House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 2nd July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, Amendment 5 is in the names of my noble friend Lord Newby, me and others. In preparing for this, I was also looking at preparation for Friday’s debate on a report from our Select Committee on the Constitution, Executive Oversight and Responsibility for the UK Constitution. That report in effect says that the chief responsibility for maintaining constitutional behaviour in Britain rests with the Prime Minister. That is to say the Prime Minister, who is the all-powerful Executive, is also responsible for making sure that the Executive behave themselves. That, of course, is one of the underlying problems with our unwritten constitution: it relies on our Head of Government being a “good chap”, or a “good chapess” in the case of Liz Truss. The responsibility, authority and power to appoint Members of the second Chamber also lie with the guardian of the constitution and Prime Minister, more or less unchecked.

The Written Statement we had the other week—quietly put out on the Government’s behalf—suggests that future party appointments to this House should require the party nominating them to provide a short note on the qualifications for the—

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

My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord but, just as a matter of accuracy, I think he is talking about the citations that are already in place and were used in the last list to come forward.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My apologies. The Prime Minister in future would have to justify overriding the House of Lords Appointments Commission. This perhaps is some control mechanism on the Prime Minister’s power of appointment, but we have lived through a difficult period in which we have had Prime Ministers who did not particularly pay attention to constitutional conventions and did override the advice on the integrity and suitability of nominations presented by the Prime Minister.

I think the long-term answer to this is clear: we change the way in which this House is constituted. The Bill we presented when we were in the coalition in 2011 and 2012 suggested that we would do much better to have a second Chamber elected in thirds for 15-year terms. That would resolve a lot of these problems, but in the meantime, with the very slow pace of partial reform that we have on these occasions, we need a number of interim measures to limit the Prime Minister’s prerogative and to guard against the real risk that we might again have a Prime Minister who is not a good chap or chapess.

Over the last 30 or 40 years the British have constructed a number of what are called constitutional guard-rails to limit the Prime Minister’s untrammelled prerogative power. We have the Committee on Standards in Public Life, the Independent Adviser on Ministers’ Interests and the House of Lords Appointments Commission itself. The Labour Party’s manifesto committed to construct a new ethics and integrity commission that will also be a means, yet undefined by the Government, of checking the Prime Minister’s untrammelled authority and holding the Prime Minister to account.

We are all painfully conscious that not all Prime Ministers or presidents respect constitutional or ethical constraints. We have experience in this country, the United States has an extremely painful experience at the moment, and we might again have the experience after the next election, so this interim measure seems to many of us necessary and highly desirable. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Finn (Con)]

I thank your Lordships. So there were to be only 10 of them per Parliament, and they were meant to be for public service; I think they were meant to allow Cabinet Secretaries to be appointed here—which is marvellous, of course—and various others. But there has been a slight change in approach, and I would be very interested in the Minister’s views, following the comments of my noble friend Lady Stowell, on this idea that there might be a two-tier Cross-Bench peerage process: those that HOLAC judges suitable versus those that the PM judges suitable. It is interesting, because this raises a new question of what the criteria for suitability are, if these appointments are supposed to be non-partisan. The more Peers the Prime Minister appoints to the Cross Bench, the more he risks potentially undermining the status of that section of the House. I think that is worth bringing to the attention of the House. As I say, I would be interested in the Minister’s views. That was a small digression, I suppose.

To refer to the amendments in the group, although I have sympathy with the two conditions proposed by my noble friend Lord Hailsham, particularly the latter, in light of the Bill’s move to expel some of the most active participants of our House, I point out that the current system balances expert scrutiny with democratic accountability. HOLAC exists to advise, and the Prime Minister decides. I am sure that the Prime Minister, like his predecessors, will continue to place great weight on the commission’s careful and considered advice, but HOLAC must remain an advisory committee, and its remit should not take the place of a Prime Minister.

Finally, Amendment 19 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Devon, like his amendment in Committee, seeks to encourage HOLAC to recommend 20 new life peerages for the Cross Benches. I appreciate the sentiment of this amendment. Your Lordships’ House is set to lose a considerable amount of experience and expertise from the noble Earl’s Benches—not least his hugely respected convenor, the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull—if the Bill passes unamended. Other amendments are still to come from various noble friends, and they seek to resolve this problem in a similar way but for the whole House. I hope that colleagues on the Cross Benches will consider lending their support to these amendments.

In conclusion, I appreciate the strength of feeling across the House on HOLAC and appointments to your Lordships’ House but, as I said in Committee, the balance we have preserves scrutiny and responsibility, and we must be wary of trading one form of discretion for another, particularly when it moves away from democratic oversight.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate, and to those who tabled amendments. We have had a very thoughtful and helpful discussion.

I will pick up on a couple of points, because a range of views has been expressed this evening and questions asked. The point about what is your Lordships’ role in this House has come out quite clearly. There are those who said we are a House of experts, while the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, was quite clear in asking what is wrong with politics and political parties, even though she does not represent a political party. It just strikes me that, yes, we have a number of experts in your Lordships’ House and we value their expertise, but we are not all experts. The reason we have a number of experts is that we listen to their advice and the information they give, but we are all here to exercise our judgment. That judgment is what we should all bring, and that is the seriousness with which we take our role.

I have considerable sympathy with the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Newby. I think we are trying to get to roughly the same place, to ensure that those who are appointed to your Lordships’ House will have the confidence of this House and the public that they are here to do a role and exercise their judgment in the right way. I think the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, goes further than that, because he is seeking to completely remove the Prime Minister or any democratic accountability from the process of giving the sovereign advice on appointments, instead giving it to a commission that has no accountability—he is nodding; that is the correct interpretation. I think that I and a number of other Members struggle with the idea that that is appropriate. The noble Earl, Lord Devon, is looking to give the commission a new power to advise the sovereign on 20 new non-party-political appointments over the next five years.

Let me address some of those points. The Statement that the Prime Minister issued really clarified the role. This comes to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell. There is no change in the arrangements for HOLAC for appointments to the Cross Benches. For those appointments that come through the Prime Minister, whether to the Cross Benches or from the political parties, but go through the Prime Minister, HOLAC is asked to assess for propriety.

It would be totally wrong for any Prime Minister to use that route to make party-political appointments, and I have spoken to the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, about this, giving an absolute assurance this Prime Minister would never do that. It would be completely inappropriate. There is no change: it is exactly as it always has been. The rules are those that other Prime Ministers should have followed—and have in most cases, I am sure—for that route through to the Cross Benches via the Prime Minister. There has been a slight change. I think that originally it was for public servants, but both the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, and the current Prime Minister said that it was for people who have a track record of proven public service. Our recent appointments show dedicated public service. Four excellent appointments have been made to the Cross Benches. They are not necessarily public servants, but public service is important. That was a wise move by the now noble Lord, Lord Cameron, and by the Prime Minister to reconfirm his interpretation of that. HOLAC has a role on suitability in the appointments made by HOLAC to the Cross Benches.

Those are the appointments where HOLAC will also look at suitability, as well as propriety. The Prime Minister also mentioned in his Statement a pretty unlikely event which reminds us of the prime ministerial prerogative on this issue, something I think some noble Lords are seeking to remove. It would be a very serious and almost completely unprecedented step, but there has been one occasion when a Prime Minister has gone against HOLAC on propriety. We have set out the process that the Prime Minister should follow and been transparent about that. I think it is quite a serious step to take.

If the Prime Minister were to make an appointment against HOLAC’s advice on propriety, he would be completely transparent on the reasons why, and he would be held to account for that decision. He would be held accountable—that accountability is the issue that has been raised. He would write to the commission to explain the decision and HOLAC would write to the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Select Committee to notify Parliament that that advice had not been followed. The key there is accountability, as set out in the ministerial Statement.

[Lord True (Con)]

May I ask the Minister a clarifying question? I think this is important, irrespective of which party is in office. I think she has described the situation very fairly and clearly. Obviously, this prime ministerial power, which is not new, of direct appointment to the Cross Benches, raises the question of how those are assessed. I do not quite understand the internal procedures of the Cross Benches, but I know of people who sit on the non-affiliate Benches who have been put through some kind of process. The Cross-Benchers may think that they are a bit too close to one party or another. If the Prime Minister—I am not saying necessarily a Labour Prime Minister or a Conservative Prime Minister—used this procedure, would the Cross Benches be able to say, “We think that this woman or this man is too close to the Conservatives” or “too close to the Labour Party”? How would that operate? Do the Cross-Benchers have a say in who is appointed to the Cross Benches in terms of their background?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

It is probably more of a question for the Cross-Benchers than me, and the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, is ready to leap to his feet.

[The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)]

I thank the noble Baroness very much. This is obviously an issue that has arisen and has been the source of considerable correspondence, which predates me—Lord Judge began it. It would obviously not be proper for the Cross Benches to be part of some approval process, but we have been able to lay out sufficient rail track so that, certainly for my part, I feel very comfortable that the Prime Minister is going to appoint only people suitable for the Cross Benches and have no recent record of involvement in party processes.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

The noble Earl will know more about the history of non-aligned appointments. I do not think we have appointed anybody who is not aligned at all.

Interesting points have been made about accountability and suitability. Political parties must be responsible for the suitability of those whom they put forward, just as HOLAC is responsible for the suitability of its appointments. Partly because they are largely my idea, I think citations are a good thing because there is more information in the public domain about why somebody has been appointed. However, it would be a regrettable situation if a political party was then to say, “Oh, we don’t test suitability. That’s a matter for HOLAC; we don’t take responsibility for our appointments”. All political parties should take that responsibility rather than pass it on to HOLAC.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

Is the Leader of the House comfortable with the fact that Reform commands 36% of popular support in the polls and has no representation whatever in this House?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, there is a whole issue around this because the SNP has no representation in your Lordships’ House either. The noble Lord has spoken about Nigel Farage being offered a role. Given that Mr Farage’s policy is now to abolish the House of Lords, he may not have been willing to accept that role. The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, made this point well. There should be a diversity of opinion. The noble Baroness, Lady Bull, made the same point. There are a range of diversity issues that we should look at, including diversity of opinion. We make better decisions because of that. However, as my noble friend Lord Rooker said earlier—I have used this line, having heard him use it in debates here—in many ways we are a sub-committee of the House of Commons. We can only recommend suggestions and changes to the House of Commons. We bring our judgment to those decisions.

To finish the point that I was making beforehand, we do not believe that the amendment for 20 new life Peers is necessary. The number of nominations is a matter for the Prime Minister, but he will take into account the political balance of the House when making those decisions. It is essential for the House. The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, was a little cross with the Cross-Benchers, perhaps because they have not invited her to join, although they may reconsider that now. A Private Member’s Bill tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Norton, proposed the Cross Benches being roughly 20% of the House. That is a fair figure for the House. The noble Lord has heard me say time and again that the House works best with those kinds of figures, with roughly equal numbers of both political parties of government and when we abide by the conventions of the House. That is when we do our best work.

In some ways, I appreciated the honesty of the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, in his amendment about removing the Prime Minister from the process and having HOLAC deal with this, but he also spoke about participation and the role that we expect Members to play. He is absolutely right that we should expect all Peers to participate in support of the core functions of this House. That means not just turning up to vote occasionally but taking the role as a Member of your Lordships’ House seriously. That is one of the qualities mentioned in the Prime Minister’s Statement—willingness to contribute and play an active role in the House. It matters how Peers get here, but it matters more what Peers do when they are here and how seriously they take that role. Although participation is not a matter for this Bill, I have set out—we will discuss this later—a proposal that may allow us to take that forward.

The noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, talked about the independence of the Cross-Benchers. I think there is a role both for independents and for party politics in your Lordships’ House. I do not think any of us would say that we slavishly follow our party. I think sometimes we wish more did, and I am sure the Opposition Front Bench may say the same, but we do bring judgment. I just keep coming back to that point. Our judgment and integrity are important on these issues.

My final point is on the suggestion from the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, of a new oath for all appointments. I think I understand why he has raised that, and it is a thoughtful approach, but we do not consider it necessary. When a Peer takes the oath in this House and they sign as a Member of this House, that includes a commitment to uphold the Nolan principles of public life so, in a sense, that oath is already there. The Nolan principles are important, and I trust noble Lords to take that commitment to the Nolan principles as seriously as they would take any extra oath, so I do not think it is necessary.

I understand why the proposals have been put forward. The noble Lords, Lord Newby and Lord Wallace, have been sincere in this, but I wonder whether it is a stretch too far. There has been only one case where a Prime Minister has overridden the propriety advice of HOLAC. I think it is wrong to do that. It is hard to envisage circumstances where it would be appropriate, but I think that ensuring absolute transparency, if it were to happen, is the appropriate way forward. I see the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, is about to leap to his feet, so I will give way before he asks.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

Before the Minister sits down—literally in this rare instance—I am grateful to her for the comments she made about the Prime Minister’s Statement and the clarification she gave. She alluded to it, but, just for clarity, is she saying that our four new Cross-Bench colleagues are Cross-Bench Peers selected by the Prime Minister rather than Cross-Bench Peers recommended by HOLAC? I think that is what she was alluding to, but it would be good to have that.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

Those four Cross-Benchers have come through the route of public service, and there is still obviously the expectation that HOLAC would have its appointments done separately. I think that was quite clear in the Statement. I am sorry that that was not clear to the noble Lord before.

Having answered questions again, I respectfully ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, this debate has gone a good deal wider than our modest amendment. Perhaps we will come back to oaths, and the question of the balance in appointments of Cross-Benchers, between the great and the good and people’s Peers, is another thing that we should clearly come back to.

I was very struck at various points in the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, particularly when he was discussing the difference between liberal democracy and popular democracy. Liberal democracy is where those who govern do so with a degree of checks and balances to make sure that decisions are taken with due consideration and that policy does not swing with popular opinion too rapidly from one to another.

When the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, says that we should not have unelected judges holding Governments to account, he is actually saying that the rule of law should not be a check on the tribune of the people, whoever the President or Prime Minister may be. In this amendment, we are talking about a check. We are not saying that HOLAC should make all the nominations. We are saying that, when the Prime Minister makes nominations, HOLAC should advise and the Prime Minister should accept that advice.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

The noble Lord says this is not about all nominations but just those from the Prime Minister. However, the only other nominations other than the HOLAC-appointed ones come through the Prime Minister from the political parties, so which nominations is the noble Lord referring to?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, there is a sense of déjà vu all over again when we discuss these issues, as we have done a number of times. The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, has the distinction of proposing the only amendment I have ever seen that was longer than the Bill itself, when he looked at the options. We are grateful for his contribution this time and for the spreadsheets he produced before.

I was slightly puzzled by a number of the points the noble Lord made, including that we had dropped things, the issue of retirement, and why we are going to consult so many people when this House knows best. I am not sure he was here when I spoke earlier but I hope my comments will reassure him. He also mentioned a number of phrases that he said I had said, but I never said them. I will check in Hansard; he may be mistaking me for somebody else.

The noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, made a couple of really important points. He and I have spoken about judges and he knows I am aware of that issue. He also spoke about the issue of a cliff edge. This is partly the reason, as I have said many times before in your Lordships’ House, that we have a manifesto commitment that is very clear: those who turned 80 would retire at the end of the Parliament in which they did so. As others have pointed out in my discussions with them, one of the issues is that it is quite a significant cliff edge for the House if Members leave at the same time. The noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, raised that issue—sorry, there is a wasp that keeps flying at me.

In my discussions and consultations in your Lordships’ House, it has been very clear—notwithstanding some very good points made by those who are not supportive of a retirement age—that there is a general consensus around the House that a retirement age is a good thing, but it was a matter of two Peers and three opinions of how that could be implemented. Tonight’s debate has raised this issue and the noble Earl himself said it should be only for new Members rather than existing Members, and if you come in at a certain age you could stay longer. These are all variations on a theme. What is the best way of reaching a decision when you have variations? I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Newby, on bringing forward legislation that said, “These are the various options. Discuss them and come up with something”. I went through the pretty unedifying experience of House of Lords reform in the House of Commons; MPs trooped through the Lobbies again and again, rejected practically everything and accepted nothing—we got nowhere very fast.

The noble Lord and I discussed what the mechanism could be. I have been discussing this with other noble Lords and developing how the House could take a bit more ownership of the issues and decide what could be a way forward. The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, said the best people to look at this are Members of your Lordships’ House, who understand how the House works.

I am prepared to accept variations of an implemented manifesto commitment. I do not know how we implement a participation requirement. I have very strong views on how it might be done; I might not be right. Other noble Lords have made suggestions around attendance and participation. I think the noble Lord missed this point in my comments. When I mentioned a timetable for a Select Committee, I referred to moving at pace. It seems to me there is no reason why it could not be set up within three months of Royal Assent.

I said that I hoped that this time next year, the House could discuss any proposals coming forward from that committee. It may be sooner, it may be later, but I do not want to curtail any committee because it is for it to say, “This is what you’ve set us to do, these are the terms of reference you’ve given us, how long will it take us to do that?” So that is a discussion for the usual channels. It should be set up in the same way as any other committee of the House.

The noble Lord asked about hereditary Peers; he seemed to think they were leaving on Royal Assent. If he reads the Bill, he will find it is not on Royal Assent but at the end of the Session. That would be for the parties that nominate to make a decision on who they want on that committee. Noble Lords have said they are interested in this issue, but if they are genuinely serious about making progress on it, I would be very interested to hear what they say.

The noble Lord says that a lot can be done by Standing Orders. Maybe some things can, but it may be that other things need legislation. This could be one of the remits of the committee. If it needs legislation, then what better way to get legislation through your Lordships’ House than if we have a settled view on what the outcome should be?

I have discussed with noble Lords across the House whether there is a way that this House can come to a view on a way forward that we are broadly agreed on, that we can implement more quickly where we are able, and where we are not, that we have the fallback of legislation where there is agreement around the House. Sometimes the House says that we have to have legislation to do this—but if there are things we can do more quickly and more expeditiously, and the House agrees with that, why not do it? That is the purpose of setting this out, and I hope that answers the questions from noble Lords.

I know there are some noble Lords who think that if you come in at a certain age, it should be later, but the committee can look at those kinds of issues and would have the usual representation. It is important that we do not let these issues just drop away and that we do not just say that there are lots of options. Let the House reach a decision on this and do something about it.

I hope that assurance answers the noble Lord’s questions. I am sure that as time goes on, he will have many more—but those are the sorts of things we will come to as we try to set it up. If he has a better idea than a Select Committee to do it, I am open to suggestions, but I want Members of this House to take ownership of decisions that affect this House.

I am also mindful of the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Newby—previously and this time—that if we send legislation to the other place with an age, it may have a different view. This is something that we can do more quickly, but if we have a settled view, I am sure the House of Commons would respect that as well.

I hope that, having heard that, the noble Viscount is willing to withdraw his amendment, and we can continue to look at this issue as we move forward.

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

My Lords, I very much welcome the suggestion that there should be a Select Committee addressing some of the issues covered by Amendment 7. With your Lordships’ consent, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Howard of Lympne (Con)]

My Lords, I support the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Hailsham and the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington.

Earlier today, my noble friend Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay reminded your Lordships’ House about the assurance given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, when he introduced the legislation that removed the majority of hereditary Peers from your Lordships’ House. He gave an assurance from that Dispatch Box that the remaining hereditaries would not be removed until stage 2 of reform of your Lordships’ House was in place. He was asked what weight could be given to that assurance—what credence could be placed on it—and he told your Lordships’ House that it was a “matter of honour”. He could have said that the assurance would last only for 25 years, but he did not. He could have said that it would last only until a Government were elected on a manifesto pledge to remove the remaining hereditaries from your Lordships’ House, but he did not. He said neither of those things. He said it was a matter of honour.

Earlier today, in our very first debate, the Leader, for whom I have a great deal of respect, gave your Lordships assurances about the future from that same Dispatch Box. I have no doubt that she gave your Lordships those assurances in good faith. But if any noble Lords were just a tiny bit sceptical about the durability of those assurances, they might perhaps be forgiven in the light of what happened to the assurances given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

If it helps the noble Lord, I think he is talking about some 25 years ago. I am talking about a rather shorter period of time —a matter of months—to set up a Select Committee. He might be reassured by that, because I am not likely to forget that in a matter of three months.

[Lord Howard of Lympne (Con)]

I was not talking about those assurances; I was talking about the assurances the noble Baroness gave in our first debate about the durability of the status of the Earl Marshal and the Lord Great Chamberlain.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

That is not my assurance; it is the assurance from the House of Lords Commission, from Members of all parties across the House.

[Lord Howard of Lympne (Con)]

I dare say, but the noble Baroness repeated those assurances from the Government, from that Dispatch Box, and that carries as much or as little weight as the assurances given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, when he introduced the original legislation.

--- Later in debate ---

If it were not this late hour, and if the response were not crystal clear and without space for prevarication and evasion about a Bill, and the noble Duke were not satisfied, perhaps he would have asked the opinion of the House, pending what the noble Baroness replied. In that case, I might have supported him in the Lobbies. I hope we will have a clear response from the noble Baroness that will include some clear route map to the kind of legislation the noble Duke has rightly challenged the House to see.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, once again, we have had a wide-ranging and very helpful debate. I can think of no other legislation before this House or the other place where there is more interest in what the next piece of legislation will be than there is in the current piece of legislation. Nevertheless, I will do my best to help noble Lords.

First, I am grateful to the noble Duke, because he has had discussions with me on a number of occasions, and I know his commitment to reform. I will come to his amendment as well. Where I would depart from him is that he wants something brought forward within the next two years; I would like to move more quickly. His amendment does not specify any detail of what should be in the reform, as he said. It compels the Government to lay before Parliament further legislation within two years of a Bill receiving Royal Assent. I know he is seeking to provide latitude in his amendment and trying to be helpful. I do not think the amendment necessarily does what he intends it to do, because it depends on the length of the Parliament and when the next King’s Speech will be. He will also know that no Minister will ever commit to, or hint at, what will be in the next King’s Speech or the one after that. The assurance I can give him, as I have said, is an absolute determination to deal with these issues.

The noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, seemed very welcoming of a Select Committee. The noble Lord, Lord True, seems more sceptical. I do not know what the Select Committee will say. I have heard noble Lords say, “It’ll make so much fuss out of this”, and, “It’ll take so long that you will never get another Bill to reform the House of Lords”. That is an irresponsible attitude to take. I want to see further reform. I am determined that we make progress on these issues. The reason why I have proposed a Select Committee—it is up to the House if it wishes to take advantage of it—is so that there is an opportunity for the House to come to a decision on the particular issues.

I look at these things in bite-sized chunks, because I think that is how we best make progress. Those two issues are stage 2, which I think is quite clear in the manifesto, but perhaps those of us who helped draft it were not as clear as we thought we were. I think it is quite clear. There has also been increased consensus around this House during the debate that Members want action on participation, attendance and retirement. If the House is serious about wanting that and can come to a conclusion on it then that will certainly make it much easier to take legislation forward, because we will have an agreed view.

The noble Lord is right; I would have those discussions with my colleagues. I would expect the House of Commons to listen carefully to what this House has to say to any reasonable proposals within the bounds of our manifesto. I would also ask the Select Committee to look at what is possible, and if it is possible—it may not be; the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, is right that, until a committee has legal advice, it cannot be absolutely certain—to take action more quickly without legislation or prior to legislation. I think that would apply in particular to the issue of participation. I think that would be welcomed.

That does not rule out the opportunity of legislation. However, the best way to get legislation through is not, as the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, suggested, through very long amendments, and lots of different suggestions and options. If we have a clear view, then that will give us a really good opportunity to get some legislation through on a focused Bill.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

I was not suggesting a long-winded series of amendments. I merely suggested a short SI to implement whatever the Lords recommend. If a Select Committee is going to recommend things around retirement and participation, can she not just use an SI to implement it rather than new legislation?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I appreciate the noble Lord’s impatience; I was going to come to that point, so bear with me. Part of my problem with his amendment—I have not quite finished dealing with the noble Duke’s amendment—although I fully agree with his direction of travel and intention, is that I am not too comfortable with removing the role of this House. I think there is real benefit, as the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, said earlier, in that the best people to do some of this work are Members of this House—obviously taking advice as any committee sees fit. I am keen that we should do that.

If that does not work, then there is still legislation. We still have the option and the manifesto commitment, but I think it is easier and quicker to get something through if we have a settled view from this House. If we can do things without legislation or prior to legislation then we should do so to move quickly.

The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, is nothing if not inventive. I have always admired his ingenuity, but he will know as a former Deputy Chief Whip in the other place—

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

Chief Whip.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I apologise; I was demoting him. He was a Chief Whip, so he should know even better that a Third Reading amendment is brought back only if the Minister offers to keep something open at Third Reading. I will tell noble Lords why I cannot do that on his amendment. I will be very clear about this. We had a discussion earlier and spoke about the problems of legislation by SI and Henry VIII powers. The noble Lord proposes, within his way of working, that we should take decisions on quite serious and important issues by SI. It is inventive and it is a way he would want to do it, but I do not think a simple resolution such as that is the appropriate way forward. It would also give the other place the opportunity to reject it as well; I do not think that is appropriate. The existing mechanisms or primary legislation would be a better way forward.

The noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, has been very thoughtful throughout this debate. His amendment stipulates that the next stage of reform requires, among other things, changing the appointments process to limit the discretion of the Prime Minister and party leaders. We have already discussed that, and I think the House made its view clear on the previous vote, so I do not want to repeat the same arguments. As I have said before, we are committed to strengthening and clarifying the roles and responsibilities in the appointments process, which we discussed earlier.

The noble Viscount also talked about term limits and a size cap on the House. As I have said before, the Government’s preference is for a retirement age. That is something, along with participation, that a committee of this House could look at. His amendment does, in effect, deal with the size of the House, which is a very important issue. I am afraid that the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, went way beyond some of the issues we are discussing here, but I noted the comments that he made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Howard of Lympne (Con)]

I am grateful to the Leader of the House for giving way. Does the caveat that she has just entered about future Parliaments apply to the assurances she gave on behalf of the Government from that Dispatch Box earlier this afternoon on the future status of the Earl Marshal and the Lord Great Chamberlain?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

It does not, because that is not the legislation we are talking about. That is a decision of this House, and I find it very difficult to understand why anybody would want to change that position in this House. I have faith in your Lordships’ House, so it does not apply, and I think the commission has said that in relation to those officeholders and future officeholders as well. If, at some point in the future, this House took a different decision, I would oppose it very strongly—I think it would be totally the wrong decision, and I find it impossible to consider that it would happen. But when it comes to legislation, it is the case that one Parliament does not bind another. Indeed, I think his party has changed its mind on the Grocott Bill from the last Parliament to this one, so we do see changes as we move forward.

My impression is that, as the noble Duke has said, the House wants to make progress as a matter of urgency. None of us knows our longevity in any position or any place, but we are talking about a very short space of time. The noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, raised this issue with me. I would have thought that a Select Committee could be up and running very soon after Royal Assent. The normal Select Committee rules would apply. I think the terms of reference are quite clear: there are two specific issues. I understand what other Members have said about the need to broaden this out, but the danger there is that we do not get anywhere —which has happened time and again. The House has to make a decision: does it wish to make further progress or not? I think and hope it does. I want to, and I hope noble Lords will not press their amendments.

[The Duke of Wellington (CB)]

My Lords, I am most grateful to those who have contributed comments on my Amendment 8. I must admit that I have not quite persuaded the Leader to go as far as I had hoped she might, but I have to accept—and I know that she spoke in total good faith—that it is her intention that we should carry out further reforms. She believes the best way to do it is through a Select Committee, which, as she just said, could be prior or leading to legislation, and I must take her words as she just stated them. I hope that all her government colleagues sitting next to her on the Bench have heard what she said—including, if I am not mistaken, the Attorney-General, which is very good.

So I thank the Leader again for her efforts to move to where I hoped she would be, with a categorical assurance that there would be a second Bill. She certainly tried and, in that spirit, I withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Finn (Con)]

My Lords, this has been a short but important debate and I thank my noble friend Lord Lucas for bringing the House’s attention once again to an unavoidable consequence of this legislation. We are heading towards a fully appointed House, with all the appointments made by the Prime Minister. I appreciate that political parties nominate, but the ability to decide the number and timing of appointments rests solely with the Prime Minister. It is therefore of some concern that the Prime Minister, with such powers of patronage, is attempting to remove more than 80 parliamentarian opponents through the Bill.

We will have a debate—another one—on the size of the House next week, so I will not comment specifically on numbers at this point. However, when the Lord Privy Seal spoke on this amendment in Committee, she was critical of the “We have the numbers and can get this through” approach that she felt previous Governments had taken, and encouraged the House of Lords to adopt a more deliberative approach. That is exactly the approach that we are seeking to take with this Bill and others, and we should not be criticised for doing so.

Having heard me speak in the HOLAC debate, noble Lords will be aware of my views on retaining the discretion that Prime Ministers have to appoint the Peers they wish to appoint. But my noble friend Lord Lucas is right to bring back this important issue of the balance between the parties and to seek further assurances about the responsibility of the Prime Minister to behave reasonably.

I am sure that the current Prime Minister will continue to do so, and I hope that this amendment will never be necessary, but legislation should seek to look to the future and anticipate that future Prime Ministers might not behave in such an appropriate way in terms of appointments. It is a shame that we find ourselves in this position, but I look forward to hearing the Leader’s response.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I listened to the noble Baroness with increasing incredulity. Even she had a smile on her face as she came up with some of that. I thank my noble friend for his points. In terms of history, he did not go back nearly as far as many other Members of the House have this evening, but it is always worth looking back at the Great Reform Act 1832 and what was achieved for this country by that legislation.

The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and I are very much of the same mind on this one, but I do not agree with his mechanism for getting there. He talked earlier about the relative proportions of the House. He is absolutely right. The noble Lord, Lord Norton, talked about the Cross Benches. This is probably about right. But to put into legislation a proportion for just one group of the whole House is not necessarily talking about relative proportions. I know that he understands that. I stand by previous comments that I have made. This House works at its best when both parties have roughly equal numbers. This depends very much on the normal conventions applying and the way the House operates, but that is when the House does its best work.

The noble Baroness talked about “holding the noble Baroness to that kind of view”. I remind her of the last Government’s actions on this. Even with this Bill, the Government will comprise only 28% of your Lordships’ House. Part of the reason for that is that when we left office in 2010, we had 25 more Members of the House than the Conservative Party; I used these figures earlier in the debate. At the end of the parliamentary Session before the election, before we came into office, there were over 100 more Members of the Conservative Government than of my party. That does not serve this House well.

The noble Baroness is right that I said that the House should be more deliberative. That is when the House does its best work. A couple of weeks after I became Leader of the Opposition, about 10 years ago, I was in Victoria Street having a pizza when I got word that Jacob Rees-Mogg, as Leader of the House of Commons, had issued a statement that he intended to appoint 100 Members to this House to force the Brexit legislation through. That is not in the best interests of this House. He did not do it in the end.

I stand by the House being more deliberative in its approach. Members should be more active, participate properly and not just turn up to vote when they have not been around and participating in the work of the House. There is a better way forward on this. Even if the party opposite has come to this lately, I genuinely welcome that conversion. We should operate in a more collaborative way. I agree about the relative proportions, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said, but I ask him respectfully to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

Does the Leader intend this to be a subject for her Select Committee?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I do not think so, not directly. However, if the committee is looking at retirement and participation, we would want to ensure that, post any decisions that it takes and actions that this House might take on legislation, we maintain a balance around the House. It would be completely inappropriate to say, “This group is losing more than that group”, and for any party to use that as a way to gain a political advantage. Maintaining the proportions must always be in the minds of the Government and the Opposition, and I would ensure that.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for her reply and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 2nd July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, are we going to hear all day the cry of “Front Bench”? In this House, the tradition is that those on the Back Benches are permitted, as fellow Peers, to contribute to our debates. Also, if I may say so, I have never heard the proposition that someone who is a hereditary Peer should have to declare that. I very much hope, if that is the principle that is being pushed, that when we come to debate the principle of a democratic House, those who are life Peers will declare their interest—responding to the noble Lord, Lord Newby. This is not a profitable way to go. As was said by the Captain of the Gentlemen-at-Arms very wisely earlier, we should conduct our debates with amity, respect for each other and a degree of tolerance.

History matters; it matters greatly. It was no accident that, in 1999, the then Labour Government decided, outside the discussions that we were having about the elected Peers, to leave an ex officio place for these two great and ancient hereditary offices in our Chamber. It was a wise decision then, and I think it would have been wise to replicate it now. We have heard the long history of these great offices and, more importantly, their current relevance, set out ably by my noble friend Lord Roberts of Belgravia and underlined by the noble Lord, Lord Moore of Etchingham. I agree with my noble friend that we diminish the ceremonial part of our state at great peril to ourselves and to who we are as a people. As was said by my noble friend, it is one of the things that we do amazingly well, which attracts huge income from tourism and, far more deeply, deep respect and interest in our country.

This Parliament is a Parliament of three parts: the Commons, the Lords and the Crown. The Earl Marshal and Lord Great Chamberlain are visible embodiments of that. They are a part of our parliamentary constitution that can be traced back to early medieval times. They are every bit as important today, and they must be able to fulfil their duties at State Openings of Parliament and all the other events and places where they serve us, our House and our country.

When I look back on the great and moving events that took place in our recent memory after the demise of the late Queen and the accession and Coronation of His Majesty King Charles, I well remember, as we all do, the active, practical and dedicated part that the Earl Marshal and Lord Great Chamberlain took in making those events possible and so memorable. I record my personal thanks as then Leader of the House to the noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk, and to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and his predecessor, the Marquess of Cholmondeley. They are also ex officio here by a separate provision of the 1999 Act; they are Members of the House. They have often, over the years, brought great insight here. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell. When I went home late last night, the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, was in his place, having made a full, practical and helpful contribution to the House.

Those of a longer memory will well recall the 17th Duke of Norfolk, referred to by my noble friend, who won the Military Cross under fire in 1944. As a career major general and director of service intelligence, he brought immense wisdom to our discussions of military affairs. With an Earl Marshal responsible for our State Openings of Parliament and a Lord Great Chamberlain in control of much of our estate—the Robing Room, the Royal Gallery, the Chapel of St Mary Undercroft—and their relevance to restoration projects, these officers of state will need unfettered access to the Chamber and the resource and office space needed to fulfil their roles on our behalf. I agree that they should never have to queue for access or beg for a pass.

As others have argued, given that the Earl Marshal and the Lord Great Chamberlain have such an intrinsic role in our House and its ceremony, much the best way forward would have been to allow them to remain as full Members of our House. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Moore of Etchingham, that their ability to serve us can only be strengthened by knowing and sharing the experience of our Members and staff. It worked for many hundreds of years and it seems a shame to change it now.

The unnecessary removal of these ex officio Members, separate from the 90 elected Peers, is to be regretted. However, I know that the noble Baroness the Lord Privy Seal has been talking to colleagues about this, and about the best and properly dignified way of enabling them to go about their important services to the Crown and to this House in an unfettered and unimpeded way in the future. We should all be open to hearing what she has to say.

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

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, for an erudite and entertaining speech. His amendment is similar to one that was tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, in Committee. I think the cries of “Front Bench”, which we do not hear too often, were made in eagerness to hear the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord True. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Rising. He came to see me about this matter, and I am grateful for that discussion, which was very helpful. Looking at the comments that have been made, I can satisfy noble Lords on some points, but there is one particular point on which I cannot, which I will come to.

This is something that has arisen many times during the passage of this Bill. I completely recognise the important roles played by noble Lords in those offices and the historic link between the monarch and the second Chamber. However, the point remains that in order to fulfil their functions and responsibilities they do not need to speak in the Chamber or to vote.

The noble Lord, Lord Roberts, is right that it would be appalling to suggest that they would have to queue up at the Pass Office or seek permission every time they come in. I can give him the categorical assurance that that will not happen, now or in the future. The commission has agreed that both office holders have access rights on the Parliamentary Estate. They will be able to perform their duties as they do now and engage with Members as they do now. That includes the ability to sit on the steps of the Throne, to listen to debates, to access catering and to access the Library. That level of access will ensure that they can engage with Members. In no way should their responsibilities or their abilities to do that be fettered in any way. I can discuss with the House authorities the possibility of office space—there is no office space at the moment—in the House, if required.

I know that some noble Lords have voiced doubts and questioned whether both postholders, now or in the future, would have to come back to the commission each and every time. I reassure the House that that will not be the case. The commission has confirmed the position for current and future postholders, so they would not have to come back. There should not be any impediment to their fulfilling their responsibilities. I assured the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Rising, that I would make that commitment from the Dispatch Box and, as he requested, I am happy to do that.

To correct something that was said, the postholders will not be excluded from the House. They will be excluded from participating in the proceedings of the House but they will not be excluded from coming into the House, so I do not think that this amendment is necessary. There is certainly no criticism of the roles they play.

The noble Earl, Lord Devon, raised three points. I can satisfy him on two of them, but on one, I cannot. He asked what discussions have taken place. I have had at least one discussion with both postholders and probably more than that. He asked whether they have been consulted. Yes, they have, and there has been wider consultation. The point I cannot satisfy him on is the one raised by the Earl Marshal about more diversity. These are both hereditary roles, and they will continue to be hereditary roles. The position of Lord Great Chamberlain rotates through three hereditary positions so, in terms of diversity and inclusion, they will always have to be men at the moment. I know the noble Earl has particular interests and perhaps one day we can make some progress on that, but at present I cannot satisfy him on the diversity role because, as hereditary Peers, they will always be male.

[The Earl of Devon (CB)]

The point that I think the Earl Marshal was making was that the seat in the House that he might occupy would perhaps be open to more diverse occupants, not his role as Earl Marshal.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

That is a valid point. The Earl Marshal has been very clear that he is perfectly content with this.

I do not think this amendment is necessary. I assure the House that those postholders are essential. We will not in any way hamper or impede their ability to carry out their functions or their roles. The noble Lord, Lord True, made the point that we are grateful to them for doing that. They engage with Members of the House as well. I hope that, having heard the explanation and the assurances that I have been able to give, the noble Lord will be prepared to withdraw his amendment.

I want to add a more general point about issues that will come up in later debates. It is not entirely relevant to this amendment but, because so many of these issues are interconnected, I think it will be helpful to set the context to assist the House. Noble Lords are aware that, prior to the commencement of the Bill and throughout its passage, I have had more than 50 meetings, some as one-to-ones, others with much larger groups. I listened very carefully in those engagements and throughout Committee. Much of our discussions and debates have been on issues, such as this one, that were in the manifesto but are not in the Bill. I think the House is seeking reassurance that the plans for the next stage of reforms will not flounder and that the Government are serious about their intention for further reforms.

I have been greatly encouraged by support for two specific issues that have been mentioned many times and on which we have amendments later: retirement and participation. It has been 25 years since the first stage of this reform, and I think the House would be somewhat intolerant if we took another 25 years to bring anything further forward. We all value that this House is self-governing and I am keen that we take some ownership as a House in moving forward on other issues. I am sure we will discuss this issue further on other amendments.

I feel, having reflected on discussions and advice, that we need a formal, recognised process that is supported by the House. I have considered the mechanisms that we could use, and I have concluded that the best way forward would be to establish a dedicated Select Committee to look at those specific matters on which noble Lords have indicated that they are keen to make progress. I am open to discussing other mechanisms, but that is the way forward that I think may work the best.

Obviously, I will discuss this further with the usual channels before putting any such proposal to the House, but I hope that the House could set up such a committee within three months of the Bill gaining Royal Assent, and by this time next year it would be able to consider the committee’s findings. I am keen to see how quickly we can move on other issues as well without legislation, or prior to legislation, with a committee that could make those recommendations to the House. I say that at this stage to be of assistance to the House so that, when we get to those issues, the House has had time to consider them. In the meantime, I thank the noble Lord—not least for raising Andrew Marvell, perhaps one of my favourite poets—and ask him to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

Before the noble Baroness sits down, the proposal is to set up a Select Committee to consider the issues that have been discussed with her. Those issues include offering life peerages to hereditary Peers. Is that something that the Select Committee would consider?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I do not imagine that that would be discussed by this Select Committee, which will look at the two specific issues that have been raised. We will debate the matter that the noble Lord refers to later on the Bill.

[Lord Strathclyde (Con)]

My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, what authority will this committee have? Would it be regarded by the Government as having authority? In other words, would its conclusions, if passed by the House, be carried on by the Government, or would it be what I rather suspect it will be: a very good and highly-qualified talking shop that will not, in the end, lead to anything because the Government will easily be able to ignore it completely?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I really hope that would not be the case. One of the reasons why I said we wanted to see what could be done more quickly is that some things may be able to be done by the House itself. If the House comes to a conclusion on matters that need legislation then it is easier to put through legislation if the House has taken a view. So I am keen to have the House express a view—which noble Lords have asked for many times—and the Government will listen, but there may well be things that we can do without legislation. If that is the case, we can proceed. Where legislation is required, I will take that advice from the committee because we have a manifesto commitment for legislation, and we are determined to press ahead on these two issues.

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

My Lords, I welcome the setting up of the Select Committee. It is a great step forward. As the noble Baroness knows, I have been particularly concerned about the question of retirement age. I must declare an interest, by the way.

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

No, I used to be director of Age Concern Scotland, so I have a particular interest in this. Could my noble friend confirm that this Select Committee would be able to consider all aspects of a retirement age—for example, whether it should be different for current Members and new Members, and whether it should be on the edge of a particular birthday or at the end of the Parliament in which the birthday takes place? All these issues can be considered and recommendations made to this House, and the decision could be made by this House.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I would say to my noble friend that we all have an interest in the retirement age because we all hope to approach one at some point in our lives. He is right. I am not going to set any preconditions on that. The manifesto at the last election said that someone would retire at the end of the Parliament after their 80th birthday. I have said repeatedly that I think a cut-off would create problems for the House when lots of Members reach that age at the same time and retire. If there are better suggestions, I would be happy to consider them. I am not going to put any parameters on what can be discussed within those two areas. I wanted to give the House the opportunity, when we come to discuss these issues, to consider what I have said and see whether noble Lords think it is helpful when we get to those amendments.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

Before the noble Baroness sits down, will the new committee consider the whole question of the relative powers of both Houses? There is no point in talking about changing the membership unless you decide what they are going to do.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

No, my Lords, that would not be in the remit. It would be purely on the issues of participation and retirement age.

[The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)]

Before the noble Baroness sits down, I am sorry to intervene further but there are a number of other issues in the various amendments that we are going to consider. Would it not be logical for the Select Committee to think about those issues as well, in particular some of the things that were referred to in the Labour manifesto at the last election?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I am keen to make progress on these issues in what I call bite-sized chunks. I have always referred to these two issues as being stage 2. They are the two issues that have been raised most often in Committee and again now on Report. There seems to be a consensus around the House that they are specific issues that the House wants to deal with. I have chosen them because they have been mentioned so often by noble Lords.

[Lord Swire (Con)]

If the noble Baroness is trying to present the Select Committee as being in part an answer to some of the long-term questions about the future of this House, would she be open to considering outsiders joining it who may have an interest in the future of our bicameral legislature? I point out that, according to current polling, the Reform Party is likely to get 271 seats at the next election, against Labour’s 178. Should parties like that not be included in looking at the long-term future governance of this country?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Lord did not mention the number of seats his own party is projected to get, but I think it is a little irrelevant. Members of this House are best placed to understand its requirements. One thing that has emerged from the debate many times during the passage of the Bill is that Members would like greater input on this. I am not proposing to provide answers; I am asking questions of the committee. How does a committee of Members of this House, who know the day-to-day running of this House, think these things could best be achieved?

[Baroness Hayman (CB)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness the Leader of the House was very specific about the issues she wants the Select Committee to focus on, but, as she knows, one of the major issues that has been discussed for decades in this House is the size of the House. It was mentioned in the Labour Party manifesto, and we have seen very clearly the ratchet effect that changes of government can have on the size of the House. If it is not to be considered in the Select Committee, how are we going to make progress on that?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a question of stages, and these are certainly issues we should make progress on. The more issues we discuss, the less likely we are to move forwards, as we have found so many times before. I am proposing a Select Committee on these two issues, but that will not stop us having further committees or looking more at such issues. I take great interest in the size of the House, and we need to address it.

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

My Lords, is it not really a matter for the Select Committee to determine what issues it wants to consider?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I would say no, because the danger is that the issues get wider and wider, and no decision is taken. Looking at these things in bite-size chunks in order to reach a conclusion and make recommendations is helpful to the House. I am not opposed to looking at other issues as well, but if this committee focuses on two specific issues, we can, I hope, make progress. I hope we can make progress quite quickly, too, because I think that is what the House is really looking for.

[Lord Roberts of Belgravia (Con)]

I welcome the assurances given by the Minister and will not seek to test the opinion of the House. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord True (Con)]

The Prime Minister has no power to exclude. Prime Ministers have the power, by royal prerogative, to recommend appointments to the monarch, but no Prime Minister in the world has the power to exclude. The only other House of Parliament in any way similar to ours is the Senate of Canada, and there is no power for the Prime Minister to exclude a Member or group of Members.

The debate ranged widely, but the decisions that we always make as people who make law must be on the face of the paper before us, the proposed Act of Parliament, and it is the Bill before us that the noble and right reverend Lord raised. In a few minutes, what each of us privately has to decide is not whether entry by heredity is over—it is—but whether we assent to the expulsion of over 80 of our comrades on all Benches. These are people we know and whose worth we know, as no one outside this House knows them. They are people we respect, as no one outside this House respects them, as we have seen them sitting on the Woolsack, on our committees and on the Front Benches, as my noble friend said, in service as Ministers over the decades. They are people we like, although that is a small thing in relation to their service and the holes that their departure will leave in our ranks.

When the Bell goes shortly, we will all rise from our place and we will go this way or that. We can go and say, “Out with you all”—that is what the Bill says—“and you must go for one wrong about which you could do nothing: by whom you happen to have been conceived”. Or else we may, by quiet assent or our active move into the other Lobby, say, “Yes, we agree that we will have no more new hereditary Peers but we do not wish to hurt those who serve now or to hurt our House. We value who you are and what you have done and may yet do for this House, and we should like you to stay, sit with us and serve as our Peers”. That is the choice we will make in a few minutes.

It is not about who comes here. That is settled; it is history. No other hereditary Peer will ever take the oath at this Dispatch Box. The decision we make is about who goes. It is simple and binary, and it is a decision that each of us in this great House of Lords—which, as the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, said, has the right to make this decision about its composition and its future, and to suggest a way forward to the other place —must now make, with our unique sense of this House that we love and the good that the people we are discussing do for it. We must make a decision about those people we know who have been, often for decades, are and, I submit, should continue to be our fellow Peers.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, we have had a bit of a rehash of a debate that we had previously in Committee on a similar amendment. Amendment 2 today is almost identical to the previous amendment, seeking to amend Clause 2 and return to what is commonly known as the Grocott Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, possibly alone in the House, has the benefit of consistency on this issue, in that, as I recall, he consistently supported the Grocott Bill as a way forward.

I think I understand the emotion displayed by the noble Lord, Lord True, on this issue, but he will now probably regret not taking up my offer to ensure that the Grocott Bill could have passed all its stages and got through the House as a Private Member’s Bill. I gave him my party’s guarantee that we would do that. The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, frowns at me, but I gave the guarantee of my party that we would support that Bill and do our best to get it through the House. So we could have done that, but the opportunity was lost, and that is a shame, but that is where we are now. We are now debating a manifesto commitment from the Labour Party.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

The noble Baroness said that I frowned. The reason I frowned is that I do not really understand the argument that says, “You should have taken my offer but you didn’t, so we’re going to throw all these people out of the House of Lords”. If you thought it was okay for Parliament to continue, having got rid of the hereditary principle, why is it any different now?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, there was an opportunity for this House. Had we not had the by-elections since 1999, there would have been far fewer hereditary Peers in this House then. Since my noble friend Lord Grocott introduced his Bill, there have been a number of by-elections and there are now 28 hereditary Peers who are here through those by-elections. I think the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, referred in his comments to them being here by an accident of birth.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

Does the noble Baroness also recognise that there are 257 of us who have also arrived here since the last time there was a vote on this and who would really like the opportunity to take the offer that was not given to us?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

The noble Lord has tabled an amendment and is offering it at this point now, although, had he been in the House when this was debated, I doubt he would have voted differently at the time from the leader of his party, who was very much against it.

[Lord Mancroft (Con)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I will take one more intervention. I have listened with great care to noble Lords and have not intervened on anybody, and I want to respond to those who have spoken. I will take the intervention from the noble Lord because he used to be quite nice to me, but that will be the last intervention that I take. I think it is in the interests of the House for me to wind up the debate.

[Lord Mancroft (Con)]

I am most grateful to the noble Baroness the Leader of the House and I hope I will continue to be nice to her. I just wanted to make the point that, although the opportunity may have been available to the House of Lords to pass the Grocott Bill in the previous Parliament, it would not have gone through because it could not possibly have got through the House of Commons.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

Members of my party would have supported that Bill in the House of Commons. The noble Lord has little faith in the House of Commons, but I take his point. I think the noble Lord, Lord Newby, made the point in a previous debate —I know the noble Lord has been here for a number of debates on this issue—that when we send amendments to the House of Commons, how it responds to them is a matter for the House of Commons.

I was actually paying the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, a compliment, praising him for his consistency—he should take them while he can.

I want to move on to a number of the issues raised in this debate. The noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, tried to depart from the view of the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, of an accident of birth being the route by which hereditary Peers have moved here. He said it was accident of birth and a by-election. Even taking the amendment from his Front Bench today, I think those elections have been discredited.

I know that the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, looked at by-elections in the House of Commons, but I would probably liken the by-elections to this House to those from Dunny-on-the-Wold in “Blackadder”. They brought discredit to the House and Members were embarrassed by them.

The noble Lord, Lord True, said that he and the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, came to me with the proposal to end the by-elections. They did but that was after the manifesto was published and after the King’s Speech. I was grateful to them; I think it was the sensible thing for the House to do, but the by-elections are just suspended, not ended. If the Bill does not become law, we would return to having the by-elections and the House would have to take a separate decision to stop them. They were just suspended—I think the noble Lord was quite keen that they should be suspended—because we do not really have the power in current legislation to end them.

The noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, made the point that we should not be seen to be looking after our friends. There are many hereditary Peers in your Lordships’ House whom I regard as friends; they might not regard me in the same way at the moment, but I have regarded them as friends for a long time. That is not the issue here; it is a matter of principle, which the Labour Party set out clearly before the election. It is not a criticism of any noble Lord in your Lordships’ House. It is a criticism of the system that has been allowed to continue for so long.

I often agree with the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, but I shall take issue with him on a number of things. He said that Labour has brought in 45 new Peers since the general election; his party have had 21 new Peers since the election. Another statistic that I think is helpful to your Lordships’ House concerns the appointments. Like others, I exclude the noble Baroness, Lady May, from this. When we left office as the previous Labour Government in 2010, the difference between the party of government, as we had been, and the Official Opposition, which then became the Government—the Conservative Party—was fewer than 30 Members. When we came into government in 2024, the difference between the two political parties was over 100.

It is a point made very well by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman. This is not just about exits; all leaders should exercise restraint. I am on record as saying— I stand by it—that this House works at its best when the main government party and the main opposition party have roughly equal numbers and we abide by the conventions of the House. That is when this House does its best work.

The Opposition have 286 Peers but the noble Lord thinks that when the hereditaries leave this House—and, contrary to what a noble Baroness said, they will not be expelled immediately but at the end of this Session of Parliament—his party will not be able to field a Front Bench from the remaining Members. My party had to field an Opposition with far fewer than that—probably about 100 fewer—and I think we were a pretty effective Opposition. It is not always about numbers.

This argument that if the hereditaries leave we will then come for other groups of people is utterly ridiculous. I think the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, made that point. We are talking about legislation that was in the manifesto and trailed by the manifesto. Which other groups are we talking about: everybody with red hair or those who wear the wrong-coloured jacket? It is a nonsense. This was clearly defined. The noble Lord is chuntering at me from a sedentary position. He had a long time to speak but he wants to jump up again.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

It is only because the noble Baroness the Leader of the House said that she would take no further interventions. The current government manifesto commits to excluding the over-80s at some point, so we know that this Government intend to remove further Members from your Lordships’ House. The examples given in the debate were about future Governments, of neither of our parties, who might come for more of us for other reasons.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, that is always in the hands of the electorate when they have the manifesto published before them. But again, on the retirement age, we have set that out as a clearly stated manifesto commitment. I have said, and have been clear, that the House should come to a decision on that as a House. We ought to be taking far more responsibility for, and ownership of, matters that affect the House. We tried to do that under the Grocott Bill but, for various reasons, the party opposite would not support it and we did not get that far.

The noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, raised the issue of Members not speaking on different issues. I have to say to him that all Members of the House, when they are here as Members, are equal and can speak or vote on issues as they wish, and should do so within the Code of Conduct. When Members declare an interest or their interests preclude their participating, that is in the Code of Conduct; otherwise, we are in the same place.

There is a real issue here. We are talking about the principle, established 25 years ago, that the hereditary principle would not be a route into your Lordships’ House. That does not decry any individual Member who has arrived by that route, but the time has come to an end. The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, who I cannot see in his place at the moment, said in an earlier debate that he was surprised it had lasted so long. It was trailed in our manifesto. I said from the Dispatch Box many times, as Leader of the Opposition on the other side, that if the House failed to pass the Bill that my noble friend Lord Grocott was suggesting to end the by-elections, the consequence would be a Bill of this kind.

This is where we are now. It is a chance—the noble Lord, Lord True, is absolutely right. Members of your Lordships’ House have an opportunity today to make a decision. Do they accept the words of the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, about an accident of birth followed by a by-election, as the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, says, or do they think that now this has to end? We are not criticising any individual Member—

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

Those are exactly the words I wrote; we can check Hansard later. The noble Lord’s amendment is a way to slow down the process so that all those Members remain here. I speak to my party’s manifesto commitment, which was made quite clear before the election, and urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness and all who have spoken in this debate. I will not detain the House much longer; we have debated this for many years. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for the interventions she has taken.

Frustratingly, however, today’s debate has rather missed the point. My Amendment 2, like the Bill from the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, is titled

“Abolition of by-elections for hereditary peers”.

If we pass this amendment, those by-elections will be permanently abolished. We have already discontinued them. There will be no new people coming to your Lordships’ House because they have inherited their title and won a hereditary Peers by-election. The noble Baroness takes exception to the phrase “accident of birth”; others have used other phrases. The principle is that, if we pass this amendment, the Government’s manifesto pledge to remove the right of hereditary Peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords can be fulfilled, but it can be fulfilled in a way that is kinder.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I took interventions, so the noble Lord can accept one and be helpful. He is wrong in his premise. Hereditary Peers would remain as hereditary Peers because all that happens in his amendment is that the by-elections will end permanently.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

But we will have ended their right to sit and vote in the Lords and they will leave in the same way as the rest of us, including the over 80s, who at some point, following the recommendations of a Select Committee, may leave your Lordships’ House as well. They will leave in a way that is consistent with the way the Law Lords continue to sit here until they choose to retire or leave through another means. They will leave in a way that is consistent with the way the Irish representative Peers left, after rendering great service to this country. This will be the first time that a category of Peer has been removed with no exceptions and no way back. The proposal is to do it at the end of this Session.

I am happy to continue to call this the Grocott No. 2 Bill, and I was glad that the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, spoke. We saved a space in the list of supporters in case he could be tempted to add his name. I understand why, after many years of campaigning, he is frustrated and has chosen not to. He said that he prefers the No. 2 Bill because it does the job more effectively. The question is: what is that job?

If the job is to expel the remaining hereditary Peers from your Lordships’ House as quickly as possible and to move on from the guarantee given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, in 1999 without any further reminder of it—we heard not a mention of it from the Leader of the House in her winding speech —then the No. 2 Bill does that job better. However, if the job is to improve the standing and function of your Lordships’ House, and to keep some of the expertise—not just on the Opposition Front Bench but those who serve as Chairmen of Committees and Deputy Speakers on the Woolsack; those who are the custodians of the conventions and kindnesses of this House—then the proposition put forward for many years by the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, and many other noble Lords from all corners of the House, is a better way of doing it.

I was raised to believe that it is never too late to do the right thing. If you are someone who, like the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, is exasperated that we have taken so long, or someone who has previously opposed it and rues that and repents now at leisure or if, like me, you are one of those 257 noble Lords who have never had the opportunity to vote for this kind of modest change that would allow us to say farewell to our colleagues in a more organic way, then I hope you will join me in the Division Lobby and support this amendment. I would like to test the opinion of the House on this matter; it has been too long since we last had that chance.

G7 and NATO Summits

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Tuesday 1st July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, the Statement improbably begins by discussing the Government’s woes on social security, which of course have absolutely nothing to do with its real subject matter. We welcome the Government’s U-turn there, but I do not think that this Statement is the context in which to discuss them, not least because they have been coming so thick and fast that I am afraid I cannot keep up.

There is a wide measure of agreement that the UK faces greater and more diverse security threats than it has for decades and that we are all greatly indebted to our Armed Forces and other government agencies that are working so hard and effectively to combat them. The headline outcome of the NATO summit was the commitment to spend 5% on national security. In the Statement, this is referred to as a “defence investment pledge”, but it clearly includes expenditure on many non-defence items.

In the national security strategy, the definition of “national security” includes

“the health of our economy … food prices … supply chains … safety on the streets”

and the online world. This definition seems so wide as to be virtually meaningless. Can the Minister explain what is within the definition? The Prime Minister says that we will reach 4.1% spending on it in 2027, so he must know how he reached that figure. Will the Government therefore give a breakdown of the 4.1% and then explain how they intend to get to the 5% by 2035?

One obvious item to include in the definition of expenditure that promotes national security is overseas development assistance, particularly in areas such as conflict prevention. To what extent is ODA included in the new definition of “national security” and do the Government have any plans to increase it as they increase all other aspects of security expenditure?

The Statement goes on to say that UK foreign policy

“answers directly to the concerns of working people”.

What specific concerns of working people are meant by that phrase? To what extent are working people affected by foreign policy in different ways from the rest of the population?

One of the biggest challenges ahead is not just to increase expenditure on national security but to ensure that the money is spent as effectively as possible. In that context, can the Minister explain why we are prioritising the purchase of 12 F35A jets capable of carrying nuclear weapons? These planes are extraordinarily expensive, even if they are not quite as expensive as the F35Bs, and for decades we have not judged it necessary to have this capability. As the noble Lord, Lord West, said at Questions earlier today, this change presumably means that we need at the very least to update our nuclear doctrine. Do the Government plan to do so? Will they publish any new doctrine when it has been adopted?

On Ukraine, we welcome the commitment to repeat last year’s commitment on expenditure and also the funding of additional air defence missiles from frozen Russian assets. Can the Minister confirm that this funding has come from the interest on those assets and that no progress has been made on freeing up the capital, which could be transformative to Ukraine’s success?

In the Commons, the Prime Minister said it was very difficult to access the capital because not all countries were in agreement on how to proceed. Estonia has proposed a way forward on this. Will the Minister commit to looking at Estonia’s proposals as a matter of urgency?

The Statement rightly stresses the need to build up the Armed Forces. So does the Minister accept that there is still a crisis of recruitment, particularly to the Army? Will the Government therefore look sympathetically at the Lib Dem proposal to pay a £10,000 signing-on bonus for new recruits as a way of rapidly boosting recruitment?

On Iran, we welcome the current ceasefire, but it needs to be made permanent. The Foreign Secretary recently met the Iranian Foreign Minister, along with EU counterparts, to promote a ceasefire. Do HMG foresee any future role for the UK in securing a longer- term solution?

Finally, on Gaza, we agree on the need for a quick ceasefire, but there is absolutely no sign of this. In the meantime, deaths and starvation continue. Our ability to affect events in Gaza is limited, but we could at the very least recognise the state of Palestine, which is a necessary precursor to a two-state solution. The Prime Minister says that the Government are waiting for the “right time” to do this. The fear is that in the Government’s view there will never be a right time. We should act now.

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

My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for their comments. I thought the noble Lord, Lord True, although he made an elegant entrance, enjoyed himself too much at my party’s expense. The focus of today, and what people are looking for in the Statement, was about the G7 and NATO.

I do not think we have seen such a complex and difficult international situation in the lifetime of most of us here. It is not an easy time. Across the world we have existing conflicts, new conflicts, and they seem to escalate quickly and change with new eruptions quickly. What we can do nationally and internationally to help bring peace trumps any other issue we may want to discuss, so I will focus on those issues.

I have to say that the noble Lord was uncharacteristically churlish about the role that the Prime Minister has played on the international stage. I can recall very early on in the days of this Government facing criticism from the party opposite about the Prime Minister going to international conferences, building relations with leaders of other countries, and I said at the time—and it still holds true and has proved to be true—that it is only by building up good relationships that you can have the difficult discussions when they are needed. My party and I are proud of the role that our Prime Minister is playing on the international stage, and I can remember when we have been less proud of a Prime Minister’s or Foreign Secretary’s role on the international stage. So, I make no apologies for the role he is playing. We are grateful to him for doing so.

The issue of the transformative and generational increase in defence spending by the NATO summit was really important. Five percent is greater than it has been for many years. I am surprised that the noble Lord, Lord True, was querying the new 1.5% target. The noble Lord, Lord Newby, raised this as well. It is almost impossible to divorce national security from resilience. They are both about our security, and our safety in this country is dependent on both. The idea that we could spend national resilience money on pylons for green energy is a frankly ridiculous point for the noble Lord to make. But we must ensure that we have supplies of energy throughout the country for business, domestic and military use.

We have seen what has happened in other countries when there has been a failure of supply of energy. It is vital that we maintain that. To try to make a political point about green energy and the environment is not what this is about. I hope the noble Lord will understand how important a role the issues of supply chains and energy play in national security and resilience. If he does not understand that, we can find more information for him that he might find it useful to look at.

The noble Lord asked specifically about finance. We went through this last week. We will have fully funded plans to increase defence spending in this Parliament from 2.6% from April 2027 to at least 4.1% of GDP on collective defence and security by 2027. That target, I said before, is 3.5% on core spending and 1.5% on security.

I also make no apology for the Chagos deal. I have said this before: the idea that a country would spend a lot of money—and it is a lot of money—if it did not consider it vital and essential to national security is, quite frankly, a ludicrous argument to make. It is because it is so essential that the Government have been prepared to spend the money. We should recognise that and recognise the importance of it. When noble Lords talk about the cost of living, I will take no lessons from a party that gave us the Liz Truss Budget, which did so much damage to the people in this country and to the cost of living. The noble Lord can mutter away, but it really affected the economy of this country, with working people up and down the country seeing their bills and their mortgages rising dramatically.

The noble Lord also asked about the trade deal with the US. Yes, the tariffs were of enormous concern. The fact that we have managed to get them down to the levels they are is something that has been achieved by negotiation and would not have happened otherwise. The noble Lord also made a rather strange point about the F35A. He may have only heard some of the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker. Yes, they are less expensive than the F35Bs. That means that the money is available for other defence spending. He made that point earlier today. The fact they are cheaper is an asset rather than something to complain about.

I thank the noble Lord, however, for his comments about the Government’s comments on the BBC. Those who watched Glastonbury were quite shocked at the comments that were made by one particular group. The BBC does have questions to answer on why it did not act more quickly. Lessons should be learned from that.

I am just trying to read my handwriting, which can sometimes be difficult. The noble Lord, Lord Newby, asked about the crisis in recruitment to the Army. It has been a serious issue. I can remember days when you would go down the high street and there would be an Army recruitment shop. In our schools and colleges there were people looking to recruit to the Armed Forces, and a number of my friends joined up. We have not picked the noble Lord’s suggestion of a golden handshake, as it were, but I am assured by my noble friend Lord Coaker that they are working at pace on this issue. They recognise that something has be done to make up the numbers that fell to such a dangerous level under the last Government.

I think I have addressed most of the questions. If I have missed anything, I am sure we will come back to it. These summits are just so important for countries working together. It is clear that, for some of the most dangerous places in the world—places of conflict—the only way forward will be negotiated arrangements and settlements, and working towards peace at pace.

[Lord Beamish (Lab)]

My Lords, I attended last week’s NATO summit in The Hague, as a vice president of the NATO PA. I must say to the noble Lord, Lord True, that that is not the position I saw in terms of UK standing. I saw a country that is now again respected and is working very closely with all its allies to engage in the important fight against Russia. In meetings with heads of delegations and foreign Defence Ministers, they all commended the UK on the leadership it has taken, including that of our Prime Minister.

The position of increased expenditure is welcome, but one of the issues that is very important in terms of the fight against the Russian invasion of Ukraine is its financial ability to rearm. So what more can be done to ensure that sanctions do bite and that we ensure that the rearming of Russia is thwarted?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord. Certainly, his impressions of the leadership that the Prime Minister has shown chimes with what I have heard from other people at similar conferences. In fact, in our support for Ukraine, the Prime Minister was able to bring European leaders and others into London in support of President Zelensky. Indeed, immediately after the NATO statement, President Zelensky came to London and met the Prime Minister and the Speakers of both Houses. This gives a sense of the leadership that is shown, and also of how close our relationship is with Ukraine.

On sanctions, he is absolutely right. First, he will be aware of the money that has been spent—I cannot immediately recall the amount. As the noble Lord, Lord Levy, said, it is from the interest on the Russian assets. I will come back to that point. It is the interest on those assets that has been used to provide more weapons, including missiles, for Ukraine. It is important that we do that. The Government are still working at pace and have not ruled out legal action to ensure that we can get access to that money for Ukraine where it is needed.

The noble Lord made a point about sanctions. It is an important point. The UK has now introduced new sanctions that target Russia’s shadow fleet. We have blacklisted 20 additional vessels, as well as 10 individuals linked to the country’s energy and shipping sectors. Again, we have seen our partners also taking decisive action. Canada has listed over 200 vessels, and the EU has moved forward with its 18th sanctions package at some pace as well. So, sanctions are an important tool in the armoury supporting Ukraine against Russia. We must never forget the danger that is posed to the Ukrainian people. The Ukrainian people are at the forefront of the fight for freedom that all of us have to respect and know that we can also be in danger if we do not protect Ukraine.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, I agree with the Minister that leadership on the international stage is crucial, and I welcome the Prime Minister’s attendance at both conferences because you have to be present at the most senior level to ensure that your voice is heard. There is a deep symbolism in the role that the United Kingdom plays on the world stage.

On Ukraine, I am sure the Minister will equally recognise the leadership of successive Governments and the solidarity across all parts of your Lordships’ House on the importance of standing with Ukraine. In that respect, can she share some of the specific conversations that have taken place with our colleagues in the United States on getting peace in Ukraine, in particular on the role of the United Kingdom’s leverage with the Ukrainians, the respect we have and the new relationship that President Trump has forged with President Putin to bring this conflict to an end? I draw attention to my work as chair of the International Communities Organisation, which is committed to resolving conflict around the world.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. His work in this area is particularly respected by this House. It has been a strength of the UK’s response that, whichever party is in government, we have been united across the divide but also across both Houses. I know the noble Lord was there when President Zelensky visited our Parliament. He spoke to both Houses and some of us were privileged to meet him afterwards. You get a sense of not just the huge pressure but, for a man who could never have expected to be in the position he is in, how he has responded to that. That is why he has received acclamation around the world for the stand he has taken.

The noble Lord is right about the symbolism of the UK’s role in this. It is important that we maintain that special relationship with the US, because it is so important to support for Ukraine. There is ongoing dialogue. The ongoing conversations and meetings that the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have had with American officials have been important in that regard. They will continue. I think the whole House will say that we should not at any point detract from or retract our support for Ukraine in any way. We will urge others constantly to ensure that support remains solid, robust and united.

[Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for what she said about Glastonbury and the BBC, but it should be remembered that more than one act engaged in vile, pro-violence, pro-terror remarks. This Kneecap outfit from Belfast also needs to be condemned and called out for their pro-terrorism activities.

I also welcome what the Prime Minister said about aligning security objectives and plans for economic growth and renewing industrial communities, but given that the Northern Ireland aerospace and defence sectors contribute an estimated £2.2 billion to the economy, will the Minister decry and deplore the remarks today of the Sinn Féin Economy Minister, who said that money should not be spent on defence at all but on public services, whatever that means? Can she ensure that, despite the ideological nonsense of Sinn Féin and the way it behaves, Northern Ireland’s vital defence industries and the people who are contributing so much will be worked with, because this is important for our security and our economy?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I do not know whether the noble Lord was in the House when Kneecap was raised previously, but I strongly condemned their behaviour at that time and continue to do so. On the other issue he raises, it seems to me that the greatest public service that any Government provide is to keep their citizens safe. That includes, as I said before, defence spending and resilience. Citizens who work in the Armed Forces or our defence industry take on a public service to keep people in this country safe, and we should support them in doing that. I know Northern Ireland has an important defence industry. To say that it is less important does not recognise the threats the world faces at this time. I think we would all love an ideal world where there were no threats, no violence and no areas of conflict, and we did not spend money on defence. That is not the real world. We have to protect our citizens. If we fail to do that, we fail in the first duty of any Government.

[Lord Harper (Con)]

My Lords, in his Statement, the Prime Minister linked economic security, national security and what he called social security. He said that welfare reform was urgent and that the system was failing people every single day. Is not what has happened at the other end of the building a demonstration that the Government’s credibility is shot to pieces? They have literally taken out of that legislation almost all the reforms that they proposed, so their credibility is damaged on that important issue. That matters to our defence commitments, because our credibility in promising that increase in expenditure in the rest of the Statement is now damaged because the Government have demonstrated that they cannot find those savings. That demonstrates that those things are connected. The Government’s credibility is damaged, not just on welfare reform but reputationally on these important national security issues as well.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

The noble Lord will not be surprised that I fundamentally disagree with the point he made. Every time our Government have made a commitment to defence spending, we have kept that commitment. That is an absolute commitment. The noble Lord wants to tie that in with welfare reform. I have not heard anybody say that the situation that this Government inherited on social security and welfare spending is not one that needs to change. There are many measures within that Bill that practically everybody in the other place has supported. An example is the idea that somebody who gets a PIP and is disabled who wants to try to work should not go to the back of the queue and have to go through the system again if working fails. They should be able to try work to see whether it is suitable for them. The system that we have inherited needs change, and that change will continue.

The Bill has passed tonight. People agreed on the issue of reform. They now want to look at the detail. That is the process of legislation. The noble Lord was a Chief Whip in the other place. He knows how the process of legislation works. He lost enough votes himself to recognise how difficult it can be. What can never be accepted is that it is right to write some people off in the system and say that, even though they want to work, we are not going to help them to do so. Those are the measures that we are going to put in place. To link this to the Prime Minister’s comments about economic, national and social security, all these things make up what is good about life, the importance of life and the resilience we all need. Our safety, our resilience and how we treat the nation all link together, and that is how you have a healthy society that supports each other.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

My Lords, we should be relieved that we have a Prime Minister who is taking a leading role in the world, where we are and are seen to be a force for good. The UK is a leader on the world stage again. I welcome the Statement, including the fact that there is now an opportunity to push for a ceasefire in Gaza. In the meantime, my noble friend may be aware that more than 170 charities and other NGOs have today called for the controversial aid distribution scheme in Gaza, run by the Israeli and US-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, to be shut down. Will our Government make the case to ensure that, in future, aid is once again distributed by UN organisations?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is absolutely right. Noble Lords may recall that, when this issue was raised in the House in a Question that I answered a few weeks ago, I said that we had grave concerns about trying to set up an alternative to the tried and tested methods. Aid agencies that had working in Gaza, desperately trying to get enough aid in, were not being used. We know that there were pretty devastating consequences. To deal with that part of the region, the hostages must be released, aid must get into Gaza and then there has to be negotiation. The only way these issues can be resolved is through negotiation and discussion. It is hard work. I entirely agree with the noble Baroness’s point. The aid agencies are absolutely right: they know what matters and how best to get aid to those who need it. They just need to be allowed to do so.

[Lord Verdirame (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Leader of the House for that statement. The Statement says that we need to

“ensure a complete, verifiable and irreversible end to Iran’s nuclear programme”.

Israel identified two existential threats arising from Iran. One was the nuclear programme; the other was the ICBM programme. First, what is our assessment of the extent of the damage caused by the Israeli and US strikes on those two programmes? Secondly, is it also our policy that Iran should not resume the production of ICBMs on the scale at which it was doing before the strikes?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

The answer to the noble Lord’s second question is yes, we do think that. Our assessment, which has been quite widely covered, is that the damage done was significant. We are strongly of the view, and I think it is a worldwide view, that Iran cannot have nuclear weapons. The danger to the world of Iran having nuclear weapons is enormous. Therefore, the point that he makes about the damage done to those facilities is important.

[Lord Liddle (Lab)]

My Lords, I welcome what the Lord Privy Seal has said about Ukraine, the role of the Americans in Ukraine and—if I might add—the role of the British in keeping the Americans onside in support of Ukraine. But is it not the case that, if one looks at this period as a historical episode, what is most significant is the agreement to European rearmament?

All the nations, with the exception of Spain, have agreed to this very bold defence target, led by Chancellor Merz of Germany, the new Chancellor. This European rearmament is crucial, and it is something of which we have to be a part. There are industrial opportunities and jobs there. It is very interesting to see that Europe has opened its defence market to Canada. Can I have an assurance that we will work closely with our NATO EU allies on making sure that the best use is made of the funds for rearmament, and that the threat of Putin can be repelled?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

The noble Lord makes a really important point. What it comes down to is that if we were to let Putin succeed in Ukraine, the deterrent effect of NATO’s plans would be fatally compromised, so we have to harden our resolve. He mentioned the industrial opportunities, and there are those industrial opportunities, but the work we are doing with NATO and the UK-EU pact shows a real determination that we are not going to let Putin succeed.

It is a change, is it not? For many years now, we have taken defence and security for granted. More people now realise that the world is becoming a more dangerous place. The role that we play as a nation, and that our Prime Minister plays on the world stage—of being thoughtful and considered, of looking to broker peace and trying to get negotiations—is all the more crucial, but there has to be that defence capability to back that up.

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend the Leader of the House for bringing forward this Statement. It strikes me that some of the carping that we have heard from the Leader of the Opposition here today rather misses the point of what has been happening in the last few weeks. We have had a series of strategies and statements issued by the Government in a number of different areas. Following on from the defence review, we have had an industrial strategy, a trade strategy and a national security strategy. These are all beginning to form a cohesive whole, which demonstrates that what we are trying to do as a nation is bring all these policies together in the interests of protecting our country and its people. Is that not a very positive element and one of the things that we should read from the way in which the Prime Minister is able to operate on the world stage in these areas?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

The noble Lord makes an important point about how these strategies have formed together. The changes across the world, in the strategic defence of the world and how we have to respond to that, are really important. If we look at the industrial strategy and our national security strategy, on which I spoke last week, we see the linkages there and how they work together.

The defence spending review is something that we should be really proud of. We are able to take that, build on it and use our strategies to deliver it. As they link together, you see a cohesive whole. As the noble Lord, Lord Harper, said, these things do link together in how we protect our nation. If we do not draw all these links together, we will be weaker and poorer for it.

National Security Strategy

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Thursday 26th June 2025 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 made in another place by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. The Statement is as follows:

“Today, the Prime Minister attends the opening day of the NATO summit. That summit is expected to agree a new commitment to grow spending on national security to 5% of GDP by 2035, to be made up by a projected split of 3.5% on core defence spending and 1.5% on broader resilience and security spending. This will mark a new resolve among NATO members to make our countries stronger and, as we have always done before, the United Kingdom will play our part.

NATO’s member countries meet at a time when the security situation is more in flux than at any time in a generation—a time when Ukraine is in its fourth year of resisting Russian invasion; a time when we in Europe have been asked to do more to secure our own defences; and a time when security can no longer be thought of as just the traditional realms of air, sea and land but as technology, cyber and the strength of our democratic society.

As we have seen in recent days, it has been a time of renewed military action in the Middle East, with Israel and the United States acting to try to stop Iran developing a nuclear bomb. News of a ceasefire is welcome, but, as we have seen even in recent hours, the situation remains fragile. The focus must now be on a credible plan to stop Iran developing nuclear weapons.

It is of great pride to my party that NATO was founded in the aftermath of the Second World War with the strong support of the post-war Labour Government. Ernest Bevin, the Labour Foreign Secretary at the time, said

‘we must face the facts as they are’.—[Official Report, Commons, 22/1/1948; col. 386.]

Today, in this very different age, we too must face the facts as they are. The generation that founded NATO saw it as a powerful expression of collective security and solidarity: alliances abroad matched by capacity at home. Our national security strategy, published today and made for these very different times, is inspired by those same values and aims.

Every Member of this House understands that the first duty of any Government is to keep the country safe. That is and always will be our number one priority, and the national security strategy sets out how we will do that. The world has changed fundamentally and continues to change before our eyes. This is indeed an age of radical uncertainty, and the leadership challenge in times of such change is to understand, respond and explain. The British people understand that. They recognise that we are living in a world that is more confrontational, turbulent and unpredictable than most of us have experienced in our lifetimes.

When the Prime Minister spoke to the House in February, he promised to produce a national security strategy that would match the scale of the task ahead, and the published strategy does that with a plan that is both clear-eyed and hard-edged about the challenges we face. It sets out a long-term vision about how we will do three crucial things. First, we will protect security at home by defending our territory, controlling our borders and making the UK a harder target for our enemies, one that is stronger and more resilient to future threats.

Secondly, we will promote strength abroad. This means bolstering our collective security, renewing and refreshing our key alliances and developing new partnerships in strategic locations across the world. It also means a clear-eyed view of how we engage with major powers such as China, where we must protect our national security and promote our economic interests. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary will make a further Statement on the China audit shortly.

Thirdly, we will increase our sovereign and asymmetric capabilities. We are building our defence industries, training our people, focusing investment on our competitive strengths and using our exceptional research and innovation base to build up advantages in new frontier technologies.

All this will make us a stronger and more resilient country, but delivering on each of those commitments will be possible only if all parts of society are pulling in the same direction. Our manufacturing, science and technology industries have to be aligned with national security objectives. Our industrial strategy will help to play to the UK’s strengths and deepen our capabilities. The investments that we announced in the spending review also deepen our resilience and strength as a country.

A health service strong enough to cope, safe and secure energy supplies, modern housing and transport for our people—all these contribute to a strong United Kingdom. That is why it is so important that all parts of the Government and business, big and small, understand that cyber security is national security, and that our core systems and the revenues of business are being targeted by our adversaries. It is why we as legislators have to ensure that our own laws, from borders to trade, fit with national security. That will take a whole-system approach that reflects today’s reality. National security means strong supply chains, controls on immigration, tackling online harm, energy security, economic security and border security. It transcends both foreign and domestic policy, and it all plays a role in how we make Britain a safer, more secure and more sovereign nation.

The document provides the blueprint of how that fits together. The strategy brings together everything we are doing across the full spectrum of national security: the commitment to spend 5% of our domestic economic output on national security by 2035, meeting our NATO commitments once again; the more than £1 billion that we are investing in a new network of national biosecurity centres; how we are stepping up in areas like cyber capabilities; our anti-corruption strategy to counter illicit finance and corruption; the expansion of our legal and law enforcement toolkit; the largest sustained investment in our Armed Forces since the Cold War; our plan to unlock real benefits for working people from this defence investment; how we prioritise NATO explicitly in our defence planning; a vision not only for deepening our alliances with the US and the EU but for growing our relationships with other emerging nations; the money we are investing in our brilliant research and development base over the coming years, such as the £750 million to be invested in a supercomputer at Edinburgh University; and our ambition to gain a competitive advantage in cutting-edge technologies and to embed national security in our agenda for artificial intelligence.

We do not underestimate the size of this task. The world is a more dangerous place than at any time since the end of the Cold War, yet it is also a place where Britain’s values, capabilities and alliances can make a positive difference. Since we came to power, we have taken a step-after-step approach to prepare Britain for what lies ahead: record investment in defence, backing our allies and resisting the false choices put before us that would only have weakened and diminished our country. This strategy represents an important contribution to all that work. It recognises that our long-term growth, prosperity and living standards all depend on national security becoming a way of life for people and businesses in the UK. This is a plan for how we protect the British people. It is a plan for today’s times but rooted in long-held values, and it is a plan to defend our national interests, deepen our international alliances and increase our sovereign capabilities. I commend it to the House”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I also thank the Leader for repeating the Statement. Most people in our country take for granted the liberties and freedoms we enjoy. In a way, that is a good thing, as they do not need to concern themselves with the need for vigilance against the threats we face. We enjoy our way of life as a result of the tireless work of those who have dedicated their careers to making us safe, and I pay tribute to them. Many distinguished servants of commitment are represented in this House, and I thank them too.

We therefore support a great deal in this strategy—its judgment on the threats we face and the changing security landscape, both in potential conflicts and in the emerging dangers through technological change, and the need to address them across all of government, the economy and society as a whole. There should be, of course, a high level of cross-party support. I hope the Government will bring regular updates with clear action plans of the many workstreams that fed into this strategy so that we can monitor and appraise for progress.

In many ways, the UK has a unique security need. But in many others, we can act as a global, open and interconnected country only if we secure the support and partnership of others. As an island nation, our shipping and data cables keep our economy alive. We were the first country to lay subsea communication cables, 175 years ago. Today we are almost exclusively reliant on them for communications. Shipping contributed to our growth in the Industrial Revolution, and today our consumers are reliant on shipped imports and key sectors on shipped exports.

This is why, for example, I was very happy to see Taiwan mentioned in paragraph 21. Taiwanese security and the openness of the South China Sea are critical to our technology industry and wider trade. I welcome the aircraft carrier task group currently in the region. It is a key shipping route, essential for our economy. I will refer to China a little later, but the Leader of the House may not agree with me on those aspects.

We agree that the way forward comes with the need for increased defence and lethal capability. We support the Government on increased defence expenditure, as the Leader knows. It would be helpful if she could indicate the breakdown of the sources of the 5%. What is the assumed level of growth of the size of the economy to meet the level of expenditure we expect to be necessary?

We do not depart from the level of funding, but we do say, with respect to the Government, that it should not have been transferred from the official development assistance budget. With respect, this is a strategic mistake, and we are seeing considerable reductions in programmes that have been part of the UK national security platform, and successfully so, for many years. It is no surprise to me that, in recent weeks, we have seen public statements from former defence and military leaders and chiefs, diplomats, and heads of the intelligence community of the UK, appealing to the Prime Minister not to cut the very programmes that have been national security focused in conflict prevention and conflict resolution, and in supporting allies to build resilient civil society and institutions against malign interference.

The western Balkans is rightly raised in the strategy. Twice in the Chamber I have asked for clarity on the continuation of the western Balkans freedom and resilience programme, funded by ODA. I hope that it is not under threat. If the Leader can provide reassurance on our posture within the western Balkans, that would be appreciated.

The FCDO network and our excellent diplomats were raised, and rightly so. I welcome what was said, but we have to recall that, in the spending review, there are year-on-year cuts to the operational budget of the FCDO going forward.

On other threats, such as biosecurity, I agree that we are less of an island than many might hope. Last night, I looked back at the UK’s first biological security strategy in 2018. DfID and ODA were mentioned on almost every single page—a recognition that biosecurity in the UK is weakened if it is also weak in countries where we have a large diaspora community or travel relationship. There was a reason why, 10 years ago, Ebola did not become Covid: it was because of the UK, through DfID and ODA. But this document makes no mention of it at all. In fact, with regards to official development assistance, there is only the most passing reference in paragraph 30.

We welcome the elements on research and development and the reconnection with Europe to regain the ground that we lost considerably under the previous Government. Page 11 says that we will go

“further than the agreements we have already struck”

with the EU. That is good news. In what areas will new agreements be sought?

We will consider the China audit next week, but the Leader may know that we on these Benches are concerned about the Government’s approach. In January, the Chancellor hailed £600 million of growth to our economy from extra trade with China over the next five years. In June, the Government announced £600 million for security agencies to tackle the threat from China. This is literally a zero-sum relationship this year. We would like to see legislative action on transnational repression suffered by people living here in the UK. The director-general of MI5 has made public warnings that China exploits education agreements and sovereign funds for espionage on an industrial scale. Although we welcome the first scheme, the noble Lord, Lord Hanson, has heard me say that we regret both that China is not on the enhanced tier and that education and sovereign funds are exempted.

Finally, I want to look further to the future. The convulsive violence in the Middle East, Sudan and elsewhere will have a lingering effect here in the UK. Community cohesion and reducing tensions will now have to be a critical part of our national security strategy, because we know from previous conflicts that there is a lag, whereby young people affected by it now may well be radicalised in the years to come. Activities such as the Chamberlain Highbury Trust that bring communities together are examples of good work that we are doing in the UK, but, regrettably, as a result of the heightened conflicts that this strategy rightly seeks to address, we may well see further radicalisation within our shores in the future. Investment now is necessary so that we do not pay the price later.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord for their comments. I will do my best to respond to as many as possible in the time available.

Both were right to recognise the work of our security services but also of those in our embassies and diplomats overseas. The noble Lord rightly raised soft power. The soft power embedded in our embassies and the work that they do can never be underestimated; it is an absolutely vital part of keeping the country safe and improving relations across the world.

The noble Baroness was uncharacteristically a little uncharitable to describe this as “a wing and a prayer”. This is a serious strategy document, and it brings together numerous other documents that the Government have been working on—some of which have already been presented to this House. The industrial strategy is part of that, but there are a number of them. This is not a wing and a prayer; it is a serious commitment. Both noble Lords talked about the 5%. The noble Lord’s point at the end of his comments was important. In looking at our national security, what happens here at home—community cohesion but also the resilience of our infrastructure—is equally as important as what we do overseas. This is not a wing and a prayer; it is an absolute commitment to these figures.

The NATO pledge commits to hitting a headline ambition of 5%, and we are talking about the Parliament after next, in 2035-36. Some 1.5% of that is around security and resilience spending and homeland security and resilience, which is an important part of national security, and 3.5% is core defence spending. We estimate that we will get to over 4%—about 4.1%—the year after next, and that information will become clearer. What is important in all this is that it is a collective national enterprise, as I have said, across industry, business, our embassies and the work here. This is an overarching strategy, at home and abroad.

The noble Baroness asked whether the Government are confident and a number of questions about the China audit. That is the reason why we are having the China audit: those are questions that must be addressed. Whether we are talking about energy infrastructure or anything else—I am sure we will have further questions on this—our relationship with China is one of the most complex bilateral relationships we have in the entire world. There have been various ways of looking at this in the past. There was the golden era, where we said, “Yes, we’re going to work very closely with China”, and then, moving back from that, there was a lack of engagement. Neither of those approaches serves the national interest in the way that we wish. That is why we have the China audit. We have to manage the security implications and our concerns about that but also the economic relationship that we have.

I thank the noble Lord for referring to Taiwan. That relationship is a commitment in the document. I admire his ingenuity—each time he speaks about ODA, he picks a different region that he wants a commitment on. He will understand that, as we travel around the world, if he adds all those up he will get to a point where we are committed to completely the same level of ODA. I know that would be his objective, but I cannot satisfy him on that point and I cannot give him some of the details, as they are still being worked out. The noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, is engaged on work on the global health fund as we speak.

I say to the noble Lord that how we work with other countries, improve their resilience and support them is not just about ODA. My noble friend Lord Collins has spoken about this before; he was telling me earlier about meetings that he has with African leaders. What do they want from us? They want our support for economic diversification. They want our support for levering in private funding for business, so that they can grow their economies. They want us to facilitate and enable. All that work continues, and it is vital that it does. Our relationship with the City of London and supporting them on that also makes a real difference. I assure the noble Lord that those things will continue.

The issue of the Middle East was raised. This has been of enormous concern to Members across the House, and we have had a number of debates on the issue. It is clear that Iran cannot be producing nuclear weapons that put the world at risk, and we are absolutely committed to that. But the noble Lord is right that this plays out in what happens in this country: we see conflict abroad playing out on the streets of London and major cities and towns across the UK. That brings a responsibility to government and the whole nation as well, which is why that 1.5% of the 5% funding is so important. I do not think the noble Baroness touched on this point, but resilience happens in a number of ways: it is our food resilience, energy resilience, telecoms resilience and business resilience. Marks & Spencer had a cyberattack—I am sure there are more noble Lords than me who have not been able to use their Sparks card. The most important thing is the damage that that has done to the economy and to that business. The damage to people’s confidence in dealing with the business is considerable. In all these areas, resilience is crucial.

The noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, emphasised that we need to know exactly where the money is coming from—what is happening on this pound and that pound. More of this will become available as the spending review information is fed out, but this is a commitment and she should not doubt it in any way. I hope that all noble Lords will recognise that if we want to keep the country safe and secure, the first duty of any Government is the safety and security of their citizens, at home and abroad. I am sorry that she thinks this is, to use her words, on a wing and a prayer; I fail to accept that.

The noble Baroness mentioned the money to be spent on Chagos. Governments do not spend this kind of money lightly. They will do so only if they are absolutely confident that it is in the national interest to do so. We have taken the view, and the evidence supports this, that it is absolutely in our security interests as a nation that we have this deal around the Diego Garcia base. That is why we have done the deal. Some of the figures given out are wildly inaccurate. We will have a longer debate on this on Monday, but we are committed to this for absolutely the right reasons, which are national security and national safety.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, describes Iran, North Korea, China and Russia as “a deadly quartet”, all of which have sanctioned Members of the British Parliament, including Members of your Lordships’ House. China, as we have just heard, continues to intimidate Taiwan, to commit genocide against Uyghurs, to incarcerate pro-democracy advocates in Hong Kong, and to use slave labour and transnational repression, both of which subjects are currently under investigation by the Joint Committee on Human Rights of this Parliament. We should not use the deepening of trade as an excuse for diminishing our awareness and response to the threat China poses, which is why Parliament should have been able to see the findings of the China audit and why China should be in the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme.

I have two brief questions for the Leader. First, is the planned £600 million investment in the intelligence and security services a direct result of the findings of the audit? If it is, surely that underlines the reasons for serious concern. Secondly, regarding the mega-embassy, the Prime Minister said in his meeting with Xi Jinping during the G20 last year:

“You raised the Chinese embassy building in London when we spoke on the telephone and we have since taken action by calling in that application”.


Will the Leader confirm that the call-in was as a result of the phone call with Xi Jinping?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

The noble Lord has great respect in this House for his commitment to these issues. I cannot confirm his final point at all. However, I think that the heart of his question is how seriously we take the threat from China, which is absolutely clear from the document. Indeed, this was raised in the House of Commons this week by David Lammy, the Foreign Secretary, when he spoke on the China audit and referred to a quote, which I will quote as well, on page 28 of the strategic defence review. I do not think that we can see this review alone: as I said, it is an overarching review. It states:

“China: a sophisticated and persistent challenge. China is increasingly leveraging its economic, technological, and military capabilities, seeking to establish dominance in the Indo-Pacific, erode US influence, and put pressure on the rules-based international order”.


I endorse and agree with that statement.

The noble Lord asks if our economic relationship undermines our commitment to security. I give him a categoric assurance that that is not the case. We have to manage both relationships, but security is first and foremost: it is of enormous concern, as he will know. We recognise, and I think it is highlighted in the strategy, that China is increasingly eroding the rules that have governed the international system. I do not think we have had a China audit before, but if we look at the history of our relationship with China, under a previous Government—I think it was in the Cameron era—it was a very close relationship. We then moved to not engaging at all. That is not a satisfactory way to proceed. It comes back to the Ernie Bevin quote: we have to deal with the world as it is and the threats that exist now. I give the noble Lord the assurance that we stand by what is in the strategic defence review and we stand by what is in the national security strategy to protect Taiwan.

[Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

My Lords, my noble friend the Leader will be aware that the National Risk Register, published in January, classifies a future pandemic as the catastrophic risk with the highest likelihood of happening. The defence review identifies engineering biology and new pathogens as a clear and present risk. The publication of the strategy came on the same day as the Foreign Secretary announced a contribution of £1.25 billion into the resources of Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance. Thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, we all now know about—or have had our memories refreshed on—the level of investment that the Government have promised to support the new network of national biosecurity centres. I consider all that to be security investment but, in the latter case, over what period will the £1 billion sustain these new centres?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend for reiterating that security is more than just foreign security; it is also health security. One of the issues with Covid was the lack of preparedness within the NHS. We are working on that at pace. A significant preparedness exercise is about to be undertaken and we will again test the emergency alert system. We inherited a number of laboratories in a very poor condition so that their future was in doubt. That is why the investment in biosecurity is so important. So, there is the new biosecurity centre at Weybridge, with £208 million committed to that work over the next two years, but there has to be a complete network of biosecurity centres around the country. That is about disease, but it is also about health and animal products, our imports, and ensuring that we can foster innovation so we know what is coming next and can work towards it, including productivity. The £1 billion is across the current spending review period, which is three years, and it will be reviewed at the end of that period.

[Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)]

Does the noble Baroness agree that the growing Commonwealth network, with its people involvement at all levels, its unifying soft power—and indeed, increasingly, its hard power, as we have recently seen—and its maritime data integration powers, is a key part of our national security, our influence and our adaptation to a totally changed security world that is going on around us? Can she direct me to the page in the strategy where all this is mentioned? I cannot find it.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I am sure the noble Lord has looked very carefully to find it, so this question of which page might be rhetorical. No, I cannot direct him to a page, but if he looks across the range of documents we have produced he will know how much we value relationships. He is right to emphasise the importance of soft power, including that of the Commonwealth. One of the problems we have had in the past is that our relationship with Europe has had to be reset and renewed. Our relationship with America is one that we value, as, of course, are those across the world, including with the Commonwealth. We must have, build and value those relationships. It is not just soft power; it is actually a harder-edged thing as well. I will find it in some documents at some point, I am sure, but the noble Lord has only to hear Ministers speak to know how much that relationship is valued.

[Lord Houghton of Richmond (CB)]

My Lords, I congratulate the Government on the strategy, which is both considered and sobering. It is considered because it strikes all the right balances between reinvesting in the conventional deterrents through NATO—the deterrence of Russia by NATO—and building resilience domestically, on which it is strong. The defining feature of the strategy is that it is a fundamentally grim read. It cuts out any niceties or talk of values and looks as though it has been written to give society an enhanced sense of threat awareness and prepare it for some hard choices.

My first question is: has it been written for that purpose? If so, I further congratulate the Government on it, because the threat awareness of society needs enhancing. Secondly, does the Minister appreciate the degree to which the slowness with which investment is made—with, as the noble Baroness opposite said earlier, very little in the lifetime of this Parliament and most of it in the imagined world of the next—undermines that message? Is it too much for me to hope that somewhere within government there is a hope that this investment might be accelerated?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble and gallant Lord. It is interesting to hear the cheers from the party opposite to his last point, because this is a generational increase in defence spending that the previous Government did not match, although their members are calling for us to go faster and further now, which we always want to do. It is worth noting that, under NATO’s new estimate, we think we will get to over 4% by the year after next.

The noble and gallant Lord made an interesting point that I had not thought of because I was not involved in the drafting of the document. The purpose is different, but he is right that we have to not only make this an issue for government but give a real understanding of how the nature of threats is changing and how we have to work across all branches of government, including local government, and society as a whole. He is right in saying that the document draws that out. It is a grim read, but in some ways it is also an encouraging read, because unless you recognise the threats and understand what you are facing, it is very hard to address them.

What came across when I read it was where the linkages are with other actions across government—whether it is the Department of Health looking at resilience or the industrial strategy looking at resilience, they link together. The strategic defence review has been so important to this country, and I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, and his co-reporters on this. Without that strategic defence review, this document would have been weaker. It has helped to define some of the threats we face and looks at ways to address them. But if assurance is needed, I can give the noble and gallant Lord absolute assurance that we will do everything we can to not only reach these spending levels but, through other avenues of government, enhance the impact they will have.

[Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)]

My Lords, I welcome the wide-ranging nature of this strategy. However, somewhat surprisingly, the National Security Council is not mentioned anywhere, as far as I could see. Can the Leader say what the role of the National Security Council will be in the delivery of the strategy? How will government departments be supported to meet shared security objectives—as she said, it is a collective endeavour—and how will they be held accountable?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

The committee that the noble Baroness referred to is a Cabinet committee and is always engaged in these issues. On the question of who is accountable, at the end of the day the Prime Minister is accountable. Through him, the Foreign Secretary, the Defence Secretary and the Home Secretary all have a really important role in delivering the strategy. As has been said, this is not for one department or one person to deal with; it is a collective government effort and if we fail to bring them together in the correct way, we will not meet the objectives of the strategy. The noble Baroness is right. I do not know exactly what role the National Security Council will have, but it will be key. We want to be held to account on this document, and we will hold ourselves to account through the Prime Minister.

[Lord Grantchester (Lab)]

My Lords, in these dangerous times, will my noble friend the Leader of the House also emphasise the importance of food security to an island nation that produces little more than 60% of its food needs? Can she explain how the Government are redrawing the perception that, as long as cheap food can be accepted and accessed from anywhere in the world, it is to be welcomed, at the expense of the long-term sustainability of home-grown, profitable and healthy food?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend for that. As a farmer, he will have more experience on these issues. On food security for the nation, we talk about cheap food, but I think that most people going to the supermarket these days are seeing prices rise significantly. In earlier questions, climate change was debunked as being something that we just have to deal with, but it has a huge impact on our food security, and that it why it is also part of the strategy.

Supporting farmers on this is key in two ways, the first of which is through our trade agreements. Some of the trade agreements under the previous Government, in particular those with Australia and New Zealand, undermined some of the work being done by farmers in this country. For us, in our agreements with the US and the EU, the welfare standards in which our farmers in this country have invested have been a red line in doing trade deals. My noble friend will also be aware that the noble Baroness, Lady Batters, is leading a new farming profitability unit, tasked with recommending to us how we can reform to increase productivity and work with farmers on that.

It would be remiss of me not to mention the SPS—sanitary and phytosanitary—agreement with the EU, which is making imports and particularly exports much easier and better for our farmers, again increasing their profitability. It is a shame that was not agreed sooner after Brexit.

I could mention other things that I think would be helpful in looking at the profitability of our farmers and ensuring our food stability, including a £110 million investment in new technologies to help farmers increase the profitability and produce of their farms and to help them with seasonal workers. There are a number of ways to address this, but to reflect again on the theme of wider government engagement, the work going on in flood defences and flood protection and the work we are doing to bring down the price of energy should all help our food production and national security issues.

[Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a member of the Army Board. A recent sobering poll showed that fewer than one in three Britons would be prepared to fight for their country. What specific steps are the Government taking to ensure a whole-society approach to national security?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

The noble Lord is right to raise this. There has been quite a fall-off in recruitment to the Armed Forces. I remember the days when the Army had a town-centre presence, where people could go to be recruited. That has been lost, and we are bringing together that recruitment as a whole. As the noble Lord opposite said earlier, most people today do not think about what the threats are, because we feel safe and we have got used to that feeling. There needs to be a resetting so that people understand that there are threats and want to play their part in protecting and serving the nation. I like to talk about people not wanting to fight for their country but wanting to serve and protect their country. We need to provide greater opportunities for people to want to play a part in that, but also show them what can be done. A lot of the work in the Armed Forces brings a whole load of issues around the skills they need and their resilience for the country, all of which will be crucial. We are committed to improving the recruitment levels that we have seen over past years.

[Lord Craig of Radley (CB)]

My Lords, this is an important and wide-ranging approach and deserves both cross-party and national support. I congratulate the authors. It takes a 10-year-plus view, but success will materialise only if intermediate goals are set. How do the Government perceive that the aims of this strategy will be tracked and achieved? At present, the problems associated with illegal immigration are slipping things back alarmingly. Will regular progress reports to Parliament across the piece be made?

The flip side to this coin should be what soft power and de-escalation measures achieve. I am sorry that there appears to be rather less about what influence the Commonwealth might have here, though some such countries are highlighted, or how closer relations with the Republic of Ireland might be to our mutual benefit. Well handled, could not such ideas bring further substantial security gains to the UK?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

The noble and gallant Lord raises an important point about relations with other countries. Our relationship with the Republic of Ireland is solid and welcome; indeed, I saw the Irish ambassador earlier this week and many Members of this House have a very strong relationship with Ireland. The noble and gallant Lord’s point about relationships, including with the Commonwealth, is extremely valid and the Government are committed to that. The issue around soft power and de-escalation is crucial. At the heart of a lot of what we are doing, including in the document, is de-escalation. Part of being resilient and having a strong diplomatic presence across the world is so that you can de-escalate.

The role that the Prime Minister has played recently, the visits he has made across the world and the bilateral and multilateral meetings he has had have been imperative to having the kinds of discussions that are needed to de-escalate. Very early on, I made a Statement on a similar issue and there were criticisms from some that the Prime Minister had made a number of overseas visits. When you visit and have meetings with other countries when relations are good, it helps you to have difficult discussions when things get more difficult and there are important international issues to be considered. The noble and gallant Lord is absolutely right. At the end of the day, this is overseen by the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary, the Foreign Secretary and the Defence Secretary all have an important role as well.

[Baroness Winterton of Doncaster (Lab)]

My Lords, in the foreword to the strategy, the Prime Minister talked about strength on the international stage, which other noble Lords have raised. I make a plea to my noble friend that, as well as their strong support for NATO set out in the document, the Government should be clear that they want to strengthen the role of other international bodies such as the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe. We can use those links with important international bodies and dialogue with other countries to improve our collective international security as well as our national security.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

The noble Baroness makes an important point. A number of Members of this House are members of the OSCE, as she is, the Council of Europe and others, where those relationships at both individual and national level are hugely important. Earlier this week, an official spoke to the OSCE about our commitment to Ukraine, showing how important it is to be part of these organisations and to work together. So she is absolutely right; she has been quite an advocate for the OSCE in the House, as others have been for the Council of Europe and other organisations.

Parliamentary Commercial Department

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Thursday 12th June 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

That this House endorses the Report from the House of Lords Commission Establishing Parliament’s commercial function as a joint department of both Houses (2nd Report, HL Paper 124); and in consequence, approves the establishment of a joint department of the two Houses, under the terms of the Parliament (Joint Departments) Act 2007.

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

My Lords, I am moving this Motion on behalf of the House of Lords Commission. We are asking the House to support and endorse the report published on 14 May establishing Parliament’s commercial function as a joint department of both Houses. I hope that noble Lords have read the report, which provides a clear explanation of and rationale for this decision. The Parliamentary Commercial Directorate is a shared service between both Houses, based in the House of Lords. It is responsible for all procurement and it sets and monitors standards for contract management across Parliament.

In 2022 the noble Lord, Lord Morse, undertook an independent review of financial management, which included looking in considerable detail at Parliament’s shared commercial service. The noble Lord found underperformance in all commercial areas compared with the rest of the public sector. Following publication of his report in November 2022, new leadership was brought in. The new commercial directors developed and delivered significant improvements, and by March 2025 these were rated as being good or better in all areas.

The commercial needs of Parliament are complex and challenging, and likely to become even more so in the future. It is essential that our commercial function continues to improve and has the confidence of both commissions. To achieve this, the next step is the establishment of the joint department. Before reaching this decision, we in the commission sought assurances about the arrangements to protect the joint interests of each House and to continue the improvements already under way. We have agreed a governance and performance framework so that the department will now be accountable to both Houses and will provide information about its priorities, service and performance. The current directorate staff—around 40 people—will be transferred to the new department and employed jointly by the Clerk of the Parliaments and the Clerk of the House of Commons as the corporate officers. The team will be led by a new chief commercial officer currently being recruited. We expect the transfer to take place on 1 October.

In conclusion, I acknowledge and recognise the significant improvements that have been made in the last couple of years following the excellent and very helpful report and review of the noble Lord, Lord Morse. I put on record our thanks for the commitment and professionalism shown by the commercial directors and their team in achieving this. I look forward to working with them to achieve further progress. I beg to move.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

I welcome the decision to make some changes here, but can the noble Baroness tell the House what the cost of the new front door at the Peers’ Entrance has been? Very senior Members of this House and members of the commission have been told repeatedly that they cannot know the cost of the front door, because if they knew the cost of the front door that would enable terrorists to work out what the security is surrounding it. I suspect that the costs of the front door make it one of the most expensive front doors in the world, and it is a front door that does not work. Various Members from all sides of the House protested right at the beginning that this design would not work as it would result in people having to queue outside to get in and they would therefore be more vulnerable. We were told that no, it had been carefully designed and the system had been looked at, but we now discover that we need somebody permanently there to press the button to open the door. The other evening someone in a wheelchair was unable to access the House. It is a complete white elephant and a disaster.

I do not wish to be unkind to any of the staff who serve this House or to underestimate the difficulties of dealing with a historic building of this kind, but it is simply not acceptable that public money should be spent in this way with such disastrous consequences, with no one being held to account and no knowledge of the associated costs. If we are going to have a joint department—and I welcome the appointment of some new leadership in this area—how can we be assured that the necessary commercial competencies will be there, as well as the ability to understand the importance of listening to what this House has to say and taking account of it in making these decisions?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

Can I ask the Leader of the House to investigate the position of access to the Terrace? One of the greatest privileges of the House, apart from the Chamber and Library, is access to the Terrace. Our Terrace is infinitely smaller than the Terrace next door, which I enjoyed as a Member of the other place. It strikes me that many of the places are taken on the Terrace by Members of the other place and their guests, leaving not enough places for Members of this House. I think it should be reciprocal. I am quite happy to allow Members of the other place to use our Terrace on the basis that we are able to use theirs.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, mentioned my diplomatic skills. I now start my audition for a role at the UN.

I will challenge one thing the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, said, which I strongly reject: that we are a part-time House. Those of us who were here at 1.30 am would not think that. We are a full-time House. We do not expect every Member the of House to be full-time, but the work of the House is a full-time responsibility.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

I stand corrected. Perhaps I should have said that, unlike the other place, we are unpaid.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

Round one on my diplomatic interview. A number of points have been raised and I want to try to address them. This has gone wider than the question.

On the door itself, there are two issues: cost and operability. It is completely unacceptable that we have a door that does not operate as it should. I can answer some of the questions. I will deal with the cost first, because there is wildly exaggerated and incorrect information. When you do not give information that is correct, incorrect information gets into the realm, which is unhelpful.

There is normally a rule that information regarding security costs is not provided. I think that does not help in this case at all. In terms of how it came about in the first place, noble Lords will remember—the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, may remember this—the Murphy review. After the death of a police officer at the other end of the building, it was important we considered the safety of those who work on the estate—not just Peers and MPs but all those who work on the estate. Their safety and security are of the utmost importance. We have had incidents that show that is important. The fence was part of the review. Noble Lords have been consulted and advised on that on many occasions. It is about security.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I will give way shortly, but I have a lot of questions to answer.

So, it is unacceptable, but the reassurance I can give is that the directorate is changing. I think that joint working, with a Parliament-wide department to deal with these issues, seems a no-brainer. Why have we not done it before? So many of the services we have are joint. The noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, mentioned catering. To have these individually in different Houses does not seem to be the most cost-effective way of doing things. It is taxpayers’ money we are talking about, but we also need to provide a good service for all of those working on the estate, including Peers and MPs.

On the point about the joint access, I share noble Lords’ frustrations. It does seem to me that it goes in one direction, because even those of us who are former MPs are not now able to access the House of Commons Terrace, or, for those who might like a pint in the evening, the Strangers Bar or other facilities. Yet I find that the River Restaurant at the Lords end of the building is often full of Members of the House of Commons and staff from the House of Commons. We welcome them; it proves we have better food at this end of the building. There is no calorie content on Lords menus, whereas there is on Commons menus, so that might be part of the attraction. But it does seem that we should look at a whole-House approach to these things and treat all Members of both Houses with equal respect.

The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, asked about the door and whether this was the first time for the design. My understanding is that it is not the first time for the design of the pod, but it is the first time—if I am not correct, I will write to him—in terms of having it in a heritage setting with the additional security measures required. I take on board the point he made on that.

On the issue of signing contracts, I will double-check on this. My understanding is that, with most government departments and local authorities, these things tend to be self-funded. I will double-check and come back to the noble Baroness, but that is what normally happens with large organisations. I have a Treasury Minister behind me who will tell me afterwards whether I have got this wrong.

The issue around how, when you have a joint department, you ensure the needs and views of this House are taken into account is absolutely well made. The noble Lord, Lord McLoughlin, raised this issue as well. Where we are getting to on this one is having an oversight body. We have looked at various ways of doing this. I think the noble Lord is absolutely right; the commission is not the best way of doing this. There is too much on the agenda. I think it has to be much more focused. That was the discussion at the commission this week. It will be a separate, bespoke body with expertise from both Houses that will ensure it runs properly and will work with the team to ensure we continue improvements.

I did not quite understand the point the noble Lord, Lord Winston, made about defibrillators. If anybody on the estate is taken ill, whether they be a visitor, a staff member, a Peer or an MP, we would want on any occasion to provide the support they need. We do have defibrillators in the Palace of Westminster; at this end of the building, we have one in Peers’ Lobby, one in the Prince’s Chamber, one in the Public Gallery and one at Peers’ Entrance. Whatever the problem was, it seems to have been resolved. It is not for the House of Commons to tell the Lords where defibs should be in this building—and I am sure the House of Commons would not want to.

[Lord Winston (Lab)]

This was before we had any defibrillators. We were a long time trying to persuade Black Rod at that time to ensure that we did have this sort of support. Eventually, he called in the Serjeant at Arms and other Members of the House of Commons, who told me very firmly that this was not going to be possible. It was only subsequently that we then got defibrillators everywhere. Now, of course, we are well protected, but, in the space of that time, at least two or three Members collapsed, and we did not have defibrillators. I was called to do the medical resuscitation, so I remember this very clearly. It was quite a searing moment.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

Clearly, we have moved on and are in a much better position now.

[Baroness Browning (Con)]

When I was talking about professional indemnity, I had particularly in mind the fact that, apart from the operation of the door, which has been discussed, I have lost count of how many times the specially made glass panel has been replaced—I cannot remember whether it is three or four. Surely whoever signed the contract for that must be in a strong position to make sure that we pay for only one.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

Absolutely; that would be part of what you would normally do if it was a new house—the snagging. Anything that is down to a manufacturer’s fault, such as operability, is down to those who installed the door. We are not at all responsible for any of those extra costs.

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

I welcome what the Leader of the House has said. Given what the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, has been told persistently in relation to the door—and there are other examples as well—I am very interested that the figure was not available because of security matters, and yet the Leader of the House has just provided what are staggering figures, many moons after we were told, over and again, that we are dealing with a security matter. I welcome the joint operation that is being discussed, but this suggests to me an unwillingness of members of management in this building to disclose information to Members of this House and the other House, because it is presumed that Members of both Houses do not need these figures or information. As a number of noble Lords will expect, I will give an example: I have faced exactly the same problem when I have asked questions in relation to the cost of traffic marshals. There seems to be a level of resentment towards the idea that Members should have the right to ask these questions and expect an answer.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, it is an accepted tradition that we do not disclose security information and the costs. Costs on this have been available to Members on the relevant committees, so they were available—and I will probably be sacked later for giving the costs anyway. Given that there was this degree of suspicion about the costs—some of the figures were inflated—and because the door has not been working, it was the view of the commission yesterday that it was important that the costs were made available to Members, so that they have accurate information. When we spend that much money on something that does not work, the key thing is that it is resolved, and that is what I am focused on.

On the new joint department, it is really important going forward that we have the right expertise and the right knowledge. There are things that went wrong here that should be used to inform further decisions, and engaging Members on all these decisions is really important. However, when we engage Members, there are, dare I say it, two Members and three opinions, and a wide spread of views around the House, and sometimes we have to say no to Members because we cannot say yes to everybody. There is a danger that we try to please everybody and end up pleasing nobody.

The words “lessons learned” are currently banned from my office, but there are some points here that we can take away and use to resolve these issues, so that we do not have the same problems in the future. The important thing is to get this joint department up and running, with the proper oversight, and to ensure we have proper and workable security arrangements that protect all of those who work in the Palace and that do the job they are supposed to do.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

I do not want to detain the House, but I am worried about the point from the noble Lord, Lord Hayward. I understand the point about maintaining security, but it is awfully convenient to be able to say that we cannot be told the cost. What is the cost, for example, of the new fence that has been put up, which is hideous? We are being told that we cannot know that because of security, but each and every one of us goes back to where we live—I was going to say to our constituencies—and get mocked about the cost. We are held accountable, and we are meant to be accountable. My worry about this “tradition” is that it means that there is no accountability. When you do not have accountability for expenditure, you get excessive expenditure—and my goodness me, that front door is an example.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

The noble Lord made a number of points. There are always increased costs because of the heritage nature of the building. I do not think any of us is entirely comfortable with having a fence. In the days when I was first a Member of Parliament in the other place, you could walk in without even needing a pass. Times have changed, and that is the reason we have this fence. These things are not unreasonable if there is genuinely a security issue, and I would defend that, but perhaps we sometimes need to stress-test these things a little more, and perhaps that is a role for the commission to undertake.

Sometimes costs seem alarming. Those of us who used to be in local government or who were Ministers will know that, when you account for things and look at the cost, it always seems far more than if you were doing it in your own back garden. This is not just a front door; it is something much more serious than that, and we have to get it up and running. All of us on the commission—a number of us are here in the Chamber today—will take this away, and I know that the Lord Speaker feels the same. We will stress-test those issues. Where information can be made available to Members, it should be, but where it cannot, noble Lords can trust the commission to look at these issues and make decisions with the security people.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, I shall be very brief. It seems that there is an underlying malaise here. The majority of Members of this House, in which I include myself, have very little idea of what the commission does. What communication structures does the commission have in place to ensure that, within the limitations of confidentiality, Members have some idea of what it is doing and what decisions it is making? I think the majority of this House is unclear about all of that.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I am often surprised by this. Within our party groups, we usually get reports of significant decisions made by the commission. The minutes are published, with redacted items, on the internal website, so that information is available. I do not know if the noble Baroness is asking for more information to be made available beyond the minutes and the reports made to her party group.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

Would Members not benefit from a quarterly or bi-monthly publication by the commission of what it has been doing? In the digital age, it could be transmitted to every Member—

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I am sorry to interrupt, but I will try to press forward on that point. The Lord Speaker’s newsletter publishes some of the information. If the noble Baroness wants a quarterly report, rather than the minutes published after the meeting, that can be done, but it will be published in the same way as the minutes of the meeting are published. We will look into that, if that helps her.

[Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)]

I hope the Leader of the House has not overlooked that every moment the unworking door remains unworking, we are haemorrhaging money. There will have to be permanent staff there to press the button, which will presumably require a team of three or four who will have to be salaried. In any normal arrangement, it should be mended tomorrow morning. Can we afford to leave it as it is?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

It is quite difficult to answer that one. Yes, repairs are undertaken from time to time, but there has to be a systematic look at how the door can be made operable ongoing, without repairs being needed. If that cannot be done, alternative arrangements have to be made. That is the very issue I have been speaking about, and which we are looking at. It is a matter of urgency, and I hope that I have conveyed to the House that frustration is felt across the House and is understood.

[Lord Robathan (Con)]

The Leader has done extremely well, if might say so, because she is not responsible for this; she is not to blame. Once upon a time I used to deal in assaulting buildings, and let me tell you that you would not assault a door where two police officers with submachine guns were standing. Now you can assault that door, because there are no policemen with machine guns—you would go round the back, if you wanted to assault it. I am afraid that the advice she was given on security is, frankly, nonsense.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I have to say to the noble Lord that it is not nonsense. There have been officers with machine guns on the door, but that does not take away the need to have a proper door that is secure for the House. I do not know whether the noble Lord has ever read the Murphy review, which covered both Houses—it may have been published when he was in the other place; I am not sure whether he was in this House then. We need to take these things seriously. All of us will have solutions and simple answers and will say, “If you do this, it will be fine”. But let us just look at getting the door up and running. The purpose today is to look to the future, and the issue before us is the joint department. I am grateful for the noble Lord’s comments; I hope that my next job will be at the UN.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach (Con)]

The noble Baroness was talking about the minutes. I have asked the Printed Paper Office if it has copies of the minutes of the commission’s meetings. In fact, I have asked several times. There are some copies, but they date from February; they are on the table where we collect our papers in the morning. It may be that they are available online, but when I have asked the people in the Printed Paper Office, they have said, “Well, they’ll send them to us when they’ve got them to give us”.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

Well, I am not quite sure why there is such a delay. The minutes of the meeting that took place this week were approved yesterday, and they will be available this week. I think the noble Lord may have been misinformed, but they are available as they have been approved. We have changed the process because they used not to appear until the next meeting, which is unacceptable, so in recent times they have been made available online ASAP. I shall check, but the noble Lord can find them on his computer, on the intranet. The minutes will appear later on, but the decisions are available as a matter of course and, if he does not get them, he should come and tell me and I shall make sure that he does.

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

My Lords, may I raise one issue that is not about the door? In the joint workings that my noble friend will be taking part in, will she try to develop what I might call the spirit of comity before the two Houses? The nature, membership and workload of both Houses is different; nevertheless, we represent Parliament as a whole. Some of the other issues raised in these exchanges show that we need a better working relationship with each other. I hope, as I said, that in the spirit of comity my noble friend will be able to achieve that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I do not think that this is just down to me. The point has been made about having the joint department here, and other noble Lords have said how joint departments are, in many ways, a way forward. We have to ensure that we are a working Parliament, from one end of the building to the other, and the support that is available to ensure that we do our jobs properly should be commensurate with the work we do. We have the measures in place to ensure that our interests are properly represented and there is proper oversight from both Houses, and I hope that noble Lords will accept the report.

Motion agreed.

Supplementary Daily Allowance

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Monday 2nd June 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

That:

(1) Members of this House, except any Member who receives a salary under the Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975 and the Chairman and Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees, may be entitled to a supplementary daily allowance after 1 April 2025 as the chair of a domestic committee of the House, or such other body, as may be determined from time to time by the House of Lords Commission.

(2) The amount of the allowance payable shall be the applicable rate of the daily allowance or the reduced daily allowance at the time.

(3) The maximum entitlement applicable for the supplementary daily allowance is 3 additional days per month provided that for any month the total number of days claimed for does not exceed the total number of sitting days of the House in that month.

(4) The provisions of this Resolution shall be applied in accordance with guidance issued under the authority of the House of Lords Commission.

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

My Lords, I beg to move the third Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. This enables a supplementary daily allowance to be claimed by the non-salaried domestic committee chairs of the Conduct Committee, the Finance Committee and the Services Committee. This was agreed by the House of Lords Commission and the usual channels, as set out in the commission report of 29 April this year. It is intended to recognise the significant additional work required of those chairs outside formal meetings, and it works by enabling them to claim a maximum of three extra days a month on top of those they can claim through attending the House or a committee meeting. However, it will ensure that for any month, the total number of days claimed for cannot exceed the total number of sitting days of the House. I beg to move.

Motion agreed.

Allowances

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Monday 2nd June 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

That:

(1) The Resolution of 27 March 2024 relating to the House of Lords allowance is amended as follows with effect from 1 June 2025.

(2) For paragraph 4 substitute—“(4) The maximum daily amount payable to a Member should be £125.”

(3) For paragraph (7) substitute—“(7) In relation to the year beginning with 1 April 2026, and each subsequent year beginning with 1 April—

(a) any formula or mechanism included in the IPSA determination for the year as a result of section 4A(4) of the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009 (adjustment of MPs’ salaries) should be treated as applying for the purposes of adjusting for that year the amount of the allowance payable to a Member of this House, and

(b) accordingly, the amount of the allowance payable to a Member in respect of a day of attendance in that year should be—

(i) the amount obtained by applying the formula or mechanism to the amount payable by way of allowance (under paragraph 4 or this paragraph) in the previous year, or

(ii) where no formula or mechanism is included in the determination, the same amount payable by way of allowance (under paragraph 4 or this paragraph) in the previous year.”

(4) In respect of a day of attendance before 1 June 2025, the Resolution of 27 March 2024 relating to the House of Lords allowance continues to have effect without the amendments made by this Resolution.

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

My Lords, I will speak to the second Motion at the same time, but I will move and speak to the third Motion separately.

In April 2024, the noble Lord, Lord True, as Leader of the House, moved a Motion to establish an overnight allowance to recognise the increased cost of staying in London, away from Peers’ main homes. That scheme set a rate of £100, which noble Lords based outside London could claim as a contribution towards the cost of a hotel. The scheme was welcomed across the House and followed representations from, and discussions with, those who chaired the main party groups and the convenor. It was agreed that it should be reviewed after about a year of operation, and these changes proposed result from that review.

The first change relates to the amount that can be claimed. The scheme was automatically uprated in line with inflation, so it is now £103 a night. It is hard to pick an exact amount, but this figure is not a realistic reflection of the cost of hotels across the capital. The commission therefore recommends an increase to £125 a night. This will continue to be uprated in line with inflation. As previously, claims are linked to attending the House on a sitting day, and receipts must be provided.

The existing scheme covers only hotel-type accommodation. Other noble Lords make other arrangements in London to enable their attendance in the House. The commission and the usual channels have considered this very carefully. We concluded that a new flat-rate allowance of 50% of the hotel allowance was the best way forward. This will again be tied to attendance in the House, with a robust system of verification. For noble Lords whose main address is outside London, they would be able to claim £63 per night to spend at a designated property in Greater London where they stay and are responsible for the costs. To claim, noble Lords must have stayed in the property the day before or the day after attending the House, and the finance team will require documentation to support the claim.

These changes were agreed in the commission and discussed in the usual channels. They are to ensure the original purpose: to assist Members from outside London to be able to attend your Lordships’ House. I beg to move.

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness the Lord Privy Seal for making this statement, which I think will be very welcome to the House. She referred to the discussions we had last year when I took the decision to put to the House the reintroduction of the overnight allowance. I was very grateful for her support on that, and I am very happy to reciprocate the full support from this side following the very careful consideration we have had of these issues in the usual channels and elsewhere, under the guidance of the noble Baroness.

It is always difficult to strike a balance, and I think that the commission, in its decision on the proposals put forward by the noble Baroness, has struck a reasonable balance which will support people who come to this House from all over the country, who wish to work hard on behalf of the House and on behalf of the country. Talking of hard work, I may say that my noble friend Lord Howe, who is next to me, last week completed 34 years on the Front Bench in your Lordships’ House. If that is not a definition of hard work, I do not know what is.

There is a lot of loose talk outside this House about people in this House being lazy and lining their pockets. You do not become rich by becoming a Member of the House of Lords; many people here make great sacrifices. We should not claim that we are poor or that we are underprivileged, but it is right that the House makes provision to enable those of us who come here to do a hard day’s work to enable us to do so in the most reasonable fashion. Obviously, there is a duty on us to behave with honesty and clarity, as we all do and will all do, I have no doubt, under these new proposals. I support them.

Rather than wearying the House, I say in advance that I strongly support the noble Baroness’s further Motion, because that also relates to hard-working and valued Members of the House. So again I thank the noble Baroness and commend these proposals unreservedly to your Lordships.

[Lord Balfe (Con)]

My Lords, I support this Motion. I have a very simple question for the Leader. Bearing in mind what happened during the period up to 2009, have the usual channels thought carefully about what the phrase

“where it is necessary to do so”

means? Will there be some sort of check, for instance, or will it be a pure self-declaration as it used to be before—which led us into a bit of trouble?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I am grateful to both noble Lords for supporting the Motion before the House. The noble Lord quotes “where it is necessary to do so”, but I am not quite sure where he is referring to in my comments or in the report. However, I think his point is about the verification, and I will address that first. He is right to address that because it must be a very robust process of verification. They will require a copy of the council tax statement, and for those many of those who have a second place in London where they stay, it will say “Second Home” on it; it specifies that it is not their main home. In addition to the council tax statement, there will of course be a record of people’s travel patterns back and forward to the House. So it is quite clear that if someone is travelling from another part of the country to stay in London for a few days to ensure they can carry out their duties in this House, that would be another point of verification. The noble Lord is right to raise the point, but this is why the commission took a long time to look at this, to give consideration to ensure that we were confident on that point.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord True. Indeed, I supported him when he first raised this issue last time last year. There is a balance of responsibilities both to the taxpayer and to Members of this House, but we would be the poorer if the only people who could attend your Lordships’ House to undertake their responsibilities were those who either lived in London or had private finance to enable them to stay in London.

This is less than is received in other places in overnight allowance; it is a contribution towards it, and Members will use their daily allowance to pay the rest of it. I appreciate the support from both noble Lords, and I hope that Members will agree that this is a way forward if we are to represent not only those who can afford to live in London.

[Lord Geddes (Con)]

I wonder whether the noble Baroness can give me clarification. I use as an illustration my own situation, which I know is far from unique. I rent the use of a room in an apartment in London on an annual basis, but, as I read the Motion and the details in the financial support document, I will not be able to claim any reimbursement for the rent I pay for the use of that room. Is that so?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

Depending on the circumstances, that may be the case. It is where somebody is responsible for paying more than just the rent for a single room. I do not know if the noble Lord is on the council tax bill or what other costs he incurs, but it is not for those who stay in rooms of family and friends. It is for hotel bills and for those whose name is on the council tax form to show that they are staying there. The noble Lord will have to discuss that with the finance team, but he may not be covered renting a room in a friend’s house.

Motion agreed.

London Accommodation Costs Allowance

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Monday 2nd June 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

That:

(1) Members of this House, except any Member who receives a salary under the Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975 and the Chairman and Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees, should be entitled to an accommodation costs allowance in respect of each day of attendance on or after 1 June 2025 as provided for below.

(2) Members are eligible to claim the London accommodation costs allowance—

(a) if the Member’s registered residential address is outside Greater London,

(b) the Member has a recorded attendance,

(c) as a contribution towards the costs of accommodation in Greater London incurred in staying overnight away from their registered residential address where it is necessary to do so for the purpose of attendance.

(3) “Attendance” means attendance—

(a) at a sitting of this House,

(b) at a meeting of a Committee of this House, or

(c) on such other Parliamentary business as may be determined by the House of Lords Commission.

(4) The daily amount payable to a Member should be £63.

(5) The daily amount can be claimed for each day of recorded attendance or each night which falls immediately before a day of recorded attendance.

(6) The provisions of this Resolution apply in accordance with guidance issued under the authority of the House of Lords Commission.

(7) In relation to the year beginning with 1 April 2026, and each subsequent year beginning with 1 April—

(a) any formula or mechanism included in the IPSA determination for the year as a result of section 4A(4) of the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009 (adjustment of MPs’ salaries) should be treated as applying for the purposes of adjusting for that year the amount of the allowance payable to a Member of this House, and

(b) accordingly, the amount of the allowance payable to a Member in respect of a day of attendance in that year should be—

(i) the amount obtained by applying the formula or mechanism to the amount payable by way of allowance (under paragraph 4 or this paragraph) in the previous year, or

(ii) where no formula or mechanism is included in the determination, the same amount payable by way of allowance (under paragraph 4 or this paragraph) in the previous year.

(8) In paragraph 7(a) “IPSA determination” means a determination under section 4(4) of the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009.

(9) Any fraction of a pound in an amount obtained under paragraph 7(b)(i) should be rounded up to the nearest pound if the fraction is 50p or more, but otherwise should be disregarded.

Motion agreed.

UK-EU Summit

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Wednesday 21st May 2025 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I will repeat a Statement made by the Prime Minister yesterday. The Statement is as follows:

“I will update the House on the three recent trade deals that we have struck in the national interest.

First, however, I would like to say something about the horrific situation in Gaza, where the level of suffering, with innocent children being bombed again, is utterly intolerable. Over the weekend we co-ordinated a response with our allies, as set out in my statement with President Macron and Prime Minister Carney last night. I want to put on record today that we are horrified by the escalation from Israel. We repeat our demand for a ceasefire, as the only way to free the hostages; we repeat our opposition to settlements in the West Bank; and we repeat our demand to massively scale up humanitarian assistance to Gaza. The recent announcement that Israel will allow a ‘basic quantity of food’ into Gaza is totally and utterly inadequate, so we must co-ordinate our response, because this war has gone on for far too long. We cannot allow the people of Gaza to starve, and the Foreign Secretary will come to the House shortly to set out our response in detail.

Let me turn now to the three deals that this Government have struck. The principles we took into the negotiations are clear and simple. Does it drive down bills? Does it drive up jobs? Does it strengthen our borders? In each case, the answer is a resounding yes. These deals release us from the tired arguments of the past and, as an independent sovereign nation, allow us to seize the opportunities of the future—a clear message, sent across the globe, that Britain is back on the world stage.

We have a trade deal with the world’s fastest-growing economy, India, cutting tariffs for British industries, which is a huge boost for our whisky and gin distilleries—their only concern now is whether they can produce enough to sell—and for our car manufacturers, with tariffs slashed from over 100% to just 10%, and no concessions on visas. We have a trade deal with the world’s richest economy, the United States, slashing tariffs, saving thousands upon thousands of jobs in car manufacturing in places such as Jaguar Land Rover, protecting our steel and aluminium exports, and safeguarding the interests of our hugely important pharmaceutical sector.

But I can already see that, when it comes to this hat trick of deals, it is our new partnership with the EU that the Opposition most want to talk about—and given their abject failure to strike a deal with India or the US, I cannot say I blame them—so let me spell out the benefits of this deal, which gives our country an unprecedented level of access to the EU market: the best access of any nation outside the EU or European Free Trade Association.

I will start with our security. When Russian tanks rolled into Ukraine over three years ago, a gauntlet was thrown down, and it is our responsibility to step up. That is what this world demands, and it is what this partnership delivers, strengthening our national security through a new security and defence partnership that paves the way for British defence firms to access the EU’s €150 billion defence fund. That will support British jobs, British wages and British livelihoods.

The partnership also increases co-operation on emissions trading, saving UK businesses from having to pay up to £800 million in EU carbon taxes—once again, backing British businesses. The deal will drive down bills with increased co-operation on energy, because the agreement negotiated by the Conservative Party left us with a more expensive way of working with our neighbours—a needless rupture, despite our grids being connected by undersea cables. This partnership brings those systems together again, benefiting British bill payers and boosting clean British power in the North Sea.

This partnership also strengthens our borders, because, again, the previous deal left a huge gap and weakened our ability to work together to tackle illegal migration—the ultimate cross-border challenge. It closes that gap, including joint work on returns, preventing channel crossings, and working upstream in key source and transit countries, co-operating along the whole migration route to strengthen our hand in the fight against the vile smuggling gangs. It boosts our co-operation on law enforcement, combating terrorism and serious organised crime with closer operational work with agencies such as Europol and better sharing of intelligence and data, including, for the first time, facial imaging.

This partnership helps British holidaymakers, who will be able to use eGates when they travel to Europe, ending those huge queues at passport control. It delivers for our young people, because we are now on a path towards a controlled youth experience scheme, with firm caps on numbers and visa controls—a relationship we have with so many countries around the world, some of which were even set up by the party opposite. We should be proud to give our young people that opportunity. And, not for the first time, this Government have delivered for Britain’s steel industry, protecting our steel exports from new EU tariffs and backing our steel sector to the hilt.

Last but certainly not least, we have a new sanitary and phytosanitary deal, as promised in our manifesto, which will cut the price of a weekly shop, meaning that there will be more money in the pockets of working people, less red tape for our exporters, no more lorry drivers sitting for 16 hours at the border with rotting food in the back, and no more needless checks—the inevitable consequence of the Conservatives’ policies, which made it so much harder to trade even within our own market, between Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

The deal means that British goods that have long been off the menu in Europe can regain their true place, including shellfish, which are hugely important for Cornwall, Devon and Scotland. Not only does our deal on fish provide stability, with no increase in the amount that EU vessels can catch in British waters, but the new SPS agreement slashes costs and red tape for our exports to the European market. We sell 70% of our seafood to that market, so there is a huge opportunity that Britain’s fisheries, in which we have made a £360 million investment, will now look to exploit.

The reaction to this deal from business has been absolutely clear. I do not have time to run through the list of supportive quotes from businesses, but the new partnership has been backed by the Federation of Small Businesses, the CBI, the British Retail Consortium, Asda, Morrisons, Salmon Scotland, the Food and Drink Federation, the British Chambers of Commerce, Ryanair, Vodafone, and producers of meat, milk and poultry—the list goes on and on.

I wonder whether that long list of businesses coming out in support of the deal will temper the reaction of the leader of the Opposition. For weeks now, she has been dismissive of the benefits of any trade deal, in defiance of her party’s history. It is not just the Conservatives that I am talking about here; the honourable Member for Clacton, who is not here, and the right honourable Member for Kingston and Surbiton have both shown, in their own way, that their parties do not get it. If your whole approach to our allies is about striking a pose, you do not get to strike a deal. What that means in a world like ours, where deals are ever more the currency of security and justice, is that you do not get to make a difference, and you do not get to deliver for Britain. That is what this partnership means.

For years, we were told that this could not be done. What the Conservatives meant was that they could not do it. We were told that a deal with the US or India was impossible; what they meant was that it was impossible for them. We were told that a choice must be made between the US and EU; what they meant was that they could not do a deal with both. This Government can and will, because we stay in the room, we fight for the national interest, and we put the British people first. These deals represent a signal that we are back on the world stage—a global champion of free trade, playing our historic role on European security—but above all, they are deals that put money in the pockets of working people, because that is what independent, sovereign nations do. I commend this Statement to the House”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for repeating yesterday’s Statement. I begin by associating these Benches with the sentiments expressed in the Statement on Gaza. Recent Israeli action is indeed horrific and requires a response. Yesterday’s actions by the Foreign Secretary are welcome, but the most obvious way in which we can demonstrate our further support for the Palestinian people is to support their demand for statehood. Can the noble Baroness confirm whether this option is under active consideration by the Government?

On Europe, the joint statement issued by the UK and EU begins by pointing out that this was the first UK-EU summit since Brexit, and this is the context against which the outcome should be judged. It was, of course, a real dereliction of duty for the previous Government to turn their back so comprehensively on our largest and closest partner. A reset in our relations is long overdue in the national interest.

Perhaps the biggest achievement of the summit was that it represented a milestone in rebuilding trust between the UK and the EU. For too long, too many in British politics have poured scorn on the EU while placing their hopes on replacing ties with Europe with countries which are now run by unreliable allies. The EU has noticed this and has been understandably wary about treating with the UK as a result. Against this background, the specific outcomes of the summit are to be welcomed, whether on freer trade in food products, energy, security, defence, or youth mobility, and I am sure pet owners will also be cheering to the rafters the return of the pet passport.

It will surprise no one, however, that we on these Benches see these agreements as but small, tentative first steps towards restoring a much deeper, more productive relationship with the EU. The progress on veterinary and plant health requirements is particularly welcome as it will lead to immediate benefits to the food and agriculture sectors; and, as the Statement made clear, it has even been welcomed by the Scottish salmon industry. The return of frictionless trade in these areas is one of the main reasons why yesterday’s deal will add 0.2% to GDP.

However, for firms in every other productive sector seeking to export to the EU, the deal does nothing to make that easier. Before yesterday’s deal we were set to lost 4% of GDP as a result of Brexit. Now we are set to lose 3.8%. This shows how much more there is to do and why movement towards rejoining the customs union and single market is still urgently required.

The commitment to a youth mobility scheme and reassociation with Erasmus+ I welcome, but it is vague as to timing and detailed content. Can the Minister say what the Government’s aspirations are for concluding these new arrangements so that students and young people more generally can benefit?

The agreements on travelling artists, short-term business mobility and mutual recognition of professional qualifications are also welcome but are even vaguer. Given that agreement in these areas would be a clear win-win for both sides, it is surprising and disappointing that more progress has not been achieved. Can the Government say what they envisage happening next to bring about these much-needed easements?

The new UK-EU security and defence partnership is also welcome. At the heart of this is the €150 billion defence equipment procurement fund. The UK will now negotiate to become a participant in this programme. This could significantly benefit the UK defence industry, but there are no details. When can we expect some? In defence and security, and in the other areas covered by yesterday’s agreements, new institutional ties with the EU will give the UK, for the first time in almost a decade, a formal route to influence EU thinking. This is no small gain.

Taken together, yesterday’s agreements, far from representing a surrender of British interests, are an overdue reassertion of them. This view is shared by the British public, who now decisively support closer ties with the EU. The Government now need to build on the progress they made yesterday. That will make the UK more prosperous, more influential and more secure. The sooner and more decisively they do it, the better.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for their contributions on the situation in Gaza. It is dire; it gets worse by the day. Some will have heard Tom Fletcher from the United Nations on the radio yesterday speaking about his fear of the number of babies who could die in the next 48 hours if aid does not get in quick enough. I understand that a very limited amount of aid went in yesterday. There are lorries at the border now waiting to take more aid in. There are containers available, and discussions are ongoing to get that aid in. My noble friend Lord Collins will be repeating the Statement in the House tomorrow so there will be the opportunity to ask further questions on that.

I felt that this debate ran true to form. On the Conservative Benches the feeling was, “You’ve gone too far, it’s terrible”. On the Liberal Democrat Benches it was, “You haven’t gone far enough”. I feel that we have pitched ourselves in the right place. It was an uncharitable and, unfortunately, predictable response from the noble Lord, Lord True. He had questions and criticisms on e-passport use and asked why the deal was so bad last time. He should ask his own party that because the deal was done by his Government.

I will go through some of the issues raised. The noble Lord, Lord True, asked about the emissions trading system. It is a ridiculous situation that British businesses—a trade worth, I think, £7 billion—are at risk of paying what is, in effect, a levy to the EU. That has gone. That has to be in the interests of energy prices and British industry. That money was going straight from UK exporters into the EU budget. There is a better way of doing this. This streamlines the regulatory barriers. CO₂ storage is a growth industry in the UK, with enormous potential for investment and jobs. Linking the ETS removes the disincentives for EU emitters to store CO₂ in the UK. That makes our industry far more competitive. That is an important point.

On the SPS agreement, I was surprised that the noble Lord, Lord True, was not supportive of it, and I am grateful for the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Newby. It is a huge improvement, and it will have a huge impact on Northern Ireland. The original Brexit deal tried to find a fudge to make this work, with the Windsor Framework. It was a terrible situation where we even had problems exporting between GB and Northern Ireland.

I do not know whether other noble Lords do, but I remember Boris Johnson talking to a group of businesspeople, when he said, “If there are any forms to be filled in, you come and see me; you send them to me”. I suggest that, if they had, he might have disappeared under the pile of forms sent to him. We were speaking to a businessperson the other night who said that, for one consignment, his company filled in 2,000 forms. That is damaging to our industry, and it is damaging to our exports. While those forms were being checked and more forms had to be filled in, produce was rotting at the borders. I know that Members across the House have found this to be an issue in their own businesses. It is absolutely right that we have taken action to deal with that.

The noble Lord, Lord True, questioned how long the deal on e-passports is going to take, and suggested that it is not going to happen. Negotiations with EU member countries are starting immediately to make sure that it does happen to protect and support those in the UK who are travelling. Anyone who has been on their way back from a holiday or business travel, joined a very long queue, and seen others with EU passports wandering through and British citizens not being able to, will be pleased to see that as well.

These are very important agreements. If it helps the noble Lord, in 2024, £14.1 billion of UK agri-food exports went to EU countries. That has a huge impact on British businesses. The noble Lord also went on about dynamic alignment. It might be helpful if I said something about divergence and dynamic alignment, and the rule-taking issue. Research undertaken this May by UK in a Changing Europe showed that the UK has done very little to diverge from EU regulations. That means that British businesses have been sticking to those rules, because it is in their interest since they are still exporting, but the barriers and difficulties they have faced in exporting have had a huge impact on their businesses. The lived reality is that we have had very little benefit from that, which is why this deal has been welcomed by so many businesses. In our trade deal with the United States, we made it clear that we were not prepared to accept, for example, chlorinated chicken, because it would have a detrimental effect on our farmers, who have invested in higher welfare standards. There are always issues that come along on that point.

I probably do not have time to respond to all the questions, but I want particularly to come back to fishing. On the point that the noble Lord, Lord True, raised about the European Court, we will have a role in shaping new rules. No rules will apply in the UK unless they go to Parliament and get its agreement, and any disputes will be resolved through international arbitration and agreement. Where the CJEU has a role is with regards to the interpretation of EU law.

Briefly on fishing, the fishing industry exports 72% of its produce to the EU. It will benefit hugely from the SPS agreement, which will make a difference. Our shellfish people have not been able to export anything. Saying that we can now export shellfish will have a huge impact and be beneficial to those farmers in Scotland, Devon and other parts of the country who produce shellfish, as well to our salmon farmers. On the year-on-year agreement, there was obviously a wish to get a better deal, but it was highly unlikely because we had not reset the relationship. The 12-year agreement provides some certainty, and alongside it is a £350 million investment for coastal areas and the fishing industry to help them invest in technology and grow their businesses.

I think this is an excellent deal. It deals with defence, security and the things that matter to the British people. It takes us a step forward, and away from the argument of Brexit or no Brexit. On the question from noble Lord, Lord Newby, about why we do not further, there will be annual summits to look at these issues; he mentioned some of them. On the customs union, if we were in that union, we would not have achieved the deals with India and the US. People said we could not do it; they said, “You will never get a deal with the EU and the US”. We have done it.

[Lord Clarke of Nottingham (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate the Government on their progress in strengthening the European arm of NATO in the light of the changed circumstances we have, and on the start they have made on putting us back into a healthier relationship—a soft Brexit—with the European Union, to replace the hard Brexit that has done so much harm to our economy in recent years and continues to do so. But will she acknowledge that this is by no means a final deal, and there are many questions to be asked and many other areas to be opened up, such as benefits that might be brought to other sectors of the economy, to get us back to something like the healthy trading relationship we had with the EU before Brexit intervened? Will she confirm that we can make great progress without in any way compromising the public vote in the referendum? The hard Brexit we had was quite unnecessarily, fiercely anti-European. Can she reassure us that this is only the start of a continuing process of negotiation, so that we see firm detail and more positive results for interest groups in addition to the farmers?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lord, the noble Lord makes an experienced and wise point. There is more flesh to be put on the bones of these particular agreements as well. For me, one of the most important things that came out of this is that now we have a willingness to talk, engage and reach agreement. That has been sadly missing, and this has been damaging to the British economy and the British people. There will be an annual summit as well, and there are a number of issues that are referenced in the documentation. I am thinking, for example, of those in the creative industries, touring musicians, et cetera—that is mentioned as well. There is more detail to be put on paper on the youth experience scheme and all those issues. But, yes, the annual summit is a way to have these discussions, and we are also looking to trade with other countries around the world. We all, I hope, want to see a better relationship with the EU—one that is mature—where we can have those discussions. Where we agree and can move forward, we want to do so. So there are outstanding issues and details here, and we intend to make that progress in the interests of the economy and the people of this country.

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend the Minister on the Front Bench and I very much welcome this Statement on SPS, electricity trading and emissions trading. We must not forget that UK energy was looking for a deal on electricity trading and the alignment of schemes in respect of emissions trading. In congratulating my noble friend and our Government on bringing us further towards the European Union, I point out and will ask the Minister about paragraphs 30 and 44 of Common Understanding, which was launched on Monday. It said:

“The European Commission should consult the Government of the United Kingdom at an early stage of policy-making”


in respect of SPS, emissions trading and electricity trading. Can she, at this stage, give us a timeline in relation to this? I declare an interest as a member of the Government’s Veterinary Medicine Working Group. In the fullness of time, I would welcome a resolution in that regard.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I am grateful for the noble Baroness’s comments, and she is right about the importance of these particular issues. I cannot give her an exact timeline, because the summit was only last week. But we want to work at pace on all these issues because, between summits, we want to see progress. We need to put the detail on the bones. But she is right about the issue of consultation, which is what has been missing throughout the time since Brexit. We need this consultation. We have been in government for only eight months, and the progress that has been made in eight months is good and something we should be proud of. But I take the noble Baroness’s point: you need the detail and, as soon as the timeline is available, we will share that information.

[The Earl of Clancarty (CB)]

My Lords, I congratulate the Government on pressing ahead with the youth experience scheme, and indeed with negotiating Erasmus+ —schemes which, in answer to the naysayers, will increase opportunities for less privileged young British people. However, it is disappointing that there are no concrete proposals on creative professionals touring. This is urgent. Many musicians cannot tour Europe, and of course this affects all the other arts too: visual arts, fashion, film and theatre. Finally, will there be discussions about rejoining Creative Europe, which would benefit us hugely, including in film?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Earl, who has been a good advocate for exchanges and touring artists. I can tell him that paragraph 15 of the common understanding says:

“The European Commission and the United Kingdom recognise the value of travel and cultural and artistic exchanges, including the activities of touring artists. They will continue their efforts to support travel and cultural exchange”.


That indicates the direction of travel, and that we do want to ensure that there are such arrangements. I cannot answer the noble Earl him on Creative Europe, as those discussions have not taken place. Not everything was dealt with at this summit, and that is one of the issues that we wish to see progress on.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, the outcome of the summit is welcome, and the restored trust has been vital, although it does leave a lot of detail to be filled in. I fear that the Conservative reaction is insulting to business. There are also limits to what we can get, imposed by the Government themselves. For instance, even though, very welcomely, some red tape will be cut by the SPS agreement—of which we are yet to see the detail—there will still be customs hoops to jump through. Why are the Government maintaining their red lines against the single market and customs union? We know the ideology around that, but what is the practical value? I heard the Minister talk about the India and US agreements, but the volume of the EU market is far more important and the Government are limiting our ability to improve life for businesses and citizens.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I do not accept entirely the noble Baroness’s parameters. We are where we are, and in our manifesto we set out what the clear red lines were, recognising the public vote on Brexit. As well as having an agreement with the EU, we are looking further abroad as well. We have two agreements in place with the US and India, which, as she will know—as she was in those many debates until very late into the night—so many said would never be done if we had any arrangement with the EU, and we have proved them wrong. It is important that we look across the world for agreements as well, and we will continue to ensure that our relationship with the EU is one that is mutually productive.

[Lord Lilley (Con)]

My Lords, I must declare an interest as a French farmer, in a small way, in my smallholding in France. In any case, I would welcome any agreement that I believed would remove or reduce unnecessary burdens to trade resulting from SPS regulations across the Channel. Indeed, I was party to the negotiations which ultimately culminated in an agreement to which the UK and all 27 members of the EU are party, called the WTO Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures. It says that SPS measures shall not be applied as

“a disguised restriction on international trade”.

Yet that is what EU countries do, and the EU has been found in repeated violation of this agreement. The agreement goes on say:

“Members shall accept the sanitary or phytosanitary measures of other Members as equivalent, even if these measures differ from their own”.


Ours are currently identical. Why, therefore, does the EU not accept them as such? The agreement goes on to say that control, inspection and approval procedures are to be

“completed without undue delay and in no less favourable manner for imported products than for like domestic products”.

We know that does not happen for our exports to the EU.

I ask the Minister why she believes that the EU will adhere to a rather vague and ill-defined agreement that she proposes to reach, when it in flagrant and repeated violation of an agreement that has been in force under international law for some years?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, we are confident about this agreement and confident in our relationship with the EU. All those who export to the EU and have produce going to the EU, as well as all those who bring produce into this country, know how urgent and important it is that we reached the agreement. We have confidence in it, we believe that we will adhere to it, and we will ensure that the EU does too.

[Lord Liddle (Lab)]

My Lords, will the noble Baroness accept the congratulations that she should convey to our Prime Minister on this very important step in rebuilding our relations with the European Union? They are pragmatic steps, but they open up the way to great future co-operation. For example, the framework of alignment that has been agreed on energy and phyto- sanitary standards is capable of being extended to other sectors of the economy, such as chemicals, pharmaceuticals and engineering, which would be important. Finally, does she note that, at a time when the security situation in Europe is deteriorating fast, and there is talk of President Trump withdrawing from supporting Ukraine, it is crucial that Europe gets its act together on defence and rearmament, and that what is in this agreement will enable that to be done with much greater effectiveness?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I will pass the noble Lord’s comments to the Prime Minister, the Minister for the Cabinet Office and others involved in the negotiations. We will proceed only when it is in the interests of British businesses and the people of the UK. Each case is being taken step by step and on its own merits, and there is certainly scope for mutual benefit. The noble Lord is right to mention security and defence. He will be pleased to know that, in the second paragraph of the second chapter of the Common Understanding document, it was highlighted that, at the heart of all this, is common security and defence. As we have seen with the invasion of Ukraine, it is more important than ever that we have a strong and secure Europe, and that we are all working together to the same ends.

[Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)]

My Lords, whatever the claims and counterclaims of any deal by any Government, and whatever concerns may be raised today—I share some of those concerns, although some of us see the irony in that some of those raising concerns were very happy, only a short time ago, to see exactly the same conditions imposed on one part of the United Kingdom and to then tell us that it was the best of both worlds—what will be critical will be the practical experience of how this works out in reality.

The Minister is right in identifying that the most significant aspect of this deal is the SPS agreement. Under the previous arrangements that were in place, the Government are due in July to impose a labelling system for goods—food, drink and other SPS products—going from Great Britain to Northern Ireland. That adds an additional layer of bureaucracy, creating the only instance in the UK, or indeed all of Europe, where this will happen. In the light of this new agreement, will the Government give a commitment to end what would be a ludicrous situation of imposing new restrictions in July which are then redundant and will have to be removed at some stage in the next couple of months? Would the Government not be better to pause that, or at least increase the grace period, until this is implemented, so that we are not left with an unnecessary additional burden of the labelling of goods coming into Northern Ireland?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord, who has experience of this. He will know that I have said in this Chamber before that I think it is a great shame that, when the Brexit debate was taking place, so little attention was given to the impact on Northern Ireland. Some people were taken aback, and certainly there were no preparations by the Government for how Northern Ireland could manage this. The SPS agreement removes the barriers on agri-food products. I will take away the point the noble Lord makes—I think it is wider than just agri-food products—see what is happening and discuss it with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, and will come back to him ASAP on that issue.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Coussins (CB)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, there are another five minutes left.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

Will the noble Baroness accept that this has been widely supported throughout the country, and right across parties, because it shows that this Government have at least lived in the world we live in, and not in some past world? We now go forward to work more closely with our biggest and most important market and our closest neighbour. Will she accept those congratulations and our hope that we can move further forward in this direction?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I am always happy to accept congratulations. The noble Lord makes a very important point about living in the real world. The issue of alignment came up a moment ago. If you look at what has happened already, you find that there has not been the divergence that we were told was going to happen. That is why the paperwork that British businesses have to go through in order to export is such nonsense and a burden for them. This is about living in the real world and doing the best we can for the economy and the people of this country.

[Baroness Coussins (CB)]

My Lords, the Statement read out by the noble Baroness the Leader said that this arrangement will do away with the long delays faced by lorry drivers with rotting food in the back. Can she say whether it will do away with the long delays faced by coach-loads of schoolchildren on school trips to France? Since the Government did away with the group passport scheme, groups of 40 or 50 school- children all have to get off the coach and be individually checked, which occasionally results in the coach driver hitting the legal drive time limit and abandoning the coach altogether. Will this new arrangement see the reintroduction of the group passport scheme or an equivalent replacement scheme to facilitate educational school trips for children?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

The noble Baroness highlights one of those issues that was never thought of as going to be a problem. I am pleased to hear that schools are still going on trips. I have heard of so many schools not undertaking trips because of the problems, with many schools cancelling trips because of the complications of taking them. I do not think it was discussed at this summit; it is not in the papers I have seen, but I will find out. I will certainly ensure that it is raised in the future.

[Baroness Winterton of Doncaster (Lab)]

My Lords, during the European Affairs Select Committee’s recent visit to Brussels, it became very clear that it was the constructive and positive attitude of this Government that was opening the way to meaningful discussions, particularly on defence and security. There are obviously some details to be ironed out, but can my noble friend the Leader set out what advice and processes there will be so that the UK defence industry can benefit from the partnership agreements on defence and the funds available?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I am grateful for that question and mindful that I did not properly answer the question on this point from the noble Lord, Lord Newby. When I was a Member of the other place, the defence industry was in my constituency, and I know that it is entrepreneurial, forward-looking and innovative. It does a great deal of technical research that has applications across the board, and the MoD will work with those companies. With the EU setting up the security action for Europe instrument, for which is proposed a €150 billion fund, we plan to make arrangements so that we can be part of it and benefit from it. Exports by the UK defence industry are going to benefit enormously from this, if we can ensure that its skills are recognised and we work in a joint partnership. It is that joint partnership that will allow us to bid for and be part of the €150 billion fund.

[Baroness Meyer (Con)]

My Lords, to look at the real world, France has a budget deficit of 5.8% compared to ours of 2.3%. France has an unemployment rate of 7.3% compared to our 4.5%, and France has 19% youth unemployment. Germany’s economy is going down rapidly, with exports going down a lot. So, I am confused when the Prime Minister and the Government call this a wonderful deal. How can it be a wonderful deal for our businesses and this country’s economy?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I am slightly puzzled by the noble Baroness’s question, if I am honest. Our economy is doing really well now. We are picking up, having been through a very difficult time over the last 14 years and with, I hesitate to say, a £22 billion black hole in current spending plans. By doing a deal with the EU on trade and the economy—I will answer the question from the noble Baroness if she will let me and not make hand signals at me—we have just done all the things we were told we could not do. We have a trade and co-operation agreement and a defence and security agreement with the EU; we have a trade agreement with India and a trade agreement with the USA. The noble Baroness told us last year that would never happen—it has, and we are delighted that we can deliver for the British public.

Gaza Humanitarian Foundation

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Tuesday 13th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)]

In begging leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, I declare my interests as shown in the register.

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

My Lords, it is clear that there is a desperate urgency to get humanitarian aid into Gaza. As the UN has said, it is hard to see how the proposal to distribute aid through private companies would meet the scale of the need, protect civilians, protect aid workers and be consistent with humanitarian principles. The UN and humanitarian NGOs have worked with courage and determination to deliver aid into Gaza since the conflict began. These organisations uphold humanitarian principles and can deliver assistance across Gaza to those who need it most.

[Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her Answer. It is a little disappointing to hear that she does not join me in welcoming this proposal, which should help at least 1.2 million people initially, and then up to 2 million later, to receive humanitarian aid under an independent mechanism. Does she agree that bypassing Hamas to prevent it hijacking the aid is important, especially in the light of UNRWA’s failure to do so and reports such as that from the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, which shows that exploiting hijacked aid has generated at least £500 billion for Hamas’s terrorist operations?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, the blocking of aid into Gaza by Israel has caused enormous suffering. We are aware of the allegations she refers to that Hamas uses humanitarian aid for its own gain, and we have encouraged Israel to share the evidence with the UN and with NGOs. We have not seen any evidence that there is systematic diversion to Hamas and, given the ongoing hostilities, we are unable to verify allegations through direct monitoring. We ensure that all mechanisms are in place for UK-provided aid. The situation is dire; one in five people faces starvation. Aid is available to get into Gaza now if we can unblock those routes. The surest way through is to have a ceasefire, release the hostages and get aid in now. That is essential if we are to protect and save lives.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

My Lords, is my noble friend the Leader of the House in a position to remove the veil from the recently formed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation? It is less than two and a half months since this company was put together. Can she tell us which private contractors are being set up to take the place of the United Nations and its partners? Are they capable of providing not just the scale but the diversity of aid that the UN and its partners would be able to provide to the Gazans if the Israelis lifted their blockade?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I am not able to satisfy my noble friend on those points; I do not have that information. We have urged the Israeli Government to share that information, because it would be very difficult to make an assessment. We stand ready to work alongside Israel, the UN and our partners to ensure that aid is delivered, but we have to ensure both that they have the expertise to get the aid in and the safety of the aid workers. Over 400 aid workers have died providing humanitarian aid. It is the most dangerous part of the world to supply aid to and in which to be a humanitarian worker. We should express our gratitude and the debt we all owe to those who put their lives at risk to help others.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, is it not plumbing the depths of immorality for the women and girls of Gaza, who have had such brutality inflicted on them, now to submit to the indignity of having to queue up to profiteering mercenaries hired by a shadowy organisation established in Switzerland, which will operate under no humanitarian standards or international mandate and with no accountability mechanisms whatever, to receive sanitation, food, water and medicine? What are the Government doing to stop this terrible idea?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

At the moment, it is an idea. We have seen no evidence that it will go forward. However, the noble Lord is right that humanitarian principles of delivering aid must be consistent across every area in which that aid is being delivered. Today, we are convening the UN Security Council in New York—it is probably meeting now—to look at what can be done to deal with the appalling humanitarian situation in Gaza.

[Baroness Deech (CB)]

My Lords, the simple, straightforward solution is for the hostages to be released. We can see with our own eyes that the hostages are among the least well-fed people in Gaza. Why are the Government always so quick to believe Hamas and United Nations organisations? Why do they not share the widespread scepticism about Hamas, which is stockpiling the aid and preventing lorries going in? Why do they not note how UNRWA has been infiltrated by Hamas?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I hope that the noble Baroness heard one of my first comments, which was about the priority of getting the hostages out and released. Recently, Eli Sharabi was released; he was a shadow of his former self. There is a lot of suffering—by the hostages who have been kidnapped, the families of those who were killed on 7 October and the people of Gaza. The crucial thing is to get the aid in and the hostages out. Only if there is a ceasefire can we then talk about the future and see what else can be done for a long-standing peace.

[Baroness Morris of Bolton (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register. Last week, the Palestinian Authority declared a famine in Gaza. It was caused not by a flood, by a drought or by any natural causes; it is entirely manmade. I welcome what the Lord Privy Seal said about the conference being held next week. Can the UK Government ensure that we point out that aid workers are already on the ground in Gaza who have been working for years, ceaselessly, to help the Palestinians, and that they should very much be part of the solution?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is absolutely right. Delivering aid and humanitarian aid is not something that you can do on a whim. These people are experienced, have knowledge and expertise and know the areas on the ground. I was not referring to the June conference but the one taking place today in New York, but the noble Baroness is right: there is aid there now. There is aid at the borders that could be delivered. One in five of the population now faces starvation. It is critical to get that aid in as soon and as quickly as possible. The quickest way to do so would be to stop blocking the aid so that it can be delivered to those who are in desperate, dire need of it.

[Baroness Blackstone (Lab)]

My Lords, will the Leader of the House accept that the sidelining of trusted aid agencies and the militarisation of aid under this scheme will lead to large parts of Gaza, where the most vulnerable and least mobile people live, being without supplies?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My noble friend says that there is another scheme in place; I am not sure that there is. There are discussions about it, but I have seen no details. There cannot be any aid mechanism that does not have delivering humanitarian aid as its sole priority. It cannot deliver political or military objectives; it is there to help vulnerable civilians. That will be the priority. If there is not action almost immediately, more people will die. Women and children in Gaza face loss of life now. The figure that one in five people in Gaza faces starvation is horrendous. Yes, the hostages must be released, we must get aid into Gaza and that ceasefire must take place. Only then can we look at a longer timespan for peace in the region.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, one of the first things this Government did on coming into office was resume funding for UNRWA, which was suspended by the previous Government. This followed proven allegations that UNRWA employees were members of Hamas and participated in the 7 October massacre. Nobody disagrees with the idea that aid should get through to those who need it, but there are also proven allegations that Hamas has been stealing, diverting and hijacking that aid. Can the Minister assure the House that no British taxpayer’s aid has been diverted to Hamas?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, yes, we resumed funding to UNRWA for the very purpose of having people with knowledge and expertise on the ground to get aid in as quickly as possible to save lives. I said at the very beginning that, for all UK-funded aid, we look at every possible mechanism to ensure that it gets to where it is needed, which is to the most vulnerable. We will always do that, and we will do everything we can to ensure that.