Draft Conversion Practices Bill

Lord Hayward Excerpts

Wednesday 1st July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I cannot be clearer, and I will repeat the point: this is not about the Government dictating to people how to raise their children. The measures in the Bill are not intended to infringe parents’ rights to bring up their children in line with their beliefs or core values. That is the straight answer. We will see how this can be properly tested and scrutinised in the pre-legislative Joint Committee of both Houses. I am absolutely satisfied that we can do that. The draft Bill seeks to target harmful and abusive acts; it will not impinge on any other legislation.

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

My Lords, I will take the opportunity to repeat what has been said, so that some of my noble friends can recognise that this is a piece of legislation that was to be introduced by a Conservative Government, but they failed to do so. They were repeatedly committed to introducing that legislation. The detail that has been raised by noble Lords this afternoon is a matter for pre-legislative scrutiny, but the principle of the legislation is absolutely clear and correct.

I wear the tie of the Kings Cross Steelers. One of our members was subjected to conversion therapy over a long period of time. How he has remained so balanced and such a nice person I do not know, because I would not have been so balanced if I had been subjected to what he was subjected to. All those, including the Minister, who are going to question aspects of the law in the proposed Bill should have serious conversations with people who have actually been subjected to conversion therapy, rather than reading from a script that has been concocted by people who do not like the Bill, which the Conservatives wanted to introduce in the first place.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord and I appreciate his comments. I meant what I said: there is cross-party consensus and a consensus across this House on stopping this abuse, and he is absolutely right. The United Kingdom has long championed the rights of LGBT+ people at home and abroad, and we proudly uphold one of the most expansive legislative frameworks in the world—and I want to make it clear that that has been delivered by both Labour and Conservative Governments.

However, I also remind the House that this is part of the work to fulfil the commitments set out in the Government’s manifesto on advancing rights and protections to LGBT people. Therefore, as well as this legislation banning conversion practices, noble Lords will know that we have equalised hate-crime laws, established a scheme to address the historical wrongs against LGBT veterans, and improved healthcare services for LGBT individuals. Additionally, we are collaborating with international allies to strengthen our position as a global leader. One of the important things is that we set standards which are important for other countries to see because, with some of the abuse and the legislative changes that we are now seeing, we are facing more countries that have criminalised homosexuality than there were two years ago. So we are going the wrong way, and we need to set a positive tone here.

Equality Act 2010: Section 106

Lord Hayward Excerpts

Tuesday 10th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

The noble Baroness makes a really important point. Sadly, many people out there seek to stop the widest possible engagement in our political process. We have seen that through harassment and intimidation of voters, electoral staff and campaigners, and particularly women Members of Parliament, and what we have seen has been shocking. That intimidation, which is not just restricted to women, has a huge impact on the willingness of people to seek public office. That is why we are taking specific action, making plans to extend the disqualification order to protect electoral staff, empowering courts to hand out tougher sentences to people who abuse those who uphold our democratic traditions, and removing the requirements for candidates’ home addresses to be published. It is a sad indictment of where we are, but those are important protections for our political process.

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

My Lords, given the failure of the Labour Party to find any female leader as yet—a full party leader; my apologies to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith—will the requirements of this section apply when the Labour Party next seeks a new leader?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I think the noble Lord knows full well that we should not judge our ability for representation on one person. He referred to my noble friend the Leader of this House, and I am a protected characteristic as a gay Deputy Leader of this House. It is important to see Section 106 not in terms of the headlines but in terms of the whole of our political activity and the people involved in it. Councillors at a local level are just as important as Members of this House.

Parliamentary Commercial Department

Lord Hayward Excerpts

Thursday 12th June 2025 Lords Chamber

The information I have is that the work that has been ongoing to address the problems has not cost the House any more beyond that. However, there is a window where a decision has to be taken on whether or not it will ever be fully operational and serve the needs of this House. If it will not, other decisions have to be resolved and that has to be something that is done very quickly. I hate to use the word “review”, because it sounds like long grass, but work is going on now to do that. I share the frustrations, the upset and every other adjective noble Lords may wish to use.

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

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

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

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

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

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

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

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

Elections Bill

Lord Hayward Excerpts

Lords Hansard - Part 1 & Committee stage
Monday 28th March 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I have a couple of amendments to Clause 28 in this group, and then further amendments, all looking at disqualification from elected office. My Amendments 160A and 161 to Clause 28 are really just to probe different government decisions as to why the Bill is laid out as it is. Amendment 160A is to probe the circumstances of elected candidates being found guilty of terrorism offences; that is pretty self-explanatory. Amendment 161 was tabled because the Government have put in the Bill that someone could be disqualified for five years from standing for elected office, and it probes the reasoning behind the period of five years. If the Minister could give the Committee some understanding of where the figure came from, that would be very useful.

Amendment 168 to Clause 32 would add fundraising as an activity undertaken for election purposes, because I think pretty much every political party does it as an election activity. Amendment 170 to Clause 33 is tabled so that we can see clearly the details of any disqualification orders given to ensure transparency. I am aware that the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, has an amendment in this group, so I will be interested to hear his introduction to it. Amendment 172 to Clause 34 probes the Government’s intention to vary the offences. It would be interesting to hear from the Minister some more detail on that and how it came to be in its current form.

I shall not give a long speech, as we have a long way still to go on the Bill and it is pretty clear what the Government are looking to achieve by this section of it. There is one issue I will raise, which was raised in Committee in the other place as well, and it concerns the five-year period. Many of the people who go on to intimidate candidates, agents or campaigners—unfortunately, I have been a victim of that, as have many people who stand for elected office—and who commit such crimes and acts, are not really interested in standing themselves to become elected representatives. Some of them are just opposed to the whole idea of how we run our democracies. But is that five-year period going to stop anything? Do the Government think that anything further could be done to manage the problem? Intimidation is becoming an increasingly difficult issue which, sadly, anyone putting themselves forward for public life at any level has to deal with.

We support the Government in their really important effort to do something about intimidation of candidates, be it physically or through social media. The Opposition are happy to work with the Government if there are ways in which we can continue to improve the situation, support people who put themselves forward for public office and protect them from this kind of behaviour. I beg to move.

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, referred to my Amendment 171 in this group, to which I would like to speak. Before I do, and with the indulgence of the House, I refer to some comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, in Committee last week:

“However, given the important concerns that have been raised on the secrecy of voting, Minister Badenoch will be writing to the Electoral Commission and the Metropolitan Police to confirm our common understanding of the position set out in legislation—that the only people who should provide assistance at a polling booth are polling station staff and companions who are doing so only for the purpose of supporting an elector with health and/or accessibility issues that need such support. We are confident that the Electoral Commission will be able to respond promptly”.—[Official Report, 21/3/22; cols. 750-1.]


I raise that because the Minister wrote to the Electoral Commission and the police last week in very clear terms, covering the points made by, I think, every Member in the debate, and emphasising that there should be no element of doubt. Noble Lords will note that the Minister said that it was hoped that the Electoral Commission and the police would respond promptly. I quote from the letter the Minister wrote to those two organisations. In the penultimate paragraph, she says:

“I would be grateful for a quick response … to reassure Parliament that the secrecy of the ballot is upheld at those polls”—


that is, in May—or the Government may be minded to

“strengthen the law in this area, given the constitutional importance”.

I hope that the Electoral Commission and the Metropolitan Police will respond promptly, so that this matter does not have to come back at Report, as it may well have to do. I thank the Committee for its indulgence while I dealt with that, but it is important, given the general view that was expressed.

I move on to my Amendment 171. I am sorry here to possibly be raking over bad memories for the noble Lord, Lord Collins, who has said on a number of previous occasions that he was involved in the Tower Hamlets affair several years ago—and this is driven by the issue of Tower Hamlets and Lutfur Rahman. Lutfur Rahman was banned for five years, which may be where the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, about five years comes from. That was the maximum penalty available to the election court.

--- Later in debate ---

The fixed five-year disqualification period provided in Clause 28 is consistent with the existing incapacity arising from a corrupt or illegal practice as provided by Section 160 of the Representation of the People Act 1983. I think that that answers the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Scriven. The period of disqualification for the proposed disqualification order is designed to strike the right balance between ensuring a sufficient deterrent while remaining proportionate, given the potential interference with the right to participate in free and fair elections, most recently protected under Article 3 of Protocol 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights. I therefore urge the noble Baroness and my noble friend not to press these amendments.

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

Before my noble friend moves off that point, and picking up a comment made by the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, although I have referred on a number of occasions to Tower Hamlets, I have done so because that is the most extreme example. Does my noble friend agree that there are other examples of election offences around the country which may be considered minor, but are indications of the sort of problems we are facing in a number of areas?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

Issues from around the country that we need to take note of have been brought forward in this Committee.

Covid-19 Update

Lord Hayward Excerpts

Thursday 7th January 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

As I said in a previous answer, we have bought more than 1 million laptops and tablets for disadvantaged people, which are being distributed. By the end of the week we will have delivered 750,000 devices. We are also working with all the UK’s leading mobile network operators to provide free data for educational sites and have been delivering 4G routers to families who need access to the internet. Of course, the BBC has also announced that it will deliver 14 weeks of educational programmes and lessons to every household, which is also very welcome.

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

I remind my noble friend and this House that major elections involving millions of people have actually successfully taken place in Georgia this week, and by-elections have taken place in Scotland. Given the rollout of the vaccine, could my noble friend please reconfirm that elections will take place here on 6 May? As with other aspects of government, will that be reviewed in mid-February and stuck to? At the same time, could the request be made to all parties that they desist from delivering literature until the end of March?

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

As my noble friend will know, primary legislation provides that local elections take place in May. The Cabinet Office is working with election administrators and public health bodies to make sure that everyone can cast their vote safety and securely. I am sure that the whole House would like to thank those authorities for the work they are undertaking to make sure that elections can go ahead in a Covid-secure way.

Covid-19

Lord Hayward Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd September 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

I am sure that the department will take soundings and work with as many experts as possible as we look to develop this. It is a future aim to start testing people to identify those who do not have coronavirus and are not infectious with a quick, simple, scalable test but we are not near that yet, so we will certainly work with experts and companies to develop it. We will draw as much expertise as we can because, along with the development of vaccines, this will be critical hopefully to moving back to some kind of normal life.

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

My Lords, the announcement yesterday hit sport very hard at all levels—not just those levels that are seen on television but community sport in whatever form. I believe that Ian Botham is to be introduced into this House on 6 October. Will my noble friend guarantee that sports will receive the same proportion of grants as have been given to the arts by the time that he arrives in this Chamber?

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

I thank my noble friend. Like him and many others, I am extremely disappointed that we have had to pause these events. I was able to get one of 1,000 tickets to see Norwich play football on Saturday as one of the pilot events and, in terms of the way that was held, I thought that it worked very well.

We absolutely understand the economic consequences, as he rightly says, particularly for community and grass-roots sports, which so depend on spectators. I know that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State is working at pace with representatives from a variety of sports to ensure that we can come up with some kind of package to help them.

Business and Planning Bill

Lord Hayward Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading (Hansard) & 2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 6th July 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

My Lords, I should declare that for 10 years I was the chief executive of the Beer & Pub Association, so I have had some experience in dealing with the Licensing Act 2003, when many of the points raised today were raised then. I will just touch on one or two points made previously and will come back to Soho in a second. Bournemouth, Broad- stairs, the assaults on police in parts of London and Manchester, et cetera, happened before pubs were reopened, so there are other factors at play. We have to address those as well as the issues genuinely raised today.

I share the concern of the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, about clarity, but it is clearly difficult to get it right when you are dealing with so many varieties of hospitality industry. I am pleased with some of the variations from one sector to another made recently in guidance—for example, in the use of toilet facilities and the like. As the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, said, there are clearly still inherent contradictions that have to be addressed, but it is worth noting that the Government are making steps along that route.

The noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, made reference to the arcane or archaic—I am using my words, not hers—Licensing Act. In fact, the Licensing Act was passed in 2003 and local authorities have policies between seven and 41 pages long that give guidance from which pubs, pub companies and restaurant companies need to operate.

However, I have serious sympathy for the problems relating to the blind, the partially sighted, the physically disabled who need wheelchairs, and the like. Again, I declare an interest in that I suffer from an MS-related illness and on Friday I was partially sighted for a period. I said earlier that we should look at what happened before licensed premises were open. The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, knows Urlwin Street and Grosvenor Terrace only too well; they are roads close to where he grew up. It is not just the licensed industry that causes these problems. You cannot get a wheelchair down either of those streets, because of the street furniture placed there by the local council. So let us not address all the problems to at the hospitality industry. We need to be honest enough to look more widely.

I will comment on one or two aspects when we debate the Bill next week, but I draw Members’ attention to Clause 4, headed “Duration”. We are talking about introducing not rights that will last for a long period but powers for a specific period in these circumstances for the coronavirus crisis.

I have two small issues—or perhaps not so small. One is TENs, which we will return to and is a matter of intense detail and concern for small brewers. The other is the definition of “groups” in relation to hostels and the hospitality industry. People are allowed to go as two groups, but the definition we have in this country does not apply anywhere else in Europe. If four people turn up in a car or come by train together, they have travelled together. Therefore, they ought to be able to stay in a hostel. I will address these issues in greater detail when we debate the Bill, but I hope that I have raised a few small points for the Government to consider.

Special Adviser Appointments

Lord Hayward Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd October 2019 Lords Chamber

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, the terms of employment for any special adviser, as I have said, are set in their model contract. They are bound by the Code of Conduct. The process will depend on the terms of that contract. Dominic Cummings is ultimately accountable to the Prime Minister for his conduct, as is the case for all special advisers.

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

My Lords, is it not acutely embarrassing to this Government that they have put Parliament in a position whereby it is granting a pass to somebody who is deemed to be in contempt of it? I hope that any compensation to Sonia Khan comes not from the pocket of the taxpayer, but from Dominic Cummings.

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, that is clearly not a matter for me.

Business of the House

Lord Hayward Excerpts

Wednesday 4th September 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord True]

I do not want to get into the issue of Prorogation, simply because of the time. But I spoke about Prorogation the last time we discussed these things. We all know that Prorogation is perfectly normal. There is always a Queen’s Speech. There has been one every year and the next Government will introduce a Queen’s Speech after the general election. In response to the noble Baroness, I will make the point that, if there were an election and a new Session, there would be more time to have such a Bill after that than there is in the next two days. There would be several days in which we could discuss it, not two days. It is not necessary to do it now. Indeed, after an election, if the party opposite won, we would not need a Bill because it would ask for an extension anyway—and if our side won, the Bill would not go forward. So the whole thing is entirely unnecessary, and this House is being asked to sign away hundreds of years of tradition on a pretext.

I support my noble friend. There are questions that the noble Baroness should answer. What does the Salisbury doctrine apply to? In her doctrine, we must defer to the Commons. Does self-regulation always mean a Motion from the Leader of the Opposition? Her guillotine says that if it passes, no one else may put any proposition to the House in the time that we are discussing this Bill, except the Leader of the Opposition. There are questions that need to be answered. I strongly support the view of my noble friend that we should take the Committee opportunity to get some answers from the Leader of the Opposition.

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

Will my noble friend include on the list of questions that he is putting to the Leader of the Opposition that of whether this Motion would be necessary if we did not have Prorogation?

[Lord True]

The Motion is not at all necessary, irrespective of Prorogation. I just made that point. There will be more time in a new Parliament to deal with this Bill than in these two days.

Motion

Grenfell Tower

Lord Hayward Excerpts

Thursday 22nd June 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

As I said, we want to leave no stone unturned, and therefore this will be a full, independent, judge-led inquiry.

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

Perhaps I may follow on from the questions in relation to the public inquiry and the reference that has just been made to the legislation. Can we please ensure that when people give evidence, they do so in full and do not hide behind the fact that, if they answer certain questions, they might incriminate themselves, which could result in a criminal prosecution? People expect a public inquiry to be full and public, not partially full and partially in public.

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

As I hope I have made clear to noble Lords, we want a judge-led inquiry. It will be for the person appointed to lead the inquiry and to determine how it works. However, as we have said, we want to make sure that all voices are heard, and I am sure that whoever leads the inquiry will refer to this debate with interest and take account of noble Lords’ comments.