Tributes: Lord Wallace of Tankerness

Earl of Kinnoull Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, on behalf of these Benches I add my tribute to the late noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, and extend our sincere condolences to his wife and children, his friends, and indeed those colleagues closest to him in this House.

Lord Wallace’s extraordinary record as a dedicated public servant was not only long-standing but wide-ranging. Coming to political consciousness in his early teens, he campaigned for the Scottish Liberals in the 1970s, eventually being elected to the other place to succeed, as we have heard, Jo Grimond in representing the islands of Orkney and Shetland. He went on to lead the Scottish Liberal Democrats, helping to design the blueprint for devolution and steering the party through the 1997 referendum campaign.

In the new Scottish Parliament, he was appointed as the first ever Deputy First Minister, and indeed served on two occasions, as the Leader of the House mentioned, as Acting First Minister during that early heady period of home rule. Later, following his translation to your Lordships’ House—a place he termed “the Elysian fields of British politics”—he earned a further crown when he succeeded the noble Lord, Lord McNally, as leader of the Liberal Democrat Peers.

As a junior Minister, I had the privilege and pleasure of working alongside Jim during the years of coalition government, when he served as Advocate-General for Scotland—a role for which he was surely typecast. He was at all times—even at stressful times—modest, calm, congenial and genuinely collegiate, as well as politically and professionally sure-footed. Those skills were born of an acute intelligence. He possessed a wonderful knack of getting straight to the nub of a matter and setting out his arguments in a very few words, without ever seeming impatient. As has been noted in several obituaries over recent days, he was someone who was genuinely liked by people of all political persuasions and who was known for his ability never to let party get in the way of constructive dialogue and co-operation. In these more polarised times, we would do well to learn from his example.

It is those qualities, evidenced in his political career, that help us to understand Jim Wallace the man—someone whose values, as he said himself, were grounded in his religious faith. His father was an elder at Annan Old Parish Church and he was an elder and member of the choir at St Magnus Cathedral, Kirkwall. In 2021, he served the Church of Scotland as the Moderator of its General Assembly during the pandemic and, for this period, set aside his political affiliations. With the death of Jim Wallace, the Liberal Democrat Party and this House have lost a very valued friend and colleague. He will be greatly missed.

[The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)]

My Lords, with a heavy heart, I rise on behalf of these Benches to pay tribute to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, and to extend our condolences to his wife Rosie and family. His courtesy and genial nature were at the core of his approach to everything in a record that spanned many decades and had many facets.

We were the third legislative chamber to benefit from his wisdom and gentle approach. As has been noted, he arrived off the back of great success in the Commons and at the Scottish Parliament. He also proved a most canny coalition government partner in Scotland. He became Scotland’s first Deputy First Minister in 1999, having negotiated various Liberal Democrat priorities into that first Scottish Government’s programme. In the Holyrood election of 2003, Liberal Democrat polling numbers actually rose—which has not always been their experience following a period of coalition.

Jim remained as Deputy First Minister and was again able to negotiate his priorities into the coalition agreement of that second Government. After stepping back from front-line Scottish Government and standing down as an MSP, he came here. Here I pause, as I reflect on Jim as a man of faith.

The Church of Scotland has had a Moderator since 1562. John Knox was the first, although I am not sure Moderator was the right word for him. Moderators generally serve for a year. In 464 years, there have been only three Moderators who were not ministers of the Kirk, one of whom served for only a month.

As the noble Earl, Lord Howe, said, Jim was our Moderator in 2021. A photograph at the opening of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland that year shows four obviously very happy people at the front door of Assembly Hall in Edinburgh. They were the Queen’s representative that year, who was Prince William, and Jim, Rosie and Nicola Sturgeon. To be able to bring warm and genuine smiles to those faces simultaneously was surely Jim’s magic and some improvement on John Knox’s approach. Needless to say, his year was a great success.

Jim had become Moderator because of his capacity as an elder of St Magnus Cathedral in Kirkwall. This brings me to Orkney. Not far from Kirkwall is Tankerness. As said, Jim represented Orkney for 18 years in the Commons, for eight years in the Scottish Parliament and, frankly, for another 18 years here in our Parliament. In Orkney he was immensely popular and passionate.

Here I will take a loop, in that, about three years ago, I went to buy a set of bagpipes in Glasgow. In the bagpipe shop, I met someone who had been born in Orkney and is a very well-known piper in Scotland. Indeed, I had gone to that bagpipe shop because he was an Atholl Highlander, so I could get a discount. He immediately asked, “Do you know Jim Wallace?” so I said, “Yes, absolutely”, and he told me just how popular Jim was in Orkney. He was immensely popular, he was passionate and he was a genuine Orcadian.

I close with his words, said in December in St Magnus Cathedral at the 50th anniversary celebrations of the Orkney Islands Council:

“So what do I conclude from my experiences of representing Orkney and working with councillors and successive governments? In a nutshell it is that people matter”.


That is good guidance for us all.

[The Lord Bishop of Manchester]

My Lords, from these Benches, I associate my comments and condolences with those who have previously spoken. Lord Wallace was kind, welcoming and generous to new Bishops joining this House. Both he and his wife Rosie are extraordinary people. He in particular made a significant impact on shaping the very culture and society in Scotland we see today across the whole trinity—if I may use a word dear to him—of law, politics and church. His two main belief systems were indeed the Church and politics. They supported each other, and although, as we have heard, he never served as a minister in the religious sense, he was ordained: he was an elder, and many across Orkney and beyond have reported how pertinent and encouraging his sermons and hominies were.

Lord Wallace took his spiritual duties especially seriously, never compromising his faith to his other priorities, but notably fulfilling the Sunday elder’s duty at St Magnus Cathedral even during parliamentary election campaigns. I am not sure what his party machine thought of that, but as has been mentioned already, he once remarked that he found the Church of Scotland General Assembly more awe-inspiring to address than the House of Commons. I trust he is now debating in an even more inspiring chamber than any earthly one. While I am unconvinced that any of us on these Benches would be of quite the same view when comparing Parliament to the Church of England General Synod, it is perhaps that generosity which underlines why one political reporter notably described Jim as Scotland’s favourite uncle.

Tributes: Lord McFall of Alcluith

Earl of Kinnoull Excerpts

Monday 2nd February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, from our Benches, I add our thanks to the noble Lord, Lord McFall, for carrying out his duties with great courtesy and warmth. Being Speaker—who often cannot speak—of this self-regulating Chamber is a difficult job; therefore, carrying out the duties on the Woolsack, on the commission and the R&R board and the myriad of other responsibilities, the power of persuasion is needed, and the noble Lord, Lord McFall, has been an outstanding persuader throughout all his years of public service.

As a distinguished chair of the Treasury Select Committee, he elevated the House of Commons in a time of great financial concern, so the public knew that Parliament was listening, considering and acting. In this House, as Lord Speaker, he brought his chairing skills of 10 in that committee to 600—not always predictable—Members of this House with great skill; perhaps his teaching abilities were put to good use. From Dumbarton for the noble Lord, Lord McFall, to Montrose, Arbroath and then St Andrews University for the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth—where, to his own recollection, he was a socialist—who then served Stirling with great commitment, we know that John had very deep political beliefs, but he wore them with a friendly demeanour.

It is often illustrative to read maiden speeches from when statespeople are in their impressionable younger years. John McFall railed against spending money on nuclear weapons in his Commons maiden speech in 1987, while Michael Forsyth criticised the way BT was privatised in his in 1983; he then called for an elected element to this House in his Lords one later. I think we all know which one he regrets the most.

However, we know that both noble Lords have major things in common: a great love of and respect for the areas and the people they represented; a deeply held passion for parliamentary accountability; and their politics are based on ideas, crafting an argument, shrewdness and wit. We are also grateful for the deep instinct of the noble Lord, Lord McFall, to work across parties. In the short time I have been leader of these Benches, I have been extremely grateful for his constant outreach and kindness, and I pay tribute to his highly admirable ambassadorship of this House. I cannot speak for others, but for me, when we have had visiting Heads of State and Government address us in both Houses, it is the foreign dignitaries’ remarks that have been the second best of the occasions.

In the “Lord Speaker’s Corner” conversation between the noble Lords, Lord McFall and Lord Forsyth, just a couple of years ago, the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, said something which struck a chord with me. He said:

“It really saddens me to see how the reputation of Parliament and politicians has been damaged. Whereas, as you and I know, the vast majority of parliamentarians are good, decent folk trying to do the best for their country”.


That could readily have directly applied to the noble Lord, Lord McFall, who served his constituents with passion and dedication, elevated the House of Commons, and has now been our ambassador; we are most grateful. We wish John’s wife, Joan, and the whole family the very best, as he is now able to spend some time with them.

We wish the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, the best. We will be admiring his poker face during Questions on the Woolsack in the months to come. From our Benches, we wish him the best, with all the skills that he brings to bear for this very important role.

[The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)]

It is a great pleasure to follow three warm and special reflections on the noble Lord, Lord McFall. I agree with every word and sentiment that has been expressed. On behalf of these Benches, I will just add a little bit of early history of one of our most remarkable colleagues.

The noble Lord, Lord McFall of Alcluith, is a fellow Scot—albeit that I am an easterner—and I well know Alcluith, the ancient name of Dumbarton and also the great rock on which Dumbarton Castle was built. Indeed, Alcluith, capital of the Kingdom of Strathclyde, ruled mid-west Scotland with an iron rod in the ninth and 10th centuries. As I say these words, noble Lords will be quick to appreciate where Alcluith is in the pecking order in that bit of the world and to sympathise with the poor old noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, who is, sadly, not in his place.

As we heard, John, a son of Alcluith, was a Dumbarton MP for 23 years. I am sorry that my maths is a bit different from the noble Baroness the Leader’s. Most importantly, he was chair of the Treasury Select Committee for nine of those years, and he had a very well-earned reputation as a fearsome chair, flavoured with being extremely competent. He had essentially weekly meetings with the Bank of England, which much respected his inquisition. Indeed, one Deputy Governor of the Bank of England was quizzed by him over the Northern Rock affair and was accused by him of being

“asleep in the back shop while there was a mugging out front”.

As he stepped down from chairing the committee, the Bank of England organised a drinks reception for him. This is a very rare thing indeed. By chance, a senior member of the Bank of England, who had worked there most of their life, was here a couple of weeks ago, and I asked them about it. They said there were two reasons for holding the reception. The first was to thank him unreservedly for his work as chair of the committee. The second was to check that he really was going.

In 2016, John took over from the noble Lord, Lord Laming, to become the newly named Senior Deputy Speaker. He very much created this role, but his most lasting achievement was of course the review of committees, which the whole House agreed to in October 2019. Using this structure, the old EU committees were morphed into what are today powerful and proud self-standing entities, such as the Justice and Home Affairs Committee, and the Environment and Climate Change Committee. Change is always difficult, yet, speaking as John’s then deputy and chair of the EU committee structure, I saw John seeming to make it easy. It was not. He invoked his Treasury Select Committee experience at the first sign of trouble.

I have said very little of his time as Lord Speaker, but I did not want to repeat the warm words of my three previous colleagues. The common thread of what has been said is of his integrity, his outstanding political instincts and his disarming smile. One recent thing summed everything up for me. John came to the Cross-Bench weekly meeting last Wednesday to reflect on his time as Lord Speaker. As many here today will know, normally, a guest speaker is subjected to searching questions and a comprehensive examination of their brief. Instead, with John, when it came to questions, there was a great number of short contributions expressing gratitude and giving congratulations to him on his various achievements in office. At the end of the session, and quite without precedent, 50 Cross-Bench Peers got up and gave him a standing ovation. We very much look forward to welcoming him to our Benches in due course when he can return.

There are very few words about our new Lord Speaker, but it is of course very good news for the Scottish Peers Association, because we can continue to have our drinks parties in the River Room. If noble Lords like a drinks party, we have a few more spaces if anyone would like to apply to be a member. The new Lord Speaker has wonderful energy and great wit and charm. We have a number of big problems ahead of us, and I wish him a lot of luck, as I know everyone on our Benches does.

[The Lord Bishop of Manchester]

My Lords, I add the thanks of our Benches to our former Lord Speaker. We are enormously grateful for the warmth of his welcome to us, which began from the moment we were introduced to the House, and continued each day, as he introduced the duty Bishop leading Prayers. We also warmly welcome the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, whose enormous gifts have already been attested, and with whom we look forward to working for the effective work and maintenance of the rights and privileges of your Lordships’ House.

One of my own privileges is to be invited to comment each day on requests for Private Notice Questions. PNQs are an important part of the work of the House. They allow us to raise matters that are urgent and important, and where the Order Paper is unlikely to offer a better opportunity. The wisdom of the noble Lord, Lord McFall, in discerning which to accept has demonstrated his commitment to allowing the House to scrutinise government, while ensuring that the Questions asked are those which will shed light on an issue rather than simply rehearse familiar argument. We will experience an example a little later this afternoon.

He is of course of a different branch of the Christian faith from my own. Hugely influenced by the work of Gustavo Gutiérrez and the liberation theologians of Latin America so prominent in the 1960s and 1970s, he is as comfortable quoting from papal encyclicals and the documents of Vatican II as from Acts of this Parliament. I am not sure the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, will quite follow him in that regard. John’s faith underpins his political beliefs, just as it does his character and moral standing. It was famously quipped of a Speaker in the other place, on a similar occasion to this, that there was Methodism in his madness. Of our own Lord McFall, may it truly be said that there is Catholicism in his kindness.

Election of Lord Speaker

Earl of Kinnoull Excerpts

Monday 12th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, on behalf of the Liberal Democrat Benches, I too give warm congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, on his election and an efficiently run election. I suspect that Ministers of all party persuasions will feel a slight relief that he will no longer be asking those types of questions of any Minister. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, for her candidacy and the way in which she conducted it with a sense of integrity, commitment and optimism: the House thanks her for that.

We wish the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, well in his work on the Woolsack, and perhaps the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and I can be forgiven for rather liking the Caledonian continuity in the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, following the noble Lord, Lord McFall. They also have another thing in common: a deeply held passion for parliamentary accountability. Their politics are based on ideas, crafting an argument, shrewdness and, yes, wit. I know that all his estimable skills are going to be put to good use in his service to the House and we wish him well for it.

[The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)]

My Lords, I will be very brief. I am very much looking forward on the commission to seeing the forensic skills of the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, as he questions the many people we have to question. I dare say that matters such as the door will have a very rough ride indeed. It is a little hard for us sometimes to recruit Members to the Cross Bench, but I am much looking forward to his arrival in five years’ time. That will be wonderful, and I will reserve everything that I have to say about the many warm and happy memories that I have of the Lord Speaker.

I finish by turning to my noble friend and colleague who ran the very finest of campaigns. I am very glad I am going to be able to carry on sitting next to her; she brings much-needed glamour to our Front Bench.

[The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)]

My Lords, I have known and worked alongside the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, for many years, since we represented neighbouring constituencies in the House of Commons in the 1980s. Michael was Conservative MP for Stirling, on the east bank of Loch Lomond, while I was a Labour representative for Dumbarton on the west side. It is fair to say that we did not see eye to eye on every issue. When there was turbulence in the waters of Loch Lomond, locals would say, “Aye, that’s McFall and Forsyth rowing again”. But, although we locked horns many times, I always recognised Michael as an honourable and distinguished public servant, dedicated to the good governance of our nation and the well-being of its people. That impression has been further cemented by his work here in the House of Lords, particularly as chair of the Economic Affairs Committee and the Financial Services Regulation Committee. After more than 40 years’ service in both Houses of Parliament, I am sure the noble Lord will find, as I have done, that the post of Lord Speaker is both the most rewarding job of his career and the honour of a lifetime.

I thank both the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, for putting themselves forward as candidates to serve this House and congratulate them on the constructive way they conducted the election, and I also thank all those involved in the administration of the contest. But above all I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, on his election and offer him my best wishes and support in his new role as Lord Speaker.

Business of the House

Earl of Kinnoull Excerpts

Tuesday 14th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stoneham of Droxford (LD)]

There are three good arguments for opposing this amendment. If we do not accept some flexibility, we are going to be here later and later at night. We are going to have more late sessions: that is the reality. The late sessions are not good for scrutiny. People of our age should not be working late hours of the night. Last night I was here at midnight and there were about 12 other Peers in the Chamber, scrutinising a very important Bill. That is the reality of working late.

We also have—and I accept that the noble Lord, Lord True, mentioned this—a duty of care towards our staff and ourselves in working the late hours that we have been doing. We spend millions on the security of this House but do not give much attention to the fact that people are leaving very late at night when public transport is no longer available. We therefore have to show some flexibility. We have accepted this Motion and accept the quid pro quo that, if we are going to meet early, we finish at a reasonable time. That is how the House should operate.

[The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)]

My Lords, I do not represent a considered view of the whole Cross Bench, but I will make one or two points. The first is that what the noble Lord, Lord True, said about making sure that we reaffirm the various conventions that operate this House would be a good thing. I certainly would play my part in trying to deal with that because, in some ways, this is a mild breakdown of conventions.

My second point is a very simple one: the Report stage of this Bill was the right size to fit into four days before the 67 amendments appeared. Looking at the 67 amendments, I think that they are quite major amendments and one would expect, therefore, there to be additional time required for the proper consideration of those amendments, particularly in view of the fact that they will not have been discussed in Committee, at Second Reading or even in the House of Commons. When the usual channels talk about this again, there may have to be some further time for this all. We will have to sit very late on at least a couple of those days that are coming up.

[Lord Strathclyde (Con)]

My Lords, this debate becomes more and more confusing as time goes by. It strikes at the heart of the way we manage this House, where we ask the usual channels to meet regularly and come to agreements. Most of the time that is exactly what is done to the advantage of us all. Even if some of us do not like the decision that the usual channels have taken, we accept them.

What I do not understand in this case is why things have broken down so catastrophically, particularly when my noble friend Lord True has explained how, at earlier stages of this Bill, the Opposition worked very hard with the Government to be able to deliver the Bill on a timetable. I would understand if the end of the Session were a few weeks away or a couple of months away, but we know that the end of the Session will not happen for another six months. There is no rush; there is no reason we have to sit in the mornings to complete this Bill.

Furthermore, we are a part-time House in the sense that we meet in the afternoons and evenings. I speak as chairman of the Constitution Committee of the House of Lords, which meets on a Wednesday morning at 10 o’clock. That means that very distinguished senior Members of the House who sit on that committee will be unable to come and listen to the deliberations on what the noble Baroness the Leader of the House and my noble friend Lord True have recognised is an extremely important Bill. I echo my noble friend in saying: would it not be better if both Motions were to be withdrawn so that realistic discussions could be had by the usual channels in order to come to an agreement?

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Earl of Kinnoull Excerpts

3rd reading
Monday 21st July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, the Bill, which has occupied 51 hours of your Lordships’ time, is exceptionally short. It has occupied that much time because it has been used as an opportunity to discuss virtually every possible aspect of the future composition and powers of your Lordships’ House.

As those unfortunate enough to hear my contributions will know, we have argued consistently that this should be an elected House, a move which would deal, in one fell swoop, with the worry of the noble Lord, Lord True, about the excessive power of the Prime Minister in his or her ability to create new Peers. Sadly, your Lordships’ House did not agree with me and those on our Benches on broader reform. However, it has already done one useful bit of tidying up with the agreement reached on the power of attorney.

It has also demonstrated—helpfully, I think—a fairly considerable degree of consensus on what are likely to be the next elements of reform; namely, the need to have a retirement age and to set at least low bars in terms of participation. Having heard the arguments on those issues and discovered that there is a very considerable degree of agreement about the principles of them, I think the noble Baroness’s proposal for a Select Committee is timely. But we must not let grass grow under our feet. It is important both that this committee is established and that it works with a set timetable, bringing forward proposals to your Lordships’ House, so that we can be invited to agree on them, in the near future. There are many good things about your Lordships’ House, but other things were exposed and debated at some length during the debate, and we have it in our power to deal with some of those quite quickly. For the good of the House and for the good of democracy, we need to get on with it, and from these Benches, we look forward to playing our part in doing so.

Finally, I have been guided through the shoals and perils of the Bill by Elizabeth Plummer in our Whips’ Office, without whom I may well not have retained what sanity I have. I am extremely grateful to her.

[The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)]

My Lords, the rest of the Bill and ping-pong will play out in September, I suppose, but I add my voice to those saying that the most valuable thing that will come out of the Bill is the committee which will consider the further reforms. For my part, I want the committee to go wider and deeper. I know that the noble Baroness our Leader would prefer it to be a bit narrower in order to get things through in a reasonable time. The committee will be a vital workstream for us, which I hope will produce quite a few ideas around which consensus will be built. It is very good that we have already had the first of those ideas: the power of attorney one that was discussed earlier on. I hope further—this is the depth of the committee—that it will bring forward mechanisms to move the ideas from things that are talked about to things which will represent real change to our House, which we have so long wanted.

[Lord Strathclyde (Con)]

My Lords, at Second Reading I called the Bill a “nasty little Bill” because it failed to seek any kind of consensus on a serious reform of the House and failed to advance an important constitutional matter with cross-party agreement. But the bricks with which to build that consensus still exist. The Bill leaves your Lordships’ House today amended—fairly, moderately and sensibly—so I wish it well. I hope the mood of friendly consensus continues, and that the other place will give our proposals the consideration they deserve, although I must admit that it is not easy to accept that my time here is nearly over.

We all accept the mandate that the Government have to end the involvement of the hereditary principle as a route of entry to our House, but I join my colleagues on all Benches who are still wondering why those of us already serving here are due to be flung out. I look at the noble Earl the Convenor of the Cross Benches, my noble friends Lord Howe and Lord Courtown, and the myriad Members who still give so much service to the House. Even on the Liberal Democrat Benches, the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, who is not here, sadly, and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, who has kept those Benches quorate on so many late nights, deserve better. As for Peers who sit behind the Government, such as the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, who has made such a good impact on the House in the few years he has been here, will the Government really be better off without him?

Of course, the Leader of the House has listened carefully to the arguments, but she has never answered the essential question: what have these sitting parliamentarians done to deserve being shown the door in such a way? Your Lordships’ House, I am glad to say, sees things rather differently, and an amendment to the Bill has been passed which insists that arrangements should be made for Peers who wish to stay. It would be a sign of strength if the Government indicated that they will now seek an accommodation with my noble friend Lord True and the convenor on a realistic number of Peers being offered the opportunity to continue their parliamentary lives. We all know that many Peers are planning to retire in any case.

The Bill now returns to the Commons. It is an opportunity over the Summer Recess for the Government to reconsider how they wish to move forward on the Bill. It is never too late to appear gracious, magnanimous—and even kind. Labour’s victory in abolishing heredity here is real. Need we have such a ruthless and unnecessary purge as well?

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Earl of Kinnoull Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 9th July 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[The Earl of Kinnoull]

18: After Clause 1, insert the following new Clause—
“Non-attendanceIn section 2 of the House of Lords Reform Act 2014 (non-attendance)—(a) in subsection (1), after the second “Lords”, insert “for 10% or more of sitting days”; (b) in subsection (2), after “Lords”, insert “for 10% or more of sitting days”;(c) in subsection (2)(a), leave out “at no time during the Session attended the House” and insert “attended the House for fewer than 10% of sitting days during the Session”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment will ensure that Peers would be required to sit at a minimum for more than 10% of the House’s sitting days in order to maintain their membership of this House.

[The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)]

My Lords, each of us receives, on appointment and at the start of each subsequent Parliament, a Writ of Summons. The writ says:

“We strictly enjoining command you upon the faith and allegiance by which you are bound to Us that considering the difficulty of the said affairs and dangers impending (waiving all excuses) you be personally present at Our aforesaid Parliament … to treat and give your counsel upon the affairs aforesaid”.


These words have a natural meaning, and everyone who is in the Chamber tonight is living up to their writ. I have observed in the various debates, starting in November last year, that those Peers who are in our House only very rarely are not living up to the words or the spirit of their Writ of Summons. Legally speaking, the minimum attendance is governed by Section 2 of the House of Lords Reform Act 2014. This provides that every Peer must attend at least once during a Session that lasts more than six months, or they cease to be a Member going forward.

There have been quite a lot of statistics on attendance during the passage of this Bill. I am, as I think many are, very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, for his work in this area. I have run a few fresh statistics for this current Session. Up to last Friday, 122 of our 834 Members had attended less than 10% of the time. Looking at how close people of the 122 are to the 10% line, at the whole-House level, it is entirely reasonable to think that, were this amendment to be enacted, 83 Peers, or 10% of the House, might choose a retirement option.

I have looked very carefully at the Cross-Bench position once again; the 10% hurdle is one that would allow a very important part of the Cross Benches to continue their valuable work in the House without threat. Examples of this cadre would be senior lawyers still in practice and senior academics. Having looked at the statistics for this session, which I did not have available in Committee when I made a similar point, I can say that nothing has changed. I feel the 10% hurdle is set with the interests of the House in mind. I believe this is the correct level to move participation to, from that set in 2014 of just one day.

I further note that, thanks to the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, we were able to debate this at some length in Committee. I am very sorry, I have the wrong draft in front of me, but I think my point is made. We have been able to debate this a number of times. I can say, having been present at every single one of the debates, that throughout the House there has been general agreement about people who do come and do not fulfil their obligations under the Writ of Summons, which is a very serious document. There was not a single person who did not feel that this was wrong. The only real debate was how high the bar should be set.

I made the point that, in the selfish interests of the Cross Benches, we have a number of people who are not able to come more than 10% of the time, or significantly more, and so, for us, we would want a lower bar. However, it is the case that we would have a haircut of a number of Members. A lot of us feel that there are too many Members of this House. Certainly, with the facilities that we enjoy—the number of offices and desks and the sheer cramming when I go to buy a sandwich in the River restaurant downstairs at lunchtime —that would be a benefit.

Anyway, I hope this will be a very interesting debate. The Leader and I have discussed this over many months, and I am very grateful. In fact, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, and I have also discussed it, as well as various other interesting ways around. In the meantime, I beg to move.

[Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)]

My Lords, I tried to deal with this problem when I was convenor in 2018. In that year my noble friend Lord Burns produced his report, which received quite a lot of support across the House, and I was persuaded that it was one of my duties as convenor to see whether I could persuade some Members on the Cross Benches to retire so that we would achieve the balance that my noble friend was seeking. What I did—it was my own choice—was to choose a 10% level, which the noble Earl has chosen in his amendment. I was conscious that the only way I could deal with this was by writing letters to people who were below the 10% bar, suggesting to them that it might be better for them to retire if they were not really able to make use of their privilege of membership of the House.

I received a mixed response—I do not think I was particularly popular in making that suggestion. But some of them responded, and a number decided to retire. The result was that I was able to achieve the balance that my noble friend Lord Burns was proposing, and I was able to maintain it during the rest of my tenure as convenor into 2019. I was greatly helped by the fact that the Prime Minister at the time was the noble Baroness, Lady May, who had very little interest in proposing new Members of the House, certainly as far as the Cross Benches were concerned, so the balance was quite easy for me to achieve.

Looking back, I am conscious of two problems. The first was the lack of authority. I really had no authority whatever, particularly as convenor; the convenor is much respected, but he does not have any authority among the Cross-Benchers. Just because I said it was time to retire, that was not necessarily something that they should follow—it was merely advice. Therefore, if we are to follow this suggestion that attendance is to be a qualification, we need the backing of something to enable the proposal to be enforced. Whether that is by legislation or by standing order is a different matter, but some kind of backing is necessary if the noble Lord and his successors are to be able to maintain the idea that attendance below 10% is not acceptable any more, and therefore people should retire.

The other problem—I am anticipating what my noble friend Lord Burns will tell us in the debate on Amendment 23—is the balance being upset by new Peers coming in whose number exceeds that of those who are retiring. That is a different issue, which we will come back to on Amendment 23.

My main point in support of the noble Earl is, first, that the 10% figure was one that I had decided was the right one in my time—we may want to debate it, but it seemed a sensible one—and, secondly, that we need some kind of authority across all the Benches seeking to enforce the idea. I offer my support for that.

I have just one footnote. One of the people to whom I wrote and who decided to retire was an academic who did not live in London and had very good reasons for finding it very difficult to get here to attend. Looking back, I thought it was a shame that he retired because if he had been a little more active, he would have made a major contribution. His attendance was at only 1%, and I thought, “Well, okay, it’s not really a margin”. If he had been at 9%, I might have said, “Look, let’s just drop it and try a little harder”, but his attendance was so far below that I felt there was no chance. If we have a cliff edge at 10%, there is the question of some people dropping over the edge of the cliff who really should not do so, and the committee should probably discuss that quite carefully.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)]

My Lords, this is the fourth time we have had a very similar debate on this topic in the last nine months. As ever, it has been of high quality, and I am very grateful to those who have participated.

I referred earlier to the many meetings that I have had with the Leader. I know how busy she is, and she has been very helpful on this topic. In those meetings we have talked about the committee and whether it could go a bit wider and deeper. I suspect that, when we come to the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Burns, the subject of the committee will be raised again, as it has this issue within it.

I have had extensive discussions with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, around what Standing Orders could do within the House. Many noble Lords will not be that familiar with Standing Orders, but Standing Order 2 regulates the minimum age for being in the House. The minimum age of 21 is nothing to do with statute but is in the Standing Order. That is an example of how powerful the Standing Orders can be. However, they cannot strike down primary legislation. They could never strike down Section 2 of the House of Lords Reform Act 2014, but they could be added on top of it, as long as they are consistent with the Act itself. I am of course a hopeless lawyer, but the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, is not, and it did seem that there is considerable promise in the Standing Order route.

That route brings another difficulty. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, looked at the statistics some years ago. I have now looked at lots of statistics and we have come to the same answer. I take comfort in that. However, putting 10% in statute would mean that, if it turned out that 10% was the wrong number and that it should have been 9.2%, it would be very difficult to move that around. If it was a Standing Order, it would be rather better.

That might sound as if I am not for my own amendment. Of course I am, as anyone would be. My feeling is that the words “personally present” and

“treat and give your counsel”

from our Writ of Summons are simply not taken seriously enough by a large number of fellow Members of the House.

At the end of all of that, and after an awful lot of discussion and thought, I have decided that I should beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 18 withdrawn.

Black Rod

Earl of Kinnoull Excerpts

Wednesday 9th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, when Sarah Clarke first came to be interviewed to be David Leakey’s successor, the majority view of the panel—of which I was one—was one of curiosity, but no great expectation. How could someone who was non-military and, heaven forfend, a woman, and with no public sector background, possibly compete with her more traditional competitor candidates?

The interview, however, was a revelation. Sarah was calm, assured, thoughtful and humorous. We thought that she was the best candidate, but we were so surprised at our own conclusion that we invited her back for a second interview, just in case we had missed something the first time. But the second interview merely confirmed the first, and those characteristics which we saw in Sarah when she first appeared at the interview she brought to the job from day one.

Sarah immediately established a serene authority, and a sensible, no-nonsense approach which meant that she was quickly respected by the House as a whole—a respect which only grew as she managed the many quick changes which were required during Covid, and then, with such great aplomb, the great royal events which occurred during her watch.

Personally, I found Sarah simply a pleasure to work with. She is, I believe, taking a break before taking on other duties. I wish her well for the break, and for her future career, whatever it might be. In doing so, I welcome her successor. He has a hard act to follow, but I am sure that he will do it extremely well.

[The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)]

My Lords, on behalf of these Benches, I add our warm welcome to Lieutenant General Ed Davis. He will find things in very good order, and I look forward very much to working with him on all the many facets of Black Rod’s unique role.

It is a privilege on behalf of my Cross-Bench colleagues to pay tribute to Sarah Clarke. While we have known Sarah simply as Black Rod, she has been fulfilling three distinct roles, all of which involve Cross-Bench Members. Black Rod is not only the Serjeant-at-Arms here in the House of Lords but the Usher to the Order of the Garter and Secretary to the Lord Great Chamberlain.

Sarah’s first Garter ceremony was at Windsor. Naturally, she arrived early, with her uniform in a grip bag. She and three others got into a lift, which promptly broke down between floors. Help was summoned, but Sarah took charge of the lift, for time was short. On instruction, the others in the lift turned to examine the lift walls while Sarah changed. Just as decency was restored, the lift creaked on, and the Windsor fire brigade was surprised to find an immaculate Black Rod with a dress as an ankle warmer. She stepped forth with her usual perfection and big smile, and the Garter ceremony was none the wiser.

The Lord Great Chamberlain, the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, remarked to me on Black Rod’s modernisations of the State Opening of Parliament ceremony. One was to cut out the canter of 100 yards or so to the Commons from the Lords Chamber. Sarah has now arranged it so that the Lord Great Chamberlain waves his very long wand at Black Rod, already standing in Central Lobby, allowing Black Rod then to stride to the Commons with a dignity not available to other Black Rods over the centuries. The Lord Great Chamberlain’s new signalling method, while owing something to his inner Apache warrior, is a great testament to his dignity.

Sarah arrives at our House, as the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, does, on a bicycle, dressed modestly and with an instant humour. In difficult discussions in her office, her main weapons have been the chocolate digestive and her smile, and how effective these have been. We have already heard of the six State Openings, the seven Prorogations, the lying-in-state of the great Queen Elizabeth II and her funeral, and the Coronation of His Majesty the King. What we have not heard is that for these latter events, Sarah was on duty at 4 o’clock each morning, occasionally earlier. Each of those events was an outstanding success.

That apart, Sarah has been in charge of maintaining our proceedings in good order, including managing the access of many of the people who come to our House, allowing for their and our safety in equal measure. This has all happened seemingly effortlessly and with the great charm and warm smile that we know of our Sarah.

I know that Sarah would want me particularly to mention Neil Baverstock and Fiona Channon, her colleagues, who will be retiring later this year. On behalf of these Benches, I salute them as well.

In closing, noble Lords will note that I have not used the W-word—Wimbledon—but we were all thinking of it. If Sarah had still been in charge, there would have been no nonsense with the line calls this week.

Sarah is not going far. This is not “goodbye”; it is “au revoir”.

[The Lord Bishop of Manchester]

My Lords, as Convenor of the Lords Spiritual, I offer our heartfelt thanks to Sarah for the way she has welcomed and worked with those of us on these Benches over the past seven and a half years. As others have noted, although I will not repeat it, she has held office at a point of great change, from overseeing the response to the pandemic—during which I arrived here in a very pared-down Introduction—and keeping the Palace operational throughout, to managing those major royal events under two monarchs.

As the first ever Lady Usher of the Black Rod, Sarah’s very title embodies the process of change—a very welcome one. I am not sure that there was a viable alternative. While we on these Benches now have women Members who remain styled “Lord Bishop”, to have had to refer to Sarah as “Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod” may have provoked the kinds of arguments over sex and gender that have more recently occupied the time and energy of the Supreme Court; I am so glad that we were spared that.

A few weeks ago, as part of my induction as convenor of these Benches, I paid a visit to Sarah in her office, to be instructed in some of the more arcane duties that might befall me. I was struck by the fact that she was not in uniform, and nor was I. The formal garb of office that both Black Rod and those of us on these Benches wear in this Chamber serve as a daily reminder of the long centuries through which this House has served the nation. Indeed, your Lordships’ House is a place where change and tradition have combined to produce a form of governance that nobody would have invented but which has served and evolved over many centuries, and where ceremonial and formal dress combine with such state-of-the-art practices as the electronic voting system that many of us will use later today.

Like newly appointed Bishops arriving to be enthroned in their cathedral, Sarah’s duties, as we well know, have involved having the door firmly shut in her face and being required—just as we Bishops are—to knock with her staff of office to gain entry. Again, it is an important tradition, albeit one that contrasts so hugely with the open-door policy and collaborative style of working she has always maintained. Our prayer from these Benches is that, as she moves on in life, doors, unlike that at Peers’ Entrance at the moment, will always open and never shut at her approach.

We also wish Lieutenant General Ed Davis all the best in his new role. As we have just heard, we will be going back to a Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod. We look forward to working with him.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Earl of Kinnoull Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 2nd July 2025 Lords Chamber

[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 ---

Of course, I take the Leader at her word—she is a thoroughly honourable and noble lady—but I do not think that any Government will implement a new Bill on changes to the House of Lords because of the experience they have had with this one. Any new Bill seeking to limit it to a few things can be amended for a whole range of things. I also believe it would be wrong to set these things in stone in primary legislation when it would be impossible to amend them until we got another Bill. Therefore, I suggest that we will need a Bill with a special power, whereby we can introduce rules on retirement, attendance and participation, and then amend them when circumstances change. I will address that point in Amendment 14.

[The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)]

My Lords, I observed in Committee that everything in life tends to have a retirement age, so I feel that it is vital to bring in Amendment 20, or something like it, as part of the modernisation of the House.

I will make only two points. The first is in respect of the cliff edge. In organisations that I have worked in, we have often done mergers and acquisitions and had cliff-edge problems with people. It is generally the case that an organisation that expels the seasoned and the good—expelling the human capital that it has bought—without replacements right away, is an organisation that weakens itself. In our House we have people aged beyond 80 —we now know that there is a large number, thanks to the spreadsheets of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra—and, were we to show them the door, that would be very weakening.

This has an elegance in it, because it does not expel anybody but sets down the premise for the future. It is the route that is peculiarly British, in that it was chosen, as we have heard, by the senior judiciary when they did the same thing many years ago, and indeed by the bishops when they brought in a retirement age. In both of those circumstances—I have spoken to people who were around at the time—the people, in any event, chose an earlier retirement age. So we would smooth out the great problem of the cliff edge.

My second and final point is about the wrinkle that the noble Earl, Lord Devon, has cleverly introduced about the 10-year minimum alternative. From the Cross-Bench perspective—and indeed, through us, from the House’s perspective—this is a very good wrinkle. The Cross Bench has to provide quite a lot of judges. We need to provide judges for Special Public Bill Committees, the Ecclesiastical Committee and other purposes, for which we are lucky to have members of the senior judiciary on the Cross Benches—I am looking at at least one here—who are very valuable to the House. The trouble is that the Supreme Court has a retirement age of 75 so, if they can get trained up only by the time they are 77, say, we will have them for a very short period of time. So it is extremely helpful for us if the senior judiciary gets at least 10 years at bat. That is helpful for the Cross Benches and the House.

When I was at the Bar school, I was told that the judge only ever hears the point the third time you make it. I have now made this point four times. The Leader was pointing out that we are all judges and that we are here for judgment. I hope that noble Lords will ponder, for the fourth time, that this might be a good point.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I recognise that this country rather likes retirement ages, but I am afraid I do not share that view. I think of my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern, who recently retired when he was, I think, 93—someone says he was 97; even better. He was absolutely as sharp as a tack until the time that he stood down. His contributions to this House were memorable. He was a very serious man in every way and people listened to him in this House. To think that we would put in place a system that would have got rid of Lord Mackay fills me with absolute horror.

If we want to reduce the numbers, I have never understood why a committee of this House turned down the idea of internal elections. We all know who are the people in our parties who do not come, who do not contribute and who play very little role in this House. Why not allow us to elect them out and reduce numbers that way? Then we would not have this arbitrary business of saying that, because someone has reached a retirement age of X, that is the reason why they should go.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Earl of Kinnoull Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 2nd July 2025 Lords Chamber

[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.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Earl of Kinnoull Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 1st April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, other amendments in this group have a tendency to delay the date of implementation of the Bill. My Amendment 107A is neutral on that. It would remove the words relating to the end of the Session from the Bill and instead would make the implementation of the Bill dependent on a statutory instrument to be moved by the Government. To make it all the easier for the Government to accept it, I have ensured that it would be through the negative procedure, so it would be the easiest thing in the world for the Government to do. That flexibility might be of advantage to the Government; indeed, if I were them, I would seize this amendment with open hands and adopt it as my own.

Noble Lords who are hereditary Peers may think that it introduces an element of capriciousness about their fate and that they would therefore be uncertain about when they would come to the end of their term. But there is already a large degree of capriciousness and uncertainty, because the end of the Session is, of course, not a fixed date: it will be decided, in effect, by the Prime Minister, and I am sure he will decide it according to a broad range of considerations. The fate of Members of your Lordships’ House is probably quite low on that list. The Session could end at any time. Noble Lords who feel that they would somehow be losing control of events by handing this power to the Government just need to remember that the end of the Session is equally in the Government’s power. But this would give the Government a little more flexibility and allow them to have more discussions, perhaps after the Bill has passed, about an appropriate time for implementing it, so as to be able to carry noble Lords with them a little more.

[The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)]

My Lords, I spoke in November and December, and again in this Committee, about the necessity of avoiding a cliff edge when we were thinking about retirement ages. I thought it would be interesting to inform the Committee of the nature of the cliff edge for the Cross Bench and the necessity I therefore feel for considering very carefully the transitional arrangements, which this series of amendments really goes to.

In a pure sense, we would lose 18.5% of our membership—and, therefore, of the people who put in the hours in this House—upon the coming into force of this Bill. If you adjust that by taking out the people who come less than 10% of the time—the people who really are inactive—that rises to 22.5%. Without a transitional arrangement, the Bill represents quite a difficulty for the Cross Bench in trying to deliver the services we try to deliver to this House.

[Lord Dobbs (Con)]

My Lords, I will be incredibly brief. My name is on the amendment, along with that of my noble friend Lord Blencathra. It is an issue I raised at Second Reading. It is something that has been of great importance, but we have had some very fine interventions and speeches this evening, which I do not wish to repeat.

I would simply say, without trying to sound in the least bit pompous, that constitutional change is not just a matter of winning votes; it is also about winning arguments and taking others with you. I simply say to the Government that, judging from the mood I have sensed this evening, if they were to give even a little in this area, they could gain a great deal. I encourage the Government to look again a second time, and indeed a third time, at some of the very fine points that have been made in this House this evening.