Lord True:

Moved by Lord True

That this debate be adjourned until tomorrow.

My Lords, how nice it is to see our House without those railings today. It is an absolute pleasure to follow the wise and witty speeches of the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, and the noble Lord, Lord Roe of West Wickham. The noble Lord, Lord Roe, has had a brave and remarkable career of public service, which he was too modest to speak about, but his words only reinforce the great respect in which he is already held here. He was, among other things, a distinguished boxing champion. Perhaps if there is the risk of too many rounds of ping-pong this Session, the noble Baroness the Leader might send him to sort us out or maybe lift us out.

As for the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, I had the honour of serving with her on your Lordships’ Intergenerational Fairness and Provision Committee. She mentioned some differences that we occasionally have, but frankly I have been puzzled that no Government have ever picked up our joint recommendation to scrap the triple lock. However, it was good to hear in her speech today a little bit more about apprenticeships. The noble Baroness is the very model of sound sense and good reason, worn with wit, lightness and charm, as we heard today—and that is what your Lordships’ House is all about.

On the previous of these occasions, I began by congratulating the party opposite on its historic electoral success. I might leave that bit out this time. It is stormy weather today. I noticed that it was hailing this morning. It only rained on Rishi Sunak. What I can tell your Lordships is that I have paid my council tax, I never worked for the Red Cross, I never worked for the Ministry of Justice, and could not afford a Lamborghini to rev up fossil fuel in the faces of my Green electors. I have also never taken a £5 million cheque from a dodgy foreign donor over a fag and a pint.

To be serious for a moment, as Leader of the Opposition I cannot ignore the large gaps left on these Benches and the Cross Benches by the expulsion of dozens of our colleagues. We do miss them. Although we have welcome news that a minority will return, 1,784 years of experience have been lost to our House. It was a mighty rent and, in many ways, hurtful. It will be hard to forget, particularly with the huge threat of further expulsions hanging over the older Members in our House. We really must think very carefully about how far we let this process of expulsions go. We now have a Bill to remove peerages in the gracious Speech. I suppose we will have to call it “Peter’s law”. We will need to look very carefully at the details of that Bill too—its scope, its criteria and who decides, lest it ever become a licence for the social media lynch mob.

The heart rather sinks at No. 10 boasting about 37 Bills and draft Bills this Session. This is quite unbelievable. Too much legislation equates directly to too many demands on this House and long days that nobody wants on either side of this Chamber. Can the Leader confirm, when she winds up, how many of these Bills will start in this House?

I want to say something about procedure, because the great principle of our constitution is that the King’s Government must be carried on, if not quite like the “Carry On” film it has been in the last few days. The last Session was sometimes fractious, although the genuine good will in the usual channels, led by the noble Baroness, which I greatly appreciate, generally helped us through. However great the turnover of our Members, we must all try to preserve the ancient courtesies of this House. We are a House of self-regulation, and with that must go a high degree of self-restraint. The House values not the quantity of speeches but rather their quality, like the two we have heard today. Less is often more, except when it comes to good humour and focused, non-repetitive argument. The Companion must always be respected, and I support the initiative of our Leader in sending out what we hope will be a useful aide-memoire on some key points of behaviour.

I started the last Session by saying that having been on the receiving end of a record pounding in the number of defeats and amount of ping-pong from the party opposite, I hoped that the era of repetitive ping-pong would be over. Well, I confess that it did not always quite work out that way in the last Session, but I recommit to that objective, and this must be a reciprocal effort. Governments are entitled to legislation in due time—always via agreement, one hopes—but we need fewer, shorter, better-drafted Bills from all Governments. Massive, sprawling Bills inevitably spawn sprawling Committee stages. We also need, in other parts of the House, careful thought as to the range of amendments and restraint from all in repeating at length arguments made in detail in Committee or, for heaven’s sake, summing up at length what we have already heard.

We could also, and we dedicate ourselves to this, improve engagement in this House to settle lesser issues here, perhaps, in my submission, by better use of Third Reading and the time between Report and Third Reading. Far too often in recent years, minor issues have gone to ping-pong but could have been settled here earlier, and were settled. It is also important, I must tell my colleagues, that we adhere to the long-held principles of the Salisbury/Addison convention and, where we can, reinforce them. A manifesto Bill, however ludicrous or damaging it may seem to others, has a special status and should not be wrecked or voted down in this House. We on this side pledge to continue constructive discussions in the usual channels on these and related topics, but I will always fiercely defend the unique freedoms of this House—it is these that have made it the best revising Chamber in the world.

The gracious Speech was a bit disappointing. A good point is that there was no Chagos Bill. The bad points were more borrowing, no savings and—two serious points—no provision for defence, on which the noble Lord opposite was quite right, and no welfare reform, where we on this side have offered to work cross-party together. Those offers still remain. What an extraordinary time it is in politics when we have moved in under two years from the most crushing electoral victory to the most devastating political defeat. Even the noble Lord, Lord Livermore, cannot blame that on his predecessors. I see that the noble Lord is getting his old boss, Gordon Brown, back to help him. I thought our global envoy to the markets was called the Chancellor of the exchequer; I wonder what she has done wrong.

I am always encouraged when a Prime Minister in trouble sends for people even older than me, but where is the future here? Instead, the Prime Minister wants to take us back to the past with a Bill that will be a massive Henry VIII power to reverse the decision of the British people to choose freedom from Brussels. He says that doing this will be the defining measure of his time in office. Did he perhaps not notice the repeated verdict of people in the north, the Midlands, and the east of England in the recent elections? I do not think that the hopes of the people of Barnsley were for more freedom of movement or more wrangling with unelected civil servants in Brussels about what can be called marmalade or Yorkshire pudding. The future of Britain is in trading in the wider, fast-growing world, not going backwards to tight linkage to the weakest and slowest-growing part of the world economy.

The gracious Speech promised a criminal justice Bill. Oh dear—yet another Home Office Bill for the noble Lord, Lord Hanson. At least he is being paid now, but my heart sinks. This Bill will

“deliver services the British people expect”.

This is the spin. I can firmly say that there is one service in criminal justice that the free people of this country have expected since the time of Magna Carta, and it is the right to trial by jury. Blocking jury trial was never threatened in any manifesto, and this side will exercise the full freedoms of the House to defend it.

We are also promised an energy independence Bill. We support the wider use of nuclear power, but the Bill promises more spending, more regulation and more pylons. That is not what people want. How can we be independent without the use of fossil fuels? We will seek to amend the Bill to open up drilling in the North Sea, support the Scottish economy and save the jobs of thousands of skilled workers.

We are also promised steel nationalisation—another blast from the past. That will not change the brutal economics of this great industry. Instead of pouring more and more borrowed billions into this, should we not be helping it and other vital heavy industries by stopping the crazed levies and taxes that have given the UK the highest energy costs in the world and destroyed jobs?

The gracious Speech talks of using

“the power of an active State” to intervene in business, but the truth of the matter is that business and small businesses up and down the land are already reeling from misguided government regulation and bludgeoning taxes. Far too many of the measures in the Speech go back to the past. We on this side have put forward a costed set of serious alternative proposals on which we would have acted. We will try to inject their spirit into every measure in this programme.

The Government talk of answering the hopes of the British people. The British people said what they hoped for last Thursday, and it was an end to more of the same under a divided party and a floundering leadership. On one thing, however, I most vehemently agree: we need the “values of decency” and we need the lamp of faith. I trust that we all agree on the most urgent, condign action to eliminate the scourge of antisemitism that is a stain on our free society. I promise the noble Baroness that, on this and other things, wherever we can, we will work together across the Chamber. I beg to move that this debate be adjourned until tomorrow.

My Lords, given the news today, I read nothing into the fact that a former Whip and someone who is qualified in putting out fires are moving and seconding the Motion today. I very much welcome the gracious, witty and warm mover of the Address—the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley. She was very kind to the leadership across the House, including that of the relatively new Lord Speaker. These Benches rather like the neutrality of the Lord Speaker these days. We share the noble Baroness’s passion for Europe and would also be perfectly happy if, as a consequence of her speech, there is a run on a market—a farmers’ market, as I think I heard her encourage us to eat our greens.

We also welcome the contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Ray. We very much hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, is not on her way out, but we are very confident that the noble Lord, Lord Ray—

Noble Lords:

Roe!

The noble Lord, Lord Roe, will definitely be up the political ladder, if not the firefighters’ ladder. I was thinking about how many firefighting puns I could fit into a minute, but I shared his reflection on the relationship with the Chief Whip and the lack of freedom that happens when one arrives here. My predecessor as leader, my noble friend Lord Newby, was our Chief Whip when I arrived here. I clearly remember when he said to me on my first day, “The last thing I ever want to hear you say is that you will decide how to vote after listening to the debate”. I reassure him that, when it comes to voting, I do not like tuna melts, so it will not be me eating his supper.

As the proud son of an ambulance driver, I pay tribute to the noble Lord and his colleagues as first responders in the emergency services for the work that they do around the clock at all times of the year keeping all our communities safe. I thank him for that.

“On growth, defence, Europe, energy—we need a bigger response”.

That is what we were told by the Prime Minister on Monday, and we share that view. Of the new measures announced today, there will be some areas on which we agree, such as parts of the policing changes, NHS structures and SEND, and elements on which we have previously called for action, such as water reform, leasehold reform and the Hillsborough law, which for all of us here is very much unfinished business from previous Sessions. But there will be others on which we will have major concerns, such as illiberal immigration proposals, ID or Heathrow expansion.

A little over a decade ago, the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, proposed the same Motion that the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, proposed today. He said:

“I am firmly of the view that the less legislation, the better”. —[Official Report, 4/6/14; col. 7.]

I think it is fair to say that others have not been as firm in that view in recent years. Given that we have as many as seven carryover Bills, we are starting a new Session with the unfinished business of the old. We are due to receive 37 Bills in the coming Session. Many Laws do not necessarily good government make. But we will approach those to be completed and those to be presented in the same manner as we did in the last Session.

On behalf of my colleagues, I am grateful for the openness and approachability of the Lord Privy Seal and the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy—although we are, he might take note, perhaps a little less keen on the late-night sittings than the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley —and the whole ministerial team in this House. We appreciate their accessibility and openness.

In her reply to the last Debate on the Address, the Lord Privy Seal will recall that she said that

“when the House expresses a constructive view, the Government should treat that with respect

She knows that there were times when we acted on that invitation when it came to our voting, and I dare say we shall again.

If we are to be a self-regulating House, we must ensure that our House is in order. So, I have gladly added my name to the letter to the leaders in the usual channels referred to by the noble Lord, Lord True, reminding us how Report and Third Reading should be carried out. Good scrutiny should be thorough in this House, but this House needs to be efficient, too.

It is obvious that the backcloth to today’s proceedings is the tumult within the Government and whether they have the right approach and level of aspiration to face the major challenges the nation faces. With a possibility of having four different Prime Ministers in four years, Sir Keir Starmer was asked on Monday whether this country was ungovernable. These Benches believe not that the country is broken but that our electoral system and the constitution are, and that both require radical change.

Our politics is too easily interfered with by external forces, whether they be Russia, China or crypto funds from the US. We want to work with the Government to strengthen the protection of our own democracy. The issue is deeper than just who is resident in Downing Street, important though that is. No UK Government in my lifetime have been elected by the Majority of the British people, but they have acted as if they have. Only one, where two parties worked together, commanded a plurality of support—and it was the only time in the last 20 years that a Prime Minister completed a parliamentary term.

The challenges the country faces are increasing, but the actual vote mandate of government has declined. This is not sustainable, nor is it healthy. We will tackle the major problems ahead only if we have a broader and more democratic consensus. Without it, those who exploit differences on the far left and far right will continue to have sufficient grievance.

In recent days, I have heard repeated reference to the Government’s large majority in the Commons, but little acknowledgement that two-thirds of those who voted in 2024 did not vote for them. Many had hoped this incoming Government would have understood their limited popular mandate and would start a serious reforming agenda, but they have not yet. Instead, we see tweaking, and too many of our electorate feel deeply that tweaking is insufficient.

The perversions of the electoral system have encouraged recent Governments to focus on a smaller and smaller part of society. In their first year, the Government sought to accommodate the reactionary right, so instead of marvelling at how incredibly successful this country is as a multicultural nation, we heard that we might become “an island of strangers”. Instead of stating loud and clear that we would lead the charge to finally rid the world of absolute poverty, we heard globally respected UK international development described as the world’s charity, which must be halved. Now we see the clamour to tack to a hard left, to the comfort of nationalisation and overregulation. When in power, you can make the weather and not just be buffeted by the winds. All too often in the previous Session we saw the Government buffeted off a course they themselves were uncertain of.

It is obvious that, among the Bills we will receive, the relationship with our biggest trading partner will gain focus. Of course, we welcome any moves for a closer relationship with Europe, but we already know the Government’s own estimate that their reset in EU-UK trade will deliver just a 0.3% uplift to UK GDP by 2030—less than 1/10th of the 4% long-run reduction in UK growth in GDP, which is already seen as an underestimate. In other terms, a £90 billion a year Brexit revenue shortfall is largely unaffected, and the trading agreements with Canada, Australia, New Zealand and India will barely meet 0.5% of GDP growth in the long term. Sir Alec Douglas-Home said in 1973 that our head is wise enough and our heart is big enough to embrace both the European Community and the modern Commonwealth. That remains true. Indeed, it is now in our strategic interest that we approach a closer relationship with Europe and remove the economic and irrational red lines on our future relationship.

The reset Bill should not start with setting limitations but instead should enable opportunities. A Bill that sets a cap on ambition will need that cap removed, and we will seek a coalition in this House to remove the red lines. You cannot be at the heart of something when you are on the outside asking for attention. You cannot lead something when you have set red lines saying that you will not participate, and you cannot get the advantages of it when you are not in it. Looking forward, for our businesses, our rural traders, our retail and hospitality sectors, our consumers and, vitally, our young people, it is a strategic priority that we make real progress for a reunion with our close allies in the customs union and single market, and then EU membership, which remains our long-term objective.

Beyond Europe, there was rightly some mention of the crises we see in the world today and the need for us to advance our defences. We support the Government in that. We are impatient for the defence investment plan, and there is still no clarity on joint UK-EU defence procurement. Speed is vital, as the very nature of warfare is changing rapidly and the advance of technology poses new threats. We also need to note the scale. For example, private US tech companies are spending on AI the same as the entire annual UK defence budget every seven weeks.

It was right that the Government chose not to be part of the Iranian war, but we will potentially need to have measures to support British customers, consumers and travellers with the ongoing impact. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord True, very sincerely that we know that others outside this country will seek to inflame tensions. We will work with the Government to root this out. There is an unacceptable level of antisemitism and extreme Islamophobic racism, and we will support any cross-party approach to tackle this scourge.

Finally, it was sad to me that the world’s worst humanitarian crisis was not mentioned. Yesterday, the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights issued a devastating report on the ongoing horrors done by the Sudanese Armed Forces and the Rapid Support Forces to the civilian population in Sudan, in the world’s worst humanitarian crisis. That commission report called for urgent measures to protect civilians. Our Government are the penholder on Sudan at the Security Council; we appeal again to them to finally co-ordinate, and then secure, urgent measures to protect civilians in this terrible conflict.

Overall, this Government have the immense responsibility of governing. For the coming Session, we want—for all of us, across all the country—for them to succeed. Where we disagree with them, we shall say so and where they deserve to be supported, we will do so. This is our duty.

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow on from the speeches of the noble Lords, Lord True and Lord Purvis. It was, if they do not mind me saying so, an even greater pleasure to hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, and the noble Lord, Lord Roe—or, as I now know it is pronounced in the south of Scotland, Ray. Sorry, I think I owe the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, a drink now. They were captivating and hilarious speeches. The noble Baroness’s expertise on the workings of the European Union have been honed over many years in Brussels and in the many committees of this House. That will make this coming Session a bit of a busman’s holiday, although I was not quite sure whether she wanted to stay late or not—no? Nor do I, but there we are.

The noble Lord, Lord Roe, and I have not managed to get together very much, so I say a very belated welcome to him. One thing I should say is that I am a member of the Services Committee, as is the Captain of the Yeomen of the Guard, and I wanted to check that the noble Lord has done his fire safety training. If not, the enforcement team were out in uniform earlier on and the Captain of the Yeomen of the Guard will be able to get them, and their quite sharp instruments, to encourage the noble Lord to do that.

I am also looking forward to the speech of the Leader of the House. Your Lordships will have noted that today she was carrying the cap of maintenance. Of course, one of the things that we will have to do later this Session is to turn to R&R. I was thinking of that as we saw her.

Our King has had a remarkable period recently, a great highlight of which was his visit to the United States, where he was able to mix wisdom, international relations and humour in the correct proportion to such a good effect. I hope that all sides of the House feel, as I do, that we are immensely lucky to have His Majesty as a Head of State and that we take great pride in him.

The legislative programme as outlined in the gracious Speech would appear to be very heavy, with seven Bills already carried over from the previous Session. In that last Session, 19% of the days sat ended after 10.40 pm. This was a big increase from the two previous Sessions, where that percentage was under 7%. Despite sitting late, the Session lasted 21 months. I have no doubt that we will be sitting late on many of the Bills outlined in the gracious Speech, but we can help ourselves by respecting a bit more our agreed rules, set out in our Companion. Each time even a small change is made to the Companion, it is agreed by the whole House on the Floor of the House. The Companion is our self-regulation rulebook and I hope, in a gentle way, that the Whips on all sides of the House will be more active in reminding Members of our own rules, just as the Cross Benches’ redoubtable Margaret, Countess of Mar, used to do.

Another feature of recent Sessions has been the great increase in ping-pong. The Salisbury/Addison convention, so key to our relationship with the other place, has evolved over its 81 years. The Cross Bench office has published two recent papers on the statistics. These show that in recent years we are playing ping-pong on more Bills, with more balls, and that the rallies are getting longer. It is a trend and, unless it is addressed, these numbers will continue to rise. It is therefore important for all sides of the House to consider matters and in some way refresh this very important convention. Here, I very much agree with what the noble Lord, Lord True, said earlier. We certainly need to arrest this trend, and we might conclude that some of the ping-pong should not be necessary. I hasten to add that I am not saying that this House should shy away from expressing its view on legislation. What I am saying is that the mutual respect between the two Houses needs work, and the spirit of compromise needs to be revived somewhat.

Before I move to my closing theme, I wanted to associate myself with the words on antisemitism that have been said by the noble Lords, Lord True and Lord Purvis. For once I feel that I can reflect strong views—from behind me and to my other side—in saying that those views are very much shared on the Cross Bench. We would very much like to work to ameliorate these things.

I close by moving on to Europe. Negotiating new arrangements with the European Union can never be quick. New arrangements, in all likelihood, will have to have the blessing of the Council, the Commission and the European Parliament. Having for some years run the scrutiny arrangements for the European Union Committee, I well recognise—alongside members of that committee and its sub-committees—how long these processes take. Indeed, complex matters are often calibrated in years. Another important feature relates to the way in which arrangements are debated and agreed within our structure. When we were leaving the European Union, the House will recall the first Miller case and the Supreme Court view that Parliament had to be involved in the process. Although the facts are different, the principles are the same. For this critical relationship with our next-door neighbours and largest trading partners, it is far from unreasonable to feel that Parliament must play a very full part in agreeing matters at every stage. This is also something that I feel the European Union side of the table might feel desirable. There will be a natural concern on their side that a future UK Government might want to repeal or replace the new arrangement in only a very few years. A good way of somewhat ameliorating that understandable fear on the part of the European Union would be the clear involvement of the whole of Parliament in the process. I very much look forward to the debate in the coming days.

My Lords, I thank their Majesties for gracing us with their presence today as we begin the second Session of this Parliament. To reinforce the comments made by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, they acted with professionalism, with dignity and, of course, with humour today, as we also saw in their recent visit to the United States. I am sure that the whole House would want to say how very proud of them we are: not just for paving the way for the removal of tariffs on Scottish whisky.

It is a great pleasure to follow all noble Lords who have spoken. I particularly thank the proposer and seconder of the humble Address. For those relatively new to your Lordships’ House, every Session of Parliament starts with this debate. A Motion is proposed, as we have heard, by a long-standing, respected Member, including one who rather harshly described himself as an “old codger”, and is then seconded by a more recent “one to watch” colleague.

My noble friend Lady Crawley is certainly experienced. She has been a local councillor, spent 15 years as a Member of the European Parliament and nearly 28 years in your Lordships’ House. As a Government Whip covering a range of portfolios, she then served as Deputy Chief Whip in Opposition. She was our Lords Cabinet Office spokesperson when I was a Commons Minister and, then as now, I valued her wise counsel. Yet her route into politics was not perhaps the most conventional. She became involved after meeting some politicians when she was lobbying for funding for youth theatre. She has continually championed the performing arts, although too few of you have been privileged, as I have been, to witness her acting skills or hear her accents. Even fewer will know of her success at stand-up comedy. Noble Lords may have got a sense of it today—her speech was a great example of how humour can help get a message across.

However, alongside those skills, my noble friend has a depth of commitment to serious issues. In this place, we hear a lot of speeches, and just some linger in our memories as being exceptional. Some 15 years ago, my noble friend opened her debate on the contribution of women in the Special Operations Executive during the Second World War. Having spoken of their extraordinary heroism, she ensured that the names of each and every one of them were recorded for ever in Hansard. Her speech today was characteristically insightful and engaging.

What can I say about my noble friend Lord Roe? He has impressed many since arriving here. As he said, he served in the Armed Forces and as a firefighter, then as London Fire Commissioner, and now as chair of the building safety regulator. He has had to manage sensitive issues and has a well-deserved reputation for doing so with humility. His professionalism, experience and skills, and empathy were never more needed than when he arrived on the scene of the Grenfell Tower fire—recollections of which he shared with your Lordships’ House when he made his maiden speech and during the passage of the Grenfell Tower memorial Bill. He cares deeply about social justice, safety, public service and Parliament. He is an asset to this House and we look forward to his future contributions. And I am going to appoint him another job, by making him the fire safety training monitor. Those in the Chamber for my noble friend’s maiden speech may recall his lifelong passion for boxing. We are hoping that that competitive spirit is going to be put to good use, because he has signed up to join this House’s tug-of-war team in the competition against the Commons.

Before we turn to the gracious Speech, I want to take a moment, as others have done, to reflect on the past Session. Personally, it is an enormous privilege to serve as the Lord Privy Seal, representing both the Government in this House and the interests of your Lordships at Cabinet. I hope noble Lords acknowledge that I have sought to strike the right balance between the two and, alongside our first-rate team of Ministers, have engaged with colleagues across the House, taken on concerns and, where appropriate, acted on them.

In many ways, it is not surprising that the previous Session was longer, with a new Government facing key issues against a backdrop of increasing uncertainty across the world. We wanted to move forward and make progress. It has been referenced already that Parliament passed over 60 Bills that reflected the Government’s values. We established a new Border Security Command, set up Great British Energy, gave the police new powers to address anti-social behaviour and introduced fairer sentencing. We gave stronger rights to millions who are renting their own homes, started improving the life chances of young people, and provided those in work with vital new protections and better pay.

In recognition of my responsibilities to this House, I listened and responded to concerns raised during the passage of the hereditary Peers Bill and set up a Select Committee on the issues that were most raised, retirement and participation. I thank its members and my noble friend Lady Taylor of Bolton for their work and I look forward to receiving its report. I was also pleased that I was able to address long-standing concerns in your Lordships’ House about the number of unpaid Government Ministers and to bring in new legislation. That is an example of how good will and consensus can achieve real change in this House.

A change in government always requires a period of adjustment. Much has been written about the challenges of moving from opposition to government, but there is no manual for travelling in the opposite direction. Having come into your Lordships’ House following an election defeat, I know how it feels. As Gerald Kaufman noted in his book, How to Be a Minister:

“There will be the terrible moment when the minister who replaced you rises to speak on the subject you have made your own. It will be bad if he performs less well than you used to, intolerable if he performs better”.

The work of opposition is challenging, but it is vital to our democracy. Governments need robust and responsible scrutiny, and those who have recently held office know how to prioritise what really matters. As we have heard, our conventions are underpinned by respect for self-regulation and the core constitutional principle of the primacy of the elected Chamber. As the unelected House, we complement the work of MPs, who must always have the final say.

I reference my dual role again in a slightly different context. It may seem a contradiction to some to say that I, along with my noble friend the Chief Whip, have the responsibility to ensure that the Government get their legislation through and that we also value scrutiny. That is the reality of life in government in the House of Lords, and I am sure that my predecessors will acknowledge that.

We have heard today about the Salisbury/Addison convention. I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, for his recent work on how it has evolved over time. Perhaps I have too much time on my hands, but I have also reread the 2006 Cunningham report and the Wakeham report from 2000. It seems strange to some that this House relies on conventions and not on hard and fast rules, but it can and generally does work. Amendments are proposed, but the Government get their legislation through in reasonable time. But, as the noble Lord, Lord True, and the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, have recognised, those conventions have recently been stretched a bit further than most of can remember. It is within our rights to ask the elected Chamber to reconsider, but I agree with the noble Lord, Lord True, and the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull—and I am grateful for their comments—that ping-pong should be limited and proportionate.

The noble Earl also spoke of the increased number of late-night sittings. Although the noble Lord, Lord Roe, clearly enjoys the additional time that he spends with my noble friend Lord Kennedy, we also want to limit this—but it feels that the number of amendments has been steadily increasing. Without restraint, there is a risk that key issues are crowded out by those of a second or third order. Ultimately, it is up to your Lordships’ House, but I feel that we can be more focused on Report, as the noble Lord, Lord True, indicated. The Chief Whip and I will do what we can to assist.

I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord True and Lord Purvis, and to the Chief Whips and the Convenor. The joint letter that we will send out today to all noble Lords reminds us of how we can do our best work within the conventions of this House. Perhaps it reminds us that good scrutiny depends not on the length of the speech or the number of times we speak but the value of the content of what we have to say.

The Government’s programme for this Session is ambitious, as we have heard, reflecting the very serious challenges that we face. We live in turbulent and uncertain times, and the public rightly expect government to respond appropriately. Events in the Middle East are impacting on the global economy, and the aftershocks are being felt and will be felt for some time. They are adding to the pressures on the pound in people’s pockets, which is why we will continue efforts to strengthen our economy and drive up living standards.

A decade on from the referendum, Brexit has created real challenges. Rather than slashing red tape, the current deal has imposed expensive and lengthy processes on companies of all shapes and sizes. I was interested to hear from noble Lords opposite. I think that the noble Lord, Lord True, takes the view that the Bill goes far too far, and the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, is saying that it does not go far enough. That should create some interesting debates.

We will bring forward measures to ease trade with an economically pragmatic approach. Legislation will give effect to new agreements in areas where there is a benefit to the UK through greater alignment. Our manifesto promise of an improved and ambitious relationship includes a veterinary agreement to ease the movement of agri-food goods. Given global events, our relationships with our closest allies have never been more important.

On changes to competition law, we will see a new regulatory sandbox—a word that we will get to know well—where innovations can be tested. We will also have a duty on key regulators to help fuel growth. This is key if we are going to boost productivity.

In other sectors, including financial services and civil aviation, we will seek to modernise regulation, remove unnecessary burdens and ensure that consumer protections are fit for this age. There will also be measures to tackle late payments, which are a major scourge for small businesses and cost our economy billions.

When we took office, public services were struggling from years of underfunding and ill-considered reforms. Initial steps were taken in our first Session to turn that around, and we will now go even further. We have listened to parents, and we will give every child the chance to achieve and thrive, including through reform to special educational needs provisions.

With the failures of our water companies so endemic, we will carry out wholesale reform to put consumers first. We will make changes to rail governance and oversight and deliver a fair settlement for the north of England. We will tackle the bureaucracy in our National Health Service to improve patient care, and address issues in relation to police performance, governance and accountability.

Further—the noble Lord, Lord True, made reference to this—we will bring forward legislation to enable steel nationalisation. Preserving domestic steel-making is vital, which the why the Government urgently intervened last year to preserve Scunthorpe’s blast furnaces. We must now take further action to safeguard production and deliver value for money.

I say to all noble Lords who have spoken that I am really grateful for their support so that we can work together in this House on the key issue of security. It is the first duty of any Government to protect the security and safety of our citizens, as well as our infrastructure. We will renew the legal basis for the Armed Forces, extend the Armed Forces covenant legal duty and establish the defence housing service. We will also increase the resilience of our critical national infrastructure and related supply chains against cyber attacks.

Following the horror of Southport, we will bring forward measures relating to the depiction of acts of extreme violence and the planning of mass casualty attacks. New proscription-like tools will tackle state-linked threats, making the UK a tougher environment for foreign intelligence services and their proxies to operate in. All of us should unite to ensure that we act against and call out the vile antisemitism that creates such fear and tries to threaten our communities.

Everyone has felt the effects of higher energy prices at home and at the petrol pump. This shows the urgency of boosting home-grown power and, with it, our energy security. We have already acted to bring down bills and expand green energy. We will do more to reduce our reliance on imported fossil fuels and support the expansion of nuclear energy.

Although many of these matters are knotty and complex, I am confident that the Government will benefit from noble Lords’ expertise. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, I reaffirm my commitment: nearly two years ago, I said that, when this House expresses a constructive view, the Government should treat that with respect. Parts of our programme will provoke spirited debate. My ministerial colleagues and I will welcome scrutiny and challenge—perhaps we will not always welcome it, but we will always take it seriously.

Making progress in the areas outlined in the gracious Speech will help ensure that people across our country benefit from economic growth, have access to the public services they deserve, and have confidence in our individual and collective security. I am proud of our Government’s programme. I look forward to our debates and to working with you all in the coming Session. I am very pleased to support the Motion to adjourn the House.

Debate adjourned until tomorrow.