House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Lord Hermer Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 12th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I have signed the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Lucas in this group, but that is not because I agree with every aspect of his amendment. I am not sure that any amendment is necessary to achieve the purpose that he and some others who have spoken want to see. Indeed, it could have the negative effect of locking the absolute right of the Crown to create any form of peerage within the frame of the 1958 Act, which, among other things, says that all peerages created under it can be only baronies. I support the amendment because I have long advocated the course that it seeks to enable, and I sense support for that in the Committee. It seeks the creation of peerages that do not entitle a person to a writ to sit in the House of Lords.

The nation will always want to honour those who are most distinguished among us with the high honour of a peerage, yet, as we have heard, not everyone who might be glad—or perhaps hungry or avid—to accept or secure an honour will wish to undertake the sometimes arduous role of playing a part in your Lordships’ House. We all know such people. We have all have known also some who walk the narrow tightrope between honour and duty.

I do not subscribe to the view that all who come here must smash the pain and endurance barriers in participation or attendance. I deplore the fact that some of our number, including much-respected colleagues on the other side, are being measured in this way in a current media campaign against the House. However, I acknowledge that many in this House and outside have high expectations that someone who accepts a peerage should be active in this House. The noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, reminded us of the wording of our summons in an earlier debate.

As some have argued, if we were able clearly to separate those who wish to play a role in Parliament and those who do not, it would, at the lowest argument for such a proposition, reduce at least some of the inflow in headline numbers to this House, to which many attach importance. In short, as argued by my noble friends, and as I would argue, you could have on one side Lords created under the 1958 Act, with all the expectations of a Writ of Summons conferred by that Act and the accompanying duty to take part, and another set of Peers honoured with the same degree of barony—even, potentially, a higher degree—who had no wish to be in this place but who have been proved deserving of such an honour. That is surely perfectly possible.

I have argued this case to at least three Prime Ministers, but the usual reply comes that the law is uncertain. I do not think it is that uncertain, but, if it is, let us, while we have this Bill before us, rally round my noble friend’s amendment, or some variation of it come Report, and make it certain. This would be an exceedingly useful change for the body politic.

The Life Peerages Act did not create a novel concept of a peerage for life. That had existed for centuries. It corrected two problems that had arisen in decisions by your Lordships’ Committee for Privileges. In 1922, in the Viscountess Rhondda case, it decided that a woman could not sit in this House—a shameful judgment, in retrospect—and in 1856, in the Wensleydale case, it concluded that a life peerage did not confer on a man a right to sit and vote in Parliament.

The Wensleydale case is germane to this argument because, although the House held that Sir James Parke’s life peerage did not entitle him to sit or speak in the House—he was later, as many of us know, given a hereditary peerage to allow him to do so and to take up his role as a Law Lord—the Committee for Privileges did not and could not extinguish his life peerage, which remained in existence as a perfectly proper exercise of Queen Victoria’s prerogative as the fount of honour. The issue was whether the hereditary Peers wanted to have him as a life Peer. Although it was said at the time that the creation of a life peerage for men might have fallen into disuse, the Wensleydale barony showed that it had not.

Furthermore, long after the Restoration and into the 19th century, monarchs created peerages for life which did not confer the right to a writ to sit in this House. Charles II created 10, I think; James II created one; William III created at least one; George I created three, I think; and there were others later into the 19th century. They were all for women—and maybe that explains why Charles II created 10 of them. Sadly, in those days, because they were women, they were unable to sit.

The power to create such peerages without the right to sit is, therefore, in my submission, absolutely inherent and current in the Crown. That was also the conclusion of the Lord Speaker’s committee on the size of the House in 2017, in, I believe, paragraphs 25 and 26 of the report. I see the noble Lord, Lord Burns, indicating assent.

Whenever we listen to the Letters Patent at Introductions, we hear reference, after the words

“in pursuance of the Life Peerages Act 1958”,

to another phrase:

“and of all other powers in that behalf us enabling”.

Among those other powers is, clearly, the power to create other types of peerage than a life peerage under the 1958 Act. Indeed, we had peerages under the 1876 Act until lately.

I submit that a Prime Minister could advise the monarch tomorrow to create a life peerage that did not entitle the Peer to sit in this House. I submit that that would be a useful innovation that would be widely welcomed on all sides, whether you were to call it modernisation or, as I am asserting, a useful revival of a custom of the past. It would, frankly, be a far more useful modernisation than what is in the Bill before us. I commend this proposal to the House, as I commend the purpose of my noble friend’s amendment. It is a change that is long overdue and does not require legislation. If Sir Keir Starmer were to take it up, I think it would be widely welcomed as a modern and sensible innovation.

[The Attorney-General (Lord Hermer) (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, for their amendments and for the brevity with which they spoke. With the greatest respect to their Lordships, the Government do not consider the amendments to be necessary or appropriate.

The reason why is that the Government believe there should be clarity both in your Lordships’ House and in the public at large as to what a life peerage is and, importantly, what the responsibilities are of those accorded the privilege of appointment. The granting of a life peerage, as we all know, brings with it responsibility for the work of your Lordships’ House: scrutinising legislation and holding the Government of the day to account. As my noble friend the Leader of the House has said, Peers should be appointed not only in recognition of their skills and expertise but in anticipation of those skills being put in service to your Lordships’ House.

The Government believe there is obvious benefit to the reputation of Parliament that the role of life Peers is well understood by members of the public. It may be thought that it would be apt to confusion if there is another class bearing the same name but not carrying with it the same obligations.

By contrast to the life peerage, the honour system represents the monarch’s recognition of past service or achievement without any obligation to future service. We do not consider that there is a clamour, either in Parliament or among the public, for some form of superannuation to the honour system so that some would bear the same title as life Peers who work in this House.

For those reasons, I respectfully ask that the amendment be withdrawn.

[Lord Mancroft (Con)]

My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General sits down, there already are large numbers of Peers who are not Members of this House, so there are already two classes of Peer in that sense. So that part of his argument is spurious.

Also, if the noble and learned Lord casts his mind back—I am not sure if he was in the House at the time; he probably was—we spent some time earlier this evening talking about Peers who are Members of this House who clearly do not obey the Writ of Summons and do not want or choose, for lots of reasons, to play a part in this House. So, both the arguments he has put forward are completely spurious.

[Lord Hermer (Lab)]

With the greatest respect to the noble Lord, I made my points by reference to life peerages. Obviously, as your Lordships know well, there is nothing contained in this Bill that will affect the status of hereditary peerages, other than the rights to sit and vote in this House. Were the logic of the noble Earl’s argument to be taken to its logical extension, we would create a third—possibly even, on the noble Earl’s argument, a fourth—class of peerage. The Government simply do not consider that necessary. There is no public clamour for it. Certainly the arguments in favour of it could not possibly, in the Government’s view, outweigh the confusion that would arise in the public’s mind as to what a life Peer is and what their functions are, and that confusion would not serve to enhance the reputation of your Lordships’ House.

[Lord Mancroft (Con)]

I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his response. I am even more grateful to him for promoting me to an Earl, which I would love to be. Do not apologise; I am delighted to be an Earl and am enjoying the 30 seconds of earldom that I have been given.

The reality is that there are masses of Peers walking around the streets—I say “masses”, but it is quite a lot: several hundred—and going into smart restaurants and not coming into your Lordships’ House who are called “Lord This” and “Lord That”. They do not have a badge on them saying, “I am a hereditary Peer”, or another one saying, “I am a life Peer”. The fact is that most people in the world do not know the difference between a life Peer and a hereditary Peer. Again, the argument that the noble and learned Lord puts forward is a complete fantasy.

[Lord Hermer (Lab)]

Well, I am very grateful to the noble Lord for forgiving my rookie mistake.

We have already discussed during the course of the evening what I anticipate is an almost unanimous view of those of your Lordships who participate regularly in this House on the unacceptable situation of those who do not. There has been a fruitful discussion today, with insightful contributions from all sections of this House, reflecting a determination to address both that problem and the issue of participation. However, I respectfully say to the noble Lord that the very fact that there are Members of your Lordships’ House who do not participate but nevertheless continue to enjoy the benefits of the title is not an argument for creating yet another class of life peerage; it is an argument for the work that will, I hope, take place to address the problems that we face with participation.

[Lord Burns (CB)]

As was referred to earlier by the Leader of the Opposition, in the Lord Speaker’s Committee, we looked at this in some detail and had legal advice that it would be possible. However, on this narrow question, surely there is another group of people who are around: those who have retired and have kept their titles but no longer receive a Writ of Summons.

[Lord Hermer (Lab)]

Again, we need to remember what the amendment seeks to do, which is create yet another category. The question there is: how would this help and who would it serve? The Government’s position is that a further category would not help promote the image of your Lordships’ House in the public eye. It would lead to confusion and it would not add to utility. There is no suggestion that the honours system is somehow bereft of a further status that needs to be met by the creation of a further class of Peer.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

The noble and learned Lord asked how this would help and who it would serve. I had the privilege of acting as an adviser to a former leader of my party, a former Prime Minister, and I certainly saw, as noble Lords have alluded to, the not inconsiderable queue of people who come to offer themselves for service in the upper House. I have seen party leaders of all political persuasions come under similar pressure. It would help them to be able to say, “Look, there are ways of recognising your great contribution to national life without giving you a seat in the legislature”, thus separating the distinction of a barony, earldom, marquisate or whatever from a perpetual role in legislating for the life of the nation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hermer (Lab)]

That may be a convenient out for Prime Ministers present and future but it is not, in the Government’s view, a compelling reason to create a further class of life Peer; and it is certainly not compelling enough to offset the confusion in the public eye that would be created by such an additional class.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

My Lords, at the risk of being sent to a re-education camp by my Chief Whip, I find the noble and learned Lord’s argument more persuasive. However, I gave no notice to the Minister about my issue on styles. Can the noble and learned Lord give some careful consideration to that in due course and write to me on it?

[Lord Hermer (Lab)]

Yes, of course, I will.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, I understand what the Government’s policy is; I think it is profoundly mistaken. As my noble friend on the Front Bench said, I do not think that people perceive someone who is Lord Hermer to be different from any other species of Lord Hermer who might have appeared as a hereditary Peer or, indeed, a Law Lord. It is a title, and the fact that these things come from different directions would not cause a problem. I think that all of us who have been in this place for a while are aware of people who have come here and are totally unsuited to the job we do and the life we lead but who have, in every way, deserved the honour of a peerage—I will not name names, but it is easy to think of lots of them. I can also think of those who have not taken up a peerage, when they obviously deserve one, because of the obligations that being a Member of this House brings and which they personally would wish to avoid.

I think that something along these lines would be good. I share my noble friend Lord True’s frustration at having been unable to persuade the previous Government of various things, but I did have hopes of this reforming Government, and I am sorry that they have been disappointed. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Attorney General’s Office: Conflicts of Interest

Lord Hermer Excerpts

Monday 27th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

My Lords, in the other place, the Solicitor-General said that there was a rigorous system for managing conflicts of interest, but she did not say what she meant by a conflict of interest or who decided when one existed; nor did she say whether, because of his work for previous clients, the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General has in fact recused himself from personally giving advice to the Government on any current issue. Policy Exchange’s paper has comprehensively shown that none of this involves any breach either of legal privilege or of convention, so please may we have some answers to these questions? What precise definition of an actual or potential conflict of interest is used by the Attorney-General’s Office and who decides when one exists? On what matters has the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General recused himself from personally advising Ministers?

[The Attorney-General (Lord Hermer) (Lab)]

My Lords, it is vital that the public are reassured that the highest standards of propriety are applied by my department, and I welcome the opportunity to answer questions today. As the House will be aware, I am constrained by the law officers’ convention, which prohibits me identifying particular instances in which law officer advice has been sought, even by implication. But I hope that reassurance can be found in the description of the rigorous system for managing conflicts provided by the Solicitor-General in the other place.

May I make it plain that if ever there is or will be reasonable doubt as to whether a law officer should be recused, my department will always err on the side of caution. Compliance with that process has led me to recuse myself from certain matters. As I said, the convention precludes me identifying in those instances, because to do so would inevitably reveal the issues on which advice has been sought. I can assure the House that recusals have no material impact on my department’s work. Where one law officer is conflicted, another is asked to act instead, and I am fortunate to have the support of a Solicitor-General and an Advocate-General for Scotland with highly successful careers in law.

[Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)]

My Lords, two years ago, the Constitution Committee of which I was a member concluded that the law officers’ convention not to disclose advice was based upon legal professional privilege and the possibility of future litigation. With the Diego Garcia 61 matter, which has been in the press, the conflict of interest is so obvious that I am sure that the noble and learned Lord will not have advised on the special permission to permit their entry into the UK when he has acted professionally for them in private practice. Legal privilege in future litigation will not be applicable if he simply informs the House that the issue did not cross his desk. I ask him to do so.

[Lord Hermer (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for his question. The law officers’ convention is not a convenient rock for law officers to hide behind; it is an essential principle that allows law officers to properly discharge their functions by providing legal advice to the Prime Minister and to government, and for that advice and the contents of that advice not to be revealed, because to do so would fundamentally undermine the efficacy of our work. I understand the basis of the noble Lord’s question, but I do not think I can properly answer that question directly, save to reiterate that we have in place a rigorous process for the identification and management of conflicts.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General, not least for bringing such a distinguished career and experience to this vital role. Can he reassure me that the processes that are currently in place for dealing with conflicts are the same as were in place under the last Government and their law officers? Does he agree that if we examined commercial conflicts of interest with the same zeal and enthusiasm that we assign to legal professional interests, that would be great for trust in democracy and would definitely assist the Government in pursuit of what went wrong during Covid, with corrupt contracts and other favours given to certain individuals and organisations?

[Lord Hermer (Lab)]

It is my understanding that the same rigorous process has been applied to me and my fellow law officers as was applied previously under Governments of all different colours. As to pre-existing experience, Parliament and various Governments have been lucky to enjoy the assistance of lawyers with a range of experience of public, commercial and criminal law. I anticipate that the same rigour has been applied to identify conflicts for all of them.

[Lord Garnier (Con)]

My Lords, I am not sure whether the Government I served thought it was an advantage to have me in office, but there you are: I was once a law officer. The convention is that a law officer should not disclose his work in such a way as to embarrass his client. The client in his case is—and in my case was—the Government. The Prime Minister could release him from that convention if he thought it appropriate. Has he asked him to help him?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hermer (Lab)]

The noble and learned Lord served with great distinction as a law officer and will know that the question as to what I may or may not have advised the Prime Minister is itself covered by the law officers’ convention.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

My Lords, nobody doubts the integrity of my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General, nor that he has complied with the conflicts principles, as has been attested to by the Cabinet Secretary. Can my noble and learned friend say what effect seeking to undermine the convention by scraping the bottom of the barrel in this way has on the good functioning of government and of his office?

[Lord Hermer (Lab)]

I have two answers to that. In terms of the current law officers, it has none, because we will not be distracted in the work that we seek to perform with this Government to enable them, through law, to deliver on their objectives. My concern is not for myself nor my colleagues; it is that, where people seek to scrape the bottom of the legal barrel in order to drive short-term political point-scoring, it undermines this country’s important institutions in the eyes of the public.

[Lord Caine (Con)]

My Lords, as Advocate-General for Northern Ireland, the noble and learned Lord might well have to advise on matters relating to highly sensitive national security interests in legacy cases, as happened when I was in government. Would it not serve the interests of transparency and public confidence in his office in Northern Ireland if he were to state unequivocally, yes or no, that, in any cases that might involve known associates of people he has acted for, or indeed those individuals themselves, he will simply recuse himself?

[Lord Hermer (Lab)]

I can assure the noble Lord that in those instances, and, indeed, in any subject matter that I am asked to consider as Attorney-General, we will apply the rigorous conflict process to identify and manage conflicts. Beyond that, I am afraid I cannot go.

[Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, the noble and learned Lord has described the rigorous system that is in place and has been for some time, but he is, of course, the chief government legal adviser and head of the Government Legal Service. As in private practice, ultimately, the decision is his. Does he feel it is in the public interest not to release any information about whether he was recused from these vital matters?

[Lord Hermer (Lab)]

My Lords, I do. We have set out, and the Solicitor-General set out in the other place, details of that rigorous process. We have explained it and I consider that, without offending the law officers’ convention, that is as far as we can properly go.

[Lord Butler of Brockwell (CB)]

My Lords, so that the noble Lord does not have to comment on particular cases, could he just say, as a general principle, whether there is a conflict of interest when a law officer is asked to advise on a matter in which he has been retained in a private professional capacity?

[Lord Hermer (Lab)]

I hope I manage to capture the noble Lord’s question. I do not think it possible, without offending the law officers’ convention, to identify circumstances and instances in which I have recused myself because in so doing, it would identify matters upon which my advice was sought. However, I have made it plain to the House that, as a result of the application of the rigorous system we have in place for the identification and management of conflicts—and what I have described as the conservative approach we apply to managing those conflicts, erring on the side of caution—there have been matters, since coming into this office, on which I have recused myself.

CPS Guidance: Intentional Police Shootings

Lord Hermer Excerpts

Tuesday 29th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, in begging leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, I draw the House’s attention to my interests as set out in the register.

[The Attorney-General (Lord Hermer) (Lab)]

My Lords, charging decisions made by the CPS are rightly independent and made in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors and the Director of Public Prosecutions’ guidance to prosecutors. I have invited the Director of Public Prosecutions to review CPS guidance and processes in relation to charging police officers for offences committed in the course of their duties in order to consider whether any changes are desirable within the existing legal framework. The review will conclude by the end of the year.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

I welcome the sensible decision to continue with the previous Government’s police accountability review, including the lessons-learned commitment. However, I would like to press the Minister on three issues. First, while I endorse the default presumption of anonymity in this small number of cases, an explicit and robust evidential test should be in place should a decision be made to deviate from this. Secondly, does he agree that it is imperative that these inquiries by the CPS and the IOPC are expedited in a reasonably timely and transparent fashion for the benefit of all parties? Thirdly and finally, will he undertake to ensure comprehensive and meaningful consultation with the Police Superintendents’ Association and the Police Federation?

[Lord Hermer (Lab)]

In respect of consultation with all relevant stakeholders across the range of reviews that we are undertaking, we have taken the measures agreed by the previous Government and we have gone further, and the details of that were set out last week by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary in the other place. In respect of anonymity, the Home Secretary set out that that is a measure we are going to take; there will be a presumption of anonymity in those cases. Ultimately it will rest upon the discretion of a trial judge.

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

My Lords, first, will the Minister confirm whether the review that is taking place will include a review of the Sergeant Blake case and, if it does not, whether he would encourage the IOPC, the CPS and perhaps the courts to consider how that case was handled? Secondly, is that review going to consider what I regard as the excellent proposal yesterday from the noble Lord, Lord Carter? Section 43 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013 provides a defence to householders in certain circumstances when their property is invaded. Should not police firearms officers—not police officers in general—be given some kind of comfort and defence in law when they exercise on our behalf these very difficult decisions of challenging people with firearms who are otherwise so dangerous?

[Lord Hermer (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for his question, and I recognise the great experience that he brings to bear. The intended reviews will not look at individual cases but no doubt will look across the board to see what lessons can be learned. In respect of firearms officers, I echo the words of the Home Secretary and indeed of my noble friend Lord Hanson in this House last week: we in this House all recognise and pay tribute to the extraordinary risk that firearms officers take upon themselves in public service to defend and protect all of us.

[Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)]

Where a policeman has shot an unarmed man, allegedly in defence of another policeman, does the Minister agree that whether his action was objectively reasonable and proportionate in all the circumstances should be determined not by other policemen, nor by the Director of Public Prosecutions, but by 12 ordinary people of diverse backgrounds, commonly called over 800 years “a jury”?

[Lord Hermer (Lab)]

I do. However, it is worth pointing out to this House the enormous care and expertise that are brought to bear whenever a charging decision is made in a case about the discharge of firearms by a police officer. First, it is brought and dealt with by a specialist team within the CPS, trained in the area: the CPS special crime division. Secondly, decisions in cases concerning the discharge of firearms by police officers where a death arises are always taken by the Director of Public Prosecutions because that reflects the seriousness, care and attention given to such cases, and quite rightly so.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, to pick up on the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, during yesterday’s debate he and the noble Lord, Lord Carter of Haslemere, made valuable points. The contention is that armed officers do not go out with the intent to kill; they go out with the intent to protect the public. Intent is an integral part of any murder charge, but by the nature of their jobs police officers are forced to make split-second decisions in reacting to circumstances. Will the Minister commit to looking at the laws in this area in order to protect officers and perhaps, as the noble Lord, Lord Carter, noted, to introducing defences similar to those available to house- holders when using force to defend themselves?

[Lord Hermer (Lab)]

My Lords, it is not the intention to review the law of homicide. It is the intention that the director will review the guidance that is given to prosecutors when considering whether or not it is appropriate to bring charges in such circumstances. Prosecutors will do that in accordance with the code; it is the guidance for that code that is going to be reviewed.

[Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, can the Minister give some context to this by providing us with figures for the last five years on how often firearms drawn by police officers in anger are discharged? How often does that result in injury or death to the victim?

[Lord Hermer (Lab)]

My Lords, it speaks to the enormous bravery of firearms officers and the skill with which they discharge their duties that such instances are very rare indeed. We should all, as I said before, be thankful to those officers for that care and skill, and for their levels of professionalism. I am afraid that I do not have the precise figures to hand, but I will write this afternoon to the noble Lord to provide him with those figures.

[Lord Carter of Haslemere (CB)]

My Lords, building on the points that my noble friends have made, I wonder whether it is time to ask whether the guidance to prosecutors is really sufficient in this area. As the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, said, in 2013 householders were given a special defence when they use force in the home where they honestly believe that the degree of force used is reasonable. Is it not time to ask whether police officers should be given some similar legal protection, perhaps with a new offence of excessive force rather than murder, and a more proportionate penalty, appropriate for police officers who put their lives at risk to protect us all?

[Lord Hermer (Lab)]

I urge your Lordships to look at the comprehensive package of measures that the Home Secretary announced last week, which seek to take away the tension that may be thought to exist currently between, on the one hand, a lack of trust and confidence within some communities in policing but, on the other hand, a lack of confidence in those police officers in going about their daily duties. These packages of measures seek to show that there need be no tension between those two legitimate principles.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, it is all very well to say that there should not be any tension but, in fact, of course there is. One of the problems we have is that firearms on British streets are very rare. That is why a shooting has such a huge shock value to a lot of us. As the Minister has said, certain communities feel that they bear the brunt of police shootings, violence and, quite often, persecution. Does the Minister agree that transparency is vital? It should not look as though the whole system is closing off against those communities.

[Lord Hermer (Lab)]

I entirely agree. We will see from the package of measures that many of them address the concerns that the noble Baroness has raised.

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

My Lords, the Minister made a very good point, which is that we all ought to consider the package that is offered in the round. It is a comprehensive package, and not just about police firearms officers, but surely the group whom we have to consider are the firearms officers and what their view of it is. There are only about 3,000 of them in the 67 million of us. The military do not want to take on that responsibility and we have very few other options. Their representations really need to be taken seriously because should they change their minds about volunteering, we will all have a problem.

[Lord Hermer (Lab)]

I agree. Any consultation will need to take account of all relevant stakeholders. When it comes to the use of firearms, that will most certainly include the views of firearms officers.

King’s Speech

Lord Hermer Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd July 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Reid of Cardowan]

That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty as follows:

“Most Gracious Sovereign—We, Your Majesty’s most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, beg leave to thank Your Majesty for the most gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament”.

[The Attorney-General (Lord Hermer) (Lab) (Maiden Speech)]

My Lords, on behalf of your Lordships’ House I thank His Majesty the King for delivering the gracious Speech, and I am grateful for the privilege of opening today’s debate on the Motion for an humble Address. This is my first time at the Dispatch Box, and it is a great privilege to have been appointed to this House and to the office of His Majesty’s Attorney-General.

As this is my maiden speech before your Lordships’ House, I hope I can be forgiven for a few personal remarks before I turn to the substance. I begin with a thank you. I thank Black Rod and the staff of this House for their kind assistance and reassurance in guiding me through the process leading to today. I also thank my introducers, the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury. Being introduced to this House was always going to be a very special occasion, but it was truly enhanced by being introduced by two people I have so long admired and whose friendship I treasure. Sometimes when lawyers refer to their learned friends, they actually mean it.

Noble Lords will all no doubt recall giving their maiden speeches and the range of emotions it evokes. I certainly share a genuine and profound sense of impostor syndrome. I speak as a lawyer who spent 30 years at the Bar, but I am acutely conscious that this House already benefits from the learnings and insights of some of our great former judges, and from a raft of eminent lawyers on all Benches. I had thought that when some noble and learned Lords retired from the judiciary, I would never have to face their difficult questions again. I fear I spoke too soon.

As in law, so is this House blessed by the presence of expertise in science, medicine, business, the military, the arts and so many other sectors; different skills and experiences brought together in your Lordships’ House in public service. It is a true privilege to be asked to join you.

The one other reflection which many of your Lordships may also have felt when delivering their maiden speeches is the thought of dear family members who are no longer here to savour the moment. For me, I think of my late father. I mention my father not least to emphasise a point I wish to make about how I hope to conduct myself, not only as Attorney-General but in my time in this House more generally.

I have been a passionate supporter of the Labour Party since I was a young teenager, but although I shared my father’s respect for the law, it is fair to say that our politics were very different indeed. My father was a proud Conservative, who for many years served his party as a city councillor in Cardiff and as a county councillor in South Glamorgan, where I was born and bred. It is fair to say that we disagreed across a wide array of political topics, topics on which we both had sincere and passionately held beliefs.

Not only did we never fall out over politics, and not only did our difference of opinion never lessen one iota how much I loved and admired him, but our political discussions around the family table were conducted always with respect and often with humour. What is more, as I matured, I developed an inkling that, if I talked a little less and listened a little more, I might actually learn something. So it is with that life experience that I come to your Lordships’ House: of course to represent this Government and assist in the delivery of their agenda, but also to embrace the guiding principle that this forum is for not only mature and respectful debate but active listening.

I turn to today’s debate, which focuses on the constitution and devolution. It will give an opportunity to consider some of the themes of the gracious Speech. I will take the subject matter in three parts: first, this Government’s dedication to the rule of law; secondly, their electoral reform programme; and, thirdly, their commitment to devolution to local communities and the home nations. My noble friend Lord Khan of Burnley will close the debate, and we both look forward to hearing contributions from all parts of the House.

I will start with the importance of the rule of law, a topic that I anticipate is as close to many of your Lordships’ hearts as it is to mine. The Prime Minister and the Lord Chancellor have both made it clear that the promotion and protection of the rule of law will underpin our approach to legislation and policy. As we face the profoundly difficult choices and decisions that every Government must make, it is the rule of law that will serve as our lodestar. In recent years, events at home and abroad have served to remind us that, once you start pulling on a single thread of the fabric of our rule-of-law system, and when democratic norms are whittled away through attrition, the risk of systemic unravelling is great, and the concomitant task of retrenching standards we all once took for granted becomes very difficult indeed.

In addressing the threats to the rule of law and the measures necessary to promote it, we recognise the imperative of seeking to ensure a cross-party consensus on our shared fundamental values and how we protect them for future generations. The values that we seek to protect are not the property of any political party. They are not Labour values or Conservative values; they are British values—indeed, many are universal values. I will work alongside the Lord Chancellor and the Solicitor-General to uphold the rule of law; to protect the independence of the judiciary; to promote the rule of law among the public, not least among the young; and, crucially, to rebuild trust in our political system by explaining how the rule of law applies to and serves us all.

I will inform your Lordships’ House of one small, symbolic step taken last week, when I was sworn in as Attorney-General before the Lady Chief Justice and made an oath, the terms of which can be traced back to the 16th century. Combining tradition and reform in that distinctly British way, I am pleased to say that, for the first time, our oath as law officers included not only the traditional commitments to serve His Majesty the King but an explicit promise to respect the rule of law. Just as we will promote the rule of law domestically, this Government—with my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary in the vanguard—will seek to promote international law and the rule of law in the international legal order, cognisant of its importance to the prosperity and security of all global citizens.

This Chamber has a special role in the scrutiny of legislation. We will seek to promote the highest standards in how we legislate, seeking to increase the accessibility and certainty of law, including by guarding against the abuse of the proper role of secondary legislation. I know that I will be supported by many of my noble and learned friends in this aim, and I very much look forward to drawing on their wisdom.

I turn next to electoral reform. Our democracy is something to cherish and protect in an increasingly uncertain world. This Government will, by clamping down on improper donations to political parties, robustly defend our electoral system against interference from bad actors who seek to undermine it.

The Prime Minister has made clear his expectations for high ministerial standards and integrity. This Government want to restore the public’s faith and confidence in government through establishing a new independent ethics and integrity commission, with its own independent chair. This extends to Members of the House of Commons, who are rightly expected to abide by the highest standards. The Government have committed to establishing a new modernisation committee, which will work to drive up standards, and reform procedures and working practices.

The rules prohibiting the provision of paid parliamentary advice will also be strengthened in the guide to the rules, setting out in more detail what is required of Members in order to abide by the code. The arrangements for that committee are being carefully considered and will be set out in due course.

I turn to the reform of your Lordships’ House. When the noble Baroness the Leader of the House informed me that I would be addressing this topic in my very first speech, I confess to some traumatic flashbacks to my early days at the Bar when I was sent off to advance a recusal application before a particularly ferocious judge. I recall his withering looks at my temerity. As noble Lords know, His Majesty’s gracious Speech set out plans to introduce a Bill that will remove the right of hereditary Peers to sit and vote in this House. The Government of course recognise the contribution made by hereditary Peers, who have worked so hard to scrutinise the Governments of the day and support the improvement in quality of legislation. Our commitment to reform of your Lordships’ House should not therefore be taken as diminishing our respect for the contribution that hereditary peers have made to public life. It is, rather, a reflection of our commitment to maintaining the vitality of our democratic institutions.

It is a feature of our British constitution—indeed, it may be thought to be one of the explanations for its stability—that changes to it are incremental and not revolutionary, and that it morphs with careful regard to our traditions and history. But it has never been static, and nor should it be. For democratic institutions to flourish, they must be capable of change, and must reflect changes in society and evolving constitutional demands. In that same spirit, our manifesto also set out a number of other commitments, including changes to the appointments process, on which we will engage with your Lordships’ House. This includes the introduction of a participation requirement and a mandatory retirement age of 80, as well as a longer-term commitment to replacing the House of Lords with an alternative second Chamber that is more representative of the regions and nations. As our manifesto set out, we will consult on proposals, seeking not least the input of the public on how politics can best serve them.

Finally, I turn to devolution. The Government are committed to delivering on their manifesto pledges to all parts of the United Kingdom. As a proud Welshman, I recognise the rich tapestry of diversity that makes the home nations of the United Kingdom, and the need to present the things we do in Westminster in ways that will not only benefit but be seen to benefit those in other parts of the country. To this end, we will reset relations with the devolved Governments and foster greater collaboration, built on mutual respect and trust.

The English devolution Bill will devolve powers to local leaders to empower them to boost economic growth and their communities. New powers for mayoral combined authorities will allow local leaders to take control over the public transport systems in their area, employment support and strategic planning. Integrated settlements with financial flexibilities will also be available for those mayoral combined authorities with capacity, strong accountability structures and an exemplary track record for financial management. Mayors are critical to delivering economic growth and will be vital partners. All this will enable strengthened partnerships and close working relationships between central and local government.

Another area in which this Government are seeking to drive closer collaboration in their relationships is with other Governments in the union. To ensure that we are indeed a United Kingdom, it is crucial to resettle relationships and give greater importance to respect and collaboration, working together in the service of people across this country.

This Government will establish a new council of the nations and regions, which will bring together the Prime Minister, the First Ministers of Scotland and Wales, the First and Deputy First Ministers of Northern Ireland, and the mayors of combined authorities, to work together on our shared challenges and opportunities to address the concerns of the people who we serve.

This Government have committed to ensuring that all the nations of the UK are reflected in their missions. That is why the Government will deliver energy security through establishing Great British Energy in Scotland, and will continue to work closely on issues of shared interest, such as trade and investment, to promote Scotland internationally.

Wales, I am delighted to say, will also be at the forefront of the UK’s national renewal. Our manifesto committed to working in partnership with the Welsh Government to ensure that the Welsh fiscal framework delivers value for money. In line with this Government’s commitment to devolve employment support in England, we will also devolve employment support funding to the Welsh Government.

I take my responsibilities as Advocate-General for Northern Ireland seriously and recognise, of course, the need for security, stability and prosperity in Northern Ireland as much as in the rest of the United Kingdom, as do this Government, as a guarantor of the Good Friday agreement. The Government will work closely with the Northern Ireland Executive to see public services transformed and an improvement to the sustainability of public finance.

Over the coming months, as Attorney-General for England and Wales, and as Advocate-General for Northern Ireland, and working closely with the future Advocate-General for Scotland, I am looking forward to meeting the Lord Advocate and Solicitor-General for Scotland, the Attorney-General for Northern Ireland and the Counsel General for Wales—whoever said devolution was complicated? Once we put the tongue-twisting aside, I am confident that we will be able to work together effectively and build on our shared objective of upholding the rule of law.

The measures in this gracious Speech put into action the Government’s commitment to the rule of law and to empowering communities across the United Kingdom.