House of Lords: Composition

Lord True Excerpts

Thursday 5th September 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

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

[Lord True (Con)]

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

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

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

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

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

NATO and European Political Community Meetings

Lord True Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd July 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord True (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

“in the room, centre stage”,

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Newby (LD)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

King’s Speech

Lord True Excerpts

Wednesday 17th July 2024 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord True]

That this debate be adjourned till tomorrow.

[Lord True (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“will introduce a new participation requirement”.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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