Lords Spiritual (Women) Act 2015 (Extension) Bill [HL]

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 10th September 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, this is a rather straightforward Bill that does not seek to make any fundamental changes or reforms to the composition of your Lordships’ House. Its only effect is to extend by five years the arrangements in place for the appointment of Lords spiritual contained in the Lords Spiritual (Women) Act 2015. Like the 2015 Act, the Bill has been introduced at the request of the Church of England and I look forward to hearing today from the Convenor of the Lords spiritual, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby. I think all noble Lords will agree that we are grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans for the letter about the Bill that he sent to all Peers who are speaking today.

As your Lordships are probably well aware, the 26 bishops in your Lordships’ House are determined under a process set out in the Bishoprics Act 1878. Five seats are automatically allocated to the most reverend Primates the Archbishops of Canterbury and York and the right reverend Prelates the Bishops of London, Durham and Winchester. The remaining 21 seats are filled on the basis of seniority—that is, the length of tenure in post. As your Lordships also know, changes to allow women to become bishops were made in 2014. Because of the rules of seniority, we would have had to wait many years before these women would have been eligible to receive their Writs of Summons, become Lords spiritual and be welcomed into your Lordships’ House. As the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury pointed out in 2015, this would have created a situation whereby women were prominently involved in the Church leadership but unrepresented in your Lordships’ House.

While the pre-2015 rules of seniority would have eventually enabled female bishops to receive their summons to our seats, the process would have taken an unacceptably long time. To address this, and at the Church’s request, the House passed legislation in 2015 to fast-track female bishops to these Benches. Since its passage, the 2015 Act has helped to deliver, in a timelier fashion, the greater balance of voices that these Benches need. This has complemented the Church’s own efforts to diversify its leadership over the years, particularly since it agreed to the consecration of female bishops in 2014.

As Ministers, the noble Baroness, Lady Garden of Frognal, and the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, spoke eloquently on the merits of the 2015 Act when the House debated it almost 10 years ago under the coalition Government. Since it was enacted, its value has been demonstrated. We have seen the benefits of the 2015 Act materialise by way of the six female bishops who have sat in your Lordships’ House earlier than they otherwise would have done. Within six months of the commencement of the 2015 Act, the House had the pleasure of welcoming the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester. She broke new ground in two important respects—by becoming the first female diocesan bishop and first female Lord spiritual. I welcome her presence and that of the other female bishops who have since joined this House. I am sure that your Lordships will agree that they have all made valuable contributions to the role of this House.

While significant progress has been made through legislation, there remain only six female bishops on the Lords spiritual Benches today. The 2015 Act is due to expire in 2025, so the five-year extension provided for in today’s Bill allows more time for the original legislation passed in 2015 to operate. The Bill means that if any of the 21 Lords spiritual seats allocated on the basis of seniority become vacant between now and 2030, they will be filled by the most senior eligible female bishop if any are available at that point. Without the Bill, the provisions of the 2015 Act would expire in May 2025.

Five years represents an appropriate length of time to allow the positive effects of the 2015 legislation to continue. It will enable a longer period in which to accelerate the appointments of female Lords spiritual, while recognising the progress that has been made by the Church so far. This will help to ensure that we continue to address an historic disadvantage: the barriers faced by women with respect to the Church and, by extension, membership of this House.

At Second Reading of the 2015 Act, the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury said that the 2010 Parliament would be

“the last Parliament where any Bench of either House is occupied solely by men”.”.—[Official Report, 12/2/15; col. 1366.]

I am glad to say that his prediction was correct. I look forward to today’s debate and I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

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

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this debate. I loved the phrase about the shuffle to reform; we have become aware of that in many areas of life.

I take on board the comments that noble Lords across the House have made about the diversity of your Lordships’ House. I think we all welcome increased diversity, but diversity comes in a number of forms: it is about age, about gender, about class, about skills, about ethnicity, about background, about experience and about those of faith and those not of faith, who we welcome to bring different views to our debates.

I was interested in what was said about members of the Church of England speaking for certain faiths. I thought the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby made a particularly powerful speech, and I am grateful to her for that. She was clear that she does not speak in this House for the Church of England and that, as a representative of the Church of England, she is speaking with her experience for the nation, and she looks to represent a particular constituency. I have listened to the words from the Bishops’ Benches on many occasions, and I think we should be proud of the contribution they make.

This is a very narrowly focused Bill. The debate has stretched more widely than the content of the Bill, but that is not unusual in your Lordships’ House when we are discussing anything internal to the House of Lords; there is a tendency to have a wider debate. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, for her support for the Bill. She has heard quite significantly from the bishops themselves about why it is five years, and about the work they are undertaking. The Bill was brought forward at the request of the Church of England, and the point she makes is valid: show us the progress you are making. Other noble Lords made similar comments, and we heard their determination and commitment about wanting to see progress and why five years seems to be an appropriate time.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for the historical context. She spoke about her friend Angela Berners-Wilson, who was the first woman Church of England priest to be ordained in 1994. I understand her pride. She will understand the pride on these Benches when the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, was ordained into the Church of England in 2019. It is important that we recognise, within your Lordships’ House, that we all have different faiths and values. I have to say that I take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Scriven: I do not think anyone is suggesting that those who have a religious faith have a monopoly on values, commitment or morality. I do not think that our bishops or those of other faiths in the House would suggest that. We all bring our values and our concept of morality to the debates we have, and I think it is right that we do so.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, said, the onus of responsibility to make this work is on the Church of England, which is the established Church. We all welcome those who come into your Lordships’ House who are of a religious faith, or not of a religious faith, and the values they bring. To comment on other points that were made during the debate, I thought it was interesting that the noble Lord, Lord Birt, in talking about the diversity of society, used the phrase “undemocratic anomaly”. One thing we did not touch on was the retirement age of your Lordships’ House. In fact, the only Bench that has a retirement age for its members is the Bishops’ Bench, which has a retirement age of 70. We are getting ourselves into a tizz over 80—or 86 at the end of a Parliament—yet the Bishops’ Benches have quite smoothly moved towards that retirement age. I am sure that when that debate comes, and when we are consulting on that issue in this House, their Benches will have something to say on it. The noble Lord, Lord Murphy, made an interesting comment, as a Welsh Catholic, about how much he supports the Bill and values the contribution of those Benches.

The noble Earl, Lord Devon, raised the issue of diversity more generally. He has raised the issue of succession with me previously, in other meetings, and I have some sympathy. I have had an initial look, and it is quite complex. It is not just about membership of your Lordships’ House; it is a complex issue and not at all something we can deal with in the Bill, but I hear what he has to say and I know he spoke about it some time ago. I have to say to him that I do not think this House is comfortable with the fact that at the moment there are no women on the hereditary Peers register to come forward. We greatly miss the Countess of Mar, who made an enormous contribution, including making sure that new Members did not transgress the rules of the House. Those who did, as I found to my expense— I received a sharp tap on the back on one occasion—were reminded of exactly what the rules of debate are.

All noble Lords—perhaps with some exceptions—have been supportive of this piece of legislation. I note the two noble Lords who have more concerns. It is right that we respect the debate we have had and recognise that the Bill is a small step forward that allows the Church of England to continue its progress towards more women bishops. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby should take back to her colleagues how much support she has from Benches across the House who want to see more women bishops.

Those of us in political parties should not get too complacent about this. We have all had challenges about women’s representation in Parliament, in councils and, indeed, in your Lordships’ House. We should be proud that, since 2000, seven of the Leaders of this House from across the parties have been women and only four have been men. Sometimes progress happens without being noticed, but it is good that it happens.

I am grateful for noble Lords’ contributions. I think there are a number of comments that the right reverend Prelates will take on board. I hope the House will want the Bill to go forward—I get the sense that it will. It has been a privilege to be engaged in this debate. A number of issues around Lords reform have been on the agenda since I have been Leader, and I welcome hearing from noble Lords on a range of those issues. I am grateful to those who have already engaged with me in a very constructive way. This debate has been a privilege, and it is with pleasure that I beg to move.

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

Grenfell Tower Inquiry Phase 2 Report

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Monday 9th September 2024 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement on the Grenfell Tower inquiry made in another place last Wednesday by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. The Statement is as follows:

“Sir Martin Moore-Bick has now published the final report of the Grenfell Tower inquiry. I am sure the whole House will join me in thanking him, the members of the inquiry and his whole team for their dedicated work.

I want to speak directly to the bereaved families, the survivors and those in the immediate Grenfell community, some of whom are with us in the Gallery today. Sir Martin concluded—I am afraid there is no way of repeating this that will not be painful—that

‘the simple truth is that the deaths that occurred were all avoidable and that those who lived in the tower were badly failed over a number of years and in a number of different ways’

by, as the report lays out in full, just about every institution responsible for ensuring their safety. In the face of an injustice so painful and so deserving of anger, words begin to lose their meaning, after seven years still waiting for the justice that you deserve. I want to say very clearly, on behalf of the country, that you have been let down so badly before, during and in the aftermath of this tragedy.

While Sir Martin sets out a catalogue of appalling industry failures, for which there must be full accountability, he also finds

‘decades of failure by central government’.

He concludes:

‘In the years between the fire at Knowsley Heights in 1991 and the fire at Grenfell Tower in 2017 there were many opportunities for the government to identify the risks posed by the use of combustible cladding panels and insulation’.


He concludes that,

‘by 2016, the department was well aware of those risks, but failed to act on what it knew’.

Further, he finds:

‘The department itself was poorly run’


and

‘the government’s deregulatory agenda … dominated the department’s thinking to such an extent that even matters affecting the safety of life were ignored, delayed or disregarded’.

So I want to start with an apology on behalf of the British state to each and every one of you and, indeed, to all the families affected by this tragedy. It should never have happened. The country failed to discharge its most fundamental duty to protect you and your loved ones—the people we are here to serve—and I am deeply sorry. I also want to express my admiration for the strength it must have taken to relive these events when giving your evidence to the inquiry, and indeed to see written down today the circumstances that led to the deaths of your loved ones.

After all that you have been through, you may feel that you are always one step away from another betrayal. I get that, and I know that I cannot change that with just words today. But what I can say is that I listened carefully to one of the members of the inquiry, Ali Akbor, who said this this morning:

‘What is needed is for those with responsibility for building safety to reflect and to treat Grenfell as a touchstone in all that they do in the future’.


I consider myself someone with responsibility for building safety, and that is exactly what I will do and what I will demand of this Government.

Today is a long-awaited day of truth. It must now lead to a day of justice—justice for the victims and the families of Grenfell—but also a moment to reflect on the state of social justice in our country and a chance for this Government of service to turn the page. That is because this tragedy poses fundamental questions about the kind of country we are: a country where the voices of working-class people and those of colour have been repeatedly ignored and dismissed; and a country where tenants of a social housing block in one of the richest parts of the land are treated like second-class citizens, shamefully dismissed as, in the words of one survivor,

‘people with needs and problems’,

and not respected as citizens—as people who contribute to Britain, who are part of Britain and who belong in Britain. Unbelievably, that continued even after the tragedy. Sir Martin highlights:

‘Certain aspects of the response demonstrated a marked lack of respect for human decency and dignity and left many of those immediately affected feeling abandoned by authority and utterly helpless’.


That alone should make anyone who feels any affinity towards justice bristle with anger.

Sir Martin continues that he finds

‘systematic dishonesty on the part of those who made and sold the rainscreen cladding panels and insulation products’.

He goes on to say:

‘They engaged in deliberate and sustained strategies to manipulate the testing processes, misrepresent test data and mislead the market’.


Sir Martin also cites

‘a complete failure on the part of the Local Authority Building Control … over a number of years to take basic steps to ensure that the certificates it issued … were technically accurate’.

He finds that the work of the Building Research Establishment

‘was marred by unprofessional conduct, inadequate practices, a lack of effective oversight, poor reporting and a lack of scientific rigour’,

and that the tenant management organisation

‘must also bear a share of the blame’.

Its only fire safety assessor

‘had misrepresented his experience and qualifications (some of which he had invented) and was ill-qualified to carry out fire risk assessments on buildings of the size and complexity of Grenfell Tower’.

He also finds

‘a chronic lack of effective management and leadership’

on behalf of the London Fire Brigade, with tragic consequences on the night of the fire.

In the light of such findings, it is imperative that there is full accountability, including through the criminal justice process, and that this happens as swiftly as possible. I can tell the House today that this Government will write to all companies found by the inquiry to have been part of these horrific failings, as the first step to stopping them being awarded government contracts. We will, of course, support the Met Police and the CPS as they complete their investigations. But it is vital that, as we respond to this report today, we do not do or say anything that could compromise any future prosecution, because the greatest injustice of all would be for the victims and all those affected not to get the justice that they deserve.

There must also be more radical action to stop something like this from ever happening again. One of the most extraordinary qualities of the Grenfell community is their determination to look forward. They are fighting not only for justice for themselves but to ensure that no other community suffers as they have done.

Some important reforms have taken place in the last seven years—which we supported in opposition—including banning combustible cladding, new oversight of building control, a new safety regime for all residential blocks over 18 metres, new legal requirements on social landlords, and making sure that fire and rescue services are trained and equipped to handle large-scale incidents, including moving from ‘stay put’ to ‘get out’ when needed. We are now addressing the recommendation from Sir Martin’s first report to introduce a new residential personal emergency evacuation plan policy for anyone whose ability to evacuate could be compromised, with funding for those renting in social housing.

We will look at all 58 of Sir Martin’s recommendations in detail. There will be a debate on the Floor of this House. We will respond in full to the inquiry’s recommendations within six months, and we will update Parliament annually on our progress against every commitment we make.

But there are some things I can say right now. There are still buildings today with unsafe cladding. The speed at which this is being addressed is far, far too slow. We only have to look at the fire in Dagenham last week—a building that was still in the process of having its cladding removed. This must be a moment of change. We will take the necessary steps to speed this up. We will be willing to force freeholders to assess their buildings and enter remediation schemes within set timescales, with a legal requirement to force action if that is what it takes. We will set out further steps on remediation this autumn.

We will also reform the construction products industry that made this fatal cladding so that homes are made of safe materials and those who compromise that safety will face the consequences. We will ensure that tenants and their leaseholders can never again be ignored, and that social landlords are held to account for the decency and safety of their homes.

As the Government tackle the most acute housing crisis in living memory, building 1.5 million new homes across the country, we will ensure that those homes are safe, secure and built to the highest standards—places of security, health and well-being that serve the needs of residents and their wider communities. A safe and decent home is a human right and a basic expectation, and the provision of that right should never be undermined by the reckless pursuit of greed. One of the tragedies of Grenfell is that this is a community who nurtured so much of what we want from housing: people who had made the tower their home and were entitled to a place of safety and security, not a deathtrap. Yet time and again they were ignored.

Two weeks ago I made a private visit to Grenfell Tower. I laid a wreath at the memorial wall and affirmed the Government’s commitment to the work of the memorial commission to deliver a permanent memorial on the site through a process led by the Grenfell community. As I walked down the narrow staircase from the 23rd floor and looked at walls burned by 1,000-degree heat, I got just a sense of how utterly terrifying it must have been. As I saw examples of the cladding on the outside of the building and listened to descriptions of the catastrophic and completely avoidable failures of that fatal refurbishment, I felt a sense of the anger that now rises through that building. It left me with a profound and personal determination to make the legacy of Grenfell Tower one of the defining changes to our country that I want to make as Prime Minister.

To the families, the survivors and the immediate community, I say that we will support you now and always, especially those who were children. In the memory of your loved ones, we will deliver a generational shift in the safety and quality of housing for everyone in this country. In the memory of Grenfell, we will change our country—not just a change in policy and regulation, although that must take place, but a profound shift in culture and behaviour, a rebalancing of power that gives voice and respect to every citizen, whoever they are and wherever they live. We will bring the full power of government to bear on this task because that is the responsibility of service and the duty that we owe to the memory of every one of the 72. In that spirit, I commend this Statement to the House”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, the central conclusion of this long-awaited report is blunt and devastating. Sir Martin finds that building safety has failed for decades in central government, local government and the construction industry. He says that every single death was avoidable. From these Benches, we say a heartfelt sorry to the victims, their families and their friends.

One of the most shocking threads running through the report is that there has been no sense of responsibility and a lack of questioning inside various government departments, including by Ministers. The report says that the machinery of government and its agencies failed the victims, especially as a result of a lack of interdepartmental working. Fragmentation and a lack of curiosity resulted in inaction, delay and obfuscation, and this cost lives. This criticism also came up in the Infected Blood Inquiry, the Hillsborough report, and the Post Office Horizon report. That is why, from these Benches, we have long advocated for a duty of candour, and we are pleased that the Government have committed to introducing it. Can the Minister say when this legislation will appear?

In the meantime, what changes have been made to ensure that civil servants and public agencies ensure that Ministers are always told the truth, however uncomfortable it may be? Specifically on building safety, can the Minister say what steps the Government are taking to ensure that everyone across government knows who is in charge, and how the current culture can be changed to ensure that no more tragedies like Grenfell can happen again?

The failures of the construction sector—whether regulators, manufacturing companies, builders, maintenance or management agents—are also shocking. The 2018 Hackitt report, with 50 reforms for the sector, was accepted by both Sir Martin and the last Government, in 2019. The key was to strengthen the golden thread of safety running throughout the sector, from manufacturing to regulation and training. When will there be an update to Parliament on the implementations of the Hackitt recommendations? In particular, can the Minister say when she expects the Government to appoint a cladding safety tsar, as proposed by Dame Judith?

At the heart of this report is the evidence of the poor treatment of individuals, especially those already marginalised in our society. Sir Martin speaks of

“a marked lack of respect for human decency and dignity”,

with

“those immediately affected feeling abandoned by authority and utterly helpless”.

These words could also be written about the other inquiry reports, such as those on Windrush and infected blood. This widespread lack of respect challenges all involved in public policy management, whether Ministers, politicians or officials, to change our attitudes. Central government must take a lead in bringing about this change, which requires a fundamental change in mindset. This will take time and commitment, but it is crucially important.

In this case, the tenant management organisation failed badly. Never again should social housing tenants be regarded as not worthy of safe housing. Never again should the vulnerable, especially the elderly and disabled, be regarded as not worthy of safety systems to get them out of burning buildings. In the light of the Dagenham fire two weeks ago, where there were locked exits and problems with the fire alarms, what are the Government doing to ensure that all blocks of flats, regardless of height, have working fire systems without delay?

Seven years on from the Grenfell fire, the delays in the removal of combustible cladding are now a national disgrace. As the noble Lord pointed out, the previous Government committed funds and said that they wanted to knock together the heads of the building firms and freeholders. But clearly more still needs to happen, and urgently. So what will this Government do to speed up the process of making safe the hundreds of blocks that still have inadequate cladding?

It is vital that the police and the CPS move at pace to review the report and investigate the individuals and organisations that Sir Martin says deliberately breached the law. Given the pressures on the police and the CPS, will the Government ensure that there are no further delays because they lack the resources to do the work? Justice further delayed is justice denied, and there have been enough delays already.

The Government have pledged to act on more than 50 recommendations in the report. Despite their initial commitments to move on them all, there is a danger that momentum may not be maintained, as we have seen with the recommendations of the Hackitt report. So can the Leader of the House commit to a full debate in your Lordships’ House in the near future, and then a regular report back to Parliament, so that everybody can feel safe in their homes and those who behaved so appallingly in this case can be held to account?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for their comments. I think the House is united, first, in an apology and, secondly, in determination and a sense of anger. As I read the inquiry report and felt that disappointment and sadness about it, the further I read, the angrier I got. It is quite hard to sustain anger, but by the end I was more than just bristling with anger, and I think anybody who read it felt exactly the same. So I am grateful for all the comments.

I will take the last point first. Yes, we commit to a debate in the House. This addresses points made by both noble Lords. The Prime Minister has committed to an update, within six months, on where we have got to, but there are things that can be done sooner and, where they can, they will be implemented sooner, with an annual update to the House. So there will be a regular update, and there will be an early debate, although I will not attempt to identify when; I leave that to the Chief Whip, who will come back.

The noble Lord will know that the height of buildings referred to in the report is currently 18 metres, but we have to see whether that is the appropriate level.

On when secondary legislation will come forward, it is being drafted now and there will be measures in the renters reform Bill to bring that forward. The police and the CPS will have the resources they need to do this job. Justice has been denied for far too long, and this should move on apace. Anyone who read the interviews with police officers involved in the investigations would have sensed their determination and commitment. Anybody who has spoken to the families or anyone affected will be nothing but moved and determined to support and help them. I went to one of the hearings in Church House. There is always a sense of guilt: when you hear something and are deeply moved by it, you realise what it must have been like to be there at the time, even though all you are doing is hearing it and being deeply moved at that point. So there is an absolute determination that resources will not prevent proper investigations and prosecutions.

The duty of candour will come forward. The noble Lord, Lord Newby, is right to raise this: there does seem to be a theme of people being ignored or not taken seriously. Many years ago, when I was a Minister in Northern Ireland, there was a report into the deaths of children in hospitals there. The first recommendation for the Northern Ireland Government was that there should be a duty of candour—in other words, for public servants to tell the truth. That also protects junior members of staff, who may feel under pressure from more senior members not to say exactly what they know. Bringing that forward, I was pleased to see that in our manifesto.

On the management of buildings and how we manage public policy, it is worrying to read the report and see how many opportunities there were to prevent this happening. Information was withheld, including information on the testing of combustible materials. The culture change on this starts from the top. Ministers have to be told uncomfortable facts and create a climate in their departments whereby, if they are brought information that is not what they want to hear, that is difficult and uncomfortable, when action has to be taken by government and may be expensive, that information will be brought to them and members of their departments will be encouraged to do so.

On the removal of cladding, we are accelerating that process. It is a tragedy that in Dagenham that work was ongoing and had not been completed, which also caused a problem. There is the scale of the challenge—4,630 residential buildings over 11 metres have been identified as having unsafe cladding—yet, so far, all these years on, only 50% have either started or completed that remediation work. That has to continue apace, and we must do so as quickly as possible. There is now a route to do so, and access to government funding, as well as a way of identifying whether any buildings have been missed there.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

The Leader of the House will recognise that the Building Safety Act does not cover all buildings at risk or all leaseholders, and it does not cover all safety defects. She recognised that they may need to look again at the buildings under 18 metres, which get no help at all. I shall press her on something that the Prime Minister said last Wednesday:

“We cannot suggest for a minute that the existing legislation, guidance and policy is sufficient. We need more powers”.—[Official Report, Commons, 4/9/24; col. 326.]


He was right. Will we get that new legislation in this Session?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

The first stage is to look at what can be done with existing legislation or under the legislation that has been brought forward already, and then examine whether new legislation is required. If it is, the Government will do their best to bring it forward as quickly as possible. This is not something that we want to leave and see a further tragedy. We have seen too many tragedies; this is not the first case. I am not going to give a commitment as to when it will be brought forward, but I shall say that it will be as quickly as it can be.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a Member of your Lordships’ committee looking into the operation of statutory inquiries at the moment. I thank my noble friend the Leader for the clarity, compassion and, indeed, righteous anger of the Statement, and I thank the noble Lords, Lord True and Lord Newby, for the tone of their responses.

How can we ensure that deregulatory zeal and the desire to cut so-called red tape never again becomes the basis for compromising human decency, dignity and protection?

On the time that it takes to investigate and prosecute, I agree with my noble friend that independent investigations and prosecutions, and indeed trials, should not be compromised. But given the fabulous way in which the Government responded over the summer to the racist riots by ensuring that the authorities had the resources they needed to accelerate the process, are the Government confident that they can ensure that the police, prosecutors and so on have the resources, including specialist resources, that they need to bring matters quickly to a conclusion?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

On the first point that my noble friend raises, there is an issue about deregulation, which should always be seen in the context of what is appropriate; it is not about the numbers of regulations that we have. Most importantly, what struck me when reading this report was that, although deregulation was certainly part of the issue, honesty and dishonesty were an even greater part. Parts of the report refer to deliberately concealing from the market the true extent of the danger, systematic dishonesty, how a company embarked on a dishonest scheme to mislead its customers in the wider markets, as well as a deliberate strategy to continue selling those products in the face of a statement about the fire performance which they knew to be false. The scale and depth of the dishonesty there is extraordinary. So regulation is important, but the point about honesty, misleading information and systematic failures runs so through deeply throughout this that there are multiple threads to the failure.

On resources, the Prime Minister has made it clear that they should be made available to ensure that prosecutions can be brought, if that is the view of the police and the CPS, and that they will have the resources to do so.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, six people died in the Lakanal House fire. The coroner said in that inquest, published in 2013, that, if Lakanal House had had sprinklers, not one of those six deaths would have happened. While it is good that the Government have accepted the need to review the height of 18 metres, there has been no mention about sprinklers, not just in new buildings but in tall, older buildings. Will the Government reconsider ensuring that sprinklers are retrofitted, particularly in the most high-rise flats? Also, while the Statement recognises the need for residential personal emergency evacuation plans, can the Minister please confirm that work will be done with disabled communities before decisions are made, which did not happen with the previous Government when they created their interim versions earlier this year?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

Yes; the noble Baroness is right that we have to engage with those who will be directly affected. Work is ongoing on that now. On the point about sprinklers, it is one of many solutions in terms of reducing the risk of damage from fire. Sometimes it can actually be quite difficult to do. All options are open in looking at how to ensure that buildings are safe.

[Baroness Sanderson of Welton (Con)]

My Lords, the Leader makes a very good point about anger. If that is how it made us feel, can you imagine how difficult that report must have been for the victims last week? “Systemic dishonesty”, “persistent indifference”, “basic neglect”, “a cavalier attitude”—all terms used by Sir Martin to describe the behaviour of everyone involved, from the manufacturers and contractors to national and local government and the oversight and regulatory bodies.

Sir Martin has made a series of carefully considered recommendations. I mention just one, recommendation 113.4, and declare a similar interest regarding the committee I am on:

“We recommend that it be made a legal requirement for the government to maintain a publicly accessible record of recommendations made by select committees, coroners and public inquiries together with a description of the steps taken in response”.


Progress on recommendations obviously needs to be made, but victims and survivors also need to be able to see that progress is being made. So will this be one of those areas for early work that the Prime Minister outlined last week?

Finally, will the department look at the excellent monitoring system devised by the Home Office in response to the phase 1 recommendations? It is very easy to navigate and far more accessible than the usual GOV.UK updates but, inexplicably, it still has not been put into use.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I pay tribute to the noble Baroness for her work, commitment and support for the victims of those in Grenfell; I know that she has visited the site and met them. I know how deep her commitment is—led, I think, by the anger that we all feel—and pay tribute to her for that also.

She is absolutely right: as we move forward on this, those who have been involved in supporting Grenfell survivors and those who themselves survived are going to need confidence; the Prime Minister referred to this in his Statement. It takes more than just words to reassure them that action has been taken. We need to look at an appropriate format so that it is easily understood what has been done, what is about to be done and the timescales. He has committed to come back with a full response “within six months”. I know that he and the team are looking now at what can be done within that time so I will take back the noble Baroness’s comments and, if there are examples of how it has been done in the past with open access, that would be a good thing to look at as a model.

[Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, I want to raise the issue of remediation as it affects social housing. Nothing is more important to housing associations than the safety of their residents. They have been moving quickly to identify buildings with combustible materials and remediate them as quickly as they possibly can so that residents can feel safe in their homes, as they should be able to. They need to do more; they want to do more.

The previous Government took a decision that meant social landlords cannot access the building safety fund and cladding safety scheme in the same way that private building owners can. Private building owners have received 90% of the government funding available for remedial works to buildings 11 metres-plus high. There is almost no public funding available for works to flats where social tenants live. Will the Leader of the House urge the Government to reconsider the previous Government’s decision so that housing associations can ensure their residents’ safety more quickly?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I understood that different schemes were in place, but I will take that back, look into it and come back to my noble friend with a response.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, thousands of leaseholders and tenants are still living in blocks that are unsafe. I thank the noble Baroness the Leader of the House for the commitment she has given to speeding up remediation works. However, some leaseholders are not included in the current scheme, as non-qualifying leaseholders of various sorts. Will the Minister commit to reviewing the qualification of leaseholders for the scheme to get the cladding on their homes removed? They are, as are others, living in places where they fear fire every day.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, nothing is more important than feeling safe and secure in your own home. My noble friend Lady Taylor, who is sitting with me, is well aware of this as a former council leader. The department is aware of the issue and is looking into it.

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

I add my thanks to the Leader of the House for the very moving and, in a true sense, infuriating sharing of that Statement. I think we would all agree that dealing with the issues has been far too slow. As the noble Lord, Lord Newby, and others have pointed out, it is now seven years since Grenfell. Is it to be reasonably expected, given the size of the challenge, that, when we reach the grim 10th anniversary—or even the 15th—there are still going to be buildings with flammable cladding on them?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I very sincerely hope not. It is our intention to accelerate this as quickly as possible. It would be a failure if, in 15 years, we still had cladding on those buildings. We would not be fulfilling our obligations as a Parliament, a Government and a country.

[Baroness Manzoor (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement and for the empathy and sympathy that she has shown. It is very sad that there are many people throughout who are marginalised and do not feel that they have access to the appropriate services, whether in the NHS or in the housing sector.

I come back to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Newby, around the duty of candour and whether the Government will look at this particular issue across different departments; whether it will need primary legislation; and whether something can be put in place around this duty in terms of procurement services for external bodies, which will help immensely. I concur with the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti: seven years is far too long, and we need to see justice being done. To my mind, there is ample evidence of where things have gone wrong. We should support the CPS to move to prosecutions very quickly; otherwise, this will be another injustice done on top of what should already have been avoided.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is right but I think we would all want to ensure that the CPS has the time and the resources to ensure that, if it brings prosecutions, it is confident that it has the evidence to prosecute so that it can be fully considered. That is partly why this is taking so long but we are assuring it that this will not be a matter of resources; we want it to do its duty as quickly as it can.

We have made a commitment to the duty of candour; it is a really important factor. When the legislation comes before your Lordships’ House, it will be primary legislation and considered in the usual way. I sense that the time has come. I remember that, when this was first mooted a number of years ago, there was quite a resistance towards it in terms of why it was required—that is, why did we need a duty of candour? I think we all know why we need a duty of candour now.

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, I refer to my interests in the register on preparedness and resilience. There are a lot of parallels between this report and the report that we debated last week on the Covid inquiry, particularly the importance of clarity about who holds responsibility for particular things. In the case of the Covid inquiry the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hallett, was talking about system-wide risks and contingencies. This report is very clear about who holds the responsibility when several departments and several agencies might be involved. Can my noble friend tell us how that will be taken forward and whether these common themes will be picked up?

The other issue I wanted to raise, which was raised by a number of noble Lords, is about responding to inquiries and inquests. This occurs throughout the public sector. It happens in the health service, and I know from the work I have done in the past on prisons that the same sorts of recommendations are made time and again there. Too often, a response is sent to the individual coroner which says, “We’ve established a committee to look at this”—and that is the end of the response. Never is it explained what lessons have been learned and what lessons have been acted on, and how that is working. How will this be turned into something which operates effectively and systematically across the public sector?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

That is the great challenge for government and public sector organisations. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is leading on a resilience review, and that is the kind of issue that should be brought forward. Unless you are joining the dots on this, we will hear this same theme. As has been mentioned already today, whether you are looking at Hillsborough, Covid—as the noble Lord mentioned—or this incident, in every single case, people gave warnings and were not believed. That is often compounded afterwards because trying to get to the truth is made harder than it ever should be.

In this case, the last Government did the same, setting up the inquiries. Getting to the truth is the first part of being able to take the action needed. It then needs that determination to see it through. When the Prime Minister made the Statement in the House of Commons, he acknowledged that just words are not enough; we have to see this through with actions. The resilience review is part of it but we also need to learn the lessons. Sometimes when we are looking across government at what needs to be done—Covid is an example again—we may think, “Everything’s okay at the moment; there is no problem”. You have to prepare for the worst-case scenario to ensure that if there is a difficulty or a problem, we have the resilience and the resources in place to deal with it.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister just mentioned resilience. The Statement itself does not say very much about emergency planning and resilience, yet Sir Martin Moore-Bick says at chapter 113.73 that the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea

“was not able to provide an effective response to the emergency”,

and he therefore recommends that

“local authorities train all their employees, including chief executives, to regard resilience as an integral part of their responsibilities”.

This is pretty basic. Can the Minister ensure that the Government take steps to enable resilience and emergency planning to be seen as a central duty of local government?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

The noble Lord is absolutely right. I can remember from a time when I was a county councillor that the emergency planning committee was quite a central committee of the council; we do not see so many of those around these days. Unless we address the issue of resilience and preparedness at every level of government, we will not be in the right position to deal with problems, as I said in my previous answer. Yes, work is ongoing across government on that issue now.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

One of the striking and shocking aspects of this brilliant report is the proof that requiring regulators to operate commercially, competing for business, risks their capture by business. Grenfell shows the piper playing the tune that business wanted and that cost lives. I hope the Government will take up the recommendation to have a single regulator for the construction industry, and I really hope that they will site that regulator and all its regulatory functions in the public sector.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

One of the starkest issues in here is about dishonesty, incompetence and responsibility, including not even checking the qualifications of those responsible for undertaking inspections. I do not know if the noble Lord’s response to the report was similar to mine but, as he can see if I hold it up, there are lots of pink and red marks where I have highlighted it. I went through it thinking at every stage, “How did this happen? How could this happen?” I am grateful to him for his comments, and we will report back to the House on those points.

[Lord Naseby (Con)]

My Lords, I am sure I speak for the whole House in thanking the Leader of the House for coming to us today, and for the clarity with which she made the Statement. I raise two quick questions. First, it has been my privilege to be involved in social housing ever since I was elected to the London Borough of Islington and became the housing chairman there and, subsequently, as Member of Parliament for Northampton, a new town. In relation to who should drive this forward, it seems to me that she has sitting on her right-hand side somebody who has been involved with the new towns commission. That might not be the right vehicle, but it works in relation to housing and quick decisions on issues. We may need some variation of that, but I put that forward as a suggestion.

Secondly, missing all the time—and I questioned my Government about this—has been any real contribution from developers on the continent of Europe, some of whom were involved in various developments. So far, to the best of my knowledge, we have had no financial contributions from the construction companies involved from outside the UK. We ought to look very closely at that, particularly as our construction companies—to the best of my knowledge, the vast majority—have contributed so far.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

Yes, I think where companies have been international there has been greater difficulty in that regard. I thank the noble Lord for his comments about my colleagues. My noble friend Lady Taylor—now a Minister in the department—has experience in local government that is a huge asset to us, but also my noble friend Lady Twycross was the deputy mayor for fire and resilience in London. I assure him that there is great determination, which we feel quite personally, to ensure that we move forward as quickly as we can with respect to those who suffered because of this fire.

House of Lords: Composition

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Thursday 5th September 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Strathclyde (Con)]

My Lords, I beg leave to ask a Question of which I have given private notice, and I declare my interest. The question is as follows: to ask His Majesty’s Government, first, what plans they have for the removal of excepted Peers from the House of Lords and, secondly, whether they plan to keep the House informed on any proposed changes to its composition before the publication of relevant legislation.

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

My Lords, I think the noble Lord’s Question referred to excepted hereditary Peers. Today, probably as we speak, the Government are introducing a Bill in the other place to deliver on our clear manifesto commitment to bring about immediate reform by removing the right of the remaining hereditary Peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords. The Bill was included in the King’s Speech, which was debated at length in your Lordships’ House. It will complete the process started a quarter of a century ago to remove hereditary Peers from Parliament. The Government are keen to maintain an ongoing dialogue with your Lordships about this legislation and our other manifesto commitments on reforming this House.

[Lord Strathclyde (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness the Leader of the House for that Answer, but is it not a bit shoddy that she was prepared to speak to the press yesterday and had to be summoned to the Dispatch Box today rather than make a Statement to the House about one of the most important issues facing this House—namely, its composition? This is a high-handed, shoddy political act, removing some of our most senior and experienced Peers, such as the Convenor of the Cross Benches, the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and many others who have held some of the most senior positions in government and commerce.

Why have the Government and the noble Baroness not sought any discussions or consultation among the parties? Twenty-five years ago, countless debates and questions took place in the House and, ultimately, we finished up with a consensual way forward agreed among the parties. Why are there no proposals to remove those Peers from the House who very rarely come, rather than those who have shown an active commitment over many years? I hope that the noble Baroness will now engage with the usual channels to find a suitable day for a debate on the Floor of the House to discuss proper reform of the House of Lords.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I have always admired the noble Lord’s ingenuity, and never more so than today. It is a bit of a reach to say that a Statement should have been made to this House first. This was first debated around the hereditary Peers by-elections, it was debated following the Labour Party’s manifesto commitment, and I have had numerous conversations since the election and will continue to do so. A Bill has been introduced in the other place today; it will come to your Lordships’ House and we will have our discussions in the normal way. The noble Lord says that there was agreement previously. It was because there was no agreement during the passage of that Bill that further discussions took place and temporary arrangements were made on a transitional basis to exempt some hereditary Peers from the legislation. This will complete that process. I remind the noble Lord that my comment to the press about the Bill’s introduction—made in the normal way—started by recognising the valuable contributions that many hereditary Peers have made to Parliament.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, I remind the House that my party is committed to further reform of this House, including the introduction of an elected element, which we first declared as party policy in 1911. I also remind the House that, during the last Parliament, a number of Conservatives—who know very well who they are—spent a great deal of time complaining that the Liberal Democrats were overrepresented in this House because of our small numbers in the Commons. It is now quite clear that one of our most immediate problems is the overrepresentation of Conservatives compared to their small numbers in the Commons. Can the Leader of the House tell us whether there have been any discussions so far about a voluntary reduction in the number of Conservatives in this House to reflect the new situation since the election?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I have had no approaches from the party opposite about its numbers. On the noble Lord’s point about wider Lords reform, for the last 25 years one of the arguments has been that nothing should be done until everything can be done—but no one agrees on what “everything” is. A piecemeal approach is by far the better way. The party opposite complains about Lords reform, but in the years that it was in government the only proposal it came forward with was to move the House of Lords to York.

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

My Lords, could the Leader of the House advise me whether this was included in the Labour Party manifesto, what the result of the general election was and what majority was achieved by the Labour Party? On a more serious note, can she confirm that, if any hereditary Peers were thought fit to be appointed as life Peers, that could be done?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

This was part of the Labour Party manifesto at the last election. Noble Lords may recall that the passage of my noble friend Lord Grocott’s Bill to end the hereditary Peers by-elections was blocked. Perhaps 10, 15 or 20 years ago that might have been a better way forward, but that opportunity has now passed. The election result was quite clear. I can confirm that, if Members leave this House as hereditary Peers, there is no block at all to them coming back as life Peers if their party wishes to introduce them.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

My Lords, on the commitments in the manifesto and what the party opposite said about House of Lords reform, what has happened to the proposal to expel everyone after they reach the age of 80? Why has that been dropped from the Bill? Is not the answer that this is a naked attempt to disable opposition in this House from a Government who have a majority in the other place, although this place is the only part of Parliament which properly scrutinises legislation? The Government are undermining our ability to carry out our duties effectively.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

Again, the noble Lord’s ingenuity is always impressive. He knows that that is not the case. He also knows that the Labour Party manifesto at the last election was the only one I have seen in recent years that praised the work of this House—we continue to do so—and recognised the valuable work that it has done. In my answer to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, I said that one of the important things in this House is incremental reform. As I have said before—I think the noble Lord was present when this was repeated at least twice in debate on the King’s Speech—the House will be consulted on the manifesto commitments on retirement age and participation.

The manifesto also talked about immediate actions on particular issues. The other commitments of course remain, and they will come forward in due course, after discussions and dialogue across the House.

[Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)]

My Lords, although the Minister is very good on these matters, she does not quite seem to understand that her party is dabbling with constitutional reform. Surely she, among many others, agrees that when it comes to constitutional reform it is absolutely essential that there is agreement between all parties, otherwise we spend years and years in useless argument, getting nowhere. Does the noble Baroness not accept on this issue, as she has just learned from some of the responses she has just had, that once you touch on constitutional issues, the time has come to try to work out a common way forward—the future common ground—in a sensible, mature and adult way, and not get lost in party ding-dong?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

The noble Lord is being a little patronising in saying that I do not understand constitutional issues. I will be happy to reach consensus, where it is possible. As the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, said, a quarter of a century ago there was eventually a consensus that transitional arrangements would be made for the remaining hereditary Peers.

[Baroness Deech (CB)]

Would the Minister use this opportunity to end another long-standing anomaly whereby the wives of Lords and Barons have the title “Lady”, which confuses them with those who have earned the title? This should end, or change so that our husbands, or the partners of women Peers, also get some sort of honorific title.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I think there are mixed views across the House about this issue—I have to say that Mr Smith might not appreciate having a title. It does seem an anomaly, although not one that overly concerns the House. However, I note the noble Baroness’s comments.

[Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean (Lab)]

My Lords, can my noble friend remind the House how many from the hereditary Peerage in this House are women?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I recall the Countess of Mar from some years ago, and there may have been one other Member of the House of Lords who was a female hereditary Peer. There is none currently and, as far as I am aware, none is eligible for election in the hereditary Peers by-elections.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

May I return to the extraordinary decision to use the standing orders of this House in order to avoid our statutory obligations in relation to the holding of excepted Peers’ by-elections? When I raised it before, the noble Baroness the Leader of the House said that she was confident that that move did not breach the law. However, it has since been suggested to me that the legal advice she received was more ambivalent on the matter. Is she willing to publish the legal advice on which that extraordinary decision to avoid our statutory obligations was based and, in doing so, show respect for the rule of law?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

When that decision was taken, it was entirely and completely within the rule of law. The legislation states that the House should hold by-elections. How it holds them is a matter for this House. I was approached by Members from across the House, including from Front Benches, who said that they wished that those by-elections would not take place during the passage of the Bill. Therefore, the House made the decision, under its Standing Orders, to pause the by-elections for a period of 18 months. That is entirely within the law and was done with the full agreement of this House.

[Lord McNally (LD)]

My Lords, one of the benefits of this House is that some of us have been around a long time. I was much involved in the decision 25 years ago. The truth was that Viscount Cranborne, now the Marquess of Salisbury, had tied the Labour Government up in knots. The decision to allow hereditary Peers to remain was a way of untying that knot, with a solemn promise that legislation would be brought forward for proper reform of the House of Lords. I am afraid that simply to abandon the deal made 25 years ago without that substantial reform of the Lords is a sham.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I disagree with the noble Lord on his final point, but I would expect him to make it because he is committed to an elected House. It is interesting that, when the debate was going through the House of Lords a quarter of a century ago, there was concern from a large number of hereditary Peers who were in your Lordships’ House at the time, and in order to smooth the passage of the Bill, arrangements were made that 92 hereditary Peers would remain on a hereditary basis. On that basis, Lord Cranborne was sacked from his job as Leader of the Opposition, and I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, who was put in his place—he was perhaps a beneficiary of that. The noble Lord, Lord Howell, made the point that constitutional reform should be made with care and consideration, and 25 years seems a fair amount of care and consideration.

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, for the avoidance of doubt I should say that I was the one who proposed that we look at the by-election matter. I have repeatedly made clear, both from that Dispatch Box as Leader and since, that I believe the best way forward for this House certainly in areas of constitutional change is by consensus, and not on the basis of divisive and partisan legislation.

There is a further and wider point. It is a courtesy and a duty to Parliament for Ministers to come to Parliament, and certainly to an affected House, to make a Statement on novel legislative matters before they are spewed out in the Guardian, the Times and other media. I do not know whether it was a decision of the noble Baroness that the pre-spin be done in this way; perhaps she was instructed by No. 10 not to make a Statement in this House. However, it was unlike her and not typical, and the misjudgment not to make a Statement in this House did not reflect her normal courtesy. I welcome some of the things that she said, so will she repeat her undertaking to enter into discussions now in the spirit of consensus? My door is open, as is, I am sure, the noble Earl’s.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for his comments on hereditary Peers’ by-elections; both he and the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, have approached me. In terms of constructive debate, I spoke to the Cross-Bench Peers yesterday and I would welcome an invitation to speak to the Conservatives. I do not think the noble Lord can do so as a matter of course, as it is by invitation, so I would welcome an invitation too.

There was a bit of faux anger on his part about a Statement to this House. This issue was in the Labour Party manifesto. During the King’s Speech debate, it was the subject of almost the entire content of the noble Lord’s response to my comments in the constitutional debate. When a Bill is introduced into either House, it is normal for a comment to be made. I wanted to ensure that it was on the record that we welcomed and appreciated the contribution made by hereditary Peers, and that is why it is in the Statement. It is a perfectly normal way of doing things. It did not come as a surprise to the noble Lord. It has been debated in this House on many occasions and I am sure the dialogue will continue.

Business of the House

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Wednesday 4th September 2024 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[The Lord Privy Seal]

That, in the event that the Budget Responsibility Bill has been brought from the Commons, Standing Order 44 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be dispensed with on Monday 9 September to allow the Bill to be taken through its remaining stages that day.

Motion agreed.

Civil Service: Recruitment

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Wednesday 4th September 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the political neutrality of Civil Service recruitment following recent appointments to Civil Service roles.

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

My Lords, the impartiality of the Civil Service is one of its fundamental principles. Civil Service appointments must follow the correct rules and processes. Previous political activity is not prohibited, but all appointees must be able to comply with the Civil Service Code. The majority of Civil Service appointments are undertaken by fair and open competition. The use of appointments by exception are set out in the recruitment principles and have been used by successive Administrations.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, despite the assurances the noble Baroness has given, there has been widespread and, I believe, legitimate concern about the politicisation of Civil Service appointments since the election, with 10 Labour staffers having been appointed as civil servants by exception, and not as special advisers. The speed, scale and seniority have been quite new, and this is very worrying for those of us who support a politically neutral Civil Service. One way of improving matters would be to increase the transparency of the appointment process. Does the Minister agree? Would the Government ensure that any appointments made in the Civil Service by exception where the appointee has a record of recent political support for the government party are made public—and made public immediately?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I welcome the noble Baroness’s commitment to this issue—however recent it may be. Perhaps I can tell her that around 80,000 people were hired through open competitions and around 9,000 were hired through the different exception routes. She should look at this, because there is a very different role for special advisers and civil servants and there are criteria by which, if people are appointed to the Civil Service, they have to be agreed by the department following certain criteria and they need to abide by the Civil Service Code. I am sure she is aware of that. The same process is undertaken now as it was under previous Administrations.

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

My Lords, has the Leader of the House noticed that the inquiry announced by the First Civil Service Commissioner goes back only to 1 July, so does not cover any of the really dodgy appointments made by the previous Government? Does this not throw doubt on the impartiality of the First Civil Service Commissioner, who herself has received great largesse from the Tory Government—no doubt due to her leadership of the Brexit campaign?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I am confident that the rules in place mean that no Government have made dodgy appointments to the Civil Service—because the rules are very clear on this. On the first part of my noble friend’s question—why the current review is being carried out only from 1 July—apparently there is a regular, ongoing, routine investigation and audit by the commission, but this is exceptional and in addition to that. Apparently, the commissioner wrote to heads of department to say that it was in view of the “recent interest in appointments by exception”—but all appointments are part of a regular audit process.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree with the statements that the noble Lord, Lord Maude, and the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, made on a number of occasions during the coalition Government that the Civil Service benefits from the recruitment of outside experts to senior roles? I declare an interest: I happen to have worked with one of the two people recently recruited for a short period of time in Labour Together and I never had any impression when working with her of any partisanship—she was extremely professional. Does she further agree with what Henry Newman, formerly a Conservative special adviser, wrote in TheWhitehallProject two weeks ago:

“There is nothing inherently wrong with appointing either individual, but it should have been done with transparency and through clear procedures”?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, there are clear procedures in place. The department has to be satisfied when bringing in external expertise at all levels of the Civil Service. We are talking about 9,000 out of 80,000, and these are not just senior appointments. We might need to bring in expertise for short-term reasons or for specialist knowledge. It might be because of the nature of the appointments; if they are short term, it might not be appropriate to have a long recruitment process. It is absolutely right that an appointment has to be signed off by the department, which must be satisfied that it is justified, relevant and complies with the Civil Service Code. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Maude, who introduced those appointments to the Civil Service around 2010.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

My Lords, does the noble Baroness recognise that Ministers take decisions and govern, not civil servants or special advisers? Therefore, is it not a matter of great regret that so many of her Front Bench colleagues are not being paid because so many Ministers have been appointed in the House of Commons as part of the Prime Minister’s patronage?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a leap from the Question and, as always, I admire the noble Lord’s ingenuity. Every one of my colleagues on the Front Bench of this House is worth every penny that they are paid and more.

[Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean (Lab)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a former civil servant but, more importantly, as a former general secretary of the First Division Association, which represents the senior Civil Service. The fact is that Ministers take advice—quite rightly—from the Civil Service. However, this Question refuses to acknowledge that Ministers have the right—indeed, the duty and responsibility—to consult further than the Civil Service. In my experience, that is what they do. The decisions they take are theirs. My decisions were my decisions, and I believe the same of any Minister worth their salt, and certainly of my colleagues.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My noble friend makes a powerful point. It was similar to the first point made by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth: it is for Ministers to get a range of views and to make decisions. It is dangerous for us to think that civil servants are not impartial. They are impartial. That does not mean that they are neutral and have no views, but they bring impartiality to their posts. That is why we have to bring in outside, as well as existing, expertise.

[Baroness Finn (Con)]

My Lords, I am a strong supporter of external appointments to the Civil Service and of strengthening Ministers’ powers to bring in people, where there are skills shortages, to achieve their agenda. As my noble friend said, transparency is key to these appointments. Will the Minister therefore commit to publishing a list of all the external appointments requested by Ministers, at all grades?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

This Government should follow the normal practice of publishing appointments in government and we will do so.

[Lord Watts (Lab)]

As we are looking at public appointments, should we extend this to the BBC and Ofcom, because both those organisations seem to be dominated by Conservatives?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I must admit that I have not entirely checked the political allegiances of all those appointments. However, there is a proper process for public appointments, which should be followed at all times. In the cases that have been complained about, given that the independent adviser has said that no investigation is necessary—we have the exceptional investigation by the commission—I am confident that all processes have been followed properly.

House of Lords: Nominations for Appointment

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Tuesday 30th July 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to review the arrangements for nominations for appointment to the House of Lords.

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

My Lords, the Government are committed to improving the appointments process. There are two key areas here: one is to ensure that those who are appointed to your Lordships’ House are committed to the work of this House and are willing and able to play their part; and, secondly, we need to look at the national and regional balance of your Lordships’ House. We are actively reconsidering how best this might be achieved, and I would be grateful for the views of colleagues. The Government are grateful for the work of HOLAC in vetting life peerage nominations and in nominating Cross-Benchers, and we look forward to working with the commission.

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

I thank the Leader for her helpful reply. There seems to be general agreement that the House is too large. Does she agree that one of the problems is two different perceptions of what a peerage is? Some see it as merely an honour—one above a knighthood—and therefore do not expect to have to attend this House; others of us see it as a job to be done, an appointment to the second Chamber of the legislature, and therefore we should attend regularly and vote. Is there some way of separating or disentangling these? Working Peers should be the only ones who are able to attend, to vote and to participate in the work of this House.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, we have heard from the response from across the House how seriously those who are here in your Lordships’ House take their responsibilities. It is an honour to be appointed a Peer, and that brings with it responsibilities to the work that we do. I listened to the noble Lord’s comments on the King’s Speech about this, and I will look at and consider the issue. The House is large, and I think we have to ensure that we focus on the active contributions. Going forward, we will look at colleagues’ participation and the range of participation that Members are involved in—from voting in the Lobbies to taking part in committees to engaging in debates. I will take his views away and will take soundings from other colleagues across the House.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, does the Minister recognise that the prerogative power of the Prime Minister to appoint to this House remains absolute, as we saw under Boris Johnson? As a prerogative power remaining from the Middle Ages, the Prime Minister could announce that from now on the Prime Minister would not make appointments to this House without consultations with ACOBA and various bodies. Is that part of what is under consideration? Is there not a consensus now that it may be time for us to consider separating the honour of a peerage from the duty to attend the upper House?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, that is exactly the same point made by the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, about having two separate categories of peerage. I come back to the point that for all noble Lords it is an honour to be appointed to your Lordships’ House, but that brings with it responsibilities. I know noble Lords from across the House are very disappointed if colleagues are appointed and we do not see them, so I will take that back. Those who are appointed to this House at present do have a responsibility. I do not mean that everybody has to be here all day every day and be a full-time Peer, but we do have expectations that Members will be committed to the work of this House and play a part in it.

[Baroness Browning (Con)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a former member of HOLAC. May I ask the noble Baroness the Leader of the House whether, in discussion with the Prime Minister and others, there would be a complete discussion about the position of the Prime Minister in this role? HOLAC looks at the individual nominee from the point of view of propriety; it does not have the power to assess suitability, as that rests with the Prime Minister when sending the list forward in the first place. May I say to her that, if HOLAC suggests that, on the grounds of propriety, a person is not suitable for this House, the Prime Minister must accept that recommendation in future?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, there is a duty, an obligation and a responsibility on all party leaders who put forward nominees that they should be suitable for the work of this House. The points that the noble Baroness makes are ones that we are considering.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, does my noble friend consider that there should be a minimum participation by Peers in order to enable the House to benefit from their expertise and experience?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

There is, but defining what that is is not easy. I entirely agree, and this is one of the things we are grappling with at the moment. All of us have been disappointed when we have seen colleagues come in, take the oath and leave, and we do not see them again till they next take the oath; that is not playing a part in this House. But neither do I want to deter colleagues who come in occasionally to speak on their area of expertise, which the House benefits from. That is why I do want to take soundings from across the House on how we can best deal with this. We want all colleagues who are Members of your Lordships’ House to understand the responsibility that the honour brings with it and play a full role.

[Baroness Hayman (CB)]

My Lords, does the noble Baroness the Leader of the House accept that, welcome though her answers are on a long-term strategy of separating the honour from the responsibility of membership of your Lordships’ House, if we are to have a short-term reduction in the size of the House that will be sustainable and defensible in the long-term, we need a cap on the overall size of the House and a cap on the prerogative powers of the Prime Minister to appoint as many Peers as he wishes?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, in terms of my comments on my noble friend Lord Foulkes’s Question, I have made a commitment to consider that, not to do it. It is interesting that, for many years, this House remained at a similar size, and it is only in recent years—partly from so many prime ministerial resignation lists—that the House has expanded. When Labour left office, after 12 years, in 2010, we had about 24 more Peers than the Conservative Party, when they became the Government. At the end of their term of office, there are over 100 more Conservative Peers than Labour Peers. I know Members of the House opposite agree with me that the House is better when the numbers are better balanced. That may be one way of achieving it. I am on record as saying—and this is not an invitation to have lots of appointments on the Labour side—that, when the government and opposition parties are better balanced, we do our work as a House much better.

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

My Lords, one of the benefits of this Chamber is the enormous breadth of experience and the generations that are represented here. Could the noble Baroness consider whether, in the consultation on having a retirement age of 80, the Appointments Commission could be involved in some way, so there is a process to retain, on an exceptional basis perhaps, a number of Members who are over the age of 80? Looking around the Chamber, I see the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, and others who have made such a contribution beyond the age of 80.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, one of the things about a retirement age is that everybody thinks it should be five years older than they are. I remember the days of thinking that, when I got to 65, it would be wonderful, I would be old and I could retire; as I told my doctor last week, I have just taken on a new job. These are important things to factor in. Do bear in mind that we are not talking about a hard stop at the age 80; it is the end of the Parliament in which someone turns 80, so we are talking about a retirement age between 80 and 85. I am happy to receive any considerations that noble Lords want to make on this issue.

[Lord Winston (Lab)]

My Lords, the Government are to be congratulated on the experience, knowledge and expertise of some recent appointments to the House of Lords. This House prides itself as an expert Chamber. Would the Government be able to ensure that, in areas of expertise that are certainly very much needed, future appointments could be adjusted according to the needs of this expert House?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, that is one of the considerations that those making nominations for appointment should take into account. It is very important that we continue with that breadth of expertise, and also that we renew our expertise as well so that people with more recent experience can contribute. The noble Lord makes a very valid point, as the noble Baroness did, that the experience we have in your Lordships’ House covers a range and breadth.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, this House has a vital scrutiny and review function, it exudes history, and therefore I think everybody is right: we need a system that delivers a wide mix of Peers, and we need that to be over the long-term—it is a long-term matter, not just a short-term matter. We are glad to welcome the flush of new colleagues to the Front Bench and we accept the need for new appointments of Labour Peers, but that does not mean that the changes the Government are proposing are necessarily the right ones. We are getting rid of some of our most effective hereditary Peers and distinguished colleagues over the age of 80—experts whom we may not be able to replace—and forcing “participation”, whatever that means. Does the Minister agree that we should tread with care and proper reflection? I welcome her promise to take soundings.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, we have been treading with care and reflection for a long time now. I have lost track—I am sure somebody can advise me—how many times my noble friend Lord Grocott brought forward his Bill to end hereditary Peer by-elections. We offered the then Government the opportunity to take that forward, and they chose not to do so. That has added partly to the imbalance in numbers. I always regret when Members leave this House for any reason. What worries me is that, too often, we do not pay tribute to those who spent many years contributing; we do not say thank you to people very often. That should be borne in mind as well. Of course, at all times we tread with care and reflection.

Business of the House

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Thursday 25th July 2024 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

That, until 24 January 2026, Standing Order 9(5) (Hereditary peers: by-elections) be amended as follows: leave out “three” and insert “eighteen”.

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

My Lords, I am bringing this Motion forward after discussions with the usual channels which followed conversations with colleagues across the House. The current position is that by-elections need to take place within three months of there being a vacancy. This Motion simply extends that period, by amending the standing order, to 18 months. In practical terms, for a vacancy that arose today, a by-election would need to be held by January 2026. After 18 months—in January 2026—the Motion will be sunset and the normal time limits for by-elections will come back if they are needed by that point.

This is a temporary measure that recognises that the House will in the near future debate in more detail the wider issue of hereditary membership of your Lordships’ House. The usual channels are unanimous in their view that ongoing by-elections during the parliamentary consideration of a Bill would be deeply undesirable in this context. In particular, the Cross-Bench and Conservative groups, which have two current vacancies, do not wish those by-elections to occur.

I am grateful for the discussions that I have had across the House on this one. As I said at the outset, it has been agreed with the usual channels. Despite our differences on the issue, we have discussed this with courtesy and respect. As the noble Lord, Lord True, said in his statement on Tuesday, that is a hallmark of this House. I beg to move.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Leader of the House for explaining the rationale of this Motion, which, as she said, reflects the recent discussions and agreement reached in the usual channels. On behalf of my noble friend Lord True, I am happy to give my approval to the Motion as the right and sensible course to take. As the noble Baroness is aware, the spirit of the discussions in the usual channels has been open and constructive, with good will expressed on all sides. I welcome the Government’s willingness to continue engaging in the same constructive spirit and in a way that enables us to work through the implications of their proposals for this House in the round and in their totality. The 18-month timeframe proposed in the Motion will enable us to do that. On that basis, I join the noble Baroness in commending it to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I wish to offer a small correction to the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, about people being elected to this House. Plaid Cymru and the Green Party elect the people who are to be their nominees. That does not mean that we do not want a fully democratically elected House with a full public franchise.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, sometimes all that is at stake is to do the right thing by your Lordships’ House. Many noble Lords approached me, the Leader of the Opposition and indeed the Convenor to say that they did not feel that this was the right time to hold such by-elections. If that is the will of the House, that is what the House should seek to do.

On a point about the rule of law, can I just correct noble Lords? I am not a lawyer and I do not know whether the noble Lords, Lord Moylan or Lord Hamilton, are, but my understanding of the law is that the House of Lords Act 1999 and the House of Lords Reform Act 2014 both stipulated that by-elections should take place. They did not say how they would take place; that was a matter for the Standing Orders of your Lordships’ House. So in no way does the proposal before your Lordships’ House on the Standing Orders breach legislation. Previously, under Covid, we suspended the Standing Orders; in this case we are seeking merely to amend them for a limited time period to allow the House to debate the legislation that it has before us.

Other comments will be made as we go forward on the legislation itself. I do not think that any Member of this House has anything other than respect for all Members of the House, by whichever method they arrived here—but what we are seeking today is to have a common-sense approach within the law to deal with the by-elections. The one regret I have is that I will not get to listen to my noble friend Lord Grocott quite so often.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

Could the noble Baroness tell me whether life peerages have been offered through the usual channels to oil this deal?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I have to say, my Lords, that I have found it quite extraordinary that throughout the King’s Speech debate Members of the party opposite, often from the Front Bench, have thought that this issue was the most important issue for them. Could I suggest to the noble Lord that he waits and has a little bit of patience, because we will have a Bill and we can debate all the issues then?

Motion agreed.

Government Standards

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Thursday 25th July 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to improve confidence in government and to ensure Ministers are held to a high standard.

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

My Lord, as the Prime Minister has made clear, public service is a privilege, and this Government are committed to ensuring that politics can be a force for good. It was at the very first Cabinet meeting that the Prime Minister was clear about the standards he expects from all of us and our ministerial teams. The Prime Minister will issue a ministerial code in due course to set out the standards of behaviour expected by Ministers. It might be helpful to the House if I let it know that the Prime Minister met Sir Laurie Magnus on his first day in office and that the Government are committed to appropriately empowering the Independent Adviser on Ministers’ Interests and establishing an ethics and integrity commission.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for her Answer. It is a great pleasure to be able to put questions to her. Given the importance of transparency in increasing public confidence and enabling the monitoring of ministerial actions, will she ensure, confidentiality apart, that ministerial decisions, such as public appointments, the award of contracts and meetings with in-house lobbyists, are open, transferable and easily available?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My noble friend has put a number of those questions to me over the years, given her interests and experience on this subject. She is right: public confidence can be improved by our being open and transparent about the decisions being taken. I can tell her that there are systems in place to ensure transparency around many of the issues that she mentions, but there is often a concern that they are not working as well as they could. As a first step, the Government have to ensure that they work better, including information being published on time but in a way that is easy to access and easy to understand. The ethics and integrity commission could look at this issue.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, practice matters as well as principles and regulations here. In terms of ministerial practice, will the new Government try their best to ensure that Ministers stay in office for at least two years each, rather than using constant ministerial reshuffles as a matter of party management? Can we also ensure that Ministers show us that government is not constant campaigning? There should be occasional weeks when neither the Prime Minister nor any other Ministers are shown in the press in fluorescent jackets running around offices rather than providing good government for the country?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, the entire Front Bench endorses the noble Lord’s comment and wants to stay in office. One problem of publishing information on a quarterly basis is that, in the last few years, by the time we got to the end of a quarter the Minister had gone and someone else was in place. There is a serious issue about continuity in office. As for fluorescent jackets, with a Government who are committed to infrastructure improvements in this country we may see some fluorescent jackets being worn, but the noble Lord makes an important point. Governance is a serious issue. We have seen that, because of election campaigning, political decisions that would be difficult for any Government, such as the issue of prisons that we have had to consider, have been delayed when they should have been taken in the interests of the country. I give the noble Lord a categorical assurance that we will act in the interests of the country, will not put off decisions because they are difficult but will take them when we have to, and will report back to your Lordships’ House.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate the Minister and her team, who have got off to a good start in performing their ministerial tasks in this House. On the subject of this Question, I ask her to give me an assurance. What was happening under the previous Government and has got worse and worse is that we did not get proper answers to Questions, both Written and Oral, and the time taken to get replies from government departments became quite ridiculous. Will she make it her business to ensure proper accountability by ensuring that that is no longer the case?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I say to the noble Lord that I will do my utmost on that. He and I have discussed this before, and all Ministers are aware that their priority is to your Lordships’ House, reporting back to it and answering questions in a way that is concise but also gives the information that is required. If there are problems as we get going then we will look into those, but we will do our utmost to always respond in good time to every Member of your Lordships’ House.

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

My Lords, there is a terrible temptation to go through all the indiscretions of the Ministers of the last Government, but Boris Johnson’s alone would take up the whole of this Question Time so I shall deal with the allocations to the Covid VIP lane. We have at last agreed to set up a Covid corruption commissioner, and I hope he or she will look into this matter as quickly as possible. Can the Leader of the House give us an indication as to when the commissioner will be appointed? It should be as quickly as possible.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

Having just promised to give full answers, I do not have a full answer for my noble friend. I will look into that and come back to it, but we want to get moving on issues like this as quickly as possible. In his first speech in Downing Street, the Prime Minister said we have to prove to people that we will do things differently and do things well. It is not about saying something but about how we act—and how we act in getting to the bottom of some of the issues that have caused enormous concern is very important. I assure him we will do that as quickly as possible.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

Does the Leader of the House agree that one of the most serious problems we face in many areas of government has been groupthink? Does she agree that Parliament benefits from a wide range of experience of Members, both in our debates and in our committees? Does she further agree that any new rules on propriety or ethics—for example, on second jobs in either House—need to avoid discouraging informed and expert contribution so that we get different perspectives coming together in the public interest?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

Of course. It is a given that for good decision-making it is necessary to have good input from different sources. I am unclear why the noble Baroness asked that; I would have thought it was an automatic requisite of good decision-making.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

Should the House of Lords Appointments Commission be given teeth so as always to have appropriate people as Members of the House?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

The question of what powers the House of Lords Appointments Commission should have is a balance. We have discussed that in this House many times, and my view is on record, and the Prime Minister will set out his views on the House of Lords Appointments Commission soon. We want to ensure that the commission is listened to. There is only one instance in history where a Prime Minister has overruled the recommendation of the Appointments Commission, which I found extraordinary, but it is an advisory body. I would like to see it look at a range of issues, as we have discussed before. We all want to ensure the integrity of this House, and Members who join the House want to play a full part in our work.

[Lord McLoughlin (Con)]

My Lords, the general election had a low turnout. The Government’s task in fulfilling what the Leader has just said is fundamental in reassuring the British public that their views matter, and that may be a way in which we see an increase in turnout at elections. Would she agree?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

The noble Lord has a point. Too often, as we see in the media, people wish to denigrate politics and politicians. The Prime Minister has said he wants to show—not say, but show—that politics can be a force for good. That is down to all of us, here in this House and in the other place, in how we behave. The noble Lord is right that, if people see politicians behaving in the right way and we show it in our actions, not just our words, then they will have more confidence, and I hope we will see a greater turnout in general and local elections.

[Lord Watts (Lab)]

My Lords, this House is dominated by people from London and the south-east. Are the Government planning to make this House more representative by including more Members from the north?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

Not just the north but from the whole of the country—the nations and regions, including Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland; there is a role for people from every region in the House. In the longer term, the Government have plans to consult the public and try to reach a consensus on how we better represent the country as a whole. In the short term, it is up to all party leaders as they nominate people to look at how we get a better, more representative House. That is one of the things we are we discussing.

[Lord McDonald of Salford (CB)]

My Lords, in less than two years as Prime Minister, Mr Sunak had 11 political honours lists. Previously, the average since the 1980s was 1.3 lists. Does the Leader of the House accept that fewer political honours lists would be one way to restore some confidence in government?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, it is not lost on these Benches that even the Cross-Benchers have had more appointments than we have had on the political list for this side of the House. As I have said before, I would like to see a smaller House where there is greater balance across the whole House. It is helpful when the main opposition party and the government party are roughly the same size. I hasten to add that that is not an invitation to write to me suggesting that they could serve on the Labour Benches—I do not want the size of the House to increase—but one of the problems under the last Government is that they had so many resignation honours lists that our appointments kept increasing, again and again. I want to see some balance. I want to see Members—just like Members of the House today—with a contribution to make and who want to see the House do its work in the best way possible. That should be the priority for new lists of people coming to your Lordships’ House.

Business of the House

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Wednesday 24th July 2024 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

That, in the event that the Supply and Appropriation (Main Estimates) Bill has been brought from the Commons, Standing Order 44 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be dispensed with on Monday 29 July to allow the Bill to be taken through its remaining stages that day.

Motion agreed.

Business of the House

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Wednesday 24th July 2024 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

That Standing Order 73 (Affirmative Instruments) be dispensed with on Monday 29 July to enable motions to approve the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (Requisite and Minimum Custodial Periods) Order 2024 and the Global Combat Air Programme International Government Organisation (Immunities and Privileges) Order 2024 to be moved, notwithstanding that no report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments on the instruments has been laid before the House.

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

My Lords, I thought it would be helpful to the House to set out why this Motion is needed. Noble Lords will see that the Motion enables the debate and approval of two statutory instruments, but in this case before the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments has been re-formed and therefore able to consider them. As I have said before and I think colleagues are aware, I can assure the whole House that I take very seriously the Standing Orders of your Lordships’ House and, in particular, the importance of committee scrutiny of primary and secondary legislation. I am therefore moving this Motion on an exceptional basis, due to their urgency, to ensure we have a full debate on the substance of the issues as soon as possible.

I am clear that, across government, this is not best practice, which is obviously for the JCSI to consider matters before they come to your Lordships’ House. I bring this forward only because the statutory instruments must be implemented with some urgency. The first statutory instrument we are discussing supports the response to the crisis in our prisons. The second supports the implementation of an international treaty. This was agreed before the election but could not be implemented due to the Dissolution. Action is needed now to ensure we meet the timelines that have been agreed with our international partners. The usual channels have agreed that we will hold full debates on both before the summer, on an exceptional basis, and I am grateful for their support in this.

I very much hope and anticipate that the JCSI will be re-formed in September, enabling it to consider instruments before debate as part of the normal procedures of your Lordships’ House. I am sure that the Ministers, my noble friends Lord Timpson and Lady Chapman, look forward to debating and engaging with your Lordships on the substance of the instruments next week.

Motion agreed.