House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Lord Newby Excerpts

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

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 25th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, on these Benches, we strongly agree with the central thrust of the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Burns, which is that the House is too big and should be reduced in size. It is interesting to consider that if all parties and the Government had accepted the Burns report and we had legislated for the Grocott Bill when they were first proposed, we would not now be faced with a House of this size.

One of the elegant things about the original Burns report was that it was a way of dealing with the size of the House without legislation at a time when no legislation was likely to be forthcoming. This is obviously not the case now that we have this Bill, but we are also looking at having a retirement age and a bar for participation, both of which, even if retirement age is phased in, will have a very significant impact on the size of your Lordships’ House.

Although the noble Lord makes the case that his amendment sort of dovetails with those, one could equally argue that they drive a coach and horses through it. Not that I wish to disagree even in the interim with the principle of it, but the one thing it does not deal with, and is an extraordinarily difficult problem with or without the Burns approach, is what the balance of the composition of the House should be.

We are in a five-party political system at the moment, leaving aside the nationalists in Scotland and Wales, and this House conspicuously fails to reflect that. The position that my party has found itself in is that over a decade we have had three new Peers, all three of them within the last year. I have been, as it were, commanding a slowly shrinking iceberg floating south with no prospect of new Members.

On what basis does the Prime Minister determine how many Liberal Democrats there should be in the House? It is a whim, truth be told. You can have a principle that says that there should be parity between the two largest parties, but beyond that no principle has ever been adumbrated while I have been in your Lordships’ House as to how you deal with all the other parties.

This is a real problem and under the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Burns, there is not even a hint of how you deal with this conundrum of balance. Under it, the Prime Minister could, if he wished, replace every two departing Peers with a new Labour Peer—he could do any variety of mixture—and that seems to me a real problem. Noble Lords will not be surprised to know that we favour having an elected House because we do not believe that there is a logical or defensible way around the conundrum of the prime ministerial whim deciding on the composition of a second Chamber in a mature democracy.

[Baroness Finn (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Burns, with Amendment 82, proposes an immediate restriction on appointments—a two-out, one-in policy— until this House reaches 650 Members, at which point it would transition to a one-out, one-in model. Your Lordships are no strangers to this proposal. It echoes the recommendations of the Lord Speaker’s Committee on the Size of the House, known to us all as the Burns report. Once again, the noble Lord makes a compelling case with his usual eloquence and my noble friend Lord Northbrook pursues a similar objective by different means. He would require the Government to publish a draft Bill implementing the Burns report before the provisions of the current legislation can take effect. Reflecting on both these amendments, I venture this: it is not size that matters, but the perception of it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Trenchard (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Strathclyde on tabling his very sensible Amendment 90A. It should find favour on all Benches because, as my noble friend said, it ticks so many boxes. It would ensure that the hereditary Peers who have sat in your Lordships’ House these 25 years have not sat in vain. We were allowed to continue to sit on the basis that stage 2 would provide some substantive reform and move the House’s composition in the direction of a popular basis, as stated in the Parliament Act 1911.

The amendment would introduce some democratic legitimacy by allocating seats according to party blocs based on the average of the number of votes cast in the last three general elections. That provision would ensure that the composition of the House provides a balance to major shifts in public opinion that result in wide disparity of seats in the House of Commons, which is elected on a first past the post basis. It would give a nod to PR, since the voting strengths are determined on the basis of the number of votes cast, ensure that your Lordships’ House provides stability, and help to avoid dramatic shifts in policy supported by the public only ephemerally.

The amendment should be supported by those of your Lordships who agree with the view of the noble Lord, Lord Burns, that the House should be reduced to 600 people. It should also be supported by those noble Lords who believe that the Bill as drafted is discriminatory, in that it treats some members of the body of Lords temporal differently from others although, for all practical purposes, there is no difference between life and hereditary Peers in terms of rights and privileges in this House. We are appointed to serve on committees or on the Front Bench without any consideration of the route by which we entered your Lordships’ House.

The amendment treats all holders of a Writ of Summons to this Parliament equally. It would result in the House enjoying greater democratic legitimacy but retain the service of those noble Lords who are more independent, and election by party groups would give preference to those who work harder and make a greater contribution. It is an excellent amendment, and I ask the noble Baroness the Leader of the House to consider it seriously.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, for this ingenious proposal. The aim of getting down to 600 Members would be achieved by having a retirement age and sensible participation limits. That would probably get us well below 600. But I really rise just to ask the noble Lord whether, when he replies to this debate, he could confirm that his support for this amendment has not undermined the principled stance he took on my amendment, which calls for a wholly elected House.

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.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Lord Newby Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 12th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, this group and the next deal with the vexed question of how we ensure that Peers do the job for which they have been summoned by the monarch, when we know—the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, has given us the statistics—that not everybody does. Equally, we are all of the view that everybody should.

This is an area where there is a dissonance, just as there is on retirement age, between what people outside think and what people inside think. All the discussion so far has been on how it affects us rather than how we are seen. If you say to most people, “I am an active Member of the House of Lords”, they might ask, “How often do you go?” If you reply, “Well, it’s very onerous you know; I’ve got to go 10% of the time”, then they would ask, “Well, what does that mean?” You would say, “It means that when the House is sitting I have to go—well, not once a fortnight, but roughly that”. They would then ask, “What time do you start?” “I probably go in at about 3.30 pm, 4 pm”, you would say. They would ask, “What time would you finish?” You would reply, “If it was a busy day, I might stay until the dinner hour”. This is not an onerous requirement. Suppose that it is 20%. That is once a fortnight, roughly speaking, possibly for a couple of hours. That, to most people outside, would not be seen as a hugely onerous requirement.

I also think that, following our Writ of Summons and as Members of a deliberative assembly, it is frankly not good enough to turn up just once or twice a year to discuss an issue on which you are an expert. In politics, many of the issues that we have to debate are ones that we would rather not debate, because we are not experts, but they are the most important. Some of them we would rather not debate because they are really difficult, and we are not experts. Take assisted dying: I am sure that many of us, in an ideal world, would at one level rather that other people took a decision on it, because it is so difficult. However, we are summoned by the monarch to give counsel on a range of things. If there is any suggestion, particularly in legislation, that a minimum level is acceptable, then that really would not be acceptable, even though that has been the pattern in the past.

I also have a question about whether legislation is the right place to put such an amendment, in terms of the amendments in both this group and the next. Apart from anything else, it goes in here and then it goes to the other place. Let us suppose that our colleagues in the Commons say, “Hang on a second, those people at the other end seem to think that 10% is enough—that’s ridiculous. Let’s change it and put in 50%. That sounds a bit more reasonable”. Are we then going to have ping-pong on what is the reasonable level of attendance here?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I am afraid I cannot agree with this amendment, because it requires all these changes to be implemented via a legislative route. As I said in my earlier speech, I do not believe that minimum attendance or participation requirements should be dealt with through legislation—they should be dealt with directly by a resolution of your Lordships’ House. As we have just heard, the Conduct Committee is perfectly capable of dealing with criminal convictions and recommending the expulsion of a Member of your Lordships’ House when it believes that he has behaved in a criminal manner.

[Baroness Finn (Con)]

My Lords, this is an interesting amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Blencathra. To continue the Lloyd Webber theme, he has certainly been a diamond in our dull grey lives today.

As my noble friend described, this amendment seeks to provide a mechanism by which resolutions passed by this House on matters such as retirement age, attendance, participation or criminal convictions could be translated into statute through regulations. I know that my noble friend, as a former and long-serving chair of our Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, makes this suggestion with a great deal of knowledge and consideration for the workings of our House.

This amendment also reflects an important principle that we have discussed throughout our debates: that constitutional reform should be done with consensus and that your Lordships should have a say in any reforms that affect your Lordships’ House. However, we must also acknowledge that the House of Lords is an unelected body, and allowing it to self-regulate its membership with legal force would raise democratic concerns and risk undermining trust in our institutions. Traditionally, and rightly so, significant changes to the composition of the Lords have been matters decided by Parliament as a whole, not merely by your Lordships’ House.

While I understand the spirit of the amendment, I have some practical concerns—for example, about the proposal to require that resolutions be translated into statute without any alteration. Some House resolutions, though well meaning, can contain ambiguities or practical challenges that would need refining before they could be translated into statute. By requiring strict adherence to the wording of resolutions, there is a risk of making ineffective or impractical law and creating unintended complications.

To conclude, there is much to commend in the principle of this amendment, namely that your Lordships’ House should have a meaningful role in shaping its own composition and standards for the future. However, allowing the House to self-regulate its membership in this way would raise democratic concerns that have not been satisfactorily addressed today. That said, my noble friend’s proposal rightly challenges us to consider how we can translate our internal deliberations into actionable reforms, should there be consensus to do so.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Lord Newby Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 10th March 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Newby]

11: 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, and(h) 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, Amendment 11, standing in my name and those of other noble Lords, seeks to take forward proposals for a democratic mandate for the House of Lords.

When we debated Lords reform last November, I set out the reasons why I thought the Lords should be elected. I said then that it should be elected on the basis that in a democracy, laws should be passed by people chosen by the people to act on their behalf. It should be elected because the unelected Lords leads to a geographical imbalance in membership in which London and the south-east are greatly overrepresented and the north, Scotland and Wales are underrepresented. It should be elected because it would almost certainly be more representative of the ethnic diversity of the United Kingdom, and it should be elected because it would be more politically representative. It would contain members of the SNP and almost certainly more members of the smaller parties. By doing all these things, it would help restore the trust that the people have of Parliament—currently at a low level.

We realise that this Bill is not the place to introduce detailed proposals for an elected second Chamber. Instead, the amendment requires the Government to start a process that would lead to the House having a democratic mandate. It requires the Government to produce a consultation paper on methods for electing the Lords. It suggests who should be consulted—including the nations and regions of the United Kingdom—and it sets out a timetable for undertaking the consultation and then for the production of a draft Bill containing legislative proposals for reform.

I do not intend to dwell on the imperfections of the current system of appointing people to your Lordships’ House. Suffice it to say that if we had elections, we would not be worrying about many of the issues that will concern us later today and on further consideration of the Bill. We would not be worrying about the Prime Minister overriding the Appointments Commission to appoint cronies. We would not be worrying about whether Peers did their jobs properly or about the balance between different groups or types of people. In short, it would cut through the Gordian knot of problems that bedevil the current system.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for supporting this amendment. I remind the Committee that in 2012 the proposals for an elected House of Lords were approved in the Commons by a majority of 338 at Second Reading, with the support of both the Conservative and Labour Front Benches and with only 46 Labour opponents and 89 Tories.

On the other amendments in this group, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, that consideration would need to be given to the powers and conventions of a reformed House of Lords, but we have to be rather careful that this exercise does not become a pretext for delaying the whole process. I do not see the necessity for the noble Lord’s proposal of a referendum. No referendum was envisaged in 2012, and public opinion has for a very long time been strongly in favour of this House being elected. Again, such a move could be a pretext for delay.

We obviously agree with the sentiments behind the amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, but we wanted to put a timetable in our amendment to ensure that, if it is passed, momentum towards reform will not be unnecessarily delayed.

The noble Lord, Lord Brady, would reduce the size of the Lords to 200 and elect people using the first past the post system. I do not believe that the Lords could do its job of detailed scrutiny and a comprehensive range of Select Committees with such a small number of people. The Clegg reforms envisaged a House of 450 and, to do the work we expect of it, that is probably about right. Noble Lords will not be surprised to know that we also prefer a system of proportional representation for the Lords, as for the Commons, for reasons with which the House will be only too familiar.

In sum, we see Amendment 11 and the consequential Amendment 115 as helping the Government to fulfil their manifesto and bring about the long-term future of the Lords on a largely elected, or elected, basis. I commend it to the Committee.

Amendment 11A (to Amendment 11)

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a party-political point. I was trying to make the very non-party-political point that the House operates best with roughly equal numbers. It has taken 25 years to get here. The principle was established when the hereditary Peers left in 1999—I have to say that any trade union would have snapped up Viscount Cranborne in a moment—and, in effect, 92 of their number remained in perpetuity. Those were the arrangements then. This Bill will end those arrangements, so that the House can move forward.

The noble Lord talked about a term limit, an issue on which some noble Lords have put down amendments later. That would have to be discussed and debated by this House. That is not one of the proposals we are putting forward, but if someone wants to propose that during the consultation we will have on an alternative second Chamber, they are at liberty to do so. I think there would probably be quite lengthy arguments about the duration of a term limit, but that is not included the proposals before us today. Although 25 years is perhaps quite a long time to take to move forward, it is right that we take time to consider these issues.

I am grateful to noble Lords for the points they have made. Certainly, some useful points for the future have been made on how an alternative second Chamber may be constituted. That is not before us today, but in due course, when we are able to come forward with proposals, we will consult quite widely. At this stage, I respectfully ask that noble Lords and Baronesses take their amendments back and reconsider them, and I beg leave to ask that they not press them.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I thank everyone who has spoken, and I slightly apologise for initiating such a long debate. I am grateful to noble Lords who have supported our proposal, and doubly grateful to those who have supported me today who have never supported me before—I thank them very much. I obviously cannot deal with all the points made, and I will try to be brief.

The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, made the classic argument for not having an elected House of Lords, the nub of which relates to the primacy of the Commons. The only thing I would say is that, in 2012, the House of Commons voted by a majority of 338 to have an elected House of Lords, so presumably, it did not think its position was being fatally undermined at that point. The noble Lord was the first person to raise the possibility of Cross-Benchers being included under our proposals, and they absolutely would be. There was a provision for Cross-Benchers in the 2012 proposals, and having them would be perfectly possible under my amendment.

On the question of looking at functions, as I said in my introductory remarks, there is no bar to that happening during the consultation period. However, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, that, at worst, wherever one ends up, one is likely to get a crunching of gears rather than a car crash.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Laing of Elderslie (Con)]

I think I just proved the point there. I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. My point was not that I am not a politician, but that I am a lesser person for being a politician. The great thing about this Chamber is that it has a very large number, if not a majority, of Members who are not politicians, and that is what gives it its value.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I am happy to debate the numbers, but I disagree that the majority of people who take a party Whip can legitimately not call themselves politicians. The Cross-Benchers are not politicians, although they are very political in many cases. Under my proposal, they are not being abolished anyway.

On the noble Lord, Lord True, I was intrigued by his reference to Lloyd George. Lloyd George does not come with a totally unblemished record when it comes to matters relating to the House of Lords.

As I said at the start, this amendment is to set up a process. It is not a blueprint. We on these Benches believe that this process should now be commenced. We believe that it is very long overdue, and we will return to this amendment on Report with that in view.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Geddes) (Con)]

To the best of my knowledge, we are presently debating Amendment 11A, an amendment to Amendment 11.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Newby]

12: After Clause 1, insert the following new Clause—
“Life peerages not to be conferred against recommendation of the House of Lords Appointments Commission(1) The Life Peerages Act 1958 is amended as follows.(2) In section 1 (power to confer life peerages), after subsection (1) insert—“(1A) The power under subsection (1) may not be exercised in relation to a person if the House of Lords Appointments Commission has written to the Prime Minister to recommend that a peerage should not be conferred on that person.””Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause would prevent a life peerage being conferred on a person if the House of Lords Appointments Commission has recommended against the appointment.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I hope and trust that this debate will be at least marginally shorter than the last.

Amendment 12 and its consequential Amendment 116, in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, relate to the powers of the House of Lords Appointments Commission, HOLAC. Our amendment is very modest. It simply says that the Prime Minister should not be able to override a recommendation of HOLAC not to award a peerage to an individual on the basis that they were not a proper person to hold a peerage. One would have thought that this amendment would be unnecessary; surely no Prime Minister would ever wish to overrule HOLAC on a matter of propriety. Sadly, that is exactly what has happened in recent times. This amendment would prevent it happening again. I understand that, not least from the evidence she gave to the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee in another place, the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, as the chair of HOLAC, supports this amendment.

The amendment in the names of the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, and the noble Lord, Lord Colgrain, would prevent the Prime Minister overriding HOLAC by giving the commission sole power to make recommendations for peerages to the King. In reality, the difference between this and our amendment is one not of substance but of form. However, it would be odd, to put it mildly, if HOLAC had such a power without being already constituted on a statutory basis.

It is a valid criticism of our amendment that it does not go far enough. The position of HOLAC should be placed on a statutory basis and it should be able to assess candidates for a peerage in terms of suitability as well as propriety. Other amendments in this group by the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, and the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, make provisions in these areas. We support these amendments in principle but believe that this limited Bill is not an appropriate vehicle for a more fundamental reform of HOLAC.

The amendment by the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, for example, raises detailed issues of the composition of a statutory appointments commission, which clearly need more detailed discussion than is possible in the context of this Bill. Fortunately, the Government committed in their manifesto to move further on these issues. Our amendment is a stand-alone provision that can be done easily now, and I hope that between now and Report the Government will give further consideration to bringing forward the very limited and uncontentious change covered by this amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment 12A (to Amendment 12)

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

My Lords, what is so unfortunate is that I was about to welcome and celebrate the tone of the debate that we had just had. So I am going to move on with the tone of the debate and celebrate the contributions that noble Lords have made, which have been—in overwhelming number— thoughtful and considered. I am grateful for that. I think all noble Lords—as the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, highlighted—want the same thing for this House: colleagues who meet the highest standards of public service, who are dedicated to our country and who want to ensure that our legislation is fit for purpose.

The amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Newby, and the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, allow HOLAC to veto the Prime Minister’s and party leaders’ nominations to the House of Lords. The amendment from the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, also specifies HOLAC’s composition and purpose in statute. The Government are grateful for the discussion on these amendments today. We committed in our manifesto to reform the appointments process, but we cannot, unfortunately, accept these amendments, which fundamentally alter the roles and responsibilities in the appointments system.

Constitutionally, it is on the advice of the Prime Minister that the sovereign appoints new Peers, but it is not just the Prime Minister who makes these nominations. The Prime Minister, by convention, invites nominations from other political parties. After all, as was pointed out earlier in Committee, I was appointed by the former Prime Minister Truss. It is the responsibility of party leaders to consider who is best placed to represent their party in the House of Lords. This is an important principle. The Prime Minister and other party leaders are democratically elected and accountable to Parliament, and ultimately to the electorate, for the political nominations they make to the House of Lords.

The House of Lords Appointments Commission vets all nominations for life peerages to ensure the highest standards of propriety in this House. The amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Rising, would seek to make HOLAC’s advice defunct. If HOLAC recommended a nominee, the Prime Minister would be unable to proceed with their appointment. I hope it is obvious to your Lordships’ House why we cannot accept this, not least given the conversation we had earlier about People’s Peers. HOLAC’s proprietary advice is important to the Prime Minister as he discharges his duty to advise the sovereign on life peerages, and he of course considers it carefully. The Government are very grateful for the work that HOLAC, led by the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, does to provide this advice.

This advice, however, forms part of a process that also ensures democratic accountability in the appointment process. Party leaders must accept responsibility for their appointment. We cannot and should not expect HOLAC to take on that responsibility. Handing HOLAC, an unelected body, the role of recommending new life peerages directly to the sovereign, or giving them the power to veto the Prime Minister’s recommendations, as in the amendment put forward today, would undermine that accountability.

The Government believe that nominating parties should be properly held to account for their nominations to the House of Lords. As my noble friend the Leader of the House set out on the first day of Committee, we have already taken a straightforward but important step to introduce a requirement on all nominating parties to provide public citations that clearly set out why individuals were nominated. I was pleased to see the first set of citations published on GOV.UK following the recent peerage list in December of last year.

The amendment from the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, seeks to introduce a new oath for new Peers and requires HOLAC to be satisfied that new Peers will participate. This is a thoughtful suggestion, but, as a reminder, new Peers already sign our Code of Conduct when they take their seat. As we have said during the passage of the Bill, we are working on developing a participation requirement to ensure that we become a more active Chamber. It matters less what Peers say they will do than what they actually do when they come here. I am, however, grateful to noble Lords for their suggestions on how this could work and ways to take it forward.

More widely, the Prime Minister has made clear that he is committed to restoring trust in Parliament and takes the advice of all ethics bodies seriously. The Government are committed to keeping our ethics bodies under review and, where necessary, delivering reforms to ensure the highest standards in public life. Indeed, the Government have already demonstrated their willingness to strengthen the independent protections provided by the standards landscape. The Prime Minister has, for example, significantly strengthened the remit of the Independent Adviser on Ministerial Standards, ensuring they have the ability to initiate investigations into ministerial standards without requiring the Prime Minister’s consent. However, as I have made clear, the amendments proposed today would undermine the manifesto commitment to look at the current system and the democratic lines of accountability that currently exist in the appointments process.

I now turn to the amendment from the noble Earl, Lord Devon, which would give HOLAC the power to recommend 20 individuals to the sovereign for non-party political life peerages over the next five years. The Cross-Benchers bring expertise and diverse perspectives to the House, which I welcome, and I thoroughly enjoy working with many of them. They make valuable contributions. Retirements and other departures mean that new Peers will always need to be appointed to ensure that the Lords has appropriate expertise, and I acknowledge that the Bill will have a particular impact on the number of Cross-Benchers. As my noble friend the Leader of the House said to the Committee last week, she has committed to discuss this with the relevant parties.

As it stands, new Peers can be appointed to the Cross Benches through nominations by the House of Lords Appointments Commission. HOLAC runs an open-application assessment process to identify and select new Cross-Bench Peers, and the Prime Minister passes HOLAC’s nominations to the sovereign. Many excellent Peers have come to your Lordships’ House this way. The number of Peers that HOLAC is able to nominate is decided by the Prime Minister, and in doing so he of course takes into account the political balance of your Lordships’ House. Prime Ministers can also recommend a limited number of additional Cross-Bench appointments over the course of the Parliament for those with a record of public service. As with all new Peers, they are subject to propriety vetting by HOLAC.

I note that the noble Lord’s amendment allows HOLAC, rather than the Prime Minister, the role of recommending 20 life Peers to the sovereign. As I addressed earlier, constitutionally it is for the Prime Minister, as principal adviser to the sovereign, to recommend new life Peers. I appreciate that the purpose of this amendment is to ensure that the Cross-Benchers remain a significant presence in your Lordships’ House. To give HOLAC, an unelected body, the role of providing advice to the sovereign, even in this limited way, would, however, be a clear break from our constitutional arrangements—one that would require careful thought, as today’s debate has demonstrated, and one that the Government do not support or think necessary.

As we have repeatedly stated, the Government committed in their manifesto to reform the process of appointments to this place, to ensure the quality of new appointments and to improve the representative balance of the second Chamber so that it better reflects the country that it serves. We have heard—and I am sure we will continue to hear—interesting proposals from across the House, and we welcome the discussion on appointments. However, it is right that we take time to properly consider how to take forward our manifesto commitment to reform in this area, as part of the wider standards landscape, in a way that reflects the importance of those lines of democratic accountability. It is also not a debate for this Bill. As has been stated, this is a focused Bill that delivers the Government’s manifesto commitment to bring about an immediate reform by removing the right of the remaining hereditary Peers to sit and vote in your Lordships’ House. It is not the vehicle to consider all reforms to the House of Lords. I therefore respectfully ask noble Lords not to press their amendments.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for a typically interesting debate. As I said at the outset, we were not seeking a fundamental reform of the way that HOLAC operates; we were seeking to do something uncontroversial that I thought nobody could possibly disagree with. I have been in your Lordships’ House for only 27 years, so what do I know?

I say to the noble Lord, Lord Butler, that our amendment does not break the link between the Prime Minister and the monarch. The Prime Minister would still make the recommendations. I am sure there are many other areas in which the Prime Minister gives advice to the monarch where that advice is constrained by various outside bodies, so I am not persuaded by the noble Lord’s argument.

In a way, the problem was set out by the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, who said that the Prime Minister does not act alone. The truth is that he did act alone in this case. That is why we have the amendment. There was no constraint on the Prime Minister in making some proposals. HOLAC could not then do anything about it. I am not saying that it was a whim of the Prime Minister, or done without thought, but it was certainly his decision and his alone.

[Lord Butler of Brockwell (CB)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. As I read his amendment, the Prime Minister could not recommend somebody if HOLAC had said that he should not. Would that not give HOLAC a veto and constrain the Prime Minister’s powers?

[Lord Newby (LD)]

Yes, it would constrain the Prime Minister’s powers; that is what I want to do. In my view, the Prime Minister has, on rare occasions in the past, acted in a manner that has allowed people who HOLAC thought improper to become Members of your Lordships’ House. That is what I want to stop.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, does it not strike the noble Lord as interesting that, in this amendment, he recommends the power of appointed people over elected people whereas in previous amendments he recommended the exact opposite?

[Lord Newby (LD)]

It may be interesting to the noble Lord; I think it is totally irrelevant to this case. We are obviously done with this issue today. I will withdraw my amendment but I will come back to it on Report.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Morris of Bolton) (Con)]

Before I deal with Amendment 12, the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Rising, moved his Amendment 12A; does he wish to withdraw it?

Ukraine

Lord Newby Excerpts

Tuesday 4th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. The United Kingdom has long been a bastion of freedom and a steadfast defender of democracy. Ukraine has been fighting bravely and bitterly to maintain its sovereignty, its freedom and its democracy, for over three years. We salute its courage and its sacrifice, which has been immense in the face of the horrendous Russian aggression described by the Minister so eloquently. As I stated in your Lordships’ House last week, we on this side are fully committed to supporting the Government as they attempt now to forge a path towards peace.

This weekend reminded us of the influence of our nation. The welcome that President Zelensky received from His Majesty the King at Sandringham and the united front of European leaders convened by the Prime Minister demonstrated the best of British diplomacy. I congratulate the Prime Minister on his initiative and wish him well in his push for a coalition of the willing, led by the United Kingdom and France, to produce a plan to end the fighting in Ukraine. It is at times like this, when our country comes together in unity, that it makes us all in this House proud to be British.

I welcome the Prime Minister’s acknowledgement that we must not choose between either side of the Atlantic. The United States is our longest-standing and most important ally—as was said in the Statement—and that fact was reaffirmed by the Prime Minister’s visit to the White House last week. We are pleased that the Prime Minister and President Trump had such a successful and cordial meeting. This is important, and his continuing contacts with President Trump are equally important. I hope they will continue to demonstrate together the strength of the Anglo-American alliance.

The noble Baroness knows that we on these Benches support the uplift in defence spending announced last week and the difficult decisions associated with it. We welcome the further commitment to reach 3% in the next Parliament. As my right honourable friend the leader of the Opposition said in the other place, we will support the Government in taking tough decisions where they are in the national interest. That is why we support the difficult decision—and it was difficult—to make the cut in the foreign aid budget to help bolster the defence budget.

In my response to the Statement in your Lordships’ House last week, I asked the noble Baroness a question to which she did not then respond—I understand, having been there, the exigencies and difficulties of those circumstances. Can she confirm that, if the deal to surrender the Chagos Islands to Mauritius does indeed go ahead, no payments in connection with that deal will come out of the defence budget? The new money for defence will be beneficial only if every penny is invested in our Armed Forces. It would be an indefensible position for money to be cut from the aid budget and moved to the defence budget to then be simply funnelled into the deal and paid to Mauritius. Can I have her assurance that this will not happen in respect of the defence budget?

I join my right honourable friend the leader of the Opposition in welcoming the Prime Minister’s announcement of the use of the profits from frozen Russian assets to support Ukraine. Yesterday, my right honourable friend asked the Prime Minister whether His Majesty’s Government have any plans to use the frozen assets themselves. I am grateful for what the noble Baroness said to the House on this subject. Is she able to give the House any further outlook on how the frozen assets themselves will in future be used?

We awoke this morning to the news that the United States is pausing its military aid to Ukraine. Can the noble Baroness update the House on this? Has the Prime Minister had discussions, or will he be having discussions, with President Trump in the light of this announcement?

I reiterate the positive overall response that my right honourable friend the leader of the Opposition gave to the Prime Minister’s Statement in another place. I hope that the Prime Minister will continue channelling this constructive and inclusive spirit, and demonstrating the significance of British leadership on the world stage, as he navigates the long road to peace and faces what will be many difficult decisions ahead. He will have our full consideration and support.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I too thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement. The adage that a week is a long time in politics has rarely been so graphically demonstrated than over the past seven days. In that time, we have seen the brutal treatment of the Ukrainian President by the President of the United States, the suspension of all US military support for Ukraine, and the beginnings of a co-ordinated European response to this new and dangerous situation.

In all of this, the Prime Minister has played a statesmanlike and positive role, and we commend him for it. No doubt we all found his presentation of the letter from the King to Trump cringeworthy, but there is no doubt that it helped to create a positive atmosphere for the talks which ensued. It was a small price to pay for a relatively positive outcome.

Nothing can excuse the new American position. It not only rips up the basis of our support for Ukraine but undermines Europe’s assumption that the US would in all circumstances be a strong and dependable ally. Today’s comments by JD Vance, which disrespect UK forces and their contribution alongside our American allies in Iraq and Afghanistan, are just the latest evidence of an arrogance and an ignorance that are chilling.

The response which the Prime Minister is adopting—to try to broker a re-engagement between the US and Ukraine while seeking to put together a coalition of the willing to defend Ukraine—is to be strongly welcomed. But I think it is a mistake to believe, as the Statement does, that under this presidency our relationship with America, at least in terms of security, can be strengthened to any significant extent.

Trump has made it clear that he does not accept a continuing responsibility for the security of Europe. We need to accept this and plan accordingly. This has major and unpalatable consequences in terms of military expenditure, but also provides opportunities for the UK to regain a leading position in Europe and for our defence industries.

In the short term, we welcome the loan to Ukraine backed by the interest from frozen Russian assets and the use of UK Export Finance to fund the purchase of missiles to be manufactured in Belfast. But these are relatively small interventions and much more is going to be needed.

One idea which is gaining traction is the establishment of an international rearmament bank, which would facilitate access to private sector capital for Ukraine’s ongoing struggles. Do the Government plan to pursue this?

Another proposal which we have discussed often in your Lordships’ House is for the seizure of Russian assets—the capital, not just the interest. In yesterday’s questions on the Statement, the Prime Minister said that this was being looked at but that it was very difficult. At the moment, this proposal seems to be being taken only half-seriously. I accept that legislation might be necessary to enable it to happen, but I am sure that Parliament would fast-track such a measure. Can the noble Baroness give us any indication of the timescale for further work on this proposal and whether the Government are prepared to legislate to implement it?

For the longer-term move to 3% of GDP for defence spending, we have suggested that the Government should initiate cross-party discussions to see whether a consensus can be reached on how this might be funded. Do the Government have any plans to do this?

Every passing day demonstrates that the UK and our European allies are going to have to accept a step-change increase in responsibilities for our own defence. The Prime Minister clearly accepts this also, and he has our firm support in moving to achieve it.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for their comments about the role of the Prime Minister. I know that the pride in how the Prime Minister has acted has not been confined to this side of the House and I am grateful to noble Lords from across the House who have sought out me and my colleagues to make that point. It is when things are at their most challenging that we see the best in those who step up to take the action that is needed. Even when that can be very difficult, it is always better to make those attempts to make things work better than to walk away or, as the Prime Minister said, to take sides on the issue.

The noble Lord, Lord True, made a similar comment and spoke of his pride in the Prime Minister and our Government. I can tell him that the Prime Minister spoke to both President Trump and President Zelensky on both Friday night and Saturday night. Both noble Lords are right that witnessing the—I do not know quite how to describe it—meeting between President Zelensky and President Trump was uncomfortable for everyone. But the first reaction of the Prime Minister is: how do we mend this breach and how do we take things forward from here? I think that is the only response that a Prime Minister should have to something like that.

On the frozen assets, which both noble Lords raised, the Prime Minister spoke about this. I think the noble Lord, Lord Newby, was, uncharacteristically, a bit churlish about it. It is very difficult: it is not a case of just bringing forward legislation in this country; other countries have to be involved as well. Indeed, there have been discussions, as you would imagine, this week, but there is ongoing work on that that will continue at pace.

On the Chagos Islands, there is no deal at present. This would be brought to your Lordships’ House as a treaty in the normal way. There is nothing to comment on regarding finances for that.

The noble Lord, Lord True, asked me to say something more about the pause. To be honest, this is so fast-moving at the moment—he will have seen President Zelensky’s statement that he made tonight, and we do not know yet if that has had an impact. We have not got any information about what that pause may engage and what it may mean at this stage. When we do, we will be happy to share that information, but the noble Lord will appreciate that, from when the Prime Minister made his Statement yesterday, I have been getting updates during the course of the day, because things are moving quite quickly, and I would not want to say anything that was wrong.

I thought the description from noble Lord, Lord Newby, of the Prime Minister’s invitation from the King to the President as “cringeworthy” was not appropriate. The Prime Minister and the King have been very clear in their support for President Zelensky, and I thought the meeting of the King with President Zelensky was one everybody welcomed. The Prime Minister said yesterday—and I have spoken to him about this as well—that, when President Zelensky came to Downing Street, the spontaneous response from the public was quite emotional. Zelensky was very moved by it, but I think the Prime Minister was as well. It is an emotional time for President Zelensky; his country and his people have been through a lot. We have seen that emotion in him and how he rises to the occasion. It is challenging, but I think all efforts must be welcomed.

The noble Lord, Lord Newby, also asked about the rearmament bank. That was raised in the House of Commons yesterday, and the Prime Minister’s response then was very positive. It is one of the issues that the European leaders discussed, along with issues around what comes next. He is right: this is not the end of it; this is the start of it. It is going to be difficult. The idea that Europe has to step up and take a greater responsibility for our defence is something that everybody now recognises, and that is what we will continue to do.

I am not aware of any plans for cross-party discussions on government budgets at present, but we are aware of the impact and implications of this. We have been clear that we are seeking to move to 3% of GDP on defence spending in the next Parliament, and that commitment remains. At the moment, we are very determined that we give Ukraine all the support it needs. Key to that support is the sovereignty of Ukraine, and any deal on its future must involve Ukraine around the table.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Lord Newby Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 3rd March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Shinkwin (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Newby (LD)]

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

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

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

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

[Lord True (Con)]

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

[Lord Newby (LD)]

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

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

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

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Lord Newby Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 3rd March 2025 Lords Chamber

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

[Lord Newby (LD)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Swire (Con)]

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

[Lord Newby (LD)]

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

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

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

[Lord True (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You could never imagine such a thing happening these days.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

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

[Lord Newby (LD)]

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

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

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

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

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

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

[Lord Newby (LD)]

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

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

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

Defence and Security

Lord Newby Excerpts

Wednesday 26th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord True (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Newby (LD)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

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