Counsellors of State Bill [HL]

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 23rd November 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I have considerable sympathy with the thoughts behind this amendment, because the debate has shown that there is a certain amount of confusion about which members of the body of Counsellors of State will undertake royal duties, do undertake royal duties or might be asked to do so. In addition to the Duke of Sussex and the Duke of York, Princess Beatrice—although I might be wrong about this—is also not a working royal. That means that three members of this extraordinarily small body will never be asked to perform the function, which just seems strange.

An amendment of this sort would enable matters to be clarified. There are a number of deficiencies in its drafting, some of which were raised by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. It also raises in my mind the question of what would happen if we were to exclude two or three Counsellors of State. Who would replace them? Would they be replaced and, if so, on what basis? There is ambiguity. In an ideal world, this ambiguity would be dealt with by consideration of these matters.

For example, it is up to the King to decide which members of his family he considers working members of it. He decides who acts as a working member of the Royal Family, so I think we could get round all that. However, as we debated on Monday, once you start down this route, it takes quite a lot of time and effort to deal satisfactorily with all the wrinkles. Given everything else that lies before us, I am not sure it is a priority. However, one idea is that the work could be done on this to the extent that, at some point in the future, there may need to be another Counsellors of State Bill to include an additional person. It would be a good thing if this could be cleared up at the same time.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, listening to noble Lords talking about the definition of working royals, I sometimes think we ought to look at the definition of working Peers, over which similar anomalies arise. Monday’s significant debate made it clear that very few of us have considered this issue before. It is not something that we deal with every day. We debated the Bill at length but it is wrong to chastise those who want further debate. I would have thought, however, that His Royal Highness, the palace authorities and Parliament would have given considerable thought to whether the Bill would deal with the problems that may occur if there were not adequate members to fulfil the responsibilities of Counsellors of State.

I appreciate that my noble friend is not pressing his amendment to a vote; I think the House is quite anxious to see this legislation go to the other place and get on to the statute book. We quite like the idea of Bills that start in your Lordships’ House and then go to the other place, rather than the other way round. Therefore, we should send the Bill to the House of Commons, as it is now, unamended, as the noble Lords who proposed these amendments have suggested.

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all those who have spoken, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for putting this matter before us. Perhaps it would not be inappropriate at the start to thank the Official Opposition and the noble Lord, Lord, Lord Newby, for their support on behalf of their parties, which I am sure will be noted and much appreciated.

I say to the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, who always likes to bowl a different ball, as it were, that if he had been here at Second Reading he would have known that no one has ever sought to say that this matter should not be discussed. In fact, His Majesty’s Government have presented a Bill before Parliament for the single purpose of enabling Parliament to consider the matter. His Majesty the King himself has invited us to discuss the matter, so it is 180 degrees away from the position that the noble Lord sought to represent. I cannot go into the point about the future of your Lordships’ House, but it was not my party that recently put that matter before the newspapers.

We believe that this amendment is a disproportionate step. What the Government are doing, as referenced in the King’s message, is a practical and limited modification that allows royal functions to be delegated to a wider pool of Counsellors of State. It is a practical and proportionate response. The Bill follows established precedents. There is no precedent for a measure to exclude individuals from acting as Counsellors of State. Any further changes to the pool of Counsellors of State by, for example, removing certain individuals, would require more fundamental amendment to the Regency Act 1937. These arrangements have been in place for 85 years and have, in my submission, served us well.

The Bill follows the precedent, as I said at Second Reading, of 1953, when Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother was added, and adds the Princess Royal and the Earl of Wessex to the pool of Counsellors of State. I must remind my noble friend Lord Balfe, who suggested that this was a very narrow pool, that he did not mention the fact that Her Majesty the Queen Consort and His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales are Counsellors of State, so the pool is slightly wider than he suggested. The amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, to exclude individuals would be a substantial change that departs both from precedent and the approach set out in the King’s message to both Houses. With respect to the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, the approach set out in His Majesty’s message is appropriate and effective. I follow the noble Baroness opposite in saying that your Lordships should respect it, having considered it and reflected on it as we have.

I intend no disservice to my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister, for whom I have the very highest regard, but I have noted criticisms in your Lordships’ House of the fact that the office of Lord Chancellor is now held by a Member of the House of Commons. I have heard that often at this Dispatch Box. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, to allow the Lord Chancellor to exclude those individuals who have not undertaken royal duties in the preceding two years is, in our submission, an unnecessary addition, introducing complexity into the scheme where it is not required.

The amendment proposes a significant change to the underlying Act and shifts the decision-making to a member of the Government. It would now be for the Lord Chancellor to make a judgment on what counts—and what does not—as regularly undertaking royal duties. The word “regular” is subjective, and that is a lot to load on one individual. It might be asked “What is regular?” I remind the House that there are working members of the Royal Family, some very senior, who undertake public duties but have never been Counsellors of State and are not intended to be. As was wisely put to us by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and my noble friend Lord Wolfson, this approach would add complexity where previously there was none and impose an unnecessary duty on the Lord Chancellor.

The amendment must be regarded as practically unnecessary if the Bill is to pass. The Regency Act already includes provisions—the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, was kind enough to allude to our debate at Second Reading—whereby Counsellors of State are excepted from duties if they are overseas. I repeat what I set out at Second Reading: the Royal Household has confirmed that, in practice, working members of the Royal Family will be called on to act as Counsellors of State and diaries will be arranged to make this practicable. I think it is well known and understood who those persons are. The Bill as it is drafted and the flexible constitutional arrangements in place ensure that the effect of the amendment is already achieved. In my submission, and I believe this is the view of most noble Lords who spoke at Second Reading and today, that is sufficient and nothing more is required.

The underlying structure provided by the legislation has proved effective and it would be a mistake to seek to modify its effect in response to short-term contexts which are, of course, subject to evolution and change. To conclude, for the reasons I have set out and those set out by other noble Lords who have spoken helpfully in this debate, I hope I can convince the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, that his amendment is redundant and disproportionate. In fact, it would add complexity and subjectivity to the system and is not suitable to the intent of this practical and precise Bill. I urge him to withdraw his amendment.

Counsellors of State Bill [HL]

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 21st November 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Lord Privy Seal for his detailed explanation of the Bill when he opened the debate. I also thank the House of Lords Library for its very helpful and comprehensive paper, which actually answers a number of the questions that were raised by noble Lords in this debate. I am sure that the Minister will make use of it.

I smiled when the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, referred to the constitutional machinery of Counsellors of State. Those of us who have been candidates at elections often remember being told that we were a legal necessity for the election, but our role was important in that context nonetheless.

This is a very simple, straightforward proposal. We have strayed into debate on wider issues that may be addressed in the legislation, but we have quite a straightforward and moderate measure before us today. It has the advantage, unlike so much other legislation, of being precise and very clear. The purpose is to ensure that Counsellors of State are available when His Majesty wishes to delegate certain duties. The noble Lord, Lord Balfe, asked what would happen if the Duke of Suffolk were to come over to the UK and try to assume responsibilities. Under the provisions of the legislation, the monarch delegates responsibilities; people do not take them on of their own accord.

I can think of no more appropriate members of the Royal Household to take on these two positions as extra Counsellors of State. As has been referred to, both have previously acted as Counsellors of State but were then moved as the line of succession changed—we will have to look at some of the gender issues in this at some point—and others reached the age of majority and became Counsellors of State. Princess Anne was a Counsellor of State from 1971 to 2003, and the Earl of Wessex from 1985 to 2005, when Prince Harry reached the age of 21. Their experience in that role is something that cannot be denied. They both know what is expected of them and how to perform their functions. It is of course open to other members of the Royal Family to carry out other ceremonial events, but Counsellors of State have very specific functions, as delegated by the sovereign.

There are other issues relevant to this legislation but they are not for discussion today, or indeed in this legislation. The measure before us today is entirely appropriate and proportionate. Unlike many other pieces of legislation, it does exactly what it says on the tin.

G20

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Thursday 17th November 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Lord Privy Seal for repeating today’s Statement. I think it helps the discussions of the House when we are able to have Statements on the same day so the House can hear the Statement and respond, and I think he feels the same.

I entirely agree with the comments he made. As world leaders met in Bali, the incident in Poland was a stark reminder of the effect of the destabilising influence and effect of Putin’s war in Ukraine. I entirely concur with his comments about the terrible explosion in Poland. With two people killed, we extend our condolences, and I think the whole House will agree, to all those affected. We also admire our NATO allies for their calm and level-headed response to this at such a tense time.

We on these Benches, and indeed across the House, are committed to the principle of collective security. An attack on the sovereignty of any NATO country is an attack on us all. Sadly, though, as we await the results of the investigation into the incident, Putin’s illegal invasion continues to have further tragic and devastating consequences. Russian forces are being pushed further from Kherson but, in response, Moscow is now directing attacks on to civilians and civilian infrastructure, with all the consequences that brings both for the current citizens but also for the future reconstruction of Ukraine.

I am pleased that the leaders’ declaration confirmed that the G20 recognised the immense human suffering in Ukraine, but we also understand and appreciate that that forum is not the place where we can resolve the issue of the invasion. Nevertheless, it would be helpful if the Minister could say something about discussions that were held with allies about extending support for Ukraine, including the issue of air defences.

On the Black Sea grain shipments deal, we welcome some of the reports that are emerging of an extension. I do not know whether the Minister can say anything more about that today or if he is able to outline the Government’s assessment of Russian compliance with the agreement that has been reached.

I want to say something about international development. I think the whole House will hope that progress on grain exports could help to calm the issue of global food price increases, which is threatening even greater hardship across the developing world. Famine is now looming for many of the world’s poorest and most vulnerable. I was pleased to hear the Minister make reference to the international institutions’ role in mobilising resources, but I have to say it is unfortunate that the Government have abandoned the global leadership role that we have had on international development. We were well known for that for many years. He will be aware that during the G20 talks the Government cut support for the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. That is in direct contrast to our allies, including the US, France, Germany, Japan and Spain, which have all stepped up their commitments by 30%. The timing of the Government’s announcement was unfortunate, to say the very least, and I wonder whether any of our counterparts in other countries raised the future of the Global Fund, given that the announcement was made at the same time as the G20 was ongoing.

On international development, as well as on security and the global economy, the value of the G20 is that it brings together leaders with interests that have not always aligned. That introduces opportunities but also provides challenges. For years, government policy on China has been marked by inconsistency and sometimes quite screeching U-turns. The Lord Privy Seal mentioned that the Prime Minister discussed China with President Biden. Can he say anything more about what kind of discussions they were? Further to that, can he confirm when the Government now plan to publish the China strategy that we are waiting for?

I want to touch on trade, particularly the meeting with Prime Minister Modi. India is the world’s largest democracy. There are strong cultural and family ties with the UK. Clearly a trade agreement would bring new opportunities for both partners, but it has been cast into doubt by irresponsible comments from the Home Secretary on immigration from India. It is quite shocking when two arms of government are not singing from the same hymn sheet on such issues. Her comments could be extremely damaging, as well as being unwarranted and unhelpful generally. Although I am pleased that progress towards that trade agreement was reviewed, we are now long past Diwali, which was the Government’s previous deadline for achieving such an agreement. Is the Minister able to tell us whether there is a new target date for completion of the Indian trade deal? Is there any sign or sight of our reaching a conclusion?

Unfortunately, the Government’s difficulty in finding agreement with India reflects broader issues with trade policy. I am sure the Minister has seen the scathing comments from George Eustice about the Australian trade deal, which were rather surprising given that he was a Cabinet Minister when it was negotiated. Meanwhile, the pledge to have 80% of UK trade covered by free trade agreements by the end of 2022 seems a distant prospect. It would be helpful to your Lordships’ House if the Minister could tell the House today—if not, I am happy for him to write to me and put a copy in the Library—what percentage of UK trade is currently covered by FTAs.

It is now being reported that a trade deal with the US was not even discussed by the Prime Minister when he met President Biden, which seems rather concerning. Is there any prospect of seeing a trade deal with the US before the end of this Parliament?

In conclusion, this summit took place against a backdrop of greater instability and economic challenge than any other G20 forum. I agree with the Statement on how serious the shockwaves that have come from the Russian invasion of Ukraine are, but that is only part of the story as far as the UK is concerned. It does not explain why we are doing so much worse on economic growth, and have higher inflation and greater inequality, than other countries with similar economies. We may see today what impact the Budget has and we will discuss that later. The Government’s actions and responsibility play into part of that as well.

Recent events in Poland are quite a warning for us that Putin’s reckless invasion of Ukraine has implications for wider international security. It reminds us of just how important our international alliances and relationships are.

All this reinforces that we must stand with our NATO allies and our friends in Ukraine in their defence against brutal aggression. But now, perhaps more than ever before, we have to stand up and commit wholeheartedly to multilateralism and the international rule of law as the guarantor—the only guarantor—of a safer and more secure future.

[Lord Stoneham of Droxford (LD)]

I thank the Leader of the House for delivering the Statement. I am standing in for my noble friend Lord Newby, who cannot be here this evening. I welcome the outcome of the G20 meeting, with its near unanimous support for Ukraine, our Polish allies and condemnation of the illegal actions of Russia. The determination to uphold international law and the UN charter has our full support, as does the commitment to collective economic security.

If a deal to sustain grain shipments moving in the Black Sea can be secured this weekend, this will have special significance, at least for the developing world. The recognition by the Government that our own economic stability depends on a firm international foundation is welcome. The Statement says:

“By being strong abroad we strengthen our resilience at home.”


The problem is that everything that the respective Governments of the past six years have done has been to weaken this position abroad, and it is not surprising that this weakening is reflected in our own intolerable domestic economic situation, made worse by the last Conservative Government’s own actions.

The missile incident in Poland should perhaps remind us of our history: an attack on Poland led us into the Second World War, and, for the next two years, Churchill spent his life trying to ensure that we did not stand alone. Polish troops were some of the bravest who supported us then. This should demonstrate to us that, whatever happens in Europe, whether it is a security issue, energy shortages, economic problems or the impact of climate change, this all impacts on us as a nation. Every day, our sovereignty is weaker by being outside the European Councils. Gatherings such as the G20 and the G7 are actually now very important to us because we have fewer opportunities each year to meet world leaders. They are of course even more important to us now that we are outside the EU, where we had so many opportunities to meet leaders of our neighbouring countries in Europe to get to know how we could work with them, which we were very good at doing.

I want to ask the Leader of the House three questions. First, there is lots of talk about defence issues arising from the conflict in Ukraine, and that is obviously our focus, but are we and other nations prepared to support Ukraine economically as well as defensively? Will we be supporting its move into the European single market, and what involvement will we have in the equivalent of a Marshall plan for that country, either before or certainly when the war has ended?

Secondly, there seems to have been little discussion at the G20 on the problems of population growth across the globe—particularly in Africa, where half the growth is now expected to occur, according to UN projections—and its implications for water, food and migration pressures on Europe in particular. It needs international attention, particularly the line from Lagos to Shanghai, where resources are needed to counter the growing pressures of population growth and the shortage of world resources.

Finally, once again, there is a lot of attention to the discussions with President Biden on the edges of the G20 meeting. I suspect that his position and probable involvement in any celebrations in March on the Northern Ireland peace agreement were discussed. So is March now the new deadline for sorting out the Northern Ireland protocol to ensure that he makes this visit, and was it discussed?

COP 27

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Tuesday 15th November 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

Perhaps I will wait a moment for the House to settle as there does not seem to be as much interest in COP 27 as there was in the regency Bill.

My Lords, I welcome that the Prime Minister raised the case of Alaa Abd el-Fattah with the Egyptian President when he was at COP. The Leader of the House will be aware from my intervention last week how concerned we are for his welfare in your Lordships’ House. The news yesterday that Alaa is alive and, although he remains on hunger strike, is now drinking water, is to be welcomed. However, after being on hunger strike and not eating for so long, he is obviously weakened, and his family remain extremely concerned and desperate for Alaa’s release. Following that, and because the Prime Minister raised it at Sharm el-Sheikh, is the noble Lord able to tell us today what further action or representations the Government have made since that meeting? Has consular access now been granted?

Returning to the substance of COP 27, when I heard the Prime Minister’s Statement, I was struck by how optimistic and confident he appears on the issue. Perhaps this is why he initially felt it was not necessary for him to attend. I am all for being optimistic and the need to be hopeful about the future, but such a world-view needs to be rooted in reality. The Prime Minister admits in the Statement, as those who have read it will know, that:

“There is … a long way to go to limit global temperature rises to”


1.5 degrees centigrade, but he then praises the “historic Glasgow climate pact” for keeping “that goal within reach”. I must say that keeping a goal within reach does not sound like such a great commitment when the situation is so very serious. If it always remains just within reach, we will never get there.

The UN reports that the world is currently on course for a catastrophic 2.8 degrees centigrade rise in temperatures—almost double the recommendation—in part because the promises made in Glasgow were not met. In recent times, we have seen the consequences and human cost of climate change. Your Lordships will be aware of the floods, which were seen most recently in Pakistan, that leave death and destruction in their wake, and we have seen temperatures, particularly over the last summer, so hot that life and livelihoods are threatened. So often, those who are most affected are also the least able to prepare for, or cope with, the consequences.

In addition, the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the resulting war have shown just how crucial it is that we protect and enhance the security of our energy supply. Without that greater security, costs are going to rise even higher, and blackouts and power cuts remain a threat. In the Statement, the Prime Minister referred to the UK as a pioneer, as being “ambitious”, and as being a leader in the global war on climate change. There is an opportunity to be all those things, and pioneering such generational change, as we tackle the challenges of the climate emergency, could improve and transform our economy and energy resilience. So the Prime Minister’s assertion at COP 27 that we need to “act faster” on renewables is very welcome. However, given that assertion, can the Lord Privy Seal explain why, at the same time, Ministers were repeatedly ruling out onshore wind? On the one hand, the Prime Minister is saying that we are going to “act faster” on renewables and, on the other, Ministers are ruling out onshore wind—this does not make much sense. It is the quickest, cheapest and cleanest of renewables, but it is absent from the Government’s energy strategy. How does this match Mr Sunak’s speech at COP 27, or is it just that he was speaking to a different audience on a different day?

This is not just a matter of global responsibility; it is also a matter of seizing opportunities. Manufacturing and installing onshore wind could provide huge economic and energy boosts. Have the Government made any assessment—it is important that we get an answer on this specific point—of the number of quality green jobs that could be created by reversing government policy and embracing onshore wind? I hope that the Government have also been looking into what boost that could give the British economy in the longer term.

The noble Lord may be aware that my own party has committed to a genuinely world-leading plan for 100% clean power by 2030. That is ambitious, but in the same way as past generations were excited by, and embraced, new technologies for future prosperity, we must do the same. If we fail to invest in new technologies—for example, in green hydrogen, floating wind turbines, gigafactories, new nuclear, clean steel or tidal power—we will fail the next generation on every level. As we face the prospect of another austerity Budget, the Government could use this opportunity to boost green manufacturing. We have such a good record in this country on research, yet we continue to import the batteries—such as those for cars—that we should be manufacturing here in the UK. Can the Lord Privy Seal offer any hope or reassurance that the upcoming austerity Budget will include some long-term economic planning for investment in the technologies of the future and green growth?

Surely the Government have to up their game and bring in a more effective windfall tax on excess profits of oil companies that does what it says on the tin and not return 90p in every pound of investment in tax breaks. Our calculations have found that increasing the windfall tax as we originally proposed and extending it to 2027-28, eliminating that loophole for oil and gas companies, could bring in an extra £34 billion on top of the £28 billion currently expected by the Government. With cuts and tax rises expected this week, why do Ministers not pursue this course of action, which would help our finances and energy security and address our needs and our obligations on the climate emergency?

No one should deny that there is an emergency, and the Statement from the Prime Minister recognises that, but so far, although we have seen a recognition, we have not seen the ambition needed to make that step change towards green energy and green growth. We need to create that new clean industrial strategy for the future. Just saying that something is the case does not make it true. If the Government are serious about leading on this issue—and I hope they are—in planning for a green, clean and prosperous future, we need to see a Budget that not only understands that but lays the foundations to ensure that it happens.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, more than anything else, the Statement demonstrates the value of the Prime Minister going to COP 27 at all. Leaving aside the business of the conference itself, the Prime Minister lauds the fact that his attendance enabled him to meet a raft of world leaders for the first time. Nine are mentioned specifically. It also enabled him to raise non-climate related issues, from the plight of Alaa Abd el-Fattah to the refugee crisis in the channel. Had he not been forced by external pressures to reverse his initial intention to ignore the conference altogether, these opportunities would have been missed. I hope that that the Prime Minister has learned the lesson that, to promote British interests internationally, he has to take every opportunity to meet his counterparts beyond sporadic, bilateral visits. Sadly, however, the fact that the Prime Minister went to COP 27 only under duress has undermined the UK’s reputation as a leader in the fight against climate change. The world simply does not think that the Prime Minister’s heart is in it.

On the substance of the conference, there have obviously been some positive developments, such as the new investment plan for cleaner energy in South Africa. But there are worrying suggestions that both India and China are trying to push back on the 1.5 degree target, claiming that it is unrealistic. Will the Prime Minister use the current G20 summit to press his counterparts in India and China to stick to their climate change commitments rather than reneging on them?

As for activity in the UK, the Statement is extremely complacent. The Prime Minister claims that the Government will

“accelerate our transition to renewables”

but, if this is the case, to echo the noble Baroness, why has he turned his back on the cheapest and cleanest form of renewable—namely, onshore wind? Why are the Government still supporting new oil and gas exploration in the North Sea, against the advice of the International Energy Agency?

The Prime Minister talks about “our green industrial revolution”, but the UK is lagging far behind France and Germany, for example, in investment in new technologies such as battery production and green hydrogen. This is not only bad for the environment but extremely bad for jobs, which, in the absence of our developing competitive facilities, will move offshore. We have already seen BMW’s decision to move electric Mini production to China. What assurance can the Government give car producers in the UK that they will be able to procure batteries manufactured in the UK, given the parlous financial state of the few battery production facilities now planned? The UK also lags behind the rest of Europe in its production of heat pumps, an essential component in driving down domestic energy consumption. Given that this has resulted in an acute shortage of heat pumps, what action are the Government planning to deal with this urgent problem?

The Prime Minister also talks about up to 500,000 high-skilled green jobs, but there is currently, according to PwC, a 41,000 green skills job gap. Where are the new workers going to come from, given the dire state of apprenticeships in green technologies, a lack of labour force planning and a lack of engagement with educational institutions? Do the Government understand that for companies to invest in and retain skilled staff, they need consistency in government policy, not least in respect of price and subsidy? Zig-zagging on policy in recent years has led many companies in, for example, the solar power sector, to lay off skilled workers because they have not had any certainty about their future operating environment.

The next major international conference on sustainability is the UN Conference on Biological Diversity, to be held next month in Montreal. Will the Minister tell us which senior UK Minister will be attending this crucial next step from COP 27? The Prime Minister managed to salvage some of his and the Government’s reputation by finally turning up at COP 27 but, both domestically and internationally, perceptions of the UK Government’s commitment to reaching net zero have been damaged and more action is now needed to prove the doubters wrong.

Hereditary Peers By-election

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Monday 24th October 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the House for allowing me to make a few remarks after this latest clutch of by-elections; I remind the House that five new Members of Parliament have been elected since last Thursday with scarce a murmur from anywhere. I want to put into Hansard and on the record a little more information about the by-election that was held last week for the new Cross-Bench Peer.

I find the way in which these results are announced completely unsatisfactory. Obviously, that is not a criticism of the clerk—it is precedent—but we have notice of new Members of Parliament only by means of a very lightly drawn, barely noticeable script on the Order Paper. The only information we get, apart from the recent embellishment, which tells us the total number of votes cast, just tells us who has won the election. More information should be provided when the result is announced. I am unable to give it for the result that has just been announced because I would have to go along to the Printed Paper Office to get it, but I can give some information about the by-election for the new Cross-Bencher which was held last week. There were 10 candidates for that vacancy and 30 electors, so, three electors for every candidate. Twenty-two of the 30 voted; I make that a turnout of 73%. The winning candidate got 11 votes and the runner-up got 10 votes, so a quick calculation tells me that that is a majority of one, which of course makes this a hyper-marginal seat.

I simply say to the House that a by-election result has been announced without the figures and without even the winning candidates being present, let alone the losing candidates—usually, the losing candidates stick around as well for a normal by-election. With no criticism of the people elected whatever, it is without any reference to the House of Lords Commission, unlike any life Peer or Cross-Bencher appointed to this House. There really is need for more information to be presented to the House when the clerk reads out the result. I commend that to the House authorities and to the Leader, who is in his place and who I know takes these things very seriously.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, before the Minister responds, I wonder whether there may be an opportunity for he and I to discuss this through the usual channels. Not only do we have hereditary Peers by-elections, against which this House has voted in principle—with no disrespect to those candidates who come into the House, whom we welcome—numerous times. We also have additional Members coming to the House as Ministers—about 10 in the past couple of years—and now there are reports of a further prime ministerial resignation honours list from the Prime Minister, who has been in post for only about a month. It seems that we ought to have a little more thought about the membership of this House and, as the Burns report says, not having a House of quite the size it is, but one that allows us to do our best work in the best way. It would be helpful if we could discuss in a sensible, practical and respectful way ensuring that this House is of a size that enables us to do our job in the best way possible.

[The Lord Privy Seal (Lord True) (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness talks about the size of the House, and I noticed the difficulty of finding a place on your Lordships’ Benches today. On the usual channels, I prefer to have such discussions in private, rather than on the Floor of the House. As far as new Peers are concerned, I simply say that I look forward to welcoming the eight new Labour peers who were appointed on the recommendation of the leader of the Opposition.

Economic Update

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Wednesday 19th October 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I hope we can get back at some point to hearing Ministers repeat Statements; I think it would be helpful to the House.

After listening to the Chancellor read his Statement on Monday, I came to the conclusion that Jeremy Hunt is either the luckiest or the unluckiest man in politics. He is unlucky in that he stood twice and failed twice to become leader of the Conservative Party and take over as Prime Minister. Perhaps he is lucky in that, despite being left out of the Cabinet because he did not back Liz Truss, he is now the most powerful person in government—he certainly has more authority than the Prime Minister—but he is unlucky again because he is the man inheriting the mess of the long- term damage inflicted on the economy in just 38 days by Kwasi Kwarteng. Worse than that, the co-architect of the policies that have caused such immediate turmoil—the person whose vision the former Chancellor said, in his resignation letter, he was following—technically remains in the top job.

The appointment of Jeremy Hunt as the fourth Chancellor in almost as many months and his first Statement on Monday may have brought some welcome, relative calm to the markets, but only because he signalled that he was undoing almost everything in the Prime Minister’s mini-Budget. Yet real harm has already been inflicted and the medicine on offer is even more pain for businesses, households and families across the country. Our economy is now weaker, as is our credibility across the globe, with international commentators likening our problems and economy to those of Greece and Italy rather than to any of the major economies.

There is further damage to public services, now threatened with additional painful cuts as the Government seek to regain market confidence. Most damning of all, for a party that has claimed economic competence in the past, is the damage to peoples’ hopes and aspirations as they are priced out of buying their first homes, renewing their mortgages or finding a rental property on a tightened budget.

We have also seen damage to the Prime Minister, who has lost the confidence of the public, Parliament and her own party. It is embarrassing when across the world the media picks up on the Economist editorial that says the Prime Minister’s likely shelf-life is shorter than that of a lettuce. Let us face it: the only reason she is still there is because her MPs know—as does this House—that they cannot change yet another leader without going to the country for a general election. It is a case of when, rather than if, she is forced out. I suspect there will be possibly a huge sigh of relief from the Benches opposite, most of whom have been quite honest with us and never supported her in the first place, having recognised that her fiscal plans were, in the words of Rishi Sunak, “fantasy economics”. Yet she and her first Chancellor pressed ahead, and the country is now paying a very high price.

We all recognise that there are huge global economic problems that need careful handling with immediate and short-term management and long-term planning, but this current crisis was made in, and existing problems were made worse by, Downing Street. They were not made in the US Federal Reserve, nor on the front line in Ukraine. One of the reasons why I hoped that the Minister would read out the Statement is because there is a line in it that I thought was astounding. It was when the Chancellor said:

“We have had short-term difficulties, caused by the lack of a forecast from the Office for Budget Responsibility alongside the mini-Budget”.


Seriously, whose fault was that? The Government silenced the OBR at the very time it would have been of most help. That was utterly disgraceful.

This whole saga has proved that the Government, and perhaps the wider Conservative Party, do not have the understanding, the knowledge or the right experiences to get our country back on track. While MPs hold back-room talks about the fate of the Prime Minister, interest and mortgage rates just go up and up. This is not a party game, where the job of PM is shuffled around like a game of pass the parcel. As for the Government’s growth plan, the only things that seem to be growing at the moment are inflation and mortgage rates. Today, ONS statistics suggest that food inflation is even higher than regular inflation, currently at more than 14%.

Yesterday, and I do not know whether the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal will recall this, I asked him what I thought was a straightforward question: what do the Government say to those whose mortgage bills will be hundreds of pounds higher each month following the mini-Budget shambles? He did not answer the question. He did, however, concede that his son and other first-time buyers face a desperate plight in the current circumstances. I am going to try again to get an answer to what I think is a very pertinent question: as mortgage bills go up by £500 and more a month, what do the Government say to those paying such a high price for what was a staggeringly incompetent mini-Budget?

While the noble Lord revisits that question, perhaps he could also reconsider a question posed last Thursday by my noble friend Lord Tunnicliffe. We understand that the Bank of England is assessing the likely number of property repossessions in the coming months. Is the Treasury making its own assessment of that, because it could have a major impact on policy-making? If it is, when will Ministers have the information and the figures, and how would they be used to influence future government policy to avoid such repossessions? If this assessment is not being undertaken, can the noble Lord explain to the House why not?

One of the unexpected developments in the Chancellor’s Statement was the decision to U-turn on the energy price guarantee. Despite the Prime Minister having spent the weeks since the mini-Budget trying to reassure the public that they had certainty on their energy bills for the next two years, Jeremy Hunt has now torn up more of her plans. Is the noble Lord able to outline when the Treasury’s review of energy prices is likely to conclude? When will we hear more about the targeted scheme that will take effect, even though it is not until April 2023, after the winter bills? I would be grateful for a straight answer on this question: why, even at this stage, are the Government still not committing to extending the windfall tax on the excess profits of energy firms?

Early analysis suggests that reverting to a price cap, as the Government are now saying, would see bills rise to about £4,500. Where are families supposed to find that extra money—especially once you factor in increased mortgage costs, food costs, fuel costs, and, probably, rents? Will there be support for businesses beyond April, or will they have to fend for themselves? One of the key justifications for the so-called growth plan was to bring inflation down, but it is still rising. If energy prices rise again that will further fuel inflation—and, as a result, even more interest rate hikes. It is a Catch-22 of the Government’s own making, with the consumer paying the price.

However often the Conservative Party changes leaders or Chancellors, it will not restore that lost financial credibility of the last few weeks. We desperately need a genuine plan for long-term growth. We desperately need policies to support working people, rather than continually making life harder for them. I have often spoken, both here and at other events, about the positive case for politics, and the need for politics to be a force for good and to offer hope for the future. Under this Government, nobody now expects that. All we ask is that it does not get any worse.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, obviously, I cannot comment on information to which the noble Lord is privy. I am here as Leader of the House of Lords to serve your Lordships’ House. I give priority to serving your Lordships’ House and have not been looking at WhatsApp during this exchange of views.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful for that; the noble Lord is always helpful to this House. It would be helpful if we could have confirmation. The rumours are now that the Home Secretary has been sacked from her post. Given what has been said today about the necessity of a strong and stable Government, can he report back to your Lordships’ House at some point? There are probably Members of this House who would be happy to serve. That might be an answer to help out the Government.

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I have nothing further to add.

Replacement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Tuesday 18th October 2022 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Privy Seal (Lord True) (Con)]

My Lords, I think this was originally a Question asked of the Prime Minister. There has not been a Prime Minister in your Lordships’ House since 1963. I am not travelling in hope.

I will venture to make a comment on the matter. It is a central responsibility for any Government to do what is necessary for economic stability and the Prime Minister took the decision to appoint my right honourable friend Mr Jeremy Hunt, who is one of the longest-serving and most experienced parliamentarians and, I think, widely respected on all sides of your Lordships’ House, as her Chancellor. His overriding priority is to restore financial stability in the face of volatile global conditions.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister gave a much shorter answer than the one given in the House of Commons. I entirely agree with the first paragraph of his full Answer, which may surprise noble Lords. He said that,

“it is a central responsibility of any Government to do what is necessary for economic stability”.

Yet in the last few weeks this Government announced the biggest tax cuts since 1972 and then, within a matter of weeks, the biggest tax increases since 1993—hardly stability. The answer to this fiasco is apparently to have the fourth Chancellor of the Exchequer in under a year, with a threat of—and I quote the Chancellor—“eye-watering” further tax rises and public service cuts. Given that mortgage rates are higher today than they were yesterday, what does the noble Lord say to those who, because of the instability largely created by the Government, now face monthly mortgage increases of hundreds of pounds?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, on the question of mortgages, everyone will be sensible to the position of those seeking to buy—I have a son seeking a mortgage at the moment—in conditions where interest rates are rising, which they are internationally. On the more general question, the Chancellor is clear that the Government will need to take some very difficult decisions on spending and tax to place the public finances on a sustainable footing. Sound public finances are the bedrock on which future economic growth will be built. There is no trade-off here; the mini-Budget moved further and faster than the market expected, but this Government remain committed to growth and supporting families and the most vulnerable in society. We will continue to seek to perform that duty.

Her Late Majesty Queen Elizabeth II

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Friday 9th September 2022 Lords Chamber

We in her loyal House of Lords, along with hundreds of millions of people across the world, will join in prayers for our dear, our dearest, departed Queen. We call upon almighty God, in whom she so profoundly trusted and believed, to receive, as he so surely will, her dauntless and immortal soul. Thank you, Ma’am. May you ever rest in peace, as you will ever rest in our hearts.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord True, has spoken for us all in his very moving tribute to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. That we should feel not just grief and sadness but shock at the passing of our Queen at the age of 96 is extraordinary. It is not just our nations that are deeply shaken. Across the world, from great leaders to schoolchildren, we all feel that we have lost something special from our lives. It was so finely illustrated last night as, around the globe, lights dimmed, flags were flown at half-mast and national monuments were illuminated.

As the most recognisable face in the world, Her Majesty has been a fixed point at the core of our national life. As the world has changed almost beyond recognition during the 70 years of her reign, through her experience, her character and steadfast sense of duty, the Queen was able to remain a constant and unwavering presence while still ensuring that the monarchy adapted to the challenges of the modern age. It was not just her longevity and the span of history she lived through but how she represented and served the nations of the UK and the Commonwealth that have earned such admiration and affection.

The noble Lord, Lord True, spoke of that remarkable 21st birthday speech, when she dedicated her life, be it long or short, to our service and, as she said, to make us

“more free, more prosperous, more happy and a more powerful influence for good in the world”.

She saw that commitment as a joint endeavour, as she added:

“But I shall not have strength to carry out this resolution alone unless you join in it with me.”


And we did. That is why we mourn her loss so deeply today.

When Princess Elizabeth Alexandra Mary was born, few could have predicted the life ahead of her. Her father King George VI’s succession to the Throne was sudden and unexpected. Despite feeling unprepared, his general devotion and commitment to his country, to the Commonwealth and all its people earned him great warmth and admiration, particularly during the trauma of the war years. The then Princess Elizabeth also readily absorbed her new responsibilities. We should not underestimate the impact of her first public broadcast, at the age of 14, on the BBC’s “Children’s Hour” to those evacuated overseas during the Second World War.

Her Majesty later qualified as a mechanic and driver with the women’s branch of the British Army, the ATS. Apparently, the Government did not approve, believing that her most important training should be as heir to the Throne, not as a mechanic, yet her determination in insisting that she wanted to serve her country was an early sign of the great Queen she would become. And, having served in the ATS, on VE Day the two Royal Princesses were as excited as anyone. Her Majesty later spoke of joining the crowds in Whitehall, where they mingled anonymously with those linking arms and singing. In a world without mobile phones or selfies, I wonder how many thought that the two young women celebrating with them looked just like the Princesses Elizabeth and Margaret.

It is wonderful how she reached across the generations. My parents and grandparents would speak of her and her father’s dedication to the country during the war. As the first monarch of the television age, she and the Duke of Edinburgh ensured that her Coronation was the first ever to be broadcast across the world, as she pioneered the Christmas Day televised message. She connected with and was visible to each new generation in a way no monarch has ever done before, even when having to resort to Zoom during the pandemic. Her arrival at the opening ceremony of the 2012 Olympic Games, where she appeared to be parachuted into the stadium with James Bond, was as surprising as it was delightful, and the nation was just enchanted by her sharing of tea and marmalade sandwiches with Paddington Bear for her Platinum Jubilee.

That sense of fun enhanced her reputation as a monarch who connected with and understood her people. Of her 15 Prime Ministers, the first was born over a century before the last. At their weekly audiences, she was so much more than a willing confidante with absolute discretion. Her experience gave her a knowledge and an intuitive understanding of domestic and international issues. At home and abroad, she presented the best of us. President Barack Obama, one of the 14 US Presidents of her lifetime, said:

“Queen Elizabeth II embodied the special relationship”.


But she was so much more than a figurehead. Her historic visits to the Republic of Ireland in 2011 and Northern Ireland in 2012 were of global significance and further proof of her diplomatic skills. It is enormously valued that Her Majesty never spoke publicly of her views on a political or policy issue. She maintained a dignified privacy of thought and displayed strict impartiality. If it was frustrating at times, it never showed.

As Head of State, she symbolised that our common values are greater than any divisions. Many in your Lordships’ House will have memories of meetings with Queen Elizabeth that they will treasure and will share during tributes in your Lordships’ House. More importantly, up and down and across the country—indeed, all over the world—people who met her, spoke to her or just saw her in person are also sharing their memories. Our affection for Her Majesty is not the demanded affection of deference to a monarch of the past, but is freely given for a monarch who, in an era of great change and some turbulence, provided precious stability and continuity. Although we are united in sorrow, we are also united in pride and in celebrating the life of a remarkable Queen.

It is the end of a great Elizabethan age. We send our very sincere condolences to all members of the Royal Family on their profound loss, especially to His Majesty. We join the noble Lord, the Lord Privy Seal, in the hope that the love, respect and admiration of your Lordships’ House, the country, the Commonwealth and all across the world, provides some comfort in their loss.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, it is only a matter of weeks since your Lordships’ House met to pay tribute to the Queen on the occasion of her Platinum Jubilee. On that occasion, we knew that the Queen was already in frail health, but nobody contemplated that her reign had such a short period ahead of it. Because the Queen is the only monarch most people have known and was a permanent, reassuring presence in a challenging and rapidly changing world, her death has clearly come to millions as a great shock. For all but the oldest among us, a hitherto ever-present feature of British life has been removed and a deep sense of loss is felt not just by my generation, but by many of our children and grandchildren, for whom one might have thought that the Queen was a distant and possibly irrelevant figure.

What was the basis of this universal appeal? I suggest that it is because she demonstrated qualities that appeal across and down the ages. She was constant. As the world changed, as Prime Ministers and Presidents came and went, she exuded a sense of serenity and calm and, in times of national trauma and tragedy, a sense that these difficulties were surmountable, that they should be met with fortitude and that they would pass. She was unwavering in her commitment to the service of the nation and to her duty to represent its traditions and values, but she was sensitive to changing times, realising that the monarchy too had to change—had to be more open, more accessible and more accountable for everything it did. She was empathetic. For someone whose daily life was as different as it is possible to be from that of the vast majority of her subjects, she had an ability to communicate with them as individuals, to put them at ease and to make them feel truly special.

She had a great sense of humour. This no doubt helped her deal with the vagaries of her own life, but she used it effortlessly to defuse potentially difficult situations and to put the thousands of people she met at ease. She had a zest for life and for the role she had been allotted. Just look at the picture taken earlier this week as she met the new Prime Minister. That smile was genuine and heartwarming. Finally, she appealed to people’s better natures. Every year in her Christmas broadcast, she championed the values of community, generosity, kindness and service to others. We politicians share these values, but the nature of political debate means that we rarely articulate them. The country also shares them and looked to the Queen to champion them, which she unfailingly did.

These qualities were underpinned by two constants in her own life. The first, as we heard, was her marriage to Prince Philip, whom she repeatedly called her rock. For anyone who saw them together, there was no doubting that this was indeed the case. The second was her religious faith. This not only provided a source of strength and comfort for her but underpinned her approach to being the monarch. There is, in the Book of Common Prayer, the evocative concept of an individual’s “bounden duty”. The Queen applied this concept not only to her spiritual life but to her public role. She understood the importance of that duty for a monarch and she fulfilled her duties, one might say, religiously—literally to the end of her life.

As we remember the Queen, we also have in our thoughts, His Majesty King Charles—how strange it is to be using those words—Prince William and all other members of the Royal Family. We send them our condolences and good wishes for the difficult days ahead. We have lived our lives in the Elizabethan age, and how fortunate we have been to do so.

Government: Ministerial Changes

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Wednesday 7th September 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to lead the tributes to the noble Baroness, Lady Evans of Bowes Park, and thank her for her service as Leader of your Lordships’ House. It was very soon after taking her seat as our youngest female Member that she took up her post in the Government Whips’ Office. I doubt she realised then that her next government role would be as the youngest woman to become the Leader of your Lordships’ House and that she would go on to become the longest serving Leader of this House since 1951; she was in post for more than six years.

Her term of office coincided with difficult times for both the country and this House. Controversial legislation, Brexit and then Covid, which led to both remote and hybrid working, all brought challenges. At times those challenges frayed the normal courtesies this House prides itself on, but I hope we have now been able to work through those to a better way of working today.

Leadership is never easy, and being Leader of the Lords, while an honour that is both fascinating and rewarding, can at times be frustrating and exhausting. Unlike other Cabinet positions, in many ways it is a dual role: as a political leader and representative of the Government in this place, but also as a representative of this House in government. She and I have sat through many, many, many meetings together. I am sure she would agree that some were perhaps more enjoyable than others. But even at times of disagreement, I never doubted her commitment to helping ensure that this House fulfils its valuable constitutional role as a revising and scrutiny Chamber—a role not always welcomed by Governments.

On a personal note, I thank her for her kindness to me, both when my husband was in hospital and, very importantly—I look at the noble Lord, Lord True, as I say this—for sharing the government car for official functions.

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I hope he appreciates that, after all these years, a precedent has been set for these arrangements.

The noble Baroness in her maiden speech told the House of her passion for education, particularly state education. As she returns to the Back Benches, I sincerely hope that we shall hear more from her on this and other issues.

I also take this opportunity to pay tribute to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and thank him for his long service to this House as Deputy Leader. His courtesy and respect for your Lordships and this place is legendary, and we will miss him in this role.

Last, but most certainly not least, I genuinely welcome the noble Lord, Lord True, to his new role as the Leader of your Lordships’ House. As we say in Essex, we already have form, having enjoyed many exchanges on Cabinet Office business and constitutional issues over the past few years. I am grateful to him for our initial conversation today and I look forward to a productive relationship in the interests on this House on a wider range of issues, within this Chamber and beyond—but hopefully, never on Zoom.

Restoration and Renewal

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Wednesday 13th July 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, this has been an interesting and very thoughtful debate. Like the noble Baroness who introduced it and spoke to her Motion, I also confess to being a member of the House of Lords Commission.

I first thank my noble friend Lord Blunkett for his amendment and his comments, which were widely appreciated. Although technically, we are talking today about the governance of the project rather than the underlying principles, let us be honest: it is not the problems of governance that have brought us to where we are today but the deeper concerns that some have raised, and which we have touched on. It is really important that we state our commitment to inclusivity and engagement, to the need to ensure that the regions and nations of the UK have opportunities to benefit from the building and other works that have been undertaken, and that we have some vision of the project—of what we are seeking to achieve as we move forward. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for being clear about the amendment from my noble friend Lord Blunkett and her commitment in that regard.

I support the principle of the Motion and if there were a Division, I would vote for it, but I will be honest: I would do so with a sense of enormous frustration and, I have to say, some qualification. That is as much to do with what has led us to this point as the Motion itself. As I was saying earlier, when we are having this debate, it is hard not to feel a sense of déjà vu—again and again. I feel that I have been here many times.

This building, the Palace of Westminster, as we have heard, is recognised throughout the world and is designated a UNESCO world heritage site, as the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, said. That status is really important. It is our privilege to work here, as the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, who is not in her place, said. Part of the attraction for the thousands of visitors who come here is that it is a working parliamentary building. It is not just a museum; it is the living heart of the democracy of this country. But it is not our building. It belongs to the nation as the home of Parliament, and we have a responsibility as custodians of this building for future generations.

For me, R&R was never just about replacing the bits that are falling off, not working properly— “Last week, the door fell off in my office”—and so on. It is about something more than that, as the noble Lord, Lord Herbert, said. It is about something inspirational, something special. Every single national project of this kind has always had its detractors. There is never an ideal time to spend that money or to look ahead to what we are going to do to try to future-proof it.

Many consider that this building is now outdated as a home of Parliament. I disagree but, along with all the changes that have been made over many years, we need to look at what changes will be made in the future for future workers in this place. I felt so disappointed. The noble Baroness, Lady Deech—who is back in her place—mentioned those supporters who really just did not want to leave. Let us be honest: if we want to do it properly, it is impossible to do the work on the scale required if we all stay here.

I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, who made the point about creativity in what comes next. Let us think outside the box; let us be enthusiastic about the project. We cannot look at how much this part costs and what we can scale down for that; we have to be visionary and look at how we can achieve it. We have to be mindful of the cost, but not to the detriment of ensuring that we do the work properly.

The noble Lord, Lord Mann, made interesting points about some of the things that could change, but I say to him that we do not need R&R to do some of those. For me, a House-wide catering department is a no-brainer, but we will work on that one. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, talked about moving Parliament completely. I am not necessarily against that, but the work still has to be undertaken on this building because it is a heritage site. If we relocate Parliament permanently, we need to relocate the business of government as well, not just a couple of buildings where people talk.

The need for an overhaul and repair, for restoration and renewal, is indisputable: it has to happen. The Library briefing is very helpful on this saga of dither and delay. It started at the time of the 2016 committee on which I served, which reported in 2018. The noble Lord, Lord Haselhurst, was also involved in some of those earlier debates. They have been going on for years and years.

We have referenced Mr Barry’s War, the excellent book by Caroline Shenton about the rebuilding after the great fire of 1834. It would be fair to say that Charles Barry’s mental health suffered as a result of the constant chopping and changing and the problems he had to deal with. It sounds all too familiar when we look at some of the things we are facing today.

When we passed that legislation in 2019, we did not do so in a vacuum. It followed the 2018 Joint Committee of both Houses, which the noble Lord, Lord Carter, and other noble Lords also served on. It had pre-legislative scrutiny from another Joint Committee of both Houses on which Members in today’s debate served. We also had earlier reports—such as the one from the noble Lord, Lord Haselhurst—for which considerable work had been undertaken to identify the scale of the deterioration of the building.

In passing the legislation in 2019, we went through all of this and decided on the governance model that experience told would best manage the programme. All the reports and investigations have identified the same problems and the same potential crisis points. All recommended that the most efficient, quickest and least costly way of undertaking the necessary work was a full decant of the building.

Working conditions are poor—noble Lords are right to reference that. Our maintenance staff are crucial to the continuation of business, as the House of Commons found when they had to delay a Sitting this week because of a leaking air conditioner.

Only a couple of Members referred to the report from the Public Accounts Committee. I was surprised by that, because it provides helpful guidance on how we got here and how we can get out of the mess we are in.

There are three things I would like to reference, one of which is uncertainty. There should not have been uncertainty. Clearly, the pandemic made things difficult and we had to look at the financial environment; however, it strengthened the case for not wasting public money but spending it wisely. It is political uncertainty, even to the extent of MPs bringing in their own surveyors to check the work we had done, that has increased costs. There are individuals—Jacob Rees-Mogg, the former Leader of the House, has been mentioned, but there are others—who are not prepared to accept the decisions and have reopened the issues, taking us to where we are now.

There has been constant changing of scope and other options to be considered or explored, even when they had previously been examined and rejected. Having agreed to a full decant, the House of Commons Commission asked again for a continued presence on the site, as the noble Lord, Lord Newby, referenced. That continued presence got bigger and bigger, beyond the Chamber. As the Government withdrew support for the option identified—to decant the House of Lords —and then floated nonsense about splitting Parliament into two in different parts of the country, all that work cost more money. The noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, referred to a waste of money. That was the biggest waste of money here: the work undertaken that did not need to be.

The House of Commons Commission made the decision to remove the sponsor body without any attempt to look at alternatives or manage the programme differently, or even to consult or discuss this with the House of Lords Commission, which should have been an equal partner in all this. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, that there is no cost-free option here. If the public were aware of the cost of delay and the daily, weekly and monthly cost of maintenance, they would be horrified that we are not moving along much more quickly and getting the work done.

I understand the frustrations of those who feel they have not had enough engagement. Communication must be better. However, all projects change, and as this one moves forward not everyone can be consulted on every single issue. There has to be widespread consultation, agreement and buy-in for the general direction, but not every single detail of the work has to be consulted on.

Part of the reason why we are here today is that some have sought to undermine the work. However, despite the real concerns, we need to make progress. This is the only game in town, so we need to make sure that we can move forward. There are opportunities here for better engagement and consultation.

The noble Baroness the Leader of the House has borne the brunt of many of the questions here, but she is on the House of Lords Commission and I consider her to be one of the good guys in this matter. The noble Lord, Lord Newby, made a point about the joint approach by both commissions, and that is welcome. Many of us in the Lords commission have been really frustrated that decisions have been taken on which we have not been consulted. We have been careful in our approach to this; it is no secret that we have felt frustrated when we have been carried along in trying to make things work, even when on one occasion the House of Commons Commission walked out of a meeting that we thought we were having with it to discuss this. So it has been a bit of a saga, but I hope that we can now move forward and that the House of Commons Commission will genuinely want to work with and engage with us.

I have only one question for the noble Baroness the Leader of the House, which should be an easy one. In passing today’s Motion, we need an unequivocal, 100% commitment that, when the programme board is established, it will have a membership that is committed to the programme, and that no Member will be appointed to that board if they do not support it 100%. What we cannot have again and again is those opposing the project seeking to undermine it with their positions when taking important decisions.

I am sorry that I have gone over my time, but today’s debate is about responsibility, and this may be the last chance that we ever have to fulfil that responsibility. If we lack that commitment now, it may be too late.