tackling the factors that force people to leave their homes and make long journeys that too often end with criminal gangs exploiting them and putting their lives at risk in the English Channel. We will smash those gangs. I am sure the House will welcome last week’s news from the Netherlands, where the National Crime Agency, operating with European partners, arrested a man suspected of being a major supplier of small boats equipment. We will hit these organised criminals with the full force of the law, but we will also work with our partners to address the root causes of the problem.

The G20 represents 85% of global GDP, so we have a shared interest in driving up growth and investment. I held productive bilateral meetings with many G20 leaders to that end: Brazil, Japan, Italy, South Africa, the Republic of Korea and others. I also met Italy and Japan together to take forward the Global Combat Air Programme, which will build the next generation of fighter jets, create highly skilled jobs and strengthen our national security for the longer term.

I also had a good discussion with Prime Minister Modi about deepening our bilateral ties. We agreed to raise the ambition of our UK-India comprehensive strategic partnership, covering security, defence, technology, climate, health and education, building on the unique bonds and cultural ties between our two countries. Crucially, this work will start with trade and investment, and I am pleased to say that we agreed to launch FTA negotiations early in the new year.

I also held a bilateral meeting with President Xi. This was the first high-level leader meeting between the United Kingdom and China for six years. We had a frank, constructive and pragmatic discussion. As G20 economies and permanent members of the Security Council at a time of huge volatility, we both recognise the importance of engagement. I was clear that we will always act in our national interest, but we need to work together on challenges such as climate change and delivering growth. We agreed to a new dialogue on these issues, which my right honourable friend the Chancellor will take forward with the Vice-Premier in Beijing. Of course, there will continue to be areas where we do not agree, and we will address them clearly and frankly. They include a number of human rights issues, the sanctioning of Members of this House and, of course, Hong Kong, but here too we need to engage. The lesson of history is that we are better able to deal with problems, and the world is safer, when leaders talk, so we agreed to keep this channel of communication open.

Although it was not on the formal agenda of the G20, the spectre of conflict loomed large over the summit. Conflict is spreading misery, destruction and despair, and causing children to starve and families to flee their homes. I called again for the immediate and unconditional release of the hostages in Gaza, who are always uppermost in our minds. I also called for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza and a massive increase in the flow of aid to Gaza, which is desperately needed. Yesterday, we backed a UN Security Council resolution to that end. We must find ways to make this international pressure count, to end the suffering on all sides.

The G20 coincided with 1,000 days of conflict in Ukraine. For the third year running, Putin did not attend. Instead, on the eve of the summit, he launched Russia’s biggest attack for months, killing yet more innocent Ukrainians and hitting civilian energy infrastructure at the start of winter, and he indulged yet again in dangerous, irresponsible rhetoric. This is a member of the Security Council acting with contempt for the UN charter. Whereas Brazil made finding solutions to hunger and poverty the focus of its presidency, in recent weeks Russian missiles have continued to rain down on civilian ships carrying grain bound for Africa. It could not be more clear: this is a man who wants destruction, not peace.

After 1,000 days of war—1,000 days of Ukrainian bravery and sacrifice—I am clear that we must double down on our support. We will not be deterred or distracted by reckless threats. We have consistently said that we will do what it takes to support Ukraine and put it in the best possible position going into the winter. The UK’s support for Ukraine is always for self-defence. It is proportionate, co-ordinated and agile, in response to Russia’s own actions. It is in accordance with international law: under Article 51 of the UN charter, Ukraine has a clear right of self-defence against Russia’s illegal attacks. I say again that Russia could roll back its forces and end this war tomorrow. Until then, we will stand up for what we know is right, for Ukraine’s security and for our own security, and we will back Ukraine with what is needed for as long as it takes.

In challenging times, I take the view that British leadership matters more than ever. For the sake of our growth and security, we are making our presence felt, giving the British people a voice on the global stage once again and standing up for the national interest. I commend this Statement to the House”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Newby (LD)]

I begin by joining from these Benches the tributes to Lord Prescott. With colleagues, I send our condolences to John Prescott’s family and friends.

I completely agree with the Prime Minister when he says that the world is safer when leaders talk. Given the many conflicts and challenges facing the world today, the need for international dialogue has never been greater. The Statement covers a very wide range of issues, of which I would like to refer to just five.

First, on our climate reduction commitments, it is a good start to set the target of an 81% reduction in our greenhouse gas emissions by 2035, but we still need an action plan to do so. The Statement stresses the important role which GB Energy and the National Wealth Fund will play in achieving this, but will the Leader accept that there is currently a complete muddle as to how the National Wealth Fund will operate at all? Its relationship with GB Energy is unclear, to put it mildly. Given the need to maximise investment on green energy from both these bodies, will the Government clarify this situation and present a detailed plan to explain how their laudable aspirations for decarbonising the economy will actually be met? As part of any plan, could the Government say what steps they are taking to ensure that the benefits from new wind farms are not delayed because they cannot get a timely connection to the grid, as was reported today in respect of BP’s Morven wind farm? We need a new sense of urgency in this whole area.

Secondly, we welcome the Government’s decision to join the Global Alliance against Hunger and Poverty, but can the noble Baroness the Leader explain how we can really step up to the plate on this so long as our commitment to aid continues to fall so far short of the 0.7% target? In the absence of any proposal to increase the currently planned 0.5% level, what will joining the global alliance mean? What is going to change?

Thirdly, on Gaza, we share the Government’s call for an immediate ceasefire and a massive increase in the flow of aid to Palestinian civilians, but does the noble Baroness accept that Israel shows not the slightest inclination to move in this direction, and is instead maintaining a programme of massive destruction and of denying aid to Gaza? The UK’s ability to influence events in the region is extremely limited, but one thing we could do would be to recognise Palestine as an independent state. Will the Government stop prevaricating on this issue and recognise Palestine now, without further delay?

Fourthly, on Ukraine, we support the Government in their determination to double down in our support for the Government in Kyiv. We welcome the long-delayed decision to allow the use of Storm Shadow missiles into Russian territory, but we believe that we should also be freeing up frozen Russian assets so that they can be used by Kyiv to support the war effort. This is an area where the Government could take a lead, by calling a summit of European leaders to unblock these assets. Will the Government now do so?

Finally, on China, the Prime Minister has had what he called “frank, constructive and pragmatic” discussions. This is welcome. The Statement refers to Hong Kong but is not specific about exactly what was discussed. Did the Prime Minister raise the case of Jimmy Lai and the 45 jailed pro-democracy campaigners? If so, what was President Xi’s response? When the Prime Minister says that we need to work together with China on delivering growth, what does that mean in practice?

The previous Government succeeded in trashing the UK’s global reputation, and we welcome the Prime Minister’s attempts to rebuild it, but action must now follow the promises he has made if we are really to punch our weight again on the international stage.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful for most of the comments made by both noble Lords. I will do my best to answer as many as I can in the time remaining. I thank them for their comments about our friend John Prescott. John and I were introduced into this House on the same day. My mum still tells with great affection the story of meeting Pauline in the loo and having a chat afterwards. He was a one-off, and we miss him greatly.

I have to say that I thought the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition’s comments about the Prime Minister were really unwarranted and unworthy of him. This country has a role to play on the international stage. We have not really made our weight and our presence felt in the way that we should. The fact that this was the first time in six years that there had been a meeting between the Chinese Premier and a Prime Minister does not serve the best interests of this country. The Leader of the Opposition asked specifically about that, as did the noble Lord, Lord Newby, and we have to co-operate where we can with China; we have to compete where it is appropriate; and, as my noble friend Lord Collins has said on many occasions, there are times when we must challenge as well. The frank discussions that were had were very important. Yes, the first item on the agenda was Jimmy Lai. The world will have seen that was the first issue that the Prime Minister raised, because the cameras were there at that time—although they were ushered out soon after.

The Secretary of State will make a further Statement on the detail of energy policy, but the thing that will make the most difference and will help enormously in bringing down prices and protecting our energy security is GB Energy, where we have been dependent on an international market buffeting us around. We will hear more about that, but in answer to both noble Lords, I say that we will publish our clean power action plan by the end of the year. The noble Lord, Lord Newby, was absolutely right to talk about the national grid connections, which are poor and need to be improved. My right honourable friend will say more on that, but we are working on improving those connections at pace.

I think the noble Lord, Lord True, was a little confused when he talked about return hubs and the Rwanda policy, comparing to what has happened in other countries. There is a real difference between offshoring and outsourcing. This country has had offshoring arrangements with other countries for some time, but when you outsource or offload your immigration policy, that is when there is a significant difference. Given the amount of money spent by this country on the failed Rwanda policy—frankly, more Home Secretaries, Prime Ministers and journalists went to Rwanda than those seeking asylum or who had to have their claims assessed—I will take no lectures from the party opposite about that. What will really make a difference is the kind of international discussion which is being had about tackling the gangs. I was surprised that the noble Lord did not congratulate the Government and the National Crime Agency, because working with other countries is really important. Think of the arrest in the Netherlands last week. He shakes his head at me, but it is a significant step forward and one we hope to see more of.

The noble Lord also asked about the Falkland Islands. I do not know how many times we have to say from this Dispatch Box that the Falkland Islands and the Chagos Islands are completely different. We have made clear our support for the Falkland Islanders time and again, and I am entirely happy to do so again. The sovereignty of the Falkland Islands is not up for debate; it is an absolute commitment. I remind him that it was the previous Government who started negotiations on the Chagos Islands back in November 2022. Those discussions were not concluded, and that put the military base at risk. Under the agreement secured with Mauritius, the UK/US military base on Diego Garcia is now secured. That is the first time in 50 years that it is undisputed and legally secure. That was not the case before.

The noble Lord asked for an assurance about US engagement. I thought that it was clear that it has been the policy of this Government, and will continue to be, that we engage with foreign Governments. He described the Statement as self-congratulatory. It was not. It made clear that we have a place in the world. We have to find our place in the world and show our commitment to negotiations. In the relationship so far, the Prime Minister has met the President and the President-elect; there is ongoing dialogue and discussion and there will continue to be so. The noble Lord should recognise that it is an important relationship for this country, but we also recognise that relationships around the world are crucial as well.

The noble Lord, Lord Newby, asked about aid into Israel and Gaza, and he is absolutely right. There are two sides to this: the hostages must be released—just imagine the agonies of those families not knowing if the hostages are dead or alive or what state they are in—and that is a prerequisite; but, at the same time, given the amount of suffering of the people in Gaza, getting aid in as quickly as possible, particularly with winter coming, is absolutely crucial. Both those issues were discussed at the G20, and we will continue to put pressure at every opportunity possible.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness the Leader referred to GB Energy. Are the Government looking at small nuclear reactors?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I am happy to give a very quick answer to the noble Baroness: yes, they are.

[Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)]

It was a comprehensive Statement, but it included wording about

“a 2035 target to reduce all greenhouse gas emissions by at least 81% on 1990 levels”.

I know a clean energy mission is coming and we will learn the details there, but could the noble Baroness just explain how that squares with the aim of decarbonising all power by 2030 and an all-electric economy—or is that by 2035? Some of us are getting a bit confused with this and other developments. If we could just know roughly where we are going and whether these things are remotely attainable, that would help.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

Targets are there to be attained and reached, and every effort is being made. The difference is that 2030 is the national target; 2035 is the international agreement reached at the summits. I hope that is helpful.

[Lord Rooker (Lab)]

While I applaud the Government’s policy of being civilised, nice and supportive of President-elect Trump because we have to work with him, will it be made abundantly clear, without qualification, that this country will not import hormone-treated beef or chlorinated washed chicken?

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

Is that an application to be ambassador?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

From a sedentary position, the noble Lord, Lord Harris, suggests that was an application to be ambassador—I think not.

On all these things, the food safety agency will be involved to ensure that all products must be safe. The issue of chlorinated washed chicken previously caused enormous concern to the public, and that is why labelling is important. But I am sure these issues will be discussed as part of a new trade deal.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, does the noble Baroness accept that this is an appropriate moment to mention Lord Prescott’s involvement in the Kyoto Protocol? I think it was one of his outstanding achievements.

Can the noble Baroness the Leader of the House say a little bit about the forward look for next year’s COP meeting in Belém in Brazil? With a good Brazilian Minister of the Environment who is genuinely committed to stopping the destruction of the Amazon rainforest, there are surely major opportunities now to have a somewhat less contentious approach than we had to this year’s COP. Can she also say a little bit about what we are going to do on food security, because Brazil is very relevant there. Brazil has enormous capacity for agriculture and food production but not a very active programme of development in developing countries; we have a development policy. Can we not make them work a bit better together?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for his comments about John Prescott and Kyoto. It was one of the things of which he was most proud, and in many ways he was a man ahead of his time—many derided him on that issue but he was proved to be absolutely right. It remained an abiding passion of his right until the very end.

The noble Lord is right that the Brazil COP presents a major opportunity. Discussions are difficult when so many countries are trying to reach an agreement, so how these discussions are managed and how the countries work together is really important. The noble Lord has made the point about how the climate emergency affects every part of our lives in terms of food security and migration; they are interconnected, and that is why the role on the world stage is important. Food security is an issue that will be discussed at the next COP, because it is part and parcel of what is happening to the world with the climate emergency. The noble Lord is also right that the relationship between our country and Brazil has grown in the last few years. Certainly, at this COP, both Brazil and the UK were asked for advice on many occasions. After a very difficult COP this time, we must try to be as optimistic as we can to see what progress can be made in Brazil.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I think that many international and national observers will be surprised that we should have a Prime Ministerial Statement covering COP 29 in which the term “fossil fuels” does not appear once. Sadly, there were many disappointments coming out of COP 29, one of which was the key negotiating item known as the UAE dialogue, which was meant to follow on from the commitment in COP 28 to “transition away from fossil fuels”. What was put forward in Baku was rejected because countries said it was too weak. Saudi Arabia suggested that this was only one of the options which countries had agreed at COP 28. Does the noble Baroness agree that this is not correct? Are the Government considering showing real leadership such as we saw this week from Glasgow City Council—following London, Edinburgh and many other local governments around the country—in calling for backing for a fossil fuel non-proliferation treaty? Surely the UK should be showing leadership in the area of fossil fuels.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

The noble Baroness will have seen the clean power objective—the plan that will be coming out before the end of the year—which I think will address many of these concerns. I understand her concerns about the last COP just gone, but we have to build on this. There are two alternatives: either we give up and walk away saying, “We did not get what we wanted, so why continue?” or we just have to keep going, because each time progress is being made. The noble Baroness will know that nothing happened for 11 years about the issues that were agreed in Paris to proceed on carbon markets; at this COP, we finally agreed the rules, so progress is there. It is not enough, and it is not fast enough, but that is why we have to keep on going. The noble Baroness will see that we are making progress on clean power. To respond to the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, we have already started working with Brazil about what will happen at the next COP. Perhaps I am just an optimist, but I think we just have to try to make progress at every stage we possibly can.

[Lord Houghton of Richmond (CB)]

My Lords, I heard what the noble Baroness said about the Chagos Islands and Diego Garcia. Surely the strategic issue to be squared within the treaty is not the security of the base but the permissions of the US forces stationed there, particularly the B52 bombers, to prosecute operations from there without being subject to any form of a red card from the Mauritian Government. Can she confirm that the wording of the treaty is sufficiently clear that American operations mounted from Diego Garcia will not in some way be prejudiced?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

The noble and gallant Lord raises an important point. We are confident that the treaty does provide those assurances. That was part of the discussions which took place during the last Government prior to the treaty being signed.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, it is to be welcomed that the UK will join the Global Alliance Against Hunger and Poverty. However, in the next clause, the Prime Minister’s Statement said it was

“to bring an end to the lost decade in that fight”.

One of the reasons why that fight was being lost is that the richest countries in the world—including the UK, in breach of legislation—have reneged on the commitment they gave on previous development support of 0.7%. Can I read from the Statement that, during this Parliament, this Government will provide more development partnership assistance to such countries to alleviate action on hunger and poverty?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, we would certainly wish to be in a position to do so. That has been the case in past Labour Government responses. We are disappointed by the financial situation that we inherited, with a—dare I say it?—£22 billion black hole, but the noble Lord will know from his experience that this is something to which the Government and the Prime Minister personally are committed. We will do all we can.

[Lord Sentamu (CB)]

My Lords, I would like to follow the injunction of the Chief Whip by asking a question but, before I do so, perhaps I may join in the wonderful words that have been said about John Prescott. He was an MP in Hull, when Hull was facing terrible education. I remember him persuading us that Archbishop Thurstan School, which was a secondary school, should be renamed—believe it or not—Archbishop Sentamu Academy. He said, “The Government may lose the election, so make sure you get your £45 million ahead of this”, so we applied and we got it. Within a week, the coalition Government came into place and stopped all the school-building programmes that had been planned. The people of Hull want to say to John Prescott, “You have lifted us out of poverty and out of poor education”. For the first time, the Sentamu Academy has pupils leaving Hull to go to different universities and continue education.

In paying tribute to John Prescott’s work on COP, my question to the Leader of the House is: what more lessons could be learned from the way that he tackled poverty, particularly that of children?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I thank the noble and right reverend Lord for his recollections. Many people have similar, personal recollections of John. One of his great strengths was his ability to negotiate. Many felt that he would play up to his gruff exterior at times, but anyone who had watched him in a room of people disagreeing find some way to get some kind of agreement would have understood the brilliance of the man in that regard. That plays into COPs, in that people go in with their own objectives and do not always get what they want, but the worst thing they can do is walk out of the room, leave and make no progress. The lesson I take from John’s life is never to give up.

[Lord Bellingham (Con)]

My Lords, the Ukraine war was a recurring theme at the G20, and it looks very much as though this appalling war of attrition will continue for the foreseeable future. Obviously, funding is a key matter, and I noted the point from the noble Lord, Lord Newby, about frozen Russian assets. Can the Minister elaborate on that and give the House some explanation of whether there will be a breakthrough there?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My apologies: I did not address that point in the time I had. Yes, there are ongoing discussions with others to make further progress on that.

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

My Lords, will the Leader of the House confirm that the Prime Minister will ignore the bleatings from those opposite and continue to attend all these important meetings with world leaders? That is far more useful than, for example, Boris Johnson going to Italy to be entertained by Russian oligarchs. Given the record of the Tory Government over the last 14 years, does my noble friend not agree that the statement by the shadow Leader of the House shows a brass neck of which a kettle would be proud?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I always love my noble friend’s mixed metaphors, but I am not sure that a kettle has a brass neck. If it does, he has found it. One of the things that I find most useful, and I am sure everyone in the House agrees, is that whenever you attend a conference or meeting you make contacts and get to know people. In the few months that he has been Prime Minister, my right honourable friend has had to attend various conferences and summits. When you make good relations with people in the good times and have easy discussions, it makes those difficult discussions and harder negotiations easier in the longer term. There is no way that a bad or absent relationship helps this country. I hear the noise around the House, but I am grateful that we have a Prime Minister who recognises that good relationships with leaders of other countries are useful to this country, in good times and in bad. They promote the national interest, which is extraordinarily important.

[Lord Whitty (Lab)]

My Lords, I am very grateful for all the appreciation of the life of John Prescott, whom I knew and worked with for 40 years—indeed, I was his Minister in this House for four years. He was always prepared to negotiate, and that is what our current Prime Minister is doing in all these contexts. Negotiation is a multi-faceted thing, and you have to talk to people other than the person in apparent charge. The absence of America from the climate change talks, and its probable withdrawal under President Trump, is a real problem. But President Trump is not all of America. There is importance in keeping our lines open to American states, corporations, individuals and institutions so that pressure can be brought to bring America back into that process, because there are as many in America who support the reduction of fossil fuels as there are in the many countries that were present in Baku.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, my noble friend’s experience, and his work with John Prescott, really shone through in that question. There are some exciting developments in the US on clean energy and clean power. Our relationship is with the Government—whichever Government are in power, we maintain that relationship—but also with, as he says, companies, civic society and the people of the US. We have a lot we can learn from them and share with them. I can give him an assurance that that will continue. It is a very important relationship for this country.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I agree very much with the Leader of the House on the need for continued international diplomacy, whatever the issues. Lord Prescott indeed played a distinct and valuable part in that work.

China is no longer a developing country, so why is it not contributing directly to the $300 billion fund for loss and damage rather than just counting what it is already doing towards the important climate change objectives agreed at COP?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is right that China is still defined as a developing country, but I think we found a greater willingness to engage, and I hope we can make progress from that. That dialogue, and the fact that China is playing such a role and wants to play a greater part, is something that we should be optimistic about and try to build on, rather than reject.

[Lord Mackinlay of Richborough (Con)]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord True asked a couple of questions. I know that time was short, so I am sure that the noble Baroness will be grateful to be asked the questions once more. What was the cost of sending those 450-odd government attendees to Baku? What did they actually do? Furthermore, can she explain to the elderly people across this country deprived of their winter fuel allowance what amount of their future taxes will be Britain’s contribution towards the $300 billion by 2035?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

The noble Lord’s last question is a calculation that I doubt he or I have made yet. On the conference attendees, the Prime Minister went to show leadership on this, which was important, but there were fewer attendees in the UK delegation than there were last year under the previous Government. I do not have the costs; no doubt, they will be available in due course, and the Secretary of State will make a broader statement.

I think that eight Ministers attended along with officials, the devolved Governments and businesses. It was a wide-ranging group because we want to have that wide range of discussions. To anybody who questions the value of attending in person I say that a conference that runs over by 30 or 35 hours because of the difficulty in reaching agreement is proof that it is not something you can do over a video link, Zoom or Teams. You have to be there in the room and in person to try to make a difference.

[Lord Liddle (Lab)]

My Lords, should we not be proud of the fact that we now have a Prime Minister who is an internationalist who recognises that by pursuing internationalism we find the solution to so many domestic problems? Is this not a contrast to Boris Johnson, who spent his time insulting our closest friends and partners, and to Rishi Sunak, who could not be bothered to go abroad?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, yes, I am very proud of the role that our Prime Minister is playing in getting Britain back on the world stage as a force for good. That is crucial for the well-being and the interests of this country and for establishing a place in the world that shows what we can do and what we can achieve together. At a time when countries can make the changes they want and the greatest difference only when they co-operate, it is one of the crucial aspects of the premiership of any serious Prime Minister. I reiterate the point I made earlier: when you build up relationships with leaders of other countries, those relationships allow you to have not just the easiest discussions but the difficult discussions. There are lots of difficult issues that need to be discussed internationally, and our Prime Minister is putting himself in the best place to have such discussions.

House of Lords Reform

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Tuesday 12th November 2024 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

That this House takes note of House of Lords reform.

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

My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to open today’s debate on Lords reform. It is an issue that is often discussed and debated by noble Lords across the House, because we take great pride in our responsibilities as a scrutiny and advisory Chamber. Through tabling this important debate, I welcome the opportunity to listen to the considered views of your Lordships. That follows the engagement I have undertaken since I became the Leader of your Lordships’ House and, indeed, previously as Leader of the Opposition.

Like other noble Lords, I value the work that we do, and it is of great pride to me to have been appointed as Lord Privy Seal and Leader of your Lordships’ House. It is not a role I ever anticipated holding when I was introduced to this place 14 years ago. I also recognise that this position is different from others in Cabinet because, as the Leader of the House of Lords, I am the Government’s representative in this Chamber but, just as importantly, it is my responsibility to ensure that our voice is heard in government. We—that is, your Lordships’ House—are all custodians of the principles and customs that make this House unique. I take the responsibility of representing the interests of the Lords seriously. I also consider that, at its best, this House is not just complementary to the other place but an asset. It is because of my respect for the work we do that I share the view that this House should continue to evolve and is not merely preserved in aspic. I want to ensure that we are seen as a part of our Parliament that is both highly relevant and highly regarded.

We offered this debate today not just because of the legislation in the other place but because the Government’s manifesto commitments in this area have brought about a renewed focus, inside and outside the House, on Lords reform more generally. There is growing consensus on the need for a smaller Chamber, with a greater focus on active contribution and which is more representative of the country we serve. My sense is that many share that vision. Of course, there are a range of views on how those objectives might be achieved. That is why I have facilitated today’s debate: to provide an opportunity to discuss these issues and to listen to the views of this House. I am grateful to those noble Lords who have already shared their thoughts and ideas with me.

We are more than aware that, when it comes to meaningful reform of this place, there is a track record of stagnation and stalled attempts. There are those who argue that we should not do anything until we do everything but, with no common consensus or agreement on what “everything” means, we have ended up doing nothing. That is why a more incremental approach is an appropriate way forward.

It is why the Government introduced the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill, delivering on the first of our manifesto commitments, to remove the right of the remaining hereditary Peers to sit and to vote. This ends the transitional arrangements and completes part of the reform that we started a quarter of a century ago. I want to be very clear that this in no way diminishes the respect for individual colleagues or the recognition of the valuable contributions that many hereditary Peers and their predecessors have made.

I admit that I am slightly uncomfortable about singling out individuals, but I am sure we can all agree that, in particular, the noble Earl, Lord Howe—

[Noble Lords]

Hear, hear!

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I will finish the sentence. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, has been a distinguished servant of this House, serving on the Front Benches in government and in opposition since 1991. I also pay tribute to the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, who has diligently served as Convenor of the Cross Benches and as chair of various committees of this House. These noble Lords are just two of the many hereditary Peers who have served the House so well.

The Bill that is due to complete its passage through the other place later today is very specific and focused. It will come before this House to be scrutinised in due course. The Government set out plans for further reforms to the House of Lords in their election manifesto. As I have said, there is an acknowledgement across the Chamber that the House has become too large. At almost every meeting I have had with noble Lords, this has been raised. I have had very thoughtful conversations with the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and with a number of other colleagues, on this matter quite recently. That is partly why our election manifesto referenced a retirement age.

That manifesto included a commitment to strengthen the circumstances in which disgraced Members can be removed and to introduce a new participation requirement, to encourage active participation among Members to support our scrutiny and revising functions. There was also a long-term commitment for an alternative second Chamber that is more representative of the nations and regions.

Given the nature and potential scale of these reforms, the Government will consult further. We will continue to listen to and engage with the views of the House on these proposals; that is why we are having this debate today. I appreciate that there is a range of views, as the manifesto has focused minds on this issue. I think I am right in saying that our manifesto may have been the first to recognise the importance of the work of your Lordships’ House. How we deliver these commitments is important. Some have preferred to express their views to me privately, while others did so during the debate on the King’s Speech. Today’s debate is a further opportunity to hear those views.

In addition to points that noble Lords wish to raise, I would welcome comments on a number of other issues, including how we ensure that all those who sit in this place participate sufficiently in our proceedings. We all have an instinctive view of what participation should involve—and a number of suggestions have been made to me of what that should be—but these views can quite reasonably differ from one noble Lord to another. Obviously, not everybody has to be here all day every day, but we all recognise and expect a commitment to the work of this House. Leave of absence is another area where we can consider whether the rules are currently fit for purpose or there is a case for change.

I would appreciate views on how the House welcomes incoming Members and treats departing Members following retirement. For example, we should consider how we can best introduce new colleagues to our work. We may also wish to consider how best to recognise the contributions of outgoing Members and how to ensure that former Members who wish to do so remain connected to each other and to the House more generally. I have already sought opinions from a number of colleagues as to whether we should set up an association of former Members, as they have in the other place.

I have always felt that this House is at its best when noble Lords, using their experience and professional expertise, often of national or international standing, work together to scrutinise and improve legislation for the betterment of the country and the people we seek to serve. This House has deep historical roots. Our role of scrutinising and revising legislation, holding the Executive to account, has developed over centuries. Change has not always been legislative. This is a House that is also built on norms and conventions, such as the Salisbury/Addison convention and the convention not to veto secondary legislation. There is widespread agreement on the ongoing importance of these conventions, which are recognised and respected by all Members.

It is important that this House continues to reflect on our role as the second Chamber in a legislature that continues to evolve and adapt to reflect the country we serve. It is a collective endeavour to ensure that Members enter this House with the desire to make a valuable contribution and that they are supported to play an active role. We need to ensure that the House is able to replenish the breadth and depth of skills and expertise, and, crucially, that newer Members are given the opportunity to develop their skills and experience as legislators. There will be further discussion about these issues, but the central question is about purpose. How do we ensure that this House can do its best work in complementing the role of the elected Chamber?

Although we should always avoid the temptation of change just for the sake of it, that does not justify endless stagnation or drift. There are careful balances on all these issues. I look forward to hearing what will probably be a range of views and suggestions. I am confident that some will be very ambitious and that others will perhaps be more cautious, but I am sure that this will be a spirited and interesting debate. I hope it will also be useful. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, first, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in today’s rather long debate. It has been a significant debate. It has been wide-ranging and largely very thoughtful. We have also had a very wide range of views. I am aware that some noble Lords are fairly new to the debate and new to the House, but others have been round this circle a number of times and have enormous expertise. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, for his contribution today, given the expertise he has brought to this issue, and I know the work he has done the past.

I want to try and address as many of the points raised by noble Lords in the time I have. I stress, as I did in my opening comments, that this is not the end of the conversation or the debate on this and we are listening to comments made. I will address first why the hereditary Peers Bill, which has been introduced and now passed in the other place, was the first item. A number of noble Lords misquoted the manifesto today but the immediate issues brought up were the legislation around the right of hereditary Peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords. The manifesto then went on talk about what has also happened. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, can shake his head, but that is exactly true: it is what is in the manifesto. It is very clear in the manifesto that the first stage is about hereditary Peers. Why would that be the case? Why would that be the first item to be addressed? The reason is that the principle on that issue has already been established and acted on back in 1999 when the legislation went through.

Transitional arrangements were put in place a quarter of a century ago. I heard the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, and others say how there was a really engaging process at the time. I think others remember it slightly differently. Viscount Cranborne managed to do a deal—I have to say I admire his negotiating skills—where 92 hereditary Peers remained, and not only did they remain but if they left there was a by-election to replace them. That is extraordinary and I pay tribute to him. I have to say that his party did not really like it and he did not last very long after that. I think the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, was a beneficiary of his departing from his position. That is where we are at the moment. But in the idea that this would not be the first step in the current reforms when the principle is already established, I think the noble and learned Lord is being a little bit mischievous and he knows it.

I will comment first on the opening speakers from the main groups. I thank the noble Lord, Lord True, for his comments about the spirit of compromise. I do wish, when I had come to see him before on the Grocott Bill in the spirit of compromise, he had taken that same line there. We may not be where we are today had that been the case. He will recall, as will previous Leaders, that I offered to co-operate on that and help the Government see that legislation removing the by-elections through.

By not doing that, we get to the point where we take the same position. We have heard this time and again from the party opposite tonight: “Do not do anything unless you do everything. We do not know what everything is so let us do nothing”. I am sorry but that is not a sustainable position and—

[Lord True (Con)]

Is it not—

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

On this occasion, I will take one more intervention, given even the lateness of the hour and the lack of opportunity to progress with my argument.

[Lord True (Con)]

I was really trying to help the noble Baroness guide her argument because it is not the first step that the House is interested in; it is the final step. What do the Government propose that this House should do and what should it be? Will she please tell the House?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I have to urge patience on the noble Lord. I am at the start of my comments on the debate and the noble Lord seeks to intervene on me within a few minutes. I would urge him to have a bit of caution and patience, but I want to raise another point. He said that this was sprung on us; how utterly ridiculous. It has been 25 years; it was in the manifesto; it was a major part of his comments and those of others on the King’s Speech. This was not sprung. I wrote an article saying, as I have said in the House on many occasions, that if the by-elections continued this would have been a consequence of that. The option was there to stop the by-elections. One noble Lord—I cannot remember who—said that we have stopped the by-elections now. No, we have only paused them until the conclusion of this legislation.

The noble Lord, Lord Newby, had great strength in his arguments. There was consistency of principle but pragmatism as well. He asked whether I still held the view that the House worked best when there were roughly equal numbers between the government party and the Opposition. That is a personal view which I expressed in a Select Committee that he and I both attended. It is hard to get to those exact numbers, but when you have such a great imbalance as there has been over the last few years, the House does not do its best work. I think the House works better with roughly equal numbers. I will return to that in a moment.

I thank the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, for his very thoughtful and helpful comments. He has been instrumental in bringing forward papers to look at the conventions of the House over the last year or so, and I am grateful to him for his time on that. He was also the first to try to put some detail on the issue of participation. As I said when I opened, I think we all have an innate understanding of what we mean but quantifying that is quite difficult. I am grateful to him for looking to do so and for his comments on laws and conventions.

A number of noble Lords—including the noble Lords, Lord True, Lord Forsyth, Lord Mancroft and Lord Inglewood—talked about there being a power grab for parties on this. It is quite right that, in recent times, no political party has had an overall majority in this House. That is the right way for us to operate; it will not be changed at all by the Bill that has now been completed in the other place. That will not change as a result. If we look at the statistics of how we operate, currently the Conservatives have 34% of your Lordships’ House; after the Bill being implemented, that would be 32%. On my side, currently 22% of the House are Labour Peers; after the hereditary Peers are removed, it will be just 24%. In fact, the party that gets closest to being reflected most accurately is the Liberal Democrats. There will be very little difference between that party’s representation here and in the other place.

I also gently—or perhaps not so gently—remind noble Lords that after 12 years of a Labour Government, there were 24 more Labour Peers than the Conservative Party had. After 14 years of the Conservative Party in government, there were over 100 more Conservative Peers than Labour had. When I hear weaselly words such as, “We’ve got to stop this Prime Minister making appointments”, I ask: why was that never considered prior to the Bill being introduced?

The noble Lord, Lord Newby, also asked what the Government’s view is of the size and composition. He was right to raise that but the noble Lord, Lord Burns, made a very valid point, which I accept. There is little sense in the House reducing its size, by whatever means, if that is not a sustainable position to hold. I will take that away and reflect on it because the noble Lord is right.

We also have to ask: why do we think a smaller House would be the right thing? There has to be the purpose first, which is not having a smaller House. The purpose is to be more effective in how we operate and what we do. The representations I have had from across the House, from almost every noble Lord who has been to see me, is that they think we would do this better with a smaller House. Indeed, some noble Lords who have since departed said to me that they felt as the House got bigger, they were less able to make the contributions that they wanted to make. It is absolutely right that if Members leave the House, that should not necessarily be to create a vacancy for more appointments.

The manifesto talked about retirement age and participation. I am keen to engage further on this and I am grateful to noble Lords who commented on how that could be implemented. A number of issues were raised and I will take those forward. A point made by the noble Lord, Lord Burns, was that one reason the House has become so large is that you have Members coming in but not departing. He sought to look at that at the time of his report. I think that the noble Lords, Lord Hampton and Lord Inglewood, made similar comments.

Several noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Kerr and Lord Liddle, raised something that has been raised before: decoupling the title and the membership of the second Chamber. There is no doubt that, when noble Lords are given a title, it is recognition of work they have done in the past. But it also has to be an expectation of what they are going to do in the future and the contributions they will make. The two go hand in hand. We want to see an active membership. As I said, that does not mean that every Peer has to be here all day every day. We are a full-time House. Not every Member has to be full-time, but they have to make a commitment to the work of this place.

The noble Lord, Lord Murphy of Torfaen, raised the issue—I think it is an interesting point—of devolved Governments’ First Ministers being offered peerages. The SNP of course does not nominate people to this House. The point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, was that, where there are institutions in which you can make your voice heard, you should do so. I think her party takes a very different position from—I say this in the loosest form—its sister party in Scotland on that one. The noble Lord, Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale, was the First Minister of Scotland: currently he is the only one from our party. Other parties have made nominations as well. But I think it is a point well made. We want a more diverse House, in terms of a whole range of characteristics, including geography but also age, gender, ethnicity, religion and other issues as well.

A number of noble Lords raised participation. I thank the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, for his initial comments on this. I would quite like to have further discussions around the House on this as I do not think there is a consensus on how to move forward. My impression, from the conversations I have had, is that most noble Lords think that this is important, but no one can actually quantify it. What you do not want—I think the noble Baroness, Lady Sanderson, said this—is a perverse incentive to encourage people to turn up or speak when they do not need to speak. But you do want to know that someone is serious about being here.

All of us have expressed concern about those noble Lords—albeit a small number of them—who come in here, sign the book to retain their membership and then walk out and leave. That is not being serious about this House.

[Lord Hacking (Lab)]

Hear, hear.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

It is good to have some encouragement from the noble Lord; it is not always forthcoming.

This comes back to the point the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, made about whether there could be two kinds of title. There are difficulties with that, but I think it is something noble Lords might want to consider. In the manifesto we deliberately were not exact or precise about that. We thought it was something to be discussed by the House and for the House to come forward with something on that. It is about striking the right balance.

I think most noble Lords have spoken in support of the Bill that is going through the House of Commons but have made a number of other comments. Some want us to go further, some sense that it is a first step in the current programme and some are not comfortable with it.

The issue of some Conservative hereditary Peers becoming life Peers was raised. The noble Lord, Lord Northbrook, raised the Earl Marshal and the Lord Great Chamberlain. He is absolutely right; we have to ensure they can properly fulfil all their duties. I have already raised this with the Lord Speaker to ensure that that can happen. We will do nothing that makes it difficult for them to fulfil their responsibilities and constitutional roles. He does not have to table an amendment: we will ensure that happens. I can give him a guarantee already on that one. They will continue to exercise their functions.

The noble Viscount, Lord Astor—who has explained to me why he is unable to be with us for the wind-ups today—the noble Earl, Lord Devon, and the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, raised female succession to hereditary titles. The noble Earl and I have been in correspondence on this. I am sympathetic to his points. It is more complex than I had anticipated. I have made some initial inquiries in this area, and part of the problem is that the original writs of summons—his is much older than anybody else’s—specify that it is through the male line. There are all kinds of issues, including adoption and the expectations of existing heirs. As I say, I am looking into the matter, as he raised it with me, because I know he is interested in it.

The noble Lord, Lord Hampton, said that the removal of the hereditary Peers in that Bill was to clean up politics—that is absolutely not the case. Those are two very different issues, and no one is casting aspersions on individual hereditary Peers.

HOLAC was mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord Rennard and Lord Cromwell. They are absolutely right that there are issues with how HOLAC operates. I am not content to leave this entirely to HOLAC; the political parties have to take responsibility for their appointments and the checks that they are supposed to do. There may be something about HOLAC asking for assurances that those checks have been done. There are discussions to be had on that. HOLAC has an important role for the Cross Benches, which have not always had the appointments that they should have in that regard—even though they are currently larger than the Labour group in this place. The point about the quality of new appointments was well made, but political parties have to take some responsibility for that as well, or face the consequences.

The noble Lord, Lord Birt, mentioned diversity and the composition of the House. He and I have discussed this. If we are diverse as a House, the public can look to the House and see that it better represents the country. I do not know where the noble Lord got the idea of a senate of nations and regions. Our longer-term plans say that:

“Labour is committed to replacing the House of Lords with an alternative second chamber that is more representative of the regions and nations”.


In the meantime, we seek to improve the national and regional balance of the second Chamber. That is a worthy objective and one that we should take seriously. We will take it forward.

A number of noble Lords, including the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, asked why we should not bring in a new age limit for the House of Lords now. On the manifesto commitment about Members retiring at the end of the Parliament in which they reach 80, I have to thank my noble friend Lord Foulkes for that suggestion in the first place. He and other noble Lords from the Labour group put that forward.

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

I was younger then.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

He may have been younger but he certainly was not more foolish.

I take on board the comments of the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, in particular about the cliff edge, and I am happy to discuss that with him further. We want to ensure that, when new Peers come in, they have the opportunity and the time to gain the expertise that others did, so that they can take on those roles as well.

On appointing Peers over 80, there is nothing to say that somebody over 80 cannot play a full part in the role of the House—that is not the issue. It is about ensuring that we reduce the size of the House and that a mix of Members can come in. That is the kind of implementation issue that we will discuss with noble Lords. Some noble Lords clearly were not listening to my opening speech if they thought I did not mention that.

The noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, mentioned party-political donations and said that some may have bought peerages. This is a serious issue. There is a difference between somebody who makes donations and somebody who is a donor, if that makes sense. Lots of people in political parties make small contributions through their membership, but it would be of concern if somebody were appointed only because they were a significant donor, rather than because they had made a wider contribution to society or because of the contribution they would make in this House. I take the noble Duke’s point on that.

On the point from the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, by-elections have not been ended—they have only been suspended for the passage of the legislation. I would have loved them to be ended; we tried many times, but the then Government would not support that.

The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, is right that he and I have always had a good relationship. It is not just because he reminds me so much of his grandfather, but that is not a bad reason to hold him in high esteem as well.

On a final point, a number of comments and criticisms were made of Members in the other place. The amount of time spent on legislation in the other place has gone down, and I regret that, but I urge noble Lords to think about the pressures on Members of Parliament who are elected, the work that they do and the range of their responsibilities. We have one job in your Lordships’ House: to scrutinise and revise legislation. They have a multifaceted job, and I feel uncomfortable when there are criticisms of them that I feel are unjustified.

I am out of time and do not want to detain the House, but a number of Members raised points about looking for a consensual way forward. The hereditary Peers Bill will make its way here, and I hope we have fruitful discussions on it—but going forward beyond that, I am very happy to have further discussions with noble Lords on the kinds of issues that we have raised tonight. It has been a really helpful and mostly thoughtful and respectful debate, although there were a couple of comments that were not. This is one of those instances when we have largely seen this House working at its best. I assure the House that we will put our best foot forward in shaping the reform agenda for this Parliament, and I look forward to hearing more from noble Lords on the issues that have been raised this evening.

Motion agreed.

Command Paper Safeguarding the Union

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Wednesday 6th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lexden]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what progress they have made in implementing the measures set out in the Command Paper Safeguarding the Union (CP 1021), published in January.

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

My Lords, the Government are committed to implementing the Windsor Framework in good faith and protecting Northern Ireland’s place in the UK internal market. We also continue to take forward policies as set out in the Safeguarding the Union Command Paper. Most recently, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland announced members of the independent monitoring panel and underlined the Government’s commitment to the establishment of InterTrade UK, which I am pleased to see will be chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Foster. The Government will shortly be announcing a date for the next east-west council.

[Lord Lexden (Con)]

My Lords, is it not the case that the Command Paper rests upon a principle that everyone should welcome and endorse—namely, that the union of Great Britain and Northern Ireland should be as strong and successful as possible? The measures set out in the Command Paper to strengthen the UK internal market include scrapping the legal duties on Ministers to promote and an all-Ireland economy. Is it not important that this be done and imperative to emphasise that, while cross-border co-operation in trade helps everyone, it takes place between states, any form of joint sovereignty and joint authority over Northern Ireland has been firmly ruled out?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I think the noble Lord perhaps misunderstands what is intended. The legal requirement in the report is to “have due regard”, and that persists as long as the section remains in force. In practice, the contents were largely an agreement in principle that has been superseded by the more detailed arrangements of the Windsor Framework and the wider withdrawal agreement. He will know—and I think it is embedded in this House—that we are committed to the place of Northern Ireland in the United Kingdom.

[Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)]

My Lords, would the Minister accept that, whatever progress is made in Safeguarding the Union—and I, for one, did not believe it goes far enough—it does not deal with the fundamental problem of the Windsor Framework protocol. People in Northern Ireland, of whatever political persuasion, are disenfranchised. We have no power over 300 areas of law, including vast swathes of the economy. A foreign political entity makes those laws, develops and amends them, without any say or vote by any MP elected in Northern Ireland or any Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly. Surely that colonial status, in part of the United Kingdom, the fifth or sixth biggest economy in the world, is something that is untenable and acceptable in economic, constitutional and democratic terms.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Lord supported Brexit at the time, and he will be aware that the way in which Brexit was undertaken brought with it enormous constitutional implications. We have always sought to safeguard the position of Northern Ireland in the UK and in the internal market, but he will understand the pressures on business. We will do all we can to reduce those pressures to make it as stable as possible. Northern Ireland is an integral part of the UK, and the internal market is an important part that we will do everything we can to safeguard.

[Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)]

Does the noble Baroness agree that, even since the publication of this report last January, there has been considerable and important new thinking on trade facilitation of all kinds, particularly within the United Kingdom? Will she assure us that the report published today by the Trade Facilitation Commission, which contains many of these ideas, is taken full account of by the independent monitoring group or whoever is going to be driving this pattern forward?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, the most important thing here is to safeguard the trading position and the internal market. When ideas, suggestions and reports come forward, of course they will all get the due consideration that they deserve in the best interests of the Northern Ireland.

[Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her answers thus far and declare my interest as chair of InterTrade UK. I asked her colleague the noble Baroness, Lady Anderson, about the removal of Section 10(1)(b) of the European withdrawal Act, as committed to in Safeguarding the Union. This follows on from the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Lexden. In a Written Answer, I have been told that the Government are not minded to repeal it, despite the fact that it was a commitment in Safeguarding the Union. My simple question is: why?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I apologise if I was not clear in my Answer to the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, but I thought that I was. As was also said in her Written Answer, as I understand it, in practice its contents are primarily an agreement in principle that has now been superseded by the more detailed arrangements of the Windsor Framework and the wider withdrawal agreement.

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

My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that, just as the Kremlin interfered in the referendum on Brexit, because it is in its interest to see the break-up of the European Union, it is now undermining the United Kingdom in a number of ways, including through social media, particularly in supporting certain parties in Ireland and in the rest of the United Kingdom? Will she discuss with colleagues having increased activity by our intelligence services and others to try to make sure that this is stopped immediately?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, if there is any malign influence in the elections in this country or its politics from a hostile state, or any other country that seeks to undermine our democracy, we will of course do whatever is necessary to protect our democracy, which we regard as having the utmost integrity.

[Baroness Wheatcroft (CB)]

My Lords, is the Minister able to tell the House when we might hear a few details about what the reset of relations with the EU might actually mean?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, there is some indication of that already by the engagement between Ministers and the EU. We are obviously engaging Northern Ireland on that, given its importance to Northern Ireland. As that proceeds further, we will give updates as and when we can.

[Lord Caine (Con)]

My Lords, the Government’s manifesto committed to implementing the Windsor Framework in good faith, but it was silent on the Safeguarding the Union Command Paper. Does the noble Baroness acknowledge the enormous effort that went into Safeguarding the Union, which, taken in its entirety, was crucial to the restoration of devolved government in Northern Ireland in February? Will she commit to implementing Safeguarding the Union in all its parts? In 2021, the then leader of the Opposition stated:

“I … believe in the United Kingdom and … want to make the case for the United Kingdom”.


But in Belfast, days after becoming Prime Minister, he said that he would be an honest broker on the issue. Which is it?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Lord is struggling there to come up with something that does not exist. This party is committed to the union; he knows that. Noble Lords just have to look at the budget for Northern Ireland, which under this Government now has the largest settlement in real terms in the history of devolution. That is one way in which we show our commitment. There have been 14 ministerial visits to Northern Ireland since the election, with the Prime Minister visiting twice. I do not think that anybody could be in any doubt about our commitment to Northern Ireland’s place in the union.

[Lord Elliott of Ballinamallard (UUP)]

My Lords, as someone who believed that the Command Paper would not do as it said on the tin, it is probably proving that way now. The document mentions the veterinary and veterinary medicine problems with the European Union on at least 15 occasions and there has been no progress on that whatever. I declare an interest as a Northern Ireland farmer. What will the Minister and her party do about progressing that issue?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I can assure the noble Lord that this is a priority for the Government. We are continuing to work at pace. He will be aware that the veterinary medicines working group is advising the Government. It met in September and will do so again this month; we will provide an update as soon as possible.

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

Presumably, the regional envoy has an important role in promoting the union. When will Sue Gray be starting her job?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I must admit that I am quite fascinated by the noble Lord’s obsession with one individual on what is a major issue for the people of Northern Ireland. As and when, I will be happy to update him when she does.

Scotland

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Monday 4th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to strengthen Scotland’s position within the United Kingdom.

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

My Lords, the people of Scotland deserve Governments who work together and are focused on delivering for them. Within the UK, Scotland will be the powerhouse for our clean energy mission, with Great British Energy’s headquarters being based there. We will restore decision-making over the allocation of structural funds to representatives of Scotland and we will champion Brand Scotland at home and abroad.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

Of course, one way to strengthen Scotland’s position within the United Kingdom is to support our key industries. However, last week’s Budget saw a 2.7% increase in spirits duty—a move described as a betrayal by the Scotch Whisky Association. The whisky sector sustains thousands of jobs, mainly in Scotland’s most rural and remote communities. Can the Minister explain why this Government have chosen to punish such an iconic industry?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, if the noble Lord checks back to past Budgets, I think he will find that previous Chancellors from his side of the House put more of an increase on Scotch whisky, whereas this was an increase in line with RPI. If he looks at the Budget overall, he will see that the amount awarded to Scotland is actually significantly greater than at any other time since devolution.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

My Lords, under this Government’s predecessor, with the SNP in government in Scotland, the relationship between Holyrood and Westminster was at best uneasy and too often characterised by mutual suspicion and sometimes open acrimony. Given Labour’s record on devolution, what lessons have been drawn from last month’s inaugural meeting of the Council of the Nations and Regions on resetting the relationship between the Scottish and UK Governments, which of course is a manifesto pledge?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, we have thought about this a lot and, going forward, it is key to how we work across government. It goes back to the idea that we are stronger together. Unless both Governments work together, in the interests of the people of Scotland, we will not get the best outcomes for them. I think it also means, as my noble friend will be aware, that devolution does not mean that the British Government should abdicate their responsibilities to Scotland. We have a very strong role, and we remain committed to strengthening the union.

[Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)]

My Lords, does the Minister accept that for many people in Scotland, especially young people and businesses, the benefits of being part of the United Kingdom would be considerably strengthened if the Government’s reset with the European Union included accepting the youth mobility scheme, rejoining Erasmus, securing flexible visa arrangements for our creative industries and working to rejoin the single market?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, that question goes a little wider than anticipated, but I admire the noble Lord’s ingenuity. The important thing for young people and older people across the UK is to know that they have a Government who work with the devolved Governments in their best interests. That is what has been lacking for some time.

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

My Lords, can the Leader of the House confirm that this is the best settlement in real terms since the Scottish Parliament was set up, and yet the services in education, health and other devolved areas are deteriorating in Scotland? Will the Government do everything possible to stop the Scottish Government spending money on vanity projects, such as “Air Miles” Angus—their pretend Foreign Secretary—travelling the equivalent of three times around the world already? Can they make sure that every penny the Scottish Government get is spent on devolved areas?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I think my noble friend hits the nub of the issue. Yes, he is right, and I am happy to agree with him: it is the largest real-terms Budget settlement for the Scottish Government in the history of devolution. It is £1.5 billion in this financial year and will be £3.4 billion in the next. The point he made is that how that money is spent is really important. We have seen poorer outcomes in Scotland for people in the National Health Service, with longer waiting lists, and educational standards have not increased as they should. This is where that money should be focused—to deliver real benefits for the people of Scotland.

[Lord Stirrup (CB)]

My Lords, would the Leader agree that the presence of one of the RAF’s main operating bases on the Moray Firth and one of the Navy’s at Faslane, along with a number of Army units, reflect the strategic importance of Scotland within the union? They bring significant economic benefit to those areas, a situation that would be greatly enhanced if this Government could ever get around to funding defence of the realm adequately.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

There is always a sting in the tail, is there not? We do recognise the contribution they make, both to the defence of the country and the economy. The Government remain committed to reaching 2.5% GDP defence spend. The noble and gallant Lord will be aware, as will the House after the sterling efforts of my noble friend Lord Livermore, that we have been left with a £22 billion black hole—

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

The party opposite may not like it, but the reality is that we have to get the finances of this country on a stable footing, and I can assure the House that that is what we shall do.

[Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)]

My Lords, what discussions have His Majesty’s Government had with the Scottish Government following the launch last month of the UK industrial strategy? Have the specific Scottish commitments in it, on medicine manufacturing, offshore wind and the Advanced Forming Research Centre in Strathclyde, been welcomed by the Scottish Government?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, if they have not, they should be. The industrial strategy is the core of our mission for economic growth, and the meetings so far have been very positive. We have published the Green Paper, which will kick-start our programme on this. It is a modern industrial strategy for the days and years ahead for this country. It will be published next spring, and it will be in line with the multiyear spending review. Unless we take advantage and make the most of growth across the whole of the UK, we will deny the people of Scotland and of this country the benefits of a strong economy that they deserve.

[The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)]

My Lords, the last quarterly report on intergovernmental relations between the four Governments was produced by the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, as it then was, and it arrived in December last year. Will these quarterly reports still be produced? Will they move to the Cabinet Office?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I do not have a precise answer for the noble Earl, but I will look into this. It is important that this is at the heart of government, with the responsibility lying there. I am confident that we will find a way of making progress and of marking that progress in a way that is easily understood. I will take a precise note of the noble Earl’s question and come back to him with a fuller answer.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, the reason behind the breakdown in the relationship that the noble Lord pointed out was that, through the last Parliament, there was a continual flow of legislation that trod on the toes of the devolution process. The noble Baroness knows well that the common frameworks process was set up explicitly to deal with these kinds of issues. Can she update your Lordships’ House on where we are with the common frameworks and when we will see them back in the process of making sure that toes do not get trodden on again?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

The noble Lord makes an important point. In some ways it is the opposite—the other side of the coin—to that made by the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes. We have reserved and devolved matters, and it is about making sure that we stick to our responsibilities and work together. The only way this works is with each Government having respect for the other and working together, so I assure him that that is what we seek to do and will continue to do.

[Baroness Liddell of Coatdyke (Lab)]

My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that £47.7 billion was given to the Scottish Government last week—the highest amount in history? Will she join me in congratulating the Chancellor on that distinctive amount of money? But will she also call into question some of the expenditure mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, on vanity projects, rather than turning round the economy of Scotland, as it deserves? Incidentally, the money was made available because of a former Member on this side of the House, Joel Barnett—Lord Barnett—and it was supposed to be only a short-term measure, but it has been about 40 years now.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, it sometimes feels like 40 years can go by in the blink of an eye in your Lordships’ House. I remember Lord Barnett well. The noble Baroness is absolutely right: the real-terms increase of £3.4 billion next year takes Scottish funding to £47.7 billion—the largest settlement ever in devolution history. Of course, that is on top of the £125 million confirmed for GB Energy. We have also committed funds to Brand Scotland, which will promote investment opportunities in Scotland. The noble Baroness’s basic point is important: the additional money is supposed to directly benefit the people of Scotland, in the economy, health and education. We look forward to working with the Scottish Government to make sure that that is the case.