House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Lord True Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 11th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, like the noble Baroness the Leader of the House, I very much look forward to hearing the maiden speech of my noble friend Lord Brady of Altrincham and the valedictory speech, sadly, of the noble Baroness, Lady Quin, a well-liked and respected Member whom we will miss.

This is a strange day. Outside, there are desperate farmers, fearful of their future after a shock tax attack on their families; inside, here in this Chamber, the Government are focusing not on helping those hard-working people out there, but on purging Parliament of 88 of its most effective Members. Well, we can see this Government’s priorities.

The noble Baroness opposite, the Leader of our House, spoke skilfully and courteously, as she always does, and tried to gild not so much as a lily as a gigantic stinging nettle for many Members here: the blunt message that the Bill sends out to 88 of our number is, as the noble Lord, Lord Sugar, puts it, “You’re fired —you and you and you!”. By the way, I wonder how often the noble Lord, Lord Sugar, comes here, but he counts for one of the Cross-Bench numbers, the same as the noble Lord, Lord Vaux. Indeed, one of the many regrettable features of the Bill as it goes forward will be seeing some of those who do not participate very often being whipped to vote out those who do.

I say to the noble Baroness that this will be a fiercely contested Bill, not for its declared objective that no more hereditary Peers should come here— I have made clear that we all recognise that, even if we do not share the Government’s promise to do it—but, frankly, for the Bill’s sheer inadequacy. The noble Baroness tried to argue that away, but the Bill is defective not just for what is in it but for what it fails to address.

I also recently referred to the unpleasantness and hurt that there will be, and I appreciated the noble Baroness’s tone on this. Voicing what is an obvious truth seemed to cause some disquiet, and I know that there are many on all sides who feel uneasy; who feel, privately, that they wish this purge was not going to happen; and who feel that the House will lose a great deal.

I was sad when the Bill’s arrival was met with a loud cheer. It was hurtful. I was sitting then alongside the noble Earl, Lord Howe. That is not who we are, as represented by the tone of the speech we have heard already, and it is not what we should ever become—although we have seemed a little scratchier and more partisan of late, if I may say so. I trust that, through the difficult passage of the Bill, we will not fall short of our traditional courtesy but, frankly, the Government cannot expect all of us on this side or on the Cross Benches to like the Bill or, indeed, what is threatened in the manifesto to those among us who were born in the 1940s. If it is pushed through with a flinty inflexibility, that flint cannot help but strike sparks of resentment and sour the atmosphere in this House, not just in this Session but for Sessions to come.

The noble Baroness advanced three main reasons why we must make the Bill the flagship measure of this Government’s so far miserable first Session in office. The first is because it is in the manifesto. Well, when I asked her on Monday about the commitment in the very same paragraph of the manifesto to require Peers aged 80 to retire at the end of the Parliament, what was her reply? It was not, as you might expect, “Yes, of course, we will implement that because it was in our manifesto”. Instead, she resorted to what was known in the US election as something of a word salad—you could feel the grass growing as long over that manifesto pledge as the grass will grow long in the shires as the farmers wait for justice. Why this manifesto commitment at all costs, and, to the other, “No, George, don’t worry. We didn’t really mean it”? Is it because one is popular with the party opposite and the other has proved not to be? Frankly, that demonstrates that it is all about party expedient and not principle, and we should not pretend otherwise. Eighty-eight non-Labour Peers go and four Labour Peers go. Frankly, my six year- old grandchild can do the maths on that.

The second justification we hear is really more Keir Hardie than Keir Starmer—an outdated class-warrior one, like driving 15 year-old students out of their private schools by imposing VAT. The hereditary principle, the noble Baroness says, is indefensible. It is the same logic, of course, that leads you to jack up inheritance tax, and perhaps takes you to other, darker constitutional places, but that is another story. The Liberal Democrats, of course, enthusiastically agree, but just wait: once they have their promised peerages and the cuckoos on those Benches have shoved 33 Cross-Benchers and 45 Conservatives out of the nest—increasing, as we have heard, their weight in the House—just watch how fast they turn on the party opposite, on which they are now fawning.

The reality is that no one inherits a seat in this House as a hereditary Peer any more. That was dealt with in 1999. The then Lord Chancellor, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, declared then that the 1999 Act was historic and:

“No longer will membership of this House be a birthright”.—[Official Report, 30/3/1999; col. 204.]


The noble and learned Lord was right. That has been the case now for a quarter of a century. The days when you could inherit a seat here are long gone.

The noble Baroness says that there is unfinished business: there are some hereditary Peers still here and, despite what was agreed by Parliament in 1999, we must root them out. But I ask noble Lords: will driving out those hard-working Members improve our House? I do not think so. As I said in our recent debate, there is an easy way—a proven House of Lords way—to square the circle and to end for ever the arrival of hereditary Peers, yet keep our colleagues who serve us all well. It is what was done with the Irish peerage and the Law Lords: the House ended the inflow but kept its Members. That, effectively, as the noble Baroness said, was the proposition of the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, but now we hear that the time for that is past. Why? Why did Labour think it was a good idea to keep the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, here on 3 July but not 5 July? It defies all logic and is also, frankly, unreasonable. The House should test that proposition in later stages of the Bill: it might bring an early and honourable peace where long conflict looms.

The third justification the noble Baroness uses is about numbers. This, as the House knows, is not something about which I agonise, but I recognise that most of the House, and the Government, worry about it. As I said in my speech last month, let us reflect on it, discuss a way forward and take the opportunity of the Bill. I reject, however, the idea that, if one wants to reduce numbers, the master plan is to find some of the best and hardest working among us and kick them out while clinging to the laggards and the no-shows. No rational institution would do that, and the House of Lords is a rational institution. We should use the Bill to explore better approaches on numbers and address the as yet obscure propositions that the party opposite has put on participation. That, too, could offer a way forward on numbers. The noble Baroness may say, and has said, “What about the disparity in party numbers?”. There is a disparity in numbers, though it has been worse in the past, but, as she well knows, I have said more than once in this House that too many Conservative and too few Labour Peers have been created. This can be addressed and we are open to discussion of other methods of redressing it.

I beseech the House to appreciate what I offered inside and outside this Chamber as your Leader and what I still offer from this side: a refreshment and renewal of the conventions surrounding the relations between this House and the other place, going beyond the Salisbury doctrine made for the old hereditary House. That is the only sure way to address disparities in numbers and ensure that the King’s government is carried on under all Governments. I still believe that is desirable, and I still think it is possible, but there is a great overarching convention that major constitutional change should follow reflection and discussion across party lines. That has not happened here. Convention rests on consensus, and I fear the appetite in my party for broadening conventions as I would wish risks being in inverse proportion to the Government’s appetite to drive this and other Bills through unamended. It need not go that way. It is in the hands of our Leader, the Leader of the whole House, with her unique influence at the Cabinet table with the Prime Minister, to follow her great predecessor in that place, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, and urge a compromise that suits us all.

I end with a general point that should guide how we approach the Bill. This Bill, like it or not, risks destabilising the House. It will have far-reaching consequences, some unintended, many perhaps unavoidable. We have already seen in the other place how a plan to remove the excepted Peers has led to calls to expel the right reverend Prelates from Parliament. After the Bill passes and the last Law Lords fade away, the Bishops will be the only Members not here under the 1958 Act. They will be on an exposed slope if the north wind should blow.

This House has stood for centuries. We meet below the statues of those barons who, long ago on the meadow at Runnymede, constrained the power of the Executive and gave the British people Magna Carta rights. They did not do such a bad job, did they? The Bill snaps that historic thread, and the House it will leave will be one not centuries old but 66 years old.

Unless we make the right decisions on the Bill, this House will be vulnerable, for the upshot will be a House in which the power and prerogative of the Executive to stock it and direct how it is stocked will run ever wider. The untrammelled power to create new Peers will be matched by the power to use a majority in the other place to purge Members of Parliament, with 369 marked down to go in Labour’s manifesto.

Since the 1958 House was created, there been five Acts—in 1999, 2005, 2014, 2015 and 2024—to remove Members and alter composition. Why should we believe that the House will be immune to future Acts by future Governments to alter our composition to their advantage? History shows that what is once controversial slides easily into habit.

That is why those of us who love this House, as I do, might have wished that a Bill to change it would have come after, not before, consideration of all the proposals to fortify and improve the 1958 House. The noble Baroness the Leader of the House could have proceeded that way, but by tabling the Bill she has said she cannot wait for that and she declared it again in her speech—yet surely we must try.

Manifesto or not, as there is no accompanying stage 2 Bill—we do not see it, and who really believes that will happen?—then where better to scrutinise all the implications of change? Where better to consider legislative options, including those floated by the Government on participation, appointment, age limits and number, than on this Bill? It is the only vehicle that the Government have allowed us and there will probably be no other opportunity. Scrutiny of such matters is what Committee in your Lordships’ House is for, and if others do not lay amendments to enable consideration of these ideas, we on this side will—and let no one call it delay if Members of this House bring their wisdom and experience to bear to seek to improve the Bill and so improve this House. After all, that is what this revising House exists to do. Who will care for our future if we do not?

House of Lords: Numbers and Eligibility

Lord True Excerpts

Monday 9th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I am sure the party opposite has heard my noble friend’s comments. I think 75% might be a bit harsh.

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness rightly sets store by her party’s manifesto. The Labour manifesto pledged:

“At the end of the Parliament in which a member reaches 80 years of age, they will be required to retire from the House of Lords.”


Full stop, end of paragraph. Will the Government implement this very specific manifesto promise in this Parliament?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, how and when we implement our manifesto is, as it is for every single party, a matter for the Government. One of the things I committed to this House is having discussions on how we implement 80; I said that in the first Answer. There is also the issue of participation. I think the House will want to have a view on those things, and I am happy to accept representations on how they are implemented.

G20 and COP 29 Summits

Lord True Excerpts

Monday 25th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord True (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“and, of course, Hong Kong”,

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

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

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

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

[Lord Newby (LD)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

House of Lords Reform

Lord True Excerpts

Tuesday 12th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords—or perhaps in this new era I should say, “Fellow working people”, because we are fellow hard-working Peers—I am grateful to the noble Baroness the Leader of the House for the opportunity of this debate. It was the right thing to do, and I am grateful for the way she opened it. Like her, I will listen carefully to everything people say. However, it is regrettable that the business managers in another place have chosen to schedule the passage of a Bill to expel 92 of our fellow Peers on this very same day. How much better, I submit, would we be governed—even, candidly, under Governments in which I served—if those in another place sometimes listened to the advice and opinions of those in this one before they rushed into action.

In my response to the gracious Speech, I spoke about the plans that the Labour Party sprang—that is probably the word—on your Lordships in its manifesto. I need not repeat all I said then, but I stand by it. The plans have three broad characteristics. First, they are sweeping. Overall, between the excepted Peers and those over 80 in 2029, they would remove 375 Members of your Lordships’ House and 60% of the independent Cross-Benchers, and they would increase the weight of prime ministerial patronage.

Secondly, the plans are ill-thought-through. There is no clear statement about what the Government want this House to be or to do, although there is a declaration that the replacement of the whole House is the intended destination, with broad hints that the new House should be an elected one.

Finally, frankly, they are partisan in intent. That is quite legitimate, whether we like it or not. The aim of the Bill now in another place is partisan—it is to remove 88 Peers who do not align themselves with Labour and four who do. We should at least be honest about that. Declared principle cannot mask deep political purpose.

Aside from the partisan, another aspect is notable. It will be unpleasant and some may not like to hear it, but there is no evading it: the execution will have to be done at close quarters, brushing shoulders in the Lobbies as we go to vote for the removal of much-respected colleagues. You can just imagine it—seeing the Long Table and sidling down the other side to avoid sitting next to a colleague we have just voted to expel. That is not who we have ever been. It is not who we are.

There can be no doubt that the Bill being discussed in another place will cause some great hurt, and it will almost inevitably issue in conflict—conflict that may well spill out in quite unpredictable directions. All that is avoidable; there must be a better way. If the pretext for throwing out colleagues who are here under the 1999 Act or those born in the 1940s is not, in fact, partisan, it is often said to be—and has been said again today to be—related to numbers. As noble Lords know, I am not a believer in the numbers crisis; in the quarter century since 1999, there have been only 40 Divisions in the House where more than 500 Peers were here to vote. The average vote in whipped Divisions so far this Session has been 283, with a maximum of 419. Average daily attendance has never surpassed 500 in any Session in the post-1999 House—so call me a sceptic on overcrowding as a pretext for expulsion.

Even supposing that I am wrong and that we should aim for the number of 600, which many have advocated, would any sensible institution wanting that do it by expelling some of the most hard-working and effective Members in its ranks? How will that improve our effectiveness? Out among the 1999 Act Peers are the Strathclydes, the Kinnoulls, the Addingtons, the Howes, the Vauxes—I do not know how you say the plural of Vaux—the Courtowns and the Grantchesters, and out among those born in the 1940s are the Jays, the Blunketts, the Howards of Lympne, the Reids and the Winstons. These are all Peers with a proven capacity for hard work over many years, and there are dozens more on all sides.

If numbers are the issue, there must be a more discerning way than this. Of course, as I have said before, I believe that the fundamental answer is convention—the route that enabled Clem Attlee, outnumbered 10 to one here, to transform Britain for Labour in the 1940s. Perhaps participation is another route, as some have argued—although I would hate to see a House where worth was measured in quantity rather than quality of speeches. My problem is that Labour has never explained how its participation requirement would work and who would measure it—and the noble Baroness did not do that today. When she sums up, will she say what measure of participation was planned when Labour wrote this into its manifesto? She must at least know that. I can see that, if one wanted to reduce numbers, participation would potentially be a more fruitful basis for consideration than removing the best and most active. But both on exclusion—all exclusion—and on participation, it is clear that we would benefit from further reflection and discussion.

This great House is no longer the deposit of ages in which hereditary Peers once inherited a right to sit; it is a House that we created, with massive majorities in both Houses, by an Act of Parliament in 1999. It was created then with an understanding that it should subsist until agreement on reform of the House should be reached. No such reform proposal is on the table. Of course, the Labour Party has a political right to remove former hereditary Peers and people born in the 1940s, but I believe it has a constitutional responsibility to say what follows. It did not do so in 1999 and still has not done so today. All we have is an indeterminate commitment to replace all your Lordships with an alternative House. The implication, clearly stated by the Prime Minister in December 2022, was that this should be “democratically elected”. Sir Keir then said that it should be done quickly. There has been some back-pedalling since, with the Leader of the House back-pedalling particularly furiously—particularly, I understand, in private conversations. But that is still the proposition before us in Labour’s manifesto.

As it happens, having fought seven elections as a candidate in my life and, I regret to say to my Liberal colleagues, having won them all, I have no particular issue with the election principle, and nor does it trouble most other advanced democracies. But there are many, perhaps a majority in this House, who do not want to see that and who believe that nominating Peers under the 1958 Act is the most effective way to constitute a revising Chamber. I think everyone, including me, who knows and loves this great House thinks that, curious though it may seem to others, this House of experience complements the House of Commons and does the vital job that the other place has relinquished over time of scrutinising and revising legislation. Would the exclusion of these Members in the two proposals put forward by the party opposite improve our ability to perform that role? I doubt it.

Whatever one’s view, we can surely agree on one thing: this House is part of our sovereign Parliament and a vital, indeed profound, part of our ancient parliamentary constitution. It has protected many liberties and safeguarded countless citizens from hasty and ill thought-out law. Do we alone not deserve to be safeguarded from hasty and ill thought-out law? Should we not know the details of the fate the Government intend for our House and our Parliament before we begin to vote parts of it through? Should constitutional reform on the scale involved in Labour’s proposals—the progressive purging of this House and its planned replacement by we do not know what—not be the subject of cross-party consideration, whether in a Joint Committee or another consultative process? I submit that it should.

Labour says, “Trust us. Once you agree, albeit with kind words, to remove the noble Earls, Lord Kinnoull and Lord Howe, and 90 others like them, then we will discuss with you. We will discuss with you abandoning our manifesto promise to throw out everyone born in the 1940s at the end of this Parliament. Trust us. If you behave and ease the passing of the 92, then we will consult you on whether we will really implement our manifesto commitment to replace everyone in this House with an alternative Chamber”. What kind of constitutional principle or good practice is that? I am not the totally trusting kind as were, perhaps, the farmers, small businesses, savers, charities, nurseries, shopkeepers and care homes. They were the trusting kind and, in a matter of months, they found their trust broken by the Labour Government. I think we should see the colour of all Labour’s constitutional money before we accept some of its silver.

There must be a better way, a way that satisfies the wish of the Labour and Liberal Democrat Benches to prevent anyone coming here in future under the 1999 Act. This has always been a House of consensus, compromise and convention. When the Irish peerage was removed from your Lordships’ House in 1922, those who were already Members were allowed to stay. When the appellate jurisdiction legislation was passed in 2009, existing Peers under the 1876 Act were allowed to stay. That is why we continued to have among us the late lamented Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood or the continuing presence of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, and others. The House denied a category of Peer future entry but retained its valued Members, valued their experience and continued to benefit from it. That gradualism, I submit, and not the guillotine, is the House of Lords way. It has served us before and it could serve us again.

After the election, the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and I made an offer, in the spirit of compromise, that the process of by-elections under the 1999 Act should be suspended for this Session, given the Labour Party’s mandate. We have both been criticised for that by some in our groups, but it was intended to recognise the mandate of the new Government to close the gate to new entry under the 1999 Act, but also to create space for constructive discussion about a consensual way forward in which the Government could be assured that their programme would not be disrupted and in which the House would retain the benefit of its best.

The response so far from the party opposite on the 92 has been to offer no compromise and to stampede to build a guillotine. They are at it down the Corridor as we speak. We can surely do better. What guarantees that a Government’s programme passes is not numbers but convention. As I said on the gracious Speech, I thought it wrong that this House defeated the last Government on record numbers of occasions and with record rounds of ping-pong. Equally, I would think it wrong that the Labour Government should suffer in such a way. In normal circumstances, it would be wrong under this Government.

[Lord Fowler (CB)]

I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord. He has gone on for a long time about consensus. I agree with him on that. Will he therefore explain why he did not support the very good 2016-17 report of the noble Lord, Lord Burns, which would have reduced numbers on a two-out, one-in basis and was approved by the House in a debate? That was consensus. Why did he not support it?

[Lord True (Con)]

I am speaking of numbers at present. I have addressed that question. The noble Lord understands the principles of collective responsibility; I was a member of the Government and successive Prime Ministers—the noble Baroness, Lady May, and her successors—all made it clear that the Government could not assent to those proposals. Our urgent need is to address the future of this House and potential threats to it. There is shared ground across the House to find the best way out of this impasse which will secure the continuation of service to it of the best people here.

I have been slightly distracted. I will reach a conclusion. When I was Leader, I reached out, as did the Convenor of the Cross Benches, in a valuable series of papers on conventions, to suggest discussions to refresh the conventions that guide this House—as the noble Lord, Lord Cunningham, did in 2006—to preserve your Lordships’ freedoms and give security to all Governments. I believe that to be the best course. Once again, I ask the Leader, who has intimated that this might be possible, and perhaps those in Whitehall behind her, to move off the narrow ground of composition and on to a broader discussion about how we keep the best of this House and how the conduct of His Majesty’s Government will be guaranteed by convention, as it properly should.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

I cannot match the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, for ingenuity—very few of us can.

As I listened to the noble Lord, Lord True, and indeed to the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth—if he would care to listen—I was struck by the thought that it might be quite difficult to persuade the public outside that, because of something said in this Chamber 25 years ago, the mandate of the Labour Party set out in its manifesto should be put to one side, and nothing more can be done to reform the House of Lords because some commitment was given by somebody 25 years ago in this House. I think that would sell with some difficulty in the Dog and Duck.

[Lord True (Con)]

Pacta sunt servanda.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

My concern is that the Bill has to pass. Obstructing it would be to obstruct the result of the general election. I am convinced that it will pass. It is a pity that we will lose so many of our friends, although I have a hunch that some of them will be miraculously reincarnated as life Peers on New Year’s Day—I certainly hope so.

I have three points to make. First, the Government are right to want to pause and draw breath after this first Bill. It seems sensible because the country needs a national debate.

The role of the Lords is not clearly understood. China and North Korea get by without a second Chamber but I think that most of us, and certainly most democracies, seem to think that there is an advantage in having an institution to keep a check on what a majoritarian Government can do in the primary assembly, to improve their legislation and to look out for regional concerns. I agree, but that case has to be made to the country because right now, it is not widely understood.

If we are honest, we also have to admit that we as a House could do our job better. These debates tend to be full of self-congratulation. Of course, it is a tremendous privilege to be here, and we do work hard—on primary legislation we do a much more thorough job than does the other place. But our scrutiny of secondary legislation is, like the other place’s, superficial and spasmodic, and we are too London-centric to cover the regional dimension optimally. To me, that points to wanting a House with more expertise relevant to legislation and drawn from a wider pool.

What does that mean for composition? Like the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, I am wary of direct elections. I lived in the United States and saw how having two Chambers which see themselves as equally legitimate all too often results in deadlock. That would be a more serious problem in a parliamentary than a presidential system. It is also the case that politicisation tends to squeeze out expertise, and we need expertise.

Indirect elections could be an answer. As a Scottish unionist, I like the Bundesrat model, at least for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland; how best to provide for English regional representation is not for a Scot to tackle. But seats are allocated in the Bundesrat on the basis of degressive proportionality, favouring the smaller and more distant states, and copying that would reinforce our role as the cement of the union. But our legislative performance would not necessarily be improved at all.

So, are we stuck with an all-appointed House, as in Canada? Not necessarily: hybridity could be a good thing. Certainly, if our main task is to write good law, it will be a pity for us if we lose the expertise and experience of those who have had to apply the bad laws we have written.

My last point is this: let us at least correct the most glaring anomaly in the appointments system, as highlighted by Mr Johnson’s insouciant exuberance about convention. Most countries have honours systems but very few conflate recognition of past service with qualification for future work on legislation. Some of us are unqualified, frankly, and the House is mocked for its excessive notional size. The answer is simple, surely: follow precedent. Most Peers already have no right to sit here. If there are to be more life Peers, let us have two categories: those simply honoured with a title; and those who are willing to do, and well-suited to doing, a legislative job—and found to be such by the appointments commission, with a wider remit. Category 2 could be drawn from all parts of the kingdom. Degressive proportionality applies. There could —indeed, there should—be a ceiling on their number with a retirement age or term limits, after which they would transfer to category 1, but let us not drain away the current expertise until we have found a way of ensuring that we tap into more, and do so more systematically.

So, here are my four points.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, first, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in today’s rather long debate. It has been a significant debate. It has been wide-ranging and largely very thoughtful. We have also had a very wide range of views. I am aware that some noble Lords are fairly new to the debate and new to the House, but others have been round this circle a number of times and have enormous expertise. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, for his contribution today, given the expertise he has brought to this issue, and I know the work he has done the past.

I want to try and address as many of the points raised by noble Lords in the time I have. I stress, as I did in my opening comments, that this is not the end of the conversation or the debate on this and we are listening to comments made. I will address first why the hereditary Peers Bill, which has been introduced and now passed in the other place, was the first item. A number of noble Lords misquoted the manifesto today but the immediate issues brought up were the legislation around the right of hereditary Peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords. The manifesto then went on talk about what has also happened. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, can shake his head, but that is exactly true: it is what is in the manifesto. It is very clear in the manifesto that the first stage is about hereditary Peers. Why would that be the case? Why would that be the first item to be addressed? The reason is that the principle on that issue has already been established and acted on back in 1999 when the legislation went through.

Transitional arrangements were put in place a quarter of a century ago. I heard the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, and others say how there was a really engaging process at the time. I think others remember it slightly differently. Viscount Cranborne managed to do a deal—I have to say I admire his negotiating skills—where 92 hereditary Peers remained, and not only did they remain but if they left there was a by-election to replace them. That is extraordinary and I pay tribute to him. I have to say that his party did not really like it and he did not last very long after that. I think the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, was a beneficiary of his departing from his position. That is where we are at the moment. But in the idea that this would not be the first step in the current reforms when the principle is already established, I think the noble and learned Lord is being a little bit mischievous and he knows it.

I will comment first on the opening speakers from the main groups. I thank the noble Lord, Lord True, for his comments about the spirit of compromise. I do wish, when I had come to see him before on the Grocott Bill in the spirit of compromise, he had taken that same line there. We may not be where we are today had that been the case. He will recall, as will previous Leaders, that I offered to co-operate on that and help the Government see that legislation removing the by-elections through.

By not doing that, we get to the point where we take the same position. We have heard this time and again from the party opposite tonight: “Do not do anything unless you do everything. We do not know what everything is so let us do nothing”. I am sorry but that is not a sustainable position and—

[Lord True (Con)]

Is it not—

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

On this occasion, I will take one more intervention, given even the lateness of the hour and the lack of opportunity to progress with my argument.

[Lord True (Con)]

I was really trying to help the noble Baroness guide her argument because it is not the first step that the House is interested in; it is the final step. What do the Government propose that this House should do and what should it be? Will she please tell the House?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I have to urge patience on the noble Lord. I am at the start of my comments on the debate and the noble Lord seeks to intervene on me within a few minutes. I would urge him to have a bit of caution and patience, but I want to raise another point. He said that this was sprung on us; how utterly ridiculous. It has been 25 years; it was in the manifesto; it was a major part of his comments and those of others on the King’s Speech. This was not sprung. I wrote an article saying, as I have said in the House on many occasions, that if the by-elections continued this would have been a consequence of that. The option was there to stop the by-elections. One noble Lord—I cannot remember who—said that we have stopped the by-elections now. No, we have only paused them until the conclusion of this legislation.

The noble Lord, Lord Newby, had great strength in his arguments. There was consistency of principle but pragmatism as well. He asked whether I still held the view that the House worked best when there were roughly equal numbers between the government party and the Opposition. That is a personal view which I expressed in a Select Committee that he and I both attended. It is hard to get to those exact numbers, but when you have such a great imbalance as there has been over the last few years, the House does not do its best work. I think the House works better with roughly equal numbers. I will return to that in a moment.

I thank the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, for his very thoughtful and helpful comments. He has been instrumental in bringing forward papers to look at the conventions of the House over the last year or so, and I am grateful to him for his time on that. He was also the first to try to put some detail on the issue of participation. As I said when I opened, I think we all have an innate understanding of what we mean but quantifying that is quite difficult. I am grateful to him for looking to do so and for his comments on laws and conventions.

A number of noble Lords—including the noble Lords, Lord True, Lord Forsyth, Lord Mancroft and Lord Inglewood—talked about there being a power grab for parties on this. It is quite right that, in recent times, no political party has had an overall majority in this House. That is the right way for us to operate; it will not be changed at all by the Bill that has now been completed in the other place. That will not change as a result. If we look at the statistics of how we operate, currently the Conservatives have 34% of your Lordships’ House; after the Bill being implemented, that would be 32%. On my side, currently 22% of the House are Labour Peers; after the hereditary Peers are removed, it will be just 24%. In fact, the party that gets closest to being reflected most accurately is the Liberal Democrats. There will be very little difference between that party’s representation here and in the other place.

I also gently—or perhaps not so gently—remind noble Lords that after 12 years of a Labour Government, there were 24 more Labour Peers than the Conservative Party had. After 14 years of the Conservative Party in government, there were over 100 more Conservative Peers than Labour had. When I hear weaselly words such as, “We’ve got to stop this Prime Minister making appointments”, I ask: why was that never considered prior to the Bill being introduced?

The noble Lord, Lord Newby, also asked what the Government’s view is of the size and composition. He was right to raise that but the noble Lord, Lord Burns, made a very valid point, which I accept. There is little sense in the House reducing its size, by whatever means, if that is not a sustainable position to hold. I will take that away and reflect on it because the noble Lord is right.

We also have to ask: why do we think a smaller House would be the right thing? There has to be the purpose first, which is not having a smaller House. The purpose is to be more effective in how we operate and what we do. The representations I have had from across the House, from almost every noble Lord who has been to see me, is that they think we would do this better with a smaller House. Indeed, some noble Lords who have since departed said to me that they felt as the House got bigger, they were less able to make the contributions that they wanted to make. It is absolutely right that if Members leave the House, that should not necessarily be to create a vacancy for more appointments.

The manifesto talked about retirement age and participation. I am keen to engage further on this and I am grateful to noble Lords who commented on how that could be implemented. A number of issues were raised and I will take those forward. A point made by the noble Lord, Lord Burns, was that one reason the House has become so large is that you have Members coming in but not departing. He sought to look at that at the time of his report. I think that the noble Lords, Lord Hampton and Lord Inglewood, made similar comments.

Several noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Kerr and Lord Liddle, raised something that has been raised before: decoupling the title and the membership of the second Chamber. There is no doubt that, when noble Lords are given a title, it is recognition of work they have done in the past. But it also has to be an expectation of what they are going to do in the future and the contributions they will make. The two go hand in hand. We want to see an active membership. As I said, that does not mean that every Peer has to be here all day every day. We are a full-time House. Not every Member has to be full-time, but they have to make a commitment to the work of this place.

The noble Lord, Lord Murphy of Torfaen, raised the issue—I think it is an interesting point—of devolved Governments’ First Ministers being offered peerages. The SNP of course does not nominate people to this House. The point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, was that, where there are institutions in which you can make your voice heard, you should do so. I think her party takes a very different position from—I say this in the loosest form—its sister party in Scotland on that one. The noble Lord, Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale, was the First Minister of Scotland: currently he is the only one from our party. Other parties have made nominations as well. But I think it is a point well made. We want a more diverse House, in terms of a whole range of characteristics, including geography but also age, gender, ethnicity, religion and other issues as well.

A number of noble Lords raised participation. I thank the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, for his initial comments on this. I would quite like to have further discussions around the House on this as I do not think there is a consensus on how to move forward. My impression, from the conversations I have had, is that most noble Lords think that this is important, but no one can actually quantify it. What you do not want—I think the noble Baroness, Lady Sanderson, said this—is a perverse incentive to encourage people to turn up or speak when they do not need to speak. But you do want to know that someone is serious about being here.

All of us have expressed concern about those noble Lords—albeit a small number of them—who come in here, sign the book to retain their membership and then walk out and leave. That is not being serious about this House.

House of Lords: Behaviour and Courtesy

Lord True Excerpts

Monday 14th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely right. I remember the controversy when the first Lord Speaker—the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, who is in her place—was introduced. Every Lord Speaker has done this House proud. Of course, their role is not just one in the Chamber but a wider one of advocacy for the House of Lords. The noble Lord is right that each of those changes—I was the advocate for the last one of announcing next business when we move from Bills to Statements—has been made with the agreement of the House. I always think that is the best way to proceed on these issues.

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, if there is a Question that is really about the role of the Lord Speaker, it might be helpful to noble Lords if that were made clear when the Question is tabled. I agree with both what the noble Baroness the Leader of the House and the Leader of the Liberal Democrat Peers said. This House is a courteous House and I do not recognise that deterioration; I think it remains a courteous House and it is exemplified, if I may say so, by the noble Baroness the Leader herself. I support what has been said from the opposite Front Bench about behaviour, including remarks about brevity. Perhaps, after the recent intervention by the Captain of the Gentlemen-at-Arms, we should circulate the Oxford English Dictionary to Members.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I hesitate to intrude on that one. The noble Lord is right but, having said that, there have been moments when I think all of us have been embarrassed when noble Lords do not give way to each other, so I understand the point that has been made. It comes back to respect and courtesy. With the powerful advocacy of the usual channels, we can maintain that. It is always open to noble Lords who wish to change procedure to ask the Procedure Committee to consider any such change.

Anniversary of 7 October Attacks: Middle East

Lord True Excerpts

Tuesday 8th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord True (Con)]

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

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

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

It was, as he said,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Newby (LD)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Grenfell Tower Inquiry Phase 2 Report

Lord True Excerpts

Monday 9th September 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord True (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Newby (LD)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

with

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

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

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

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

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

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

House of Lords: Composition

Lord True Excerpts

Thursday 5th September 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I disagree with the noble Lord on his final point, but I would expect him to make it because he is committed to an elected House. It is interesting that, when the debate was going through the House of Lords a quarter of a century ago, there was concern from a large number of hereditary Peers who were in your Lordships’ House at the time, and in order to smooth the passage of the Bill, arrangements were made that 92 hereditary Peers would remain on a hereditary basis. On that basis, Lord Cranborne was sacked from his job as Leader of the Opposition, and I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, who was put in his place—he was perhaps a beneficiary of that. The noble Lord, Lord Howell, made the point that constitutional reform should be made with care and consideration, and 25 years seems a fair amount of care and consideration.

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, for the avoidance of doubt I should say that I was the one who proposed that we look at the by-election matter. I have repeatedly made clear, both from that Dispatch Box as Leader and since, that I believe the best way forward for this House certainly in areas of constitutional change is by consensus, and not on the basis of divisive and partisan legislation.

There is a further and wider point. It is a courtesy and a duty to Parliament for Ministers to come to Parliament, and certainly to an affected House, to make a Statement on novel legislative matters before they are spewed out in the Guardian, the Times and other media. I do not know whether it was a decision of the noble Baroness that the pre-spin be done in this way; perhaps she was instructed by No. 10 not to make a Statement in this House. However, it was unlike her and not typical, and the misjudgment not to make a Statement in this House did not reflect her normal courtesy. I welcome some of the things that she said, so will she repeat her undertaking to enter into discussions now in the spirit of consensus? My door is open, as is, I am sure, the noble Earl’s.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for his comments on hereditary Peers’ by-elections; both he and the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, have approached me. In terms of constructive debate, I spoke to the Cross-Bench Peers yesterday and I would welcome an invitation to speak to the Conservatives. I do not think the noble Lord can do so as a matter of course, as it is by invitation, so I would welcome an invitation too.

There was a bit of faux anger on his part about a Statement to this House. This issue was in the Labour Party manifesto. During the King’s Speech debate, it was the subject of almost the entire content of the noble Lord’s response to my comments in the constitutional debate. When a Bill is introduced into either House, it is normal for a comment to be made. I wanted to ensure that it was on the record that we welcomed and appreciated the contribution made by hereditary Peers, and that is why it is in the Statement. It is a perfectly normal way of doing things. It did not come as a surprise to the noble Lord. It has been debated in this House on many occasions and I am sure the dialogue will continue.

NATO and European Political Community Meetings

Lord True Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd July 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for repeating this Statement. We on this side share in good wishes for the future of President Biden after his decision to withdraw from November’s election. It was only a fortnight ago that the Prime Minister stressed on what good form President Biden was, so this news was a great surprise to many of us. I hope, as others have said, that Sir Keir did not tell him that he was over 80 and had to go. I also express, on behalf of these Benches, our revulsion at the attempt on the life of President Trump and our delight that this murderous attack failed. We were struck by the great courage that Mr Trump showed. I was pleased that the Prime Minister conveyed our nation’s best wishes to him directly.

We live in a world of hatred running rife, murderous bloody war, the ambition to annihilate whole nations and, as the Statement said so eloquently, actions so heinous that they target women and children, and even glory in it. Against that, what we say may seem trivial, but it cannot help to create the right climate to call a political opponent such as Mr Trump a would-be dictator, a neo-Nazi or even Hitler. I think the people who invaded Normandy in 1944 and liberated Belsen and Auschwitz knew what a racist and a Nazi really was. I think many across the world could do well to look at the civility of discourse in this Chamber. That includes, and must always include—I make this abundantly clear—a respectful response to a maiden speech. I welcome all new noble Lords on the Front Bench opposite.

I was grateful as Leader for the unstinting support from that side of the Chamber for our Government’s unswerving commitment to Ukraine. Prime Minister Johnson was literally in it from the time of the first assault on Kyiv. We unequivocally support the strong words of the Prime Minister and his firm commitment of substantial and enduring resources to the future defence of Ukraine. Russia’s barbaric aggression must be halted and we on this side stand four-square with His Majesty’s Government on that.

We also welcome the Prime Minister’s positive commitment to NATO. For 75 years, NATO has been the most successful defensive alliance in history, and defensive it remains. However, behind some of the rhetoric in this Statement was a troubling fact: this Government have as one of their first acts dropped the previous Government’s funded commitment to raise defence spending to 2.5% of our GDP by 2030. We are told that a clear path may be set out at some time in the future. Can the noble Baroness say when this will happen? Will it come in the Autumn Statement or await the latest strategic review, to be conducted by the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Port Ellen?

The whole House appreciates the great experience and sound judgment of the noble Lord, Lord Robertson. Can we be assured that this Government, in their enthusiasm for a so-called “reset” with the European Union—we have never been anything other than friendly with our partners in Europe—will not abandon the vital strategic emphasis on our Pacific partnerships through the CPTPP and AUKUS, among other instruments? With China’s threatening posture and North Korea’s support of aggression against Ukraine, it is surely essential that our ties continue to strengthen with this economically expanding part of the world. Will the noble Baroness restate the Government’s unequivocal commitment to the CPTPP and the AUKUS treaty?

There are disturbing reports that the Government may reconsider our commitment to the Tempest fighter project. This, too, is crucial to our ties in the Pacific. Our close ally, Japan, is a partner in the Global Combat Air Programme project. It was sealed by the signing of an international treaty in Tokyo in December 2023. A treaty—pacta sunt servanda. The other major signatory to this treaty was another of our closest allies, Italy. The Prime Minister said in the Statement that he wants to be

“in the room, centre stage”,

so will the noble Baroness assure the House that there can be no question of rushing off into the wings from a treaty on the Tempest project with a close European friend, Italy, and a close ally, Japan? Pacta sunt servanda. Does this principle apply to a Labour Government on a day when we are debating the rule of law?

Already, we have seen this Government unilaterally abrogate a treaty with a friendly Commonwealth ally, Rwanda. Notice of ratification by the UK Government was issued on 23 April. Six weeks later, it was “scrapped” —I think that was the diplomatic word used by a No. 10 spin doctor—with no prior contact with the Government of Rwanda. Pacta sunt servanda. I ask again: does this principle still apply? There is talk of money wasted—and certainly good will has been wasted —but in life, money is wasted not by those investing in a long-term project but by those who pull the plug on it as it comes to fruition.

The Prime Minister spoke of a full-scale crisis of illegal migration. He has unilaterally abrogated the Rwanda treaty. Can the noble Baroness now tell the House what specifically will be done to deter and deal with those individuals who land illegally in large numbers on our shores? What will the Government do with them? The Prime Minister was offered many opportunities to answer this during the election and did not do so. Will the noble Baroness respond to Parliament?

We were pleased that the Prime Minister went through with the EPC summit at Blenheim Palace. He was candid and generous enough to admit that this summit, with its emphasis on illegal migration, was planned—in partnership with the Italian EU presidency—by the previous Conservative Government. Hearing some of the excited spin doctors of the new Government, you would not have thought so—rather that it might have arisen miraculously in two weeks. I pay tribute to the work done by my noble friends Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon and Lord Cameron in preparing this summit. We are glad that it was a success, though it is important never to forget that the only sure anchor of European security is NATO. We must take care never to allow any security pact with the European Union, however desirable it may seem, to undermine that truth.

Finally, the Prime Minister spoke about the situation in the Middle East. We all want to see progress towards a two-state solution where Israelis and Palestinians can live side by side in peace, prosperity and security. However, as we make progress towards that goal, our friend and ally Israel must have the right to defend itself against the threat it is facing, demonstrated by the drone strike on Tel Aviv at the end of last week by the Iranian-allied Houthi rebels.

In conclusion, I assure the noble Baroness that we on these Opposition Benches will work positively with His Majesty’s Government on questions of foreign policy and national security. Of course, we will question and probe—that is the duty of this House—but across this Chamber we will always act in the national interest and work constructively with His Majesty’s Government to ensure the security of our country.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I too thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement and begin by saying that we share the Government’s sentiments in their tributes to President Biden.

I welcome this Statement, not least because of its tone. In the last Parliament, we became used to gushing prime ministerial Statements that made grandiose assertions about Britain’s role in the world, which often seemed at odds with reality. Today’s Statement adopts a much more matter-of-fact tone, which seems more in keeping with our global position as a nation. It seems to me that this more realistic degree of national self-awareness is a much sounder basis on which to base our foreign and defence policies.

On the specific issues discussed at the NATO summit, the war in Ukraine remains the biggest threat to European peace and security. We therefore welcome the Government’s ongoing commitment to supporting Ukraine militarily and financially, and in moving towards NATO membership.

Meanwhile, the situation in Gaza goes from bad to worse. We obviously welcome the Government’s commitment to an immediate ceasefire and their practical decision to resume support to UNRWA, but we believe they should go further now by ending arms exports to Israel and recognising a Palestinian state. On the ICJ opinion, we are pleased to hear the Prime Minister’s reiteration of UK support for the work of the court. I therefore hope that the Government will respect all its judgments. We must not get ourselves into the position of supporting the work of the court only when it delivers politically convenient opinions.

The overarching challenge now facing NATO is how Europe should respond to a possible US retreat from its European commitments. That would be an immediate challenge were President Trump to be elected, but in the longer term even Democrat presidents, faced with an increasing preoccupation with China, are likely to give less priority to the defence of Europe. Europe is therefore going to have to stand on its own feet on defence to a greater extent than at any point since World War II, and the sooner we accept this and proactively plan to do so, the better.

That is one reason why we support the strategic defence review. We hope that it will agree with us that a top priority must be to increase the size and operational capability of the Army, and that the previous Government’s so-called tilt to the east was a mistaken attempt to pretend that we had a global military reach—which we simply do not have—and should now be reversed.

The Prime Minister was fortunate in the timing of the European Political Community summit last week, in that it gave him an early opportunity to begin to reset our relationship with our European neighbours, and particularly with the EU. It is a pleasure to be able to agree with the Government that we need to be in the room when the EU discusses security, migration and climate change, but we would welcome any indication from the Leader as to when the Government anticipate that this active participation will start. Has any timetable been agreed?

As the Leader and the House know, while we are pleased that the Government are adopting a more positive tone in respect of the EU, we do not think they are going far or fast enough in building our relationships. It is intensely depressing to me to hear the Prime Minister ruling out freedom of movement and membership of the single market or customs union almost as an article of faith. It is equally depressing that the Government seem unwilling to take smaller steps such as reinstating EU youth exchange arrangements, which are clearly beneficial for the UK and the EU alike.

The Prime Minister says that he is taking a practical rather than an ideological view of our relations with the EU. If that is indeed the case, can the Leader assure us that the Prime Minister will look practically and not ideologically at a further series of steps to restore our European links?

King’s Speech

Lord True Excerpts

Wednesday 17th July 2024 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord True]

That this debate be adjourned till tomorrow.

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, what a privilege it is to follow the noble Lord, Lord Reid of Cardowan, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hazarika—two absolutely brilliant children of Coatbridge.

The speech from the noble Lord, Lord Reid, was, as ever, brilliant, humorous and direct. When I was at that Dispatch Box and saw him staring with that disarming smile, I knew I was in for big trouble, but I always knew that no political difference would ever stop a friendly drink afterwards in the Bishops’ Bar. That is the true spirit of our House, and may it always be so. I was shocked to find that the noble Lord is 77 years young, and I would hate to see him go at the end of the Parliament—along with 89 of our other friends on the Benches opposite. Seriously, we can ill afford to lose such voices of experience.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hazarika, has already charmed the House by her intelligence and good humour. As many in the House will know, alongside her brilliant public, political and professional broadcasting careers, she has been a successful stand-up comic, which is one of the hardest things to be. Today she certainly proved why—and how much we look forward to hearing from her in both the serious and the humorous vein, which she combines so well.

My last engagement as Lord Privy Seal was the state banquet for the Emperor of Japan. As I sat there listening to him speaking of his late grandfather, I was reminded of the broadcast that the Emperor Hirohito gave in 1945 after the dropping of the atomic bomb. He declared:

“The war situation has developed not necessarily to the advantage of Japan”.


I think I may say that, since that banquet, the political situation has developed not necessarily to the advantage of the Conservative Party. We now find ourselves with a different view to contemplate—although, when I look at the Cross Benches opposite and recall all those repeated ping-pongs and 409 defeats, I wonder whether some up there now may feel themselves in more congenial company, especially if they will not reach 80 by 2029.

I wholeheartedly congratulate the Labour Party on its victory. I particularly congratulate all those on the Front Bench opposite and those who have supported them, who worked so hard in the long, bleak years in opposition. I remember how that was. I also particularly congratulate our new Leader, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon. It was a huge pleasure to work with her in government. I would usually benefit from her candour but I could always rely on her word, and I pledge to your Lordships that, whenever the noble Baroness puts the interests of the whole House first, I will work with her in the same constructive spirit.

When the noble Baroness replies, I hope that she can say something about the balance of what to me looks a very overweight legislative programme. How long will this Session actually be? I trust that ample time will be given to your Lordships to scrutinise these measures. Can she tell us how many Bills will start in this House and which will be the first we receive?

Noble Lords will note that I cannot go on without a kind word about the Liberal Democrats. I congratulate them, too, on their successes, and declare that they are no longer quite so grossly overrepresented in your Lordships’ House. Perhaps now they can leave some of the strain of making quite so many speeches to their eager new colleagues in the other place.

Of course, I welcome elements of the gracious Speech, not least the clear consistency of purpose where we stand together in support of the people of Ukraine. Like the noble Baroness, I welcome the aim to halve violence against women and girls—but surely our aim must be over time to eliminate this vile behaviour for ever. There are inconsistencies in the Speech, which no doubt will be picked out in the debate ahead—for example, the promise of devolution but the taking of more power for central government to dictate building on the green belt.

This good-humoured day will have brought joy to many on the Benches opposite, but there is a serious matter before your Lordships and, as Leader of the Opposition, I must address it. The gracious Speech alluded to one part of the manifesto package that would radically alter your Lordships’ House. There are four elements: removing immediately all the formerly hereditary Peers; removing by 2029 any Peer now aged 75 or more; mandating a new participation requirement; and finally, and only then, considering how your Lordships’ House might be replaced—from half of us out, I guess, to perhaps all of us out at some time, in some way that the party opposite has not managed to figure out in 25 years.

Many of us know that these proposals cannot have been put together by the noble Baroness the Leader of the House. The manifesto says that “we”—that is, the Executive—

“will introduce a new participation requirement”.

Will the noble Baroness tell us precisely what measure of participation for Peers will be planned? If it is by interruption, the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock, is very safe, as he is top of the list—but it will be interesting to know what is actually wanted.

Then we have the proposed changes to the membership of the House. The Labour Party has a political right to remove former hereditary Peers, but it has a constitutional responsibility to say what follows. It did not do that in 1999 and it still has not done so today. No one inherits a seat in our House any more, and no hereditary Peer has the right by birth to sit and vote in this House. Our hereditary colleagues who remain are not the port-swilling backwoodsmen of ancient legend. They are people we know, some of the most active among us and some of the voices we most respect: the noble Lords, Lord Strathclyde and Lord Vaux, my noble friend Lord Howe, the Convenor of the Cross Benches—I could go on. They are dedicated Front-Benchers on both sides, Deputy Speakers and some of our most assiduous Back-Benchers all around the House. Can we afford their loss?

Then there is the element that, although not mentioned in the gracious Speech, I have alluded to: the proposed ousting of those now aged 75 or more, ejecting a great deal of accumulated wisdom that makes this House different from the other place. Again, that proposal cannot have been concocted here. The figures are stark: ejecting hereditary Peers and those now aged over 75 would remove some 390 Members of this House by 2029, including 107 Cross-Benchers—some 60% of their number would be out. That, in my submission, would be regrettable.

This is a House of consensus, compromise and convention, and I think we can do better. What guarantees that a Government’s programme passes is not numbers; it is convention. I thought it quite wrong that this House defeated the last Government on record numbers of occasions and with record rounds of ping-pong. I never hid that. I thought it wrong under a Conservative Government and I think it would be wrong under a Labour Government. This House has every right—and, indeed, a duty—to engage with Ministers and to ask the other place to think again, but an unelected House must never be a House of opposition. The days of wilful defeats of an elected Government should stop, and while I am Leader of the Opposition I will seek to lead in that responsible tone.

When I was your Leader, I reached across the Chamber, as did the Convenor of the Cross Benches, to offer discussions to strengthen the conventions that guide this House in ways that would both preserve your Lordships’ freedoms and give security to all Governments. That offer remains open. I believe it to be the best course, but convention will be tested, perhaps to destruction, if we plunge down the road to partisan purges and pointless conflicts.

I offer that advice in a spirit of good will and amity, and with no rancour, on a day when I salute the success of the Labour Party and the pleasure that friends opposite, if I may call them that today, take in that victory. But as we go forward, there should be consideration for all the Members of this House and consultation on all Labour’s proposals for this House. There should be a search for consensus and a reinforcement of convention. I ask our Leader, whom we all so respect, to impress on her colleagues who are perhaps less understanding of this course the greater wisdom and the surer efficacy of that way.

Having been serious for a moment, let me say: peace and good will to all. It is an honour and a privilege to have served on that side, to serve on this side and to know you all as fellow workers. I wish godspeed to all in this new Parliament ahead. I beg to move that this debate be adjourned until tomorrow.