Retirement and Participation Committee Report

Lord Dubs Excerpts

Wednesday 16th September 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Dubs (Lab)]

My Lords, I fully support this report and congratulate my noble friend Lady Taylor on having produced it and on having got unanimous support, even though some voices are now dissenting from it.

I am also relieved that I will no longer have to go on the media and always face the question of why I am the token oldie. I can now say that I will not be for much longer and the House will have decided. It makes sense to have a retirement age. I suppose that I am the oldest person who has spoken so far—I may in fact be the oldest person who is going to speak altogether, so I take that as a claim on why I should no longer want to be the token oldie in the future.

I am glad to have a fixed date of 8 July 2029. Those of us who were in the Commons and lost our seats will say that that date will come very suddenly. We do not know what will happen until the early hours of polling day, and then out we are. It is good to have certainty and it means we can prepare ourselves mentally for not being here.

One benefit, which has been referred to, is that we shall be allowed to vote in general elections. Perhaps my noble friend will confirm that. I once got a Private Member’s Bill through this House to give effect to our being able to vote in general elections. When it got to the Commons, it was objected to by an anonymous voice —I think it was a Lib Dem—which I thought was pretty outrageous. I hope that the timing of my leaving here will be such that I can vote in the next election.

I was looking at the leaflet about the arrangements for retired Members, which are very generous. They will be able to sit below the Throne, use the dining rooms, and so on. In fact, the arrangements are so generous that I wonder whether there will be too many people swamping them.

I have always felt it an honour and a privilege to be in this House, something which we should acknowledge. I am not happy that there are several hundred people here—the ones who are not active—who use the title and the perks of being in this House without making any contribution. That is wrong in principle, which is why I do not like the idea that, because there are 550 active Members, the others do not cause any problem. I think they do cause problems: they abuse the privilege of being here, and I do not think they should be here.

The committee was not asked—and I understand why —to consider issues stemming from the recommendations. I am grateful to Professor Meg Russell of University College London for her very helpful briefing. There is a widespread belief that the House is too large, but there seems to be not a sufficiently great advantage in getting rid of those who are 80-plus if they are quickly replaced by a stream of people keeping the numbers high. There has to be some more radical approach to this in the way in which Prime Ministers make their appointments. We need to look again at the basis of appointments to the House, which should be considered in parallel with the arrangements for those who are 80-plus.

The noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, talked about individual party groups making their own decision and voting. I once also floated that idea and was told it was not a good idea as it resembled a circular firing squad and would cause too much dissent in each group. I do not know about that, but it was an interesting idea.

I still look at the way in which people are appointed and am afraid that any system of appointment will be seen by outsiders to be flawed, even if it is totally above board. I share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Mann, and others that an elected second Chamber must be an option, provided we retain the primacy of the Commons. Then we can do our job of scrutinising the work of the Commons, and possibly even make some interesting suggestions. I think an elected second Chamber is inevitable, sooner or later. I do not believe in a unicameral system, but we could provide better and more soundly based scrutiny and better safeguards for individual citizens. Therefore, I would like us to move towards that democratic election, but in the meantime we should adopt these proposals.

G20 and Ukraine

Lord Dubs Excerpts

Wednesday 26th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Dubs (Lab)]

My Lords, the Prime Minister is to be congratulated on the key part he has played in the coalition of the willing. I think his efforts have helped to kill the idea of appeasement, which was in the air a week or two ago. The stench of 1938 has been eradicated, and that is a good thing—but I wonder whether I could ask my noble friend a question. Could she say a bit more about what is being done to help in the reconstruction of Ukraine? It will cost a lot of money, but I think it is important that we get our policies in place, so that a quick reconstruction of that country can be brought into being.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for his comments about the Prime Minister’s commitment. I think that, if you ever hear him speak, or see him and President Zelensky together, you know there is a bond there, and also that he feels this emotionally as well as practically in how we support Ukraine.

On the issue of reconstruction and moving forward in Ukraine, the first prerequisite is that we have a fair and lasting peace. While the Ukrainians are still facing drones and bombs, it really is not possible to make much progress on that. However, in terms of plans, one of the areas is the use of frozen Russian assets, which should be used to rebuild Kyiv and the rest of Ukraine after this war ends. But in the day-to-day lives of people at the moment, we can just imagine all the pressures, going through all the things we go through in our everyday lives, in a country facing bombs and other attacks. If we look at photographs and see films of the consequences of those attacks, we see how much harder life is for people there. So, yes, plans are being made, but they have to be against the backdrop of that peace, because otherwise the work will be lost and more will be destroyed.

United Kingdom: Soft Power

Lord Dubs Excerpts

Tuesday 15th July 2025 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Dubs]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the effectiveness of the United Kingdom’s soft power, having regard in particular to the BBC World Service, the British Council and universities.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Collins of Highbury) (Lab)]

My Lords, we recognise the opportunity and potential that the UK’s soft power presents. The Soft Power Council is advising government on how best to shape a new strategy on soft power. The British Council reaches around 600 million people globally, promoting UK values and interests. The BBC is the world’s most trusted global broadcaster. The United Kingdom is the top destination for study and research, with four universities in the world’s top 10 and 17 in the top 100.

[Lord Dubs (Lab)]

My Lords, I welcome my noble friend’s commitment to the importance of soft power. As a humanist, perhaps I may quote something from the 1940s, when a question was asked of Stalin about the power of the church. Stalin’s answer was, “How many divisions has the Pope?” We are in a fantastically privileged position, but we are going to lose it all if we do not put our full effort into improving our soft power. The BBC is losing out to Russia and China. I beg the Government to do more for soft power.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I must declare an interest as well, as a humanist. My noble friend is absolutely right, but one reason why the Soft Power Council is essential is that it is not restricted to UK government. Our soft power is not only about UK government action, although that is important; it is about how we mobilise all elements of soft power. By the way, in all the countries I have visited in Africa, every leader speaks to me about one thing—and, on many occasions, they share my pride in Arsenal. They talk about the Premier League. Its reach is massive. We should understand that soft power is not limited to the number of things that we talk about; it is about economic development and growth, education and research.

Cluster Munitions Convention: Article 21

Lord Dubs Excerpts

Monday 9th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

Let me be absolutely clear to the noble Lord: ratification of the CCM and subsequent removal of cluster munitions from our inventory does not constrain UK military capability nor prevent interoperability with allies. The UK has successfully developed alternative systems and policies that have allowed for effective operation with our allies since ratification in 2008, including in combat. The strategic defence review was clear that the United Kingdom Armed Forces will be a more lethal, integrated force, equipped and ready for all future challenges.

[Lord Dubs (Lab)]

My Lords, I should declare an interest, as I was actively involved in the campaign to get these horrible weapons banned. Indeed, I was present in Dublin when word came through that Gordon Brown said that Britain should agree to the ban, which opened the door to other countries following suit. Given we have dealt with Article 21, is not the main onus on us to make sure that other countries do not withdraw from the convention and to use our influence as publicly as possible to urge them not to do so?

BBC World Service

Lord Dubs Excerpts

Monday 2nd June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I reiterate that the BBC plays a crucial part in ensuring that the world is a safer place, and that people are knowledgeable about what is going on. What the US has done with the US Agency for Global Media and how that impacts is, of course, a matter for the US. However, I remind the noble Baroness that we have shown our commitment to the World Service this year with a funding uplift of £32.6 million—31%—in 2025-26. I repeat that any decisions on government funding for the World Service in future years will be made through the ongoing spending review and allocation process. But the importance of the World Service must not be underestimated.

[Lord Dubs (Lab)]

My Lords, I of course welcome the uplift my noble friend the Minister has spoken about, but does he agree that, today of all days, when we have a review of our defence commitments, what the BBC World Service is doing is worth quite a few submarines in terms of the effect on the world and on our position within it? Will he look again at the danger that the Russians and Chinese will step in if any slots are left vacant by the BBC?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I am not sure what my noble friend is saying. We stepped up our services in eastern Europe as a consequence of Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine, and the BBC has just launched a new service covering Poland. So we absolutely understand the importance of its role and we will continue to do that, but the BBC has editorial independence, and how it allocates resources is a matter for it. However, I reassure my noble friend that we are committed to the BBC. We gave an uplift this year, but I cannot comment on future years, until the spending review process is concluded.

House of Lords: Behaviour and Courtesy

Lord Dubs Excerpts

Monday 14th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I think the noble Baroness made the point; Bishops have given way to her. There is no rule that says that you must give way to a Bishop; it is through courtesy, and we would expect to hear from the Bishops, as we hear from other sections of the House.

[Lord Dubs (Lab)]

Given that there is an element of politeness—quite properly—I wonder whether underneath that, when trying to get in on a supplementary, there is an element that people who are meek and mild, such as myself, find ourselves fairly easily bullied by those who are less meek and mild. There are some people who are reluctant to get in at Questions because they feel intimidated. That is the other side of this Question. That is why I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I have never considered the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, to be meek or mild but he is always courteous. When I first came into your Lordships’ House, a long-standing Member said to me that previously, on his area of expertise, he wanted to speak but did so rarely that people would give way because they wanted to hear his views on that area. I think it is less about courtesy and more about loudness of voices. If I can just inject something else here, quite often noble Lords have much louder voices than our female Members of the House. It might be a bit thoughtful sometimes if noble Lords would give way to those who do not have such loud voices.