Church of Scotland (Lord High Commissioner) Bill

Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 19th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)]

My Lords, I rise with a certain nervousness to contribute to this debate. One might assume that, as an Englishman, albeit with Scottish ancestry on my late father’s side linked to an area near Selkirk in the Borders, I would have only a passing interest in this measure. I am neither a Catholic nor a practising Presbyterian, nor a member of the Church of Scotland, although in my teens I was a regular attender at the fellowship of youth at my local Presbyterian church in Newcastle upon Tyne—more linked, I think, to the facilities for table tennis than anything to do with my religious denomination. I happen to live in a village in Yorkshire which was a recusant community and the home for a long time of Guy Fawkes and his family.

None of that is enough to compel me to speak but, in strongly supporting this short but important measure, I would like briefly to draw on my experience as the Government’s Scottish Whip in the House of Commons between 1990 and 1994—an interesting experience, to say the least. Apart from duties entailing the encouragement of some real personalities of whom I had the care, who will today remain nameless, to join me in the same Lobby at least occasionally, I had the important but pleasant duty of entertaining the Moderator of the Church of Scotland soon after appointment each year on their visit to the United Kingdom Houses of Parliament. I was able to provide a suitable pot of English breakfast tea—I do not think there is a Scottish equivalent—in the House of Commons Dining Room and a meeting with the Speaker in his rooms, with perhaps a visit to the chapel to round things off. It was all very congenial.

After a year or two of this, I suddenly had an inspired thought: why not invite the visiting Moderator to offer the Prayers at the commencement of proceedings in the House of Commons on the day he was with us? After all, he was a Christian. I rushed to arrange this with the authorities. Little did I realise that what I was proposing was not only totally unacceptable but apparently an affront to our constitutional and spiritual conventions. If my idea was adopted, what next? Might I even come to suggest that a similar function be performed by a senior Catholic priest on a visit from Rome? I was strongly reprimanded and withdrew what I had thought a seemingly innocent and even helpful proposal. Such a precedent was clearly not welcome here. I refrained from suggesting it again during my remaining term as Scottish Whip. I say all this because it shows how there are still impediments to ecumenism, even in our Parliament. I hope that, when we carry out further reform of this House, we might consider extending the hand of unity in religion a little further than at present.

Back to Scotland: from what I have heard, it seems as though this anomalous situation arising never occurred to anyone before the decision to appoint the new Lord High Commissioner was well advanced. Hence the need for speed in these legislative changes, which need to be in place before the General Assembly meets in May. If true, that seems rather extraordinary. I hope there will now be a re-examination of the Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829 and all other legislation relating to religious discrimination which may remain on the statute book to ensure that we do not have to carry out such an exercise again. I am encouraged to know that the Government seem to have agreed to consider this.

In the meantime, I find the monarch’s appointment of the Lord High Commissioner very refreshing. With understanding and diplomacy, it must surely be a very positive and progressive initiative. Of course, there is one remaining area of discrimination. I hardly dare mention it, but what if the monarch or a successor were to adopt the Catholic faith? That would be a totally new and mighty challenge, even to the most reasonable minds in this House.

I wish the new Lord High Commissioner all the very best in her new role. I just hope that she will have enough time to attend matches at both Ibrox and Celtic Park.

House of Lords Reform

Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate Excerpts

Tuesday 12th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)]

My Lords, I have no wish to say anything about the reform of the House of Lords, but I think it is worth reflecting that when considering the future of institutions one should first engage in a process which carries out a review of the efficacy of the institution. We have already had many reviews, including, in particular, the review of the noble Lord, Lord Burns. Following a review there must normally be a full consultation process to see how acceptable any proposals might be and then if a legislative change is needed there is often a wider review, with Green and White Papers. Only then would legislation be pursued and preferably with full consensus. That is not currently quite the case.

In considering changes to our structures and processes we need to fully appreciate why we are doing this, and our major concern must be to maintain and enhance our reputation to the wider world while not negatively affecting our important role as a scrutinising second Chamber, which I believe is in general being well performed. Those who call for wide reform or an elected Chamber—as my noble friend Lord Moylan has referred to—should always remember that our constitution is headed by a monarch without executive powers, unlike most other bicameral parliaments, where the Head of State usually does have an executive role, however limited.

Nevertheless, I want to briefly make a few suggestions. First, any policy to reduce numbers must apply equally to removals and appointments. I believe that only by dealing with both together can we be seen as producing something credible and fair. On appointments, restraint by Prime Ministers is absolutely necessary. History has shown that that has been a problem. Secondly, HOLAC must be reformed to have a stronger say in appointments. I do not favour a statutory basis as this has knock-on effects but at least there should be a convention—whether it is written or not is another matter—and its advice should be followed and all names put forward must be accompanied by a full set of reasoning as to why a person should be appointed to this House.

The writ under which new Members would serve could include clear obligations to attend the House and carry out legislative duties. Consideration might well be given, relating to new Members, of a time limit on their appointment or even a minimum, as well as a maximum, age for service. The United States Senate, for instance, has a minimum age of 30. But if so, it must be clear in the new terms of service when they are offered an appointment, so that their contract can be legitimately enforced. I offer my support to the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull: a requirement that Peers attend, say, 10% or 15% of sittings in any Session to maintain their positions should also be considered.

As for the numbers, from my point of view it seems clear that, beginning with the Tony Blair changes, it is sadly inevitable that hereditaries will lose their rights. However, we know there are a notable number of Peers in this category whose service to the House has been, and still is, enormously important and whose contributions should not be lost. I hope that a compromise can be reached to allow life peerages to be created to cover that issue.

Looking at the Life Peerages Act 1958, I consider my appointment to the House to be for life and, like others, I committed myself to serve for as long as I have the mental and physical capacity to do so. A change to those obligations for current Peers would be difficult to accept, both legally and morally. I hope that those who are already in place might be allowed to choose to retire gracefully at their own chosen time, but obviously in appropriate cases with gentle advice.

We should look at the attendance of current Members and require proof of attendance for them, perhaps in the same percentage as we might require of new Members. The leave of absence provisions are being abused. I hope that we make a change. In future, leave of absence should be restricted to specific reasons and not be constantly repeatable or extendable. The time approved should be capped. Clearly, Peers who have illnesses or who wish to complete studies or professional development should be allowed to do so.

Each year, a number of Peers choose to retire for a number of reasons, not just age, and those who do are thanked. Perhaps we should look at a package enhancing our gratitude. I realise that we have no spare cash to offer an honorarium, but we might look at other benefits or an ongoing relationship—I think the Leader of the House referred to this earlier—to make departure more congenial. This House is a hard-working and effective institution, so whatever is proposed must not be permitted to harm that.

Volunteering Abroad

Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate Excerpts

Wednesday 30th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I do not understand why the noble Lord suggests we are not moving in any direction. We are supporting the principle of volunteering and working across the globe. Our relationships with Europe are not limited to the European Union. We have bilateral relationships and we have forthcoming agreements with France and Germany. These are not exclusive things—we want to work in collaboration with a wide range of countries. As I said, the ACTIVE programme reached 19 countries and 5.4 million people. Do not underestimate the impact of that. This Government are committed to that sort of programme.

[Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)]

My Lords, we were involved with the youth hostelling movement, which is an important international way in which young people get together and understand each other; it is very good. To what extent are this Government committed to assisting not only the youth hostels of this country but the international arrangements for youth hostels?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I cannot be specific about that. I can assure the noble Lord that we are keen to encourage the widest possible range of volunteering and youth engagement. If he follows my Twitter—or X—feed, which I think he does, he will have seen that I congratulated the world Scout movement on its anniversary and activity, so we are not limited. We should be embracing the Youth Hostels Association and its important work and giving them as much encouragement as possible.