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

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

3rd reading
Tuesday 22nd October 2024 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

That the Bill be now read a third time.

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

My Lords, I have it in command from His Majesty the King to acquaint the House that His Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Lords Spiritual (Women) Act 2015 (Extension) Bill, has consented to place his prerogative, so far as it is affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.

Bill read a third time.

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

That the Bill do now pass.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords who spoke in the debate on the Bill and have otherwise indicated support and commented on the Bill. There have been no amendments throughout the Bill. I wish that could be said for many other Bills, but I suspect that may not be the case as we proceed. This is a straightforward Bill, limited in its scope, requested by the Church of England with the simple aim to extend by five years the arrangements in place for the appointment of Lords spiritual contained within the Lords Spiritual (Women) Act 2015.

I particularly thank the Convenor of the Lords Spiritual, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans—and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds for being here today—for his support during the passage of the Bill, along with other noble Lords who spoke and engaged in the debate.

Your Lordships will know that, as a result of that legislation six female Bishops have already been appointed to your Lordships’ House more quickly than would otherwise have been the case. In fact, we are about to see the benefits of this legislation in place again. Following the retirement of the Bishop of Worcester, the Bishop of Peterborough will replace him in the House of Lords in due course under this legislation. I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Worcester for his 12 years of dedicated service in this place, and I very much look forward to welcoming another female Bishop to the Bishops’ Benches.

Finally, I thank my officials and those from the Church of England, who worked together on the Bill. I thank the Official Opposition for their support and other noble Lords too. I hope it will have as smooth a passage in the other place. In that spirit, I beg to move.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I welcome the fact that the Bill has strong support in the House, and that support includes these Benches. We are pleased to work with the Government in cases such as this where our objectives are aligned. I am proud of our record supporting women in this House, and our women Bishops have made many valuable contributions to Parliament since they first became Members of your Lordships’ House. As a frequent member of church congregations, I can confirm that this reflects the sterling work of female clergy right across the country.

Finally, I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans, who is not in his place but has so eloquently led for the Bishops on this matter, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds. I thank the noble Baroness the Lord Privy Seal for her work on this Bill and I thank the officials involved. As she has said, I hope the other place looks upon the Bill favourably.

Ministerial Gifts and Hospitality

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Wednesday 16th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the reporting and acceptance of Ministerial gifts and hospitality.

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

My Lords, transparency is a critical part of restoring public faith in politics, and the Government recognise that changes are needed. At present, ministerial data on gifts and hospitality is published quarterly, compared with the parliamentary requirement in both Houses to publish monthly. The Government will correct this imbalance in future. The Government will publish a register of Members’ gifts and hospitality on a broadly equivalent basis to that which is published in the registers of Members’ and Lords’ interests.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, the Government pledged to act with trust and integrity, and it is extraordinary that, 100 days in, we have witnessed scandal after scandal—from cronyism to cash for access, from Sue Gray to spectacles, and from designer freebies to Taylor Swift tickets and associated police outriders. Really: this seems to portray a staggering lack of judgment by the Prime Minister. Would it not be wiser to come clean and admit these initial mistakes?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I am almost speechless. As I have said, the important thing is transparency. The only reason why there is information in the public domain about any gifts or donations is transparency. I am surprised that the noble Baroness did not comment on the changes being brought forward by the Government. It seems to be a terrible anomaly that under the last Government, Ministers who received hospitality gifts would have a quarter in which to declare them as ministerial hospitality gifts with no value, yet a Member of Parliament sitting next to them would declare them in a month, along with the actual value. That has to be changed.

I get why cultural events like orchestras, cricket, football and other sporting events are so popular, and why that is important. However, I struggle to understand why Ministers should not have declared these in the same way MPs did. They did not under the noble Baroness’s Government; they will under ours.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, as well as looking at gifts more strictly, should the Government not also be looking at subsidies for politicians? We read that Boris Johnson is receiving £4 million for the publication of his brief memoirs. Does this suggest that the Daily Mail and others are overpaying in order to support his political activities and lifestyle? We also read that GB News is paying Nigel Farage MP £1 million for a part-time job as a presenter, and six-figure sums to several others, like Jacob Rees-Mogg. GB News announced a loss of £30 million last year. If these are effectively subsidies for political activities, should they not also be investigated and reported transparently?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, any gifts, earnings, et cetera to Members of Parliament have to be declared in full. Of course, not all those whom the noble Lord mentioned are still Members of Parliament. I think all organisations would want to make a judgment on whether or not they were getting value for money.

[Lord Sikka (Lab)]

My Lords, the Front Benches may well cross cocktail sticks, but people looking at undue hospitality and gifts see the whole thing as sleaze and corruption. That damages trust in institutions of government. In my view, the most effective antidote is to make the giving and receiving of gifts and hospitality above a certain amount a criminal offence. Does the Minister agree? If not, why not?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

No, my Lords, I do not agree that it should be a criminal offence, but there has to be complete transparency about this. Presumably, many Members of this House have wanted to attend cultural events or seminars and conferences, sometimes to inform the work they do in this House. That should be declared, but so should cultural events that are received as gifts. Some of the media outlets that have complained rather bitterly about others taking hospitality have themselves offered hospitality for Ministers to discuss the very issues they are interested in.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

My Lords, as an independent, I was glad that this Government came in. However, what has upset me is the high moral tone this Government came in with, before then having freebies. I wonder whether the Government recognise that I am not the only person who is upset by a combination of a high moral tone and freebies.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, it is right that we would all want to take a high moral tone because we want the standards of this House and the other place to be as high as possible. The definition of “freebies” is rather emotive, and people make their own judgments about it. For me, two things are important: first, the transparency when an invitation is provided, and, secondly, whether there is a transactional expectation —if somebody expects something in return. That is what I think people are most concerned about. If there is no transactional relationship, it is appropriately declared and it is in the limits provided for, people have to make their judgments about whether they accept such hospitality or gifts.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

My Lords, given that the Prime Minister has justified receiving large sums of money for suits and other clothing on the grounds that it is important that senior Ministers are seen to be presentable, does the Leader of the House have any plans, given that so many of her colleagues on the Front Bench are unpaid, to introduce a clothing allowance for them?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I may open a fund, and the noble Lord is at liberty to contribute to it if he wishes. All ministerial colleagues in this House, whether paid or unpaid, are pretty well turned out.

[Lord Watts (Lab)]

My Lords, does the Leader of the House agree with me that the Opposition have a cheek to raise this? Bear in mind that, under the previous Government, billions of pounds were given to Tory Members and supporters during Covid.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, my noble friend raises a very serious point. I asked Questions to noble Lords in this House when they were Ministers about the amount of money that has not been returned to the taxpayer. There still needs to be an investigation to understand how much money the taxpayer lost on dodgy contracts.

[The Earl of Clancarty (CB)]

My Lords, there is a strong argument that Ministers should accept more invitations to arts events, because they are not frivolous extras. Beyond American superstars, invitations to British arts events allow Ministers to appreciate and understand the essential importance of the arts and creative industries in this country.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

The noble Earl makes a very valuable point. The two things to identify are, first, whether the relationship is not transactional—as I have said, when it is for information or to appreciate the arts—and, secondly, whether it is properly declared. What I find difficult is seeing Ministers who had no departmental responsibility for cultural events not declaring these as parliamentary activities or hospitality and hiding them away for several months, when they have no ministerial value. I would be pleased to accept invitations to such events and do so occasionally, but I guarantee that I declare them in full as parliamentary activities and with any value alongside them.

[Lord Clarke of Nottingham (Con)]

My Lords, I am pleased to say that, throughout my political career, I have always thought that the British political system was remarkably free—almost entirely free—of any hint of corruption, and that people on all sides were acting for the best possible motives. Genuine cases of corruption—fortunately, of a minor kind, such as the cash for questions scandals—and the people behind them were dealt with. I agree that people should be transparent when they take hospitality, but if both parties insist on attacking each other when the other side has been given a football match ticket, or something of that kind, I fear the effect of such a debate is to feed the general and unjustified contempt that so many of the public have for politicians on all sides. We should not try to create scandal on either side of the House, when we know that, at worst, the case is a silly lack of judgment or carelessness in keeping the register up to date.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

The noble Lord makes a valuable and very powerful point. My experience after 25 years in this and the other place is that most politicians—most Members of Parliament, including Members of your Lordships’ House—act with integrity at all times. Where they fall short of those standards, that should be taken very seriously, but we should of course oppose denigrating all politicians in the way some would like to and recognise the good in politicians. The two things that are really important are transparency and not having transactional relationships for any gifts or hospitality.

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

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Order of Commitment discharged
Wednesday 16th October 2024 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

That the order of commitment be discharged.

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

My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Unless, therefore, any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.

Motion agreed.

House of Lords: Behaviour and Courtesy

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Monday 14th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)]

My Lords, the first Oral Question is from the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, who is participating remotely.

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

My Lords, the Chief Whip and I, with the Front Bench and the usual channels, are committed to promoting the rules and conventions of the House on an ongoing basis. This includes advising on individual items of business and general communications about points of procedure. The Chief Whip, with the usual channels, recently wrote to all Members reminding us of the normal courtesies of the House and expected standards of behaviour. This is to support noble Lords in understanding the rules and conventions. In a self-regulating Chamber, it is crucial that we all maintain high-quality debate, respect for the conventions and respect for each other.

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

My Lords, having participated remotely in proceedings over three years, I have been able to observe from afar the conduct of Members. Do Members not realise how appalling the House appears to a worldwide audience when Peers, who include some of the brightest people in the land, openly argue, protest, shout across the Chamber and demand who should be called, in an attempt to control contributions? We cannot go on like this; it looks awful. Why not establish a committee of the House to consider whether we would be better served by giving the Speaker greater powers to intervene? The current arrangements demean our reputation. We have a problem and it needs sorting.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, on the first part of the noble Lord’s question, I am impressed if today we have a worldwide audience. I hope that is the case. Nothing is more undignified and disrespectful to colleagues than when others shout so that those with the loudest voices get heard. I have to say, I do not think it happens that often. I am not really encouraged to set up a new committee. The House itself makes its views known and my noble friend Lord Kennedy, the Chief Whip, has been quite encouraging—let us say—of Members to abide by the conventions and behaviours of the House. I know that for some Members it does seem strange from time to time, but I urge all Members that if we all behave with dignity and respect for others, this should not be a problem.

[Lord Geddes (Con)]

My Lords, I am told I have a certain reputation in the context of this Question. I ask the Lord Privy Seal two things: first, to emphasise that Questions should not be read; and, secondly, to confirm that, for reasons unknown to myself, there is no such person as a “noble Minister”. There is a “noble Lord the Minister”, but the office is, for some curious reason, not deemed noble.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, Questions should not be read. They should be concise and questions rather than speeches. My noble friend Lord Kennedy of Southwark has pointed this out on many occasions and will continue to do so. On the noble Lord’s second point, many noble Lords—including me, on occasion —have felt chastised when they have slipped up and referred to someone as a “noble Minister”. He is absolutely right: it is the “noble Lord the Minister” or the “noble Baroness the Minister”. This makes the point: we have to abide by the rules and conventions of the House in order to conduct our business appropriately.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, having been in your Lordships’ House a long time, I do not think that the degree of shouting at Questions has become significantly worse than when I started. For me, in the current environment, it is more important than ever that everybody in public life is tolerant and shows respect to everyone. Does the noble Baroness the Leader agree that Members of your Lordships’ House have a particular responsibility not to say anything in this Chamber which might lead to greater divisions in society than the ones with which we are already struggling?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, your Lordships will have heard the response from the whole House, and I think that is definitely the case. All of us, particularly those in positions of responsibility—or when there is a worldwide audience—should choose our words with care, because they have an impact. We have a duty and responsibility to behave appropriately.

[The Lord Bishop of Sheffield]

My Lords, it is surely a very good thing that the dealings of this Chamber are broadcast live, but it does mean that our interactions with one another are witnessed far beyond this place. Can the noble Baroness tell the House whether any attempt is made to monitor or record comments from the public in reaction to the broadcasts and, if so, what use is made of that feedback?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, from time to time we see reports in the press or polls are undertaken in response. One that struck me most recently said how little people understood the work we do in this House. That is incumbent on us all, not just in our behaviour but in our explanation about what we do. Perhaps we ought to think a little more, particularly when we have debates on some of our very specialised reports or the detail of legislation, about how we can broadcast that more widely, so that people understand what goes on in this Chamber.

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

My Lords, as this Question is in essence about the powers of the Lord Speaker, it is worth putting that into a bit of context. When the Lord Speaker’s position was introduced, it was in the context of great hostility to us having a Lord Speaker at all. The Speaker was allowed only to sit in the Chamber and was forbidden from speaking under any circumstances; the Lord Speaker was the only person who could not speak.

Since then, a number of small but significant changes have been made, all of which have enhanced the role of the Lord Speaker. In the context of every one of those changes—the Speaker taking over from the clerk in introducing the next Question, and many similar things, such as explaining the business as it comes along—no one suggests now that we should revert to the system that existed without the Lord Speaker. The direction of travel is very much in the direction of the case argued by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely right. I remember the controversy when the first Lord Speaker—the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, who is in her place—was introduced. Every Lord Speaker has done this House proud. Of course, their role is not just one in the Chamber but a wider one of advocacy for the House of Lords. The noble Lord is right that each of those changes—I was the advocate for the last one of announcing next business when we move from Bills to Statements—has been made with the agreement of the House. I always think that is the best way to proceed on these issues.

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, if there is a Question that is really about the role of the Lord Speaker, it might be helpful to noble Lords if that were made clear when the Question is tabled. I agree with both what the noble Baroness the Leader of the House and the Leader of the Liberal Democrat Peers said. This House is a courteous House and I do not recognise that deterioration; I think it remains a courteous House and it is exemplified, if I may say so, by the noble Baroness the Leader herself. I support what has been said from the opposite Front Bench about behaviour, including remarks about brevity. Perhaps, after the recent intervention by the Captain of the Gentlemen-at-Arms, we should circulate the Oxford English Dictionary to Members.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I hesitate to intrude on that one. The noble Lord is right but, having said that, there have been moments when I think all of us have been embarrassed when noble Lords do not give way to each other, so I understand the point that has been made. It comes back to respect and courtesy. With the powerful advocacy of the usual channels, we can maintain that. It is always open to noble Lords who wish to change procedure to ask the Procedure Committee to consider any such change.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, there is something I find quite puzzling sometimes, and that is that we have to give way to our right reverend friends the Bishops. I do not understand why that happens. Could the Leader explain that? They always make a very good contribution, but they do have loud voices and can speak up just as we can. The most reverend Primate of England—and the world—the Archbishop of Canterbury actually gave way to me once, for which I was very grateful.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I think the noble Baroness made the point; Bishops have given way to her. There is no rule that says that you must give way to a Bishop; it is through courtesy, and we would expect to hear from the Bishops, as we hear from other sections of the House.

[Lord Dubs (Lab)]

Given that there is an element of politeness—quite properly—I wonder whether underneath that, when trying to get in on a supplementary, there is an element that people who are meek and mild, such as myself, find ourselves fairly easily bullied by those who are less meek and mild. There are some people who are reluctant to get in at Questions because they feel intimidated. That is the other side of this Question. That is why I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I have never considered the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, to be meek or mild but he is always courteous. When I first came into your Lordships’ House, a long-standing Member said to me that previously, on his area of expertise, he wanted to speak but did so rarely that people would give way because they wanted to hear his views on that area. I think it is less about courtesy and more about loudness of voices. If I can just inject something else here, quite often noble Lords have much louder voices than our female Members of the House. It might be a bit thoughtful sometimes if noble Lords would give way to those who do not have such loud voices.

Anniversary of 7 October Attacks: Middle East

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Tuesday 8th October 2024 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I will repeat a Statement made by the Prime Minister yesterday on the anniversary of the attacks on 7 October and on the Middle East. The Statement is as follows:

“Today we mark a year since the horrific attack on Israel by the terrorists of Hamas. It was the bloodiest day for the Jewish people since the Holocaust—a day of sorrow, a day of grief. Over 1,000 people were massacred, with hundreds taken hostage, in an attack born of hatred, targeted not just at individuals but at Jewish communities, at their way of life and at the State of Israel—the symbol of Jewish security to the world. Fifteen British citizens were brutally slain that day. Another has since died in captivity. Our thoughts today are with Jewish people around the world, the Jewish community here in the UK and all those we lost a year ago.

For so many, the pain and horror of that day is as acute today as it was a year ago. They live it every day. Last week I met the families of British hostages and of those killed on 7 October. I sat with them as they told me about their loved ones. I will never forget their words. Mandy Damari spoke of her love for her daughter Emily. She said:

‘my personal clock stopped at 10:24 on the 7th of October’,

the moment when Emily sent a desperate, unfinished message as Hamas attacked her kibbutz. She is still held captive today. We can hardly imagine what hostages like Emily are going through, nor what their families are going through—the agony day after day. So I say again: the hostages must be returned immediately and unconditionally. They will always be uppermost in our minds. I pay tribute again to the families for their incredible dignity and determination.

Today is also a day of grief for the wider region, as we look back on a year of conflict and suffering. The human toll among innocent civilians in Gaza is truly devastating. Over 41,000 Palestinians have been killed, tens of thousands orphaned and almost 2 million displaced, facing disease, starvation and desperation without proper healthcare or shelter. It is a living nightmare and it must end. We stand with all innocent victims in Israel, Gaza, the West Bank, Lebanon and beyond, and we stand with all communities here in the United Kingdom against hatred of Jews or Muslims, because any attack on a minority is an attack on our proud values of tolerance and respect, and we will not stand for it.

With the Middle East close to the brink, and the very real danger of a regional war, last week the Iranian regime chose to strike Israel. The whole House will join me in utterly condemning this attack. We support Israel’s right to defend herself against Iran’s aggression in line with international law. Let us be very clear: this was not a defensive action by Iran; it was an act of aggression and a major escalation in response to the death of a terrorist leader. It exposes once again Iran’s malign role in the region. It helped equip Hamas for the 7 October attacks. It armed Hezbollah, which launched a year-long barrage of rockets on northern Israel, forcing 60,000 Israelis to flee their homes, and it supports the Houthis, who mount direct attacks on Israel and continue to attack international shipping.

I know the whole House will join me in thanking our brave servicemen and servicewomen, who have shown their usual courage in countering this threat, but make no mistake: the region cannot endure another year of this. Civilians on all sides have suffered far too much. All sides must now step back from the brink and find the courage of restraint. There is no military solution to these challenges, so we must renew our diplomatic efforts. Together with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, I have had discussions with the leaders of Israel, Lebanon, Jordan, the Palestinian Authority, the G7 and the European Union, and made the case at the United Nations for political solutions and an end to fighting.

In the weeks ahead, we will continue this work, focused on three areas. The first is Lebanon, where our immediate priority is the safety of British citizens. Our team is on the ground, helping to get people out. We have already brought more than 430 people home on chartered flights, and we stand ready to make additional evacuation efforts as necessary. I again give this important message to British citizens still in Lebanon: you must leave now. We are also working to ease the humanitarian crisis in Lebanon—last week we provided £10 million of vital support, in addition to the £5 million we are already providing to UNICEF—but the situation cannot go on. We will continue to lead calls for an immediate ceasefire and for the return to a political plan for Lebanon based on Security Council resolution 1701, which requires Hezbollah to withdraw north of the Litani river. They must stop firing rockets and end this now, so that people on both sides of the border can return to their homes.

Secondly, we must renew efforts for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza, but we cannot simply wait for that to happen. We must do more now to provide relief to the civilian population. That is why we have restarted aid to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency. We are supporting field hospitals and the delivery of water, healthcare and treatment for malnourished children, but the ongoing restrictions on aid are impossible to justify. Israel must open more crossings and allow life-saving aid to flow. Crucially, Israel must provide a safe environment for aid workers. Too many have been killed, including three British citizens. Israel must act now, so that, together with our allies, we can surge humanitarian support ahead of winter.

Thirdly, we must put in place solutions for the long term, to break the relentless cycle of violence. The ultimate goal here is well understood: it must be a two-state solution. There is no other option that offers stability and security. We need to build a political route towards it, so that Israel is finally safe and secure, alongside the long-promised Palestinian state. This requires support for the Palestinian Authority to step into the vacuum in Gaza; it requires an urgent international effort to support reconstruction; and it requires guarantees for Israel’s security. We will work with our allies and our partners to that end, but the key to all this remains a ceasefire in Gaza now, the unconditional release of the hostages, and the unhindered flow of aid. That is the fundamental first step to change the trajectory of the region.

Nobody in this House can truly imagine what it feels like to cower under the bodies of your friends, hoping a terrorist will not find you, mere minutes after dancing at a music festival. Nobody in this House can truly imagine seeing your city, home, schools, hospitals and businesses obliterated, with your neighbours and family buried underneath. It is beyond our comprehension, and with that should come a humility. It is hard even to understand the full depth of this pain, but what we can do is remember. What we can do is respect and listen to the voices that reach out to us at these moments, and what we can do is use the power of diplomacy to try to find practical steps that minimise the suffering on the ground and work towards that long-term solution, so that a year of such terrible and bloody conflict can never happen again. That is what we have done on these Benches, it is what the whole House has done, and it is what the Government will continue to do. I commend this Statement to the House”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I too thank the Leader for repeating the Statement. Today, we mark an extraordinarily sombre anniversary. The barbarism of the Hamas attack was almost beyond imagining, and our thoughts today are very much with Jewish people, wherever they may be—not just in recognition of the sorrow and grief felt by those directly affected but because the events of 7 October were only the start of a year of fear and anxiety for the entire Jewish community, wherever they live, which continue to this day. Of course, it has also been a horrendous year for the Palestinian people in Gaza and the West Bank, as well as for the population of Lebanon, which now finds itself engulfed in a cycle of increasing violence and destruction.

The last 12 months have amply demonstrated that the British Government’s ability to influence events in the region is limited. Neither Israel, Hamas, Hezbollah nor Iran is exactly in the mood to be told what to do by the United Kingdom. But that does not mean that we should do nothing. The Statement mentions three areas where we can and are doing something distinctive, and where we might do more.

First, we can do more to aid the innocent populations of Gaza and Lebanon. In the case of Gaza, we are now funding UNRWA again, which is most welcome. The Statement is unclear about how much our new commitment to UNRWA amounts to and how far this provision of aid is constrained by our financial resources and how far by the unjustifiable Israeli restrictions on the flow of aid into Gaza. Can the Leader clarify this? What is the Israeli Government’s response to our requests for the opening of more crossings and the provision of a safe environment for aid workers?

Secondly, on Lebanon, the Government are now providing £15 million of support, but this is a small fraction of the £200 million that we were providing in 2019, when obviously there was nothing like the level of devastation that now prevails. Will the Government accept that £15 million, though helpful, is plainly a very small drop in the ocean? Will they commit to increasing it?

Thirdly, the Government have supported Israel militarily in countering the bombardment it suffered from Iran last week. We are sympathetic to this support, but the Statement is totally silent on the form it took, and the Government have been unclear about its limits. At a point when Israel is clearly contemplating a military response to the Iranian attack, it would be helpful if the Government could confirm that the military support they give to Israel in the future will continue to be limited to defensive purposes.

We can and should do everything possible to fight hatred of Jews or Muslims in the United Kingdom. Attacks on both communities have increased greatly in the last 12 months. Passions have been inflamed and, although the situation in the UK will inevitably remain more tense as long as there is severe conflict in the Middle East, calmer voices can and must prevail. In a number of places, faith leaders from Jewish, Muslim and Christian communities have come together to deliver messages of unity in their localities, not least in schools. Such initiatives are hugely important, and we should do whatever we can, as individuals, to support them in the places where we live.

The last year has seen an escalating cycle of violence and destruction across the Middle East, and it seems quite conceivable that this cycle has some way to run. However forlorn it may seem today, we need to redouble our efforts to get the hostages released, to achieve a ceasefire in Gaza and Lebanon, and to add impetus to the political process, with the aim of establishing a two-state solution. Unless and until these aims are achieved, we will inevitably see more death and destruction. Peace and stability in the region seem further away today than ever, but we must continue to do all we can to replace today’s despair with a more positive hope for the future.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for their comments and for the tone of those comments. I think we all feel the weight of what has happened upon us. Many of us have met families of the hostages—I met Mandy Damari in your Lordships’ House just before the Conference Recess—and you can almost feel the weight of their dignity and their suffering; it is sort of physical and you wonder how on earth people can cope under those circumstances. I think the tone of both noble Lords reflected our understanding of the pain and trauma they are going through.

Noble Lords are also right to say that under any criteria, there is no justification at all for the attacks that took place on Israel on 7 October. It is hard to see how anybody, including the Supreme Leader of Iran, can seek to justify such comments. It must be understood that Hamas will have known that Israel would have to defend itself, and the horror that would be unleashed in the region as a result. It is deeply shocking. There is no route to peace of any kind—temporary, long-lasting or an eventual two-state solution—that does not involve international diplomacy. That is the only way forward to try to find a resolution to protect people in the region.

Both noble Lords made the point that what is happening in the region is played out in the streets of the UK. Up and down our country, people have been subject to attacks and abuse for being either Jewish or Muslim, and I think everybody in this House will totally and utterly condemn such abuse and attacks. The comments of the noble Lord, Lord Newby, about the tone of the debate that takes place, both in your Lordships’ House and in our communities, are very important. I pay tribute to those who have reached beyond their own communities and across the divide, understanding the problem that it is causing within their areas.

I turn to specific points raised by both noble Lords. They will realise that Hezbollah is a proscribed organisation and is treated as such. We all utterly condemn its actions: that is why it is proscribed. How can Israel trust Hezbollah or have trust in progress towards peace? It is precisely because there is no trust that international efforts are so important. The noble Lord, Lord Newby, made the point that the UK is but one voice and that working with partners across the world is the only way that any progress can be made. That is why the Prime Minister has had so many meetings with leaders across the region and others to try to build that coalition, to bring pressure to bear and to do what we can to bring about an initial cease- fire in Gaza but also to protect those in Lebanon.

I do not have the exact number of British nationals remaining in Lebanon. More than 500 have been brought out so far. There are still commercial flights, but about 500 have been brought out, plus the 430 on the chartered flights. We will continue to do that. We have been saying for over a year to those in Lebanon, as did the previous Government—the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, is nodding at me, because he recalls saying it—that they should return home and that we will facilitate and give support as best we can. Their safety is clearly a deep priority for us.

The noble Lord, Lord Newby, asked for details of our operations in support of Israel. I say to him that all defensive operations are in line with international law and always will be. He will understand that I will not give any further information than that, but I can give him that assurance.

The key point is, and both noble Lords expressed this succinctly and very sincerely, that we must work across nations to bring people together and be steadfast in our support for the security of Israel, for security in the region but also for the humanitarian aid that is so essential to civilians who are suffering and dying now. We have to work internationally to achieve that or no progress will be made. I am grateful for their support for the Statement.

[Lord Howard of Lympne (Con)]

My Lords, I have been to Kfar Aza kibbutz and seen for myself the dreadful, terrible devastation which occurred on October 7, and I have visited the town of Sderot both before and after October 7 and seen a terrible difference. The Statement referred to Emily Damari, the only British hostage remaining in Gaza, whose mother I had the privilege of meeting last week. Would the Leader tell us what specific action His Majesty’s Government are taking, through Qatar or other intermediaries, to try to secure her release? In view of the part played by Iran in fomenting violence across the region, and the remarks of the Supreme Leader to which my noble friend referred, will the Government reconsider their decision not to proscribe the IRGC?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

Clearly, Emily’s mother had the same effect on the noble Lord as she had on me when I met her. We must try to understand how she must feel, with not knowing. When I spoke to her, she had not heard from her daughter for some considerable time. Not knowing is almost worse than understanding what is happening. Some of the reports of Emily’s bravery are quite incredible; that will become evident and hopefully she can be returned home. Ongoing efforts using every means appropriate to ensure that Emily comes home to her family are being taken by the Government. That is an ongoing process.

The issue about the IRGC is under review. It is sanctioned and that will continue. The noble Lord will know that there is never ongoing reporting back or dialogue on these issues, but it is a matter under constant review. We will do everything we can to ensure that we take the appropriate action in that regard.

[The Lord Bishop of Oxford]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her very compassionate and clear Statement and the tone in which it was delivered. I also thank other noble Lords who have spoken and no doubt those who will speak about these terrible, terrible events and the effect they are having on our own communities.

On Sunday evening I was privileged to take part in the anniversary of the last day of relative peace, in a large community and interfaith vigil in Oxford, for Oxford and Oxfordshire. Despite terrible weather, well over 200 people came together, drawn from the Muslim, Jewish and Christian communities, as well as those from other faiths and those of no faith. We listened to our local council leaders, civic leaders from the county, the vice-chancellors of our two universities and other representatives of the community. It was an enormous encouragement and comfort to see the way in which different sections of the community were able to come together and make a stand for peace, in remembrance and lament for all that has been lost, and in a common commitment to community cohesion.

As other noble Lords have said already, this is a particular conflict that places almost unique strains on our own communities in the United Kingdom. Will the Minister say what the Government are doing and plan to do in the future to encourage this deeper and greater community cohesion, as these stresses no doubt continue in the year to come?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I thank the right reverend Prelate for his comments. Indeed, we had a vigil, or a meeting, in your Lordships’ House in a Committee Room yesterday, where Members of both Houses came together—those of all faiths and none. I pay tribute to those across the country who have organised such vigils, particularly, as the right reverend Prelate said, as it was very wet, rainy, cold and miserable when they were doing it. It is an expression of strength and solidarity and it shows that we can achieve that.

I know that this is one of the issues that my noble friend Lord Khan, the Faith Minister, is interested in: bringing faiths together not just in times of conflict but as a general understanding in our communities. In areas where faiths work together and churches reach out, community cohesion is stronger as a result. So we need to look beyond this conflict, as well. As important as it is now, it is also important that community cohesion through faith communities—involving those of all faiths and none—is an ongoing process. We should never lose sight of how important it is, and the contribution it can make to strengthening our communities.

[Lord Walney (CB)]

Do the Government share the deep alarm of so many in this country that on this weekend, the anniversary of the heinous attack on Jewish people in Israel, many felt emboldened to march through our capital with clear displays of support for Hezbollah, an organisation committed to the violent eradication of Israel? The Government—the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary and Ministers—showed commendable focus through the riots in combating the extremism we saw in our towns. Will they bring a similar commitment to root out this evil extremism in our communities?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

The noble Lord is right that Hezbollah is a proscribed organisation. Its views are abhorrent and there is no place for promoting the role or organisation of Hezbollah at all on the streets of London. The Home Secretary has made comments on that, making her views very clear and in a very strong way. People have a right to peaceful protest and we should always respect that—even when I sit in my office and can hear the amplified voices across the road as I work. That is peaceful protest, but when people stray beyond peaceful protest and support terrorism, that is a different matter.

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

My Lords, we all know that, sooner or later, the dreadful violence that has erupted in southern Israel, in Gaza and now in Lebanon will subside. There will then be an uneasy truce and, as sure as night follows day, the violence will occur again until the fundamental problems of the region are addressed. The most fundamental problem, surely, is that there cannot possibly be peace in this part of the Middle East until the Palestinians obtain what the Israelis achieved and love: a state of their own. Until the Palestinians can receive that support, including from this Government, I am afraid that the cycle of violence will just go on and on.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

The noble Lord makes an important point about everybody in the region feeling safe and secure. That is what the two-state solution is: a safe and secure Israel and a strong and viable state of Palestine. There is a lesson on this. At the beginning of his comments, the noble Lord made a really telling remark that, at some point—we want it to be sooner rather than later—violence will subside and we will move towards peace and negotiation. At no time can the countries involved in negotiation, and in trying to reach the two-state solution, take a step back and think, “It’s quietened down now, we can forget about it”. The point he makes is that we need constant vigilance to ensure that, until we can guarantee the security and safety of civilians across the region, we have to remain engaged. I take very seriously the points he made on that.

[Lord Swire (Con)]

For some years now, we have had a British military programme, with British military training teams training the Lebanese army extremely successfully. Does the Leader of the House include the remnants of those trainers, if we still have them in Lebanon, in her calls to come away from that country now? If they are still there, does she share my concern that they could be inadvertently drawn into this conflict?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I am not sighted on the issue of the trainers that the noble Lord referred to, but he will know that our military personnel will always act within international law, which is defensive. I will double-check the point about whether we have anyone in the region in that regard. I was looking hopefully at my noble friend the Minister of State for Defence, who will come back to the noble Lord and write to him with the details.

[Lord Winston (Lab)]

My Lords, I wonder if I might help the noble Baroness by suggesting some kind of solution that we have not discussed enough. I must thank her very much indeed for the wonderful way she made that Statement. I am also grateful for the feelings expressed around the House.

I have not spoken on this issue before, but I have numerous family members in Israel, including my brother’s family and nephews, many friends, PhD students and scientific connections who have helped us in my lab and have been there. There are also many Arabs and Palestinians who have worked in my lab in London and have been funded through various funds that we have raised for them in London, as well as PhD students whom I have been supporting in the West Bank and Gaza, so I have some reason to speak briefly.

I want to suggest to the noble Baroness one thing that has perhaps never really been understood. As Jews, we have been pointed out as different, as everybody knows. Over many generations and hundreds of years, Jews have felt eventually very lonely and extremely alone. There is no question that if you look at the Israeli mind now and speak to Israelis, they feel they are finally alone. Many attempts have been made on both sides to arrive at peace; since 1967, there have been so many attempts at political solutions. Israel has come, eventually, to the awful decision that the only solution for it is a military one.

The loneliness is massively increased by anti-Semitism; the noble Lord, Lord Walney, was absolutely right. Anti-Semitism is so widespread and really affects Israeli public opinion. We need to get public opinion in Israel much more understanding of how so many of us really feel. That, plus the irregular and inappropriate reporting in our news media, is something that we need to think about very clearly. Until that happens, it is very difficult to have better dialogue; with that, we might come to some conclusion where we could have better chances of peace in the future.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for the information about his experiences in his medical field. I hope the message that has gone out from this House and across the country is that Israel is not alone. The expressions that have been made, the international support and the discussions taking place are very clear that Israel has a right to defend itself. Both Houses, in Statements yesterday and today and throughout the conflict, have been clear that we stand shoulder to shoulder in ensuring that Israel has a right to defend itself. I hope that Israel and Jews across the country understand that they are not alone, but we want to ensure a peace throughout the region so that everybody, Arabs, Jews, Muslims, Christians, people of all faiths and none, can live together in peace—if not in harmony, at least in safety.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

I want to say quickly that we are taking questions, and I want to get as many noble Lords in as possible.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for the Statement and all noble Lords who have spoken. There is one important fact which I hope the noble Baroness can focus on. When the attack on Israel happened, there was a majority of Jews who were tragically killed by the abhorrent organisation that is Hamas—and now what we also see from Hezbollah. But let us be clear, as one Muslim leader said to me on my first visit to Israel after 7 October, that there were 26 young Muslim attendees at that very festival. Israel has a rich diversity; places such as Haifa and Jerusalem reflect the three great Abrahamic faiths.

My question is specific to the role of Qatar; I am glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, is sitting next to the noble Baroness. Qatar is investing a lot, and, as my noble friend Lord Howard has said, plays a crucial role in the release of hostages. Can the noble Baroness update us on the specifics of the peace agreements to bring about a ceasefire in Gaza? We were nearly there, just before the Lebanon escalation, and the United States was also very bullish in what are extremely challenging circumstances.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for his comments. I think the whole House, even those of us who were delighted by the election result, would pay tribute to him for his work over many years and for the way that he kept the House updated— I thank him for that. Engagement with Qatar, which he is absolutely right to highlight, is ongoing and we are very grateful for its support. It is a friend in the region and that work continues.

The noble Lord’s point about the Muslims who were killed in the October attacks is profound. It illustrates how those who were victims were bringing people together. That is the future: young people, at a music festival, working across faiths and enjoying each other’s company. They paid a price for hatred. To get rid of that hatred—the right reverend Prelate commented on this as well—we have to go beyond the boundaries of our own faiths, not just in the UK but throughout the world, to bring people together. The point is sometimes lost, and I am grateful to the noble Lord for making it, that Muslims were also killed in those attacks. For the whole region, whatever someone’s faith is is irrelevant; the suffering is beyond any faith.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

Does the Leader agree that, at this time, it is of the greatest importance that we have an independent, impartial media that can provide analysis? That is needed more than ever. Does she share my great surprise that, as I was informed by the head of the BBC World Service, the BBC Arabic radio service in Lebanon has now been closed as a result of funding restrictions? That spectrum has been taken up by Russian state media. This is a time to support the BBC World Service and to expand, not reduce, its provision. I hope that the Leader will take this away for discussion with her colleagues.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I am a great admirer and fan of the BBC World Service and the soft power that it has exercised across the world for many years has been great. It was a great shame that the World Service was rolled up into the last funding settlement that was undertaken for the BBC. We are concerned about that and looking at it. I do not make any commitments to the noble Lord, but we certainly share his concern. That the vacuum has been filled by a Russian player adds to the concern that I would have. I also agree with him that it is important to have independent voices who are respected in the region.

[Baroness Deech (CB)]

My Lords, the Minister’s words are much appreciated, but does she agree with me that the hatred that has come about since 7 October, which has been widely commented on around the House, has to some extent been fed by the BBC? There have recently been two independent reports, one of which I co-signed, which pointed out in great detail mistakes and bias on the part of the BBC. There have been the most appalling statements on the BBC Arabic World Service by people who hate Israel. Does the Minister agree that it is time for an inquiry into the BBC’s coverage? For example, Jeremy Bowen casually reported that Israel had bombed a hospital. This soon turned out to be untrue, but that statement, which he never went back on, gave rise to more slaughter and hatred. It is time for an inquiry into the BBC’s impartiality on this issue.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

The noble Baroness will understand that I am not going to accede to her request for an inquiry, but I think that all news outlets have a duty and responsibility to the truth. One thing I have found difficult in the coverage of this conflict is its focus on the destruction and hurt that have happened; I would like to see some balance around the political efforts to reach a solution as well. That would help people to understand what the conflict is about. I think that many people watching the TV news are obviously horrified, upset and distraught by what they see, but there is no great understanding of the background to it and why things are happening. All news outlets have a duty and a responsibility to ensure that their reporting is accurate.

[Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, what evidence can the noble Baroness point to that there is any desire on the part of the Iranian, Palestinian and other terrorist proxies for a two-state solution? Ever since Israel was founded, their determination has been to wipe it off the map. Israel has tried and wants to live in peace, alongside its neighbours. It was not occupying Gaza or Lebanon, but somehow all that seems to have been forgotten, while Hamas builds its terror infrastructure underneath the schools, mosques and hospitals of its own people, seemingly deliberately to place them in harm’s way, to attack Israel from them and attract Israel to retaliate. Israel does not wish to kill civilians; it wishes to kill the people who want to wipe it off the map. Can the noble Baroness tell the House what recognition there is that so much of the responsibility for the civilian deaths is on Hamas, which is the aggressor that chose this war, rather than Israel, which is fighting for its very existence?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

In some ways, the noble Baroness has emphasised the point I made a moment ago about people understanding the background of what has happened. It looks and feels at times as if a two-state solution will be impossible, but if we allow that to take hold, we will never strive or make those efforts to achieve some peace in the region. I cannot see any other way forward but diplomatic solutions. She makes the point about people understanding what is behind this; the very first question I answered today was on the attacks on 7 October, and it was because of those attacks that this wall of violence and terror has been unleashed, but there have been similar intentions for a very long time. As the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, said, unless those intentions are dealt with and addressed, we will not see a lasting peace.

Patrick Finucane Murder

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Thursday 12th September 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rogan (UUP)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, there is enough time for everyone who wishes to speak to do so. I call my noble friend Lady Ritchie first and then we will go back to the Cross Benches.

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

My Lords, I welcome my noble friend to the Front Bench and the decision of the Secretary of State to grant a public inquiry into the murder of Patrick Finucane, an incident I recall well. I also point out that all murders in Northern Ireland, carried out by paramilitaries or state forces, were totally wrong, inappropriate and unacceptable. I have two questions to ask the Minister. When will there be a repeal of the legacy legislation and a definite move towards inquests, investigations and inquiries to solve the problems and challenges faced by victims and survivors of the Troubles? Will the Government withdraw the application by the previous Secretary of State for a judicial review of the decision of the coroner in March this year into the case of Sean Brown, which was also mired in collusion?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Austin of Dudley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, there is time for both noble Lords to speak. I suggest that we hear first from the former Secretary of State.

[Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)]

My Lords, I welcome my noble friend to the Front Bench. I am sure she will do a wonderful job as the spokesperson on Northern Ireland. When I was Secretary of State, I received the Cory report, which recommended four public inquiries. We agreed on three, but then deferred the Finucane inquiry for a bit longer because of prosecutions. Then, 20 years ago, as stated in the Statement, I made a commitment in the House of Commons to hold a public inquiry. For various reasons, that did not happen. So it is timely that that is happening now. I very much welcome this Statement and hope it will be the end of a very painful matter. I ask my noble friend, first, about the timescale for this—although she has touched on that—and, secondly, about the consultation that has been held with Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Northern Ireland Executive. It is extremely important that there is a great deal of their involvement in this, and also—it has been test-run by the noble Lord, Lord Rogan—with the Irish Government and the Government of the United States of America.

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.