House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Lord Newby Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 9th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Burns, for his amendment and the way he introduced it. He raised four very substantial issues—much more substantial than most of the issues we have spent most of the day debating. Should there be a maximum size of the House? How do we get there? How do we then stop recidivist Governments breaching it? Once we have got there, how do we balance the new appointments between the various parties?

The first and third questions are very straightforward. Yes, there should be a limit. Yes, it will mean that no Prime Minister can then threaten to flood the House with 100 new Peers, but the last time that was tried was over 110 years ago, and it has not proved to be a necessary part of public policy-making in the interim. Is the noble Lord, Lord Gove, right when he says the more voices, the better? Clearly, there is a point at which that ceases to be the case, and what we are arguing about is where that should be. If there were 5,000 people here, there would clearly be too many voices, and we would not be able to do anything. Those of us who have spent many hours debating here, including everybody who has been involved with the Burns amendment, have formed the view that the place would be better if it had a cap on its numbers. So, yes, there should be a cap on the numbers. It should be a legislative cap. If we have that, it solves the problem of how we stop future Prime Ministers ratcheting up the numbers again—they will not be allowed to do it by law.

How do we get to that number, 650 or whatever it is? Actually, if we do what we say we are going to do in terms of retirement and participation, we get beyond that number; we get below it. In fact, one of the arguments about having a straightforward retirement age is that we are taking out too many people, so I do not think that the bit of the noble Lord’s amendment that deals with how we get to the number would be needed in practice.

If we agree that there should be a limit and that it means you cannot ratchet up again, and if we say that we get to the limit by the combination of retirement and participation limits, the difficult question that remains is: once you have got below the limit, how do you decide on the balance of appointments? The noble Lord says there is a convention that the Labour Party and the Conservative Party should have broad parity of numbers. That may be fine, but there are some others of us here, both on these Benches and the noble Lord’s. What are we going to do about all that?

In his original report, the noble Lord came up with an elegant proposal to deal with the balance that related to votes and seats over a period of three general elections. It would have had the advantage of being a stabilising force while still reflecting the fact that the House has to move with the country. I supported that at the time, as I think the Government did, and would support it again.

On how we implement all this, if we could agree on it all, given that the debate about retirement is in part a debate about numbers, one of the issues will be how quickly we do it. If we require primary legislation to deal with retirement, I do not see why it would be illogical to include something about numbers in that.

How you deal with my point about how you rebalance over time once you have got below the cap, whether you do that by convention or statute, is a matter for another day. The only thing that worries me slightly is that framing a statute that could not be amended in the light of changing political circumstances might be quite difficult.

These are hugely important issues. There is quite a lot of consensus on some of them, but I hope we are able to debate them sensibly and make progress on them during the course of the Parliament and in the context of the other debates we are having, not least on retirement.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, in many ways this is the most important amendment we are considering today, because it is the only attempt to curb the power of the Executive over Parliament. The Bill, as the Government drafted it, shifts the scales rather dangerously in their favour. It leaves the Prime Minister the sole person responsible for deciding who comes to this House and who leaves it. If we were to throw out the small number of excepted hereditary Peers in the way that the Bill as originally drafted put it, which the House has now voted against, every Member of this House would be appointed by, or subject to the approval of, the Prime Minister of the day—a situation found in no other democratic Chamber.

As we have heard from our debates in Committee and last week, the House of Lords Appointments Commission, HOLAC, has no power to insist on the nominations it makes, and no guaranteed number or guaranteed timescale. While this Parliament has already seen the introduction of 45 Labour Peers, 21 Conservatives and three Liberal Democrats, the independent commission has not been permitted to make any nominations under the present Prime Minister.

In our debate last week, the Leader of the House confirmed that the four Cross-Bench Peers announced last month were people of the Prime Minister’s own selection, not the House of Lords Appointments Commission’s. Moreover, in the statement the Prime Minister made alongside that announcement, he made clear that, like his predecessors, he would be prepared to overrule HOLAC in exceptional circumstances if it objected to one of his nominations on the grounds of propriety.

Even the Lords spiritual, notwithstanding the changes made under that great Presbyterian Gordon Brown, pass through Downing Street on the way to their episcopal throne. Crucially, the procedural changes made by Mr Brown are not set in statute and so could be undone by a future Prime Minister with a snap of their fingers.

I have served in government in different capacities under four Prime Ministers. I have seen the power of patronage and the seductive temptations it offers to Prime Ministers as their other powers wane. We have seen the current Prime Minister wielding that power already—that is not new and not unique to him, but the Bill he has sent us would leave him more powerful than any of his predecessors and leave him and those who follow him free to succumb to those temptations without, as noble Lords have put it, any guard-rails.

At the beginning of his premiership, Sir Keir Starmer began by appointing new Peers at a faster rate than any Prime Minister for three decades. I am glad that he has now slowed down, but he could change speed again whenever he wants. The Leader of the House has argued, and I can see will argue again, that that is because of the profligacy of his predecessors—following the argument made by the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, about the ratchet effect that leaves us in this situation after every general election. In doing so, she and the Prime Minister have given the game away that the Bill is not just about ending the hereditary peerage but about removing a large number of Peers from beyond the Government Benches.

The Leader has told us repeatedly that, even with that excision, the Labour Party will form only 28% of the seats in your Lordships’ House. Can she tell us today, with the same clarity, that she expects and intends the Labour Party to form the same proportion by the end of this Parliament, or does she see why so many of us, like Elvis Presley, have “Suspicious Minds” about that?

More worryingly still, we have seen the power of executive patronage in action throughout our debates on the Bill. I am sure I am not the only one to have noticed the conspicuous number of abstentions in some of the Divisions so far, or to have been surprised by the arguments of noble Lords who are usually so robust in asserting our role as a revising Chamber advising that on this Bill, which has such profound consequences not just for your Lordships’ House but for our constitutional settlement, we should not make any amendment at all or disagree with the House of Commons, who have still—the majority of them—sat for only 170 days. I detect a certain nervousness, not just among our hereditary colleagues or those over or approaching the age of 80, about voting for things that might annoy the present Government. I know the Leader will want every Member of your Lordships’ House to know that they can and should perform their legislative scrutiny on this Bill, as on any other, without fear or favour, so I hope she can reassure us that no one, even those who would vote on the Bill in a way that she would rather they did not, will suffer any ill feeling or consequence from the Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, despite the late hour, I make no apologies for returning to the subject of implementing any conclusions reached by the new House of Lords Select Committee in considering possible retirement ages, attendance thresholds and participation rates. The excellent announcement of this Select Committee by the Leader last week was welcomed by all sides, and I am certain that it will provide workable solutions. My amendment would ensure that these solutions are delivered into law expeditiously and without the need for new primary legislation.

The Leader said that she hoped the committee would be up and running by October and would probably report by the end of July 2026, but let us say September 2026 to be on the safe side. We all know that our Select Committees excel in what they do, and I am absolutely certain that this committee will have firm recommendations on some sort of retirement regime, possibly around the age of 85 but with various tweaks. It will most likely recommend an attendance threshold of some sort. Attendance is about those Peers who may turn up for fewer than a set threshold of 5%, 10% or 15%, whatever it might be.

Participation rates are far more difficult. Participation will need to tackle the abuse of those who may turn up for 20%, 25% or 50% of the time and then do absolutely nothing or very little. Determining what and how many contributions will be adequate will be very difficult, and the committee may not reach any conclusions or may have various options for this House to consider as a whole.

However, I believe that, by the autumn of 2026, this House will have before it a report with recommendations, which we will debate and possibly amend, so that by the end of 2026 or early 2027, this House will have agreed by a majority a way forward on retirements and attendance, and possibly participation.

I ask my noble friends not to tell the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, but I may on this occasion be in full agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Newby. If we get attendance, participation and retirements right, we may not need a fancy formula to reduce overall numbers—but that is an aside.

What will the noble Baroness the Leader do with those decisions of this House? She and her noble friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent, said in our debates before dinner that we will attempt to use in-house measures—that is, Standing Orders—where we possibly can, and we all agree with that. They also said that we will need to consider the best legislative route for those issues where Standing Orders were not sufficient and legislation would be required. The subtext was that that legislation would be primary.

The noble Baroness would be faced with two options for primary legislation. One is that she could say to the Select Committee, “Thank you very much—very good work. We will now consult on the second stage of Lords reform, maybe consider a partly elected Chamber, possibly with regional elements, and we will add those conclusions to a Bill in due course”. We all know that, if the noble Baroness says that, the whole thing will be kicked into the long grass. The second option is that she could say, “Thank you very much. I will now go to the Parliamentary Business and Legislation Committee and seek approval for a specific Bill to deliver these recommendations”. For noble Lords who are not familiar with the PBL, it is a committee of the most powerful Cabinet business managers who decide which bids from departments get approval for the next stage—that is, putting a Bill team together then briefing the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel, which will draft the Bill. I can tell those noble Lords who have never appeared before it that it can be quite scary at times. It is currently and usually chaired by the Leader of the Commons, with both Chief Whips, the Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, the Attorney-General, the Leader of the House and the Minister for the Cabinet Office.

The first question that the committee will ask the Leader will be whether the Bill is a manifesto commitment. Yes. That is a good. Is it short? Yes. That is also good. Can it be easily amended? Yes, because the Lords is much more flexible and can permit a wide range of amendments. The committee will then say, “So, Lord Privy Seal, are you telling us that all this Bill does is put a retirement age and an attendance threshold on Peers, and that they could debate a wide range of amendments in primary legislation?” The noble Baroness, being honest, will say that that could happen. The committee will ask whether there are any votes in it, and the answer will be no, not really.

We all know that the Leader is very able and persuasive, but I suggest that, with possibly just 18 months to go before a general election, she will have no hope whatever of the PBL approving a Bill to implement what our Select Committee decides, at a time when there will inevitably be the annual Home Office criminal justice Christmas tree Bill in the wings, and maybe something on health, employment, immigration and all the other big political issues that will take priority. Does anyone in this House seriously think that any Government would introduce a Bill on changes in the Lords in a King’s Speech in 2027, to be debated in 2028, maybe months or a year before a general election? I simply do not think so. That is why we need my Amendment 23A.

The amendment is self-explanatory. It would simply build in a statutory instrument power enabling the Government to implement any Lords Select Committee recommendations voted through by this House. It would provide that, if this House amends any of the Lords Select Committee recommendations, we can vote that through. It would enable the Government to amend this Bill when it is an Act, the Life Peerages Act 1958 and the House of Lords Reform Act 2014, should that be necessary. I do not know if it will be, but the Public Bill Office thought that we should have the power to do so, just in case it should prove necessary. Of course, amending those Acts is a Henry VIII power, but I do not think that any Government can complain about Henry VIII powers, since all Governments use them excessively in all Bills.

While it may be possible to deal with attendance through Standing Orders, as I think was hinted at earlier, I have not heard any suggestion from any noble Lord that we could invent a retirement or participation regime that we could implement by Standing Orders alone. If that were the case, the Government would have been shouting about it from the rooftops from Committee onwards. It is assumed that these things will require some form of legislation.

Without my simple amendment, we could find ourselves in the ridiculous position of having proposals on which the majority of this House agrees, and with which the Government also agree, but we can only deliver bits of them through standing orders, and have to wait for primary legislation to do the rest—primary legislation that might never come. It will be fascinating to see what reasons the Government use to reject this new clause. It does nothing to undermine the thrust of the Bill. The noble Baroness the Leader introduced the idea of a Lords Select Committee to come up with recommendations. How can the Government possibly reject this simple solution to deliver into law the recommendations of the committee she has proposed? I beg to move.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Lord will not be surprised to know I do not agree with him. We discussed this before and my view, oft repeated, is that we should, wherever we can, proceed without legislation. We can do that with a number of the issues we are debating. As the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, pointed out, the minimum age at which a person can be a Peer was never legislated on—admittedly, it was a bit ago that that was introduced. We need to look at whether it might be possible to introduce a retirement age without fresh legislation. Either way, I do not want to commit to giving the House of Commons the whip hand over what we do about our own rules when we can change those rules ourselves.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, I am intrigued by my noble friend’s amendment. Yes, it would make good some of the failings of the Government, who have not honoured their 1998 pledge to bring forward their proposals for reform before they remove the hereditary Peers. Nor have they delivered on their promise in the manifesto of 2024 to bring forward proposals for reform on composition, in terms of retirement age, participation obligations and so on. It would perhaps be a good way of making good the problem we face, which is the removal of over 80 of the Peers who are most effective in scrutinising the Government and holding them to account. One cannot help but agree with those who see this Bill as vindictive for that reason, and a partisan attack on the ability of this House to fulfil its constitutional function.

However, dare I part company with my noble friend Lord Blencathra? I feel it is a very bad move to have government by committee—even a Select Committee of this House. By their very nature, committees do not have a sense of the feeling of the whole House, or indeed of the country, which is more important. For this reason, I would worry about such powers for a Select Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, in view of the hour and the mood of the House, I intend to be brief. I merely say to the noble Lord, Lord Newby, who said we should pass our own rules where we could, that I agree entirely. My amendment deals with those areas where we cannot pass our own rules.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

Surely the noble Lord’s amendment requires a statutory instrument to cover every single recommendation of the Select Committee.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

Yes, it is one way to guarantee that it happens, but if this House can bring about some of the rules we want through our own Standing Orders, so be it. The legislative power is there; it does not have to be implemented if the House has done it its own way.

It simply comes down to this: are we going to implement the recommendations of the Lords Select Committee that the noble Baroness herself has created, as we may amend them, or are going to hang around hoping we will get a government Bill in due course to do it sometime? I have said before, and I need not repeat it: I simply do not see that happening.

It was rather disingenuous of the noble Baroness to say the amendment is not technically perfect. I am talking about the general concept here of implementing what this House decides through a statutory instrument, and if the amendment is not technically correct, it is a simple—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, described the preamble as “fine words”. He will know the saying, “Fine words butter no parsnips”. Well, these words have buttered no parsnips for over a hundred years and, personally, I have had enough of fine words on their own.

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I am slightly disappointed that this is the second time this evening that the noble Lord, Lord Newby, has failed to put the case for election when he was talking about the best way to deal with limiting the size of the House and prevent it growing. The best way is to have a constituted, elected House where the people decide how the numbers in the House change. Now, again, he has failed to align himself with the long-held wish of his party to see election. At this late hour, my noble friend has elicited a notable reticence from the party opposite in pursuing its electoral objectives.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

The noble Lord seems to forget that I moved an amendment for an elected House of Lords and, unless my recollection is faulty, he chose not to support it.

[Lord True (Con)]

Well, that is true. The elements are greatly mixed in us, as Shakespeare taught us. There is that terrible duo word of “PR” that always lurks around in any proposition that comes from the noble Lord, Lord Newby.

I do not think that this is a time for reflection on the progress of this Bill. We will have a chance for that next week on “Bill do now pass”. I am pleased that, in general, the conduct of the debates has been good and important issues have been raised. I fear that a more appropriate preamble for this Bill would be something along the lines of, “Whereas it is desired to create an all-appointed House, and no proposals have yet been presented to restrict growth in the power of the Executive over such a House, it is politically expedient to exclude immediately over 80 Members of Parliament who do not support the Executive”. I think that would probably be a reasonably accurate preamble.

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for the patience and willingness to engage with the House that she has again shown in the Chamber this evening. I liked my noble friend’s impish and humble address to the House, but I think that, when the time comes, he should probably withdraw the amendment.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Lord Newby Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 9th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, we undermine respect for this House if we continue to have people who do not turn up more than once in each Session. The answer to the point from the noble Lord, Lord Gove, about previous Prime Ministers is that the rule is not absolute, because Section 2(3)(b) of the legislation being amended provides that the House may resolve that the period of attendance should not apply to the particular Peer

“by reason of special circumstances”,

so there is already a statutory provision that allows for exceptions.

My other point in answer to the noble Lord is that we have already accepted the principle. Section 2(1) requires that each Peer must attend at least once during a Session, so we have accepted that people who do not comply with the timing position must go. The only question is whether that is a realistic limit. I entirely agree with the convenor that a once-in-a-Session provision is not an appropriate rule. A much more appropriate rule is to require people to be here 10% of the time.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I strongly support the principle behind this amendment. We have debated the concept at some length and, in my view, it is essential that we now move to a position where there is a rule that means that people who play no part after a period cease to be Members of your Lordships’ House. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, talked about persuading non-attendees to retire, and I too have done that. One case is seared in my memory: I went to see a member of the Liberal Democrat group with my Chief Whip to try and explain to him that he had done absolutely nothing for a considerable number of years and it might be appropriate for him to retire. He was extremely sweet; he smiled and said, “I never thought of that. Could you give me a bit of time to think about it?”. Years later, he still had not thought about it. So I am absolutely certain that we need to move.

As for the objections of the noble Lord, Lord Gove, the people we are talking about are not the stone in the shoe; they are never in the shoe. When they are in the shoe, they are normally sand at best, because they do not do anything. The idea that we would lose voices of any consequence by saying that people had to be here rather more than they are at the moment is just wrong, I am afraid, as far as legislation is concerned. In my experience, the number of people who normally are not here and suddenly turn up to play a full part in a Bill is immeasurably small.

My only problem with the amendment, as the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, knows and as I have said before, is that this issue should be considered first by a Select Committee, for a number of reasons that have been given—10% may be the right answer, but it is worth thinking about that. The other thing that has been put to me—it will be contentious, but at least we ought to think about it—is whether the requirement applies retrospectively. Some people have said that, unless it applies retrospectively, we will get flooded with people who have never been here before. There are arguments for and against it, but we need to discuss that; we have not done so at all.

So, for those reasons, while I absolutely support the principle, if the noble Earl were to press this amendment to a Division, I do not think we would be able to support him in the Lobby.

[Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)]

My Lords, when I was appointed to your Lordships’ House, I was summoned to an interview conducted principally by the chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Jay. He said to me at the end, “There’s one thing I want to ask you: if we were to appoint you to the House of Lords, would you come and would you contribute? We look really stupid when we appoint people who then don’t bother to come—who take the title and swan off into the evening”. I said, “I tend not to take on anything unless I’m going to do it properly”.

I very much support my noble friend because, looking around your Lordships’ House, I see people who are here the whole time, who care passionately and who feel that it is an honour and a privilege. Picking up on what the noble Lord, Lord True, said on another amendment about a fair amount for a fair day’s work, I say that the reverse is true. If you do not bother to come and do not work, you do not deserve to be here. I will support my noble friend.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 21, which, as the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, said, would require that from the next Parliament all life peerages be created for a fixed term of 20 years. I looked up the debate that introduced the Life Peerages Act 1958 to see why it was decided that a new Peer should be created for life. I found that Viscount Hailsham, Viscount Stansgate and Earl Attlee participated at Second Reading on 3 December 1957—plus ça change.

It was difficult to see that the issue of why new creations should be for life was ever discussed apart from in the introductory speech by the then Leader, the Earl of Home, who said:

“We … have willingly modified the hereditary principle by the introduction of Life Peers”.—[Official Report, 3/12/1957; col. 615.]


As hereditary Peers were there for life, that principle was applied equally to life Peers so that they would be there on equal terms. Actually, there was much more of a discussion as to whether the daily allowance of three guineas would be enough to attract people of the right calibre. Now that there will, sadly, be no more hereditary Peers who are here for life, the original logic of making the rest of us here for life falls away.

The need for experience, which is a feature of your Lordships’ House, needs to be balanced by the equally important need for that experience to be up to date. Is someone who was at the top of their profession 20 years ago of more value to the House than someone at the top of their profession today? The amendment would allow the House to refresh and renew those qualities that make it different from the other place, which is why I support it.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I declare an interest in that I have been a Member of your Lordships’ House for 28 years. I am extremely grateful to my noble friend for sparing me from the noose he is gently preparing for others. I absolutely agree with him that we need to move to a position where the House is refreshed, which is why we have spent so much time talking about other ways of doing it—the central one being, of course, retirement. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, I think there is now consensus across the House that being here for life is no longer acceptable, because we no longer wish to see people who are in declining years decline in your Lordships’ House.

The question that this amendment raises is, what is the best way of achieving that refreshment? I rather agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, that for some people—I would like to think I am one of them, but other people may well disagree—being here for quite a long time can bring benefits. I completely agree that it also brings disbenefits—one’s expertise, to the extent that one ever had it, is more in the past. On the other hand, there are things about the parliamentary process and the way we do business, particularly in a curious body such as this, that you accrete over a long period. Although I am absolutely in favour of a retirement age and might even favour a younger retirement age than some other Members of your Lordships’ House, if somebody were appointed at the age of 50, I am not sure I would want them necessarily to be required to retire at 70.

My noble friend says that the advantage of passing this amendment is that it would be the burr under the saddle in case the Select Committee makes no progress and does not do all the things we will ask it to do. It is incumbent on us all to try to make sure that the committee is a success. This sort of burr will not help or hinder that process. It requires us to agree—broadly speaking, I think we have—that we want to make changes around retirement and participation and that the best way of getting there is via a Select Committee. So, although I have complete sympathy with what my noble friend is trying to achieve, I am afraid I cannot support it because I do not think it is the best way of getting to the end that he wants.

[Baroness Finn (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly as the issue of term limits was covered extensively in Committee and touched on briefly last week. I thank all noble Lords for their contributions.

There have been a number of proposals for reform of your Lordships’ House during the debates on the Bill. In common with many of those other proposals, and indeed even those being mooted for consideration by a Select Committee, the noble Viscount’s amendment would apply only to new Peers. The reason for that is the perennial problem, as my noble friend Lord Parkinson observed in Committee, that any debate on House of Lords reform very quickly descends into self-interest. I agree with that aspect of the noble Viscount’s amendment because, as we on these Benches have repeatedly stated, we fundamentally disagree with the removal of active parliamentarians from your Lordships’ House by the Executive.

Not only does the Bill remove some of the most active, knowledgeable and experienced Members of this House, it fails to respect the existing rights and expectations of our long-serving hereditary colleagues. I have, for my sins, been involved in many negotiations with trade unions and their leaders and representatives, many of whom now sit on the Benches opposite, and I have the greatest respect, and indeed admiration, for the way they fought for their members. Notably, they would always argue for grandfather rights and against the removal of any rights or privileges for existing members. I hope that those on the Liberal Democrat Benches have therefore come around to our way of thinking and that perhaps they will display the same kindness and consideration to our hereditary colleagues in future votes.

Of course, the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, may have another incentive for not making his amendment retrospective. If a 15-year term limit were introduced without the grandfather rights this House has proposed for our hereditary Peers, 59 Liberal Democrat Peers—more than 75% of their number—would have been removed from your Lordships’ House by 2029.

I will not repeat all the reasons why we disagree with this amendment, except to emphasise that we are a House of knowledge and experience; we should respect and appreciate public service. As such, we should not seek to prevent those who are actively and effectively contributing, and who wish to continue to do so, being able to serve. While I thank the noble Viscount for explaining his amendment so clearly today, I am afraid that it does not have the support of our Benches.

Black Rod

Lord Newby Excerpts

Wednesday 9th July 2025 Lords Chamber

We thank you, Sarah. It is an unbelievably hard act to follow but, at the same time, we look forward with confidence to welcoming Lieutenant General Ed Davis as our new Black Rod, sure in the knowledge that he will build on the strong and sure foundation that Sarah Clarke laid.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

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

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

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

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

[The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Lord Newby Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 2nd July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

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

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

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, had summed up the situation at the end of Committee very well when he said that there was a broad agreement across the House that we needed to act on attendance, participation and retirement. I reckoned without the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, but, having sat through those earlier debates, I suspect that he is in a relatively small minority in your Lordships’ House. If we think that we need to move on those issues, the key question is how we can do it expeditiously and with the best likelihood of getting an outcome that your Lordships’ House wishes to see. In my view, one way that will not achieve that is to expect to do it all via primary legislation, for two reasons.

First, no Government will want to put before your Lordships’ House a Bill with a raft of provisions for further relatively minor changes, because they have seen what has happened this time. I would not fancy being the Leader of the House who went to the Cabinet committee to explain why another Bill dealing with all these things was a priority for the Government. The other argument, which I have made on a number of occasions, and for which I apologise to noble Lords, is that I do not want the House of Commons deciding what constitutes proper attendance and participation by Members of your Lordships’ House.

To take up some of the proposals that we have just heard, if you were to say to MPs that 85 was to be the par for retirement, you would be more likely to get them to pass something saying that it should be 70, because 85 is so far beyond any retirement age for anything of which I am aware that it appears almost ridiculous to people outside your Lordships’ House. This is not to say that we do not have, and have not had, many Members over the age of 85 who have been extremely impressive well beyond that age, but there are reasons for a retirement age that go way beyond competence. Retirement ages are very often introduced in order to see a throughput of people, get new experience in and prevent an organisation living off its past. That is why retirement ages are very often introduced, and is one reason why we need a retirement age here.

If I am right in thinking that we should not be looking to the Government to produce a Bill covering all these things, how else do we do it? My view is that we can do quite a lot of it via our own Standing Orders. The way to get to the point where we can change the Standing Orders is, in my view, the one that the Leader of the House has proposed.

If we have a Select Committee of your Lordships’ House with strict terms of reference and strict timetables, and which produces proposals, we can implement them very quickly on our own. We should decide what we consider a proper level of participation and what, in our view, constitutes an adequate level of attendance, and we should decide and recommend what we think is a sensible retirement age.

I understand why noble Lords are rather cynical about any proposal by any Government to set up a committee to do something that has no statutory powers to implement its recommendations, but there is such a swell of opinion on this issue about the need for change and a willingness on the part of the Government to accommodate it that I believe we should grasp that proposal. We should put forward good people from our groups to serve on it and task them with coming forward with agreed proposals in the quickest possible time. That is the way we should deal with all these issues. Therefore, I believe that we should not be looking to put amendments in this Bill that deal with one or all of them.

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

I agree very much with the noble Lord, Lord Newby, who said almost everything I was about to say in the next group, but it is no less welcome for that. I just want to pick up the point about us all voting for each other. I was here in 1999, and it was a very unpleasant experience to have people constantly sidling up to you, who had never spoken to you before, and urging you to vote for them because they were such a good chap, to use a phrase. I really hope that we do not go back to that, but let us get on to the next group and we will talk more.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Lord Newby Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 2nd July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Monckton of Dallington Forest (Con)]

My Lords, I support the amendment from my noble friend Lord Parkinson. “Peer” comes from the Latin word par, which means “equal”, and in this House, wherever we sit, we are all equal. We have a shared experience; we are here with a common purpose to scrutinise legislation and serve our country. There may be Peers with whom we disagree or Peers whom we admire, but in the brief time that I have been in this House, I have understood one thing: we are all in this together. Both hereditary and lifetime appointments form a constituent part of the legislative process within the framework of the constitution of the United Kingdom. To abolish the hereditary element is an attack on our constitution, but this has already happened, so I accept reluctantly that there should be no further elections for hereditary Peers.

What I find hard to accept is the spiteful ejection of the existing hard-working hereditary Peers, who across this House bring so much energy and expertise. The unique composition of the House of Lords does not seem rational, but it really works, as Ian Dunt wrote in his book How Westminster Works … and Why It Doesn’t. He is a man of the left, and this was not what he thought he would discover when he began working on this book. But that was his conclusion: this is the one element in our system that works.

The hereditary colleagues in the last Parliament had overall a better attendance record than life Peers, and over half of them serve as members of Select Committees. I declare an interest as my father was a hereditary who was booted out in 1999. He was a retired general who brought all his military experience to the Defence Committee. One of the things I have noticed is that our hereditary colleagues have a greater humility—and perhaps, if I may put it this way, noblesse oblige—than those of us who think we have been placed here because of our wonderful achievements. I really believe that the removal of our colleagues will leave our House worse off, rather than better, and surely the principle of any reform should be improvement, not diminishment.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, will not be surprised that I do not agree with this amendment, for the reasons so pithily put by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. There are a number of points with which I could take issue, but I will pick up a couple from the speech by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson. He implied that those of us who supported the “Grocott Bills”, in their various guises, were almost being hypocritical by not voting for this today. The truth was—with all due respect to the noble Lord, Lord Grocott—that the Grocott Bills were second best. They were the best that was on offer, and we saw them as a way of making some progress while believing that what is in this Bill was preferable.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

How can the noble Lord possibly argue that it was second best when the Leader of the House has told us that, had we accepted Grocott in the last Parliament, this would not have been necessary?

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I am explaining to the House what I thought at the time, not what anybody else might think.

The noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, said that the system of by-elections should not be thought to have been eccentric. The noble Lord, Lord Grocott, was very eloquent in pointing out just how eccentric they were, particularly in respect of by-elections for the Liberal Democrats. On one notable occasion, there were seven candidates and three electors, and nobody in the Liberal Democrats knew who half the candidates were. They were truly eccentric. They brought the House into disrepute, certainly in respect of those by-elections, and they were simply not sustainable in any way.

I strongly agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, in pointing out that one consequence of this amendment would be to maintain over a considerable number of years—unless there was a great increase in the size of the House—a significant Conservative plurality over the Labour Benches. That seems me to be a bad thing, because the inevitable consequence would be that the Government would increase their numbers, and we would have a bloated House. Apparently, everybody agrees that the House is too big, yet this amendment, if agreed, would have that consequence for decades to come.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Newby]

4: After Clause 1, insert the following new Clause—
“Duty to take forward proposals for democratic mandate for House of Lords(1) It is the duty of the Secretary of State to take forward proposals to secure a democratic mandate for the House of Lords.(2) In pursuance of the duty under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must carry out the steps set out in subsections (3), (4), (5) and (6).(3) Within 12 months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must lay before each House of Parliament a consultation paper on methods for introducing directly elected members in the House of Lords.(4) After laying the consultation paper under subsection (3), the Secretary of State must seek the views on the matters covered by that paper of—(a) each party and group in the House of Lords,(b) each political party represented in the House of Commons,(c) the Scottish Government,(d) the Welsh Government,(e) the Northern Ireland Executive,(f) local authorities in the United Kingdom,(g) representative organisations for local authorities in the United Kingdom,(h) the general public, which may include citizens’ assemblies, and(j) such other persons and bodies as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.(5) Within 16 months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must lay before each House of Parliament a report on responses to the consultation.(6) Within 18 months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must lay before each House of Parliament a draft Bill containing legislative proposals on the matter mentioned in subsection (3).”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause imposes a duty on Ministers to take forward proposals to secure a democratic mandate for the House of Lords through introduction of directly elected members.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, excuse me while I find my notes; I am not used to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, being so reticent. Before I begin, following the injunction of the noble Lord, Lord True, I feel I must declare the interest that I am a life Peer.

I rise to move Amendment 4 in my name and those of my noble friend Lord Wallace, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Llanfaes, and the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. The question of whether to elect the second Chamber is one of the longest-standing unresolved issues in British politics. Amendment 32 from the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, helpfully reminds us of the wording of the preamble to the Parliament Act 1911, which says that the Lords should be elected but at a more convenient time than the present. For 124 years, no convenient time has presented itself, and we on these Benches think that at long last we should put that right.

Our amendment sets out a timetable for doing so. It would require the Government, within a year of the passage of the Bill, to publish a consultation paper on methods for introducing directly elected Members to the House of Lords. This would contain a number of options and could, for example, include the option of retaining an element of non-party Members of your Lordships’ House.

Having produced this paper, the Government should then have an intensive period of consultation involving the groups set out in proposed new subsection (4). Importantly, and having taken account of comments made in Committee, the consultees would include members of the general public, possibly involving citizens’ assemblies. I strongly favour the use of the citizen assembly mechanism on an issue such as this; ordinary citizens should have a direct say on how they are governed, and the citizens’ assembly route has proved itself very effective in a number of countries for deliberating on contentious public policy issues. At the conclusion of the consultation period, the Government would then be required in short order to produce a report on the conclusions of the consultation and to come forward with a Bill for introducing direct representation into your Lordships’ House.

This issue was debated at great length in Committee. As the arguments have not changed since then—indeed, some of them have not changed for over a century— I will not belabour them all. In short, we believe that the Lords 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 has a strong geographical imbalance in which London and the south-east are greatly overrepresented and the north, Scotland and Wales are underrepresented, and because it would almost certainly be more representative of the ethnic and party-political diversity of the country.

I will not elaborate on all these arguments, but I would like to say something about geographic representation. It is unfortunate that we do not even know the geographic breakdown of the complete membership of your Lordships’ House, but on partial evidence collected by the Library we find that, between them, London and the south-east provide 45% of our membership, compared with 32% of the population. By contrast, the north-west, with 13% of the population of the UK, provides only 4% of Peers. All other northern regions, the Midlands, Scotland and Wales lag behind. This severe imbalance is reflected in our debates. At a time when the cohesion of the country is under threat, this is clearly unsatisfactory.

In Committee, noble Lords across the House argued that the Prime Minister had too much power over appointments, and I strongly agree. I think that if people realised quite how much power the Prime Minister already has, they would be appalled. The Prime Minister decides not only how many of his own party should be in the Lords but its balance. There are no rules. Opposition parties have to play the role of Oliver, pleading with the Prime Minister for more. Sometimes they get it; more often, they do not. Either way, this sort of horse-trading over the composition of your Lordships’ House is demeaning to our democracy and should be brought to an end.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

I note what the noble Lord says about the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Brady, and the risk of first past the post in two Chambers. Although I agree with the principle of what he is arguing, why does his amendment say nothing about how the powers of the two Houses are to be resolved in the event of both being elected? Does he accept that one of the great failures of the Clegg Bill was the fact that Mr Clegg refused to have any debate at all about what the respective powers should be?

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, this is the main argument that has been used consistently by people who do not want this place elected. It is based on a false premise, which is that, if both Houses are completely or largely elected, it will lead to persistent and irresolvable conflict. If the noble Lord looks at the work that the convener has instituted, which compares second chambers around the world, he will find that there are many that are wholly or partially elected, in countries that have mature democracies, in which there is not persistent stasis because they cannot agree. There may be arguments about the relative powers of the House, but I simply do not believe that having the sorts of elections that I am talking about will lead to the complexities that many noble Lords raised and that, in many cases, are raised as a basis for opposing a principle to which they object.

[Lord Rooker (Lab)]

Does the noble Lord accept that most of those countries, which I have looked at as well, have a written constitution? We do not. That is the thing that would make it incredibly difficult to resolve disputes between the two Houses. There has to be another formula for that.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

I am not sure the noble Lord is right about that. We do not have a written constitution now, but we have conventions that enable us to deal with difference—

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt again, but this is a really important point. We have conventions. We voluntarily decide not to exercise all the powers that are given to us. Why on earth would an elected second Chamber keep to those conventions?

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, we on these Benches have argued consistently for a written constitution, which has been opposed by the rest of the political establishment. We would definitely support a written constitution, but, in the absence of a written constitution, Parliament operates in a manner based on conventions. If the rest of Parliament—the other parties—will not have a written constitution, there is no reason why a new basis of election here should lead to the tearing up of all the conventions.

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

The noble Lord would surely agree that, if we were going to have an elected second Chamber, which I strongly support, it would require legislation. In the course of the debate regarding that legislation, we would have to put in anti-deadlock procedures.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

Of course, that would be debated as part of that process; I accept that.

If I could proceed, I was saying that I believe that, under our proposals, people should be elected on a regional basis, so that they could look to the common interests of a wider area than a single constituency. They should be elected by proportional representation, so that we can avoid the dramatic swings in membership that we have seen in the Commons.

After the 2015 general election, I was mocked—very effectively, if I may say so—by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, because we did very badly in that election yet retained significant numbers here. After the last election, the Tory party finds itself in the position we found ourselves in. If we had the system that the noble Lord, Lord Brady, is proposing, a future Conservative Party in the House of Lords could be decimated in the way it has been in the Commons. What I am proposing here is a more balanced system that means that these wild swings, which you see through first past the post, do not persist. That would bring an element of stability to Parliament that would be extremely sensible.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

I wonder whether the noble Lord would stand for election under this system. I am thinking about how it would operate: I knock on someone’s door and they say, “I’m worried about the health service”, “I’m worried about housing”, or whatever, and I say, “Actually, that’s for the House of Commons, but I’m very good at revising legislation”. There might be a reaction on the doorstep that is even more hostile than we are used to—certainly those of us who were in the House of Commons. How does the noble Lord expect the voters to take us seriously if we are not able to say that we will absolutely fight for whatever it is? This division of powers will mean that we are second-order operators. I suspect that the noble Lord’s answer is that he would not stand for election, and that is probably true of most of the Members of this House. So what we will get is a whole load of party-list B-team people.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Newby (LD)]

If we had succeeded with the Clegg Bill and I had been summarily evicted from your Lordships’ House, nothing would have given me greater pleasure than to knock on doors across Europe—

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Lord Newby (LD)]

Doors across Yorkshire—and Europe; I am quite ambitious, really. Nothing would have given me more pleasure than to knock on doors across Europe—

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Lord Newby (LD)]

Across Yorkshire, and to say to people, “I am standing for election here to fight for the things that I believe in on the economy, the health service and so on; and I am doing so because I think there should be a group of people who represent the whole of my region, not just a small proportion of it”. I believe—indeed, I know—that there is a raft of issues being dealt with at the moment at a regional rather than constituency level, for which there is no accountability. I would have been extremely confident in standing and making that argument anywhere in Yorkshire. I am only sorry that the delay in getting a democratic basis for the House of Lords means that I will be far too old to exercise that opportunity if and when it comes.

I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Brady, that I have not been able to do it in a coherent manner because of the interruptions, but I was attempting to say that his suggestion of holding elections metronomically, two years after the Commons, would not work. We could have in future, as we have seen in the past decade, periods of instability or situations such as we found ourselves in in 1964 and 1974 when the Government had a slim majority and called a second election soon after the first. In these circumstances, having a second Chamber that is elected independently from events in the Commons would give a degree of stability, rather than adding to the level of instability. The noble Lord, Lord Brady, is right to want this Chamber to be elected but wrong in his recipe for how to do it. Our amendment sets out a clear process to consult and then decide upon a method of electing the House of Lords, and I commend it to the House.

[Lord Brady of Altrincham (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Newby, is right to want to see an elected upper House but completely wrong in the way that he wants to see it enacted. However, the reason I want to speak briefly to my Amendment 22 and, I think, also to support his Amendment 4 is that the principle is correct that we should have an elected House. The kind of process that he suggests in Amendment 4 would be valuable and important, but it is also important to make it clear that there is a very wide divergence of views, both about the appropriate powers of the two Houses and indeed the way in which they should be elected and put together. I favour geographical constituencies—not as big as the whole of Europe, which he appeared to want to represent—but that is obviously very different from party list systems and the PR system of election that the Liberal Democrats want to see.

I am delighted to speak here with my noble friend Lord Hailsham sitting in front of me because one of the great authorities on this issue who is always cited is of course his ancestor—his father—who famously talked about an “elective dictatorship”. My concern, having spent 27 years as a Member of the House of Commons, is precisely grounded in that worry that a Government with a significant majority in the House of Commons—unless it has completely lost control—can get its legislation through with almost no impediment. It is also free to ignore amendments sent from this House, precisely because we do not have the legitimacy that an elected House would have.

I discussed this a little while ago with the great constitutionalist, Professor Sir Vernon Bogdanor. He said to me, “I completely disagree with you. It would be quite wrong to have an elected upper House”. But his next comment made, for me, the argument as eloquently as anybody could for an elected upper House. He said, “I’ve written many times that what we have achieved in Britain is the perfect unicameral Parliament, just with two Chambers”. I am afraid that, all too often, that is how our Parliament operates. For this House to have effect, we depend entirely on a Government with a large majority in the House of Commons deciding whether they will accept or take an interest in amendments and improvements that come from the often excellent revising work done by the House of Lords.

I do not want to detain the House for long, but I do think that, in principle, it is right to move to an elected House. I completely disagree with the prescription from the noble Lord, Lord Newby, for how to go about it—and I am greatly reassured to find that he disagrees so profoundly with me. This is a debate that has been going on for over a century, as he said. It will continue, but it is important that we engage with it in the spirit of accepting that it is not a given that the House of Commons operates so well as a democratic assembly that it automatically deserves unquestioned precedence. My time in the House of Commons tells me that it works very poorly in most ways. Its principal function is to select a Government and, most of the time, it then then lets the Government get on with pretty much what they want to do. More challenge in our Parliament, which comes with democracy, is the way forward.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)]

My Lords, this has been a genuinely interesting debate, and I thank the noble Lords, Lord Newby and Lord Brady, for tabling their amendments. First, I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Newby, that I am one of the minority: a West Midlands-based Peer.

My noble friend Lord Winston as always makes a pertinent and interesting point with regard to experts. He is someone I regularly reference when I talk about our House of experts. I usually say that I doubt he, like many of us, would ever have put his name forward for an election—but we are lucky to have him.

Amendments 4 and 30, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Newby, are similar to his Amendments 11 and 115 in Committee. They seek to place a duty on Ministers to take forward proposals to introduce a democratically elected element to the House of Lords. In bringing forward proposals, the Government would be required to consult with a number of groups—I am glad the noble Lord remembered to add the public to his list this time around.

Amendment 22, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Brady of Altrincham, is similar to his Amendment 90D in Committee. The amendment seeks to place a duty on the Government to produce a Bill which makes provisions to limit the size of the House and provide that all its Members be elected.

We had a spirited debate on similar amendments on the second day in Committee, when your Lordships made a number of insightful and intriguing points about the fundamental nature of this House and its place in our constitution. That debate and this one underscored the importance of considering the potential benefits of reform, alongside the implications for the balance of power within Parliament. Like then, I note that the debate today has demonstrated that the House has yet to settle on a particular side of this issue. This remains a fundamental issue with all the amendments.

Put simply, amendments of this kind are not for this focused Bill. This legislation is the first step in reforming the House. As stated at the beginning of Report, once the Bill receives Royal Assent, the Leader of the House will set out in more detail how we plan to approach the next stage of our reforms.

The longer-term aim is that the Government will consult on proposals for more fundamental reform through the establishment of an alternative second Chamber that is more representative of the nations and regions of the United Kingdom. There will be an opportunity for the public to provide their views on how to ensure that this alternative Chamber best serves them. Amendment 22 in particular cuts across this aspect of the Government’s manifesto commitment as it does not make any provision for consultation with the public.

It is clear that there is an appetite for reform and that there are ongoing conversations that we will need to have, but it is also clear that we are not yet ready to have a settled position within your Lordships’ House. With that in mind, I respectfully ask that the noble Lord, Lord Newby, withdraws his amendment.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I am extremely grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. It is normally the case that at this point, one says that it has been an extremely interesting debate. Despite us having debated this many times, it has been a very interesting debate because it has illuminated the central issue that a democratically elected Lords would raise. Are we to be a mere adjunct of the Commons—and, at the end of the day, a totally powerless one—or not, and are we to be part of a more effective parliamentary system in which the Government are challenged effectively?

The truth is that under the current system, the Government are challenged effectively in the Commons only when they have a rebellion in their own ranks. The Opposition cannot challenge them because, at the end of the day, they always win. We cannot challenge them, because at the end of all the ping-pong, we have no legitimacy to stand firm. I do not think anybody who has followed recent decades of British parliamentary activity would claim that the Government have been challenged effectively and that nonsenses have been called out effectively by Parliament, so I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Brady, and the noble Viscounts, Lord Hailsham and Lord Thurso, for making that point.

Obviously, as noble Lords have pointed out, there will be tensions between two elected Houses, but I believe that—as in many other countries which have this—it is possible to resolve them. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, said he opposed having the House of Lords elected under PR because it would give us more legitimacy in some senses than the Commons elected under first past the post. Of course, there is a very easy answer to that, which is to elect the House of Commons by PR as well. That would clearly be a great advantage.

The Government’s approach is an Augustinian one of “We want to reform, but not yet”. We ought to be putting a bit of pressure on them, nudging them towards the goal which they claim to espouse. Therefore, I wish to test the opinion of the House.

G7 and NATO Summits

Lord Newby Excerpts

Tuesday 1st July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I sincerely apologise for the discourtesy to the House. I had not realised that the Statement was not going to be read, so I thought I had better get to my place in case the Deputy Speaker had to adjourn the House during pleasure.

Apart from seeing the Leader of the Opposition arriving late, it can be illuminating when a Statement repeat is delayed—I had better go on because the Clock has started—because the Prime Minister’s Statement began with grand claims about fixing social security. We all know what has happened since. Can the noble Baroness the Leader tell the House where the savings lost in this fix of social security since the Statement will come from? I think we all know that it will be tax and tax and tax again on the owners and savers of Britain: on home owners, farmers and small businesses and on the dividends that pay our pensions. As we heard this week, there may be potentially more controls on ISAs, the nest eggs people put aside from their hard-earned income. Gordon Brown invented the cash ISA; now Rachel Reeves is after it.

The Statement also boasts that Britain has a foreign policy for working people. Sadly, thanks to the Chagos deal, it is the working people of Mauritius who are quids in, not the working people of Britain, whose real disposable income is down 1% this year and who will have to stump up £30 billion in taxes to use what they already own. Amazingly, Diego Garcia was not even mentioned in a big Statement on defence.

The Statement was full of rhetoric on more than the botched welfare reform, but the central truth laid bare in the last two weeks is that the Government are all at sea abroad and are increasingly sidelined on the world stage. On 17 June, after sitting next to President Trump at the G7 dinner, the Prime Minister declared:

“There is nothing the president said that suggests he’s about to get involved in this conflict”.


The Foreign Secretary dashed to Washington, then to Geneva, and the call to the US was for restraint. Then, five days later, President Trump struck Iran’s nuclear sites.

The British Government’s response was not to congratulate the US on executing this brilliant action. Instead, they rushed out a statement to say that Britain was not involved, and that the £30 billion giveaway base of Diego Garcia was not used. That did not sound like leadership to me; it was not even followership. I wonder if the Government ever gave President Trump a copy of the reported advice from the Attorney-General saying an attack on Iran would be illegal. If they did, I am not sure that the President would pin that up in the Oval Office to replace the bust of Winston Churchill—out with Churchill’s inspiration and in with the Attorney-General’s injunction.

It is surely indicative that, in this lengthy Statement, the Prime Minister did not once mention those US strikes that resounded around the world this last week. The only mention of President Trump was a reference to the US-UK trade deal signed on what looked like a conspicuously windy day in Canada. That is a deal we welcome as a first step—it was only made possible, actually, by Brexit—but it still leaves our car makers, as the Prime Minster admitted, facing a 10% tariff on exports. Can the noble Baroness say anything about how the Government now intend to build on that trade deal with the US, which I hope was discussed at the G7?

The Statement spoke about stepping up, but where were we as recent major geopolitical events were unfolding? When Israel acted in its self-defence, Britain was out of the loop. Perhaps that is unsurprising when the Government had lately sanctioned two members of the Israeli Cabinet.

The Government have seemed equivocal at times, but I do thank the Prime Minister for his action against antisemitism and I associate this side with the Government’s strong condemnation of the BBC for its shameful broadcast of calls for the killing of Israeli soldiers. The Government were absolutely right there.

The Statement says the UK is using “every diplomatic lever” to keep Britain and the Middle East safe. We support the Government on that and we all pray for a just and lasting peace. But where are those levers and what are they? What progress are we making in addressing the humanitarian situation in Gaza and in ousting Hamas? Those issues rightly concern noble Lords across the House. Will we follow President Trump in easing sanctions on Syria? What of Iran? We agree that Iran should not have a nuclear weapon, but have we had recent discussions with the Iranian regime?

We welcome the Prime Minister’s commitment to more defence spending and to the British nuclear deterrent. We welcome the decision to buy 12 F35A aircraft with new capabilities. But can the Minister confirm what was said in the apparent exchanges on this earlier: that this will in fact cut the defence budget rather than increase it, because these are less expensive planes than the F35? The Minister is indicating that that is incorrect, so I withdraw that question. I misunderstood and will look carefully at Hansard.

We continue to back the Prime Minister’s strong commitment on Ukraine, which is rightly underlined in the Statement. But can the Minister explain why NATO’s communiqué was weak on condemnation of Russia?

On defence, can she tell us what the commitment at NATO to spend 5% of GDP on national security actually means? The only solid commitment is to spend 2.6% on defence by 2027. The 4.1% target is based on adding a new 1.5% spending goal for resilience and security to the already stated 2.6% target. What does that mean? The Italian Government have said that might include a bridge. The Prime Minister spoke of “energy networks”, so could it include spending on pylons to enable green energy? Will the spending on the Chagos deal count towards the percentage?

Finally, will the Minister tell us when the Statement promised to the House last night that stirred the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, to pull the plug on his pledges to the Chagos Islanders will be made?

The Prime Minister has done very much that we support in foreign affairs and defence and we will continue to support that. But, over the last two weeks, we have looked unsure and a little behind the game.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, the Statement improbably begins by discussing the Government’s woes on social security, which of course have absolutely nothing to do with its real subject matter. We welcome the Government’s U-turn there, but I do not think that this Statement is the context in which to discuss them, not least because they have been coming so thick and fast that I am afraid I cannot keep up.

There is a wide measure of agreement that the UK faces greater and more diverse security threats than it has for decades and that we are all greatly indebted to our Armed Forces and other government agencies that are working so hard and effectively to combat them. The headline outcome of the NATO summit was the commitment to spend 5% on national security. In the Statement, this is referred to as a “defence investment pledge”, but it clearly includes expenditure on many non-defence items.

In the national security strategy, the definition of “national security” includes

“the health of our economy … food prices … supply chains … safety on the streets”

and the online world. This definition seems so wide as to be virtually meaningless. Can the Minister explain what is within the definition? The Prime Minister says that we will reach 4.1% spending on it in 2027, so he must know how he reached that figure. Will the Government therefore give a breakdown of the 4.1% and then explain how they intend to get to the 5% by 2035?

One obvious item to include in the definition of expenditure that promotes national security is overseas development assistance, particularly in areas such as conflict prevention. To what extent is ODA included in the new definition of “national security” and do the Government have any plans to increase it as they increase all other aspects of security expenditure?

The Statement goes on to say that UK foreign policy

“answers directly to the concerns of working people”.

What specific concerns of working people are meant by that phrase? To what extent are working people affected by foreign policy in different ways from the rest of the population?

One of the biggest challenges ahead is not just to increase expenditure on national security but to ensure that the money is spent as effectively as possible. In that context, can the Minister explain why we are prioritising the purchase of 12 F35A jets capable of carrying nuclear weapons? These planes are extraordinarily expensive, even if they are not quite as expensive as the F35Bs, and for decades we have not judged it necessary to have this capability. As the noble Lord, Lord West, said at Questions earlier today, this change presumably means that we need at the very least to update our nuclear doctrine. Do the Government plan to do so? Will they publish any new doctrine when it has been adopted?

On Ukraine, we welcome the commitment to repeat last year’s commitment on expenditure and also the funding of additional air defence missiles from frozen Russian assets. Can the Minister confirm that this funding has come from the interest on those assets and that no progress has been made on freeing up the capital, which could be transformative to Ukraine’s success?

In the Commons, the Prime Minister said it was very difficult to access the capital because not all countries were in agreement on how to proceed. Estonia has proposed a way forward on this. Will the Minister commit to looking at Estonia’s proposals as a matter of urgency?

The Statement rightly stresses the need to build up the Armed Forces. So does the Minister accept that there is still a crisis of recruitment, particularly to the Army? Will the Government therefore look sympathetically at the Lib Dem proposal to pay a £10,000 signing-on bonus for new recruits as a way of rapidly boosting recruitment?

On Iran, we welcome the current ceasefire, but it needs to be made permanent. The Foreign Secretary recently met the Iranian Foreign Minister, along with EU counterparts, to promote a ceasefire. Do HMG foresee any future role for the UK in securing a longer- term solution?

Finally, on Gaza, we agree on the need for a quick ceasefire, but there is absolutely no sign of this. In the meantime, deaths and starvation continue. Our ability to affect events in Gaza is limited, but we could at the very least recognise the state of Palestine, which is a necessary precursor to a two-state solution. The Prime Minister says that the Government are waiting for the “right time” to do this. The fear is that in the Government’s view there will never be a right time. We should act now.

[The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Smith of Basildon) (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for their comments. I thought the noble Lord, Lord True, although he made an elegant entrance, enjoyed himself too much at my party’s expense. The focus of today, and what people are looking for in the Statement, was about the G7 and NATO.

I do not think we have seen such a complex and difficult international situation in the lifetime of most of us here. It is not an easy time. Across the world we have existing conflicts, new conflicts, and they seem to escalate quickly and change with new eruptions quickly. What we can do nationally and internationally to help bring peace trumps any other issue we may want to discuss, so I will focus on those issues.

I have to say that the noble Lord was uncharacteristically churlish about the role that the Prime Minister has played on the international stage. I can recall very early on in the days of this Government facing criticism from the party opposite about the Prime Minister going to international conferences, building relations with leaders of other countries, and I said at the time—and it still holds true and has proved to be true—that it is only by building up good relationships that you can have the difficult discussions when they are needed. My party and I are proud of the role that our Prime Minister is playing on the international stage, and I can remember when we have been less proud of a Prime Minister’s or Foreign Secretary’s role on the international stage. So, I make no apologies for the role he is playing. We are grateful to him for doing so.

The issue of the transformative and generational increase in defence spending by the NATO summit was really important. Five percent is greater than it has been for many years. I am surprised that the noble Lord, Lord True, was querying the new 1.5% target. The noble Lord, Lord Newby, raised this as well. It is almost impossible to divorce national security from resilience. They are both about our security, and our safety in this country is dependent on both. The idea that we could spend national resilience money on pylons for green energy is a frankly ridiculous point for the noble Lord to make. But we must ensure that we have supplies of energy throughout the country for business, domestic and military use.

We have seen what has happened in other countries when there has been a failure of supply of energy. It is vital that we maintain that. To try to make a political point about green energy and the environment is not what this is about. I hope the noble Lord will understand how important a role the issues of supply chains and energy play in national security and resilience. If he does not understand that, we can find more information for him that he might find it useful to look at.

The noble Lord asked specifically about finance. We went through this last week. We will have fully funded plans to increase defence spending in this Parliament from 2.6% from April 2027 to at least 4.1% of GDP on collective defence and security by 2027. That target, I said before, is 3.5% on core spending and 1.5% on security.

I also make no apology for the Chagos deal. I have said this before: the idea that a country would spend a lot of money—and it is a lot of money—if it did not consider it vital and essential to national security is, quite frankly, a ludicrous argument to make. It is because it is so essential that the Government have been prepared to spend the money. We should recognise that and recognise the importance of it. When noble Lords talk about the cost of living, I will take no lessons from a party that gave us the Liz Truss Budget, which did so much damage to the people in this country and to the cost of living. The noble Lord can mutter away, but it really affected the economy of this country, with working people up and down the country seeing their bills and their mortgages rising dramatically.

The noble Lord also asked about the trade deal with the US. Yes, the tariffs were of enormous concern. The fact that we have managed to get them down to the levels they are is something that has been achieved by negotiation and would not have happened otherwise. The noble Lord also made a rather strange point about the F35A. He may have only heard some of the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker. Yes, they are less expensive than the F35Bs. That means that the money is available for other defence spending. He made that point earlier today. The fact they are cheaper is an asset rather than something to complain about.

I thank the noble Lord, however, for his comments about the Government’s comments on the BBC. Those who watched Glastonbury were quite shocked at the comments that were made by one particular group. The BBC does have questions to answer on why it did not act more quickly. Lessons should be learned from that.

I am just trying to read my handwriting, which can sometimes be difficult. The noble Lord, Lord Newby, asked about the crisis in recruitment to the Army. It has been a serious issue. I can remember days when you would go down the high street and there would be an Army recruitment shop. In our schools and colleges there were people looking to recruit to the Armed Forces, and a number of my friends joined up. We have not picked the noble Lord’s suggestion of a golden handshake, as it were, but I am assured by my noble friend Lord Coaker that they are working at pace on this issue. They recognise that something has be done to make up the numbers that fell to such a dangerous level under the last Government.

I think I have addressed most of the questions. If I have missed anything, I am sure we will come back to it. These summits are just so important for countries working together. It is clear that, for some of the most dangerous places in the world—places of conflict—the only way forward will be negotiated arrangements and settlements, and working towards peace at pace.

UK-EU Summit

Lord Newby Excerpts

Wednesday 21st May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement. I say at the outset that we share her concern about the humanitarian situation in Gaza, and I think everyone in this House would wish for a peaceful and swift resolution.

I have been around long enough to know that when a Prime Minister, of any party, tells you a deal is a triumph, you need to look pretty fast at the small print. In this latest case we do not yet have most of that, which is actually quite a problem, but the basics are clear: EU control of our food standards restored; Britain as a rule-taker, not a rule-maker; the ECJ back; dynamic alignment back; and, frankly, our fishermen sold all the way to the Dogger Bank in a December gale. All this for a packet of sausages that the French do not actually want. The promise is that we might—potentially, where appropriate, is what the communiqué actually says—be able to go on a summer holiday through passport e-gates. That is something the UK has continued to give EU citizens ever since Brexit. Why did they have to give up so much to get something that we in this country, who have real good will to our European friends, have given to EU citizens for decades?

I have defended some dud deals at that Dispatch Box in my time, and some good ones. You get to sniff them out—and this one is a dud. It reminds me of some other negotiations with the EU in the past: surrender all the key principles first, then try to negotiate the details later when your leverage is gone. So, having been told in the Labour manifesto that there will be no freedom of movement, the Government have a proposed scheme that could see tens of thousands of working-age migrants come to Britain, potentially with the ability to settle and bring dependants. Can the noble Baroness confirm whether reports that the scheme may be capped at 100,000 people are correct, and will she say what upper age limit the UK is seeking for the scheme?

The deal has again made Britain a rule-taker, leaving our farmers subject to rules made in Paris and enforced in Brussels, while they have no voice at the table. What assessment have Ministers made of the impact of EU regulations and dynamic alignment on the viability of family farms in this country?

Do the Government understand that autonomy on food standards is vital to the prospects of our being leaders in precision breeding, for which we only recently legislated? From being world leaders in this industry of the future, we will be tied to move at the pace acceptable to the most resistant bureaucrat in Brussels.

We have also agreed to send new money to the EU for the right to sell to our neighbours defence equipment they desperately need, though it is still unclear what we will get for it and what we will have to give. It is disappointing that, in the face of the greatest challenge to European security for generations, we are haggling on the price of co-operation with would-be allies.

Perhaps the worst case is that of our fishermen. Personally, I was unhappy in 2019 when we delayed for five years full control of our waters, but our fisher folk had reason to expect that things would then improve, and so they did. Replying to a Question from my noble friend Lord Roborough just seven weeks ago, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, told the House that

“after the end of the fisheries adjustment period set out in the trade and co-operation agreement, European Union access to UK waters … becomes a matter for annual renegotiation”.—[Official Report, 31/3/25; col. 8.]

We agreed with the noble Baroness when she said she would work tirelessly to achieve that. However, along with our fishing fleet, she was torpedoed by a late-night call from President Macron. From working for annual agreements—something given to the Faroe Islands but not, it seems, to Scotland—the Prime Minister turned tail on a sixpence and ordered a 12-year surrender of our fishing rights.

There is something of a pattern. The US deal was good start with the US, and I welcome the Prime Minister’s achievement there. President Trump said that after the deal was done, he picked up the phone to the Prime Minister and boasted, “We got a billion dollars more for the US”. One late night call and they cave in. I beg the noble Baroness: when a deal is being discussed, please get the Prime Minister to bed early. Heaven knows what time the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General woke him up to sell him the ludicrous Chagos deal.

Will the noble Baroness set out what control the UK will have over quota-setting and marine protected areas in our territorial and EEZ waters? Will she explain why some of the poorest communities in our country should pay for 12 years the price for the Government declaring a triumph over well-chilled wine at a summit? On energy, just when it seemed some common sense was breaking out at the extremes of net-zero policy, we have entered the EU emissions scheme and cast away energy autonomy. If we want to be a leader in the vital industry of AI, we need large quantities of cheap, reliable, home-grown energy delivered by a UK Government. How will this help?

The Labour manifesto said on Europe that it would not reopen

“the divisions of the past”,

yet instead of looking to the future of a free, fast-developing, independent economy, it has reset us to a misremembered, hyper-regulated past where in some of the key industries of the future Britain must again move at the rate of the slowest in the slowest growing economic bloc in the world. This is a bad deal and, as my right honourable friend the leader of the Opposition has said, it should be ripped up, or perhaps used to wrap up some of our dwindling supplies of fish and chips.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for repeating yesterday’s Statement. I begin by associating these Benches with the sentiments expressed in the Statement on Gaza. Recent Israeli action is indeed horrific and requires a response. Yesterday’s actions by the Foreign Secretary are welcome, but the most obvious way in which we can demonstrate our further support for the Palestinian people is to support their demand for statehood. Can the noble Baroness confirm whether this option is under active consideration by the Government?

On Europe, the joint statement issued by the UK and EU begins by pointing out that this was the first UK-EU summit since Brexit, and this is the context against which the outcome should be judged. It was, of course, a real dereliction of duty for the previous Government to turn their back so comprehensively on our largest and closest partner. A reset in our relations is long overdue in the national interest.

Perhaps the biggest achievement of the summit was that it represented a milestone in rebuilding trust between the UK and the EU. For too long, too many in British politics have poured scorn on the EU while placing their hopes on replacing ties with Europe with countries which are now run by unreliable allies. The EU has noticed this and has been understandably wary about treating with the UK as a result. Against this background, the specific outcomes of the summit are to be welcomed, whether on freer trade in food products, energy, security, defence, or youth mobility, and I am sure pet owners will also be cheering to the rafters the return of the pet passport.

It will surprise no one, however, that we on these Benches see these agreements as but small, tentative first steps towards restoring a much deeper, more productive relationship with the EU. The progress on veterinary and plant health requirements is particularly welcome as it will lead to immediate benefits to the food and agriculture sectors; and, as the Statement made clear, it has even been welcomed by the Scottish salmon industry. The return of frictionless trade in these areas is one of the main reasons why yesterday’s deal will add 0.2% to GDP.

However, for firms in every other productive sector seeking to export to the EU, the deal does nothing to make that easier. Before yesterday’s deal we were set to lost 4% of GDP as a result of Brexit. Now we are set to lose 3.8%. This shows how much more there is to do and why movement towards rejoining the customs union and single market is still urgently required.

The commitment to a youth mobility scheme and reassociation with Erasmus+ I welcome, but it is vague as to timing and detailed content. Can the Minister say what the Government’s aspirations are for concluding these new arrangements so that students and young people more generally can benefit?

The agreements on travelling artists, short-term business mobility and mutual recognition of professional qualifications are also welcome but are even vaguer. Given that agreement in these areas would be a clear win-win for both sides, it is surprising and disappointing that more progress has not been achieved. Can the Government say what they envisage happening next to bring about these much-needed easements?

The new UK-EU security and defence partnership is also welcome. At the heart of this is the €150 billion defence equipment procurement fund. The UK will now negotiate to become a participant in this programme. This could significantly benefit the UK defence industry, but there are no details. When can we expect some? In defence and security, and in the other areas covered by yesterday’s agreements, new institutional ties with the EU will give the UK, for the first time in almost a decade, a formal route to influence EU thinking. This is no small gain.

Taken together, yesterday’s agreements, far from representing a surrender of British interests, are an overdue reassertion of them. This view is shared by the British public, who now decisively support closer ties with the EU. The Government now need to build on the progress they made yesterday. That will make the UK more prosperous, more influential and more secure. The sooner and more decisively they do it, the better.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for their contributions on the situation in Gaza. It is dire; it gets worse by the day. Some will have heard Tom Fletcher from the United Nations on the radio yesterday speaking about his fear of the number of babies who could die in the next 48 hours if aid does not get in quick enough. I understand that a very limited amount of aid went in yesterday. There are lorries at the border now waiting to take more aid in. There are containers available, and discussions are ongoing to get that aid in. My noble friend Lord Collins will be repeating the Statement in the House tomorrow so there will be the opportunity to ask further questions on that.

I felt that this debate ran true to form. On the Conservative Benches the feeling was, “You’ve gone too far, it’s terrible”. On the Liberal Democrat Benches it was, “You haven’t gone far enough”. I feel that we have pitched ourselves in the right place. It was an uncharitable and, unfortunately, predictable response from the noble Lord, Lord True. He had questions and criticisms on e-passport use and asked why the deal was so bad last time. He should ask his own party that because the deal was done by his Government.

I will go through some of the issues raised. The noble Lord, Lord True, asked about the emissions trading system. It is a ridiculous situation that British businesses—a trade worth, I think, £7 billion—are at risk of paying what is, in effect, a levy to the EU. That has gone. That has to be in the interests of energy prices and British industry. That money was going straight from UK exporters into the EU budget. There is a better way of doing this. This streamlines the regulatory barriers. CO₂ storage is a growth industry in the UK, with enormous potential for investment and jobs. Linking the ETS removes the disincentives for EU emitters to store CO₂ in the UK. That makes our industry far more competitive. That is an important point.

On the SPS agreement, I was surprised that the noble Lord, Lord True, was not supportive of it, and I am grateful for the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Newby. It is a huge improvement, and it will have a huge impact on Northern Ireland. The original Brexit deal tried to find a fudge to make this work, with the Windsor Framework. It was a terrible situation where we even had problems exporting between GB and Northern Ireland.

I do not know whether other noble Lords do, but I remember Boris Johnson talking to a group of businesspeople, when he said, “If there are any forms to be filled in, you come and see me; you send them to me”. I suggest that, if they had, he might have disappeared under the pile of forms sent to him. We were speaking to a businessperson the other night who said that, for one consignment, his company filled in 2,000 forms. That is damaging to our industry, and it is damaging to our exports. While those forms were being checked and more forms had to be filled in, produce was rotting at the borders. I know that Members across the House have found this to be an issue in their own businesses. It is absolutely right that we have taken action to deal with that.

The noble Lord, Lord True, questioned how long the deal on e-passports is going to take, and suggested that it is not going to happen. Negotiations with EU member countries are starting immediately to make sure that it does happen to protect and support those in the UK who are travelling. Anyone who has been on their way back from a holiday or business travel, joined a very long queue, and seen others with EU passports wandering through and British citizens not being able to, will be pleased to see that as well.

These are very important agreements. If it helps the noble Lord, in 2024, £14.1 billion of UK agri-food exports went to EU countries. That has a huge impact on British businesses. The noble Lord also went on about dynamic alignment. It might be helpful if I said something about divergence and dynamic alignment, and the rule-taking issue. Research undertaken this May by UK in a Changing Europe showed that the UK has done very little to diverge from EU regulations. That means that British businesses have been sticking to those rules, because it is in their interest since they are still exporting, but the barriers and difficulties they have faced in exporting have had a huge impact on their businesses. The lived reality is that we have had very little benefit from that, which is why this deal has been welcomed by so many businesses. In our trade deal with the United States, we made it clear that we were not prepared to accept, for example, chlorinated chicken, because it would have a detrimental effect on our farmers, who have invested in higher welfare standards. There are always issues that come along on that point.

I probably do not have time to respond to all the questions, but I want particularly to come back to fishing. On the point that the noble Lord, Lord True, raised about the European Court, we will have a role in shaping new rules. No rules will apply in the UK unless they go to Parliament and get its agreement, and any disputes will be resolved through international arbitration and agreement. Where the CJEU has a role is with regards to the interpretation of EU law.

Briefly on fishing, the fishing industry exports 72% of its produce to the EU. It will benefit hugely from the SPS agreement, which will make a difference. Our shellfish people have not been able to export anything. Saying that we can now export shellfish will have a huge impact and be beneficial to those farmers in Scotland, Devon and other parts of the country who produce shellfish, as well to our salmon farmers. On the year-on-year agreement, there was obviously a wish to get a better deal, but it was highly unlikely because we had not reset the relationship. The 12-year agreement provides some certainty, and alongside it is a £350 million investment for coastal areas and the fishing industry to help them invest in technology and grow their businesses.

I think this is an excellent deal. It deals with defence, security and the things that matter to the British people. It takes us a step forward, and away from the argument of Brexit or no Brexit. On the question from noble Lord, Lord Newby, about why we do not further, there will be annual summits to look at these issues; he mentioned some of them. On the customs union, if we were in that union, we would not have achieved the deals with India and the US. People said we could not do it; they said, “You will never get a deal with the EU and the US”. We have done it.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Lord Newby Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 1st April 2025 Lords Chamber

So the offer made by the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton of Epsom, is something the Government should look at very seriously, given the customs, traditions and broad amity which have tended to be the basis on which your Lordships’ House has operated in the past and which we would not wish to see lost. At the end of the six months, the Bill would come into operation, even if there was no agreement, but it would give a chance for a consensus to be found. The Front Bench is not placing as much value on the opportunity for consensus as many other noble Lords in the House believe it merits.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I disagree with all these amendments because I believe they are based on a misconception that the change we are discussing is a fundamental change. It is not; it is a tidying-up measure. It does not affect the powers of the Lords or our relationship with the Commons, far less our relationship with the regions and nations of the United Kingdom. The amendments which say we need to institute a new process to evaluate the impact on all these broader things is totally pointless, because it will have virtually zero influence on all those things.

There are two areas of further change which we have spent lots of time debating which have nothing to do directly with the Bill. One has to do with how the current House of Lords improves the way it operates, whether that is by having a retirement age, participation levels or all the other things that we have spent a lot of time discussing that the Government have in their manifesto. We can possibly discuss how to achieve it in the next group.

The second question, which is certainly beyond the purview of this Bill, has to do with whether you have long-term democratic reform. Clearly, from these Benches we think we should. Clearly, the House of Commons in the coalition Government thought by a massive majority that we should. That is not a revolutionary change which has not been discussed and where MPs have not thought about the issues which concern the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, so much. They were discussed and a conclusion was reached—but whether the Bill proceeded had everything to do with politics and nothing to do with the principle behind it.

So these amendments would get us nowhere. As for a constitutional conference, as the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, has said, in the past they have reached no conclusion, because you do not reach a total consensus on this. If anybody thinks that, frankly, they have not been listening at all, and anybody who hears the words “constitutional royal commission” thinks “years of delay”—and whatever we need, we do not need that.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, I must disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Newby. If there is a misconception here, it is about the continuing presence of our hereditary colleagues in your Lordships’ House. They were not kept here by some form of transition, as the Deputy Leader of the House put it in an earlier debate; they were kept here because, in the debates at the end of the last century, nobody could answer the fundamentally important question of what this House is for, how it ought to be constituted and whether there was a better route to come here than the route by which we have all come, in our different ways. We were kept here as surety to ensure that the reform process that the then Labour Government embarked on would continue. They had a further decade in power after 1999 and brought forward no further measures, which is why so many of us on this side are sceptical about the speed with which they will bring forward the further reforms that they proposed in their most recent manifesto. So this is a very important group of amendments because, as Amendment 95 puts it, it is about the impact of this Bill on the effectiveness of the House of Lords.

The Government, like the noble Lord, Lord Newby, have cast this Bill very narrowly and argued that this is a tightly focused Bill. In some ways it is too narrowly cast and too tightly focused. It ducks the questions of what this House is for and the questions that flow from it about how it should best be composed. But, although narrow, the Bill will have serious and sweeping impacts on this House of Parliament. As my noble friends Lord Hamilton of Epsom and Lord Swire put it, this Bill puts the cart before the horse. It avoids those questions and seeks to enact a very important change based on a misunderstanding of the position from the late 1990s.

Throughout this Committee, we have heard concerns raised from all corners of your Lordships’ House that this Bill will leave us a less effective legislative Chamber. Ministers have disagreed with the concerns that have been raised. Well, here is their chance to prove it. If those of us who have expressed our concerns are wrong, these reviews will be the opportunity to prove us wrong.

I believe that the fears we have heard in this Committee are well-founded. Our hereditary colleagues attend your Lordships’ House more frequently than life Peers. They play a more active role, not just in the Division Lobbies and in the Chamber but in our committees, on the Woolsack and in convening the Cross Benches. As my noble friend Lord Shinkwin put it in our debate on the first group, armed with the data that the Library has provided him, our hereditary colleagues play a valuable and active role in the functioning of your Lordships’ House. The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, said in that debate, “Why are we thinking of removing those who work the hardest while leaving those who do not?”

I am sure the Deputy Leader will say that all these questions about participation and activity can be addressed later. Again, these amendments are an opportunity for him to do that. At no point in this Committee have we had any commitment from the Government about when they plan to turn to the next parts of the reforms that they proposed in their manifesto. Ministers have not even committed to do so by the end of this Parliament. So I share the concerns that my noble friend Lord Hailsham has raised: that we will be waiting another decade or longer to see the further reforms that noble Lords have called for throughout the course of these debates.

My noble friends’ amendments in these groups would give us the opportunity to review progress after 12 months, on the timetable proposed by my noble friend Lord Dundee, or two years, in the timeframe proposed by my noble friend Lord Lucas. It would also be an opportunity for us to review what we have lost. We have heard in the course of these debates how our hereditary colleagues bring valuable experience from their work in business and agriculture, two areas where on the Government’s record it is clear that they have something of a blind spot, and it is important to have those voices raised in this scrutinising House of Parliament.

I am sure the Deputy Leader will seek to persuade us that, once again, our fears are misplaced and that these amendments are unnecessary, but I urge him to look seriously at these amendments, which call for modest but important reviews. The Government listened to the concerns that were raised in your Lordships’ House in our debate on the Football Governance Bill and gave us a statutory review of that new regulator after five years. I know football is something that attracts a lot more attention than reform of the House of Lords, but I think the constitution of our second legislative Chamber is about as important as the beautiful game. I hope the Deputy Leader will look at this and consider giving us a review in this Bill as well.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Lord Newby Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 1st April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, this group and the next group of amendments all seek to either defer the implementation of the Bill or to set conditions on its implementation. The reason for that second point has to do with various other changes that noble Lords wish to make in how the House is constituted and behaves, which it believes that it is most likely to achieve by setting those conditions. I disagree with that; I think that the simplest and most sensible thing is to pass this Bill as it is and proceed to look at the other things, as I will now suggest.

Early in these debates, lost in the mists of history, the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, said that he thought that it was unfortunate that the powers that be had allowed amendments on such a wide range of things, and I said that I agreed with him. To a limited extent at least, I have changed my mind, because the earlier debates around retirement, participation and attendance demonstrated that there was a very considerable degree of agreement in your Lordships’ House. Hopefully, that gives us a basis for going forward that did not exist before—and that was a good thing.

The question is how we go forward. An assumption has been that the only way to make those significant further changes is by further legislation. As I said earlier in these debates, I am very wary of that, because the House would cease to be a self-regulating House and would become a Commons-regulated House. The House of Commons would determine what it said about when we should retire, how often we should come and how we should behave when we are here.

Knowing some of my new colleagues, I can quite well imagine that a lot of them think that 80 is far too old for anybody to be in your Lordships’ House. They will think, “Well, I’ll make a bit of a name for myself by putting down 65”. I can see a lot of people thinking, “That’s a jolly good idea—we’ll show ’em”. The arguments that we have heard ad infinitum here about how wonderful we are cut zero ice at the other end of this Palace. I can well imagine that we would find ourselves with a different retirement age to the one that is currently likely to form the nearest thing to consensus in your Lordships’ House.

I equally think that colleagues at the other end, who know very little or nothing about the way we work, would be appalled that we think the kind of attendance level we have been discussing—10%, 15% or 20%—is even vaguely reasonable. They think that we are here to do a job and you cannot do a job on one day a fortnight. I am therefore strongly of the view—and I hope the Leader will take a lead on this—that we should look at ways, which I believe exist, under which we can introduce retirement, participation and attendance norms that would satisfy your Lordships’ House and continue the principle that we are a self-regulating House. I hope she might take a lead by convening a group herself or establishing another group to do the task, within a set timescale, of reaching consensus—or rather, something that nearly everybody can live with—on those areas, so that we can deal with them ourselves.

Apart from anything else, beyond thinking that no further legislation is possible in this Parliament, anybody who has been in government will find it difficult to believe that any Government would introduce a House of Lords reform Bill in two successive Sessions. That is very unlikely for any Government. When I was the Government Deputy Chief Whip, I was on the future legislation committee with Members of the Commons—I think the noble Lord, Lord Young, chaired it at one point. I pity the poor Minister who came to argue before that committee that they wanted a second House of Lords reform Bill within 18 months. I just do not think it is doable.

There is a way forward for all those second-stage reforms. Then there is the third stage: the possibility of the House of Lords being elected. There is a very easy way of dealing with that within the context of this Bill. It is simply for everybody to vote for a resubmitted Amendment 11, in my name, which I shall put down before Report, calling on the Government to start drafting a Bill which looks at electing your Lordships’ House.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

Does the noble Lord accept that, if you are going to elect your Lordships’ House, you have to decide what it will do beforehand?

[Lord Newby (LD)]

No.

[The Lord Bishop of London]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 109, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Northbrook. Those of us on these Benches are clear that we support the inclusion of wider faith representatives in your Lordships’ House. Since before the Wakeham commission, we have favoured wider representation. Many of us work alongside different faith leaders and we know well the expertise that they can bring. In past submissions to this House, the Church of England has offered to work with the appointments commission on how representatives from other denominations and faiths might be identified to serve here. However, this is not straightforward. For example, Roman Catholic clergy are prohibited by the Vatican from serving on legislatures, and it is not easy to find representative leaders among diverse bodies such as Churches or other faith groups. This would require serious discernment, more than is offered by Amendment 109.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Lord Newby Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 25th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Trenchard (Con)]

My Lords—

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords—

[The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Smith of Basildon) (Lab)]

It is appropriate that we hear from the Lib Dem Benches, as we have not heard from them yet.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I very strongly agree with much of what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, said, particularly his last comment. As long as we have independent Cross-Bench Peers in your Lordships’ House, there is a very strong argument for having former senior judges and civil servants as part of their number. However, I have three reasons for disagreeing with these amendments. I realise that, as a mere Lib Dem, I will not at this point have the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, shaking in his shoes, but I hope that the Committee will forgive me if I have a go.

The first point is that I am opposed in principle to the idea that people should get a peerage just because of their formal title and position. The reason was explained in part by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope: although some people in that position will then come and play an active part in your Lordships’ House, others will treat it as an honour. We will not see them and they will not play a part. One thing that has gone through the debates on this Bill is a view that everybody who is a Member of your Lordships’ House in future should play a full part in its activity. I simply do not believe that these proposals to automatically grant people places would achieve that aim.

The second argument is the slippery slope argument. In a way, my noble and learned friend Lord Wallace of Tankerness’s amendment demonstrated this: there was a clear gap in what was already proposed, so he came up with another category that might justifiably form a part. In respect of the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, once you start specifying a greater range of people it becomes a more difficult problem. I see the noble Lord, Lord Macpherson, in his place; I certainly think that former Permanent Secretaries to the Treasury, as a general rule, have a greater claim to membership of your Lordships’ House than directors-general of the BBC.

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Lord Newby (LD)]

I say that much as I respect the noble Lord, Lord Birt. That just demonstrates the problem of specifying individual placeholders who should get a place in this Chamber.

Thirdly, the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, made a valiant attempt to explain why he did not think the separation of powers mattered. The only thing I will say is that the separation of powers was legislated for by Gladstone in the Judicature Act 1873, a provision that was not implemented when Disraeli became Prime Minister the following year. As in many other things, I prefer Gladstone to Disraeli. This may or may not have been Liberal policy for 152 years—it actually beats our commitment to having a directly elected House of Lords as the longest commitment continuously held by a political party before it was implemented— and I see no reason why we should change from that position now.

[Lord Keen of Elie (Con)]

My Lords, the first life peerages were conferred under the Appellate Jurisdiction Act 1876, which remained in force until the impact of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005. It is perhaps notable that the first three appointments as Lords of Appeal in Ordinary were Scottish lawyers. It is also notable that the next three appointments as Lords of Appeal in Ordinary were Irish lawyers. However, 15 years later, a suitable English lawyer was identified and appointed.

Against that background, I turn first to Amendments 56 and 57, in the name of my noble friend Lord Wolfson, to which I have added my name. I must note two points. First, I express a degree of surprise about the advice he received from the Cabinet Office upon his appointment to the Government. There is a long and perhaps dishonourable tradition of Attorneys-General, Solicitors-General and Lord Advocates assuming high judicial office after their service in government. Indeed, in the case of the Lord Advocate, it was invariably the practice into the 1960s that he would appoint himself to the most senior judicial office available, there being no conflict of interest. However, there are very good reasons why it is of benefit to this House, as a political House, to have the benefit of those who have served in high judicial office, whether they do so following their retirement or at an earlier stage.

It was a point made by my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier and touched on by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, that, while Lords of Appeal in Ordinary sat in this House, they would do so with a self-denying ordinance. They would not engage in matters that were potentially controversial from the perspective of their judicial office; for example, you would not have seen them engage in debates with regard to the Human Rights Act and other similar matters. However, as my noble and learned friend pointed out, it gave those in high judicial office some impression of the political mood so far as legislation was concerned, and that would have an impact on them when they came, in due course, to address what were potentially politically controversial issues that were raised to a point of law. I suggest that there was always a significant benefit in having such qualified persons in this House, albeit that it may be appropriate that they should be here after the judicial retirement age of 75 and up to the Government’s intended retirement age of 80—I see some of the government Back-Benchers wincing at that, but I understand that that is the intention.

I support the points made by my noble friend Lord Wolfson. I do not go so far as the amendment proposed by my noble friends Lord Banner and Lord Murray, and I do not take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, that we are dealing here with protected places. We are dealing here with those who are not executive appointments to this House, of which a greater proportion are going to emerge as a result of this legislation.

In these circumstances, it appears to me that there are two elements. There is the element of an honour conferred on those who are granted high judicial office, and that is already reflected in the fact that the present President of the United Kingdom Supreme Court had a peerage conferred on him upon his appointment and the fact that the Lord Chief Justice, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Burnett of Maldon, had such an honour bestowed upon him as well. Frankly, I would be confident that those who have held high judicial office and have been public servants for so long a part of their career will, as a matter of course, become engaged in the proceedings of this House if that opportunity is presented to them.

I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Newby, that there should be no link between the peerage and a distinguished office which has been held. I do not believe we have to go down a slippery slope. However, I acknowledge that the separation of powers has to be noted and acknowledged, albeit Montesquieu was talking about the United States’ system and not our own—and even there, there are changes afoot.

I invite the Government to consider very seriously Amendments 56 and 57, and to comment on the other attendant amendments which would bring those who have held high public office and been distinguished public servants into this House, almost invariably on to the Cross Benches.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, whether or not one agrees with the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, that many of the issues we have been debating should not have been debated—I think with every passing hour, his arguments will gain more support among your Lordships—the one thing they have done that should help the Government is tease out the views of the House on the whole raft of issues the Government say in their manifesto they plan to legislate for later in the Parliament.

The Government are in a much better-informed position of what your Lordships’ House thinks on issues such as retirement age and what is acceptable behaviour than they were at the start. So we should all be—at one level, in theory—extremely relaxed, because the Government have a manifesto commitment to do all these things, on which we broadly agree, during the lifetime of this Parliament.

The problem is that a number of noises have emanated from the Government—not in your Lordships’ House—that perhaps they will not actually do it and that this might be the endpoint. That is why people are getting nervous, because the other things the Government are committed to—on which there is consensus, virtually, in your Lordships’ House—may not actually happen. That is why these amendments have been tabled and I completely support the principles behind them.

I am not sure that having an amendment that says that within a certain time the Government should come forward with unspecified things gets you desperately far. My problem with the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, even though the third component of it mirrors our own amendment on an elected House in some respects, is of a different order. There clearly is no consensus in your Lordships’ House about an elected House, however much we would like it. That has to be dealt with separately from all the other issues where there is agreement and on which we need to make progress during this Parliament.

I hope that, if not tonight—I hope it will be tonight—then certainly on Report, we have a much clearer idea from the Government what their timetable is for getting to the next stage, because if we had that, it would ease a lot of the current debates, behind which lies a fear that the issues on which we are agreed may not be progressed in a timely manner. I look forward to hearing the Leader of the House’s response to this common plea from the House to keep at it and let us know the pace the Government intend to adopt in doing so.

[Lord de Clifford (CB)]

My Lords, I support these amendments, especially Amendment 81 from the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington. I refer to my interest in the register: I am a hereditary Peer.

As stated on many occasions in Committee by the Minister on the Front Bench, this is a simple Bill with one simple action: to remove the right of hereditaries to sit in this House. Other than the first day in Committee, when your Lordships spoke on amendments to Clause 1, the remaining days have been spent mainly on reform of the House of Lords, with many different proposals being suggested, such as the length of a term a Peer should serve, a possible retirement age, a participation requirement for Peers, and a longer-term view of an elected Chamber or a partially elected Chamber, with regional participation.

The Labour manifesto mentioned the immediate removal of the hereditary Peers, which we are debating and which will most likely go through. I support this, although with disappointment, bearing in mind the good work that hereditary Peers have done in this House. The manifesto sets out more options for future reform, such as a retirement age and a participation requirement, with a long-term vision of a second Chamber to replace this esteemed House.

By the end of Committee, we will have spent nearly 20 hours discussing Lords reform. That is why I support these amendments: they require the Government to come back at some point in the future to say when the next Lords reform will take place—therefore, not wasting the time spent in this Session of Parliament discussing Lords reform. The track record of this House in agreeing some form of reform is not good. Hereditary Peers have remained here for 25 years.

Amendment 81 in the name of the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, which I support wholeheartedly, is simple—a bit like the Bill. It requires the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament a draft Bill containing legislative proposals for reform of the House of Lords within two years. It does not set out any detail about what should be in the proposed legislation; all it does is force the Government to take forward the next stage of reform, which, it appears from Committee, most Peers agree needs to happen.

The Leader of the House has encouraged us all to engage with her on the future of the House. I thank her for the time she has spent with Peers. These amendments may add to her workload because they put a deadline on making decisions with regard to reform, but some proposals have already been set out in the manifesto. They set a deadline for things to happen; without deadlines on difficult and indecisive issues, things just continue on and on. That is why a date would help to take reforms forward—it is important.

The reforms may not be perfect despite the length of time we have debated the issue. The legislation will not be a perfect solution and not everybody will agree, but reform is wanted from outside the House and therefore a deadline to force something through is appropriate at this stage. That is why I support these amendments to continue Lords reform after the removal of hereditary Peers.