House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Lord Wallace of Saltaire Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 12th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

My Lords, I do not actually believe in God. However, just in case, I always seek to adhere to the highest ethical and moral standards, especially so far as public life is concerned. I do not propose to speak to the next group because it is so closely related to this one.

The vast majority of your Lordships’ House are nominally Christian. If your Lordships want to have Prayers read by a Bishop—and I do—we need about 27 Bishops so that one of them can be the duty Bishop for the week or for two weeks, or however they organise it. An important point about the Bishops is that they normally retire, although, as the noble Baroness pointed out, a few come back as life Peers—and they are welcome. Bishops are appointed by the Prime Minister. If there were a problem, I am sure that in most cases the Prime Minister would find out; I am not sure that HOLAC is any better equipped, especially in so far as some of these safeguarding issues are concerned.

It would be profitable for the Leader to find some way for other religious leaders to have temporary membership of your Lordships’ House in the same way as the Anglican Bishops. I do not think this point has been made today, but just because only a few other states have a revising Chamber with religious or moral input, that is not a good reason for us not having such input. I would counsel leaving the Bishops well alone.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Scriven has his name to Amendments 48 and 49 but is unable to be here, sadly, so let me speak briefly from our Benches. I declare my interests as a member of the Church of England and as a former member of the Westminster Abbey Foundation; I am still active with it.

I am very disappointed that the noble Lord, Lord Moore, did not suggest that abbots should be restored to their places here. Clearly, if we are discussing longer-term reform of the Lords, we need to address the question of the Bishops. At the same time, we might as well—other noble Lords have done this via Amendment 34 —address the question of faith representation in the House. In my lifetime, I have seen the Church of England—and certainly Westminster Abbey—become much more welcoming to ecumenical arrangements of all sorts. The Cardinal Archbishop has read the lesson in Westminster Abbey several times. I have been to a joint Jewish-Christian service in the abbey. I have listened to readings of the Koran in the middle of an abbey service. That is part of how the Church of England now tries to maintain its position as a national Church representing all faiths.

It is worth mentioning in passing that this House is not entirely without representation of other Churches and faiths. My namesake was the Moderator of the Church of Scotland two years ago and the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths of Burry Port, is one of the most distinguished Methodists. The noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger, was the lead rabbi of Liberal Judaism, and we had a retired Chief Rabbi on the Benches of our House for some time.

There is a broader question, which we clearly need to address, about the role of representatives of faith in a different House, if we are slowly moving further in that direction. The Bishops need to respond to that, and I hope they will contribute to that debate. That is as far as we need to go when discussing this Bill because it is not necessarily part of the Bill. But in the broader, wider discussion that we are unavoidably finding ourselves having in Committee, that has to be one of the questions under discussion.

The noble Lord, Lord Moore, did not remark that there were only 14 or 15 Bishops in the Middle Ages, as I remember, and that the reason the number was fixed at 26 was because the number of dioceses was mushrooming so fast in the course of the 19th century. Perhaps that is the number we should go back to as an interim measure, but I look forward to hearing from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Sheffield if he is about to contribute to the debate.

[The Lord Bishop of Sheffield]

My Lords, I am sorry to disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Moore, in the fact that the Bench of Bishops is briefly going to speak up on its own behalf. He may be surprised, as may many noble Lords opposite, that in the first eight months of the current Parliament the Bishops have voted 29 times, and only five times with the Labour Government. The Bishops are not party political; we really do seek to improve and scrutinise legislation. That is by the way.

I am grateful for the opportunity offered by this range of amendments to address some of the concerns expressed by Members of this Committee about the place and role of those of us who serve on these Benches. Although we are not whipped and do not have a party line, the Lords spiritual are pretty much all of one mind that your Lordships’ House would benefit from some reform, not least to do with numbers and patronage. As noble Lords would expect, we believe that a reformed House of Lords should include Lords spiritual and should continue to reflect the present constitutional arrangement.

I will try to speak briefly to all the amendments in this group, taking first Amendments 33 and 78, which seek to reduce the number of Lords spiritual serving on these Benches. Amendment 33 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, would reduce the number from its current 26 to five—the two Archbishops and three others nominated by the Church’s General Synod.

In practice, since every one of the Lords spiritual has full-time responsibilities outside this place, a reduction to five would make it impossible for the remaining Lords spiritual to perform their functions as parliamentarians alongside their duties as diocesan bishops or primates. Although there are at present 26 Lords spiritual, noble Lords will notice that we are never by any means all present at any one time. That is because the demands of our other responsibilities prevent it. Only a minority of Lords spiritual are able to be present in this Chamber on any given day, and I urge noble Lords to keep this in mind in any consideration of a reduction in the number of those serving on these Benches.

Amendment 78 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, seeks to reduce the Lords spiritual by a smaller number, to 20. As in the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, there is no obvious rationale for the number chosen. We are very open to the possibility of a reduction in the size of your Lordships’ House as a whole, with consequences for the Bench of Bishops, but we believe that a conversation about the number of Bishops should take place as part of a comprehensive review of membership of this House. We would warmly welcome representations not just from other Christian denominations but from other faith groups in this country.

Amendments 48 and 49 in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, would prevent new Lords spiritual receiving writs to join the House but would allow current Bishops to remain until retirement and would not prevent someone who is a Bishop being made a life Peer. However, the amendment would permit a bishop to enter for the purposes of reading Prayers. While we appreciate the latter aspect of this amendment, we note that the role of the Lords spiritual is much more than mere chaplaincy. We highly value the privilege of leading your Lordships’ House in prayer, but we do not regard that as our only, nor always our most significant, contribution.

Ultimately, on these Benches we oppose these amendments on the basis that they would effectively sever the constitutional link between Church and state. This limited Bill is not the place to settle questions about the constitutional status of the established Church of England—that is a bigger discussion for another time.

Finally, Amendment 90B in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, would amend the Bishoprics Act 1878 so that the issuing of writs to Lords spiritual would be subject to the approval and effective veto of the House of Lords Appointments Commission. I understand the noble Baroness’s desire for the appointments process for diocesan bishops who become Lords spiritual to be robust. We on these Benches share that view and, indeed, would be open to the direct scrutiny of this House if that is what the House desires. However, there is already a stringent process for assessing propriety in the appointment of the diocesan bishops who subsequently become Lords spiritual. In fact, I venture to suggest that, while of course not perfect, the process overseen by the Crown Nominations Commission in the discernment of new diocesan bishops is at least as thorough as the other processes used to appoint Members to this House. Moreover, Writs of Summons to Lords spiritual are issued by the operation of law, not by the will of the Prime Minister or the Leader of the Opposition, so any involvement of the House of Lords Appointments Commission would need to be quite carefully calibrated.

Noble Lords will hardly be surprised to learn that we on these Benches are not able to support this group of amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, it would be a really useful flexibility in our system if life Peers could be appointed without the right to sit in the House of Lords. Frankly, there are people who deserve a peerage but who do not want the obligations, which we have been discussing today, to attend here and deal with the minutiae of legislation. In particular there are those who have grown senior and grand enough that arguing whether a comma should be moved one word to the right is not how they want to spend their life—unlike me.

So this would be a useful addition to the structure of our life peerage. It would enable people to be honoured properly and to be given a seat in this House only if that is what they really want and they intend to make full use of it. I beg to move.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, I support the sentiment of this amendment. Again, this is a longer-term issue, but separating the honour from the obligation is an important part of how we should be moving forward. We know that a number of people have desperately wanted peerages—I am one of the many who found, after my appointment to this House, that the number of people who wished to invite me out to lunch to tell me what excellent Peers they would make increased very considerably.

This House has—happily—become much more professional in the past 20 years. We do now recognise this as a job, but we do not necessarily need to be Peers to do the job. Perhaps if we were called “Senators” or whatever, that would work quite as well. I immensely enjoy my title, in the sense that Saltaire is a very special village. It is now a world heritage site. It has a Hockney gallery, and I suspect that no one apart from me in this House knows that Paul Hockney, David’s elder brother, was a Liberal Democrat councillor and the Mayor of Bradford.

The more important thing for the long-term interest of this House is that we have good people appointed to the second Chamber, and that this is thought of first as a second Chamber and not so much as a House of Lords. Those who wish to have titles could perhaps have titles that do not have the obligations that we all now willingly accept to examine legislation, to debate difficult issues and to play a part in the governance of this country.

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

My Lords, I just say that I will have to leave at 10 pm, but I think we have time for me to make a speech. I am not convinced that this is a good idea, although I understand my noble friend’s thinking. Like it or not, we live in a much less deferential society. It always depresses me when I read of senior military officers or junior ratings or NCOs in the Regular Army being referred to as “Mr”, even in a military context. Many years ago, when I was just a full corporal in the reserves, I was proud of the rank that I held and what it indicated. However, I am not sure now that being a Peer is an attractive rank or honour any more. We see one Baroness who is a national treasure more often referred to by her damehood than her peerage.

I have a point for the Minister and perhaps the Leader to consider. So far as I am aware, there is no reliable, regularly used database of preferred styles for their Lordships. Googling an active Member will take an unsuspecting user to a highly misleading page on the House website. The result is that the uninitiated will inadvertently send irritating emails to traditional Peers such as myself, but at the same time they may irritate other Peers by being far too deferential—the worst of all worlds. Would it not be better if the House of Lords website made it clear what each Peer’s preferred style was?

The situation is even worse, as some potentially really good members, particularly from the party opposite, may be deterred from putting themselves forward for consideration for a peerage because they would be horrified by the prospect of being addressed formally as a Member of your Lordships’ House. This problem could be alleviated by having the database I have referred to and encouraging its use, particularly by the lobbying industry.

King’s Speech

Lord Wallace of Saltaire Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd July 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, I join in welcoming the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hermer, to his new post and to the House. I was cheered by his speech, and by the broader issues not just of the rule of law but of the need for continuing political and constitutional change and greater democratic participation of which he spoke. I am disappointed that in the list of Bills we have for this Session there is so little, so far, that takes us further in that direction. As the Sessions move on in this Parliament, I hope that those promises will be fulfilled.

I was puzzled, to say the least, by the speech given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen—13 minutes on reform the House of Lords. From time to time, I have pondered with friends how long it would be before the Conservative preference in office for executive dominance as the principle of the British constitution would switch back to Lord Hailsham’s insistence that it was a threat of “elective dictatorship” as soon as they were out of office. I think I began to hear that switch much more quickly than I expected.

This Government came in promising change, and that change must include constitutional change more broadly—not just about the nature of this Chamber. The strongest argument for urgent political reform is that public trust in Westminster politics has now sunk lower than ever previously recorded. Some 45% of respondents to this year’s NCSR survey say that they would “almost never” trust Governments of any party. In a political system constructed to institutionalise two parties, over 40% of those who voted in the general election chose neither of them. Labour won nearly two-thirds of seats on one-third of the votes cast. Taking into account the four in 10 people on the electoral register who did not vote, only 20% of those on the electoral register voted Labour, and only about 10% voted Conservative. Do not forget that, in addition, nearly 6 million—perhaps even 8 million—of British citizens are not even on the electoral register. There are a whole set of issues about the quality of our current democracy.

The gracious Speech declares:

“My Ministers will strengthen the integrity of elections and encourage wide participation in the democratic process”,


but there is nothing in the list of Bills that follows that through. The Prime Minister, in his introduction to the King’s Speech memorandum, declares:

“The fight for trust is the battle that defines our political era”.


We on these Benches agree, but only the Hillsborough Bill, imposing a duty of candour on civil servants, begins to tackle the widespread public disillusion with Westminster and Whitehall politics.

The gracious Speech promises that:

“Measures to modernise the constitution will be introduced”.


Well, let us see them. The only measure listed is to remove the hereditary Peers from the House, which my party proposed for the first time 113 years ago. Where are the measures to entrench the position of the constitutional guardians, from the Lords Appointments Commission to the Committee on Standards in Public Life? The Government, as the Minister confirmed, will propose a modernisation committee for the House of Commons, but we need to know how long that will take to set up and that it will report, we hope, before the next general election.

We on these Benches remain committed to major reform of the UK’s second Chamber—unlike the Conservative Party, I remind the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie—as we proposed in the coalition Government 12 years ago. I painfully remember, as I trust the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, will, the two-day debate we had in this Chamber in which some, including him, argued that there was no way we could improve the current House and that further reform was completely unnecessary. However, Gordon Brown’s recent commission came up with similar proposals to those which the Liberal Democrats put forward. Removal of our elected hereditaries represents a small further reform, although there is room for negotiation on transitional arrangements, since we all agree that many of our current hereditary Peers provide valuable service to the House.

For those opposed to major reform, the most urgent problem the House faces, which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie, did not mention, is the gross imbalance between Conservative Peers and other parties. Constructive negotiations should begin with a Conservative Party offer of voluntary retirement for a significant number of its own Peers. Liberal Democrats support the principle of a retirement age—I declare an interest: I am even older than President Biden—and would consider a minimum age for appointment, which several other second Chambers include.

As to the gracious Speech’s promise to

“encourage wide participation in the democratic process”,

there is very little here to see. We need to move towards automatic voter registration to make the register fully inclusive. We need to restore the independence of the Electoral Commission, which was undermined by a government Act two years ago, and we should widen the franchise to include all those past their 16th birthday, to inculcate the habit of democratic participation into the rising generation as early as we can. Of course, we must face up to the gross distortions of our current voting system.

We need to look at the English devolution Bill to promote some means to regain trust through a more active democracy. Local democracy, after all, provides the bedrock for public participation: local councillors dealing with local problems. Successive Governments have wrecked local government in England over the past 30 years, and the last Government did more damage than their predecessors. Britain has far fewer local councils and far fewer elected councillors than any other advanced democracy. Pursuit of unitary councils and, now, combined authorities and directly elected mayors has left abandoned town halls all across the country. The current patchwork across England is a mess. We have mayors for combined authorities who do not represent recognisable communities, two-tier local government in London, unitary authorities in most but not all of the rest of the country, and metropolitan mayors being the only elected representatives from outside London whom the Government listen to. If we are to rebuild public trust and widen participation in our democracy, as the gracious Speech stated, then we have to revive local democracy. The Liberal Democrats will approach that Bill from the perspective of how we widen democracy across England and the whole of the UK.

Others on our Benches will speak about relations with the UK’s devolved national Governments. We on these Benches will be happy to engage with the Government on more ambitious plans for constitutional change, as well as, of course, on the future of reform for this Chamber, which should all be approached as far as possible on a cross-party basis.

Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014 (Consequential and Saving Provisions) Order 2015

Lord Wallace of Saltaire Excerpts

Tuesday 17th March 2015 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014 (Consequential and Saving Provisions) Order 2015.

Relevant document: 24th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments

[The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Wallace of Tankerness) (LD)]

My Lords, this draft order is made under Section 104 of the Scotland Act 1998. In summary, it proposes to do three things. Before explaining them in some—I am afraid—unavoidable detail, I would summarise them thus. First, we propose to amend Section 44 of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 for the rest of the United Kingdom, with a related saving provision. Secondly, we propose to amend the definition of “child” for the rest of the United Kingdom in relation to the amended Section 44. Thirdly, we wish to make a minor corrective amendment to the definition of “secure accommodation” in the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 for the rest of the United Kingdom.

On the first of those, Section 44 of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995, which I shall refer to as the 1995 Act, makes provision to prohibit the publication of proceedings at children’s hearings and certain related proceedings before a sheriff. Section 44 was repealed, as it extends to Scotland, by the Children’s Hearings (Scotland) Act 2011 and replaced for cases going forward under that Act by a similar provision made in Section 182 of the 2011 Act. However, it is now clear that Section 44 is still needed to ensure that it continues to be an offence for a person to publish relevant information in relation to historic children’s hearings cases dealt with under the 1995 Act, and cases which began under the 1995 Act system and continue to proceed under that Act by virtue of the transitional arrangements.

The draft order is made in consequence of the Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014, which I shall refer to as the 2014 Act and which now reverses for Scotland the unintended repeal of Section 44 of the 1995 Act. I wish to reassure the Committee that while it is evident that the repeal of Section 44 was an error, no child’s welfare was jeopardised by it as the repeal was not commenced when the rest of the 2011 Act was commenced—the error having been identified before the commencement order. The 2014 Act also amends Section 44 for Scotland so that, going forward, it applies only to exclusion order proceedings under Section 76 of the 1995 Act. This is required as those proceedings remain under the 1995 Act and are not covered by the 2011 Act.

Given the United Kingdom extent of Section 44 of the 1995 Act, the draft order is required to give effect in the rest of the United Kingdom—that is, outwith Scotland—to both the amended version of Section 44, to restrict its future application to exclusion order proceedings under Section 76 of the 1995 Act, and to save the former version of Section 44 for both historic and ongoing children’s cases under the 1995 Act.

The second matter proposed is a related amendment to the definition of a child in Section 93(2) of the 1995 Act. Section 52(b) of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2003 made a change to the definition of child in Section 93(2) for the purposes of Section 44 of the 1995 Act, so that it was extended from persons under the age of 16 years to persons under the age of 18. However, that change was not extended to England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Just as the draft order seeks to bring the existing parallel texts of Section 44 into line, it seeks to have the same definition of child for Section 44 purposes for all jurisdictions.

Thirdly, the draft order also corrects a minor error made by the Section 104 order made in consequence of the 2011 Act. The previous Section 104 order amended Section 44(11) of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 by substituting the definition of “secure accommodation” with a new definition that took into account the most up-to-date statutory cross-references for Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland. However, the substituted definition contains an undefined reference to the “2000 Act”. The 2014 Act corrects this for Scotland by clarifying that the reference is to the Care Standards Act 2000. The draft order makes the same clarifications for the other jurisdictions.

This order again demonstrates the Government’s continued commitment to working with the Scottish Government to make the devolution settlement work. I can confidently say that this will be the last such order in this Parliament, so it may be for the interest of the Committee to note that 45 orders have been made under the Scotland Acts of 1998 and 2012 in this Parliament, since May 2010. In your Lordships’ House, 27 of these have been subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. There was an extra one in the other place which related to bonds, and therefore did not require to be affirmed by your Lordships’ House, and 17 of them were subject to the negative resolution procedure. That is indicative of the way in which the devolution settlement is flexible, and indeed of the commitment on the part of the Government to work to ensure that legislation passed in Scotland is applicable in other parts of the United Kingdom and that the devolution settlement works.

With that, I thank the officials in the Scotland Office, in various departmental offices and, not least, in my own office of the Advocate-General, for all the work they have put into these, as well as officials in the Scottish Government, because it requires a lot of co-ordination to get these orders to be brought forward and there has been a lot of co-operation here. I also thank the noble Baroness—I think this is the second time she has done a Scotland Act order—and her other colleagues, not least the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, who I saw up until just a moment ago was engaged in the Chamber on the Corporation Tax (Northern Ireland) Bill. I appreciate the constructive co-operation they have given, and with those words I commend the order to the Committee.

Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill

Lord Wallace of Saltaire Excerpts

Tuesday 28th January 2014 Lords Chamber

Lords Amendment 1: Clause 2, page 2, line 7, after “secretary” insert “or special adviser”
COMMONS DISAGREEMENT AND AMENDMENTS IN LIEU
The Commons disagree to Lords Amendment No 1 and propose Amendments 1A and 1B in lieu.
1A: Page 2, line 20, at end insert—
“( ) Regulations may amend subsection (3) so as to provide that communications made personally to a special adviser are within that subsection.”
1B: Page 2, line 30, at end insert—
““special adviser” means a person who serves the government in a position in the civil service of the State and whose appointment to that position meets the requirements applicable to that position set out in section 15(1) of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010.”

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, as noble Lords will recall, Amendment 1 was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, on Report in this House and agreed to by a majority of 18 votes.

Amendment 1 would extend the scope of the register to those who lobby special advisers, in addition to those who lobby Ministers and Permanent Secretaries. Our colleagues in the other place recognised the objective of the amendment and, indeed, expressed some sympathy with the motives of those who had supported it. They concluded, however, that the case had not been made to extend the scope in this way at present, but recognised that discussions regarding the inclusion of those who communicate with special advisers will continue. They therefore proposed what I believe is a pragmatic and constructive response to the noble Lord’s amendment. The amendments in lieu proposed by the other place would introduce a power for the Minister to amend the definition of consultant lobbying provided for by Clause 2 to, subsequently, and if necessary, include communications with special advisers. Such a power would enable Ministers to extend the scope as suggested if and when they are persuaded in this Government or the next of the case for doing so.

As I have observed, the other place was not persuaded that the case for such an extension had yet been made. That is because it recognises that the register is intended to complement the existing government transparency regime. Both systems—transparency and the register—are intended to enhance the transparency of the key decision-makers, the Ministers and Permanent Secretaries, and those who communicate with them. The other place confirmed this view that the Government’s focus on key decision-makers is appropriate and proportionate. We accept that lobbyists make communications to government other than directly to Ministers and Permanent Secretaries. Ultimately, however, it is for Ministers and Permanent Secretaries to be responsible for the decisions taken within their departments.

While special advisers may provide advice, they are not decision-makers. It is Ministers, not special advisers, who are ultimately responsible for the actions of their departments; and it is Permanent Secretaries who are the officers accountable to Parliament for the performance of those departments. It is therefore only right that Ministers and Permanent Secretaries—not special advisers—are the main focus of the meeting reporting system, and the main focus of the register.

Special advisers are defined by the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, which includes the requirement that they are a person,

“appointed to assist a Minister of the Crown after being selected for the appointment by that Minister personally”.

That Act also provides for a statutory code for special advisers that makes clear that they may not,

“(a) authorise the expenditure of public funds; (b) exercise any power in relation to the management of any part of the civil service of the State; (c) otherwise exercise any”,

statutory or prerogative power.

As that code makes clear, the employment of special advisers adds a political dimension to the advice and assistance available to Ministers. They are an additional resource for the Minister, providing assistance from a standpoint that is more politically committed and politically aware than is available from the permanent Civil Service. The Government do not, therefore, intend that communications with them be captured by the meeting reporting system, nor by the register.

The other place recognised that the amendment proposed by this House would dissociate the register from its main objective, which is to complement the existing system by extending the transparency we apply to decision-makers to those who seek to influence them. They agreed by a substantial majority of 53 that Lords Amendment 1 be disagreed with, and replaced by the proposed Amendments 1A and 1B. In so doing, they have proposed a constructive compromise that would allow the scope of the register to be expanded to capture communications with special advisers, if the case is that it should do so.

The amendments in lieu should assuage the concerns of those who have asked that we do not eliminate the possibility of expanding the scope if justified in the future. I hope therefore that noble Lords will reconsider their position, and recognise that the amendments in lieu represent the most pragmatic and proportionate approach to this matter at present. I beg to move.

[Lord Tyler (LD)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire for his explanation of the position. I am delighted to see him back in his normal very active role on the Front Bench, and acknowledge immediately the efforts that he has made with my noble and learned friend Lord Wallace of Tankerness to find solutions to some of the problems with which we have all been grappling over what seems to be now many months, but certainly many weeks.

The government amendment in lieu precisely describes the situation we are now in. This House rightly insisted that better transparency arrangements should apply to meetings by lobbyists held with special advisers. Those arguments are well rehearsed, and I do not intend to repeat them. The amendment in lieu simply reflects the fact that there was no majority in the other place to reject out of hand the amendment we passed in your Lordships’ House. Liberal Democrat MPs would not vote to do that. Equally, the other part of the coalition has not yet been prepared to shine a light on spads’ activity at this stage. So Motion A accepts the principle that transparency for special advisers’ meetings is desirable, and there is clearly no practical problem in extending the transparency principle in this direction, or else it would have been spelt out in the amendments in lieu.

The Motion also accepts that the Commons does not desire this extension yet. It leaves the matter open until there is a government majority in the other place to switch on the provisions; I await that day with bated breath. It would obviously be helpful to hear from the opposition Front Bench whether the party opposite can commit categorically to switching on the transparency arrangements in the amendment, if and when Labour is in any way involved in the next Government.

However, the Liberal Democrat position is quite clear. We agree with the Prime Minister that,

“sunlight is the best disinfectant”.

We would introduce the pine scent of transparency to the work of spads right now; apparently, he does not want to do so quite yet. I shall support the amendment in lieu, and I thank my noble friends for working so hard behind the scenes to secure it.

Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill

Lord Wallace of Saltaire Excerpts

Monday 8th July 2013 Lords Chamber

Lord Wallace of Tankerness: It does say that. It states:

“In the Registration Service we leave beliefs at home and deliver neutrally”.

That is the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Peston. The registrars are free to express their beliefs. There is nothing in this legislation that curbs their ability to hold these beliefs and to express them. However, in the performance of the duties they do on behalf of the state, we are saying that they should not be able to do that in a way that discriminates. It would not be appropriate for us to put on the statute book legislation in which the state legitimises discrimination.

[Lord Higgins]

If it is true, as the Minister says, that the Panel of Registration says there are no registrars who want this, we will pass the amendment and it will have no effect. The question is whether there are some who we do not know about who would wish to exercise their views as far as conscience is concerned.

On the other point, that they have taken on a job and they then find that it has changed, surely, on a transitional basis—and I stress that—they ought to be able to say, “We are perfectly happy to go on with the original contract”.