House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Lord True Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 3rd March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord True (Con)]

It was Labour.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

Well, let us agree to differ on that.

The Gordon Brown proposals are out there, and there are a range of other matters that we could begin to pull together very quickly; we do not need to start again. I find the reference to the Council of the Nations and Regions interesting. In two or three weeks I have a Question on how precisely the new Council of the Nations and Regions will fit in to our constitutional arrangements, because I am not at all sure that I or the Government yet understand how it will fit in.

We need to level up the way our politics are done. I have spent most of my political life in Yorkshire. We now have a situation in which Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have some voice in London, but the English regions and the English principal councils do not. I am not entirely sure that mayors elected on perhaps 29% or 30% of the vote on a 25% turnout will have that much legitimacy to represent their areas to the central Government. The question of how far the second Chamber should be constituted so as to strengthen the representation of areas outside London in the centralised governance of this country is very important, so we need to move on to that.

We shall say from these Benches to the Government Front Bench, several times, that before we clear this Bill we need some assurance as to where we go from here and when we might start to move from here. This is an interesting, slightly idiosyncratic set of proposals, but one could perhaps throw it into the mix.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord True]

9: Leave out Clause 1 and insert the following new Clause—
“Exclusion of remaining hereditary peers(1) Section 2 of the House of Lords Act 1999 (exception from section 1) is amended as follows.(2) For subsection (2) substitute—“(2) No more than 89 people at any one time shall be excepted from section 1.”(3) For subsection (4) substitute—“(4) Any vacancy resulting from the death, retirement, resignation or expulsion of an excepted person under subsection (2) after the day on which the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Act 2025 comes into force is not to be filled by further exception.””Member’s explanatory statement
The purpose of the amendment is to prevent any more hereditary peers coming to the House of Lords by virtue of the 1999 Act in future. However, it allows peers who are already serving the House to remain as members for life in the same way as is allowed to all other Lords Temporal.

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I must tell the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, that in the last Recess I visited the tomb of Diaghilev on San Michele. As always, it was covered with ballet shoes. I wonder whether one was put there on behalf of the noble Lord’s great-great-grandmother. You never know.

I am sure not many people are here to listen to me, so I must make it clear that I have absolutely no intention of testing the opinion of the Committee on this or, in fact, any other amendment in my name, as I offer the amendments I put forward as a basis for open discussion and potential improvement of a Bill that will pass, as I said. As noble Lords will recognise, this amendment is based on ideas put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, which he used to love but which, we heard earlier, he now absolutely loathes and condemns, so he would never vote for my amendment.

However, the amendment has the same effect as the noble Lord’s Bill, ending the by-elections provided for under the House of Lords Act 1999, something I think we are all agreed on in light of the Government’s mandate. But it amends the present Bill to leave out what was added to the Grocott Bill—the wholesale expulsion of 88 or 89 fellow Members, one of whom is currently on leave of absence. It would also allow our existing valued colleagues who serve here—we have heard from all sides how much they are valued—the possibility to continue on the same basis as the rest of us came here and serve here: for life. I believe that to be fair, reasonable and in accordance with the practice of this House. That is what happened in 1922, when Irish Peers left the House, as we were told earlier.

In 2009, when the Supreme Court was set up and the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary were abolished by the Labour Government, existing Law Lords were allowed to stay. They were given, in effect, grandfather rights or acquired rights, and that is how the noble and learned Lords, Lord Woolf, Lord Mance and Lord Hoffmann, were and are sitting with us. It is how we benefited for so long from the truly memorable wisdom of noble and learned Lords like the late Lord Lloyd of Berwick and the recently lamented Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood. It is how the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hale of Richmond, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury, sit here.

When the Law Lords were abolished for the future, 23 people—no more—were given these grandfather rights, retaining the acquired right to sit. Did that damage the House? Does that damage the House? I suggest the continued presence and use of that experience does precisely the opposite. Why should it be different with those friends we have among us as elected hereditary Peers? When I say friends, I mean friends on all sides, including in the party opposite. They are people we know, sit with, learn from and share service with every day. Why are they being given, in effect, summary dismissal under the Bill? That is what it is; that is what the Bill says.

In law, summary dismissal is acceptable only in cases of gross misconduct such as physical violence, racism, sexual harassment, theft, or deliberate disclosure of sensitive information. I am not sure that the noble Earls, Lord Minto, Lord Clancarty, Lord Kinnoull and Lord Howe, have ever been guilty of any of those. I am told there is another ground for summary dismissal, which may appeal more to some in government, and that is serious insubordination in the workplace. Perhaps some of my colleagues, seen from Labour headquarters, are guilty of that. Well, good for the independence of the House of Lords.

To be serious, in Amendment 1 I spoke about a four-part plan that I believe would be a good destination for this House, while giving the Government greater security regarding their legislative programme and what they wish for: ending any inflow into the House based on the hereditary principle. That is something Sir Keir Starmer can take to the party conference. Point one of my proposals was that we recognise the Government’s mandate to end this flow. This amendment does not challenge that.

Noble Lords may well know that soon after the election last summer—this was not popular with all my colleagues—I and the Convenor of the Cross Benches, the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, went to the noble Baroness the Leader of the House to suggest the suspension of by-elections as an earnest of good faith and recognition of the direction the Government wished to go. We recognised the Government’s mandate, even if we might regret it. It was also an earnest of our wish to work in a constructive way with the Leader of the House, whom we greatly respect, to find the best way forward for the whole House. That is still my wish.

I know the noble Baroness and her commitment to the whole House, which she has displayed over nine years as leader of her party here, Leader of the Opposition and now Leader of our House. I am sure that if the absolutists and absolute positions are kept in the wings, we can find a way forward, based on the trust I have in her good sense and pragmatism. But there has to be give and take. We accept the shutting of the door, but we cannot back a full-scale purge.

There is a stakeholder far larger than my party, or indeed the party opposite, and that is the House itself. The House may have a view on whether it wants to lose these colleagues. It is not in the interests of the House, either in practice or as a precedent, to have some of its most effective Members summarily excluded. I say again that what I fear in my heart is that what is done once will inevitably happen again when another party holds the reins. The Conservative Party has never yet excluded Members of other parties, and I hope it never will, but I can imagine others around who might not have the same scruples, and a precedent of damping summary exclusion might be in the interests of the House.

In my speech earlier, I suggested as a second point of agreement that there should be a stay on wholesale exclusion, but with, as my third point, some agreed approach to numbers. I add this also for reflection. In the purest practical terms, both presentationally and constitutionally, it is easier to keep existing Members but address numbers by retirement from the ranks and other measures, rather than throw everyone out and then have the Prime Minister bring significant numbers back by creating new life peerages in the most public of all forums. For years, the party opposite supported the Bill brought forward by the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, to end by-elections. That was never our policy, except in the context of a stage two Bill such as we brought forward in 2011-12. Even the coalition agreement of May 2010 saw the issue of existing Peers as something that must be respected. I look back to the coalition agreement, which said there would

“be a grandfathering system for current Peers”.

My amendment follows past precedents and has exactly the same effect as that of the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Grocott. It ends new entry but keeps those now here, just as Labour did with the Law Lords. Why should the Government be against that now? When the ending of by-elections was discussed on 13 March 2020, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, who was in her place earlier but is no longer here, said:

“It would not affect any of our existing Members, whom we look forward to hearing from, I hope, for many, many years”.—[Official Report, 13/3/20; col. 1231.]


On 3 December 2021, the noble Baroness doubled down on that, saying:

“This modest measure would make change very gradually. We are not seeking to say farewell to any hereditary already here; indeed, we look forward to their contributions for many more years.”.—[Official Report, 3/12/21; col. 1569.]


Was that not a wise and humane position? For the Liberal Democrats, speaking to the same Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, said:

“No existing Member of the House—and I accept that we have some very excellent hereditary Members—should feel threatened”.—[Official Report, 3/12/21; col. 1567.]


What has changed? Why is the exclusion of these 88 people so essential? If it is about ideology, we can do little but oppose it, and there seem to be some who are of that mind whom I would wish to restrain. If it is about numbers, we should surely rule no options out, but sit down to discuss it, keeping in mind at all times the best interests of the whole House. If we want to get to a destination—and I think there is scope for agreement on a destination—we need to be open about the potential routes. Let us keep all options on the table if we really wish to enable a settlement.

On 7 September 2020, the noble Baroness the Leader of the House said:

“All Members of your Lordships’ House are welcomed. In fact, most of us really do not know who are the life Peers and who are the hereditary Peers”.—[Official Report, 7/9/20; col. 545.]


How sad it is that this Bill and this provision are driving a wedge. What the noble Baroness said then was the best of the noble Baroness—the best of our Leader. She is a Leader we all know and respect. How she said it then is as it should be, and how it should stay. We are all one, and stronger as one. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

I had not realised we were quite as democratic as that. Obviously, I am sorry for people who enjoyed it here and are going. I dare say it will happen to me before too long. But, really, they cannot complain when they have had an innings of 40-odd years. It is a pretty good deal, especially when they come from a cohort of Peers who have come via the electoral process, of which much has been heard—occasionally with approval, I am amazed to say. People coming via that mechanism can have no complaints if their service comes to a conclusion. I think 40-odd years is a very good innings and there is no reason to weep and wail because it is coming to an end.

I will not go through the rigmarole of asking why on earth the noble Lord, Lord True, has had his change of mind. It is not entirely accurate to say that he was a slavish servant of the Government at the time because, when my Bill was first introduced, unless my memory serves me badly, he was not a member of the Government and, along with the noble Lords, Lord Strathclyde and Lord Trefgarne, and the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, was resolutely opposed to the Bill, just as they were to every attempt to reform this place over the period that they were in power. I am not going to speak any longer, for fear that I will get interrupted.

[Lord True (Con)]

If the noble Lord will allow me, I was strongly in favour of the proposals put forward by the coalition Government and I look forward with interest to the debate launched by the noble Lord. That was my view.

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord True, is talking about the coalition period. He was in favour of the Bill then. I assume that is what he is arguing about, not my Bill. I am talking specifically about my Bill, which he previously opposed in a powerful way and has now tabled an amendment to implement. I have no intention whatever of voting for the amendment, he will not be surprised to hear. Those who have sat it out as hereditary Peers have had a very good, generous innings from a very small electorate. Hereditary Peers on the list who have said that they are available for election have something like a one in 200 chance of becoming a Member of the House of Lords, whereas members of the general public have a one in 75,000 chance of becoming a Member of Parliament—so it has been a pretty privileged group. Many have served well, but the end is nigh and I suppose we will continue to repeat these kinds of assurances.

I will make one more point and then I will sit down for the rest of the evening. We make much of these 92, including many capable people, leaving their position in the Lords. A mere eight months ago, some 220-odd people lost their seats in the Commons and, although most of them were Tories, I am prepared to admit that maybe some of them made a useful contribution while they were Members of Parliament—but you go; you are chucked out; that is what happens. And that is what is likely to happen as soon as this Bill becomes law.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Newby (LD)]

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

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

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

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

[Lord True (Con)]

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

[Lord Newby (LD)]

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

The noble Baroness has made her point. There are times in life when you have to seize opportunities to make things happen and, sometimes, if you fail to take that opportunity, that time passes. The party opposite is suggesting this now only because an alternative proposal came forward. Had the noble Lord come forward before our manifesto, I would have bitten his hand off and gone with it. It is a shame that he did not.

Looking at other points that were made, the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, was someone who had lots of amendments, as I recall, to the Grocott Bill, although he did not speak to them. It is a shame. I actually stopped coming to the Chamber to listen to the debate because it was the same thing time and again—there were so many amendments. So, here we are now because 25 years ago, the principle was established that hereditary Peers would no longer have the right to sit and vote in the House of Lords. That is what has brought us to this point now.

To answer some of the questions, the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, talked about some of the characteristics of hereditary Peers and the work that they do. The same applies to life Peers, as I am sure she will readily admit. There has always been scrutiny in this House, not just from hereditary Peers but from across the House. This House has always discharged its duties and will continue to do so.

The noble Lord, Lord Newby, asked the noble Lord, Lord True, for his response, which he received. I have always said that there is no barrier to Members of your Lordships’ House who have hereditary peerages receiving life peerages. That does not have to wait until the end of the Bill. If peerages were offered tomorrow by the political parties, they could be made life Peers. It is different for the Cross Benches. I do not think it is for me or the Government, if there was to be a proposal for other Members of other parties, to say who they would be, but there is a way of working this out and I will discuss this with the relevant parties. I accept that the Cross Benches are in a different position and would need different arrangements as well.

The noble Lord, Lord True, talked about his four-stage plan, some of which I had heard before but some of which was new to me as well. He says that this is a way of offering greater security for the Government to get their business through. I am sure that with his normal courtesy it would not be, but I hope that is not a suggestion that, if we do not do this, we will not get our business through. I just want to confirm this. Because he is aware of the conventions of the House—and I hope I understand him correctly—I think he is looking to seek further protections in terms of ping-pong, but if he could confirm that to me at some point, that would be very helpful, because I am sure he does not mean it to sound in any way as a threat. I am sure that is not what he intended, but it did come out a little bit like that. I will read Hansard, or we can talk further on that to make sure we have got it absolutely clear.

I have to be honest with the noble Lord. I understand why he has put this through, but I wish he would have come to this conclusion earlier—I really would have welcomed it—and I ask at this stage that he withdraw his amendment.

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all those who have spoken, and of course to the noble Baroness the Leader of the House. We began today with what I thought was a generally very good-tempered debate, one where I felt on both sides that there was a willingness to seek a way forward. I am sorry that we have ended in a slightly scratchy way, which I do not think was characteristic of the day, and I would rather not dwell on the recent words. I will bring this proposition back to the House, subject to whatever discussions we may or may not have before Report, because I suspect that the House—which has a say in this matter, not just the two political parties—might well believe that this is not an unreasonable approach, tempered in the way that I described earlier by agreements on one of the strands of my proposals to address the question of numbers, including by retirements.

I prefer to dwell not on failure but on the future. All I know of the noble Baroness the Leader of the House is her care for this House and her concern for the future, and that is where I am coming from. I do not do threats, and I do not make threats, but anybody who has been present in the worst parts of the debate today can see that people are feeling that there are strong passions on both sides. We heard them from the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, and we heard them from others. Those of us in leadership positions in the House must find ways to calm that, to reach agreements and to find a way forward.

I hear again that it is not possible for the Government to consider this, and that the horse has gone, or the boat has left—or whatever it is. This last weekend, the Prime Minister made a great act of statesmanship and, frankly, political courage, in which he took the incredibly difficult decision to cut spending on aid to protect our country and secure it for the future. The Prime Minister adopted a powerfully held position in the interests of the whole. I hope that we will, in the next few days and weeks, not rule out any route towards finding a solution to this problem, and that includes, as I said in my earlier speech, aspects tempered by ameliorative action on numbers.

It was a very impressive debate. I asked at the start whether it was about numbers; we can deal with that. If it is about ideology or firm places, we will have problems—but they will not necessarily be with me. That is not a threat; it is true that people will oppose that position. I hope that we are better than that.

I very much appreciated my noble friend Lady Finn’s powerful appeal to reason.

I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, might come back after dinner in a slightly more generous vein than before, so perhaps I can recommend him a better accompaniment to his food. The argument of “When you go, you go” is his view. As was aptly pointed out, if you are an MP, you can come back; our colleagues who are being excluded have only an exit door.

My noble friend Lord Hamilton of Epsom rightly pointed out that there are many younger, active hereditary Peers who do a great service to this House.

The noble Lord, Lord Newby, asked me two questions. He asked whether the Conservative Party was planning some exclusion. The fact is that the noble Lord is voting for exclusion, so he should not be too surprised that some other party might look at another group. I said that the Conservative Party never had—and, I hope, never would—go down that route. However, there are other parties on the block—there are other kids on the block—so if we make it, “Yes, you can come in and you can take out a group”, you could, for example, introduce 15-year term limits, which is very popular in the House. You could get rid of anybody who served for more than 15 years. We heard the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, say earlier that lots of people have been around here a long time. What would be the effect of that on composition? I would go. I do not know who else would go, but someone might pick up that plan and, looking at what was done in 2025, say, “No transition, no grandfather rights at all”. I am just warning that it could happen, and it might not be a party represented in this House that would want to do it.

Finally, I must refer to the great speech of my noble friend Lord Shinkwin. The Committee was absolutely silent listening to what he said, informed by his extraordinary life experience and courage, and the wisdom that has come from that. Some of us will have heard his words in different ways but, having heard what my noble friend said, surely we must show openness and inclusion to all our Members. Let us not rule out anything, even tonight; let us come back and consider the best way of solving this conundrum. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 9 withdrawn.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Lord True Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 3rd March 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord True]

1: Before Clause 1, insert the following new Clause—
“PurposeThe purpose of this Act is to end the connection between the possession of a hereditary peerage and obtaining membership of the House of Lords.”

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, the effect of Amendment 1 is to underline the purpose of this Bill as ending entry here by the hereditary principle, but which does not endorse the wholesale removal of colleagues who are already here. There thus falls to me the lamentable duty to open Committee on this Bill, whose purpose is, as my amendment has just declared, to end the hereditary principle as a route of entry to Parliament. Some will find that regrettable; others will rejoice, rejoice. But most of us, however, will have feelings in which the elements are very mixed—where the wish the Bill might be stopped is checked by a proper understanding of the conventions; and, on the other hand, where partisan zeal is leavened with the personal respect owed to familiar and valued colleagues.

I submit that this great House draws its strength from that mixing of elements: from an ancestral, indeed very British, wisdom that does not view every question as black or white or insist that every victory must be total. That moderation is symbolised by the presence of those Cross Benchers, untainted by party. In what sense will culling and cutting those independent ranks ever benefit our House?

It is a paradox little understood outside that most of the myriad improvements we make to Bills are won not in the Division Lobby but through discussion and shared reflection. Our Chamber is unique in the world in conducting its business in order and courtesy without anyone to discipline us. That is possible only because we are a House of consensus, courtesy and compromise, of decency and humanity. I trust those qualities will inform us on this Bill in the weeks ahead, including in how we treat fellow Members.

We will hear that this is a simple Bill that brooks no amendment. Indeed, we are told no amendment will be allowed. Since when did this revising Chamber accept such an instruction from any Executive? It is in fact a Bill of the greatest constitutional significance. It says that a passing political Executive may scoop their hand into your Lordships’ House and chuck out any group of us that is not to the taste or political convenience of the Government of the day. I spoke of this at Second Reading as a very dangerous precedent, and I will address it again on Amendment 9. Once used, it will inevitably—inevitably—be copied.

The Bill is also of the greatest constitutional significance for what it does not say. It launches, without any checks on executive power or the number and nature of appointments, an all-appointed temporal House stocked at the direction of the Prime Minister of the day, of whatever party. Had that model for a legislature arrived in some capsule brought back from Mars by Elon Musk, we might well look askance at it.

The Government, in my submission, have a duty to set out in detail their plans for this all-appointed House. After all, in 1999, hundreds of hereditary Peers agreed to leave this place on the understanding, said then by Labour to be binding in honour, that 92 would remain until a final reform was agreed. Now it is said that that was some funny old deal of which we now know nothing, past its sell-by date, ready to be tossed aside like some embarrassing piece of mouldy cheese we find at the back of the fridge. It is even said that honour is some old-fashioned, even risible, concept of centuries past. I beg to differ, but I do recognise the raw realities of power. I see this new world around us where the strong may browbeat the weak, but that does not dispense with the constitutional duty of a Government to set out their plans and, as is normal in constitutional reform, seek some consensus across parties and beyond.

No such consensus has been sought. There have been no cross-party discussions, as led by Jack Straw in 2006 and 2007; no draft Bill, as in 2011; no Joint Committee of the Houses, as in 2002, 2003 or 2011; no royal commission, as under my noble friend Lord Wakeham in 1999; not even a White Paper, as in 2001, 2007, 2008 and 2011. At present, your Lordships have as clear a sense of what direction is planned for us beyond this Bill by Labour as Vikings on a longship becalmed in a mid-Atlantic fog without a lodestone.

That is no way to treat a House of Parliament. I ask the noble Baroness the Leader of the House, who always has the interests of this House at heart, whether she will share with us at some point during Committee—it need not be today—when we will see a White Paper on the Government’s future plans beyond this Bill. It should really come before Report. Your Lordships have a right in considering this Bill to ask how the all-appointed House will work and how it will be safeguarded. There have been many thoughtful amendments laid—and some I am perhaps not so fond of—but I look forward to all the discussions. Let no one say that they are filibustering or shenanigans. As I said at Second Reading, who will care for the future of this House if we do not?

Let me turn from what is left out of the Bill, which we must explore in Committee, to the narrow purpose within it, which is addressed in this amendment. Much has been said around this House about what I think and what my party thinks. Let me spell it out again. There are four elements of a sensible settlement that I believe could avert unnecessary conflict and damage to our House. The first is for all of us on this side to accept that the Government have a mandate to end the hereditary principle as a route of entry here. That is recognised in my amendment. This House should not block this Bill, though amend it it may.

The second is to address the danger of unilateral political expulsions of Members from this House by an Executive, with the attendant increase in power of prime ministerial patronage. When the Labour Government closed the gate to the Law Lords into 2009, they gave grandfather rights—acquired rights—to those already here, the same right that we all have: to stay for life. That showed due respect to those valued fellow Members and was of great benefit to the House. The Government say that is impossible in this case. It is not; it is perfectly possible. It is a political choice and a choice for this House, of whether to expel all existing Members of our House in scope of this Bill or treat them more generously. Were the Leader of the House to act generously, as I know is her normal instinct, and sign my Amendment 9 in its present form, or some mutually agreed modified form at a later stage, then all manner of resentment and difficulty would at once fall away.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hain (Lab)]

My Lords—

[Lord True (Con)]

If I may: this is Committee. The noble Lord can come in. I am concluding my remarks, but I will answer him later. We have seen in recent days the nature of negotiation with a big stick. That is not the House of Lords way, nor is it the way in which the noble Baroness leads us. I urge her not to reject these proposals or any part of them when she responds, but to agree to take them away. Let the Government block entry of new hereditary Peers, as my amendment accepts and as the House should accept, but otherwise let us together pursue the path of peace with expedition, and with honour and justice. I beg to move.

[Lord Howard of Lympne (Con)]

My Lords, in considering the purposes of this Bill, it is necessary to remind ourselves of the circumstances in which our hereditary colleagues continue to sit in your Lordships’ House. They are here because of an agreement which was reached in 1999 that they would continue to sit in your Lordships’ House until stage 2 of the projected reform had taken place. The late Lord Irvine said that that agreement was binding in honour; he said it was a guarantee. He gave those undertakings as—

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Caithness (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, made reference to me. I want to put it on the record, because he has said it before, that the amount of time that I spoke during the debates on his Bill in 2018—a Bill which had six hours of debate—was under twice as long as the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, has spoken today. In those six hours of debate, I spoke for 16 minutes; that was all. It was not a prevarication at all.

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I think it is right for me to intervene. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, who asked me for an apology, that I make no apology for carrying out the policy of my Government when I was a Government Minister. The policy of the Government was that we should not remove the 92 until a stage 2 reform came forward. Our Government, in coalition, in 2011-12, brought forward a Bill which would have led to the removal of hereditary Peers from your Lordships’ House. As was said earlier by others, that was frustrated by a group of Conservative Back-Benchers and the Labour Party in the other place. So, the Conservative Party did address that question, and I say to the noble Lord that I will never apologise for carrying out the policy of my Government.

So far as the noble Lord’s other remarks are concerned, there is a difference between this Bill and his Bill. We have another amendment on this later, so I do not want to protract this discussion now, but the difference was that his Bill allowed for the continuation of valued Members of this House—indeed, it was commended by a number of people who spoke on his Bill for that reason—while this Bill provides for the total expulsion of Peers who are here under the 1999 Act. There is a profound difference between those two Bills.

In the proposals I put forward to the Leader of the House—I am grateful to her for the manner in which she responded, and I hope we can return to that conduct of affairs—I said that part of the discussions we have will have to address what will be, in this moment when partisan zeal runs fairly high, a wound to the House—many people on the other side may accept what I say. If some of the very skilled, experienced and long-serving hereditary Peers whom we have among us are excluded, that will be a wound to the House, and it is right that the House should address that and consider it collectively. The noble Earl, Lord Devon, draws his own conclusion, but it certainly goes beyond horse-trading between parties as regards what the future of Members of this House should be. It is perfectly legitimate in Committee for us to consider the implications of legislation for the future of the House.

I was grateful for what the noble Lord, Lord Newby, said. I do not agree with the noble Lord that consensus is impossible—indeed, the coalition agreement demonstrates that that is not the case—but I am grateful for his agreement with me that it is important. I think the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and my noble friend Lord Forsyth and others said that it would be helpful as we go forward if we could have some understanding about the timing and nature of the Government’s proposals beyond the Bill, because they are material to the future of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

It may be pedantic to point out that it was rejected in the other place by 277. I never said that it was not in the ability of this House to send back an amendment if it chose to do so. I pointed out what happened in the House of Commons. The only Front-Bencher whom I have heard say that the House of Lords should not pass an amendment to a Bill from the House of Commons was the noble Lord during the Elections Bill.

[Lord True (Con)]

If I may borrow a phrase from a more prominent person than I, did I really say that? The joys of social media and smartphones are very wonderful. I stand corrected by the noble Baroness, but the point remains that there resides great wisdom in this House and there remains the opportunity to reach an agreement which serves all parties and none, but the House collectively.

If such an approach were agreed, it would be easy for someone as formidable and dedicated as the Lord Privy Seal to persuade her colleagues in Cabinet that a generous and thoughtful approach, which offers advantage to all parties, should be followed. I sincerely hope that is what may happen in the days and weeks ahead. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 1 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I do not know. It has to be when the policy is determined but I would certainly have thought that the second part of it, around participation and retirement, is something that we can look at quickly. If the House came to an agreement, it could be done quickly as well.

I turn to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, about the grouping of amendments, as the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, raised this. The normal process is that the Government suggest groupings, as we did. In this case, the Opposition said they had their own groupings. They cannot speak for anyone else around the House but had their own groupings. I think there were originally around 18 government groups. The Official Opposition did not accept that and wanted—I think, the latest is—about 46 groups of amendments. The Government have accepted that, because we accept it if Members wish to degroup and have more groups.

My point was—as I think the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, has understood correctly—that a number of themes run through this legislation and if it is possible to debate those in groups, it is easier. At the moment, we have six groups of amendments on the commencement of the Bill. If it is what the House wishes, I would not deny it the opportunity to have those debates, but that seems to be quite a lot. I think three of those groups are single amendments but if that is how the House wishes to debate it, it is open to the House to do so. The Government did not deny the Official Opposition the right to have as many groups they wanted. I have to admit to being a bit surprised at how many there were, given the themes that run through the Bill, but we will see if that was helpful or not going forward.

The noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, wants to lock me in a room with the noble Lord, Lord True—

[Lord True (Con)]

That is not fair to the Leader.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

The noble Lord is resisting that temptation but I say to him, as I say to all noble Lords, that I have always been open to discussions. But I need assurances, so when we see degroupings, filibustering and threats on different things, that does not give the confidence that allows me to have those kinds of discussions. To have them, I need some confidence that the Opposition want to do this in a proper way.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Newby (LD)]

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

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

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

[Lord True (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You could never imagine such a thing happening these days.

Defence and Security

Lord True Excerpts

Wednesday 26th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord True (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Newby (LD)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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?