House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Lord Newby Excerpts

Monday 3rd March 2025 Lords Chamber

I plead with the House. I think this is probably the only amendment that I will speak on. The amendment by my noble friend Lord True, the shadow Leader of the House, and his speech offer a way forward that could end this wrangle and enable us to apply our minds to the important issues facing our country, and my goodness me, in all of our lifetimes—well, perhaps not all of our lifetimes, but certainly in my lifetime—I cannot remember greater challenges on the economy, our security and our future as a nation. So let us get down to business, reach an agreement on this and move forward with due speed.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, because I agree with his starting point, which is that we find ourselves as a nation in a more perilous position, arguably, than we have been in in my lifetime and, in those circumstances, the prospect of your Lordships’ House spending days and days discussing ourselves is immensely unappealing in every possible way.

However, I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, about the extent to which any measure of House of Lords reform can be dealt with by consensus. I sat through all the debates on the original proposals that led to the removal of the majority of hereditaries and have sat through most debates in your Lordships’ House in the intervening period dealing with proposals for reform. Consensus there has been none. There will not be consensus, and the sooner we accept that, the better.

The noble Lord, Lord True, said that this Bill is of the greatest constitutional significance. I beg to differ. I do not believe this Bill is of the greatest constitutional significance. I think that it deals with an issue that should have been dealt with originally. It is a freestanding Bill. It is a simple Bill, and it should proceed.

There is, as the noble Lord, Lord True, alluded to, a whole range of issues that need addressing as well. We need to deal with the retirement age, we need to deal with participation levels, and there will be consequences for the Bishops. There is a whole raft of other things relating to the way in which your Lordships’ House is constituted and operates which need to change. However, we will not change anything if we seek to change everything at once. That is one of the lessons of reform in your Lordships’ House. My view is that to change something at this point is better than running the risk of changing nothing.

Where I agree with the noble Lord, Lord True, is that the Government have manifesto commitments that go beyond this Bill, not least around the retirement age and participation levels. It would be to the benefit of the Committee to know how the Government intend to proceed on those things. The Government say that they are very clear in wanting these thing to happen, but, as we are about to discover as we debate them, there are lot of wrinkles and complications. The sooner we get round to the consultation on those other things—which will lead to a definitive proposal—the better. I cannot see why the Government cannot just tell us what is in their mind; that would be extremely helpful.

Beyond that, at this stage in the nation’s affairs, I think we should deal with this Bill expeditiously. Frankly, having 46 groups of amendments to this Bill is ridiculous. Having spent nine days on the football regulator Bill, the prospect of a repeat of that sort of pettifogging argument, going on for days and days, at this point in the nation’s fortunes, seems to me completely unacceptable. I hope that all noble Lords will adopt that position as they approach these debates. Certainly, let us hear from the Government on what they want to do next, but, as far as this Bill is concerned, let us simply get on with it.

[The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord. As ever, he spoke with a lot of logic, and I agree with so much of what he said—not quite everything—as I have with so many other people.

I want to comment on only one or two issues that arose from the speech of the noble Lord, Lord True. Clearly, the genesis of this Bill goes to the very heart of the noble Lord’s amendment, but I would not want the amendment itself, which is quite narrowly drafted, to prevent the House from discussing the Bill in the round. I said at Second Reading that I thought it was important for the House to have this opportunity; House of Lords reform Bills come so rarely—as I pointed out, it is 10 years since the last one—and we need to discuss all the issues in the round. I am aware of the external pressures on the use of our time, and I would certainly like us to handle this expeditiously as we go through Committee. I will not detain noble Lords now or elsewhere in Committee.

I think the other discussions referred to by the noble Lord, Lord True, are incredibly important. It is important for the House to be able to settle its own reform package, with due regard to the Executive and to the most important document: the Government’s manifesto. I would very much like these discussions to come forward rapidly. I have been describing this as the thorn in the paw, because it is causing difficulties in all our work at the moment, and in the spirit in which we go about that work. I think everyone here would like that thorn to be drawn rapidly from the paw.

Before I move on from that topic to two final ones, I want to go on the record as citing just how open the Leader’s door has been. I have been watching it and I know how many people—over 40 at the last count—the Leader has engaged with, and the courtesy that there has been during this process. I value that a lot; it has been very helpful. Drawing the thorn from the paw is important.

The first of my two final topics relates to the propensity for Cross-Bench colleagues to retire. I thought that I should think about that, and I have had many conversations over the last two years with many Cross-Benchers. I feel it would be possible for a package of reform to set up an environment where quite a number of Cross-Benchers might want to retire. I say that knowing that our average age is 73, which is rather older than that of the House, and therefore we have quite a lot of people who are over 80 and who would, I believe, consider retiring.

The second relates to the Cross-Bench view—remember that we are sole traders—on reinforcing the conventions and dealing with the trend in ping-pong where more balls and longer rallies are being played. I have not yet met a Cross-Bencher who does not believe that reaffirming these conventions is in the interest of the Cross Bench and of the House. I think it goes to dealing with the ping-pong issue as well.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Swire (Con)]

With that in mind, I invite the noble Lord to have a word with those who drafted the Labour manifesto, which says, as a standalone sentence: “Hereditary peers remain indefensible”.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I associate myself with the comments of both the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, and my noble friend Lord Thurso. There is not, and never has been, the sort of link between the hereditary Peers and the monarch that I suspect the noble Earl, Lord Devon, was suggesting. We have one period of worked examples of this, and I am afraid it was a little while ago. In 1649, when Charles I was condemned, he was condemned not just by Members of the House of Commons but by hereditary Members of the House of Lords.

A decade later, there was a House of Lords, but it was not called the House of Lords. It was called the Other Place—capital “O”, capital “P”—because the Parliamentarians, led by Oliver Cromwell, recognised the need for a revising chamber but did not like the concept of heredity. Therefore, Oliver Cromwell appointed a House of Lords. That House of Lords did not last very long, and the hereditary principle came back with Charles II. So it was not the case that a hereditary House of Lords meant that we were done with monarchy for ever. The two were just different things, and different considerations applied.

The lesson of Charles I—which is still relevant—is that, at the end of the day, Kings and Queens in this country rule by the consent of the people. If they go outwith the conventions, they will find themselves in difficulties again. With the current King and Prince of Wales, this seems an impossibly unlikely scenario, but it is still a theoretical possibility.

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Newby, that I seem to remember that in the House of Lords which, to its shame, agreed to the execution of the King, there were only about six Peers who still sat, because of the exigencies of the Civil War and purges afterward, only two of whom, to their lasting shame, actually watched the execution of their King. A few days later, the House of Lords was abolished by the House of Commons as a “useless” place. The other irony was that, when Cromwell produced his own equivalent of the House of Lords, there were only about 30 people in it, of which a high percentage were relatives either of Cromwell or of his leading marshals. These things can take you down many funny roads. It was in fact the House of Lords that reassembled in 1660 that recalled the House of Commons into being—a very significant constitutional moment.

Before I go on, I will respond to the comments made about groupings. Of course we should proceed in an orderly fashion; the difficulty, as the noble Lord, Lord Moore of Etchingham, said, is that so much is left out of the Bill which is germane to the future that we have to discuss a range of subjects, and I defend our right to do so. I would not personally have put down this amendment on the Royal Family, but since it is down it is clearly a subject that has to be addressed and should be addressed separately.

The noble Baroness referred to a group of amendments on commencement, but the amendments are very different: one proposes a referendum, which I would not support; one wants to move the date earlier and get rid of hereditary Peers very swiftly; another is a delaying amendment; one calls for a review before the thing is taken forward; and another says that there should be no enactment until after stage 2 proposals have been produced. These may lock around commencement, because of the short nature of the Bill, but the idea of having a referendum on the removal of 90 hereditary Peers, is, frankly, with all due respect to my noble friend, nonsensical. To spend tens of millions of pounds on a referendum on whether hereditary Peers should leave the House of Lords is not a case I would argue on “Newsnight”, to put it that way.

These are very different subjects, so we should be careful not to run away. Peers have great freedom in this House to group and degroup. I accept that I asked for my first amendment to be stand-alone; that was because, as Leader of the Opposition and former Leader of the House, I wanted to say something that I hoped the Committee would listen to, heed and reflect upon, and I did not want that to be complicated with other discussions. I apologise if that tried the patience of the Committee, but I did ask for that amendment to be taken separately.

On the amendment, I appreciate the concerns raised by many noble Lords, starting with the noble Earl. I do not think his concerns needed to be laughed at—they are concerns that some people legitimately have. Equally, I totally agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, said. The great Labour Party has always been a patriotic party and the overwhelming number of members of the Labour Party, like the overwhelming number of members of my party, are strong supporters of the monarchy, although there are republican Conservatives and republican Labour Party members. The only thing I would wish to see happen, which I fear is not that likely—I hope it could still be accomplished, and I have great hope that we will be able to carry it forward—is that, in the years to come, the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, and the noble Earl are still here, arguing the case together, for the retention of the monarchy.

The last thing I would want is for the monarchy ever to be brought into the situation that your Lordships’ House is now in, where the hereditary principle is overtly rejected, but the reasons and reasoning, as the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, said, are very different. I do not intend to argue that the removal of hereditary Peers from your Lordships’ House would have that effect on the monarchy. With all due respect to my noble friend Lady Meyer, I understand absolutely what she said about the appalling consequences for the people of France and of Russia when they thought that removing the monarchy would lead somewhere, but we are not there. I do not believe that there is a connection between the hereditary principle in this place and the hereditary principle of the monarchy.

However, as the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Devon, shows, debate around his concern about the decision to expel hereditary Peers from the House of Lords, and what that might say about the hereditary principle, is one of several things that will always prompt debate and reflection about the importance of inheritance in wider society.

The noble Lord, Lord Moore of Etchingham, said that every family is inheritance. The instinct that families should be able to pass on what they have to the next generation is deeply imbued in our society—it is one of its absolutes, the root and the bedrock. One has to look only at the sympathy of so many people for the plight of family farms and family businesses: many people are responding to that, not because of particular views about farmers but because they feel it is unfair that a family cannot pass on its farm to the next generation because of levies on inheritance.

Noble Lords may think that I never have any leisure time, but occasionally I watch that charming BBC programme, “The Repair Shop”. I do not know whether anybody ever looks at that, but you can imagine me sitting sometimes watching it over my Marmite sandwich. Week after week, that programme throws up example after moving example of the natural instinct of ordinary people to preserve what their forebears left them and pass that on to their children and grandchildren, often amid tears and the deepest emotions. The hereditary principle is one of the most basic and honourable instincts of mankind and we should cherish it.

This is the instinct that I recognise gives birth to the sense of duty and responsibility displayed by the noble Earl in his speech, as it does for members of the Royal Family. I think everyone in the Committee agrees with those who have spoken that it is vital that we keep our Head of State hereditary and outside politics. Our monarchy provides a sense of continuity and stability that is unparalleled in any other form of governance. The English monarchy has endured for well over 1,100 years, long before Parliament, and the Scottish monarchy for close to 1,200 years, weathering countless political storms and societal changes as it evolved into our constitutional monarchy. In times of upheaval, the monarchy is there as a stay—a constant, unchanging presence that transcends transient party politics.

Further, the hereditary nature of the monarchy insulates the Head of State from the partisan struggles of politics that characterise a democratic system. It allows our monarch to represent our whole nation, or set of nations, serving as a unifying figure and bridging the divides that often stress our society, and indeed our counsels in your Lordships’ House. It plays a crucial role in preserving our cultural heritage and national identity, steeped in tradition. We here play our own part in the pomp and ceremony around monarchy. The noble Baroness opposite and I have both held the Cap of Maintenance—which is heavier than you might think—at the State Opening. Through this sense of ceremony and by maintaining these traditions, the monarchy helps to preserve Britain’s unique character, ensuring that our cultural heritage is passed down the generations.

I can say to the noble Earl that we absolutely believe in a hereditary monarchy. I know that the noble Baroness, when she speaks, will say the same thing from the point of view of the Labour Party. It serves as a powerful symbol of continuity and resilience on the global stage.

I was amused when the noble Lord, Lord Moore of Etchingham, referred to the maiden speech of His Majesty the King, then the Prince of Wales. I cannot claim to have been here, but there was a kerfuffle about it at the time and a great deal of excitement. Over 50 years ago, he made a delightful maiden speech on the subject of recreation and the importance of sport. I point out to noble Lords that his maiden speech lasted about 14 minutes. Whether that would go down well these days, I do not know.

One thing that he referred to in making his maiden speech was an occasion nearly 150 years earlier, I think it was in 1829, when three Royal Dukes—Clarence, Sussex and Cumberland—who were brothers, had, as His Majesty then put it in his speech,

“got up one after the other and attacked each other so vehemently and used such bad language that the House was shocked into silence”.

You could never imagine such a thing happening these days.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, I support my noble friend’s amendment. The exceptions to whom his amendment would apply are people who contain and are characterised by many qualities, but I mention only four here: experience, knowledge, constancy and loyalty to this Chamber, and a non-political aspect. This may seem strange coming from the Conservative Bench, but for many of us who have not been part of a party-political machine, it is very important to see how a non-political Front Bench can work to reach out across the Chamber to all sides of this House. It is these qualities of experience, knowledge, constancy and a type of non-politicalness which allows this House to do the work it does, and which brings it respect right across the world, as has been mentioned today. I commend my noble friend for tabling this amendment, and I hope it will be listened to with sympathy.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I think this amendment shows the problem that we were discussing earlier with the groupings, because we have actually been discussing, along with this amendment, Amendment 9 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord True, and they both deal with the question of the future of those hereditaries who play a major part in your Lordships’ House.

The noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, told us what he finds extraordinary. I think the vast majority of the country would find it extraordinary, if they realised it, that 10% of the legislature derives from fewer than 800 families in the country. Most people do not really realise that; if they did, they would be very surprised and most of them, frankly, would be appalled.

I looked at the hereditaries as a group one wet, sad afternoon. I divided them not into sheep and goats but into three: those who were active, those who were partially active, and those who were inactive. In response to the list of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, of those who are very active, I could, but will not, read out to the Committee a list of equal length, if not longer, of hereditaries who are virtually inactive. This is not a criticism of them more than it is of any other group. However, it is the case that some Members in the hereditary group are very active and well respected, but, like in all other groups, there are others who, frankly, are not.

Therefore, if we are looking to what should happen next and whether we should seek to retain some of the expertise that the hereditaries have, surely the way to do it is not as proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Soames, nor by the noble Lord, Lord True, but to encourage the parties to appoint those hereditaries who are very active and eminent in their groups to life peerages as those numbers come up. I hope very much that we will do so in respect of the Liberal Democrats—we have fewer hereditaries than some of the other groups—but that seems to me to be the logical way of doing it. It is what we did, to a certain extent, in our party after the vast bulk of hereditaries left in 1999. That is the precedent that we should seek to follow now, rather than having a broader category of exemptions, as the noble Lord suggests, or a complete continuation along the lines previously proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, which the noble Lord, Lord True, is about to suggest.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

Can I correct the noble Lord on one factual error that he has made—quite inadvertently, I am sure. According to the Library list, leaving aside the one mistake in the case of my noble friend Lord Astor, there are fewer than 20 hereditaries who do not participate in the work of the House or who are, as he said, doing nothing. The vast majority have served the House, are working in the House on committees or have been Ministers.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

If the noble Lord looks down the list, he will see that there may be some people who come twice a year and vote three times a year, but I did not include those in the list of people whom I consider to be active. I am happy to go down the list with him; I did not do it with the intention of proving anything but wanted to satisfy myself as to the true position.

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

My Lords, the difficulty with the noble Lord’s suggestion, in my case, is that I would be relying upon knowing the leader of my party. I do not properly know any of the party leaders, and they do not know me either, so I would have as much chance as a snowflake in a blast furnace of getting a life peerage.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Lord Newby Excerpts

Monday 3rd March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Shinkwin (Con)]

My Lords, I support this amendment and do so scarcely able to believe either the damage that we are doing to ourselves as a House through this divisive, hurtful Bill, or the attitudes underpinning it.

On my way to the House in my chair, I brace myself for sneers, smirks, laughter and even derogatory comments on account of my disability. Sticks and stones may break my bones—and they do—but words will always hurt more. They hurt because they are informed by discrimination against difference—how I look and how I sound, in my case, because of my disability. I am not saying that I experience discrimination in your Lordships’ House, at least not directly, but that I am a reluctant expert on discrimination. My life experience tells me. I know what discrimination looks like and what it feels like to be invalidated and devalued.

I see discrimination in this Bill. I support this amendment because it would go some way to mitigating it. Without this amendment, hereditary Members are effectively being told, contrary to what the noble Lord, Lord Collins of Highbury, has said, that their contributions are invalid and valueless by virtue of their being the wrong type of Peer. If their contributions are valid and valuable today, why not tomorrow? Why not, as this amendment implies, for the rest of their lives, which is the basis on which the vast majority of us were appointed? This amendment provides a middle way, as we have already heard, whereby the Government can honour part of their manifesto while we acknowledge, respect and honour what are in many cases huge, selfless contributions from noble Lords who happen to be hereditary Peers.

That is not to detract from the equally important service, as the noble Lord, Lord Collins of Highbury, has reminded us, of non-hereditary Members of your Lordships’ House. But it is to state a fact that the contribution of hereditary Peers adds value, rather than undermines your Lordships’ House, as the Bill implies.

One of the principles of this House, which made a really big impression on me from day one of my joining it almost 10 years ago, was the sense of equality among its Members. I come from a modest background. I was not born with a silver spoon in my mouth. I was born with a broken leg and spent much of my childhood in hospital. I say this not for sympathy but to demonstrate that there is no innate reason why I should support this amendment. However, I do so in terms of privilege versus prejudice. I see prejudice at work in the Bill, to the detriment of your Lordships’ House and its crucial ability to carry out its heavy responsibility of holding the Government of the day to account.

By contrast, what unites rather than divides us is that sense of privilege. I doubt any of us can recall a single maiden speech that did not refer to the sense of privilege that all of us feel when we first speak in this Chamber. The overwhelming feeling is common to us all: hereditary and non-hereditary. Speaking for myself, it has been one of the greatest privileges of my life to serve with our amazing hereditary Peers of all parties.

This amendment would go some way to recognising the extraordinary debt that we owe to our hereditary Members and the enduring values that I think we all associate with this unique place: courtesy, decency and, crucially, mutual respect and equality. As a self-regulated House, surely we have a duty to defend those timeless values. I hope that we can come together as one House, united in those values, and give this amendment the support that it deserves, if and when the option arises.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, when I spoke to Amendment 5, I dealt with a number of issues which I thought were common to that amendment and this amendment, and I will not repeat them.

I begin by saying how much I enjoyed the speech of the noble Lord, Lord True. For years, we have listened to him with great passion denouncing the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, and everything in his Bill. Tonight, with equal passion, we have heard him advocating it. It was truly a bravura performance.

I have two questions for the noble Lord and one for the Government. The first question is: could the noble Lord explain how he believes that, if we end by-elections, there will be another point at which groups in your Lordships’ House will be excluded en bloc? It is a rather chilling suggestion that this will happen. Is he suggesting that the Conservatives might do it, and who does he have in mind? I feel slightly worried as a Liberal Democrat; he has not always been my greatest supporter. Is he suggesting that the Labour Party will somehow cut a huge swathe at random through other parties? If not, just what does he have in mind? This is a legitimate process via a Bill, and it is very difficult for me to imagine the circumstances that he was putting forward. I am sorry if my understanding is lacking.

Secondly, I suggested when I spoke earlier that the logical way of dealing with Peers who are hereditary but who have an outstanding record of service is that they should return to your Lordships’ House as life Peers. I mentioned that this had happened in 1999 with people like my noble friend Lord Redesdale on my Benches, who came back as a life Peer. The noble Lord, Lord True, said that he rejected the idea of bringing people back as life Peers. That seems strange to me. If the Minister were to suggest to him, in the negotiations which everybody seems keen to have, that additional places might be brought forward for the Conservatives—

[Lord True (Con)]

The time is late, and the noble Lord is going down a trail that does not exist. I did not say that I rejected that; I said that we should keep all routes to a destination open. What I did say is that, practically and constitutionally, it is easier to keep the people here who are here than to shove a whole lot out and then bring them back. It is a presentational issue and something we can discuss, but please do not impute to me that I have rejected that.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I look forward to reading Hansard, because I wrote down the word “reject”. If the noble Lord did not use it, I apologise profusely, but that is what I heard.

My question for the Government relates to the Cross Benches. What I am suggesting might happen can easily happen in respect of my party and the Conservative Party. If a number of additional life peerages are made available, we can decide, as parties, how we want to allocate them, but this does not apply to the Cross Benches. If the Government said that they were going to give, say, 10 or 15 life peerages to the Cross Benches, they would have to decide who they are, would they not? Or are they going to suggest another process, by which the Cross-Benchers decide who they are?

I have sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord True, to the extent that we do need to tease out some of these next stages. This is one area where, during the passage of the Bill, it would be helpful if the Government could be a bit clearer about the mechanism they might adopt if we retain some of the most outstanding hereditary Peers who are Cross-Benchers.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, this has been an interesting discussion, but for me, it feels like a lesson in failure. It was a failure of the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, who was not able to get his Bill through the House previously. It was a failure on my part that, having persuaded my party to support the Grocott Bill in its stages through this House and ensure that it got on to the statute book as best we could, I was unable to persuade the party opposite that they should accept the Bill. It was a failure of those Members of the House who are hereditaries, who, having said to me and my colleagues that they wanted that Bill to go through, were not able to persuade their own party that it should. For all those reasons, for all those failures, we are here today discussing this amendment now.

I take the noble Lord’s point that he could not go against his party’s policy, which is now against the Grocott Bill—and he is now trying to get me to go against my party’s policy. I understand that, but it is a shame, because otherwise we would not be here today having this discussion. Our colleagues who were hereditary Peers at that point, or at any point in the last nine years, could be here now as, in effect, life peers, had the by-elections ended, and we would not be in this place.

I wrote an article for the House magazine probably around five years ago in which I said that if the Conservative Party, the then Government, continued with the by-elections, continued bringing in a significant number of new Peers to be Ministers, and continued making appointments in a greater proportion for their own party than for my party—which is why, as I mentioned, we had a numerical disparity of over 100 when we took office—the only recommendation to a Prime Minister would be that they had to end the right of hereditary Peers to sit in the House of Lords. All those warnings were there. We tried to avoid that, but the party opposite refused to accept it, and that is why we are here now.

I must say that in some ways it is a shame, because I recognise the value and the contribution that hereditary Peers have made to this House. The noble Lord shakes his head at me, but I say that genuinely. Otherwise, we would not even have bothered trying to support, and getting my party to support, the Grocott Bill and to help it through both Houses. We offered to do that. What a shame that that offer was not taken. I appreciate the way the noble Lord has brought this amendment forward today, but we could have done this a number of years ago.

Defence and Security

Lord Newby Excerpts

Wednesday 26th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for repeating this eloquent and important Statement. In the three years since Putin’s tanks rolled into Ukraine, imagining then an easy victory, his brutal war still grinds on, at an immense cost to the Russian people, let alone the brave people of Ukraine. In all this time, the House has been united in its support for those brave people, and that will not change. The Leader of the House was staunch in her support when I sat in her place, and I assure her that we on this side will not be lacking in our support for the Prime Minister when he does the right thing, as he has in this very welcome Statement.

It was the Conservative Government—yes, I will dare to speak his name—of Boris Johnson who led from the front, sending weapons before the invasion and helping to stop the first assaults while others then hesitated. Thereafter, under successive Governments, Conservative and Labour together, the United Kingdom has taken in many refugees, delivered immense military aid to Ukraine and sanctioned those who have aided Putin’s war machine. This House stands united and unfaltering beside the Ukrainian people today.

We also agree with the Prime Minister: in this troubled world, we must do more to ensure our own security. As my right honourable friend the leader of the Opposition set out yesterday, we must now accept reality. We must speak the truth. We must acknowledge that the world has changed. We must be ready to face the inescapable challenges that lie ahead.

The primary purpose of a nation is to protect and defend our borders, our values and our people. That is why we welcome the announcement that the defence budget will be increased. In the face of the assertiveness of Russia and China, we can no longer live off the post-Cold War inheritance of Thatcher and Reagan. We commend the Prime Minister on his decision to boost spending on our Armed Forces. We on this side see the necessity of some trade off of soft power for hard. Indeed, my right honourable friend Kemi Badenoch urged the financial measure, however difficult, that the Prime Minister has now adopted.

Although we believe the Government have made the right decision in relation to aid, the Statement raises some questions, which need clarification. The Statement says the increase will be funded by a reduction in aid spending from 0.5% of GDP to 0.3%. Based on figures in the Autumn Budget, that would free up some £5.3 billion towards the increase in defence. That is in line with the clarification by the Defence Secretary that the real increase, factoring in inflation, is closer to £6 billion. That is very welcome, but it is not the £13.4 billion claimed in the Statement. Can the noble Baroness explain the disparity in the two figures? The second point requiring clarification is how this money will be allocated. I do not expect the noble Baroness to be able to answer that now.

The Statement says the strategic defence review is well under way, but that a single national security strategy will be published before the NATO summit in June. Does that mean the previous commitment to publish a strategic defence review in the spring is now delayed? Will the review reflect on the significant implications of British troops being sent on wider deployments in Europe? A key aspect of defence is sending the right signals. Percentage points are not the heart of the matter, which is people and materiel. Urgent procurement decisions need to be taken. Can the noble Baroness assure the House that they are not being delayed?

Finally, the Government still seem to be committed to the extraordinary plan to surrender the Chagos Islands and pay £9 billion for the privilege. As a matter of fact, what is the figure? Presumably, when the Prime Minister sits down with President Trump and the President asks him, as he surely will, “So, Keir, what’s this deal costing?”, surely the Prime Minister cannot credibly say “I can’t tell you”. If the President can be told, then surely this Parliament can be told, so will the noble Baroness tell us? The Prime Minister was evasive earlier when asked whether any of the money the Government want to pay to Mauritius to lease back a base we presently own will come out of the defence budget. Will any of the costs be paid from the defence budget or not? No doubt the President will ask the Prime Minister. Can this House have the answer?

The Prime Minister is right: we face an ever more dangerous world. This is the fundament of the matter. He is right about the importance of NATO—something all the parties in this House have always cherished. Let no one doubt that Britain stands by our allies. As I said on a recent Statement, there can be no peace without Ukraine. The Prime Minister was also right when he said that any Government’s first duty is the defence of their country. We on this side will stand with the Government when they do the right thing, as they are now. We will always share with them putting the national interest first.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, we welcome this Statement. From the outset of the brutal Russian invasion of Ukraine, there has been a consensus across Parliament that we must support the Ukrainian people in their struggle against aggression. We do so not just because they deserve our support in their own right but because success for Putin in Ukraine would simply be a prelude to further Russian expansionism, whether in the Baltics, the Caucasus or elsewhere in eastern Europe.

Nothing which has happened in Ukraine over the past three years has caused us to question this approach—quite the opposite. What has changed is the posture of the United States. It is now clear that European nations cannot continue to rely on the US to support the defence of the continent in the same way as we did in the past. From day to day, it is impossible to know quite what the US President will say next, but in one respect President Trump has been consistent: he expects Europe to pay more for its own defence and he will make the continuation of the US’s military commitments in Europe contingent on this.

We and other European nations are going to have to spend more—considerably more—on defence, and to do so at a time when public sector finances are already under considerable strain. We therefore welcome the Government’s decision to move to a level of defence expenditure of 2.5% of GDP by 2027, and their further aim of getting to 3% in the next Parliament. We need to considerably increase our capabilities and replenish our equipment stocks. As a first priority, the Government should reverse the 10,000 reduction in the number of our troops, over which the previous Administration presided. It is now highly likely that we are going to have to provide boots on the ground in Ukraine; the Army is simply too small at present to be able to do this on anything like the scale required. We must also, however, achieve much greater value for money on equipment development and procurement than we have in the past. We therefore welcome the Government’s commitment to a new defence reform and efficiency plan.

We are, however, surprised and disappointed that the Government have decided that the entire funding of this additional expenditure should come from further cuts to development assistance. This seems to be a strategic error as it will simply reduce further our soft power, leaving space for Russia and China in particular to fill. Given that most aid is preventive of disease, climate change or conflict, it will exacerbate problems which will spill over to us. That is a false economy. Can the Government, at the very least, commit to protecting expenditure on Sudan—not just prioritising it, which is a rather weaselly phrase—given the extraordinarily severe humanitarian crisis now facing that country?

We have suggested funding the increase to 2.5% in a different way—by an increase in the digital services tax from 2% to 10%—but there are other ways of raising the necessary revenue, as we suggested in our general election manifesto, which could be deployed without raiding the aid budget. As for the 3%, we have already suggested that there should now be urgent all-party talks to explore how we can achieve that on a cross-party basis. Can the noble Baroness the Leader say whether the Government have any plans to adopt this approach?

Further to the Question earlier today in your Lordships’ House on the £20 billion of frozen Russian assets in western banks, there is agreement that those should be released to help Ukraine in its continuing military activities and to help rebuild the country once hostilities end. Frankly, nothing seems to be happening to achieve this. The Prime Minister could play a leadership role here by convening a European conference in London to agree on how this can best be achieved and by raising it tomorrow with President Trump. Do the Government have any plans to take such initiatives?

Faced with the changed US posture on European security, all European nations will have to play a greater part in the continent’s defence. This Statement demonstrates that the UK is willing to make that commitment, and we support that stance, but let us not do so by further decimating our aid budget and making some of the world’s poorest people pay.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for their comments, in particular their support for the increase in defence spending. It has been important that since my time as Leader of the Opposition, as the noble Lord, Lord True, said, the House has always been united on this issue. In fact, the whole of Parliament has been united. Many noble Lords will recall when President Zelensky spoke in the House of Commons and some of us were fortunate to meet him afterwards. I remember him coming to a Cabinet meeting shortly after the election, as I know he did with the previous Government. But at all times, it is not just the Government but the entire country and the entirety of Parliament supporting the Ukrainian people.

That is an important message—and not just to Ukraine. It is also a very important message to President Putin, because we stand united in support of the self-determination of the Ukrainian people. Their security and safety is of the utmost importance, and that concerns people in this country. The noble Lord also referred to families taking in Ukrainians who have had to flee their homes. Friends of mine did so. There is enormous pride in the work that they did, but they benefited and gained from hosting a family that was fleeing from such terror and violence.

I turn to the specific points the noble Lords made. It is not GDP for the ODA but GNI—a different measurement. I had to look it up as well to tell the difference. On how the additional spending is allocated, the strategic defence review—I am pleased to see the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, who has led on that, in his place—will lead. I made the point that it is not just the amount of money: how it is spent and used is crucial. That will be aligned with the comprehensive spending review as well, so it is very important that we look at them in the whole, and we will get more information on that.

The noble Lord asked specifically about the money. I am fortunate in having the Defence Minister alongside me today, and I can say that it is a £13.5 billion increase in cash terms from the Budget now to the Budget in 2027, which takes us to 2.5% of GDP in April 2027. He will have heard the Prime Minister’s words that we know we have to go further than that but, on the timescale, we need to ramp up that kind of spending to get the right supply chains, training and recruitment in place. We have heard many times in this House about the lack of recruitment and retention in our Armed Forces, and it is very important that we plan that carefully. The strategic defence review will be crucial to that.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Newby, for his comments. His words about solidarity with the people of Ukraine were important, and he had wise words about how President Putin would take advantage of any weakness in Europe. Strength within Europe is really important. It is not just for the people of Ukraine but for our domestic safety and security as well. He asked specifically about the funding from the ODA. As the Prime Minister said, these choices are not easy, but the primary objective is the defence, security and safety of this country.

I can say to the noble Lord that this will not come into effect until 2027, so the current programmes for 2025 and 2026 remain in place. The protected areas are in Sudan, Ukraine and Gaza. The focus as we plan ahead—there is a particular strategic review on this in the FCDO—will be the planning of how this will happen, working with partners, and we will focus on the impact and outcomes of projects. I can also say to him that the legislation remains in place. We remain committed to 0.7% and want to get back to it, because we recognise that we have a proud history in our party. We are very proud of our role on this, so it is not a decision taken lightly. As we have said, this is a generational shift, a generational change, and we have to respond to it in the most positive way possible. That is why it is so important that we see the increase in defence spending announced today.

Plan for Change: Milestones for Mission-led Government

Lord Newby Excerpts

Thursday 12th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Finn (Con)]

I apologise to the Lord Privy Seal. We welcome this relaunch and look forward to more in the months ahead. However, the Statement, while undeniably rich in aspiration, is regrettably bereft of a clear plan for transforming its lofty ambitions into real change for the British people.

Few would disagree with the Government’s aims and their six missions. A mission-driven approach to governance makes sense—indeed, it is something that echoes the last Government’s levelling-up missions—but, unless the Treasury waives its dogmatic commitment to rigid silo budgets, it is hard to see it working.

It is encouraging to see the Government recognise the need for clear objectives. There are many words that we welcome, such as growth, value for money, getting rid of waste and accountability. However, as we all know, governance is about more than words; it is about action, and the Government will be judged on what they actually achieve. The Prime Minister has been quicker than most to blame his Government’s shortcomings on the Civil Service, which he describes as being all too comfortable in

“the tepid bath of … decline”.

Yet, while the diagnosis may be accurate, the prescription is notably absent. Indeed, the Prime Minister seems to have been forced into what is known as walking back his words of criticism.

I have spent many years working with civil servants, and I put on record that I believe we have some of the finest civil servants in the world. However, there is widespread agreement—especially among those of us, both politicians and officials, who have had the privilege and responsibility of participating in government—that the Civil Service is not performing to the standards of the modern, effective state. We cannot ignore serious failures identified in several public inquiries: the infected blood scandal, the Post Office Horizon debacle and the handling of the Covid-19 pandemic. In each instance, inquiry chairs identified systemic issues: officials neglecting statutory duties, misleading Ministers and, in some cases, deliberately destroying evidence.

Furthermore, institutional failings have been identified over decades, since the Fulton committee report in 1968 and beyond: the cult of the generalist and lack of enough deep pools of knowledge; churn; the unplanned and random movement of officials without regard to business need; and the resistance to influence and incomers from outside. Yet we have heard nothing in the Statement about how this Government intend to address any of those shortcomings. Instead, we are told vaguely that more will be said about reform soon. Government requires more than promises of future promises, and we look forward to hearing the detail of a serious programme of reform.

I have some questions for the noble Baroness the Lord Privy Seal. First, raising living standards in every part of the UK so that working people have more money in their pockets, no matter where they live, is obviously a good idea, but how is that to be measured? What are the metrics? When will the data be published, and who will be held to account?

Secondly, the Office for Budget Responsibility said that this Government are very unlikely to build more homes than the last one. Why do the Government now believe they will be able to deliver on their commitment to build 1.5 million homes? Is there more money? Have the spending plans changed?

Thirdly, getting children ready to learn is also a good idea, but what do the Government mean by “ready to learn”? What are the definitions and metrics by which they will be measured and held to account?

Fourthly, the missions are notable for what is not in them. The Government have dropped the target to be the country with the highest sustained growth in the G7. There is no commitment on unemployment or getting people back to work, nor is there, as the Leader of the Opposition pointed out yesterday, any clear objective of reducing migration. The Government have chosen these six issues over GP surgeries and A&E or defence. Can the Lord Privy Seal explain the rationale for the choice of government priorities?

Lastly, can the Lord Privy Seal clarify the purpose and function of the so-called mission boards? Who attends them? What powers do they exercise? What decisions are they empowered to make, and under what legal authority do they operate? Crucially, do they work alongside, or in substitution for, the established Cabinet system of government? Why did the Prime Minister break his promise of chairing these himself?

At the PACAC hearing on 4 December, the Civil Service chief operating officer said that

“the governance and the wiring of how we do this might not be immediately observable”,

and made clear that the publication of the membership terms of reference and regularity of meetings was a matter for Ministers. Can the noble Baroness the Lord Privy Seal therefore commit to that information being in the public domain, in the interests of transparency and to monitor progress?

Ultimately Governments are judged not by the promises they make but by the results they deliver. This Government have set out an admirable if incomplete wish list but, without a hard-edged commitment to institutional reform and stronger implementation capability, that is what it will remain. Words without action are a disservice to those citizens who rely on public services and who look to government for leadership.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, in my view, the targets—or possibly milestones—set out in the Statement are laudable, but I have severe doubts about the Government’s ability to meet them. Setting targets is easy but, without a proper plan for delivery, they are so much hot air.

In an attempt to improve delivery, the Government’s focus is on how budgets are used and whether the right systems are used to deliver policy outcomes. That is clearly crucial. In relation to that, the Statement poses the question: is power being devolved enough? Our view is that it is not being devolved nearly far enough, and that, unless power over budgets and tax raising is devolved to a far greater extent than the Government plan, those on the front line will not be in a position to exercise their discretion to deliver policy in the most appropriate way for the communities in which they live.

So I ask the Government: how rigorously are they going to look to devolve power? Will they report regularly, with reasoning, on the extent to which they have considered and accepted or declined to devolve power in individual policy areas? Given that their targets can be achieved only if the Civil Service is highly motivated, how do the Government believe that recent statements by the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, which cast doubt on the competence and enthusiasm for change of civil servants, will help meet that requirement?

Of the six milestones, I would like to question those on health and housing. On health, how do the Government reconcile their milestone of reaching the standard of no patient waiting more than 18 weeks for elective treatment with the Secretary of State for Health’s statement earlier in the week that the NHS should prioritise emergency treatment and “forget targets”? How is the NHS supposed to know what its priorities are if they appear to be changing from day to day? How can any target in respect of hospitals be achieved unless the Government fix the broken care system, which currently sees so many people stuck in hospital who do not need to be there?

Of all the targets, the one which strains credulity most is that on housing. The Government have pledged to build 1.5 million homes during the lifetime of this Parliament. They seem to think that changes to the planning system will be the most significant contribution towards meeting this target. I do not intend to comment on today’s planning announcement, but no planning changes are likely to come into effect until a year after the election at best. So the Government will have to meet their target with a maximum of four years’ increased rate of housebuilding.

This seems implausible, particularly as the Government have said very little about two of the non-planning policies that will be needed to make this happen. First, what is the Government’s numerical target for the building of social homes? Social houses are desperately needed to meet demand but, without a major increase in social housebuilding, it is very difficult to see how the Government can meet their overall target.

Secondly, where will the workers come from to enable the houses to be built? Present skills shortages in the construction sector make a rapid scaling-up of housebuilding literally impossible. Changes to the skills regime will help, but they will not yield a significant increase in new skilled employees until towards the end of this Parliament. The only way to meet the skills gap in the short term is to allow more migrant workers into the building sector. Will the Government therefore replace the arbitrary salary threshold for work visas with a more flexible, merit-based system to enable this to happen?

Finally, having set such clear priorities, what plans do the Government have to report regularly on their achievements? Will today’s Statement be followed by regular updates on progress? Setting targets is easy, but being able to achieve them is vastly more difficult.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord for their questions and comments. Perhaps I should apologise to the noble Baroness; she obviously expected me to repeat the Statement. It may be that that was her mistake in talking about the missions.

The Plan for Change is the milestones. As she will recall, the missions were during the election. They are the long-term ambitions. The milestones—a point that the noble Lord, Lord Newby, made—are the progress we make against those missions. It is the milestones that we can be judged against. Whereas the missions are long-term ambitions, the milestones are those that we can be judged against. I can provide the noble Baroness with more information on those.

The noble Baroness talked about siloed budgets. The Government have to work across government, and the noble Lord picked up on mission boards. When you work across government, so many of the issues you are dealing with are not for one department alone. For example, the noble Lord mentioned social care. It is absolutely the case that, unless people move out of hospital into the kind of care we need, we cannot meet the targets to give people elective surgery in the timescales we have set, which is part of the commitment we have made. So, to be clear, there will be higher living standards across the country. The reason for saying that is that we do not want economic growth to be centred on one or two places and work on the basis that this will spread out; there should be economic growth across the country.

I totally accept that 1.5 million homes is challenging: 90,000 of those, by the way, will be social housing. I do not think the noble Lord was here for the Question earlier, answered by my noble friend Lady Taylor, and for her Statement earlier today. We have already started the process. The National Planning Policy Framework is one of those steps. There is also a new homes accelerator and a new homes task force.

Skills are absolutely crucial to this. The work to ensure that the right skills are in the right place at the right time is already being undertaken across government and with industry because, unless industry buys into this, we will not be able to meet the commitment. The noble Lord’s point was well made, but that work is already going on and part of it will be transforming how the apprenticeship levy has been operating and making it the growth and skills levy, which is one of the things the industry has been asking for.

The noble Baroness spoke about the Civil Service. I think she will be aware, and many civil servants will be aware, of the frustration within the system of moving things along. For every new Minister who is enthusiastic about doing things—this is not a criticism of individual civil servants—the system is sometimes difficult to wade through. We want civil servants who are innovative, creative and professional and we want to help them achieve that.

Quite often, a lot of expertise can also come from outside the Civil Service. I do not think Ministers and civil servants should be wary or concerned about looking to outside expertise as well. When the system works well, it works well together. The relationship between Ministers and civil servants is really important. Ministers should not blame civil servants for their own failings. That does not mean that Ministers always have to take Civil Service advice, but it has to be taken into account.

The noble Baroness raised those issues in the context of the infected blood scandal, Covid and Horizon. I think there is some ministerial responsibility in respect of all those, as well, not least promising compensation without budgeting for it properly. That is what we have had to do in this Budget, and we have welcomed the opportunity to do so. It is absolutely right that those compensation schemes are there, but they were not budgeted for at all.

One of the problems I have with the Opposition is that although they say they support all the things we are putting in place to invest for the future—for growth, the economy and the NHS—when it comes to paying for that ambition for the country, they do not like any of the approaches we are looking at. That is the conundrum at the heart of the Opposition.

We should be held accountable. The noble Lord, Lord Newby, asks how we are accountable. These targets are there for us to be held accountable to, by Parliament and others.

The noble Baroness, Lady Finn, asked four questions, and I hope I got them down quickly enough. First, she said that the OBR said that we cannot deliver the housing. That is not quite what the OBR said, but we accept it is a very ambitious proposal. I make no apologies for the scale of ambition the Government have, and we are determined to meet that ambition. She also asked a rather curious question, on how we will measure whether children are ready to learn when they go to school. That information has already been collected, and it was found to be wanting. That information is already there so we can measure against the current matrix that is undertaken when kids first go to school.

The noble Lord also asked about ambitions on devolution and whether they will match our proposals. I hate to do this, but can I urge patience? Next week, we will publish our devolution White Paper, and there will be information in that I think will address some of the questions he raises.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Lord Newby Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 11th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I am looking forward to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Brady, and the valedictory speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Quin.

The Bill before us is limited in scope and, in our view, long overdue and we support it. When we debated the future of the House of Lords on 12 November, I set out why we on these Benches believe that fundamental reform is required, involving the election of Members of your Lordships’ House. I also set out why we believe the time has come to remove the remaining hereditary Members. Noble Lords will be pleased to know that I do not intend to repeat those arguments today. Instead, I shall examine the arguments made on 12 November against the Bill. I carefully reread the November debate and listed no fewer than 30 arguments deployed against it. The noble Lord, Lord True, has helpfully repeated some today—although in many years in your Lordships’ House, where I have been called many things, I have never before been called a cuckoo.

The arguments fell into two broad categories. First, there were arguments about procedure—basically, that it was the wrong Bill at the wrong time. Then there were arguments of substance: that the qualities that hereditary Peers brought to the House were unique and substantial, and therefore their removal would weaken the House and the constitution more generally.

I shall address the procedural issues first. It was repeatedly asserted that the Labour Party was effectively stopped from removing the remaining hereditaries because in 1999 Ministers had said they would not do so before more fundamental reform. That is a curious argument because we have a convention in this country that no Parliament can bind its successor. The acceptance that Parliament and parties can change their minds is particularly relevant on the issue of Lords reform, because there has been no consistency from the largest parties on what they propose to do on the matter from Parliament to Parliament. The Conservatives, for example, were in favour of an elected House in 2012 and voted at Second Reading for the Clegg Bill, but are not in favour of it now. They are allowed to change their minds, so it is no constitutional outrage when Labour does the same.

It is then argued that this reform should not be pursued except, as we have heard, as part of the simultaneous implementation of all the other proposals for Lords reform set out in the Labour Party manifesto, and that to do so in isolation is somehow improper. Surely it is for a Government to decide in which order and at what pace to implement their manifesto. They will be judged at the next election on how far they have done so, not after five months in office—something that the Government at the moment will be very relieved about. Anyone with an understanding of the history of Lords reform will understand why they have chosen to do so in an incremental manner.

We were told that the proposal was ill thought-out and hasty, and that a constitutional convention or conference should be held before moving forward. Over the years there have been umpteen reports on the size and composition of your Lordships’ House. Not a single argument now is even vaguely new. The doctrine of unripe time is typically a cover for basic opposition to the proposal under debate, and this is what is happening with this Bill.

It was further, and lyrically, suggested that the constitution was a priceless piece of porcelain that the Government planned to break with the Bill, never to be put back together again. The truth is that no other components of the constitution will be affected, for good or ill, by the Bill. It is far too modest for that.

Those were the procedural arguments. The substantive arguments related to what were seen as the hereditary Peers’ unique contributions to our lawmaking and the deleterious consequences of their departure. Central to that line of argument were what were described as the unique qualities that the hereditaries brought to your Lordships’ House. It was variously claimed that the hereditaries worked harder, had a higher sense of public duty, were able to follow their conscience and be independent, had more in common with the country than the remainder of the House because they supported Brexit, have unique knowledge and insight, were not self-assertive and represented the whole of the UK.

Like everyone else, I have huge respect for the hereditary Peers currently in your Lordships’ House. They are often model public servants: hard-working, thoughtful and diligent. However, those qualities are not unique to them, and frankly it is unfair and inaccurate to the rest of the House to claim that mere life Peers do not show the same qualities in equal measure.

I particularly smiled at the suggestion that hereditaries had a unique independence of spirit as I contemplated the number of extremely loyal hereditary Front-Benchers who, over many years, have never broken the whip. I thought how I, when I was Chief Whip, would have treated an outburst of independence amongst Liberal Democrat hereditaries purely on the basis of their hereditary nature. Cross-Bench hereditaries are indeed independent, but so are their lifer colleagues.

In terms of representing the country as a whole, I merely point out that all hereditaries are male, all are white and virtually all come from similar backgrounds. Diversity is not among their strengths.

On the back of the unique qualities that hereditaries were said to possess, several constitutional consequences were said to flow. It was argued that they formed a link with Magna Carta, that they maintained a strand of legitimacy without which Parliament would become “a toothless farce”, like the Chinese national congress, and that the country as a whole, if given the choice, would back them. However, the link with Magna Carta is formed by Parliament and the courts, and an ongoing commitment to the rule of law and basic freedoms that Parliament and the courts uphold. The lack of legitimacy of your Lordships’ House flows from the lack of elections, not from the absence, or presence, of a small minority of hereditary Peers.

As for public opinion, recent polling by YouGov showed that, of those who had a view at all, some 79% thought that hereditaries should not continue to have places in your Lordships’ House. Incidentally, the same poll showed that 71% of those who had a view thought that the House should be wholly elected.

A final constitutional argument advanced in our last debate was that the exclusion of the hereditaries would leave the King without an hereditary partner, isolated and vulnerable to republican attack. I have no doubt that His Majesty takes daily comfort from the presence of hereditary Peers, but his fate depends on the way he does his job, not on the knowledge that he has the support of the Captain of the King’s Bodyguard of the Yeoman of the Guard and his hereditary colleagues if things get tricky. So I do not believe that the arguments advanced against the Bill undermine it—quite the opposite.

Nor do I think that that the House should seek to use this Bill as a Christmas tree on which to dangle every other possible reform to the composition of your Lordships’ House. There are a small number of amendments —for example, those relating to the independence of the House of Lords Appointments Commission—which could usefully be made, and the Bill should, of course, be properly debated. But it should then be passed, as a small but necessary contribution to the broader reforms we need to make this Chamber fit for the future.

G20 and COP 29 Summits

Lord Newby Excerpts

Monday 25th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I repeat the genuine sadness that we on this side also felt in losing a great comrade in this place: the late Lord Prescott. He was a man of the deepest conviction and principle. He was a great party man but, at the same time, a true patriot.

I thank the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement, although I felt that a few of the Prime Minister’s words were somewhat self-congratulatory. Perhaps third-party congratulations for this Government are running a little short. The Statement pumps up unilateral announcements on energy policy that did not require the Prime Minister to go to Rio or Baku. Has the noble Baroness an update, asked for last week, on the costs of flying 470 UK delegates to Baku?

We will study carefully the conclusions of COP 29 on the important questions of climate change and nature loss, although I see with some regret that many developing countries have already criticised them. Can the noble Baroness confirm the new $300 billion annual climate finance target by 2035? Will she say what the contribution of the UK will be and whether the great polluter China will now contribute to this? How many countries have pledged to match the Prime Minister’s new long-term commitments?

The Statement claims that domestic energy initiatives will “protect bill payers”, yet Labour recently voted against enshrining in law a pre-election promise to bring down energy bills by £300, and it has accelerated policies to festoon our countryside with pylons and raise costs for consumers. The Government now admit that their energy policy will push 100,000 pensioners into poverty by 2027. How can the noble Baroness defend that?

The Statement referred to action against illegal migration, and we welcome that. I welcome the fact that the Prime Minister met with the Prime Minister of Italy—there is always good advice to be had from real Conservatives. But is he aware that Italy and the EU are both actively pursuing what President von der Leyen has called “return hubs”, while the Labour Government have abandoned that course and are reopening asylum hotels, as we have just heard. The Prime Minister boasts of an arrest in Holland in the Statement, but, under the last Government, 246 people smugglers were arrested in one year.

On defence, we welcome the recommitment to pursuing the Global Combat Air Programme with Japan and Italy, but we still await any credible route to the 2.5% target on defence in the face of Russia’s aggression, which the Statement rightly condemned. But it was disappointing, at the very least, not to see this aggression called out by name in the G20 communiqué. We welcome and we back the Government’s continuing support for Ukraine. Putin’s aggression must be and will be stopped, and the noble Baroness has our support.

However, it was disappointing to see in paragraph 8 of the G20 communiqué no meaningful recognition of the terrorist onslaught on Israel, against which it has every right to protect itself. Instead, the Prime Minister again called for an immediate ceasefire. There was no mention in the communiqué of UN Resolution 1701, so flagrantly breached by Hezbollah. Does the noble Baroness agree that that resolution is fundamental? When she replies, will she assure the House, and indeed Jewish people in this country, that there will be no question of the UK Government undertaking or permitting an ICC-inspired arrest of Prime Minister Netanyahu, should he come to these shores? There can be no ifs and buts on this question, as my noble friend Lord Wolfson of Tredegar has explained.

The G20 rightly laid emphasis on the challenge of hunger, so much of which results, as the Prime Minister accurately said, from conflict. It is important that we play our full part in addressing that. Perhaps the Minister could say a little on our efforts in Sudan, which, sadly, went unmentioned in the communiqué.

Paragraph 15 of the G20 statement states that the world is capable of producing the food it needs. It is, but to do so it needs farmers. I doubt that world leaders were lining up outside the prime ministerial suite to ask for his advice on how to treat those hard-working people. Can the Minister assure the House that the Government will give a lead to the world and think again about their cruel assault on small farming families?

I welcome the positive commitment to improving and maintaining relations with India, a great friend and a key strategic partner. On the Indian Ocean more widely, can the Minister tell us if, after the Government’s stampede to surrender the Chagos Islands without any consultation with the Chagossian people, President Milei of Argentina has asked for the handover of the Falklands? On Diego Garcia, President Trump’s nominee for Secretary of State, Senator Rubio, has said that the deal poses “a serious threat” to United States security. Will the Government undertake to pause the deal to allow for discussions with the incoming US Administration? Was that discussed with President Biden?

More widely on US-UK relations, can the Minister say something about the Government’s engagement with the incoming Administration? President Trump had a British mother; he hugely values that, and he loves Scotland. He may well be the last US President ever to have those credentials. Would it not be a historic act of folly if the UK Government, in their search for a so-called reset with an economically stagnant and divided EU, spurned the opportunity for a close and productive relationship with a pro-British US President?

The Prime Minister is clearly proud of meeting President Xi of China. He declared that he wanted a strong relationship, but when the Statement said, in a rather throwaway phrase,

“and, of course, Hong Kong”,

it sounded as if the snuffing out of freedom by China, contrary to treaty obligations, was a done deal; perhaps it was time to move on. [Interruption.] Someone says it is, but it is never time to move on on the strangling of freedom.

We hear that the Prime Minister mentioned the case of Jimmy Lai. I thank him for that, although the Statement was silent on it. But what assurances did we get in return? Was it not unfortunate that this glad-handing should go on in the week when the heroic Hong Kong 45 await their unjustified sentences?

Meanwhile, President Xi praised Labour’s economic policies. Had some Labour spin doctor sent him a line to take? Perhaps the president should see the comments from the CBI, British retailers and other business voices who say, correctly, that the Budget will destroy job creation and force up prices. Is that the message the Chancellor will be taking to Beijing: tax the living daylights out of wealth creators and innovators? I do not think they will roll out the red carpet in the Great Hall of the People for that. The Chinese are a little shrewder than that—although they may be quietly smiling at one of their international rivals dashing towards economic self-harm.

There was much that could be productive, and which we welcome, in the G20 discussions. However, surely it is now time that this globe-trotting Prime Minister turned his attention to problems at home: promises broken, growth stalling, inflation rising and business frankly reeling from the most brutal tax on jobs ever seen. It may have been high summer down in Rio, but here at home pensioners, farmers, small businesses and savers are wondering what tempest has hit them—and it was storm Starmer, not Storm Bert.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

I begin by joining from these Benches the tributes to Lord Prescott. With colleagues, I send our condolences to John Prescott’s family and friends.

I completely agree with the Prime Minister when he says that the world is safer when leaders talk. Given the many conflicts and challenges facing the world today, the need for international dialogue has never been greater. The Statement covers a very wide range of issues, of which I would like to refer to just five.

First, on our climate reduction commitments, it is a good start to set the target of an 81% reduction in our greenhouse gas emissions by 2035, but we still need an action plan to do so. The Statement stresses the important role which GB Energy and the National Wealth Fund will play in achieving this, but will the Leader accept that there is currently a complete muddle as to how the National Wealth Fund will operate at all? Its relationship with GB Energy is unclear, to put it mildly. Given the need to maximise investment on green energy from both these bodies, will the Government clarify this situation and present a detailed plan to explain how their laudable aspirations for decarbonising the economy will actually be met? As part of any plan, could the Government say what steps they are taking to ensure that the benefits from new wind farms are not delayed because they cannot get a timely connection to the grid, as was reported today in respect of BP’s Morven wind farm? We need a new sense of urgency in this whole area.

Secondly, we welcome the Government’s decision to join the Global Alliance against Hunger and Poverty, but can the noble Baroness the Leader explain how we can really step up to the plate on this so long as our commitment to aid continues to fall so far short of the 0.7% target? In the absence of any proposal to increase the currently planned 0.5% level, what will joining the global alliance mean? What is going to change?

Thirdly, on Gaza, we share the Government’s call for an immediate ceasefire and a massive increase in the flow of aid to Palestinian civilians, but does the noble Baroness accept that Israel shows not the slightest inclination to move in this direction, and is instead maintaining a programme of massive destruction and of denying aid to Gaza? The UK’s ability to influence events in the region is extremely limited, but one thing we could do would be to recognise Palestine as an independent state. Will the Government stop prevaricating on this issue and recognise Palestine now, without further delay?

Fourthly, on Ukraine, we support the Government in their determination to double down in our support for the Government in Kyiv. We welcome the long-delayed decision to allow the use of Storm Shadow missiles into Russian territory, but we believe that we should also be freeing up frozen Russian assets so that they can be used by Kyiv to support the war effort. This is an area where the Government could take a lead, by calling a summit of European leaders to unblock these assets. Will the Government now do so?

Finally, on China, the Prime Minister has had what he called “frank, constructive and pragmatic” discussions. This is welcome. The Statement refers to Hong Kong but is not specific about exactly what was discussed. Did the Prime Minister raise the case of Jimmy Lai and the 45 jailed pro-democracy campaigners? If so, what was President Xi’s response? When the Prime Minister says that we need to work together with China on delivering growth, what does that mean in practice?

The previous Government succeeded in trashing the UK’s global reputation, and we welcome the Prime Minister’s attempts to rebuild it, but action must now follow the promises he has made if we are really to punch our weight again on the international stage.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful for most of the comments made by both noble Lords. I will do my best to answer as many as I can in the time remaining. I thank them for their comments about our friend John Prescott. John and I were introduced into this House on the same day. My mum still tells with great affection the story of meeting Pauline in the loo and having a chat afterwards. He was a one-off, and we miss him greatly.

I have to say that I thought the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition’s comments about the Prime Minister were really unwarranted and unworthy of him. This country has a role to play on the international stage. We have not really made our weight and our presence felt in the way that we should. The fact that this was the first time in six years that there had been a meeting between the Chinese Premier and a Prime Minister does not serve the best interests of this country. The Leader of the Opposition asked specifically about that, as did the noble Lord, Lord Newby, and we have to co-operate where we can with China; we have to compete where it is appropriate; and, as my noble friend Lord Collins has said on many occasions, there are times when we must challenge as well. The frank discussions that were had were very important. Yes, the first item on the agenda was Jimmy Lai. The world will have seen that was the first issue that the Prime Minister raised, because the cameras were there at that time—although they were ushered out soon after.

The Secretary of State will make a further Statement on the detail of energy policy, but the thing that will make the most difference and will help enormously in bringing down prices and protecting our energy security is GB Energy, where we have been dependent on an international market buffeting us around. We will hear more about that, but in answer to both noble Lords, I say that we will publish our clean power action plan by the end of the year. The noble Lord, Lord Newby, was absolutely right to talk about the national grid connections, which are poor and need to be improved. My right honourable friend will say more on that, but we are working on improving those connections at pace.

I think the noble Lord, Lord True, was a little confused when he talked about return hubs and the Rwanda policy, comparing to what has happened in other countries. There is a real difference between offshoring and outsourcing. This country has had offshoring arrangements with other countries for some time, but when you outsource or offload your immigration policy, that is when there is a significant difference. Given the amount of money spent by this country on the failed Rwanda policy—frankly, more Home Secretaries, Prime Ministers and journalists went to Rwanda than those seeking asylum or who had to have their claims assessed—I will take no lectures from the party opposite about that. What will really make a difference is the kind of international discussion which is being had about tackling the gangs. I was surprised that the noble Lord did not congratulate the Government and the National Crime Agency, because working with other countries is really important. Think of the arrest in the Netherlands last week. He shakes his head at me, but it is a significant step forward and one we hope to see more of.

The noble Lord also asked about the Falkland Islands. I do not know how many times we have to say from this Dispatch Box that the Falkland Islands and the Chagos Islands are completely different. We have made clear our support for the Falkland Islanders time and again, and I am entirely happy to do so again. The sovereignty of the Falkland Islands is not up for debate; it is an absolute commitment. I remind him that it was the previous Government who started negotiations on the Chagos Islands back in November 2022. Those discussions were not concluded, and that put the military base at risk. Under the agreement secured with Mauritius, the UK/US military base on Diego Garcia is now secured. That is the first time in 50 years that it is undisputed and legally secure. That was not the case before.

The noble Lord asked for an assurance about US engagement. I thought that it was clear that it has been the policy of this Government, and will continue to be, that we engage with foreign Governments. He described the Statement as self-congratulatory. It was not. It made clear that we have a place in the world. We have to find our place in the world and show our commitment to negotiations. In the relationship so far, the Prime Minister has met the President and the President-elect; there is ongoing dialogue and discussion and there will continue to be so. The noble Lord should recognise that it is an important relationship for this country, but we also recognise that relationships around the world are crucial as well.

The noble Lord, Lord Newby, asked about aid into Israel and Gaza, and he is absolutely right. There are two sides to this: the hostages must be released—just imagine the agonies of those families not knowing if the hostages are dead or alive or what state they are in—and that is a prerequisite; but, at the same time, given the amount of suffering of the people in Gaza, getting aid in as quickly as possible, particularly with winter coming, is absolutely crucial. Both those issues were discussed at the G20, and we will continue to put pressure at every opportunity possible.

House of Lords Reform

Lord Newby Excerpts

Tuesday 12th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, politicians and political parties are often accused of being inconsistent and opportunistic. It is sometimes difficult to rebut such charges, but on House of Lords reform these Benches have been steadfastly consistent for over a century. I cite as supporting evidence the preamble of the Parliament Act 1911, passed under a Liberal Government, which states:

“And whereas it is intended to substitute for the House of Lords as it at present exists a Second Chamber constituted on a popular instead of hereditary basis, but such substitution cannot be immediately brought into operation”.


That stated policy of having an elected second Chamber has been Liberal, and now Liberal Democrat, policy for the intervening 113 years. It is arguably the longest-lasting piece of party policy that has never been implemented, and it is still a live issue. Sadly, the assertion that such substitution cannot immediately be brought into operation remains as true now as it was in 1911.

I reassert the Liberal Democrat position that the House of Lords should be elected. It should be elected on the basis that, in a democracy, laws should be passed by people chosen by the people to act on their behalf. It should be elected because the unelected House leads to a geographical imbalance of membership, in which London and the south-east are greatly over- represented, and the north, Scotland and Wales are underrepresented. It should be elected because it would then almost certainly be more representative of the ethnic diversity of the United Kingdom. It should be elected because it would then be more politically representative. It would contain members of the SNP and almost certainly more members of the smaller parties.

[Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (PC)]

Reform!

[Lord Newby (LD)]

Even Reform—what arrogance that we think that, because we dislike a party, it does not deserve to be in your Lordships’ House. I would welcome the opportunity to have Reform in your Lordships’ House and to debate with its members, rather than them sniping from the sidelines.

This House should be elected because it would then be more effective in holding the Government to account and strengthening Parliament in relation to an overpowerful Executive. There was a chance during the coalition to achieve an elected House of Lords—probably the best chance since 1911—but that was cynically scuppered by the Labour Party, which refused to back a guillotine Motion on the Bill, and many Conservatives, who were genuinely hostile to the principle of an elected second Chamber, whatever their manifesto said. The chances of moving to an elected Lords in this Parliament are nil. There was a point when, with the appointment of the Brown commission, it looked as though Labour might move towards a firm plan for such a fundamental reform. But the Brown proposals were so half-baked that no one in the Labour Party supported them, and no other elected alternative was then even contemplated by the party.

For the remainder of this Parliament, we are faced with the imminent Bill to remove the remaining hereditaries, and a consultation, to be followed by legislation on a retirement age. We unambiguously support the proposals to remove the remaining hereditaries. We have huge respect for the part that individual hereditaries continue to play in our proceedings, and we hope that the Government will find a way to enable some of those who do so to return as life Peers. However, in our view, the hereditary principle itself can no longer be justified. Of course, it was not justified by the Blair Government, but the compromise deal negotiated by the wily Viscount Cranborne leaves us with the current unsatisfactory situation.

I was a new Member of your Lordships’ House in 1999 and served as the Liberal Democrat Whip on the then House of Lords reform Bill. A lot has been made of the commitments at that time about the future of the remaining hereditaries. One thing that was made crystal clear by the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, whom I am pleased to see in her place, as the then Leader of the House, was that the Government saw no long-term role for the remaining hereditaries and envisaged that they would be removed at the next stage of reform. We are now at that next stage of reform, and although it does not introduce an elected house, it ends an anomaly shared only, among all the parliaments of the world, with the constitution of Lesotho, in having a hereditary element in the second Chamber. In the case of Lesotho, the hereditary element is drawn from the tribal chiefs, and while many of our remaining hereditaries would make splendid tribal chiefs—although I am not sure there is a Strathclyde tribe—this is not the basis on which we organise society.

The other principal measure of reform we are promised in this Parliament is a retirement age. Again, we support this principle. Other professionals in the UK have a retirement age, including lawyers and bishops, and there are good reasons for it. That is not to say that many extremely elderly Peers do not make a valuable contribution to proceedings in your Lordships’ House; they obviously do, but many more do not, and the lack of a retirement age inevitably means that the House is denied much relevant contemporary experience which a younger House would bring.

These two reforms in themselves, of course, do not address the issue of the eventual size of the House and the balance of parties across it. What is the Government’s view on this? Do they, for example, still support the principle that we should move towards equality of representation between Labour and the Conservatives, despite the Conservatives’ current shrunken Commons representation, and if so, over what time period? Do they think that the Burns principle of two out, one in should be pursued, or that a combination of the abolition of the hereditaries and a retirement age will, by themselves, get the House down to a satisfactory size? Do they have any plans to reduce the number of Bishops in your Lordships’ House? However much one might value the contribution of the Bishops’ Benches—I certainly do—it surely would be perverse in our increasingly secular age if the only group whose proportionate size increased as a result of the proposed reforms was the Lords spiritual.

When the relevant reform legislation comes before your Lordships’ House, we on these Benches will not seek to delay it or to bog the debates down with unnecessary amendments. There is one area, however, where the system could be strengthened within the spirit of the upcoming legislation. This relates to the role of the House of Lords Appointments Commission. At the moment, the commission can recommend against the appointment of an individual, but this objection can be overridden by the Prime Minister, as it has been in recent years. That seems to us unacceptable and could easily be rectified.

There are times when I think that it could be another 113 years before the Lords is truly reformed in the spirit of the 1911 Act. We on these Benches, however, remain optimists and will continue to push for this. In the meantime, the measures the Government propose to bring forward in this Parliament will go some way to improving the composition of your Lordships’ House, and on that basis, they deserve our support.

House of Lords: Behaviour and Courtesy

Lord Newby Excerpts

Monday 14th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, Questions should not be read. They should be concise and questions rather than speeches. My noble friend Lord Kennedy of Southwark has pointed this out on many occasions and will continue to do so. On the noble Lord’s second point, many noble Lords—including me, on occasion —have felt chastised when they have slipped up and referred to someone as a “noble Minister”. He is absolutely right: it is the “noble Lord the Minister” or the “noble Baroness the Minister”. This makes the point: we have to abide by the rules and conventions of the House in order to conduct our business appropriately.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, having been in your Lordships’ House a long time, I do not think that the degree of shouting at Questions has become significantly worse than when I started. For me, in the current environment, it is more important than ever that everybody in public life is tolerant and shows respect to everyone. Does the noble Baroness the Leader agree that Members of your Lordships’ House have a particular responsibility not to say anything in this Chamber which might lead to greater divisions in society than the ones with which we are already struggling?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, your Lordships will have heard the response from the whole House, and I think that is definitely the case. All of us, particularly those in positions of responsibility—or when there is a worldwide audience—should choose our words with care, because they have an impact. We have a duty and responsibility to behave appropriately.

Anniversary of 7 October Attacks: Middle East

Lord Newby Excerpts

Tuesday 8th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for repeating this important Statement. Yes, she did indeed speak for the whole House when, in the most graphic and moving tones, she invoked the horror of that terrible day and all the victims: dead and still alive and, frankly, those who will never forget, so long as they live, the heinous frenzy of terror committed last 7 October by Hamas. We on this side share every sentiment she expressed about that horrific day.

As my right honourable friend the leader of the Opposition said yesterday, this was a

“modern pogrom—the worst loss of Jewish life since the second world war”.

It was, as he said,

“a horrendous reminder of the antisemitism in our world and the existential threats that Israel faces”.—[Official Report, Commons, 7/10/24; col. 25.]

Like the noble Baroness, in particular our thoughts are with those British families who lost loved ones and with the family of Emily Damari, our innocent compatriot still held hostage by Hamas. We hear that many hostages are being held to shield the frankly worthless life of the vicious and cowardly killer Yahya Sinwar. Can the noble Baroness give us our latest assessment of whether Sinwar is still in control of Hamas?

Did the noble Baroness see the despicable remarks of the Supreme Leader of Iran? In calling yet again for the total eradication of the State of Israel, he declared, about 7 October and the rape, slaughter and hostage-taking, that it was a “correct move”. A correct move, my Lords? Palestinians, he said, had every right to do this. Such sentiments, in my judgment, have no place in the civilised discourse of mankind. Can the noble Baroness tell the House whether the Iranian chargé d’affaires was called in by the Foreign Secretary to condemn that repulsive endorsement of the events of 7 October, and what the Prime Minister so rightly described in the Statement as a wholly illegal “act of aggression” by Iran against Israel in support of terrorists?

We on this side fully endorse the noble Baroness’s remarks that Israel has every right under international law to defend itself against the aggression by the Iranian regime and its paid proxies. Like her, we salute those in our own Armed Forces who have played and who, right now, as we speak, are still vigilantly playing a part in protecting Israel and the right of free navigation on the high seas.

No one wishes to see an escalation of this conflict. It has gone too far and too long. Matters could be solved far more speedily if Iran and its terrorist proxies ended their threats to destroy Israel and the raining of terror and rockets on Israeli civilians. Another unprecedented attack on Haifa by Hezbollah was reported today. The activities of this axis of terrorists have caused untold and avoidable suffering to peoples across the Middle East—Jew, Muslim and Christian; Iranian, Israeli, Arab and Palestinian. These actions must cease.

Much concern was expressed yesterday—as it should be every day—about anti-Semitism in the United Kingdom. According to the Metropolitan Police’s official statistics, there has been a fourfold increase in anti-Semitic crime since 7 October. Nationwide, 2,170 anti-Semitic incidents have been reported since last 7 October. I know the whole House will agree with me when I say there is no place for anti-Islamic or anti-Semitic actions in our country. Does the noble Baroness think that more could be done to protect our Jewish community and make all Jews feel safe in our country?

I very much welcome the humanitarian support to Lebanon that the noble Baroness reported, as well as the support to Palestinians who are suffering so grievously in Gaza. In light of the Prime Minister’s call for all British citizens to leave Lebanon, can the noble Baroness assure the House that His Majesty’s Government are doing everything in their power to ensure that British nationals are being helped to leave? I welcome the news that 430 have come home. Can the noble Baroness tell the House how many British nationals we believe may still be left in Lebanon?

Let me be very clear: Israel has the right to defend itself against the existential threat from Hezbollah in Lebanon. Hezbollah is a terrorist organisation proscribed by our Government. Israel has a right to eliminate terrorists who threaten its right to exist. I agree with the noble Baroness that Hezbollah should have implemented UN Security Council Resolution 1701. The nature of its leadership can be seen by the fact that in 2006 it promised to abide by that resolution and to withdraw north of the Litani. Instead, they filled the whole area with hundreds of thousands of missiles, underground fortifications and the infrastructure of vicious, militant terror. The leaders who broke those undertakings have paid a heavy price. Of course, I support the sentiments in the Statement for a ceasefire and an end to hostilities but, at this moment, one has to ask what trust Israel could have in the words of Hamas or Hezbollah.

The road to peace may, regrettably, be long and difficult, though I support the Government’s intention to strive with every sinew to achieve it. Peace will never come about without guarantees of the security of the State of Israel. The best benefit to the great Palestinian people, who are suffering so much, would be the peace and security that could and must follow from that security for Israel.

As the world becomes more dangerous, with war in Ukraine and the Middle East, the Conservative Party will support Israel and our other allies in the Middle East and around the world. This is not a time for weakness. I am grateful for the noble Baroness’s resolute condemnation of the events of 7 October and her unqualified expression of solidarity with Jewish people everywhere. I expected no less. So long as this Government support Israel’s right to self-defence and the search for a just, secure and sustainable peace, they can count on our support.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I too thank the Leader for repeating the Statement. Today, we mark an extraordinarily sombre anniversary. The barbarism of the Hamas attack was almost beyond imagining, and our thoughts today are very much with Jewish people, wherever they may be—not just in recognition of the sorrow and grief felt by those directly affected but because the events of 7 October were only the start of a year of fear and anxiety for the entire Jewish community, wherever they live, which continue to this day. Of course, it has also been a horrendous year for the Palestinian people in Gaza and the West Bank, as well as for the population of Lebanon, which now finds itself engulfed in a cycle of increasing violence and destruction.

The last 12 months have amply demonstrated that the British Government’s ability to influence events in the region is limited. Neither Israel, Hamas, Hezbollah nor Iran is exactly in the mood to be told what to do by the United Kingdom. But that does not mean that we should do nothing. The Statement mentions three areas where we can and are doing something distinctive, and where we might do more.

First, we can do more to aid the innocent populations of Gaza and Lebanon. In the case of Gaza, we are now funding UNRWA again, which is most welcome. The Statement is unclear about how much our new commitment to UNRWA amounts to and how far this provision of aid is constrained by our financial resources and how far by the unjustifiable Israeli restrictions on the flow of aid into Gaza. Can the Leader clarify this? What is the Israeli Government’s response to our requests for the opening of more crossings and the provision of a safe environment for aid workers?

Secondly, on Lebanon, the Government are now providing £15 million of support, but this is a small fraction of the £200 million that we were providing in 2019, when obviously there was nothing like the level of devastation that now prevails. Will the Government accept that £15 million, though helpful, is plainly a very small drop in the ocean? Will they commit to increasing it?

Thirdly, the Government have supported Israel militarily in countering the bombardment it suffered from Iran last week. We are sympathetic to this support, but the Statement is totally silent on the form it took, and the Government have been unclear about its limits. At a point when Israel is clearly contemplating a military response to the Iranian attack, it would be helpful if the Government could confirm that the military support they give to Israel in the future will continue to be limited to defensive purposes.

We can and should do everything possible to fight hatred of Jews or Muslims in the United Kingdom. Attacks on both communities have increased greatly in the last 12 months. Passions have been inflamed and, although the situation in the UK will inevitably remain more tense as long as there is severe conflict in the Middle East, calmer voices can and must prevail. In a number of places, faith leaders from Jewish, Muslim and Christian communities have come together to deliver messages of unity in their localities, not least in schools. Such initiatives are hugely important, and we should do whatever we can, as individuals, to support them in the places where we live.

The last year has seen an escalating cycle of violence and destruction across the Middle East, and it seems quite conceivable that this cycle has some way to run. However forlorn it may seem today, we need to redouble our efforts to get the hostages released, to achieve a ceasefire in Gaza and Lebanon, and to add impetus to the political process, with the aim of establishing a two-state solution. Unless and until these aims are achieved, we will inevitably see more death and destruction. Peace and stability in the region seem further away today than ever, but we must continue to do all we can to replace today’s despair with a more positive hope for the future.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for their comments and for the tone of those comments. I think we all feel the weight of what has happened upon us. Many of us have met families of the hostages—I met Mandy Damari in your Lordships’ House just before the Conference Recess—and you can almost feel the weight of their dignity and their suffering; it is sort of physical and you wonder how on earth people can cope under those circumstances. I think the tone of both noble Lords reflected our understanding of the pain and trauma they are going through.

Noble Lords are also right to say that under any criteria, there is no justification at all for the attacks that took place on Israel on 7 October. It is hard to see how anybody, including the Supreme Leader of Iran, can seek to justify such comments. It must be understood that Hamas will have known that Israel would have to defend itself, and the horror that would be unleashed in the region as a result. It is deeply shocking. There is no route to peace of any kind—temporary, long-lasting or an eventual two-state solution—that does not involve international diplomacy. That is the only way forward to try to find a resolution to protect people in the region.

Both noble Lords made the point that what is happening in the region is played out in the streets of the UK. Up and down our country, people have been subject to attacks and abuse for being either Jewish or Muslim, and I think everybody in this House will totally and utterly condemn such abuse and attacks. The comments of the noble Lord, Lord Newby, about the tone of the debate that takes place, both in your Lordships’ House and in our communities, are very important. I pay tribute to those who have reached beyond their own communities and across the divide, understanding the problem that it is causing within their areas.

I turn to specific points raised by both noble Lords. They will realise that Hezbollah is a proscribed organisation and is treated as such. We all utterly condemn its actions: that is why it is proscribed. How can Israel trust Hezbollah or have trust in progress towards peace? It is precisely because there is no trust that international efforts are so important. The noble Lord, Lord Newby, made the point that the UK is but one voice and that working with partners across the world is the only way that any progress can be made. That is why the Prime Minister has had so many meetings with leaders across the region and others to try to build that coalition, to bring pressure to bear and to do what we can to bring about an initial cease- fire in Gaza but also to protect those in Lebanon.

I do not have the exact number of British nationals remaining in Lebanon. More than 500 have been brought out so far. There are still commercial flights, but about 500 have been brought out, plus the 430 on the chartered flights. We will continue to do that. We have been saying for over a year to those in Lebanon, as did the previous Government—the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, is nodding at me, because he recalls saying it—that they should return home and that we will facilitate and give support as best we can. Their safety is clearly a deep priority for us.

The noble Lord, Lord Newby, asked for details of our operations in support of Israel. I say to him that all defensive operations are in line with international law and always will be. He will understand that I will not give any further information than that, but I can give him that assurance.

The key point is, and both noble Lords expressed this succinctly and very sincerely, that we must work across nations to bring people together and be steadfast in our support for the security of Israel, for security in the region but also for the humanitarian aid that is so essential to civilians who are suffering and dying now. We have to work internationally to achieve that or no progress will be made. I am grateful for their support for the Statement.

Grenfell Tower Inquiry Phase 2 Report

Lord Newby Excerpts

Monday 9th September 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness the Leader of the House for repeating this important Statement. Like her, our thoughts and prayers are with the victims and survivors, their friends and families and all the lives that have been irreversibly affected by this terrible tragedy. We will never forget the 72 people who lost their lives that night and, as the report makes clear, need never have lost them.

The publication of the Grenfell Tower Inquiry: Phase 2 Report is a damning indictment of over 30 years of successive state failures—the failure to appreciate, to understand and to act—and we must all take our share of responsibility for that. In this comprehensive report Sir Martin, whose appointment was not universally acclaimed, and his team should be commended. It raises many points that I am confident that all parties and both Houses will agree on. This will be a difficult time for the Grenfell community and a difficult report to process and come to terms with. Will the Government ensure that those affected will get all the support that they need at this time?

When this party was in government, we put an extensive remediation regime in place, financed by central government funding and developer contributions. That work to remediate and identify at-risk buildings must continue in order to prevent another tragedy, and I welcome that assurance. A £600 million fund was put in place to replace unsafe aluminium composite material—the cladding type used on Grenfell Tower. A further £5.1 billion followed through the building safety fund and the cladding safety scheme to pay for remediation beyond ACM cladding.

I am delighted to hear that the new Government will continue supporting leaseholders and tenants to get their buildings fixed as quickly and as safely as possible, and indeed intensify those efforts. Can the noble Baroness the Leader tell the House what the Government’s targets are for remediation work being completed?

Legislation in the last Parliament, as the noble Baroness acknowledged, reformed our fire safety and building regulation regimes through the Fire Safety Act and the Building Safety Act, and created a new building safety regulator and a new building safety regime. There was also change to statutory guidance in Approved Document B to ban combustible construction materials and reduce the threshold for sprinklers in new blocks of flats. It also introduced requirements for evacuation alert systems and secure information boxes.

I agree with the noble Baroness the Leader of the House that further measures will be needed on top of these to ensure that the regimes remain fit for purpose. The inquiry has recommended regular updating of Approved Document B, the appointment of a chief construction adviser, a single regulator and a single responsible Secretary of State. I can assure the noble Baroness that we will work with the Government to support the delivery of any proportionate and necessary measures that follow the report.

Will the Government actually commit, as the report asks, to embedding regular reviews of Approved Document B so that it keeps up with developments in building technology? If the Government agree with the recommendation to appoint a chief construction adviser, can the Leader tell the House when they hope to commence seeking to appoint someone to this position? Will the Government consider, as was proposed to be necessary, machinery of government changes to ensure that there is one lead department responsible for such issues, going forward?

We must confront the failure of oversight by those responsible for ensuring the independence and rigour of testing and compliance. Sir Martin described, as the noble Baroness said, the Building Research Establishment’s work with suppliers as “systematically dishonest behaviour”. No one would wish to jeopardise criminal inquiries—I agree with the noble Baroness—but it would be a euphemism to describe some of the behaviour described in this report as shocking and shameful.

I welcome the Prime Minister’s forthright commitment to continue to support the Metropolitan Police and the CPS in continuing to pursue criminal charges against a small number of developers and contractors who, knowingly and dishonestly, cut corners on building safety for financial gain. We stand foursquare with the Government on that, and I hope that the noble Baroness will understand that we on this side strongly agree that disgraced firms should not benefit from future public procurement.

We all have lessons to learn from this inquiry: that includes the local council and, as the noble Baroness said, the tenant management organisation. The Social Housing (Regulation) Act 2023 was introduced to improve the quality of social housing accommodation, ensure better training and the professionalisation of senior social housing staff, and redress the balance between social landlord and tenant. I am pleased that the report acknowledged the difference that this Act will make for social housing tenants. As a Government, we listened to the Grenfell community throughout the passage of that Bill; noble Lords on all sides of this House played a valuable part in improving and delivering it, and I would like to thank them. When will the Government bring forward secondary legislation to implement the measures included in the Act?

At the time of the fire, my noble friend Lady May of Maidenhead apologised for local and national failures in response to it. I reiterate her apology and repeat my own profound sympathy and apologies to all those affected by the Grenfell fire tragedy. The word “community” is much used—perhaps overused—in some aspects of modern politics. The brave people of Grenfell, in all their diversity, by their courage and support for each other, by their determination to fight for what was right for their fellows and for others in the future, and never to accept a wrong, taught us what a true community is. We honour them. We will never forget all those who died and those whose lives were so brutally changed. We, and the whole House, will stand behind the Government in ensuring that justice is done and that such a horror must never happen again.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, the central conclusion of this long-awaited report is blunt and devastating. Sir Martin finds that building safety has failed for decades in central government, local government and the construction industry. He says that every single death was avoidable. From these Benches, we say a heartfelt sorry to the victims, their families and their friends.

One of the most shocking threads running through the report is that there has been no sense of responsibility and a lack of questioning inside various government departments, including by Ministers. The report says that the machinery of government and its agencies failed the victims, especially as a result of a lack of interdepartmental working. Fragmentation and a lack of curiosity resulted in inaction, delay and obfuscation, and this cost lives. This criticism also came up in the Infected Blood Inquiry, the Hillsborough report, and the Post Office Horizon report. That is why, from these Benches, we have long advocated for a duty of candour, and we are pleased that the Government have committed to introducing it. Can the Minister say when this legislation will appear?

In the meantime, what changes have been made to ensure that civil servants and public agencies ensure that Ministers are always told the truth, however uncomfortable it may be? Specifically on building safety, can the Minister say what steps the Government are taking to ensure that everyone across government knows who is in charge, and how the current culture can be changed to ensure that no more tragedies like Grenfell can happen again?

The failures of the construction sector—whether regulators, manufacturing companies, builders, maintenance or management agents—are also shocking. The 2018 Hackitt report, with 50 reforms for the sector, was accepted by both Sir Martin and the last Government, in 2019. The key was to strengthen the golden thread of safety running throughout the sector, from manufacturing to regulation and training. When will there be an update to Parliament on the implementations of the Hackitt recommendations? In particular, can the Minister say when she expects the Government to appoint a cladding safety tsar, as proposed by Dame Judith?

At the heart of this report is the evidence of the poor treatment of individuals, especially those already marginalised in our society. Sir Martin speaks of

“a marked lack of respect for human decency and dignity”,

with

“those immediately affected feeling abandoned by authority and utterly helpless”.

These words could also be written about the other inquiry reports, such as those on Windrush and infected blood. This widespread lack of respect challenges all involved in public policy management, whether Ministers, politicians or officials, to change our attitudes. Central government must take a lead in bringing about this change, which requires a fundamental change in mindset. This will take time and commitment, but it is crucially important.

In this case, the tenant management organisation failed badly. Never again should social housing tenants be regarded as not worthy of safe housing. Never again should the vulnerable, especially the elderly and disabled, be regarded as not worthy of safety systems to get them out of burning buildings. In the light of the Dagenham fire two weeks ago, where there were locked exits and problems with the fire alarms, what are the Government doing to ensure that all blocks of flats, regardless of height, have working fire systems without delay?

Seven years on from the Grenfell fire, the delays in the removal of combustible cladding are now a national disgrace. As the noble Lord pointed out, the previous Government committed funds and said that they wanted to knock together the heads of the building firms and freeholders. But clearly more still needs to happen, and urgently. So what will this Government do to speed up the process of making safe the hundreds of blocks that still have inadequate cladding?

It is vital that the police and the CPS move at pace to review the report and investigate the individuals and organisations that Sir Martin says deliberately breached the law. Given the pressures on the police and the CPS, will the Government ensure that there are no further delays because they lack the resources to do the work? Justice further delayed is justice denied, and there have been enough delays already.

The Government have pledged to act on more than 50 recommendations in the report. Despite their initial commitments to move on them all, there is a danger that momentum may not be maintained, as we have seen with the recommendations of the Hackitt report. So can the Leader of the House commit to a full debate in your Lordships’ House in the near future, and then a regular report back to Parliament, so that everybody can feel safe in their homes and those who behaved so appallingly in this case can be held to account?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for their comments. I think the House is united, first, in an apology and, secondly, in determination and a sense of anger. As I read the inquiry report and felt that disappointment and sadness about it, the further I read, the angrier I got. It is quite hard to sustain anger, but by the end I was more than just bristling with anger, and I think anybody who read it felt exactly the same. So I am grateful for all the comments.

I will take the last point first. Yes, we commit to a debate in the House. This addresses points made by both noble Lords. The Prime Minister has committed to an update, within six months, on where we have got to, but there are things that can be done sooner and, where they can, they will be implemented sooner, with an annual update to the House. So there will be a regular update, and there will be an early debate, although I will not attempt to identify when; I leave that to the Chief Whip, who will come back.

The noble Lord will know that the height of buildings referred to in the report is currently 18 metres, but we have to see whether that is the appropriate level.

On when secondary legislation will come forward, it is being drafted now and there will be measures in the renters reform Bill to bring that forward. The police and the CPS will have the resources they need to do this job. Justice has been denied for far too long, and this should move on apace. Anyone who read the interviews with police officers involved in the investigations would have sensed their determination and commitment. Anybody who has spoken to the families or anyone affected will be nothing but moved and determined to support and help them. I went to one of the hearings in Church House. There is always a sense of guilt: when you hear something and are deeply moved by it, you realise what it must have been like to be there at the time, even though all you are doing is hearing it and being deeply moved at that point. So there is an absolute determination that resources will not prevent proper investigations and prosecutions.

The duty of candour will come forward. The noble Lord, Lord Newby, is right to raise this: there does seem to be a theme of people being ignored or not taken seriously. Many years ago, when I was a Minister in Northern Ireland, there was a report into the deaths of children in hospitals there. The first recommendation for the Northern Ireland Government was that there should be a duty of candour—in other words, for public servants to tell the truth. That also protects junior members of staff, who may feel under pressure from more senior members not to say exactly what they know. Bringing that forward, I was pleased to see that in our manifesto.

On the management of buildings and how we manage public policy, it is worrying to read the report and see how many opportunities there were to prevent this happening. Information was withheld, including information on the testing of combustible materials. The culture change on this starts from the top. Ministers have to be told uncomfortable facts and create a climate in their departments whereby, if they are brought information that is not what they want to hear, that is difficult and uncomfortable, when action has to be taken by government and may be expensive, that information will be brought to them and members of their departments will be encouraged to do so.

On the removal of cladding, we are accelerating that process. It is a tragedy that in Dagenham that work was ongoing and had not been completed, which also caused a problem. There is the scale of the challenge—4,630 residential buildings over 11 metres have been identified as having unsafe cladding—yet, so far, all these years on, only 50% have either started or completed that remediation work. That has to continue apace, and we must do so as quickly as possible. There is now a route to do so, and access to government funding, as well as a way of identifying whether any buildings have been missed there.