House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill
Tuesday 15th October 2024
(2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
The reasoned amendment in the name of Sir Oliver Dowden has been selected.
The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Nick Thomas-Symonds)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
As set out in our manifesto, this Government are committed to reforming the House of Lords. As a result, I am proud to be taking forward our first commitment: the immediate first step to remove the right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords. The Bill before the House today, which was introduced in the first 100 days of this Government, delivers on that commitment. Change begins.
It is a change that is long overdue. In the 21st century, there should not be places in our Parliament, making our laws, reserved for those who were born into certain families. In fact, we are one of only two countries that still retain a hereditary element in our legislature, which is a clear sign that the time has come to see through this long-overdue change. It is a matter of principle for this Government, who are committed to fairness and equality. It is not personal or a comment on the contribution or service of any individual hereditary peer, past or present. We are grateful to all peers who commit their time to valuable public service. However, what we do not accept is that, in this era, as a matter of principle, anyone should have a position in either House on the basis of their ancestry.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
The Minister knows that I have a great deal of time for him, even though what he has said so far is nonsense, and what he is about to say is bound to be so too. The truth of the matter is that at the apex of our constitution is, of course, His Majesty the King. He is there because, in the Minister’s words, he belongs to a certain family and therefore derives a certain authority from that antecedence. Is that wrong too?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
No, because the monarchy is a completely different part of our constitution. First, no monarch since Queen Anne has refused Royal Assent to a law. Secondly, our constitutional monarchy enjoys popular support. I return the right hon. Gentleman’s respect, and the one thing he is is honest. He is actually setting out a defence of the hereditary principle, rather than hiding behind a smokescreen, which seems to be the position of Conservative Front Benchers, from whom we will hear in due course.
I want young people growing up in Blaenavon, Pontypool and Cwmbran in my constituency, and indeed in every part of the country, to feel that they have the same chance as anyone else to play a part in making the laws of the land. The continued presence of hereditary peers in our legislature is indefensible in a modern democracy.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
The trouble with this sort of partial reform is that it opens other issues. Why does the Church of England have a monopoly on places in the House of Lords? I am all in favour of the established Church, and of letting it have perhaps 12 bishops, but why can we not share the other places between this country’s other Christian denominations and non-Christian faiths? Do they not deserve a voice?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I am certainly in favour of the representation of different faiths in the upper House, but the Government set out a step-by-step process in our manifesto.
Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)
Will the Minister give way?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I will come back to the right hon. Gentleman after making some progress.
Our manifesto sets out a series of steps, which is the key point. This Government have a mandate to reform the House of Lords.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
One moment. I will come back to the right hon. Gentleman.
Our manifesto sets out that there should be an alternative second Chamber that is more representative of the nations and regions of the United Kingdom. We have been elected on a manifesto to get there on a step-by-step basis.
Sir Gavin Williamson
I thank the Minister for being so generous. He makes a very interesting argument, and I think many Members were excited about the change he proposed. I have read his manifesto, which makes a number of interesting points about hereditary peers, a retirement age of 80, strengthening the circumstances in which disgraced Members can be removed and an alternative second Chamber. All of this is missing from the Bill, but it was in his manifesto. Is he open to accepting amendments to include these proposals that were in his manifesto?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I am delighted to hear the right hon. Gentleman’s support for the other steps in our manifesto, which he should have communicated to Conservative Front Benchers when they were drafting their reasoned amendment—[Interruption.] It looks like it too. If the right hon. Gentleman reads our manifesto with his usual diligence, he will see that it states that this Bill is the immediate first step. That is the mandate we bring before the House today.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the Minister update the House on the wider reforms that our Government are seeking to introduce to the House of Lords, and why these reforms should not be delayed by this specific Bill that, as the right hon. Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson) said, was widely supported by the electorate?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. As we look to the other reforms, from the retirement age to participation, the Government will look to build wide support on the way forward—support that, frankly, has not been found in previous attempts at reform. At its heart is the principle that people are placed in the House of Lords to serve the public, and I look forward to debating those wider reforms with Conservative Members, but not in this Bill.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
Does the Minister recognise that a recent survey of Church of England clergy showed the need to reform the participation of Church of England bishops in our legislature? Will he reflect on that, and on the fact that it looks like we are in danger of having bishops who, instead of focusing their efforts on the cure of souls, are more like mitred politicians? That cannot be good for any of us. Finally, we are talking about the Church of England in the Parliament of the United Kingdom. In that respect, my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) is correct about expanding the clergy’s membership to include other denominations, or removing them entirely if that proves impossible, for reasons that are pretty clear.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
The Church has recognised the need for reform, particularly in terms of size, and today’s debate is further evidence of why it is sensible to reform in stages.
Shaun Davies (Telford) (Lab)
There has not been a single reform of the House of Lords over the last 14 years. Is my right hon. Friend as surprised as I am that Conservative Members now want huge reform of the second Chamber?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
After the past 14 years, they now show a new-found enthusiasm for reform and change.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I will give way once more, and then I need to make some progress.
Dr Spencer
The Minister is generous in giving way. There is a fertile debate on this side of the House, and the Government should reflect on the fact that Opposition Members tend to think independently. Does he not think that the idea that a step-by-step process will work at all is for the birds?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I cannot comment on the coherence of the Opposition in the course of that process. What we have seen so far is a pretty incoherent effort, but perhaps it will improve when we hear from the shadow Minister.
This Bill is about making immediate, long-overdue progress. The House of Lords existed for centuries as a nearly entirely hereditary House. There was an attempt to introduce life peers as long ago as 1869, with a further attempt to introduce life peers and remove the hereditary element in 1888. Despite those efforts, it was only with the passage of the Life Peerages Act 1958 that non-judicial life peers began to join the other place.
Some 40 years later, a Labour Government introduced a Bill to end the right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords. The events that smoothed the Bill’s passage led that Government to accept an amendment on the principle of the removal of hereditary peers. The amendment retained 92 hereditary peers on a temporary basis, until further reforms to the other place were brought forward. Despite attempts at further reform, that temporary measure is still in place.
Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
One of the dates the Minister missed was Labour’s pledge, which has stood for over 100 years, to abolish the House of Lords. That pledge was reiterated by the Prime Minister only a couple of years ago. Is it still Labour’s intention to abolish the House of Lords? Does he understand the cynicism about further progress, given that the pledge has not been honoured in over a century?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I cannot comment on the hon. Gentleman’s cynicism about progress, but our manifesto clearly sets out the Government’s position, which is that we should have an alternative second Chamber that is more representative of the nations and regions.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
In recent decades, major corporations that were family businesses, such as Ford in the United States or Peugeot in France, realised that recruiting from within the family and making a family member the chief executive was not necessarily a good idea. Is this not just the same thing?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
It is great to have my hon. Friend’s support. As the Leader of the House of Lords said when this matter was debated a few weeks ago in the other place, for the last 25 years, one of the arguments has been that nothing should be done until everything can be done. We see that same, tired, stale old argument once again at the heart of the official Opposition’s amendment. That approach means that in 2024 we still have hereditary elements in our legislature.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I have already given way to the right hon. Gentleman once.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
In a moment.
It is not right that what was seen, even in 1999, as a temporary arrangement should persist any longer. This Government were elected on a manifesto that was explicit in its promises that we would bring about immediate reform by removing the right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords. The Bill has a tightly defined objective, and a clear focus and aim that delivers on that mandate.
Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
The Minister talks about piecemeal reform and says the argument is stale, but surely the really stale argument is Labour’s. The Labour party came into government with an enormous majority and wants to reform the House of Lords, so why does it not get on and do it? Why do the Labour Government not set out some cross-party work that we can all get involved with, and introduce proper reform measures, rather than just tinkering at the edges, as the Bill does, for pure political advantage?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
Who exactly speaks for the Opposition? Who knows. Rather than put that point to me, the right hon. Gentleman should take it up with the right hon. Member for Hertsmere (Sir Oliver Dowden), who proposed the amendment. Do the Opposition have any coherent position left?
Olivia Bailey (Reading West and Mid Berkshire) (Lab)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the legislation gives young people, such as the impressive A-level students I met at Little Heath school in my constituency, an equal chance to make the laws of this country from either House? How will he ensure that the legislation progresses quickly?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
My hon. Friend is right to highlight the situation for young people in her constituency. The Bill has a clear mandate, and I hope that hon. Members will back it in big numbers today.
Jonathan Davies (Mid Derbyshire) (Lab)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s assurances that the bishops in the House of Lords will continue to play a role in our national life. We must not bow to calls from Conservative Members who resent that, because the bishops shine a bright light on aspects of our national life that require scrutiny. Will he confirm that there is nothing to stop the hereditary Members of the House of Lords who provide valuable contributions and expertise in that Chamber becoming life peers?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
There is no bar on that happening. When the new Leader of the Opposition eventually emerges from their parallel universe leadership contest, I am sure that they will have a quota, as all Leaders of the Opposition do. It is for them to consider that issue.
Sir Roger Gale
Some minutes ago, the right hon. Gentleman said that the young people of Torfaen believed in and wanted equal opportunity, a point reiterated by the hon. Member for Reading West and Mid Berkshire (Olivia Bailey). I am not quite sure how that equal opportunity squares with a Labour party that wants to stuff the House of Lords with its cronies. I cannot see any equal opportunity in that. That aside, this legislation, on which we will be required to vote, is ill thought through. Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that the hereditary peers who are Members of the House of Lords have made, and continue to make, a considerable contribution to the work of the upper House, and if so, has he given any consideration to, at the very least, ensuring that those hereditary peers who are abolished are given life peerages in a future Parliament?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
How can Members of the Conservative party talk about stuffing the upper House with people after the events of the last 14 years? I thought irony had died. As for the right hon. Gentleman’s point about life peers, I have just said that having been a hereditary peer is no bar to becoming a Member of the Lords. That will be a matter for the new Leader of the Opposition, having looked at the contributions individuals have made. I have not denigrated the contributions of hereditary peers—far from it. I have thanked people for their public service in the upper House, but it is for the new Leader of the Opposition to decide whether to put forward former hereditary peers as life peers. There will be no objection from Labour Members.
I have covered why the removal of the hereditary peers from the other place is overdue. Let me turn to why it is essential. It is indefensible in this day and age for people to sit in our legislature as a result of an accident of birth. Prime Minister Harold Wilson, putting forward a programme for change in this House in October 1968, said:
“the Government believe that reform should achieve the following objectives: first, the hereditary basis for membership should be eliminated”.—[Official Report, 30 October 1968; Vol. 772, c. 34.]
All these years later, that first objective still needs to be fully achieved. It is time for the hereditary nature of the House of Lords to come to an end. The former Lord Speaker Lord Fowler put it eloquently:
“It is not a question of personalities; it is a question of whether appointment of the House based on heredity is the right solution for the 21st century, and I do not believe that it is.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 23 July 2024; Vol. 839, c. 388.]
As I said in response to the right hon. Member for Herne Bay and Sandwich (Sir Roger Gale), the Bill is not an attack on individuals in the other place. As I have said twice already, we recognise individual contributions. We are saying that we should reflect on the millions of people who were unable to make the same contribution as a result of the family they were born into. The time has come for change. If we are to maintain trust in our democratic institutions, it is important that our second Chamber reflects modern Britain. I hope Members will vote for the Bill this evening, and agree with me that it is indefensible, in this day and age, that over a 10th of our second Chamber is essentially reserved for certain individuals due to an accident of birth.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
I am deeply worried about the Minister’s arguments. If he talks in that way about accidents of birth, how can he possibly defend constitutional monarchy? If he questions the hereditary principle in this place, how can he defend the idea of a hereditary monarchy?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
If the hon. Gentleman had been here at the start at the debate, he would have heard exactly the same point made to me in the first intervention. I will repeat the two points I made in response. First, that is a completely different part of our constitution, and no monarch has withheld Royal Assent from a Bill since the reign of Queen Anne. Secondly, we have a constitutional monarchy that enjoys popular support. I gave the same answer to the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) at the start of the debate.
Let me summarise this short five-clause Bill. Clause 1 removes the remaining hereditary peers from the House of Lords and puts an end to the right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in that House. Clause 2 removes the current role of the House of Lords in considering peerage claims, reflecting the removal of the link between hereditary peerage and the House of Lords. Complex or disputed claims will now be referred to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, under section 4 of the Judicial Committee Act 1833, instead of the House of Lords. Clause 3 makes consequential amendments, and clause 4 sets out the territorial extent of the Bill and when it will commence. The Bill will remove the remaining hereditary peers at the end of the parliamentary Session in which it receives Royal Assent. Finally, clause 5 establishes the short title of the Bill.
To conclude, the Bill fulfils an explicit manifesto commitment to deliver this reform to the House of Lords.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
In my generosity, as the right hon. Member has asked so many times, I will, for the last time, give way to him.
Sir Gavin Williamson
The right hon. Gentleman has been truly generous. We know that he is a radical at heart, and that he has been suppressed by No. 10 Downing Street and the Whips’ Office, but we want to see the radical come out of him. His manifesto has four paragraphs on constitutional reform. The first is a little waffly, but the second is very important, as it mentions the abolition of hereditary peers and the 80-year retirement age. Surely a retirement age provision could be a key element of the Bill. It could be added on to it, to help the right hon. Gentleman deliver more of his promised reforms. I say to the House that I am willing to defy my Whips to deliver the reform that many of us want to see.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
Together, the right hon. Gentleman and I could form the new radicals. When we move on to the next stage of reform, I look forward to a similar amount of independent, enthusiastic support—support that he will no doubt demonstrate when we get a new Leader of the Opposition.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I thank the Minister and his colleague, the Minister without Portfolio, for having made themselves available to Members of the Opposition—as well as to those in the Government party, no doubt—to discuss these things privately in a less dramatic environment than this one. One incidental by-product has been pointed out to me by that very important group of peers led by Lord Norton of Louth, whom I know the Minister is going to see, who are in favour of sensible and credible reform. They say that, by removing the hereditaries, he will be removing the only group of peers who are not appointed in a process that is subject to prime ministerial influence. That is not an argument for not doing it, but it might be an argument for putting the House of Lords Appointments Commission on a statutory basis. What does he think about that?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
Even with the removal of hereditary peers, the Conservative party will remain the largest party in the House of Lords. As for reform of the House of Lords Appointments Commission or any other aspect of reform, that discussion is clearly why the Government have chosen to take this more considered, measured approach. I was grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his constructive contribution when the Minister without Portfolio and I held our drop-in. I am more than happy for that dialogue to continue, both during the passage of this Bill and when we move to the second stage of reform.
Chris Ward (Brighton Kemptown and Peacehaven) (Lab)
Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Chris Ward
I am delighted to see the Minister picking up from where Harold Wilson left off. Does he not agree that the key part of the Bill is about making our legislature much more relevant to modern Britain and modernising both Parliament and the country? Is it not inexplicable and indefensible to have hereditary peers in the 21st century in modern Britain?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
My hon. Friend is entirely right.
The second Chamber plays a vital role in our constitution, but people should not have a role in voting on and scrutinising our laws in Parliament by an accident of birth. This Government have been elected with a promise to put public service at the heart of politics, and this legislation, introduced in the first 100 days, shows that we are intent on driving that commitment forward.
On 21 February 1911, when the then Prime Minister, Herbert Asquith, moved the Second Reading of what became the landmark Parliament Act of 1911, he said that
“we present it to the House as the first and the most urgent step towards a more perfect attainment.”—[Official Report, 21 February 1911; Vol. 21, c. 1911.]
I present this Bill, over a century later, in the same spirit —as the first and most urgent step that we can now take in the 2020s. I hope that I can count on Members in all parts of the House to support this Bill. In that spirit, I commend it to the House.
Sir Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con)
I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “That” to the end of the Question and add:
“this House declines to give a Second Reading to the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill because it is not an acceptable or effective method of enacting major constitutional change, because it proposes a significant alteration to the composition of the House of Lords which should not be considered in isolation from other changes, having regard to the undertakings given by the then Government in 1999, because it drip-feeds changes that hinder proper scrutiny of measures that could change the relationship between the two Houses, because it risks unintended consequences, does not reflect the lack of political consensus on House of Lords reform and does not provide for full consultation and pre-legislative scrutiny which would give the opportunity to consider the case for overall reform, seek cross-party engagement on proposals, and review the implications of all proposals.”
The British constitution is not codified. One might not choose to craft such a system if one were establishing a new country from scratch, but we are proud to be an old country. The checks and balances of the House of Lords—its tried and tested conventions—work. The House of Lords does not claim to be a democratic Chamber. That is the key point: this elected House has primacy. Of course, the British constitution does—and should—continue to evolve, but we should fix only what is broken and be cautious about rushing into change. Our evolution should start with questions of efficacy, not optics. We should be guided by the wisdom of past generations, and the continuity of history and tradition. As Edmund Burke wrote:
“We have an inheritable crown, an inheritable peerage, and a House of Commons and a people inheriting privileges, franchises, and liberties from a long line of ancestors.”
The Paymaster General has described the excepted peers as “out of step” with modern Britain. Like the Blair and Brown Governments, this Government seem obsessed with change for change’s sake. We have seen it all before. We have seen this rebranding spun to give the impression of progress: the Law Lords replaced with the Supreme Court; the Lord Chancellor’s Department aping the US-style Justice Department; even Her Majesty’s Stationery Office recast as the Office of Public Sector Information. At best, it is cosmetic; at worst, it risks irreversible damage. As we saw with the changes to the House of Lords’ judicial role, rushed constitutional change leads to unintended consequences. We should, therefore, proceed with caution.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
The role of hereditary peers in our democratic system is a bygone relic of a less democratic age. May I ask whether that is why the shadow Minister feels such an affinity for it?
Sir Oliver Dowden
I join the Government in paying tribute to the hereditary peers. The argument that I will elucidate in my speech, as set out in the amendment, is that if this Government are committed to reform of the upper House, they should consider all the consequences of that reform, and this House, and the other place, should have ample opportunity to consider it properly.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
The right hon. Gentleman has made great play of how our constitution should develop, but does he not accept that almost every Government, apart from the most recent one, have looked at the House of Lords and how it could be reformed? Many of us believe that the reform should go much further than that put forward by this Government, which we see as just a first step towards a properly elected, fully democratic upper Chamber that serves the people.
Sir Oliver Dowden
As we have seen in the debate so far, there is a range of views on both sides of the House about how we should proceed with reform. The argument that I am making is that this House should have the opportunity to consider all the changes together in the round before we rush ahead with constitutional change for the sake of virtue signalling and optics rather than what suits the needs of the nation.
Sir John Hayes
I am extremely grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. Will he consider that political legitimacy derives from many sources but not entirely from democratic election for, if it did, we would not have life peers or a constitutional monarchy? Legitimacy is not wholly and solely a matter of being elected, or the Labour party would be abolishing the House of Lords per se.
Sir Oliver Dowden
It will not surprise my right hon. Friend to hear that I completely agree with him. As ever, he makes an erudite point.
Sir Oliver Dowden
I will make some progress and then I will give way.
Instead of proceeding with caution, the Government have done precisely the opposite. The Bill has had no pre-legislative scrutiny, no Joint Committee and no cross-party engagement. Indeed, Labour Ministers have explicitly refused to consult on the removal of excepted peers.
All that forms a pattern with Labour’s past constitutional tinkering. We have the Equality Act 2010, which both the Equality and Human Rights Commission and His Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary have said in recent months is too complicated and needs changing. There is also the Human Rights Act 1998, which, in departing from Britain’s common-law tradition, further expanded judicial review, undermining the very laws made by this Parliament and dragging the courts into answering political questions that should be a matter for the legislature. The same applies to Tony Blair’s successive surrenders to EU treaties. Those Acts created new problems for an old country, and this Bill risks doing exactly the same.
Pete Wishart
The right hon. Gentleman has been on his feet for five minutes and I am finding it difficult to follow him. Can he answer me directly: is he in favour of getting rid of hereditary peers and people who are in the House of Lords on birthright—yes or no?
Sir Oliver Dowden
I am strongly of the view that we should consider all these things in the round. There is merit here—that is why we are proposing a reasoned amendment—but the risk of proceeding in a rushed fashion is that we come to regret it, as we have on many previous occasions.
Sir Oliver Dowden
I will make some progress and then I will give way.
In 1999, Baroness Jay, the then Leader of the House of Lords, said that a partly reformed Lords with only excepted hereditaries remaining would be
“more legitimate, because its members have earned their places”
and would have more authority. That was termed the Jay doctrine at the time. If the excepted peers go, what other conventions are at risk of change—the Salisbury convention, or the restraint against vetoing secondary legislation? The lack of consultation and scrutiny, and the Government’s piecemeal approach to reform, has meant such questions have the potential to be reopened.
Sir Oliver Dowden
I will give way first to the hon. Member for Telford (Shaun Davies) and then to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell).
Shaun Davies
The compromise of allowing the remaining hereditary peers to be in the other place is 25 years old. How much longer does the right hon. Gentleman need to consider the options and whether he is in favour of them?
Sir Oliver Dowden
I gently say to the hon. Gentleman that the reforms were introduced in 1999. By my calculation, the Labour party was in power for another 11 years and did precisely nothing further. I will come to this point in a moment, but the reason the hereditaries remained in the House of Lords in 1999 was to ensure that all these things were considered at the same time. The Government are breaking a principle that they agreed to previously.
Gareth Snell
The right hon. Gentleman rightly talks about the Salisbury convention. Is that his way of telling us that, as the Bill was a manifesto commitment— as pointed out by the right hon. Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson)—Conservative peers will be voting for it to comply with the convention that he has said is so important?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
The right hon. Gentleman would not want to break convention, would he?
Sir Oliver Dowden
The Paymaster General knows how much I respect conventions, but that is ultimately a matter for the other Chamber.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Middleton South) (Lab)
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Sir Oliver Dowden
I will make some progress, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that I will give way.
We should not be surprised that the Labour Government have only introduced this short Bill because they have no clear plans for wider Lords reform. In 2022, the Prime Minister endorsed Gordon Brown’s plans for an assembly of the nations and regions, but now that has been kicked into the long grass. Labour grandees such as Lord Blunkett have warned it risks mirroring “gridlock” too often seen in the United States. Lord Mandelson described the plan as a
“multi-layered cake…barely been put in the oven yet, let alone fully baked.”
Lord Adonis observed that within Labour,
“there is no consensus on reform”
and that it will be “difficult and controversial.” Even the current leader of the Lords, Baroness Smith, admitted this year that an elected Chamber risked
“losing the primacy of the Commons.”
Therein lies the dilemma for the Labour party and its new-found Commons majority. Perhaps Labour Ministers are starting to realise that Lords reform is challenging and difficult.
Sir Oliver Dowden
I will make some more progress and then I will give way.
In 1999, the reforms recognised the challenge. In this July’s King’s Speech background brief, the Labour Government asserted that the continued presence of excepted peers is “by accident”. That is simply not true. In 1999, Labour’s Lord Chancellor, Lord Irvine, told the other House that the presence of hereditaries was an intentional anomaly; it would ensure a future Government undertook proper and considered reform of the Lords. His fellow architect, Viscount Cranborne, called that
“the sand in the shoe”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 22 June 1999; Vol. 602, c. 791.]
Now, this Labour Government want to declare war on the past without a clear target in sight. As they cannot agree on what to do, the Prime Minister has gone for this chipolata of a Bill, the mantra of change serving as a tiny fig leaf to cover his embarrassment. The emperor has no clothes—perhaps other than from Lord Alli.
Graham Stringer
The right hon. Member is making a case on shifting sand, which seems to boil down to one of people not having had time to consider the issue. First, this reform has been in two Labour manifestos, one in 1997 and one this year, and it had overwhelming support from the electorate. Secondly, the compromise reached between the Labour party and the Conservative party in 1999 was nothing to do with the good work done by many hereditaries; it was to stop logjam, because the House of Lords was threatening to hold up Labour’s programme and throw the Salisbury convention aside.
Sir Oliver Dowden
The purpose of the 1999 compromise was to ensure that we did not remove hereditary peers without considering the wider consequences. That is precisely my concern with the approach being pursued by the Government. This meagre Bill is not motivated by considered and enlightened principle. Labour wants to remove the independent and experienced voices of excepted peers so that it can parachute in a wave of new Labour cronies. It is change in the name of an Executive power grab, not change to serve the British people.
The excepted peers are immune from the needs of political patronage. They work in the public interest for the good of the nation. Edmund Burke once described them as
“the great Oaks that shade a Country”.
The same, I am afraid, cannot be said of the saplings of the new Labour intake.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir Oliver Dowden
I will give way in a moment.
I shall prove my point. Before the election, Labour sources admitted that
“we’re going to need to appoint a dozen peers on day one to do big junior ministerial jobs that the MPs shadowing them aren’t up to doing.”
In 1999, Lord Strathclyde, the then shadow Leader of the Lords, presciently warned of
“the return of an almost medieval executive power—a noisome bramble-patch of presidentialism, patronage, private pressure, preferment and place”—
past words that speak truth today.
One central argument evinced by the Paymaster General is that no one should be in Parliament by “an accident of birth”. Yet, today’s Labour party reeks of the hereditary principle—the elevation of the nepo babies of north London, the coronation of the red princes: the Goulds, the Falconers, the Kinnocks, the Benns, the Eagles, the Reeves. Many of them are distinguished Members, but under Labour’s closed shop, it is hereditary peers out and hereditary MPs in.
The question this House must address is whether a wholly appointed Chamber and waves of new Labour peers will improve the governance of our nation. Will they mean a proper impact assessment of the cuts to the winter fuel payment? Will there be better scrutiny of the proposed French-style union laws? Or, as Michael Foot told the House in 1969 when opposing Harold Wilson’s Lords reform Bill, will it become just
“A second Chamber selected by the Whips. A seraglio of eunuchs”?—[Official Report, 3 February 1969; Vol. 777, c. 88.]
The Labour party apparently wants to apply that phrase to this House, given the diktat from the Labour Whips banning their Members from tabling amendments without permission. The Downing Street boys do not want dissent from either House of Parliament.
Mike Amesbury (Runcorn and Helsby) (Lab)
What is it about defending the indefensible? The right hon. Gentleman talks about rushing, but we have been trying to reform the other place for over 100 years. It is not about personalities; it is about the principle of ensuring that in a modern democracy people do not become legislators by birthright. Surely the Opposition support that.
Sir Oliver Dowden
The Labour party was in power for 11 years after the 1999 changes. It completely failed to undertake this reform, and that was for a reason. We have a delicate and complex unwritten constitution of checks and balances, of principles and conventions, and when one starts to pick away at some of them, one realises the consequences of doing so. If we are to proceed down this path, it is important that Members—many on the Government Benches have been elected Members for only four months—have the opportunity to scrutinise the changes. This is a new Parliament and we should have the opportunity of proper scrutiny.
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
I am grateful to the former Deputy Prime Minister for giving way. He is right: I have not been here as long as he has. I am enjoying his audition for the shadow Cabinet when the new leader arrives, but will he join me in the Aye Lobby this evening, yes or no?
Sir Oliver Dowden
I doubt I have much chance of joining the next shadow Cabinet. This is my swansong rather than my audition.
I have set out the reasons I oppose the Bill—it is rushed and we have not considered the wider consequences.
Mark Ferguson (Gateshead Central and Whickham) (Lab)
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way to a sapling. The interesting thing about saplings, as I am sure he knows, is that sometimes we become oaks—I guess we shall have to see—and the reason there are so many saplings on the Government Benches is that we chopped down so many oaks from the Conservative party. Although we have not been in the House for long, many of us have been involved in the interests of our constituents and the conversations of politics for a long time. Does he agree that the House does not hold the collective knowledge of the whole country and that sometimes we may have formed views about what is necessary for the other place before reaching this Chamber?
Sir Oliver Dowden
I very much hope that the hon. Gentleman grows into a sturdy oak, like all the great oaks on the Benches behind me. There is a path to be followed to achieve that. Many people may well enter the House with pre-existing views, and that is of course the basis on which many of them were elected, but my argument is that we should consider the consequences of one change in relation to hereditaries for the wider composition of the House of Lords and the constitution.
Andrew Rosindell
My right hon. Friend rightly talks about the consequences of the changes. Has he also considered the effect of the removal of the Earl Marshal and the Lord Great Chamberlain of England, which were protected in the 1999 legislation introduced by the then Labour Government? Will my right hon. Friend commit to supporting their retention in the House of Lords on a constitutional basis?
Sir Oliver Dowden
That is a very important point. I believe that the Government have plans to address that in the legislation. Having those people, with their experience of organising coronations—as I saw during the coronation two years ago—is another part of how our constitution works. All of the elements work together, and if we pick away at one, there are unintended consequences.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
To be clear, the Lord Great Chamberlain and the Earl Marshal will not continue to sit and vote in the House of Lords under this Bill, but they will continue with their important ceremonial functions.
Sir Oliver Dowden
The risk is taking away something that has formed part of the fabric of our constitution. The role of those two officeholders has been essential to the role of the Crown, and preventing them from fully playing their part in the House of Lords may have unintended consequences that are deleterious to the interests of the nation.
Hereditaries and appointees aside, I would argue that the precise composition of an unelected second Chamber is a second order issue. Both the Government and Parliament should be considering how we can better improve the scrutiny powers of the revising Chamber. We need a strong Government, but we need a muscular Parliament too. All Governments should be held to account, particularly one with the biggest gap in history between their number of MPs and their popular vote. We should particularly consider how Parliament can better scrutinise the quango state—unaccountable tiers of government that are ballooning under this Labour Government.
Lords reform is challenging. For a century, no one has cut the Gordian knot—certainly not Gordon Brown. The system we have inherited from the turn of the millennium still works, proving the strengths and adaptability of the British constitution.
Constitutional change is an area where one should tread lightly. It requires proper consultation, engagement and consideration. On that basis, as set out in our reasoned amendment, the Opposition will oppose the Bill, not to defend the privilege of old, but in defence of a strong and independent Parliament that stands up to an over-mighty Executive, and for our nation’s long-standing liberties and freedoms.
Shaun Davies (Telford) (Lab)
It is a delight to speak in this debate. I first wish to praise one of my predecessors, Lord Bruce Grocott. Since the 1999 compromise, he has tried his best to achieve the step-by-step constitutional change that the shadow Minister mentioned, by abolishing the by-election for the hereditary peers. That was the first step Lord Grocott suggested.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
At least those peers were elected by someone, unlike all the other placemen.
Shaun Davies
If the right hon. Gentleman is patient, I will come on to the farce of the by-elections that have taken place for the hereditary peers.
For me, Lord Grocott epitomises what is great about the House of Lords—somebody with experience, a contribution to make to our national life, and who was appointed by the then Prime Minister, Tony Blair, to the other place. As we have heard from the Opposition, hereditary peers do make valuable contributions in the House of Lords, and nothing would stop those people being selected by the Leader of the Opposition or the Prime Minister to go back to the House of Lords, should that be their wish.
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there may well be an opportunity for all the Conservative MPs who might need to stand down because of restrictions on second jobs? They feel so strongly about the contributions that hereditary peers make, and some seats may be opening up for them in the near future.
Shaun Davies
I am surprised that Conservative MPs are able to get second or third jobs when they do not do their first job very well at all.
A second Chamber in the manner that I have described could be a vital force in delivering effective and considered progressive change, whereas the ancestry and bloodline entitlement is for the birds. It does not stand up to 1924 standards of accountability, let alone 2024 standards. As I said, my noble Friend Lord Grocott has tabled on a number of occasions a private Member’s Bill to remove the by-election process for hereditary peerages, and it was supported time and again by many peers. That Bill—the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) (Abolition of By-Elections) Bill—was filibustered by a handful of hereditary peers.
Indeed, the last time a Labour Government won a landslide majority and tried to abolish hereditary peerages, the other place, which is unelected, threatened to disrupt the Government’s agenda, and forced them to compromise by keeping 92 hereditary peers. The Opposition leader in the House of Lords said in 2021 that the tactic was to “make their flesh creep” in order to stop the Government’s programme. Hereditary peers and the obstruction of democracy have consistently gone hand in glove. Fortunately, the Minister has taken the first step towards reforming the House of Lords.
As many Members will be aware, of the 92 hereditary peers in the other place, there is not a single woman. It is perhaps no coincidence that when by-elections come around, that all-male electorate keeps on electing more men, who then go on to elect more men. That does not sound like progressive change to me; it sounds like an old boys’ club that has changed very little in several hundred years. Not only does election on the basis of bloodline lead to worse outcomes, but it is wrong on principle.
Shaun Davies
I will not. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will catch Madam Deputy Speaker’s eye in due course.
I am proud to play my part in the democratic process, as somebody who was elected by the people of Telford. There is a strong message here for young people in our constituencies: “If you want to become a Member of the legislature, either in this Chamber or the one down the corridor, you can do so based on your contribution to public life and your skills, not your bloodline.” In one by-election, there were six candidates but only three voters. That is an absolute embarrassment for democracy. What view must other countries take of us?
There are many areas in which the United Kingdom is a world leader or aspires to be one—our education system, civil liberties, creative and business sectors and many more—but the House should agree to modernise and transform this area. It is right that the House of Lords be reformed. No doubt, over the course of the years and decades to come, more reforms will come through, but this is a fundamental first step that the people of this country have voted for the Government to deliver. I congratulate the Minister on introducing the Bill so quickly. I look forward to voting for its Second Reading tonight.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
The Liberal Democrats have been calling for reform of the House of Lords with a democratic mandate for decades. The Bill is a welcome step forward, and one that we support. These measures are long overdue, and we are grateful that they have been introduced so early in this Parliament. Fundamentally, we Liberal Democrats do not believe that there is space in a modern democracy for hereditary privilege. The last significant reform of our second Chamber was introduced years ago. Although we would ultimately like to see a fully democratically elected upper Chamber, this legislation is a very welcome step to modernise the upper House.
In maintaining the right of hereditary peers to sit in our legislature, we are one of only two nations in the world in which membership of a second Chamber is decided by virtue of hereditary privilege. The principle of inherited membership of the other place is deeply antiquated, and we welcome the Government’s move to remove that ludicrous practice. Reform of our upper Chamber has been a long-standing Liberal Democrat policy. In fact, our stance on reform of the second House outlives many of the historically significant peerages that the current hereditary peers establishment maintains. Forty-nine per cent of the current hereditary peerages were created in the 20th century, while only 29% of hereditary peerages predate the 19th century, and the most recent were created in 1964—post-dating the Life Peerages Act 1958—so this legislation does not wash away our history or destroy tradition. The statistics alone should dissuade any argument about upholding of heritage. This reform is simply a move towards a more democratic form of politics. We must do all we can to restore public trust in politics.
Sarah Olney
Regrettably, the right hon. Gentleman has not been listening to what I have been saying. Liberal Democrat policy is to have an elected second Chamber. We welcome these measures as a step towards a democratically elected Chamber.
Sir Roger Gale
I have long advocated—with, I think, the support of my right hon. Friend the Member for Goole and Pocklington (Sir David Davis)—the abolition of the House of Commons, the abolition of the House of Lords, and instead four national Parliaments, each with a First Minister, and an upper House dealing solely with defence, foreign policy and macro-taxation, which was the original purpose of Parliament. Why is the hon. Lady prepared to go half hog rather than the whole hog?
Sarah Olney
I must say, I regret that the Conservatives did not win a mandate in July for the kind of wholesale reform that the right hon. Gentleman is proposing. As I say, the Liberal Democrat policy has always been for an elected second Chamber. That is not what the Bill delivers, but we are looking for the Government to go further—far further than the Conservatives did in the previous 14 years. [Interruption.] I find it so extraordinary that Conservative Members are suddenly all converts to the cause of Lords reform when they have done nothing about it for a decade and a half—it is insane. I say to both right hon. Gentlemen who have intervened on me that Liberal Democrat policy is for an elected upper Chamber, but getting rid of the hereditary peers is a welcome first step, and that is why we will support the legislation.
We must do all we can to restore public trust in politics after the chaos of the last Conservative Government. By removing this unelected and undemocratic aspect of our Parliament, we will move closer to that goal.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
The hon. Lady’s argument would hold far more water if the Liberal Democrats adopted the position of not nominating anybody for the upper House until it was wholly elected. However, every single council leader up and down the land who has led a Liberal Democrat-Conservative group—sometimes of only three people—has suddenly found themselves draped in ermine and voting in the upper House. Her principle and her party’s actions are very wide apart.
Sarah Olney
I want to be very clear: the Liberal Democrats support the idea of a second Chamber. Under the current system, it is an appointed and elected Chamber; we are here today to support the principle of an elected second Chamber, and we are supporting the first step in that direction. We support the principle of an upper Chamber, and are very glad that there is Liberal Democrat representation within it, but that does not mean that we do not support the idea of changing the way in which people are introduced to the upper House. That is the principle that we are here to support.
Honestly, I am finding it difficult to work out what the Conservative argument is here. Do they want to abolish the House of Lords, do they want it to be elected, or do they want to keep everything exactly as it is? We support the Bill because it is a welcome first step towards a broader range of reforms that we have supported since 1911—which, as I have said, pre-dates many of the hereditary peerages that Conservative Members seem so keen to maintain.
Not only is the concept of inherited privilege one of fundamental, antiquated inequality, it exacerbates the distinct gender imbalance of the second Chamber, with not a single woman among the current hereditary peers. Removing the right of those peers to sit in the other place would make that gender imbalance slightly less severe, moving from 70% of peers being men to 67%. Parliament should be a body that represents and reflects the diversity and richness of the people and cultures that make up our country. This legislation, which would remove the last remaining hereditary peers’ membership of the other place, is a significant step towards a more representative Parliament.
If successful, the Bill would have a significant impact on the size of the House. In 2017, we supported the findings of the Burns report, which recommended measures to manage the exponentially increasing membership of our second Chamber. By removing the right of hereditary peers to sit in the other place, we would see a significant reduction in the size of the House, moving it back towards a more sensible size. Liberal Democrats are supporters of that change and the move towards a smaller upper Chamber.
While we are grateful to the Government for the introduction of this Bill and intend to support its progress through the House, we also recognise and acknowledge the commitment, wisdom and contributions brought by some hereditary Members of the upper Chamber. We thank them for their work, yet hope they can agree that we can no longer ignore the entrenched inequality that the continuation of hereditary membership of their House brings. The Liberal Democrats have a long-standing commitment to reforming our second Chamber with a proper democratic mandate. I and my Liberal Democrat colleagues, both in this Chamber and the other place, are working together to push for broader reform as soon as possible. We are glad that the Government’s manifesto committed to other reforms, including changes to the appointment process, addressing the national and regional composition of the second Chamber, the introduction of a mandatory retirement age and a participation requirement, and we ask the Minister to set out a timeline for those reforms.
The Liberal Democrats have consistently spoken out against the current system of prime ministerial appointments, which engrains patronage, reinforces the elitism of British politics and contributes to so many people losing faith in our system. We would like the Government to reassure us that they will not be following in the footsteps of the former Conservative Government, who ignored the findings of the 2017 Burns report and presided over a House of Lords that has ballooned in size. There have been suggestions that the Government’s plans for reform of the other place include a requirement for any nomination for a peerage to be accompanied by an explanation of the candidate’s suitability. Will the Minister commit to that requirement, bringing the appointment of peers more in line with the process for other honours—such as knighthoods—with political parties providing an overview of the relevant skills, knowledge and experience of the candidate?
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
Could the hon. Lady tell the House how many life peerages were given out by the California lobbyist Sir Nicholas Clegg?
Sarah Olney
No, I cannot. That happened in a previous Parliament and has no relevance to this current piece of legislation, which is about abolishing the hereditary peers.
Luke Taylor
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is surprising to hear the confusion from Conservative Members regarding our position on this Bill? We have figured out how to win under first past the post, costing so many of their colleagues their seats, but we come here with the ambition to change the voting system to a much more progressive, fair and proportionate one. In the same sense, the way to deliver a fully reformed House of Lords is to engage in the process and change it from within.
Sarah Olney
I thank my colleague for his intervention, which underlines that what the Liberal Democrats want is a fully reformed House of Lords—an elected second Chamber. We think that that will better serve the people of this country, restore some of the gravitas and dignity of the House of Lords, and make it a more effective second Chamber. Ultimately, that is what we should all be looking to achieve.
The Liberal Democrats continue to support the findings of the 2017 Burns report, which claims that the House should be cut to 600 peers and outlines ways to ensure that happens. While the removal of hereditary Members is an important step in that process, we will continue to push the Government to continue with further reform in the future. In particular, we look to them to uphold their manifesto commitment to introduce a retirement age, a measure that further aids the reduction and subsequent management of the size and membership number of the House of Lords. We also want the second Chamber to have proper democratic legitimacy.
Sir Gavin Williamson
I am curious as to whether the Liberal Democrats would be open to amendments that look to take the reforms proposed by the Government that step further. It is very important that we work together to make sure we get the best form of upper House.
Sarah Olney
We will certainly be participating fully in Committee, scrutinising the legislation to see whether suitable amendments can be tabled, but that will be a Liberal Democrat initiative. It is something we will certainly play our part in.
We want the second Chamber to have proper democratic legitimacy, ultimately moving towards the replacement of the House of Lords with an elected Chamber. We believe that moving to a fully democratic, elected Chamber is essential to strengthening the integrity of Parliament and the authority of our second Chamber.
Dr Ben Spencer
The hon. Lady is being very generous with her time. The Liberal Democrats clearly have a very formed view of the reforms that they want, so what number of Lords would be in the elected upper Chamber? [Interruption.]
Sarah Olney
I have to confess that I missed the hon. Gentleman’s question, because I was distracted by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell). I will just reiterate that we want to see broader reform of the House of Lords, with a democratically elected second Chamber.
Sarah Olney
I am not giving way again. More broadly, we are supportive of wider electoral reform, and look to the Government to support our pledges to modernise our electoral system. We want to strengthen democratic rights and participation by scrapping the Conservative party’s voter ID scheme, expand political and democratic engagement by extending the right to vote to 16 and 17-year-olds, and take big money out of politics by capping donations to political parties. We call on the Government to enshrine the ministerial code in legislation, giving Parliament the powers to hold Ministers to account and protecting politics from corruption and sleaze, and we want this new Labour Government to be bold in transferring greater powers away from Westminster and Whitehall. We believe that local authorities know best what their communities and towns need, and we want this Government to acknowledge that by boosting their authority and powers.
I hope we can all agree on the inappropriateness of hereditary status as a qualification for membership of a modern parliamentary democracy—that being the son, grandson or great-grandson of a former courtier, colonial administrator or 20th-century businessman is neither reason nor justification for a seat in a democratic Parliament. I and my Liberal Democrat colleagues therefore welcome the Bill and are grateful to the Government for taking swift action to make our political system fairer. Through this legislation, we hope to see the most significant modernisation of the upper Chamber in a quarter of a century, and while we will continue to push the Government to introduce bolder and broader parliamentary reforms, this legislation signals a serious move towards more representative, more democratic and fairer politics. My Liberal Democrat colleagues and I are proud to support this Bill as it moves through the House.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. I give Members a small reminder that this is a very specific Bill, dealing with the hereditary Members of the House of Lords, and therefore that speeches need to focus on that topic. I also remind all Members—it is sad to be saying this to Front-Bench spokespeople—that when you use the word “you”, you are referring to the Chair. That is not how we conduct debate in this House.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for your guidance on acceptable conduct in this place. I think it is very important, and I am grateful to be able to make what I hope will be a relatively brief contribution to the debate on this Bill.
It will come as no surprise to Conservative Members that I fully support the Bill in front of us, which I think is a sensible, rational and timely first step towards reform of the other place in a way that gives us time—as the right hon. Member for Hertsmere (Sir Oliver Dowden) has so eloquently argued for—to consider other things as we go along. There is a time for evolution and a time for revolution, and at the moment, it is time for evolution in how we amend the House of Lords. It is a question of how we take the first steps towards removing the most indefensible part of that House and of our constitution, while allowing ourselves the time and space to consider the other issues that have been raised and the commitments we made in our manifesto. I gently remind Conservative Members that that manifesto delivered a majority Government—you could say that consultation was had, and therefore we enact our policies.
I enjoyed the contribution of the right hon. Member for Hertsmere. I do not ask him to speak for his party because it is in flux. However, I ask Conservative Members not just to complain about the scope of the Bill, especially the lack of reform—I welcome their support for reform of the upper House; it has been a long time coming, but better late than never—but to consider whether they can defend the right of 92 people to sit in the upper House by virtue of their birth.
Those 92 peers have been almost exclusively white men. When the House of Lords Act 1999 was passed, five women were allowed to continue as hereditary peers in the House of Lords, the last being the Countess of Mar, who retired in 2020. As my hon. Friend the Member for Telford (Shaun Davies) said, whenever the opportunity for a by-election arose for one of the seats held by women, the woman was replaced by a man. More than 200 candidates are on the roll of eligible peers who could stand in by-elections for those seats, had the House of Lords not amended its Standing Orders. I will take an intervention from any Conservative Member who can tell me how many of those on that roll are women. Anyone? No. The answer is two. Fewer than 1% of those eligible to fill those hereditary seats are women.
I have no doubt that Conservative Members share my concern about the inequality that arises if we say that a white man has a potential privilege when he is one of the 92 or when he is a member of the 200 families who, by 100-year-old letters patent, have been in a position to secure one of those seats. To me, that is the most indefensible aspect. It is not necessarily about who those people are. I do not doubt that every single member of the hereditary peers group, whether in my party or not, has expertise and a skillset that they can bring to bear. However, if, upon their expulsion, they wish to continue to contribute to public life, all parties will have nomination lists during this Parliament. They can use them, if they wish, to bring back their best and their brightest. Of course, when those hereditary peers are no longer Members of the House of Lords, they are entitled to do what we have all done and present themselves to the public for election to this place, with a mandate.
Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)
Conservative Members are clearly unembarrassed by the total lack of women among the hereditary peers. Does my hon. Friend agree that they should be embarrassed by the total lack of women on their Benches right now?
Gareth Snell
I am not sure that any Labour Member needs to quantify Conservative Members’ embarrassment; they do it for themselves.
The hon. Gentlemen seem to be confused about whether they want more or less reform. I think we know that the answer is that they do not want any reform, but they create a smokescreen of wanting to act faster and with more zeal than Labour Members simply because they wish to ruin the Bill. They want to press amendments that are not relevant and not in the Bill’s scope. They want to make arguments about retirement ages. When the right hon. Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson) argued that there should be a retirement age of 80, I am sure that he had not spoken to his right hon. Friend the Member for Herne Bay and Sandwich (Sir Roger Gale), who is 81, although, to look at him, one would not think he was a day over 60.
Andrew Rosindell
I am puzzled. It is clear that the hon. Gentleman does not like the current system, but he does not explain how our legislation would be better for removing those people who have so much wisdom, experience and knowledge. How will our country’s legislation benefit from the change?
Gareth Snell
The hon. Gentleman will forgive me for not agreeing with him. There is a lot of wisdom and experience in this place that can be used to improve our legislation. Even with the removal of the 92 hereditary peers, there will still be 650 peers, who have incredible insights and specialisms. The Bill removes a group of people whose only entitlement to be in the House of Lords comes from, as the Liberal Democrat spokesperson said, a birthright many hundreds of years old, and from being selected by their friends to sit with them. The hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) may not agree with me, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Telford pointed out, the election process in the other place is a farce. There are often more candidates than electors. It is almost akin to the Tory party leadership election.
Pete Wishart
The only other group that seems to reserve a place in the House of Lords is millionaires—party donors. Sixty-eight out of 284 political appointees between 2003 and 2013 gave £58 million to political parties. What will the hon. Gentleman do about them?
Gareth Snell
The hon. Gentleman tempts me to stray outside the scope of the Bill. Madam Deputy Speaker has been clear that the Bill is specifically about hereditary peers. The Government have committed to reform the appointments process for the House of Lords. Everything does not have to be done in the same Bill. As the former Deputy Prime Minister pointed out, the pace needs to be considered, so that there are no unintended consequences, about which he is rightly concerned. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) can chunter at me from a sedentary position, but when we are considering hereditary peers, we are looking at the 92.
If anyone wants to justify reserving seats in the House of Lords for 92 white men, I will take an intervention now. Conservative Members do not want to do that because they do not want to defend the indefensible. They want to complain and bellyache that they do not like what we are doing. They dress up their complaints as process concerns about unintended consequences and make spurious arguments about the Earl Marshal and the Lord Great Chamberlain. That all shows that the Conservative party has simply run out of steam and ideas. All Conservative Members can do is chunter and complain about what we want to do.
Sir Roger Gale
Setting aside the hon. Gentleman’s ageist remarks, which I find deeply offensive, let me consider the point that the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) made. Why is it okay for the Labour party to maintain the Prime Minister’s patronage to appoint party cronies to the House of Lords while abolishing the hereditary peers, who do a good job?
Gareth Snell
I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman if my suggestion that he did not look a day over 60 was ageist—perhaps I should have said “over 50”. I find it difficult to take an argument from Conservative Members about crony patronage and the House of Lords when the former Prime Minister Boris Johnson put hundreds of people in there. He did so against the advice of the House of Lords Appointments Commission, yet Conservative Members said nothing at the time and were happy about it. Now, all of a sudden, it is an absolute problem that needs to be resolved.
I welcome the fact that my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General has made it clear that, after we have completed the process of removing the excepted hereditary peers, the Government will move on to other parts of House of Lords reform, which will make the appointments process more transparent. That will allow us to have a considered debate about the way in which that process can happen. While we have prime ministerial patronage, it must be transparent. Frankly, Conservative Members can give no lessons to any of us about transparency in prime ministerial patronage. Boris Johnson packed the House of Lords with his friends and cronies against the advice of officials, and Conservative Members had nothing to say about it.
Sir Gavin Williamson
I am interested in the hon. Gentleman’s suggestion that further reforms will be coming down the line. That will entail further legislation, and we know how precious legislative time is. Can he—or perhaps the Paymaster General—tell us when the subsequent Lords reform Bills will be introduced in this Parliament?
Gareth Snell
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his support. There will be more legislation. I am not a Front Bencher, but I know, because our manifesto said that we were committed to further reform, that that time will come. I am sure that there will be legislative time and that he will have an opportunity later in the debate to put the question to Labour Front Benchers directly, or perhaps to table a business question for a Thursday morning.
To draw my comments to a conclusion—
Gareth Snell
I would rather not, if that is okay—anyone else but the right hon. Gentleman. He was only 10 votes away from potentially getting a peerage himself, so perhaps for that reason he may not want to comment on the appointment process.
Mr Holden
The hon. Gentleman has had a nice laugh at my expense, but he knows what it is like to lose an election and to move seats. He made a good point about the Labour manifesto including the removal of hereditary peers, but as my right hon. Friend the Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson) made clear, the same paragraph includes the introduction of a retirement age at 80. Will the hon. Gentleman welcome any amendments to introduce that in this legislation?
Gareth Snell
Again, I am surprised I have to explain to the right hon. Gentleman how legislation works. A Government do not legislate on their whole manifesto in one Bill at the beginning of a Parliament. Those on my party’s Front Bench have said, and I fully accept that this is the right way to do it, that there will be a sequence of reforms over time, starting with the expulsion of the hereditary peers. That is the simplest way to start this process, allowing time and space for considered debate about the other proposed reforms that were in our manifesto and were supported by the British people.
In conclusion, all this Bill does is seek to end a 27-year anomaly that first came about when the Conservative party objected to previous reforms. By voting for it tonight, we can start to right that wrong, and we can start ourselves on a process of reform of the House of Lords. I look forward to welcoming all my new reforming friends to join us in the Aye Lobby this evening.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
Before I begin my remarks, I apologise to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I have a meeting with a Minister at the Department of Health a little later, so I will have to slip out for part of the debate.
I slightly hesitate to say this in the presence of my right hon. Friend the Member for Herne Bay and Sandwich (Sir Roger Gale) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman), because I would love to describe myself as a romantic old Tory who believes in the Peel dictum that we should keep the best of what we have and reform only where necessary. However, I am afraid that that ship has probably sailed and we are now full steam ahead into the 21st century, and there is much in what the Paymaster General said to support the principle that he seeks to advance. In a modern legislature, can we justify—beyond its being an attractive traditional anachronism—having 92 or whatever hereditary peers?
It is frankly nigh on impossible to make that argument, apart from as a romantic attachment, although my right hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Sir Oliver Dowden) gave it his best shot. He made some very important points, particularly in quoting Burke. I have to say that I am distressed to hear that, when our leadership issues have been settled, he will be leaving the Front Bench—he was just starting to show such promise, and I am sure great things beckoned. He is a great mate, and he will be much missed.
I am afraid that the argument the Minister deployed is not the best one or what I was expecting to hear him say. He is an accomplished author: he has written a book on Nye Bevan, an award-winning book on Harold Wilson and a book about Attlee. He may possibly be able to hear those heroes of his spinning in their graves, because his approach to Lords reform would translate as Wilson having a “lukewarm heat of technology”, Attlee saying, “Well, I’ve created a little bit of a welfare state, and I think we’ll just pause there for 30 years and see how that goes, because some people may not like it”, or Nye Bevan saying, “Do you know, I’ve opened a cottage hospital in Cwmbran, and that’s quite enough: let’s just pause for a moment and see how that works.” If you are going to do it, do it!
I make this point with the greatest respect and politeness, because I admire the right hon. Gentleman enormously. After 14 years in opposition, decades since Harold Wilson and over a century since Lloyd George’s price list of viscountcies—and heaven knows what else when he was selling peerages to try to keep the old Liberal party in power—the right hon. Gentleman says, in a tantalising Lords reform version of the dance of the seven veils, “I want to show you this little bit of what we’re going to do, and there’s more to come after the interval, but we don’t how long the interval will be.”
My right hon. Friend the Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson) is a former Chief Whip, so he knows full well the pressures on legislative time, and the Cabinet Office has done well to secure a legislative slot so early in the Parliament to deliver some constitutional change and reform. What a missed open goal to deliver the things that most of us—including, I think, the right hon. Gentleman—would like to see.
The right hon. Gentleman—I say this as a fellow boy from south Wales—told us that there is nothing better than when we see men and women of good will who wish to take part in our national life having the opportunity to do so. That is what we all want to see—a socially mobile, inclusive, engaged democracy—if for no other reason than that it means that, through that mechanism, we can destroy and put away those on the extremes, who only ever fill the vacuum when those women and men of good will do not step up to the plate.
Removing the 92 hereditary peers will still leave appointment to the Lords up to patronage—being a great mate of a party leader. Across the House we should be absolutely frank about how all party leaders all of the time have used the House of Lords as a way of getting rid of the awkward, the bed blockers or whoever. I have to say to Labour Members that, while we should all beware of Greeks bearing gifts—I can say that as somebody who is a quarter Greek—they should beware of a Labour Chief Whip offering them a peerage, because the Government will change the age qualification. It is the unkindest retirement present for Margaret Beckett, John Spellar and others. They said, “Please go to the House of Lords and make way for a new, young, able thruster,” and then, “Oh, we’re frightfully sorry, but you’re now too old to take your seat.”
Shaun Davies
To damage the street cred of us both, I am very fond of the hon. Member, as he knows—we go back a long way—but does he agree with me that perfection should not be the enemy of the good, and he should vote for this measure as a down payment on future reforms?
Simon Hoare
I say to the hon. Gentleman, whom I nearly called my hon. Friend because he is a friend, that I am more than likely to vote for this Bill on Second Reading. I possibly should have told my Whip about that beforehand—there is my peerage gone. Notwithstanding the fact that my right hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Sir Oliver Dowden) is one of my oldest and dearest friends, I must say that his reasoned amendment seems to have been written more because of the need to write something, rather than actually to make a case to persuade, which is entirely atypical of the way he usually works.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge made the important point—I do hope that those on the Treasury Bench and the Government Whips have listened—that this is an opportunity to consider proper amendments to make this a more material exercise.
We live, thank God—I say this as a Roman Catholic—in a multicultural, multi-religious society. We have an established church, and I do not think anybody would advocate for its disestablishment at this stage. However, it is surely an anachronism, just because of the sees to which they have been appointed, for the Archbishop of Canterbury and others to sit as part of the legislature. The only other country that has clerics in such a position by dint of office is Iran, which I suggest is not a country that we should seek to emulate very much. Let us have a faith Bench or faith Benches, but let those Benches be of mixed faiths and truly representative of the faith groups doing so much good in our country.
A number of the hereditary peers have been doing sterling work. I think, in particular, of my noble Friend The Earl Howe and His Grace the Duke of Wellington, whom Labour Members were praying in aid just a few months ago, of course, when His Grace was leading the campaign against the then Government to improve water quality and sewerage. I suggest that his expertise in and knowledge of water quality in chalk streams and so forth should not be lost.
I do take on board the sincerity that the Minister claims—this is not a personal thing or a class war; it is a matter of principle. I think the House gets him on that. I do not think he needs to make that point any more. But I do hope that there may be an opportunity for a supernumerary list outside the normal leaders’ nominations —birthday or new year honours—so that those hereditaries who wish to continue their service, and not all will, can have conferred upon them a life peerage. That would make good much of what the Minister has said with regard to his principal motivation and that this is not a personal thing.
Sir Roger Gale
Will my hon. Friend agree that if this legislation is to go through, there should be a provision to ensure that all the hereditary peers are offered a life peerage as part of the package?
Simon Hoare
One can make a perfectly reasonable argument to say it should be offered to all. One can make an equally good argument that it should be offered only to hereditary peers who are fulfilling a House of Lords duty—chairing a Committee perhaps, or if they are active on their party’s Front Bench. My right hon. Friend has made an important point and I am sure that the Minister will consider it. It would certainly be an act of good grace and it would be an act of charm, both of which I know are characteristics with which the Minister is fully imbued.
Sir Roger Gale
I do not wish to detain the House, but when I raised this point during the Minister’s remarks he indicated that it would be perfectly proper and possible for a leader of a party to put forward hereditary peers for life peerages, but that is not the point. The point is that there should be a separate list in this legislation to accommodate all of them.
Simon Hoare
I am going to stay mute on the “all” point, but my right hon. Friend echoes the point I was endeavouring to make, which is that a list of conversion, as it were, from hereditary to life should be considered by His Majesty’s Government, outwith leaving it to leaders of any party to nominate for a new year’s honour or a birthday honour, because that would clog up the system for those who are new to public life—echoing the point the Minister raised—where people want to make a contribution and may have caught the eye of the powers that be in order to secure a nomination.
I think there is a job of work that needs to be done. There are a number of ways in which one can land on the right solution, but it should not just be a case of, “Thank you so very much indeed for your service. Please return the ermine to the Lord Great Chamberlain. Your retirement party has been postponed because we could not find a room to have it in”, or whatever it may happen to be. I think there is a way which is elegant, which is kind, which is graceful and which has some democratic underpinning, because at least it will have gone through the appointments.
I close by saying that this is a missed opportunity, and the Labour Front Bench needs to consider that. I appreciate that they have the distorting effect of the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), who did take up a little Labour bandwidth. We all got constrained by delivering Brexit, or trying not to deliver Brexit. And then we all had the big national distortion of the pandemic. But to offer this dance of the seven veils, after 14 years of opposition, and on an issue that people in this place and outside have been talking about for over a century, suggests to me a lack of detailed preparedness by the Government in some policy areas. It cannot have been a shock to Labour that they won the election; it may have come as a pleasant surprise that they won so comprehensively, but it really cannot have come as a shock that they were likely to win the general election whenever it came, irrespective of how hard my colleagues and I were working to ensure that did not happen:
“There is a tide in the affairs of men
Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune”,
or misfortune in my party’s case, but we are where we are.
I hope that amendments are forthcoming—I do not think it is too late to work cross-party on this—to buttress this proposal and deliver some of that democratisation of the House of Lords, and to make sure it is more regionally reflective. I listened to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) talking about the number of white men. I will be careful as he is helping me on a constituency issue, for which I am grateful and I want to put my thanks on the record, but my party has given the country three female Prime Ministers, the first Prime Minister of Jewish heritage and the first Prime Minister of the Hindu faith, so I am not entirely certain that we need to take lessons from the Labour party on how to bring people who are not necessarily used to public life into public life.
Gareth Snell
The hon. Gentleman makes my point quite succinctly for me. Yes, there were three female leaders of his party, but they were elected; none of them had the opportunity to take up one of the 92 seats in the House of Lords. That is the anomaly that needs to be resolved.
Simon Hoare
Labour were very keen to stop the Member for Stoke Newington being elected, and doubtless she would have been donning ermine at some point, so again I think the hon. Gentleman is on slightly thin ice. I say to the hon. Member for Calder Valley (Josh Fenton-Glynn), who is looking confused, that I am talking about the Mother of the House, the right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott). I say to him, “Keep up, 007!” I do not know whether he noticed it during the election campaign, but there was quite a lot in the media about it. He should look it up—the House of Commons Library is frightfully helpful on these sorts of things.
So I say to my right hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere, with huge reluctance and sadness, that I am more than likely to sit this one out, as the Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee—and I am sure that the Committee will want to look at this in more detail when we are up and running. But the underlying principle that the Minister has set forward is a compelling one. It is a sadness, a disappointment and a surprise that he is not taking this opportunity, after 14 years preparing in opposition, and after a century of making the case from the centre-left of British politics, and with a massive Commons majority, and that this timid little church mouse of a Bill is the best that he can offer us this afternoon.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call Claire Hazelgrove to make her maiden speech.
Claire Hazelgrove (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is the privilege of my life to give my first speech in the House of Commons as the first Labour Member of Parliament for the Filton and Bradley Stoke constituency. Having been a candidate since 2022, it still feels rather surreal to be on this side of the election and to say those words, and in truth I hope that standing here in this awe-inspiring place will always feel at least a little surreal.
I could not be more grateful to fellow residents for the time that thousands of them have given in speaking with me and my volunteer team on their doorsteps over the years already, and for putting their faith in me to serve them well. But no matter how people voted, I will work hard every day to serve all residents as an active, impactful and approachable MP that they can be proud of.
I come from a family of teachers, NHS workers and RAF service members, and their sense of public service runs deep in me. I have spent my life working with and for those who too often do not have enough of a voice on issues that matter to them—on global poverty, on opportunity, on the environment and on the housing crisis.
I am at my core a campaigner and advocate. I whole- heartedly believe in the power of community, and that lived experience is as valid in shaping policy and public services as holding multiple degrees in that same subject. I see this role, which I am honoured to hold for a time, as being a vital jigsaw piece, joining together with others to make life fairer for people across our community and our country. The NHS workers, the charity workers, the teachers, the carers, the innovators and the volunteers—I could go on—are the ones who bind us. That is certainly the case across our rich tapestry of towns and villages just north of the city of Bristol in glorious South Gloucestershire.
I am determined to put the whole of the Filton and Bradley Stoke constituency—named after the oldest and youngest towns at the time of its creation, and including many distinct and vibrant communities—on the map. It is the home of Concorde and the future of flight, with our aerospace companies setting the standard nationally and internationally. It is the home of the lifesaving NHS Blood and Transplant, the innovative University of the West of England and the vital Ministry of Defence Abbey Wood. It is also home to Wallace and Gromit, more places called Stoke then one could count after a few great local ciders, and a palpable belief that better days still lie ahead.
People in my constituency do not ask for too much. We want security, stability and fairness, and to know that if we work hard, we have the same chance as anyone else to fulfil our potential. We want to know that we will be able to provide for our families through good wages earned from decent jobs, and to enjoy life and give back in our own way. I am incredibly grateful for the fact that even though they have been up against so much in recent years, people in my community chose to keep their faith in better. I will work hard every day to repay that trust.
With that in mind, while it is almost impossible for any two people, let alone 75,000 of us across a constituency, to agree on everything all the time, I will always be up front with fellow residents, will listen, and will share what decisions I am making and why. I believe that how we do things in politics matters almost as much as what we do. I appreciate my part—my responsibility—in doing politics differently and having better conversations.
On that note, I give thanks to my predecessors. Jack Lopresti championed defence, and I know that he will be glad of this Government’s continued support for Ukraine. Before recent boundary changes, some local residents were served by Luke Hall, and briefly by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol North East (Damien Egan), when he was the last Member for Kingswood. My true thanks to them and their predecessors for their service.
I also want to give my personal thanks to two other former Members of this House who have been important in my journey to this place. Sally Keeble was the nearest Labour MP to me when I was growing up in a village that still does not have a Labour MP. She took me under her wing and first encouraged me to think about standing to serve in this place. I also thank Tony Blair, whom I had the privilege of working closely with for a few years at his Institute for Global Change. His approach to considered and considerate leadership has taught me a great deal. It was the last Labour Government’s response to the Make Poverty History campaign that showed me that politics at its best can be an unparalleled force for good, and that significant change can happen when people power meets political power. That is when I first found the Labour party.
I got into politics, like many, to make a difference, but I was driven every day by the simple belief that someone’s background should not determine their life chances and life choices. That is why it feels fitting to give this speech today, in a debate that is fundamentally about how we make our Parliament better and fairer. While I am a great supporter of British institutions and traditions, there is clearly no place in a modern Parliament for people—largely men—who can vote on legislation as a birthright, because their father did. As a new officer of the all-party parliamentary group on financial education for young people, and as a soon-to-be member of the upcoming group focusing on political and media literacy, I will work hard and across the divide to help others to feel as confident, capable and comfortable as anyone else in these spaces. I hope to show that if I can stand here today—a girl from a village who had, and still has, a simple belief in making life fairer—so can anyone.
I am fully committed to serving local people well, putting our priorities at the heart of the agenda and breaking down barriers to opportunity, so that everybody has their chance to thrive. I end by thanking my family, friends, campaign team and community, who inspire me every day.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
What a pleasure it is to follow the hon. Lady’s immensely accomplished speech. She is absolutely right that politics and Parliament can be a force for good—particularly, to go into the detail of what she said, when people are driven by a shared sense of fairness.
I shall speak today about legitimacy, efficacy, dignity and continuity. First, I will deal with legitimacy. Authority is legitimately exercised by those of us here who are elected, but not all those who exercise authority are elected, and not all legitimacy depends on direct reference to the people. The right hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds) serves as a Government Minister who is appointed by His Majesty, and was chosen to serve by his Government and his party. He is elected to this place as a Member of Parliament, but he is not elected as a Minister; he is appointed, and exercises all kinds of power on that basis. I do not challenge his legitimacy; I accept it as part of our democratic settlement. Under our separation of powers, many people exercise authority who are not elected at all. Judges are not elected, but are appointed on the basis of their competence, knowledge and experience, and they exercise power using their wisdom.
All of us in this Chamber know of authority derived not from election or from the people. A lot of people here will be parents. Mothers and fathers exercise all kinds of authority, but they are not chosen to do so by those over whom they have that authority. We might call that authority by accident of birth, or at least of someone else’s birth. Authority and legitimacy need to be debated in a much more measured way than they have been in the debate so far.
I have heard many wise speeches from all parts of the Chamber over the time I have spent here, and I have heard many daft speeches, too. There is nothing dafter than someone saying that they will vote for a provision that they do not believe in because it makes the House of Lords more democratic, as the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) did, when it does not in fact make the House of Lords more democratic at all. It is not more democratic to be appointed by a party leader or nominated by one’s peers than it is to be born to sit in the House of Lords. Let us have a sensible and mature debate about this and consider legitimacy in the round.
Let us also talk about efficacy. The House of Lords plays a vital role in our constitution by ensuring that the Government are held to account, and by providing a creative and, by and large, helpful tension with this House. That has not been convenient for Governments of any colour. When I was a Minister in previous Governments, many times I had to negotiate with Members of the upper House—from all parties, by the way—in the same way that I engaged with colleagues from across this House to get legislation through. That tension is critical, because it allows scrutiny of what is brought before this House and agreed here, and by and large the system works. It is awkward and difficult—it is probably not what we would contrive if we were to design a system from scratch, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Sir Oliver Dowden) said—but it has proved generally effective over time.
Jesse Norman
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his excellent speech. I want to make a simple point, which is that we are naturally respectful of evolution in nature because we see that it leads to progressive improvement, in general, in species, and diversification, but we are extraordinarily foolish when we consider the evolution of our institutions. The House of Lords has become, over time, a remarkably effective scrutineer of legislation, in its diverse ways of selection. He makes an argument on legitimacy; does he share my view that the House of Lords’ legitimacy comes not only from the exercise of authority effectively, but from a certain expectation as to expertise and the degree of care and attention with which people are brought into that House?
Sir John Hayes
Of course my right hon. Friend is right that change is inevitable and change is constant, in the words of Disraeli, but that change needs to be built on an understanding of what has gone before, exactly as my right hon. Friend says. Evolution in our thinking builds on what we know and adds to it incrementally. For the most part, constitutional change is better when it is incremental and when it is founded on consistent and measured dialogue between people across the House—the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Sir Oliver Dowden).
Sir John Hayes
I give way to the hon. Gentleman, who was an admirer of mine in his previous life. I wonder whether that admiration is constant, too.
Paul Waugh
I was indeed. I was going to share with the House the secret that I used one of my references in a report to endorse the right hon. Gentleman as a candidate. He makes the point, in agreement with the right hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman), that incrementalism is a good thing; surely this is an incremental Bill that takes the first step towards a bigger reform.
Sir John Hayes
This is why I do not agree with the radicals on the Opposition Benches. This will come as a surprise, but I am not, by temperament or politics, a radical. One of my great political heroes, Joe Chamberlain, began life as a radical, but like most sensible people, he moved to the right over his life, and in the end became a Tory, or at least a supporter and member of a Tory Government. I do not share the view that we can conjure some kind of ideal system by throwing all the balls up in the air and seeing where they land. As the hon. Gentleman implies, incremental change is born of an understanding that gradual alterations to our constitutional settlement are, by and large, better. That is what most Governments have done over time; indeed, the Blair Government, to which the hon. Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Claire Hazelgrove) referred, took exactly that view when they reformed the House of Lords, retaining the hereditaries on the basis of the very sort of incrementalism for which I argue.
Luke Taylor
I apologise for going back to a point the right hon. Gentleman made earlier, but he made the argument that ministerial appointments and appointments to the House of Lords are decisions that we take on behalf of our constituents as part of our representative democracy. Does he agree that we politicians are then held to account by the electorate in the elections that follow? Former prime Minister Liz Truss was held to account for her decisions on appointments to the House of Lords, and her decision to appoint to the Cabinet people like Kwasi Kwarteng, who immediately crashed our economy. Does that not show that there is democratic accountability for the appointments we make, either to the Cabinet or to the House of Lords? The unusual nature of the hereditary peers marks them out as the odd appointments out in the House of Lords; they face no accountability, and they cannot be taken into account in the democratic process.
Sir John Hayes
I tried to follow the hon. Gentleman’s argument. As far as I can work out, he said that elected people are accountable, but they do daft things sometimes. There is not much evidence to suggest that Members of the House of Lords have been less wise than Members of the House of Commons. There have been wise people here and wise people there. There have been good decisions there and good decisions here—and bad ones, too. The hon. Gentleman is right, of course, that we are directly accountable to our electors, and I treasure and honour that. The hon. Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke said that she revered her connection with not just her voters, but her constituents, and so do I.
I will make some progress because I know that you of all people, Madam Deputy Speaker—note my use of “you” in this context—will not want me to truncate my remarks. Having said that, I know that others, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson), are very keen to contribute, and he will not forgive me if I use up all this time. Let us talk a bit about efficacy. The average hereditary peer is younger than the average peer. A higher proportion of hereditary peers are active members of the House of Lords, serving on Committees, on the Front Benches of both parties or as Whips. A much higher proportion of hereditary peers contribute to speeches and amendments than life peers. Purely on the grounds of whether they are doing their job well, there is no real argument for getting rid of this small number of people.
There may be a better argument—notwithstanding my resistance to radicalism—for looking again at those Members of the House of Lords who, once appointed, never go. That is the reform that I think I could vote for.
Sir Gavin Williamson
The Labour party had that in its manifesto, and said that it would introduce it as part of its reform of the House of Lords. Does my right hon. Friend think that it would be good if it supported such an amendment?
Sir John Hayes
I would be interested to see what amendments come forward, given my right hon. Friend’s remarks. There is a strong argument for having an expectation that if someone is appointed to the Lords, they do their job. That is the kind of amendment that even I, with my deep-rooted conservatism, could be persuaded to support. On the basis of the efficacy argument, the Bill does not do the job.
Let us speak of dignity. Bagehot described the House of Lords as one of the “dignified” aspects of our parliamentary democracy. Let us translate that into what we know about it in our age: debate in the House of Lords tends to be measured; its amendments, though sometimes forceful, by and large are withdrawn in the end in deference to the elected House; and the expertise in the House of Lords is undoubted, as peers are drawn from many parts of our communities. That includes the hereditaries. The parody of hereditary peers, which I suppose is rooted in the old days of backwoodsmen, that they are somehow a privileged elite who take no great interest in the affairs of our nation and bring no great skill to the consideration of those affairs, is just that—a prejudiced parody.
Jesse Norman
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right, and it is always good to have a mention of Bagehot in any constitutional debate. Bagehot draws the distinction between the dignified and the efficient parts of the constitution, but I thought that my right hon. Friend was making an argument that the House of Lords is no less an efficient part of the constitution, because of the effective way in which it scrutinises legislation and, in particular, in which the hereditaries play their role within the House. In a sense, would he not improve on Bagehot’s distinction by blending the two a little in the case of the House of Lords, which he is so ably defending? Does he share my view that, if the Labour party is preparing to nominate vast numbers of its own life peers, it might consider the question of whether they should make a commitment to attend the House for any period of time, rather than just taking the honour and absconding?
Sir John Hayes
Dignity and efficiency are not necessarily incompatible—my right hon. Friend personifies their marriage. He is right to say that there is something ugly about the idea of a Government of either party simply stuffing the House of Lords with their friends or donors. Let us be honest: that is not something one can accuse the other side of this Chamber of without acknowledging that it has become a habit in Parliament over time. Let me qualify that for a moment. There is not a power or policy in the history of man that has not understood the importance of patronage.
Patronage is a part of the exercise of power, but the way it is handled—how measured the application of favour is—is a matter of dignity. There is something fundamentally undignified about replacing the relatively small number of hereditary peers who, as I have said, are proven to do a good job. I noticed that when some of them were cited, the Minister, with his usual candour and decency, nodded in approval. Those peers being replaced by placemen seems to me to be fundamentally undignified.
Let us now talk a little about continuity. The House of Lords represents a link to our past. That may trouble some people in this House, but it does not trouble me. I am a Tory, so I believe that society needs to marry a respect for the past, consider the present and meet the needs of “future generations”, in the words of Burke. That connection to what has been is an important part of our constitutional settlement, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere set out. Lord Roberts rightly described the measures before us as
“cutting the link with our collective past that goes back to the period of Magna Carta”.
The Duke of Wellington, who has been referred to favourably already in this debate and whose great-great-great grandfather defeated Napoleon at Waterloo, now sits in the other place. Are we not right to recognise that that legitimises our connection with the past, to use legitimacy in another way? It makes that link real, powerful and, I think, desirable for that reason.
To conclude—notwithstanding begging your favour, Madam Deputy Speaker; I do not want to test your tolerance to its limits—let me say, without acrimony, because I have already made clear that I respect the Minister and his record in this House, that I suspect what drives the Bill is not a desire to maintain dignity, or for greater efficacy, or even the rather narrow-minded view that the only legitimacy that matters is democratic legitimacy, although that does of course matter, but a preoccupation with modernity.
Sir John Hayes
No, I am going to finish now.
A vapid fascination with now—imagine that. Of course, those philosophers on the Labour Benches will know that “now” is an illusion, as now becomes then in an instant, does it not? Yet the politics of now have an extraordinary appeal for faint hearts and weak minds. I know there are not too many of those in the Chamber, although rather more than one might ideally wish. That fascination with modernity leaves me only able to finish by quoting Marcel Proust.
Sir John Hayes
I know there are students of Proust littered among the saplings on the Labour Benches. If they are truly to become oaks and leave their acorns in the soil, they need to read Proust more. Proust said that
“the most deplorable prejudices have had their moment of novelty when fashion lent them its fragile grace.”
It is a prejudice that drives the Bill. It is a prejudice that does the House no credit—or at least, I should say, does the party opposite no credit.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call Anneliese Midgley to make her maiden speech.
Anneliese Midgley (Knowsley) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Claire Hazelgrove) for such a passionate maiden speech. She will be an excellent representative for her constituency. It is a privilege to stand here to give my own as the first woman to represent Knowsley in Parliament.
My predecessor, Sir George Howarth, served Knowsley with dedication for over three decades. In his maiden speech, he promised to
“shout and make a fuss”—[Official Report, 26 November 1986; Vol. 106, c. 289.]
for his constituents. He certainly kept that promise, serving not only as a loyal constituency MP but as a Northern Ireland Minister under a Labour Government. I have another illustrious predecessor: the MP for Huyton from 1950 to 1983, Harold Wilson, who served as a Labour Prime Minister. Harold transformed our economy and industry, founded the Open University, and started us on the long road to equality that we are still travelling. He left a more equal society than he inherited, one in which far fewer got by on too little. I am so honoured to follow in his footsteps.
Knowsley made me who I am. I was born and raised in Cantril Farm, a so-called slum clearance estate. My nan lived in the flats there, and I went to Brookside school, where my auntie Jean was a cleaner. My dad worked at Ford, on the production line, and with his secure, well-paid, unionised job, my mum and dad could give me a better life than they had had. Then, as a teenager, I got jobs in Liverpool, in Brian’s diner on Stanley Street, and at the Beatles shop, where I met Paul McCartney a few times. I started club nights where I DJ’d, and one of them—Liquidation—is still going.
However, I am here today as a proud trade unionist. It is the trade unions that built the Labour party. I am proud to be a member of Unite and the GMB, and I am proud to be a former political director of Unite and adviser to the general secretary of the TUC. The unions are my second family, and it is because of them that I have come from the council estate to the parliamentary estate. I know why I am here: to speak for my class, the working class. I will not forget who I am or where I came from. It is my duty to stand up for the people of Knowsley and to champion our strengths—our dignity, our resilience and our sense of community. I will never talk down my part of the world or its people.
Our streets are soundtracked by the La’s and China Crisis. Our parks and estates have nurtured footballing legends such as Peter Reid and Steven Gerrard. We have produced the finest writers and actors of my class: Alan Bleasdale, Phil Redmond, Sue Johnston, and Stephen Graham. They all showcase Knowsley’s creative talent. Last Friday I met Lord Derby at Knowsley Hall, the place that gave my constituency its name.
The so-called local toff and the former council estate kid spoke about how we can work together for the betterment of Knowsley. Knowsley Hall, where Shakespeare performed for Queen Elizabeth I, still represents our rich heritage, now revived by the Shakespeare North playhouse. Nowadays, alongside the people of Knowsley, I count as constituents two tigers, six lions, 11 rhinos, and a horde of cheeky monkeys who will take the wipers off your car at the safari park.
In modern manufacturing, the Jaguar Land Rover car plant in Halewood not only provides jobs across my constituency, but is currently at the forefront of electrification. We have 100-year-old family firms with solid apprenticeships that lead to skilled jobs, such as JJ Smith and Hemsec, pioneers in net zero construction. I will fight for investment in firms like these and jobs to take pride in, which can provide a good life.
I am proud of Knowsley, but I will always be honest about what stands in our way. Knowsley is the second most deprived constituency in the country. When Governments have walked away from us and left us to manage decline, we have picked ourselves up and helped one another through sheer force of will, determination, resilience and solidarity. We now have a Government who will not walk away, a Labour Government who are on our side. In Knowsley, we have great women who lead community institutions that take care of our people every day, such as Rachael Jones at One Knowsley, Marie Stewart at Southdene community centre, Jackie Croft at Centre 63, Pam Richards at the Safari Kids Club, Caroline Grant at The First Step, and Margaret Roche at SHARe.
In 1986, when my predecessor took his place, only 6% of school leavers in Knowsley got a job. That kind of unemployment scars families for generations. We have never recovered from the devastation of deindustrialisation under Thatcher and 14 years of austerity. We still face lower wages, higher poverty and fewer opportunities, and we need secure, unionised jobs on decent wages so that people can get by and their kids can get on. It is not much to ask, but it is everything. That is why Labour’s plan—the new deal for working people—is so close to my heart. It will be the greatest transformation in rights at work in a generation.
In Knowsley we dream big, but the opportunities are not always there. Teachers and school staff in Knowsley work incredibly hard, but the fact is that there is no A-level provision in my constituency. No child should grow up under a Labour Government thinking that they are not good enough to do an A-level, and I will do everything I can to change that, alongside delivering more and better apprenticeships.
My politics is the politics of people and of the shop floor, the bus stop, the school gate and the supermarket. From Huyton and Kirby to Prescot, from Stockbridge village to Knowsley village, and from the Johns estate to the Tower Hill estate, I say to my constituents: “You are my priority. I will not take you for granted. It is the honour of my life to serve you, and I will do my very best for you.”
Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)
It is a great privilege to follow such a moving and strong maiden speech by the hon. Member for Knowsley (Anneliese Midgley). I could tell by how she spoke with such passion about Knowsley that she will always be a fierce advocate for her constituents, and make sure that their priorities are properly heard in this House and that the Government do everything they can in order to address them. There is a connection between the constituency I represented for 14 years and hers, as I had the great privilege of representing many of the Jaguar Land Rover workers at the engine plant, which fell within my former constituency prior to the boundary changes. It goes to show how important it is that we always work across parties in pursuit of our common interests, because the success of so many great engineering firms, such as Jaguar Land Rover and BAE Systems, has an impact on all our constituencies. I look forward to working with the hon. Lady on many shared issues in the future.
This debate is an interesting one, because it offers the Government and this House the opportunity for real change—maybe I am like some of the people who read the Labour manifesto and believed that it was actually going to deliver change. The manifesto has an enormous number of pictures of the Prime Minister with a fine range of clothing provided by Lord Alli—32 pictures, I believe. Certain aspects of it give me real enthusiasm, and one is about constitutional reform. I appreciate that constitutional reform is probably not the thing that drove many people to vote one way or another, but it is a very important part of what the manifesto says. It sets out some important areas of change and reform.
However, when we look at what the Government have brought before the House, we see that this Bill is not about radical change. It is not about trying to take the opportunity that has been talked about many times in the past, including by the coalition Government and the previous Labour Government. We have already heard about the history over many decades or even a century. Reform and change have been promised but not delivered, and I cannot help but feel that this is such a moment. The Paymaster General will know that parliamentary time is always scarce. We love to think that it can be manufactured, but he will know that he will not get many opportunities to bring forward legislation on the House of Lords. Indeed, I would expect this to be the one and only time he gets to bring forward such legislation.
On the composition of the House of Lords, the scope of the Bill is very wide, and I would argue that that opens the opportunity to take a slightly more radical step forward in this legislation. I have rarely been referred to as a Tory radical—I put this down to my socialist roots and my socialist family—but I feel that more can be done here. I want to speak on a number of areas. The first, which is particularly important to me, is the injustice of the fact that there are 26 bishops in the House of Lords. An Anglican could say, “Well, they are representing me well”, but I think it is fundamentally wrong that my children, who are Catholics, have no form of representation in that Chamber. Yet the Government will not eradicate this injustice. How can it be right that legislation that was passed in the 19th century is not looked at afresh? Why are English bishops allowed to sit in the House of Lords but not Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish bishops?
Mr Holden
My right hon. Friend is making a fantastic point. He will know that it was in the Tudor era that reform of the House of Lords started, when the majority of bishops were removed, leaving these 26. The Paymaster General made a point about reforms not having been properly continued since 1999, but actually, when we are looking back to the 16th century, we can see that some of these reforms really need to catch up with modern times.
Sir Gavin Williamson
Indeed, and I want to encourage the Paymaster General. He has the potential to be known as a great reformer of the Labour party—he will write books about himself in the future—but he needs to be brave. He needs to be bold. I know that he can persuade his friends in the Whips Office to be bold. Fundamentally, we have a big opportunity. There is an unfairness. There is an injustice. So many people of so many faiths, and so many people of no faith at all, see that there are 26 bishops in the House of Lords. They do not reflect what the United Kingdom looks like today, so if the Government are not willing to table an amendment, I will table an amendment to remove those 26 bishops from the House of Lords.
Sir Gavin Williamson
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will support me in that mission to make the upper House a fairer and more reflective Chamber.
Gareth Snell
I thank my Staffordshire colleague for giving way. If he carries on with this strain of radicalism, he might even have a book written about him by the Paymaster General—scant as it might be. Is he taking his point to the final degree? Is he now advocating for the disestablishment of the Church of England, because that is where that argument ends up?
Sir Gavin Williamson
No, they are totally different things. There will be no disestablishment of the Church of England, but we need to lance the boil of the frankly ridiculous fact that we have clergy automatically sitting, as of right, in one of the Houses that make up this Parliament. To me, that is not right. It happens in Iran, but it does not happen elsewhere. I cannot see the justification for it, especially when it does not reflect the nations and regions of this country. Strong arguments have been made across this House, including on the Labour Benches, about the fact that hereditary peers do not reflect the make-up of this country. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) made a persuasive argument about the fact that they are nearly all male, and that only 1% of them—I think he mentioned—were female. Well, there is a similar challenge with those bishops. Of course, nowadays, only 2% of the British population attend Anglican services on a Sunday. More people declare that they have no religion than actually attend a church. Britain is a very different country today from how it was in the past.
Sir Roger Gale
In an earlier intervention, my right hon. Friend said that this Bill is an opportunity missed, and that such legislative opportunities do not come by very often. For the moment, the Cabinet Office has this Bill. Might I suggest that replacing 92 hereditary peers with what my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) called “placemen” is not reform? Would it not be a good idea if Ministers gave a clear undertaking this afternoon that they will accept amendments of the kind that my right hon. Friend the Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson) proposes?
Sir Gavin Williamson
I very much hope so. I know the burning radicalism within the Paymaster General’s stomach, and I know he wants to make a difference, but I seem to be more committed to delivering it than he does. I am very keen to make sure that we deliver what he promised on page 108 of the manifesto. I want to see that delivered.
The Paymaster General knows that he will not have another opportunity to legislate on this issue, but he has this opportunity to make a difference, because so many of the things mentioned in the Labour manifesto can be delivered within the scope of this Bill. He has heard that there are Conservative Members with the reforming zeal he once had as a young man, which he seems to have forgotten with the trappings of office. We want to fan the flames of radicalism in him.
Adam Jogee
Even I, as a loyal Labour Member, would say that there are more fun things to do before bedtime that read the manifesto, which I see my near neighbour has considered very seriously indeed. For him to amend the Bill, it has to have had its Second Reading. Will he vote for the Bill tonight?
Sir Gavin Williamson
I want to make this a proper Bill that reflects the hon. Gentleman’s manifesto. I will give way again to the hon. Gentleman so that he can answer this. If the Bill were amended to reflect the Labour manifesto, would he join me in voting for those amendments?
Adam Jogee
Listen, 20 votes hold, and I will give my answer in a moment. It is not for me to set Government policy, but I look forward to the right hon. Gentleman joining me in the Lobby tonight and getting this Bill through.
Sir Gavin Williamson
What I will be doing is the work to make sure that this House has the opportunity to vote on a Bill that will deliver proper reform of the upper House. Whether that is in areas set out in the Labour manifesto, such as a retirement age of 80 years, which is in paragraph 2 on page 108—
Sir Gavin Williamson
Only in the House of Lords, let me be clear. It is also vital to introduce participation requirements, and I look forward to working with Ministers to make such amendments.
Sir Gavin Williamson
I will give way, if the hon. Gentleman makes it clear whether he would vote for an amendment that reflects the manifesto commitments he was elected on, if I am in a position to table it.
Shaun Davies
Will the right hon. Gentleman vote for the Bill before the House this evening? The Minister has been very clear that this is the first step of constitutional reform.
Sir Gavin Williamson
I have made it clear. Will the hon. Gentleman vote for his manifesto? He is frightened to deliver his manifesto because of what the Whips will do to him. Labour Members have been told that they are not allowed to table amendments. They have been sat on so oppressively. When I was Chief Whip, I always encouraged as much debate as possible, across the House and including from my own Members, as I know how important it is to have a broad, wide-ranging debate. It is slightly depressing that there seems to be a more heavy-handed approach.
Several hon. Members rose—
Dave Robertson
I thank my neighbour, the right hon. Member for Great Wyrley, Penkridge and Stone—apologies, I might have got that the wrong way around—for giving way. He has been selectively quoting from the Labour party manifesto. He says the manifesto says we will introduce a retirement age for peers, but fails to mention that the sentence starts with the words:
“At the end of the Parliament.”
I know the Conservative party had a problem sticking to Parliaments lasting five years and that we have had a lot of elections recently, but as far as I am aware, this Government do not intend to have quite so many elections. We intend to be here and pass a large amount of legislation. Will the right hon. Member response to that point?
Sir Gavin Williamson
I hate to correct my neighbour, but as I have the Labour party manifesto in front of me, I will read it to him.
“The next Labour government will therefore bring about an immediate modernisation, by introducing legislation to remove the right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords. Labour will also introduce a mandatory retirement age. At the end of the Parliament in which a member reaches 80 years of age, they will be required to retire from the House of Lords.”
So the manifesto talks about when the Member will retire not when the legislation will be introduced. We know the Paymaster General is an aspiring radical, potentially—
Pete Wishart
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is there anything within your power or your gift that can make the right hon. Gentleman stop with this inconsequential rubbish?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I thank the hon. Member for his point of order. It is not a matter for the Chair, but I am sure the right hon. Gentleman is coming to the end of his remarks. I remind hon. Members to stick to the motion and that their content could better match the matter before the House.
Sir Gavin Williamson
As you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, the motion is incredibly broad. I have listened to many inconsequential speeches made by the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart), and I look forward to another inconsequential speech by him later.
The Bill presents an opportunity to deliver significant and important reform that will have a lasting impact. For me, it is important to recognise the injustice of one faith group being disproportionately represented in the House of Lords in a way that does not reflect today’s society. However, equally important reforms could be undertaken, such as bringing standards for people taking on financial interests in the other place in line with those of this House, ensuring we look at participation, as set out in the Labour party manifesto, and looking at a retirement age for those in the other House.
I appreciate there has been much enthusiasm in this debate, and I am sure there will be much enthusiasm going forward, but legislative time is precious. The Government have a mandate to deliver change, but I encourage them to take more significant steps, whether on the removal of bishops, the retirement age or other reforms that will make the other place a better place.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call Henry Tufnell to make his maiden speech.
Henry Tufnell (Mid and South Pembrokeshire) (Lab)
I am grateful for the opportunity to make my maiden speech. I pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Claire Hazelgrove) and for Knowsley (Anneliese Midgley) who gave excellent speeches, showing real love for their communities. I look forward to serving alongside them in the years ahead—country first, party second.
I know others may think it is the case for them, but must admit to the House that I have the immense privilege of representing the most beautiful constituency in Wales, and therefore the entirety of the United Kingdom. From the spires of St Davids cathedral, to the classic car shows in Cresswell Quay, Dobby’s grave in the sand dunes of Freshwater West, and the pastel-coloured houses in Tenby, Pembrokeshire is iconic. Even the little-known playwright William Shakespeare posed the question as to how Wales was made so happy as to inherit such a haven. If that were not enough, Lord Nelson declaimed that we have the finest port in Christendom. That is praise indeed, Madam Deputy Speaker.
We have been discussing constitutional reform extensively in this debate and Pembrokeshire has always been interwoven with the story of our individual, but united, four nations: the Welsh monk Asser summoned by Alfred the Great to leave the great settlement of St Davids to advise him at court; the birth of Henry Tudor in Pembroke Castle who would later return from exile to land his army near Dale and march to Bosworth Field; and the siege of Pembroke castle by Oliver Cromwell in almost the final act of the English civil war, beginning a period of 12 years of the protectorate reigning supreme.
Since my election on 4 July, some of the more charitable correspondents have taken the opportunity to observe that I am a slightly unusual person to be a Labour MP. I come from a farming family and there were not many Vote Labour posters around where I grew up, but times have changed and, as the son of a fierce, strong and wonderful Welsh woman, who is in the Public Gallery today, I was proud to be part of the red wave that subsumed Pembrokeshire, Wales and our United Kingdom. My wife and I chose Pembrokeshire as our home. I chose to join the Labour party, and now, perhaps to my father’s despair, I choose to vote and do away with hereditary peers. I say sorry to my dad, who is sitting in the Public Gallery today, but I am here to serve the many, not the few.
Talking of family, I wish to acknowledge my wife, Poppy. It is not fun being a political spouse—not that I would know—and she has bigger fish to fry in the law courts. She has been a tower of strength—a real and meaningful support—and I am so grateful that she is on this journey with me.
We do not get to this place alone, and I want to thank all those true believers who stood with me and campaigned in the rain, the sleet and the snow, on the beaches, across farms and across our many rural communities to deliver a Labour MP and a Labour Government. I am grateful to them all.
As with the history, the experiences and the tribulations of the great figures of Pembrokeshire’s history, our county has seen its fortunes rise and fall. The fishing industry was once the largest in our United Kingdom. The establishment of the Royal Naval Dockyard during the Napoleonic wars in Pembroke Dock cemented our county’s military legacy, which lives on to this day in Brawdy barracks and Castlemartin range.
The latter part of the 20th century saw the rise of the oil industry and the transformation of Pembrokeshire’s economic fortunes, with four oil refineries on stream by the early 1970s. Oil has given way to gas, and the Port of Milford now has two liquefied natural gas terminals, one gas-fired power station and one oil refinery. More than 20% of the UK’s energy comes through the port. With the rise of renewable energy and the potential for floating offshore wind in the Celtic sea, we are in a unique position to give true meaning to the term a “just transition”. We have the talent, the skillset, the resources, and I will use my voice in this House at every given opportunity to ensure that Pembrokeshire will not only benefit from but spearhead the industries of the future.
On the subject of fortunes rising and falling, I wish to pay tribute to my predecessors, Simon Hart and Stephen Crabb. Both were dedicated servants of the good people of Pembrokeshire and had long and successful careers in this House. They flew high, with both serving as Secretary of State for Wales and holding other Cabinet positions. Their most notable acts were Stephen’s bid to be Prime Minister and Simon’s unenviable task of holding together a fragmented Tory party as Chief Whip. I wish them both well, and I hope that Simon, the quintessential countryman, can find time for his alternative pursuits, given that his favoured sport has become something of a bête noire for my party.
As I bring my maiden speech to a close, I wish to paraphrase the words of a man greater than me and one who has already been mentioned in this debate: the inspirational and history-making Harold Wilson. He said that the party on the Government Benches is driven every day by “a moral crusade” and that, without that mission, that purpose and that cause, we are nothing. In my county, where we have the highest child poverty rates in Wales, those words are as true now as they were then. I will use my time in this House to fight for fairness, to deliver real change and to stand up for all the people who live, learn and work in the wonderful community that sent me to Parliament. The work is urgent, the time for action is now, and I am here to serve.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call Steff Aquarone to make his maiden speech.
Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)
Hello! It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Mid and South Pembrokeshire (Henry Tufnell), and I extend my warmest regards to all the Members making their maiden speeches today.
First, I would like to acknowledge my predecessor, Duncan Baker. He was an attentive and hard-working Member, and I wish him well in his future pursuits in industry. Before him, Norman Lamb served in this House for 19 years and left an extraordinary legacy in the realm of mental health, a cause that he continues to be a dedicated advocate for. It was in no small part Norman’s commitment to speaking the truth to power and giving a voice to the voiceless that made him such a hero to the people of North Norfolk, and which attracted me to politics fully seven years ago, when I was first elected as a county councillor—and I draw Members’ attention to the Register of Members’ Financial Interests in connection with my continued role there.
I am immensely grateful for the trust that residents across North Norfolk have shown in me: trust to represent them here, but also trust to play a part in the deep transformation we need in our politics if we are going to make positive change for society. This is an extraordinary place, but I cannot do what I have promised to do for my constituents—we cannot really do what we have been elected to do—without giving it the shake-up that is long overdue.
When people in the beautiful constituency of North Norfolk cannot live well, in good accommodation, with access to transport and employment and healthcare as part of a vibrant society, it is all of us who are failing them. I am thinking of the former resident I met on the train just last week who said to me, “I just want to come home, but there aren’t the jobs and there isn’t the transport.” I am also thinking about Kit, who made me my wonderful Liberal Democrat tie, and about the need to protect the precious Norfolk broads that she lives near; about Lisa in North Walsham, who is living in constant anguish because of the supply risks to her life-dependent medication; and about Don, a 99-year-old in Sheringham who is pinning his hope on a new kind of politics for the sake of his grandchildren.
The Bill introduces much-needed reform of the House of Lords, which we Liberal Democrats of course support, but we know that it does not go far enough. We must establish a fully elected upper House—elected using a fairer voting system—as soon as possible.
The House of Lords is only one part of our broken system, which needs to see urgent, radical reform. The structure and organisation of government itself must evolve to be fit for the modern age, and that transformation must extend beyond government to the wider public services and administrative systems that serve our citizens. Continuing with the current siloed structures of government is to ignore the technological advances of the past 50 years and fail to embrace the logarithmic advances in the future we are already living in. This evolution is about bringing policy and service delivery closer to the everyday lives and needs of people at every stage of their journey through life.
The current structures are having a very real impact in rural areas like mine, where our public services are in dangerous decline. Benjamin Court, a re-ablement centre in Cromer, has fallen into the gap between two silos—social care, managed by the local authority, and health services, overseen by the NHS—leading to its closure. That is not to mention the desperate need for a properly networked rural public transport service, which is key to enabling access to everything from employment to healthcare, but it is out of those departments’ scope and is instead left languishing at the bottom of the pile of priorities by a near-bankrupt county council. These problems make the lives of my constituents harder every day. We cannot go on like this.
But there is a solution: we can bring the design and delivery of services closer to the needs of citizens and there is plenty of precedence to go on here. In the industrial revolution, Thomas Edison made a profound contribution to rewiring the way that industry was organised. Prior to electricity generation, which he helped to develop, there tended to be only one motor in a factory. Industry had to be organised around a single source of power, usually a steam engine, with every machine that needed power connecting directly to the central drive shaft in the ceiling above. Components could be made, yes, but they then had to be transported elsewhere and assembled, usually by hand.
Energy was the central organising principle of industry, but electricity made it possible to pipe power to anywhere on the factory floor. It meant that machines could be placed wherever they were needed, becoming more precise, efficient and specialised, and it led to mass manufacturing, with the product as the central organising principle of industry.
Over the past few years, we have gone through another revolution that is potentially even bigger—the communications revolution. It is powered not by the invention of electricity, but by data. Since the advent of the consumer web in the 1990s, people have come to expect a higher degree of personalisation in their interactions with organisations and services. Data gathered from a wide range of sources—not just digital—is driving innovation and enabling more tailored, proactive experiences for users. This ability to be more pre-emptive and personalised does not even need people to be digitally enabled.
Data has enabled the rewiring of industry, not around the production line or the product, but around the citizen, or user experience. That has caused profound change in the overall architecture of many modern organisations, but it has had limited impact on the way that Government and the state are structured. There are great innovations taking place to try to integrate services and make them more patient or user centred, but without fundamental change in the underlying structures of power and public services, their effects will be limited.
From tackling climate change and preventing sewage spilling into the sea, to helping people get work and get about—let alone get a dentist appointment—so much of the change this country badly needs is not limited to one pillar of the state, but cross-cuts different Departments. Perhaps it is time to move away from the traditional silos of Secretaries of State for education, health, and transport, and instead adopt a more citizen-focused model. Imagine Secretaries of State for the citizen experience, for wellbeing and prosperity, for children or for data and privacy.
If people in North Norfolk are to get the changes they deserve to our rural health and social care provision, to access and prosper in the jobs of the future and to trust politicians as the custodians of our natural environment, we need to be prepared to rewire the structures of politics and public service delivery around the needs of the people they—and all of us in this House —serve.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call Maureen Burke to make her maiden speech.
Maureen Burke (Glasgow North East) (Lab)
I congratulate all hon. Members on their excellent maiden speeches this afternoon. It is a great honour to stand in this place today to deliver my own maiden speech as the Member of Parliament for the community I am proud to call my home, Glasgow North East. It is also satisfying that my first contribution is as part of a debate about such an important matter close to my heart, as will become clear.
As is customary, let me commence by putting on record my sincere thanks to my immediate predecessors in the constituency before its boundaries were redrawn, namely Anne McLaughlin and David Linden, who cared deeply about our communities and have diligently served our constituents. I also wish to briefly thank some other predecessors, who in their own way have been a source of inspiration and support over the years, among them the formidable Michael Martin, well known as a former Speaker of the House. It would have been interesting to hear what contribution Lord Martin of Springburn and Port Dundas would have made to today’s debate on the relevance of hereditary peers in our democratic process, after all being himself a man made good through personal advancement, not by the quirk of birth, but through dedicated service and merit.
More recently, the north-east of Glasgow was represented by Willie Bain and thereafter by Paul Sweeney. Willie Bain and I go back a long way. In fact, he was the person who showed me the ropes at my first door-knocking session. Willie’s sharp legal mind served him well as a shadow Food Minister and later as a shadow Scotland Office Minister. He was a stalwart for his communities, but on a more personal level, he has always been a great mentor and a source of advice, and that is why I am proud to call him my friend. Paul, who continues his public service as a Member of the Scottish Parliament, is a zealous champion of the built environment of our native Glasgow. As Paul alluded to in his maiden speech in this place in 2017, he is another example of how the Labour movement has offered opportunities for the advancement of working-class people through education over the past century.
Above all, I wish to pay tribute to one former Member who not only fought hard for my community and delivered change, but, more than anyone, encouraged me into the world of politics: Margaret Curran. I worked as a caseworker for Margaret. Her commitment, drive and determination to improve the lives of those she served had a large influence on my political awakening. She must have seen in me a like-minded spirit who cared passionately about those we serve, because it was her guidance and encouragement that led me on the road to becoming elected to Glasgow city council in 2012, and now to this distinguished place.
But my political journey started much earlier. The seeds of my political awareness were sown within my community and through my family. I grew up in Easterhouse and have lived all my life in the north of Glasgow—an area, like many parts of my home city, with an abundance of beauty. It is represented not only by the breathtaking splendour of Hogganfield loch, but by the countless communities and individuals who daily go above and beyond to help those in need and improve the amenities within our communities. There are organisations such as the Cranhill Development Trust; Rosemount Lifelong Learning; Denmilne Action Group, a collective of Easterhouse residents who have transformed their community through tackling litter and neglected green spaces; St Paul’s Youth Forum; Provan hall house—a medieval building dating back to the 1470s and arguably one of Glasgow’s oldest buildings, it has recently been renovated under the stewardship of the partnership tasked with its full restoration, which I had the honour of chairing—and the Springburn Alive and Kicking project, which is an excellent support in breaking down social isolation for many elderly residents. Those are but a few of our wonderful organisations.
My utmost thanks go to those people and communities for selflessly caring and looking out for each other, and for having placed their trust in me. Without them, I would not be here, and I will work tirelessly for them every single day. In short, the real beauty of my constituency lies in its people. Ultimately, to paraphrase the city of Glasgow’s unofficial motto, it is the people of Glasgow North East that make it such a wonderful place.
As I was preparing for this speech, I thought a lot about my family—my husband, daughter and grand- children, who are all my personal rock, but also my parents and my siblings, especially my younger brother David, who sadly passed away a couple of years ago due to pancreatic cancer. As the illness progressed, he was asked to take part in new medical trials. Although he knew that his diagnosis was too far advanced for him to benefit from the trials, he did not hesitate to participate, as he hoped that his contribution would help others face a different outcome in their own cancer journey. David bore his journey with a quiet, resolute dignity to the end. His selfless example and dignity will always remain the benchmark for how I will conduct myself as the voice for my constituents in this place.
Like many of my constituents, I grew up in a typical working-class Glasgow household—a big family, a small home, but lots of love. That began with my parents. Sadly, both my parents suffered from tuberculosis, forcing my elder siblings and I to leave school at an early age without qualifications in order to seek employment to become the family’s breadwinners. However, in my late 30s, I had the chance to take an IT course at John Wheatley college that gave me the opportunities to change my life. It is only fitting that this significant milestone in my life was made possible at a college named after yet another of my predecessors, who did so much to improve social housing in our country under our first Labour Government.
Education and further education are a route out of poverty. It gives you a sense of achievement, self-belief and the confidence that anything is possible. Education, no matter at what age, can be a catalyst that sets you off on a journey that you could never have imagined—in my case, a journey from the factory floor to the Palace of Westminster. I am living proof that no matter your social background, with the right opportunities and access to education, encouragement, hard work and determination, together with a vision shown by a progressive Government—like the current one—who have the very best interests of our people at heart, anyone can succeed and achieve their personal goals.
That brings me back to the topic of this debate: the removal of the last of the hereditary peers from our Parliament and from democracy itself. Those remaining 92 peers stand in direct contrast to me and my constituents. Opponents of these changes often say that removing those peers will mean losing experience, but to them I would say: I agree that this Parliament needs more knowledge and understanding of the world, but that should not come from an elitist class with a biased view of the world. Instead, that experience should come from a Parliament that is genuinely representative of modern and diverse Britain, drawn from people such as my constituents, who have sincere struggles, hopes and aspirations. I hope that my presence in this place and the removal of the hereditary peers from the other place will help to do that.
I now wish to address my constituents at home directly. I am forever grateful for the trust you have placed in me as your representative in the House of Commons. I will spend every day of the term of this Parliament fighting for you, be the voice for those who have felt disenfranchised, and I will always do what I believe is best for our community. I will work across this House, where possible, to raise awareness of injustice and fight for equality, and I will never lose sight of your priorities and the duty you have given me to serve you.
After a decade and a half of social and economic decline, we must recognise that the challenges that lie ahead for this new Labour Government are vast. However, I am convinced that with their ambitious and exciting programme of change laid out in the recent King’s Speech, this Government will succeed in delivering economic stability, growth and social cohesion, as well as providing employment and educational opportunities and a sense of renewed hope that life will change for the better—not just for the privileged few, but for all.
Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
It is a real pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Maureen Burke). I listened with great interest to her personal journey and her remarks about the transformative power of education, and she gave a very touching tribute to her brother, which I am sure the whole House appreciated. I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone), whose speech was a tour de force around his constituency and all the things he hopes to achieve in this Parliament. I wish him personally all the best for his time in this place.
I thank the other Members who made maiden speeches: the hon. Members for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Claire Hazelgrove), for Mid and South Pembrokeshire (Henry Tufnell) and for Knowsley (Anneliese Midgley). I say to the hon. Member for Knowsley that if she gets the decks out again, we will see if we can get the Deputy Prime Minister to come and join her; and to the hon. Member for Mid and South Pembrokeshire that it is maybe not best to tick off your dad in the Chamber—that is a little tip as the hon. Member goes forward in this parliamentary Session.
The first thing we have to try not to do when we consider the Bill is laugh. We have to try not to laugh out loud at the sheer ridiculousness of considering in 2024 whether places should be reserved in our legislature for a curious subset of a particular class of person, based on birthright. We have to try to stifle the guffaws that accompany the fact that a modern, complex, industrial, advanced democracy such as the United Kingdom can still have barons, dukes, earls and various other aristocrats deciding the laws of the land because they are their fathers’ sons. They secured that right in medieval times, perhaps because one of their ancestors won a decisive battle. This is parliamentary participation defined by the “Game of Thrones” principle, in which the great houses of olde England or olde Britannia knock seven shades of whatever out of each other for the right to run the country by breeding. In some way, they are our own Baratheons and Targaryens, but without the fun, the dragons and the box office appeal. It is time to break the wheel. For those down the corridor, winter must be coming.
There is no other legislature in the world that comes close to having people there through birthright, save perhaps the Senate in Lesotho, where I believe there are still places reserved for the tribal chiefs. That is the sort of company we keep.
My other initial main thought about the Bill is: is this it? We have heard about other things to come, and have been told that we should be patient because other Bills will be introduced. We have heard that from the Labour party for 100 years. For more than 100 years, Labour has promised to abolish the House of Lords, but there it sits, bigger and more bizarre than ever, awaiting the arrival of the new Labour Lords. Where is the Brownian vision of a senate of the regions and nations? Where is the “almost federalism” that we in Scotland were promised during the independence referendum? It is certainly not in the Bill. This meagre rubbish has not even got the credibility to call itself a reform. We will probably have to wait about the same amount of time that has elapsed since the barons and earls won those decisive battles for the Labour party to introduce meaningful reform.
We are getting not abolition of the House of Lords, but the long grass from the Labour party in this Parliament. A consultation is about to be embarked upon as Labour prevaricates once again. Nobody in this country believes that the Labour party is remotely sincere about abolishing the House of Lords. From the contributions we have heard so far, no one can believe that Labour Members are in favour of genuine reform of the House of Lords. Even the watering down of the watering down has been watered down, as the proposal for a mandatory age limit of 80 for House of Lords Members has been dropped. That happened because the Government found that they are disproportionately hit by the proposals; their cohort in the House of Lords is older than that of the Conservatives. It is no wonder that few people take them seriously.
What we have down the corridor is an embarrassment, an unreformable laughing stock, a plaything of Prime Ministers and the personification of a dying establishment that represents another age. With all its ridiculous cap-doffing deference, it represents almost the exact opposite of the values of my country. I am so proud that my party will never put anybody in that red-leather-upholstered, gold-plated Narnia.
While we can laugh at the hereditaries, the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) and other Conservative Members are quite right to point to the ridiculousness of having 26 places reserved for Church of England bishops. We are the only legislature in the world that has places reserved for clerics other than the Islamic Republic of Iran. We can take comfort from the fact that the Archbishop of Canterbury is not going to embark on some sort of religious jihad, but what strange company to keep. If there was an intra-parliamentary union of serving clerics, it would be exclusively comprise Church of England bishops and ayatollahs.
It is not even the hereditaries or the Church of England bishops that concern me most. The group that concerns me most in the House of Lords is the appointees—the donors, the cronies and the placemen who end up with a role in running our country and making the laws of this land because of prime ministerial patronage. People have a place in our democracy whose only qualification seems to be an ability to give substantial amounts of money to one of the three major establishment political parties in this House.
We have evolved a legislature that is at least partly designed by one person: the Prime Minister decides who has the opportunity to take a role in running this country by appointment, based on lists drawn up by him and other British party leaders. No other party leader or Head of State has this power anywhere in the world. It is a prerogative that would make a tinpot dictator in a banana republic blush, yet we on these Benches lecture the developing world about good politics and democracy.
The temptation is to stuff the Chamber full of friends and the politically useful. It is a place to reward the servile, thank the time-servers and compensate the downgraded. Only this week, we are considering such an example; there is talk of Sue Gray ending up with a place in the Lords as some sort of compensation for her sacking. I suppose that when she goes down there, she will get an ermine coat to accompany the envoy’s ostrich feather for when she visits her most northern territory, Scotland, as the British envoy. Already, her loyal subjects are practising their haka to welcome their new envoy when she makes that journey north.
To see how bad things could get, we need only remember Boris Johnson’s list, which was full of friends, donors and former staff—a list that could not be more gratuitous. Notionally, there is a House of Lords Appointments Commission, but it is an utterly toothless body that Boris Johnson simply ignored. It has done nothing to stop the accumulation of cronies and donors: 68 out of 284 nominations from political parties between 2013 and 2023 were political donors handing over £58 million to the political parties, and 12 of those appointed gave over £1 million. That was the price during “cash for honours” in the early 2000s. We might think inflation would at least be factored in when it came to getting a place in the House of Lords, but not a bit of it: the going rate is still £1 million.
“Cash for honours” led to one of the most dramatic police investigations during the 2005 to 2010 Parliament, when a sitting Prime Minister was questioned by the police under caution. Some of his staff were actually arrested. We might think that, after all that, the establishment parties would be a little more circumspect, but not a bit of it; the cash keeps coming in, and the peerages keep getting rolled out. Even as recently as 2021, I asked the Metropolitan police to investigate the Conservative party when we found that 22 of the Conservatives’ biggest financial contributors had been made Members of the House of Lords in the past 50 years.
This Government have no plans whatsoever to do anything about the appointees in the House of Lords, save to make more of them. One of the reasons we are getting this Bill so early in this Parliament—the Conservatives are possibly right about this—is to clear the place out, so that the Labour party can put in more of its donors, cronies and place men. It is making sure that there are spaces available, and that the other place does not look so big.
The House of Lords is the most absurd, ridiculous legislature anywhere in the world. Famously, it is second in size only to the National People’s Congress of China. Bloated, ermine-coated, never been voted—it is the antithesis of everything we know about democracy. Increasingly embarrassing, probably corrupt and certainly rife for all sorts of abuse, it is an institution whose time has surely come.
We put forward a reasoned amendment to the Bill, because we want to hold the Labour party to its historical commitment to abolishing the House of Lords. Unfortunately, that amendment was not selected, but there will be opportunities as the Bill goes through the House to come back to the issue. I say to the Government, “Yes, bring forward your step-by-step incremental changes, but what the general public want is meaningful action on the House of Lords.” A YouGov poll out yesterday showed that the vast majority of the British people no longer want the House of Lords. They specifically and defiantly want it reformed. It is not good enough continuing to pass the buck for another 100 years; something has to be done. I say to Labour, “Pick up Gordon Brown’s report, for goodness’ sake, and have a look at what he says.” The Labour Government should try to enact some meaningful reform. Who knows? It may even make them popular again. It seems to be what the public want. This could be something that they do that the public would actually genuinely support.
We have waited centuries for action from the Labour party and we have got next to absolutely nothing. Now is the time for action. No more prevarication—take real action, and get dealing with that place down the corridor.
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
This is a simple Bill with a simple objective, and I commend the Minister for bringing it to the House. I thank the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) for her cross-party support for this Bill, as it is vital that measures of significant constitutional impact have support from across the House.
I wish to make three main, largely straightforward, points, which will tackle head-on the amendments tabled by the right hon. Members for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn) and for Hertsmere (Sir Oliver Dowden). First, I will touch on the constitutional aspect of the Bill, then, secondly, the part it plays in rebuilding trust in our politics, and finally I will address the objections raised by Opposition Members, including the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart).
On the constitution, the continued existence of hereditary peers in the upper Chamber is an unsustainable anachronism in the year 2024 and a clear affront to modern democracy. We must remember that we are talking about 92 Members in the other place who, for life, are able to legislate, merely by accident of birth. They do not owe their role to their abilities, and they are unaccountable. That is not to denigrate the hard work of hereditary peers, but we must be clear: we have a farcical situation whereby the continued existence of the hereditaries leads to by-elections in the second Chamber that are possibly the only by-elections where the entire electorate can easily fit into the back of a taxi. Removing the last remaining peers was a clear manifesto commitment from this Government this year. This change will dramatically improve the way that Parliament reflects the country, and it will reform an upper Chamber that has grown out of all proportion to this place.
Too much of the debate today has been about Burke, Bagehot and romantic Conservatism and not enough about democratic accountability, legitimacy and representation. I heard Tory radicals talk about their zealous ambition for reform of the upper Chamber, so it is astounding that there was no mention whatsoever in the Conservative party manifesto of House of Lords reform.
That takes me on to my second point. It is vital that we rebuild trust in our politics by making sure that our parliamentarians are representative and accountable, and that transparency is at the forefront of our dealings. The continued existence of hereditary peers in the other place is in stark contrast to each of these values. On representation, there are 88 hereditary peers: 45 Conservatives, 33 Cross Benchers, four Labour, four Liberal Democrats and two non-affiliated. Their political composition in no way reflects the views of the country at large. The average age—I must stress that this is the average—of Members of the upper Chamber is 71. The average age of people in the country is 40. Indeed, 324 Members of the second Chamber will be aged age 80 or over on 1 June 2029. Let us be clear: there are no female hereditaries; not one. On their accountability, hereditaries are elected by their peers, which leads to the possibility of a by-election with an electorate of three, as my hon. Friend the Member for Telford (Shaun Davies) mentioned. That is three peers deciding who else has the opportunity to legislate in this Parliament for life.
Speaking to the objections from those on the Opposition Benches, the amendment from the right hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn) laments that the Bill does not abolish the other place in its entirety. We heard the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) mention that. Let me say to them that reform of the other place has always been piecemeal. To that end, I welcome this measure as a swift initial reform, and I take heart from the comments made by Lord Khan of Burnley, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, who confirmed on 23 July that the Government are committed to other reforms, including a mandatory retirement age, a participation requirement and, importantly, reform of the means by which peers are appointed, as well as an alternative second Chamber that is representative of the regions and nations. That is precisely the ambitious agenda for the other place that I wish to see.
As a north-west MP, an anti-corruption specialist with more than a decade of experience and a member of the all-party parliamentary group on anti-corruption and responsible tax, I reassure the House that I firmly believe that all those welcome steps will not only modernise the upper Chamber but ensure that the means by which individuals are appointed to the other place are made more transparent.
On the amendment tabled by the right hon. Member for Hertsmere (Sir Oliver Dowden), let me say that this Bill is not about avoiding scrutiny of the Government or the work of this House. I and many of my colleagues value the work done by our colleagues in the other place, and I remind him and Conservative Members that when the House of Lords Act 1999 passed through this place 25 years ago, the retention of the 92 hereditaries was
“interim…until the second stage of House of Lords reform has taken place.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 30 March 1999; Vol. 599, c. 207.]
Indeed, removing the hereditaries would have a minimal impact on the overall political composition of the upper Chamber. We have seen those on the Conservative Benches blowing hot and cold, demanding radical reform while at the same time asking for caution. Let us be clear: this Bill must be the first in a number of steps towards modernising our politics in this place. The Bill is a manifesto commitment for which there should be no unnecessary delay in moving it through the legislative process.
I was astounded to hear the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) mention that hereditary Members in the upper House do not form part of a privileged elite. That simply would not wash on the streets of Bolton West. We are talking about earls, viscounts, dukes and marquesses who are there to legislate for life simply by dint of their birth. This vital reform will ensure that workings across Parliament are dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century. I commend the Bill to the House.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
I start my contribution today by thanking our colleagues in the House of Lords for their work and public service in their vital role scrutinising and editing the legislation that we put together in this place. Prior to my first election in 2019, I did not know that much in depth and detail about the workings of the House of Lords and its value to our parliamentary system. In the past five years, I have seen a House of Lords that has been effective, using the expertise that it draws upon, in holding up legislation and ensuring that it works and that we make good decisions, leading to good laws for our country going forward. It is important to recognise the contribution that Members of the House of Lords make and continue to make, and we thank them for that.
It is important that we have a strong second Chamber, but that does not mean there is no need for reform. I very much support reform of the House of Lords. The hon. Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) made comments in his speech about unaccountability; in a sense, the fact that most Lords are appointed as life peers because of their expertise or the work they have done means that their accountability is what got them there in the first place, and the fact that they are unaccountable gives them a degree of freedom in ensuring that we make the best laws.
I support the Government’s Bill to remove the 92 hereditary peers, all of whom are men and retain a role in legislating because of their birth. This is very much not a criticism of those peers. I have had the pleasure of working with many, and with one, Viscount Craigavon, particularly closely. Over the years he has done incredible work with the all-party parliamentary groups for Sweden and for Finland, of which I have been chair or vice-chair.
Although I support the Bill, it takes a ham-fisted approach to reform. If it is going to be done, do it properly. The idea that it is going to stay narrow and that this will be a quick fix to move things forward is, given the scope and depth of the debate, for fantasists. On further reform, I absolutely do not support an elected upper Chamber, which I think would cause all sorts of problems, not least in terms of parliamentary supremacy.
The life appointments add real value, as seen in the current and previous Parliament. There are people like Sir Patrick Vallance, who is now a Labour Minister and was previously chief scientific adviser. He is known for his work on covid and I look forward to seeing his work in the other place. Lord Harrington was brought in as a Minister in response to the Ukrainian refugee crisis, and he responded to the difficult challenges in that respect and helped to provide support. Lord Cameron was brought in as Foreign Secretary—my, do we not wish we had Lord Cameron as Foreign Secretary now? Most recently, the Labour Government brought in Baroness Poppy Gustafsson as an investment Minister, given their lack of business expertise and experience on the Front Bench. I thank the Baroness for helping to support the Labour Government with regard to the needs of business.
We should consider the numbers in the House of Lords. We should look at how much people attend and participate. We should look at the funding. We should look at the retirement age, at the composition and at whether there should be a role for religious representation. As is set out in the reasoned amendment, which I shall support, measures to modernise and reform the House of Lords should be taken now. This is a missed opportunity, but I hope it will not turn out to have been, because once we have passed Second Reading and the Bill goes to Committee, we are going to see amendments tabled by, interestingly, Opposition Members, by the sounds of it, that will uphold the Government’s manifesto commitment, because they are being so timid in what they are trying to achieve. Rather than prioritising their need to be seen to be doing something, the Government need to start learning to do things right.
Tim Roca (Macclesfield) (Lab)
I welcome the new Government’s steps to reform the other place. Nearly 30 years on from the changes enacted under the previous Labour Government, I am pleased to see this one finish the job when it comes to hereditary peers. As colleagues have pointed out, they are a fundamental anachronism in our constitution that undermines the legitimacy of not only that place but this place as well. For that entire time, in vote after vote, individuals have been making their impact on legislation not with a democratic mandate but solely because of their ancestry. It is a principle that cannot stand. I share the disbelief of some colleagues at the suggestion by the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) that a focus on or obsession with the democratic principle is narrow-minded. I am afraid that is the sort of talk we would have expected in the Victorian era, at the time of the Great Reform Act. It is from another time and place.
The Bill takes another much-needed step towards the democratisation of our Parliament. I appreciate from the amendments tabled that some would like to have seen a repeat of the 1649 English republican Act of Parliament that abolished the other place entirely in one fell swoop, proclaiming that
“the House of Lords is useless and dangerous to the people of England.”
I hasten to add that most of us today have too much respect for the hard work of Members of the Lords to share those sentiments.
This reform is progress. After 14 years, the Conservatives left the other place a bloated mess—as has been pointed out, the second largest parliamentary assembly in the world, behind only China’s National People’s Congress, and the only second chamber in the world that is larger than the first. In 1999, when the last Labour Government removed the vast majority of hereditary peers, some said that the ones remaining were the stone in the shoe to encourage further reform and democratisation. I am encouraged that the Minister said that, while removing the stone, they are already thinking about changing the shoe.
It is high time that the public have a say in who votes on laws passed in their name. Elections give mandates to make law, not birthright or patronage. Ordinary people vote for and remove people when they want. I am proud to have stood, as are many colleagues, on a manifesto that called for a complete overhaul of the other place, including making it more representative of the nations and regions that make up our great country.
There are many other things that our constitution needs reform on. I need to put on record my belief that this should be the start of a journey to greater electoral reform. Although the franchise has been expanded, with first past the post it is still too restrictive. Voters should be able to change the outcome of elections every time they go to the polls but, unfortunately, too many are trapped in constituencies where their vote for this place still does not count.
I have much respect for Members of the other place, whatever their background, for the diligence with which they carry out their duties. They acted as a bulwark in recent years as Conservative Governments played fast and loose with the constitution, with one hand clutching the prerogatives of the sovereign and the other challenging the fundamental independence of the judiciary—that was not long ago. The work of scrutiny and constitutional guardianship can and should be done by a Chamber of the people that the electorate has had a say in choosing. The Bill is an important step towards that. It is mature, sensible and overdue, and I commend the Government for bringing it forward speedily.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
I am a big fan of reform, and I detect, with the exception of one or two Members, appetite for reform of the House of Lords. But if the Government are going to do a job, they should do it properly. The Government, who often lament having waited 14 years to come back to power, have had plenty of time to get themselves organised and ready for the reform of the House of Lords.
Some of us of a certain age remember the last reform 25 years ago. The Paymaster General said earlier that this was just phase 1; no, this is phase 2. I cannot wait 25 years for phase 3. We want to get on with it, and the country wants to get on with it. I think that the country will appreciate this phase of reform, but they will say, “Hang on, Prime Minister. The Labour party stood on a platform of removing cronyism.” As other Members have rightly said, the country is sick and tired of the cronyism of cloth of ermine. It feels like cash for cloth. We are done with it. We have had enough of it. We want this sorted.
This is an opportunity for the Government: if they are not going to do it at this phase, they have a Parliament of four years ahead. Will they commit, as a Government, to go from phase 2 to phase 3? They can have the debate around the country about what the House of Lords should look like, but I urge them, on behalf of tens of millions of people who want proper reform of the House of Lords, to get on with it, please, and not to wait another 25 years.
Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
I am grateful to be called in this important debate. I have a little bit of experience of this issue, having served as a special adviser in the House of Lords, working with the now Leader of the House of Lords when she was on the Opposition Front Bench. I also worked with Baroness Stowell of Beeston and as special adviser to Baroness Evans of Bowes Park, as well as with some hereditary peers, including Freddie, Lord Howe and Patrick, the Earl of Courtown. It is important to acknowledge, as many Members have, the service that all Members of the House of Lords give to our country.
Ministers perhaps did not understand exactly where I was coming from when I intervened earlier, but my point has been made by Members from across the Opposition Benches. Why go for piecemeal reform when the Government have the space to ask the country what it wants? Why not put something forward with the legislative time available, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson) said? We could have a proper debate, as the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice) said, on the future of the country.
Gareth Snell
The right hon. Gentleman has made a number of contributions this afternoon and I have listened to them all, but I am not clear whether he supports the removal of hereditary peers from the House of Lords. Perhaps before he concludes his speech he could put it very clearly on the record whether he supports the principle of removing hereditary peers.
Mr Holden
I thank the hon. Member for his question. I do support their removal, but as part of a broader package of measures. I think that is the issue at stake today which Members on the Opposition Benches are concerned about. This piecemeal reform, which will remove people who are there by an accident of birth, will leave people in the House of Lords who are also there by accident or, in the case of bishops, by faith. It will leave the issue the public are perhaps most concerned about, which is pure patronage. Those two issues have been left totally to one side in the speeches made by Government Members. If we are to look at this issue properly, we need to look at it in the round.
We have had piecemeal change over the last few years. I was working in the House of Lords when voluntary retirement was introduced. That was built on many measures over the years, including the Life Peerages Act 1958, which was passed by a Conservative Government. If we are going to consider changing the situation in the House of Lords and what it is going to be, other conventions will be called into question. Surely it would be better to deal with the whole issue and get it right, than to have to legislate two or three times, or make further changes down the line? Why not get something that the whole House and the country can have a proper debate on and reach proper agreement, and then legislate in one piece?
Dave Robertson
I am taken by the right hon. Gentleman’s talk about getting it right, which was a phrase also used by the previous speaker, the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice). They both suggest taking the time to get it right, but surely that is what the Government are committed to doing. The Government are committed to the removal of hereditary peers, as was made very clear in the Labour party manifesto that was so widely supported across the country. Wider reform of the House of Lords should surely be subject to consultation, not just with people in this place but around the country. Surely, if we are to get this right, we need to take time over the consultation.
Mr Holden
I totally agree with the hon. Member. It is interesting that the Bill has not been subject to the pre-legislative scrutiny that would normally come forward, because of the broader implications for the second Chamber. I want it done properly, as a full package. I do not think slice-by-slice reform is what the country wants. I have some sympathy with those on the Liberal Democrat Front Bench who see the Bill as a step in the right direction, but I fundamentally disagree with them. We need a full package of reforms to see where we wish to end up.
Andrew Rosindell
My right hon. Friend is making some extremely valid points. I agree with him that if there is going to be change, it should be done altogether, but I am slightly concerned by the radicalism of this measure. I did not find that anybody on the doorsteps in Romford actually wanted to make this such a big issue and radically change our constitution. Did he find that in Billericay?
Mr Holden
I certainly did not find it in Basildon and Billericay—or in Romford when I visited it with my hon. Friend, or, indeed, in other seats across the country—and I think that our constituents will be slightly baffled. When it comes to a big piece of constitutional reform, why should this Government want to come forward with, potentially, a multiplicity of different Bills throughout the current Parliament, rather than putting something to the public to have a look at now, and then having a look at it right at the end? What constituents have been mentioning in recent weeks and months is their concern about the winter fuel payments or about what might be in the Government’s new Budget, particularly the jobs tax, which they fear will hit jobs throughout the country.
Mr Holden
I do not want to take up too much of the House’s time, so I am trying to reduce the number of interventions that I take.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) hit the nail on the head when he said that this was a proper missed opportunity, but my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) made some important points. As he said, when we legislate we have to do so carefully, because we are fundamentally changing the nature of what we are looking at. Proper reform has been wanted by generations of politicians on both sides of the House, but particularly those in the Labour party. I do not understand why at this stage, with such a large majority and with time on their side, the Government are not seeking to put those changes through properly.
Gareth Snell
I thank the right hon. Gentleman. Perhaps I can help him. As a former special adviser in the House of Lords, he will know that carrying out reform in that House is incredibly complex. There appears to be a general consensus across all parties in this House on the eradication, or rather the expulsion, of the hereditary peers. If it were part of a larger combined bid, the right hon. Gentleman would risk losing that principle, because there would be more for us to fall out over and disagree on. Inevitably, his party would vote against it in Committee and on Third Reading, which would leave the whole package potentially at risk.
Mr Holden
I think that the hon. Member is missing my point. We have to see this as part of a package. Lord Irvine spoke about it in 1999. The hereditary peers were being kept there as the stone in the shoe, and should not be removed until the wider reform was settled. The Government have a very large majority in this House. They can certainly get stuff through if they wish, and I urge Ministers to consider that comprehensive reform. I understand what the hon. Member is saying—why not do it slice by slice?—but I think that the entire point of the hereditaries being there shines a light on the greater issues we are facing in the House of Lords, as was mentioned earlier by, for instance, my right hon. Friend the Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson) when he was talking about the religious Members of the Lords. If we are going to do a package, let us do a proper package.
It also concerns me that, having proposed a retirement age in their manifesto, the Government are apparently not seeking to legislate on that now. Why not? The scope of the Bill in relation to membership of the House of Lords is clearly wide enough for the purpose. In the Canadian upper House, for instance, the retirement age is 75, and in this country there is a mandatory retirement age of 75 for judges. I should be interested to hear from Ministers how they can justify a mandatory retirement age of 75 for those who interpret the law, but cannot justify it for those who make the law—not democratically elected, as Members well over that age have been in this House, but appointed. That is where the similarity with judicial appointments comes in. If the Bill is passed, Members of the House of Lords will be purely appointed. Obviously, there is already a retirement age for Lords Spiritual.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
The right hon. Member has made repeated references to the grand package of House of Lords reform that he would like to see. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) has already highlighted the problem, but we have seen it historically. In the coalition Government, the Liberal Democrats put forward their historic package of reform, and it was the Conservatives who put the bullet in it, because they did not agree with everything in it. Surely it is much better to get done what we all agree on than to present a package of reform that ends up dying at the hands of those who disagree with it.
Mr Holden
The hon. Member makes an interesting point. I know there have been fractures in Downing Street recently, but I do not think that anybody would suggest that the Labour party, with a majority of over 170, is a coalition in the same way that the Conservative-Lib Dem coalition was between 2010 and 2015. The Government have the time and space to introduce change. The key point is that it has to be part of a package, which is what Lord Irvine said in 1999.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
Our majority is 174, but who’s counting? As far as I can tell, the Conservative party’s manifesto did not mention House of Lords reform—I may have missed it, so I apologise if it did mention that. Could the right hon. Member please tell me the Conservative thinking on House of Lords reform? A big package of House of Lords reform has been mentioned, but I am not any clearer about what that might entail.
Reading the 1999 debate on the House of Lords reform that was pushed forward by the Blair Government, I was struck by the fact that many Conservative Members opposed that reform on the basis that it did not go far enough. Is the call for further reform actually a smokescreen to do nothing and, therefore, to preserve the hereditary principle? All of us, including the right hon. Member, would agree that we should eliminate that principle.
Mr Holden
What we are discussing today is a policy of the Government. My party is in opposition, because its manifesto was rejected by the public at the last general election. We are discussing a policy of the Government and what was in the manifesto on which the hon. Gentleman stood. It will be interesting to see whether he and others will back the manifesto on which they stood if amendments are tabled by the Opposition. We will have to see about that over the coming weeks.
Mr Holden
Not again.
Currently, Members of the House of Lords are there by birthright or appointed by God, as it were, or the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister is going to pull out the hereditary peers, so it will just be him and God appointing people if this legislation goes through unchallenged. Putting even more power in the hands of the Executive—they have a majority of 174, as the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes) said, although some of their Members come and go at the moment—is a really dangerous thing to do, and we are not looking at the comprehensive package of reform that was promised.
Labour Members have talked about things that happened 25 years ago, when I—even though I might not look it—was still in short trousers. We need to reflect on the fact that this is a very different time from then. I hope that those on the Government Front Bench will consider what those on the Opposition Front Bench have mentioned today and look at the broader package, rather than looking at this issue in isolation, because they have the time and space to do so. I think the public would like to see a proper package brought forward, and the Government should concentrate on the people’s priorities, which are the cost of living and taxation.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
The House of Lords plays an important part in our legislative process. It revises legislation and, just occasionally, causes us in this House to think again. I support reform of the House of Lords, but I want that reform to lead to a better upper Chamber. This Bill does the opposite.
In 1999, the Labour party sought to remove all hereditary peers from the House of Lords. To get its legislation through, it struck a compromise with the upper House. That compromise—the Weatherill amendment —enabled 92 hereditary peers to remain until the Government came forward with a comprehensive plan for House of Lords reform. The then Lord Chancellor, Lord Irvine, said that
“a compromise in these terms would guarantee that stage two would take place, because the Government with their great popular majority and their manifesto pledge would not tolerate 10 per cent. of the hereditary peerage remaining for long. But the 10 per cent. will go only when stage two has taken place. So it is a guarantee that it will take place.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 30 March 1999; Vol. 599, c. 207.]
Twenty-five years later, the House of Lords is unreformed. Despite winning majorities in 2001 and 2005, the last Labour Government did nothing to bring forward stage two of House of Lords reform.
Dr Jeevun Sandher (Loughborough) (Lab)
Whatever has happened in the years and decades gone by, this is the question before us now: a step forward to help reform the House of Lords. We do not claim that we in this House are perfect; we only make steps towards it. The step before us today is a simple one, and one that I think that no Member of this House can disagree with. It is that no son should have a place in the Lords, by right, because their father gives it to them. That is what is before us, and surely the hon. Gentleman can agree with that.
Sir Ashley Fox
Therein lies the problem, in that we now want to talk about stage 2. Although the Minister promises a second stage of reform, that is exactly what you promised 25 years ago, and then you did nothing. Our fear is that you will get rid of the hereditary peers and that the issue of further reform will then get delayed because there is never enough parliamentary time and actually, there will never be a stage 2. Put quite simply, we are cynical about the promises that are being made. We think you will take the hereditary peers and then do nothing.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Just before the intervention is taken, I must mention the reference to “you”. Surely you are not responding to a question that I have just asked; you are speaking to the Chair. Please continue, Sir Ashley.
Sir Ashley Fox
I am happy to give way to the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Alan Gemmell).
Alan Gemmell
Would the hon. Gentleman care to comment on the 14 years of Tory Administration, which were full of reforming zeal and could have transformed this country in so many ways, yet failed my country so much. I just wanted to let the House know that no family in Central Ayrshire, other than potentially the distant descendants of the Earl of Eglinton and Winton, might support hereditary peers remaining in the other place. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will vote with us tonight and begin this important step of reform.
Sir Ashley Fox
I would vote in favour of the removal of the hereditary peers as part of a package, but not so that the Government can remove them and then do nothing, which is what they did 25 years ago.
I would like the Minister to explain how he believes his reform will improve the functioning of Parliament. Who will the Government put in place of the hereditary peers? More former MPs, perhaps? Donors or trade union officials? Perhaps some former councillors? The upper House already has a surfeit of all the above. If we want an effective upper House, we need diversity of experience: perhaps some people who have worked in the private sector or run a business could help the Front Bench. The upper Chamber has quite enough former politicians without the Prime Minister appointing more people to buy him suits and glasses.
Gareth Snell
I am very much enjoying the speech by the hon. Member. Is he making an argument that the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), should not be entitled to an appointment list, and is he making a commitment on behalf of Members of his own party that they will forgo any appointments that they are offered under this Government?
Sir Ashley Fox
I would not dare to answer on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Northallerton.
I fear that this Government are not motivated by a desire to improve the legislature, and that they have brought this measure forward for party political advantage. They want to be rid of the hereditary peers because 42 of them are Conservative and only four are Labour. Once they have driven this Bill through Parliament, their desire for further reform will cool just as rapidly as it did 25 years ago.
Chris Curtis (Milton Keynes North) (Lab)
I was wondering, given that there are now so few Conservative Members of this Parliament after the recent general election, what proportion of the House of Lords the hon. Gentleman thinks should now be made up of Conservative Members.
Sir Ashley Fox
We are scrutinising the Government’s proposal. That is the job of the Opposition. The Minister said in his opening speech that hereditary peers are indefensible, and I agree, but so is granting 26 bishops the right to vote in our legislature. For some reason, the Minister does not seem quite so opposed to their presence. Could this be because, almost whatever the subject, the bishops can be relied upon to vote with the Labour party? If he was consistent, he would want to remove the bishops as well as the hereditary peers, yet he is silent.
The whole point of the remaining hereditary peers, and their occasional inconvenient by-elections, is that they are a constant reminder of the unfinished business of Lords reform. They are a reminder of the promises that Labour made 25 years ago, which have still not been fulfilled. The reason Labour wants to remove the remaining hereditary peers is so that the reform can be forgotten.
This is a bad Bill. It weakens the upper House, it reduces scrutiny of the Executive, and it gives more patronage to the Prime Minister. That is why I cannot support it.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
I begin by declaring an interest as my wife, the noble Baroness Evans of Bowes Park—although she does not always make me call her that—is a Member of the other place. She was also Leader of the House of Lords for more than six years, so I have perhaps had more dealings with Members of the other place, including hereditaries, than most. As a result, I have a view about how our two Houses operate effectively in practice, rather than the somewhat theoretical perspective we have heard from some of the newer Members of this House.
The House of Lords is an important revising Chamber, without the guillotines and time limits that are so common in our House, while recognising and respecting the ultimate supremacy of this House. In doing so, it can draw on the considerable knowledge and expertise of former defence chiefs, diplomats, scientists, engineers, businesspeople and, yes, those from whom this Bill seeks to remove the right to sit as peers.
The fundamental point, reflected in a number of contributions from Conservative Members and in the reasoned amendment, is that this Bill has been brought forward in isolation from wider reforms. It ignores the convention that constitutional changes are based on consensus, where possible, and it fails to provide time for a cross-party approach on wider reform. It is best described as piecemeal and, as such, conflicts with the commitments given in 1999, at the time of the House of Lords Act, that the hereditaries would remain until wider reforms came forward.
Well, there are no wider reforms in this Bill. Even the proposed retirement age of 80 has been quietly dropped. Perhaps Ministers have realised the challenge of interfering with letters patent issued by the sovereign, or perhaps their timidity reflects the lack of consensus on the Government Benches about wider reforms, as we saw in response to Gordon Brown’s proposals.
Such reforms would have to consider the issues of giving greater power to the House of Lords and the impact this would have on the primacy of the Commons. They would have to consider the potential for legislative gridlock, the desirability of creating more professional politicians and, as many have mentioned, the rationale for retaining guaranteed places for bishops in the upper Chamber. Those are just some of the questions that comprehensive reform would need to address, and they require considerable cross-party consideration and analysis.
No one would create the Lords today, but the system works. This rushed legislation, which rather suggests a Government lacking a substantive legislative programme, will remove considerable experience. It reveals a lack of knowledge of the contribution made by Members of the House of Lords, such as my noble Friend Earl Howe, with whom I worked closely when he was a Defence Minister. He has served continuously on the Conservative Front Bench for 33 years, including 20 years as a Minister.
It ignores the role of the usual channels—the Whips and the business managers—in seeking to manage legislation at both ends. The Earl of Courtown, who will be known to many for his eight years of distinguished service as a Government Deputy Chief Whip, now continues that role in opposition. He and Lord Ashton of Hyde navigated the choppy waters of Brexit and covid in a House in which there is no Conservative majority.
James Wild
I would give way, but I am not sure that the hon. Lady has been here for most of the debate, so I will not.
Earl Howe, the Earl of Courtown and Lord Ashton of Hyde are just three of the peers who bring great experience and ability to the other place. Many of the peers who will be removed are Cross Benchers.
James Wild
I am not giving way.
Finally, I want to say something about the commencement of this legislation. If passed unamended, the excepted peers will be unceremoniously booted out at the end of the Session in which the Bill is passed. After the service and commitment they have given to public life, surely it would be fairer for them to remain there until the end of the Parliament.
To conclude, before embarking on constitutional reform, there should be a proper period of consideration. It is a sign of the complexity of reform of the House of Lords that previous efforts have not attracted the necessary consensus, but the answer is not to bring forward piecemeal reform, pretending it has no wider consequence.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
Looking at the other side of the Chamber, I see the coat of arms of our late, dear friend Sir David Amess, who was murdered exactly three years ago today. He was a staunch defender of our traditions, our conventions and our British constitution. If he were here, I have no doubt he would argue to protect the institution of the House of Lords. I will be doing the same, and I am proud to do so.
The English constitution is not something that can be drafted today by a 21st century-style committee of experts. If we were to establish such a body, its product would be alien to us and offer far less respect and admiration than what we have today. Indeed, our English constitution—[Interruption.] Our British constitution is our birthright and the envy of the world. It is like a fine, intricate oil painting, with brush strokes meticulously painted by generation upon generation over a millennium. Our constitution depicts a priceless image of the values, the character and the way of life of the British people. I believe we must cherish and defend it, not discard it so easily without careful thought and attention to what we are doing.
Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman talks movingly, comparing our evolving and changing constitution to art, but are the measures set out in the Bill not just the latest in the evolution of that changing constitution, which will make it ever better?
Andrew Rosindell
If we are to change our constitution so radically—I believe the Bill creates a radical change—then that should be done with thought, care and attention, as well as consultation and careful consideration. As I pointed out to my right hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden) earlier, I do not think this is an issue on the doorstep anywhere. During the general election campaign, I do not think anyone raised the issue as a serious matter they wanted us to deal with. There are so many other issues, yet we are rushing to make a major constitutional change without giving it due consideration.
We share a deep intergenerational responsibility in this House that rests heaviest on the Government of the day. We are the custodians of our nation and all that belongs to it, and not its master. We have a responsibility to preserve our nation and its constitution—an obligation between those who have passed on, those who are living and those who are yet to be born. That is the importance of the hereditary principle, something that Members on the Government Benches, and indeed some on the Conservative Benches, fail to appreciate.
Tony Blair’s new Labour Government took a three-inch-wide paintbrush to remake this great work of art of generations in their own image. They started a programme of thoughtless destruction, from the removal of the law Lords from the other place, with the creation of the Supreme Court, a notion alien to our constitutional heritage, to the culling of independently minded—I say those words clearly, Madam Deputy Speaker—hereditary peers and the appointment of partisan placemen.
It is no good for our constitution and it adds nothing to the work of our Parliament. It now appears that today’s Labour Government have recklessly come to finish the hatchet job on an ill-thought-out constitutional revolution in the name of so-called modernisation.
Gareth Snell
The hon. Gentleman just made the point that the hereditary peers are a bastion of independence, and the hon. Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild) said that many of the Conservative peers are long-serving Members of his party’s Front Bench team. How can those two things be reconciled?
Andrew Rosindell
I have worked with Members of the House of Lords over many of my 23 years in Parliament. They are not seeking re-election, preferment or title. They are here to serve our country and to assist this place in making better laws. All the hereditary peers and life peers—from all parties—with whom I have had the privilege to work have always been there to serve. To discard that so easily without serious long-term consideration to the effects of doing this is reckless.
Our constitution is the most vital part of our shared British heritage, and the hereditary peers are an integral part of that, which cannot be replicated by modern means. Yet the argument in defence of hereditary peers cannot be based solely on history, however important that may be. From the Duke of Wellington, who has been mentioned, and the Duke of Norfolk, to the Earl Attlee, the Lord Northbrook, the Viscount Craigavon, who was also mentioned, and the Lord Bethell of Romford, the hereditary peers bring a wealth of intergenerational experience and knowledge to our Parliament. They have an inherited obligation and a duty to serve. They are also invaluable to our parliamentary democracy, holding the Government to account, scrutinising legislation and raising often forgotten issues of national importance. Many hereditary peers are shining examples of exemplary parliamentarians.
Shaun Davies
If I follow the hon. Member’s argument correctly, is he saying that he would he be in favour of reversing the compromise of 1999 and going back to having more hereditary peers in the House of Lords?
Andrew Rosindell
I do not object to the hereditary principle. I believe that hereditary peers play a vital part in the overall mix of the British Parliament. Indeed, the hereditary principle is enshrined in our constitution via the monarchy itself. In fact, our Parliament is made up of the Crown, the House of Lords and the House of Commons. Those who argue to discard the hereditary principle should beware that the Crown itself is in peril if we continue to go down this road—[Interruption.] If I may continue, Madam Deputy Speaker, the removal of hereditary peers would be a grave loss to our Parliament and our country. It would be a purge of many substantial, independent voices that are immune to political patronage and work solely in the public interest for King and country. They do not seek to be popular or to win re-election; they exist to serve our nation.
It has been said that a fence should not be removed before we know why it was put up in the first place. Labour would have done well to heed this lesson from its last period of governance. Rushing to change our tried and tested system without considering the full consequences of its actions would be to commit an act of constitutional vandalism.
Why are the Government embarking on this action? What in God’s name motivates them? Is it simply to eradicate dissent in the other place? If so, this can be described only as self-serving political radicalism. Not content with a simple majority of 157 in the House of Commons—although I think that figure has gone down now as the number of independents has risen—this Government seemingly aim to eradicate dissent in the upper House through this damaging legislation.
The Bill entails the removal of Conservatives, Cross Benchers, Liberal Democrats and non-affiliated peers—but only a small number of Labour peers—who often provide the most substantial dissent to and constructive criticism of the Government’s legislative proposals. Worse still, I fear that the removal of the 92 hereditary peers is only the beginning. The next step would be the introduction of an age cap for membership, provoking an even more numerically significant second cull of dissent, enabling Labour to pack the other place with political appointments and abolishing any form of effective Opposition in the upper House.
Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman seems to be operating on the premise that all hereditary peers are Conservatives. Why does he think that people with entrenched privilege are naturally Conservative?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Interventions are made by colleagues who have been contributing and spending time in the Chamber and not just wandering in; the hon. Member got very lucky just then. Mr Rosindell, please go ahead.
Andrew Rosindell
I say to the hon. Gentleman that it is quite the opposite. There are many Members of the House of Lords—life peers and hereditary peers—who take the Conservative Whip but who frankly act like independents, doing what they believe is in the interests of our country. That can be said for many on the Labour side as well. He will find that there are many more rebellions and people voting in different ways in Parliament in the Lords than in the Commons, because they are there to serve and they do not face re-election. For that reason, they are not subject to the usual pressures —lobbying, the Whips and all the rest of it—that we are all subject to, and that is why having that element is so important and is part of the mix that makes up the success of our Parliament.
Gareth Snell
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving in to my indulgences. This is an argument that could quite easily have been made during the passage of the original 1999 legislation: that the expulsion of the hereditaries would lead to a complete collapse of our scrutiny processes. Is he suggesting—I do not believe he is—that since ’99 and the removal of the other hereditaries, the House of Lords has not been fulfilling its function properly? That is certainly not how I would see the current House of Lords. If he does not believe that, surely removing the existing 92 will not have an impact on the scrutiny that he and I think is so important.
Andrew Rosindell
We cannot turn the clock back, but very many good people were ejected in that first legislation under the Blair Government. The compromise was to keep the 92 there. I think that is a good compromise and I do not really understand the rush for change; we should keep things as they are.
It is patently obvious that the Bill is a precursor for a wider and scandalous programme to weaken Parliament’s ability to hold the Executive to account and ride roughshod over our tried and tested constitution. Not only does the Bill open a slippery slope towards dissent-quelling, but it is an attack on the merits of the hereditary principle, which logically and inevitably leads to a fundamental undermining of the primary constitutional role of the monarchy itself. Maybe there are some Members on the Labour Benches who would like a republic, but I think the vast majority of British people would not want that, so to discard the hereditary principle is a very dangerous road to go down.
I urge the House to consider with the utmost seriousness the weight of intergenerational custodianship upon our shoulders when we vote on matters such as this, which are of grave constitutional significance. The removal of hereditary peers from the House of Lords would eradicate from the proceedings of Parliament some of the wisest and most dutiful servants of this great democratic institution. I believe the House should oppose this act of constitutional vandalism and continue to uphold the good and great conventions and traditions that have provided our cherished island nation with stability, continuity and wisdom for so many generations.
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
I thank the Paymaster General for introducing the Bill, which I will heartily support later tonight. The point is worth making that this is not a personal attack on the hereditary peers, nor is it political, and the make-up of the hereditary peers is irrelevant. This is about the principle of having accountability in our decision makers.
The Liberal Democrat constitution begins by stating that
“no-one shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity.”
It is a humanitarian position to unencumber the hereditary peers from being disqualified from voting or standing in our elections. We have heard some incredibly powerful maiden speeches today, and I am honoured to follow the hon. Members for Glasgow North East (Maureen Burke), for Knowsley (Anneliese Midgley), for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Claire Hazelgrove) and for Mid and South Pembrokeshire (Henry Tufnell), as well as my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone), who will, I am sure, be an incredible champion for his constituents.
I feel it is a humanitarian position to give the hereditary peers the ability to engage in the electioneering, the door-knocking and the campaigning that builds us as parliamentarians, understanding the views of people on the doorstep and giving us a more representative view of the people we represent, something that is currently denied to them. I feel that it is my responsibility to provide that pleasure to them.
It is refreshing to have heard the ambitions for reform from Conservative Members. I agree with the general principle that it is important that reform is broadly cross-party, and I look forward to working with them in the future to provide more transformative reform.
Luke Taylor
While I heartily endorse the desire for a big package, I share the hon. Gentleman’s cynicism about the appetite for reform among Conservative Members. I also note the desire from the Conservatives not to lose the skills of those hereditary peers who contribute to our lawmaking. I made the point almost three hours ago that I see the opportunity for those peers to take some of the places soon to be vacated by Conservative Members who need to step down because they cannot maintain their lifestyles. That may be one avenue for hereditary peers to continue to contribute.
The primary aim of my speech is to urge the Government to go further, and I echo the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) at the beginning of the debate on the need to improve Parliament. Again, some claim that they do not hear this on the doorstep, but perhaps they need to listen to their voters more closely. When I knock on doors, the disenfranchisement, the disappointment and fury with the behaviour of the previous Government and politics in general, echoes. The Bill is a step in the right direction to improve accountability and restore some of the respect that was trashed by the previous Conservative Government.
Alan Gemmell
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that trust in politics is at a low point, in part because of the egregious failures of the Conservatives when in government. This is a small and initial step that we can take to start to increase trust in politics, and that is partly why my party won the election.
Luke Taylor
I heartily agree. This is a step in the right direction, but I am reassured by the nods and assurances given earlier in the debate by the Paymaster General that more reform and further measures will come later in this Parliament.
One measure that we should introduce, and which is relevant to the debate, is the capping of donations to political parties. That would end the £3 million price tag that was put on a seat in the House of Lords by the previous Government, and would start to restore trust that those who are here to make our laws are here on merit.
Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)
The hon. Member is being generous with his time. I understand his point, but does he recognise, as those of us who are good Fabians on the Labour Benches do, that there is value in incremental progress, and that the Bill’s proposals should be welcomed on their merits?
Luke Taylor
I agree 100%. I expect to be able to champion this measure on the doorstep, and to boast about speaking in this debate on making this incremental gain and removing the egregious historical anomalies still in our system.
I give special thanks to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell), who made the key, almost blockbuster, point about the gender imbalance among those who are eligible to become hereditary Members in the other place, and about the sheer insanity of the hereditary peer cohort being entirely male. Protecting that astonishingly unequal status quo is utterly indefensible. I thank him for making that point, which should surely have ended the debate on its own.
I look forward to voting for the Bill’s Second Reading tonight, but I implore the Paymaster General to bring forward as soon as possible further measures to reform the House of Lords. The Liberal Democrats will continue to act as a constructive Opposition, as I hope we have done today, and to push for more radical proposals for reform of the House of Lords, some of which have been teased by the right hon. Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson)—I hope that I have pronounced his constituency right. I look forward to working with him to develop those plans. I hope that the measures before us will restore voters’ trust, which the previous Government trashed. I implore the House to support the Bill.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call Chris Curtis to make a short contribution.
Chris Curtis (Milton Keynes North) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Madam Deputy Speaker
No notice was given of a point of order, but go ahead.
Jim Allister
Is there no etiquette in the House about somebody who has sat through the entirety of the debate being gazumped in the calling list by somebody who has recently arrived?
Madam Deputy Speaker
Thank you so much for pointing that out. Unless colleagues have been bobbing from the beginning, they are unlikely to be called—there are colleagues on the Government Back Benches who will not be called in this debate—but it is absolutely right that those belonging to the party that forms a majority in the House tend to be called earlier. You are most definitely on the list and will be called shortly. I call Chris Curtis to continue.
Chris Curtis
I rise to make a few brief points in this incredibly important debate. The most important point—one that we have still not spent enough time discussing—is the basic one that people should not be in this place on the basis of the hereditary principle. It is incredibly important that we move away from that for a variety of reasons, which I will come to. I will not pretend that the legislation goes as far as many of us would like it to —although, at the moment, most of us Labour Members think that elections are a pretty good way to decide things.
Mark Ferguson
Recently, while doing a media interview, I was confronted by comments from a Conservative Member of the other place who argued that hereditary peers were good for Parliament because it meant that there were more northerners in that Chamber. I am a proud northerner myself. Does my more southern Friend agree that although regional proportionality is important, hereditary peers are not the way to achieve it?
Chris Curtis
We could say many things about hereditary peers, but their being representative of the country as a whole is certainly not one of them. Many of us Labour Members think that elections are certainly good, and I hope there will be a point in the future when we can look at introducing them to the House of Lords, but in the meantime, there is no good argument for keeping the hereditary principle.
Let me turn to the importance of trust in politics. I worked in polling before I became an MP; I spoke to many people across the country, and unfortunately it was always amazing just how low trust in politics is. There are many reasons for that, which I hope we will continue to work on throughout this Parliament—we are doing some important work to address that lack of trust—but one of those reasons has to be the knowledge that people can make it to Parliament not because of what they have done in life, because they represent their communities and their country, or because they have a fantastic vision for what they want to do, but because of what womb they happen to be born from. I do not think that is right, and it is one of the reasons why we have seen that lack of trust.
Jake Richards (Rother Valley) (Lab)
My hon. Friend makes a key point. Does he agree that when we have children in the Public Gallery, or when children from our constituencies visit, it is simply impossible to defend to them the principle of hereditary peers in the 21st century?
Chris Curtis
That is certainly true, and it brings me to my next point. This Friday, I will visit Watling academy, a fantastic new school in my constituency, and will chat to children of many ages who are getting their important education. I want to look them in the eye and say that if they work hard, they can have any opportunity in this country—the opportunity to end up in any place. The hereditary principle works against that.
We have heard many arguments today from Opposition Members. We have heard that the Bill goes too far, and that it does not go far enough. The truth is that it is a good piece of legislation, and we hope that we will have the opportunity to go further in future.
Claire Hazelgrove
Given my hon. Friend’s expertise in polling, for the benefit of this House, could he shed any light on whether there is any public support for continuing the hereditary principle?
Chris Curtis
I cannot remember the exact numbers off the top of my head, but they round down to a very low number. From what I have heard in this debate, it seems that people who believe in the hereditary principle are vastly over-represented in this Chamber.
We have heard that some people think the legislation is moving too fast, and others that it has been moving too slowly. The truth is that we have been talking about this issue for decades, if not centuries, and now is the right time to make this important change. This Bill is not the end of the conversation—it will go on for many years to come—but that is no reason why we should not make this important change today and get rid of the hereditary peers, creating a more democratic, more representative place that can carry on making the important laws that the country needs us to make.
Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
I believe in taking a positive approach to politics. Not letting the perfect be the enemy of the good is a good principle, and in that spirit, I welcome the Bill. However, I must confess that it is a pretty lukewarm welcome, because this Bill is not a really significant or radical step. Effectively, it is a tweak. We could call it a bit of glorified admin, because it tidies up a thread that has been hanging since 1999. It does not tackle several of the other inequalities and inconsistencies in the composition of the House of Lords. Members across this House have highlighted some of those today, such as the presence of the bishops and the appointment of life peers, so while I welcome the Bill, there is huge room for improvement.
House of Lords reform is absolutely long overdue. Three hours or so ago, somebody referenced Asquith in 1911; we have been waiting a really long time. When the Minister introduced the Bill several hours ago, he referenced the next steps in the reform process, and I very much hope we do not have to wait 25 years—or, indeed, 113 years —to find out what those next steps are. Reform is also widely supported, as the hon. Member for Milton Keynes North (Chris Curtis) just said, and it is essential to improve the functioning of our democracy. By the way, there are many other ways in which we could improve the functioning of our democracy, but let us focus on House of Lords reform today. When the Paymaster General introduced the Bill, he spoke about a matter of principle for a Government committed to fairness and equality. He described going step by step in the direction of reform. I challenge him to tell us what the next steps are, to show us his workings and his road map, and to assure us that we will not have to wait 25 or 113 years.
Ellie Chowns
I will not give way, and I will explain why. Like many other Members, I have been waiting and bobbing for hours to have a chance to speak—apart from the moment when I left for a prearranged meeting with the Speaker. Several Members on both sides of the House have intervened frequently, thus putting others further down the speaking list. I know that the hon. Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) would like to speak.
We need to know the next steps in House of Lords reform. I agree that these are questions of principle. The issue is not the individuals who currently serve in the House of Lords, many of whom are hard-working and experienced, and bring a lot of expertise and effort. That is not the point. The point is that unelected lawmakers should not be a thing. People who make laws should be elected. That is what democracy is about. It is a fundamental principle, and I find it extraordinary that the Bill does not adopt it. The Government are sometimes a little selective in applying the principles for which they nail their colours to the mast.
On the principle of unelected people not making laws, why do we still have bishops and life peers? There is no other walk of life in which someone would be appointed to a role for life. We should not have that in our Parliament. I challenge the Paymaster General to use the Government’s huge and disproportionate majority —disproportionate given that it is based on a minority of votes—to take forward the principles of fairness and equality, and to get rid of not just the unfair and unequal hereditary principle, but the unfair and unequal principle of representing certain religions and not others, or of representing any religion. I challenge the Government to get rid of the unfair and unequal principle of giving political appointees life peerages. Will the Paymaster General do that? Will he also set out steps for replacing the House of Lords with an elected house of citizens? Will he take steps to introduce a fair electoral system for this Parliament, so that every vote cast in this country has equal weight?
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
We have had a lively debate and some wonderful maiden speeches. I noted some telling and impressive phrases—phrases that I think very few in this House could disagree with. Yet the House, in its actions, implements that which it disagrees with. What were those phrases? One Member talked about the need to move to “a more democratic form of government”. Good. Someone else mentioned “strengthening democratic rights”. Good. Another Member talked about “advancing democratic control”. The hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Ellie Chowns) said that “unelected lawmakers should not be a thing”. Good. However, the phrase that struck me most poignantly was about the principle of electing those who govern us.
This House has spent an afternoon debating the rights and wrongs of having hereditary peers, but there is a part of the United Kingdom where the primary issue is not whether the legislature has the right make-up but why 300 areas of law are made by a foreign Parliament. Those laws are made not by this House or the other House, or by the legislative Assembly in Stormont, and that is the product of the protocol agreement made by the previous Government and continuing to be implemented by the current Government.
Laws affecting fundamental issues, that govern most of our economy, that govern our entire agrifood industry and that control much of our environment are not made in this House—they are not made with the contribution of hereditary and non-hereditary peers—but by foreign politicians who no one in this nation elects. [Interruption.] Someone says, “Wrong debate”. It is not the wrong debate when we are talking about the fundamentals of what it means to have democratic legislatures. There is nothing more fundamental than the principle that we should be governed by those we elect.
The position of all the hereditary peers in the House of Lords may be indefensible—that is my own inclination —but at least they are United Kingdom citizens making laws for United Kingdom citizens. My constituents live under a regime in which many of the laws are made not by United Kingdom citizens and not by those elected by us, but by those elected in Hungary, Estonia or wherever.
This comes down to practical illustrations. Just a few days ago, a statutory instrument about pet passports was laid in this House that imposes not a UK law, but an EU law. It means that any Member of this House or any citizen of Great Britain who wants, for example, to come and visit the wonderful Giant’s Causeway in my constituency and bring with them their best friend—their dog—must, subject to EU law, have a pet passport, have it inoculated according to EU demands, belong to a pet scheme set up under that law and have the documentation inspected.
I am using this debate to draw the attention of the House to the fact that, yes, it is right and necessary that we debate the apparent anachronism of hereditary peers, but there is a far more compelling issue that this House should be preparing to address. I will be bringing a private Member’s Bill to this House that will give it the opportunity to address those issues, and when I do, I hope that the same enthusiasm for basic democratic principles will be shown for the principle that we should be able to elect those who govern us.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
It is my privilege to wind up the Opposition’s case on the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill. In their first 100 days, the new Government have come out of the general election at lightning speed, but at times they have found themselves struggling to keep the wheels from spinning off the wagon. It is perhaps no surprise, therefore, that this gesture at constitutional modernisation is being rushed through Parliament without pre-legislative scrutiny, without meaningful cross-party engagement and without proper consultation.
This is a five-clause Bill with no detail on the next steps. The Government had 14 long years in opposition to ponder how to complete the changes from when they last addressed the matter in the House of Lords Act 1999, yet we see a Bill without ambition. It is incomplete, and without due consideration of the wider implications, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Sir Oliver Dowden) set out so eloquently. It is a Bill that provokes questions that are not answered despite repeated assertions to the contrary; and, sadly, in line with many aspects of Labour’s first 100 days in power, there is no clear plan. There is the hope of one— I acknowledge that—but the complexity and variable geometry of our constitutional settlement and history and traditions need serious examination.
Alistair Strathern (Hitchin) (Lab)
I admire the right hon. Gentleman’s elegant efforts to slide past the 14 years when his party was in charge and had an opportunity to change some of these things, but I also note that he is circumventing having to try and defend the indefensible, which is the idea that people have a birthright to be in our Parliament. We are surely long past that point, and if he agrees he and his party should be supporting our party’s proposals.
John Glen
I am not hiding at all from that; I am saying that it must be one part of much wider reforms, which many Conservative Members would agree with. If we are to make a large number of changes, it is only reasonable when taking the first step to want to know what the next steps are, because we then address the final overall effect on our constitution and national Parliament.
Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)
If the right hon. Gentleman is so keen for the Government to set out additional steps, why was he not so keen for the Government of the last 14 years to set out any steps? He described this Bill as lacking ambition; how would he describe the last 14 years when his Government did absolutely nothing to reform the House of Lords?
John Glen
I was a member of the Government for seven years and did quite a lot in financial services and other aspects. I totally recognise that significant steps forward were not taken on this matter and I do not deny the need for reform, but doing this in one step without stating what the further steps will be is not the right way.
Several hon. Members rose—
John Glen
I will make a bit more progress before giving way to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell), who, like me, has been here for well over four hours.
Making one’s maiden speech is a key moment, and I pay tribute to the five or six Members who have done so amid 22 speeches from across the House, including some excellent contributions. I turn first, however, to my parliamentary neighbour and friend my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), the newly elected Chairman of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, who expressed very well the challenges of defending the hereditary principle, but in his usual way pointed also to the lack of coherence and made the case for a series of ambitious amendments that could be made to the Bill. He also made a very reasonable point about the case for life peerages for the hereditary peers who have made such a significant contribution, and that merits further consideration.
I turn now to some of the maiden speeches. The hon. Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Claire Hazelgrove) made a brilliant maiden speech; she talked of her experience working for the Tony Blair foundation, her commitment to fairness, her enthusiasm for financial education, and her devotion to her constituency. I wish her a long career in this House. The hon. Member for Knowsley (Anneliese Midgley) spoke of the warm affection she had for her background in the trade union movement and her commitment to the people from the council estates and the working class that she comes from. I also noted her commitment to apprenticeships and the energy transition, and I wish her well in this place. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Mid and South Pembrokeshire (Henry Tufnell) on his maiden speech, too, and his commitment to serve the many not the few, even if his perspective differs somewhat from that of his father, who many of us will know.
The hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone) said that the Bill did not go far enough. I suspect he would want to take it to a different place than we would, but I wish him well in his time in the House. The hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Maureen Burke) spoke of her deep commitment to Glasgow and paid a moving tribute to her brother David and the inspiration he has given her to serve here.
There were a large number of other thoughtful speeches, which I will not have time to go over. I just say that it is right, as we all know, that there is a constant review of parliamentary institutions; at times, evolution is in order so that they remain relevant to the public that Parliament is designed to serve. The Government’s view of this evolution has also been on a journey. In September 2022, the Prime Minister, who was then Leader of the Opposition, made a speech at the launch of the Brown report making the case for abolishing the House of Lords entirely—I acknowledge that is a principled position—to replace it with a new elected Chamber. He was reported as saying that he would do that to “restore trust in politics”. The question that many will be asking today is: what happened? Here Labour is, in government with an enormous majority, and what is its big idea or grand plan to deliver on all that?
Tom Hayes
Today, Conservative colleagues have said that the reforms go too far but not far enough, and too fast but not fast enough. They have said that we should abolish the hereditary principle and that we should keep it. What is the official Conservative position? May I ask whether what we have seen today is exactly the reason that the Conservative manifesto said nothing about the hereditary principle?
John Glen
If the hon. Member takes the trouble to read the reasoned amendment, he will know the position of His Majesty’s Opposition. Let me get back to what his Government have not done. Their plan is simply to kick out 92 peers from the other place. I am afraid that just will not cut it.
John Glen
No, I will make some progress, as there is not much time.
As with many areas of policy, and as witnessed in these first 100 days, the Bill exposes that, despite all those months sat on the Opposition Benches, the Government do not have a coherent plan with the next steps set out.
John Glen
I will in a moment. I said that I would, so I will. As Lord Adonis has reminded us,
“there is no consensus on reform.”
The Government did have, as they kept telling us when it was the other way round, 14 years to deliver. They had 14 years to come up with that plan. Now they have an enormous majority, and they have just set out one step.
Gareth Snell
I thank the shadow Minister for giving way. He has diligently listened to all the debate this afternoon, and I thank him for that. He talks about a package of reforms. The last reform that his party brought forward in 2014 was a very small reform, with the expulsion of people for non-attendance, the right to resign or retire and the expulsion of those who committed a crime. Since then, 187 Members have retired or resigned and 16 have been expelled for non-attendance. If that was perfectly acceptable as a stand-alone reform without consideration of the consequential impacts, why is this Bill any different?
John Glen
I am sorry, but it is the hon. Gentleman’s Government who are now in charge of the agenda before Parliament. It is for them to be accountable for it. I am so challenged by the poverty of ambition that exists on the Government Benches. We are given to believe that they are planning a new wave of peers, and the Prime Minister’s former chief of staff has reportedly been overheard saying that she is top of the list. The Prime Minister was previously reported as trying to make our political system better, because it had previously been undermined by “lackeys and donors” appointed to the other place. Sadly, it seems that as soon as he got into Downing Street, he discovered the Government’s own lackeys and donors were already waiting for him. I think that reflects this Government’s wider approach and attitude to constitutional reform and our institutions.
Pete Wishart
I am glad that, at last, somebody else has mentioned the donors, because to me they are the biggest problem we have with the House of Lords. Will the right hon. Gentleman back an amendment that says something along the lines of anybody who has given any more than, say, £20,000 to a political party should not be able to get a place in the House of Lords?
John Glen
I do not think we should rule out people who are successful in all walks of life, but I would look seriously at all amendments from colleagues throughout the House.
We need to come back to the facts of the matter. The House of Lords is not there as some ornamental, archaic decoration in our Parliament: it is an embodiment of Magna Carta—of power that devolved from beyond the Crown and beyond the Executive. So what is next? Is this all just a foreboding of the kind of parliamentary flagellation we can expect from this new Government? Well, not if we on the Opposition Benches can help it.
Our reasoned amendment recognises that this Government have no recognition of the need for a reasonable process for constitutional evolution and reform. Our amendment is about the careful and considerate review of change, as well as the acceptable or effective method of enacting major constitutional change. Surely it is reckless at least, and grossly irresponsible at worst, to seek to cast aside the experienced and independent voice of excepted hereditary peers, so many of whom play a crucial role in scrutinising parliamentary legislation in our nation—and some of whom have played an instrumental role in delivering government—without setting out a clear, coherent plan or narrative for what comes next, which should be scrutinised, discussed and refined. I hope colleagues will join me and support the Opposition’s amendment.
The Minister without Portfolio (Ellie Reeves)
It is a pleasure to close this important debate on the Second Reading of the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill. The hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) reminded us in his contribution that today marks three years since the murder of our friend and former colleague Sir David Amess. I am sure that the thoughts of all of us across the House are with his family.
I thank Members from both sides of the House for their thoughtful and measured—at times—contributions to the debate. It has been a debate many years in the making, and it is an important moment in the history of this country’s legislature.
I want to take the opportunity to congratulate all the Members who made their maiden speeches today: my hon. Friends the Members for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Claire Hazelgrove), for Knowsley (Anneliese Midgley), for Mid and South Pembrokeshire (Henry Tufnell) and for Glasgow North East (Maureen Burke), and the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone).
My hon. Friend the Member for Mid and South Pembrokeshire recalled campaigning at the general election in the great Welsh weather, which reminded me of the rally I did with him in the pouring rain on that first weekend. Happily, I remembered my umbrella.
I am sure that all those who made their maiden speeches today will make a fantastic contribution to this Parliament and to their constituencies, which they talked so passionately about, and I wish them all the best with their parliamentary careers.
As we heard earlier from my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office, this important Bill delivers on the Government’s manifesto commitment and is the first step in bringing about wider reform to the House of Lords. We firmly believe that the time has now come finally to end the hereditary aspect of the other place—a feature of our constitution that makes us an outlier among nearly all other democracies.
Ben Coleman
We are talking not just about today but about what happened 25 years ago. Looking back at today’s debate, has my hon. Friend been struck, as I have, by Opposition Members’ saying that this reform has come too soon, that there has not been enough discussion, that it will cause dire consequences and that we should be looking wider? Those are not arguments from today but from 25 years ago. Does she not think that the Conservatives should be straight and not just fluff things—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Interventions should be short.
Ellie Reeves
My hon. Friend is right. Listening to some of the contributions today, it is not clear where Opposition Members stand. They talk about reform being too fast and then not fast enough. They talk about it going too far, and then not far enough.
Shaun Davies
Is it not the case that the only time there is House of Lords reform is under a Labour Government? In 1997 we had a mandate to reform the House of Lords. In 2024 we have a mandate to reform the House of Lords, and we should get on with it.
Ellie Reeves
There is lots of talk of reform from Opposition Members. They had 14 years, but chose not to do it.
Sir Desmond Swayne
The Conservative Government introduced a comprehensive Bill involving the election of peers. I was the Prime Minister’s Parliamentary Private Secretary at the time. It failed—notwithstanding the fact that I thought it was awful—because Labour withdrew its support for the timetable motion, which meant, as a constitutional Bill, it would have taken the Government’s entire timetable. For that reason, the Government withdrew the measure.
Ellie Reeves
That was four Governments ago. It failed due to the timetabling motion and the fact that the Conservatives could not get agreement even within their own party.
There have been, and are, hereditary peers who have made real and lasting contributions to public life. However, this is a matter of principle. It is not right that anyone should be able to take up a seat in our legislature and vote on our laws purely by virtue of the family that they were born into. Instead, this Government are committed to a smaller second Chamber that better reflects the country it serves. This Bill brings us a step closer to achieving that aim.
Andrew Rosindell
The hon. Lady talks about the family that hereditary peers happen to have been born into, and says that therefore it is wrong that they should have any influence over legislation. Is she therefore questioning the principle of Royal Assent?
Ellie Reeves
Absolutely not. I listened to the hon. Member’s contribution; the royal family and the monarchy are one of our country’s greatest assets. The contribution of the King and the working members of the royal family to public life in the UK is incredibly significant. The Government have enormous respect for the unique role that the royal family play in our nation. This reform does not affect the role of the sovereign. Ours is a model of constitutional monarchy that continues to be practised worldwide. By contrast, the UK is only one of two Parliaments in the world that retains a hereditary element. To seek to make any comparison between the two is not credible. The sovereign is our Head of State and provides stability, continuity and a national focus. Nothing in the Bill changes that.
Let me turn to the reasoned amendment tabled by the official Opposition. The Government have introduced the Bill to end the outdated and indefensible right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords. I am sure that the House will agree that it is important for Parliament to give proper consideration to the Bill, which reflects a Government manifesto commitment, rather than to dismiss it out of hand. Although the Government are grateful for the contributions that hereditary peers and their predecessors have made to the other place, it simply cannot be right that the second Chamber retains a hereditary element in the 21st century.
Let us be clear. Those on the Opposition Benches talked today about consultation and engagement. First, I will not take any lectures on consultation from the Conservative party, which rammed through a Budget without engagement with the Office for Budget Responsibility and proceeded to crash the economy that has left people in my constituency and across the country still paying the price in their mortgages and rents.
On the substance of the Bill, the right hon. Member for Hertsmere (Sir Oliver Dowden) could not even be clear, when asked, whether he is in favour of the principle of removing hereditary peers from the second Chamber. From the sometimes quite lively contributions from the Opposition Benches, one thing is clear: there is a wide range of views that are not always consistent with one another. The new-found, if at times slightly confused, zeal for the job of reform of the second Chamber is noted, yet Opposition Members had more than 14 years to bring about reform and never did so. Those on the Labour Benches laid out our commitments for reform in our manifesto, which was scrutinised by the public and then overwhelmingly voted for.
Pete Wishart
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Will she tell the House whether it is still Labour’s ambition to abolish the House of Lords in its current condition and set up a democratically elected Chamber, yes or no?
Ellie Reeves
We set out in our manifesto that we want to see an alternative second Chamber that is more representative of the nations and regions. I will say a little more about that later.
Our manifesto was scrutinised by the public and then overwhelmingly voted for. This is a tightly drafted piece of legislation that directly makes provisions for the specific commitment to remove immediately the rights of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords. I am confident that there will be no shortage of scrutiny from Members of this House and Members of the other place throughout the passage of the Bill. The effect of the reasoned amendment tabled by the right hon. Member for Hertsmere would prevent the House from scrutinising the Bill.
Sir Gavin Williamson
If amendments come forward in Committee of the Whole House that reflect the aspirations of what the Labour party set out in its manifesto, will the Government work with Members to ensure they become a part of the Bill?
Ellie Reeves
What I am interested in is whether the right hon. Member, with his new radicalism, will be voting with the Government tonight.
The Government are committed to House of Lords reform and the Bill is the first step in that process. It has been said by Opposition Members that the introduction of the Bill breaks a commitment made in 1999 to retain the hereditary peers in the House until the second stage of House of Lords reform has been completed. That agreement, to the extent that it was ever binding, was not entered into and does not bind this Government. It is not right that a discussion between political parties a quarter of a century ago should still somehow mean that it is illegitimate for the Government to bring forward the Bill today. This Government were elected on a manifesto commitment to bring about immediate reform by removing the right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords. It is right that we take time to consider how best to implement our other manifesto commitments, engaging with peers and the public where appropriate over the course of this Parliament.
Mr Holden
The hon. Lady has made the point at the Dispatch Box that conventions from 25 years ago should not stand today. Does she agree that that should also apply to other conventions made with the House of Lords, such as the Salisbury-Addison convention, which ensures that legislation gets through?
Ellie Reeves
The Salisbury convention means that measures that were proposed in manifestos cannot be blocked, but an agreement made a quarter of a century ago cannot now bind this Government and this House. This measure was a clear manifesto commitment, and it is important that we proceed with the Bill.
We heard a great many speeches today. Members including the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes)— I know he is keen to intervene—spoke of the experience and the contributions of hereditary peers. Let me make it absolutely clear that the Bill is not about individuals, but about fulfilling a manifesto commitment to remove the right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords. Of course this Government value the contribution of hereditary peers, but retaining 92 of them was always intended to be a temporary measure, and now is the right time to introduce this reform. The Government were elected with a clear mandate to address the issue, and the Bill is delivering on that.
Sir John Hayes
I do not support the removal of those peers, but if it were part of a bigger package of reform, one could at least argue, from the Minister’s point of view, that it was a holistic measure in line with a manifesto commitment. This is a very partial reform, which focuses on the removal of those very hard-working and good hereditaries, rather than being part of a more creative and holistic solution.
Ellie Reeves
We said in our manifesto that removing the 92 remaining hereditary peers from the legislature was a first step towards achieving the reforms of the House of Lords that we wanted to see, and it is right that we do not delay that first step. The wording in our manifesto was clear: this would be an “immediate” first step, and that is what we are delivering in the Bill.
The right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings and the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell), among others, talked about our traditions. Any suggestion that the Government are somehow against traditions or the ceremonies of our past is nonsense. We value and respect our history, and its continued inclusion in our national life makes our country all the better, but the continued reservation of those 92 seats for people who are simply there because of the families they were born into cannot be justified any longer. That is an important matter of principle.
A number of Members, including the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) and the right hon. Member for Herne Bay and Sandwich (Sir Roger Gale), wondered whether hereditary peers could be given life peerages. As my noble Friend Baroness Smith of Basildon said in the other place when the Bill was introduced, Members who leave as hereditary peers can return as life peers. There is nothing to prevent them from doing so if their party wishes to nominate them in the normal way.
Simon Hoare
That is all clear and understood. The point that I was making, along with other Members, was that it would be a gesture of graceful good will to make life peers of those who are currently hereditaries. Placing them on a separate list, outwith new year, birthday or party leader nominations, would be an act of generosity reflecting the work that they had done, and would underline the Minister’s point that there is nothing personal in this.
Ellie Reeves
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention and, indeed, for his contribution to the debate. That is not a commitment that we are in a position to make; it would be for the new Leader of the Opposition to nominate for peerages those whom he or she wished to nominate, in the normal way.
A number of Members, including the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart), talked about wider reform of the House of Lords. As set out in the Labour manifesto, the Government are committed to replacing the House of Lords with an alternative second Chamber that is more representative of the regions and nations of the UK. That would be a major change to the functioning of our Parliament and our constitution, so it is right that it should be preceded by a significant period of detailed consideration and consultation. The Government will set out further details of that process in due course, including how we will seek the British public’s input on how politics can best serve them. However, that should not prevent progress on other important and long-overdue reforms, including through this Bill and other initial reforms, to help deliver a smaller and more active second Chamber. The Government’s manifesto made it clear that the measures in the Bill would be introduced to implement immediate reform, which is what we are setting out to do.
The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), too, talked about wider reform. I thank her for taking the time to meet me and the Minister for the Cabinet Office to talk about her concerns and her ambitions for further reform; I am grateful for that engagement. I want to stress that this is a new Government with a fresh mandate and a set of manifesto pledges that we are committed to implement. This Bill delivers immediate reform. As my right hon. Friend mentioned in his opening speech, part of the reason why there has been no further progress over the last 25 years is the argument that nothing should be done until everything has been done. We firmly believe in taking this first step as a matter of priority, and it is right that we take time to consider how best to implement other manifesto commitments that the Government have previously set out. We will engage with peers and the public, where appropriate, over the course of this Parliament and update the House in due course.
The hon. Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild) made a point about the commencement of the Bill. The Bill will remove the remaining hereditary peers at the end of the parliamentary Session in which it receives Royal Assent. The timing of the Bill’s implementation ensures that the business of the House will not be undermined by the sudden departure of a number of hereditary peers in the middle of the Session. Subject to the timely progress of the Bill, we will give notice to existing hereditary peers to give valedictory speeches.
The hon. Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) raised some concerns about the balance in the House of Lords if this Bill is passed. It is important to point out that no political party has held an overall majority in the House of Lords in recent times, and this Bill will not change that. The role of the Lords is to scrutinise and hold the Government to account in the context of the primacy of the House of Commons. The hon. Member is right to say that the Bill decreases the number of peers on the Opposition Benches, but the share of the Opposition’s seats in the Lords will reduce from around 34% to around 32%. Given that the Conservatives will remain the largest party in the second Chamber, I am sure that hon. Members will agree that the Bill is hardly a power grab.
I very much look forward to engaging with the shadow spokespeople from the Opposition parties. I have welcomed discussing this matter with the hon. Member for Richmond Park and Members of other parties who made time to discuss the Bill at drop-in sessions last week. I look forward to further engagement with all those who attend the Committee of the whole House, especially given the important views that have been expressed today.
I stress again that this Bill is about finally removing an outdated and indefensible principle, and not about individuals. As my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office mentioned at the beginning of the debate, the current hereditary peers and their predecessors have made notable contributions to the other place, the merits of which we have heard in this House today. This is the first step in reform and not the last. The other reforms set out in our manifesto are more complex and it is right to take the time to properly consider their implementation. I know that the Leader of the House of Lords has outlined her commitment to meaningful dialogue with Members of the other place on further reforms to bring about a smaller and more active second Chamber.
The Government remain committed in the long term to replacing the House of Lords with an alternative second Chamber that is more representative of the nations and regions and of how the public can have politics best serve them. As the manifesto makes clear, it is right to start with this immediate reform, completing the work that we began 25 years ago. I commend this Bill to the House.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The House divided: Ayes 105, Noes 453.
[Division No. 19, 6.55 pm]
Question accordingly negatived.
[Division lists were not available at the time of publication.]
Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 62(2)), That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Question agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill (Programme)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill:
Committal
(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Committee of the whole House.
Proceedings in Committee, on Consideration and on Third Reading
(2) Proceedings in Committee of the whole House shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion five hours after their commencement.
(3) Any proceedings on Consideration and proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion six hours after the commencement of proceedings in Committee of the whole House.
(4) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings in Committee of the whole House, to any proceedings on Consideration or to proceedings on Third Reading.
Other proceedings
(5) Any other proceedings on the Bill may be programmed.—(Vicky Foxcroft.)
Question agreed to.
House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill
Tuesday 12th November 2024
(1 month, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 12 November 2024 - (12 Nov 2024)
17:50 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 98 / Noes: 376 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:05 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 41 / Noes: 378 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:19 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 93 / Noes: 355 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:34 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 98 / Noes: 375 - Question accordingly negatived.
19:00 - The House divided: - Ayes: 435 / Noes: 73 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Judith Cummins)
I remind Members that, in Committee, Members should not address the Chair as “Deputy Speaker.” When addressing the Chair, please use our name, “Madam Chair,” “Chair,” or “Madam Chairman”—we are all quite flexible.
Clause 1
Exclusion of remaining hereditary peers
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The First Deputy Chairman
With this it will be convenient to consider the following:
Amendment 26, in clause 2, page 1, line 8, at end insert—
“(3) Jurisdiction in relation to claims to hereditary peerages is to be exercised by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.”
This amendment provides explicitly that the jurisdiction in relation to claims to hereditary peerages passes to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.
Clauses 2 and 3 stand part.
Amendment 25, in clause 4, page 2, line 16, leave out from “force” to end of line 17 and insert—
“only when the House of Commons has agreed a resolution which—
(a) endorses the conclusions of the report a joint committee appointed for the purpose specified in subsection (3A), and
(b) determines accordingly that this Act shall come into force at the end of the Session of Parliament in which this resolution is passed.
(3A) The purpose of the joint committee of the House of Commons and the House of Lords referred to in subsection (3) is to consider and report upon the Government’s stated plans for reform of the House of Lords, including—
(a) the removal of the right of excepted hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords,
(b) the introduction of a mandatory retirement age for members of the House of Lords,
(c) a new participation threshold to enable continuing membership of the House of Lords,
(d) changes to the circumstances in which disgraced members of the House of Lords can be removed, and
(e) changes to the process of appointment of members of the House of Lords.”
This amendment provides that the Bill would only come into effect after the report of a joint committee on wider reforms of the composition of the House of Lords has been approved by a resolution of the House of Commons.
Amendment 24, page 2, line 17, leave out “this Act is passed” and insert—
“the condition in section [requirement on Government to publish legislative proposals] is met”.
This amendment provides that the Bill would only come into effect at the end of the Session of Parliament in which the government publishes legislative proposals meeting the requirements set out in NC19.
Clause 4 stand part.
Amendment 12, in clause 5, page 2, line 21, leave out “(Hereditary Peers)” and insert “(Appointments and Membership)”.
This amendment would change the short title of the Bill and is consequential on NC9 and NC10.
Amendment 7, page 2, line 21, leave out “(Hereditary Peers)”.
This amendment is consequential on NC3, NC4, NC5 and NC6. It would amend the short title of the Bill.
Amendment 1, page 2, line 21, after “Peers” insert “and Bishops”.
This amendment is consequential on NC1. It would amend the short title of the Bill.
Amendment 8, page 2, line 21, after “Peers” insert—
“and Proposals for a Democratic Mandate”.
This amendment would change the short title of the Bill and is consequential on NC7.
Amendment 10, page 2, line 21, after “Peers” insert “and Appointments”.
This amendment would change the short title of the Bill and is consequential on NC8.
Clause 5 stand part.
New clause 1—Exclusion of bishops—
“(1) No-one shall be a member of the House of Lords by virtue of being a bishop or Archbishop of the Church of England.
(2) No bishop or Archbishop of the Church of England is entitled to receive, in that capacity, a writ of summons to attend, or sit and vote in, the House of Lords.
(3) Nothing in this section prevents a person who is, or has been, a bishop or Archbishop of the Church of England from receiving, and exercising the entitlements under, a peerage for life in accordance with section 1 of the Life Peerages Act 1958.
(4) Nothing in this section prevents a person who is, or has been, a bishop or Archbishop of the Church of England from being permitted to enter the House of Lords for the purpose only of leading prayers in accordance with arrangements made by that House.”
This new clause provides that bishops of the Church of England will no longer be entitled to membership of the House of Lords.
New clause 2—Exclusion of bishops: consequential amendments etc.—
“(1) In the House of Lords Precedence Act 1539—
(a) omit section 3 (places of the Archbishops and Bishops);
(b) in section 6 (place of the King’s Chief Secretary) omit the words after “aforementioned”.
(2) The Bishoprics Act 1878 is repealed.
(3) In the Welsh Church Act 1914 omit section 2(3) (writs of summons to be issued to bishops not disqualified by the 1914 Act for sitting in the House of Lords).
(4) In the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975, in section 1(1) omit paragraph (za) (disqualification of Lords Spiritual).
(5) In the Northern Ireland Act 1998, in section 36(6) omit paragraph (b) (a person is not disqualified for membership of the Assembly by reason only that he is a Lord Spiritual).
(6) In the Scotland Act 1998, in section 16(1) omit paragraph (b) (a person is not disqualified from being a member of the Scottish Parliament because he is a Lord Spiritual).
(7) In the House of Commons (Removal of Clergy Disqualification) Act 2001, in section 1, omit subsection (2) (Lords Spiritual disqualified from being a Member of the House of Commons).
(8) In the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, in section 41, omit subsection (6)(b) (members entitled to receive writs of summons to attend the House of Lords by virtue of being an archbishop or bishop); but this subsection is without prejudice to the continued application of that provision in relation to tax years beginning before the commencement of this Act.
(9) In the House of Lords Reform Act 2014, in section 4(3), omit “or as a Lord Spiritual”.
(10) The Lords Spiritual (Women) Act 2015 is repealed.
(11) In the enactment formula used for Acts passed after the passing of this Act, where the phrase “by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons” appears, the phrase “by and with the advice and consent of the Lords and Commons” is to be used instead.”
This new clause makes repeals and amendments to other Acts consequential on NC1, as well as providing for changes to words of enactment.
New clause 3—Mandatory retirement at the age of 80—
“(1) A member of the House of Lords who reaches the age of 80 during a Session of Parliament ceases to be a member of the House of Lords at the end of that Session.
(2) No-one shall be eligible for a peerage for life to be conferred in accordance with section 1 of the Life Peerages Act 1958 after they reach the age of 80.
(3) A member of the House of Lords who has reached the age of 80 shall not be entitled to receive a writ to attend the House under section 1 of the Life Peerages Act 1958 or by virtue of the dignity conferred by virtue of appointment as a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary.”
This new clause provides that peers who are over the age of 80 will no longer be entitled to membership of the House of Lords at the end of the parliamentary session they turn 80 and that no one can be appointed a Life Peer after they reach that age.
New clause 4—Minimum contribution in the House of Lords—
“(1) A member of the House of Lords who is a peer and does not participate in the proceedings of the House of Lords or its committees during a period of eight consecutive sitting weeks ceases to be a member of the House.
(2) A person participates in the proceedings of the House of Lords for the purposes of subsection (1) if they undertake any activity which qualifies for financial support allowance under the scheme agreed by the House of Lords and then in force.
(3) Subsection (1) does not apply to a peer if—
(a) the peer was disqualified from sitting or voting in the House, or suspended from its service, for the whole or part of eight consecutive sitting weeks, or
(b) they fall within the terms of a Standing Order of the House of Lords providing for exemptions from the provisions of subsection (1) for reasons related to parental leave, illness, bereavement or other specified circumstances.”
This new clause provides a minimum participation requirement for members of the House of Lords of one contribution every eight sitting weeks. A member who does not meet the minimum contribution requirement can no longer be a member of the House of Lords.
New clause 7—Duty to take forward proposals for democratic mandate for House of Lords—
“(1) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to take forward proposals to secure a democratic mandate for the House of Lords.
(2) In pursuance of the duty under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must carry out the steps set out in subsections (3), (5), (6) and (7).
(3) Within twelve months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must lay before each House of Parliament a consultation paper on methods for introducing directly elected members in the House of Lords.
(4) After laying the consultation paper under subsection (3), the Secretary of State must seek the views on the matters covered by that paper of—
(a) each party and group in the House of Lords,
(b) each political party represented in the House of Commons,
(c) the Scottish Government,
(d) the Welsh Government,
(e) the Northern Ireland Executive,
(f) local authorities in the United Kingdom,
(g) representative organisations for local authorities in the United Kingdom, and
(h) such other persons and bodies as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
(5) Within sixteen months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must lay before each House of Parliament a report on responses to the consultation.
(6) Within eighteen months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must lay before each House of Parliament a draft Bill containing legislative proposals on each of the matters mentioned in subsection (3).”
This new clause imposes a duty on Ministers to take forward proposals to secure a democratic mandate for the House of Lords through introduction of directly elected members.
New clause 8—Life peerages not to be conferred against recommendation of the House of Lords Appointments Commission—
“(1) The Life Peerages Act 1958 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 1, after subsection (1) (power to confer life peerages) insert—
“(2A) The power under subsection (1) may not be exercised in relation to a person if the House of Lords Appointments Commission has written to the Prime Minister to recommend a peerage should not be conferred on that person.””
This new clause would prevent a life peerage being conferred on a person if the House of Lords Appointments Commission has recommended against the appointment.
New clause 9—Life peerages only to be conferred on persons who meet propriety standards—
“(1) The Life Peerages Act 1958 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 1, after subsection (1) (power to confer life peerages) insert—
“(2A) The power under subsection (1) may not be exercised unless the Prime Minister has received a letter from the House of Lords Appointments Commission stating that, in their view, the person on whom a peerage is be to conferred has met appropriate standards of propriety.
(2B) For the purposes of this section, “propriety” means—
(a) the person is in good standing in the community in general and with the public regulatory authorities in particular; and
(b) the past conduct of the person would not reasonably be regarded as bringing the House of Lords into disrepute.””
This new clause would prevent a life peerage being conferred on a person unless the House of Lords Appointments Commission had confirmed to the Prime Minister that the person met the appropriate standards of propriety.
New clause 10—Expulsion of peers on grounds of prior propriety advice—
“(1) It shall be the duty of the House of Lords Appointments Commission to inform the Lord Speaker by letter of each instance where a peerage has been conferred on a person who has been found in their view not to meet the appropriate standards of propriety.
(2) For the purposes of this section, “propriety” means—
(a) the person is in good standing in the community in general and with the public regulatory authorities in particular; and
(b) the past conduct of the person would not reasonably be regarded as bringing the House of Lords into disrepute.
(3) The Lord Speaker must lay before the House of Lords a copy of any letter received under subsection (1) on the next day on which the House of Lords sits.
(4) Any person who is the subject of a letter under subsection (3) ceases to be a member of the House of Lords on the day after the day on which a copy the letter is laid before the House of Lords.
(5) Where a person ceases to be a member of the House of Lords in accordance with this section, section 4 of the House of Lords Reform Act 2014 (effect of ceasing to be a member) applies as if that person had ceased to be a member in accordance with that Act.”
This new clause would mean that any Member of the House of Lords who had been appointed despite the House of Lords Appointments Commission finding that they didn’t meet the appropriate standards of propriety would cease to be a Member of the House of Lords.
New clause 11—Expulsion of peers who have made donations to a political party—
“(1) A member of the House of Lords who has made one or more donation or loan to a political party with an aggregate value of more than £11,180 since 1 January 2001 ceases to be a member of the House of Lords on 1 February 2026 unless the condition in subsection (2) is met.
(2) The condition in this subsection is that the political party which received the donations or loans pays to the relevant member of the House of Lords the full aggregate value of those donations or loans on or before 9 January 2026.
(3) Where a person ceases to be a member of the House of Lords in accordance with this section, section 4 of the House of Lords Reform Act 2014 (effect of ceasing to be a member) applies as if that person had ceased to be a member in accordance with that Act.
(4) For the purposes of this section—
“donation” means a donation which is published by the Electoral Commission in its register of recorded donations under section 69 of the of the Political Parties Elections and Referendums Act 2000;
“loan” means a transaction published by the Electoral Commission in its register of recordable transactions under section 71V of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000.”
This new clause provides for a member of the House of Lords who has made registered political donations or loans of over £11,180 since 2001 to cease to be a member of the House of Lords unless those donations and loans were repaid.
New clause 12—Life peerages not to be conferred on donors to political parties—
“(1) The Life Peerages Act 1958 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 1, after subsection (1) (power to confer life peerages) insert—
“(1A) The power under subsection (1) may only be exercised to confer a peerage on a person in respect of whom the conditions in subsections (1B) and (1C) are met.
(1B) The condition in this subsection is that the person has provided the Prime Minister with a declaration that, since 1 January 2001, that person—
(a) has not donated or loaned more the £11,180 to a political party; or
(b) had made such a donation or loan, but that it has been repaid in full.
(1C) The condition in this subsection is that the Prime Minister is satisfied that the declaration made under subsection (2) is true.
(1D) For the purposes of this section—
“donation” means a donation which is published by the Electoral Commission in its register of recorded donations under section 69 of the Political Parties Elections and Referendums Act 2000;
“loan” means a transaction published by the Electoral Commission in its register of recordable transactions under section 71V of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000.””
This new clause would prevent a life peerage being conferred on a person unless they had declared that they had not made a donation or loan to a political party of over £10,000.
New clause 13—Exclusion of life peers who have recently been members of the House of Commons—
“(1) No person who was a member of the House of Commons shall be a member of the House of Lords—
(a) during the Parliament in which they were a member of the House of Commons;
(b) during the Parliament following the last Parliament in which they were a member of the House of Commons;
(c) during a period of five years commencing on the last day on which they were a member of the House of Commons.
(2) Where a person ceases to be a member of the House of Lords in accordance with this section, section 4 of the House of Lords Reform Act 2014 (effect of ceasing to be a member) applies as if that person had ceased to be a member in accordance with that Act.”
This new clause provides that no one who was an MP in the current or previous Parliament, or in the previous five years, is eligible for appointment to, or to remain as a member of, the House of Lords.
New clause 14—Removal of power to make political appointments—
“(1) The Life Peerages Act 1958 is amended as follows.
(2) After section (1) (1) (power to confer life peerages) insert—
“(2A) No recommendation may be made to His Majesty to confer a peerage except by the House of Lords Appointments Commission.””
This new clause would prevent peerages being conferred under the Life Peerages Act 1958 unless done so on the recommendation of the House of Lords Appointments Commission.
New clause 19—Requirement on Government to publish legislative proposals—
“The condition in this section is that the Government has published a draft Bill containing—
(a) provisions to remove bishops and Archbishops of the Church of England from membership of the House of Lords,
(b) provisions to reduce the number of members of the House of Lords to no more than 650, and
(c) such other provisions as the Government considers are appropriate to give practical and equitable effect to the provisions mentioned in paragraphs (a) and (b).”
This new clause requires the Government to publish a draft Bill to remove Bishops from the House of Lords and reduce the membership to 650 or less.
New clause 20—Purpose of this Act—
“Whereas it has not been expedient at present for the Government to bring forward legislation to reform the House of Lords, the purpose of this Act is to provide that the Lords Temporal are peers appointed under section 1 of the Life Peerages Act 1958 on the recommendation of the Prime Minister.”
This new clause describes the purpose of the Bill.
Amendment 2, in title, line 2, after first “Lords” insert—
“to provide for bishops of the Church of England no longer to be entitled to membership of the House of Lords;”
This amendment is consequential on NC1. It would amend the long title of the Bill.
Amendment 3, line 2, after first “Lords” insert—
“to make provision for mandatory retirement from the House of Lords;”
This amendment is consequential on NC3. It would amend the long title of the Bill.
Amendment 4, line 2, after first “Lords” insert—
“to make provision for the expulsion of Members of the House of Lords for non-participation;”
This amendment is consequential on NC4. It would amend the long title of the Bill.
Amendment 13, line 2, after first “Lords” insert—
“to provide for a requirement for members of the House of Lords to meet standards of propriety;”
This amendment would change the long title of the Bill and is consequential on NC9 and NC10.
Amendment 14, line 2, after first “Lords” insert—
“to exclude from membership of the House of Lords persons who have made certain political donations or loans;”
This amendment would change the long title of the Bill and is consequential on NC 11 and NC12.
Amendment 15, line 2, after first “Lords” insert—
“to exclude former members of the House of Commons from membership of the House of Lords for a specified period;”
This amendment would change the long title of the Bill and is consequential on NC13.
Amendment 16, line 2, after first “Lords” insert—
“to preclude the conferral of life peerages other than upon the recommendation of the House of Lords Appointments Commission;”
This amendment would change the long title of the Bill and is consequential on NC14.
Amendment 9, line 3, after “peerages” insert—
“to impose a duty in connection with securing a democratic mandate for the House of Lords”.
This amendment is consequential on NC7.
Amendment 11, line 3, after “peerages” insert
“to preclude the conferring of life peerages against the recommendation of the House of Lords Appointments Commission;”
This amendment would change the long title of the Bill and is consequential on NC8.
The Minister without Portfolio (Ellie Reeves)
Thank you, Madam Chair. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, as I open this Committee of the whole House.
As I noted a number of times on Second Reading, this is a short and focused Bill. It delivers on the Government’s manifesto commitment to bring about an immediate reform by removing the rights of the remaining hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords. This Bill is a matter of principle. In the 21st century, it cannot be right for there to be places in our legislature reserved for those born into certain families. Having now seen all the amendments tabled by parties from across the House, it is clear that there is no principled objection to the aim of the Bill, which is to remove the right of people to sit and make laws in our legislature by virtue of an accident of birth. Therefore, I hope that all Members across the House can join Government Members in voting for this important and long-overdue legislation.
I look forward to hearing from hon. Members over the course of today’s debate, but I shall start with the detail of the Bill itself. Clause 1 is clear, straightforward and central to the overall purpose of the Bill. It removes membership of the House of Lords from the remaining hereditary peers. Specifically, clause 1 repeals section 2 of the House of Lords Act 1999, which currently provides an exception to the general exclusion of hereditary peers from membership of the House in section 1 of the 1999 Act. Under that exception, 90 hereditary peers and those hereditary peers holding the office of Earl Marshal or performing the office of Lord Great Chamberlain continue to be Members of the other place.
The clause is a core part of the Bill and delivers the Government’s clear manifesto commitment to remove the right of the remaining hereditary peers to sit and vote in the other place. It will result in the removal of the 92 reserved places for hereditary peers. There are currently vacancies in the seats reserved for hereditary peers—at present, there are 88 hereditary peers in the other place. Such vacancies would usually be filled by a hereditary peer by-election, but such by-elections have been paused until January 2026 by changes to the Standing Orders agreed by the other place in July 2024.
The Government value the good work done by hereditary peers, and we have spoken on several occasions about the individuals who have served in Parliament with duty and dedication. These reforms are not personal, but they are long overdue and essential.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
The Government would find considerable sympathy for their position if they were to make provision for those hereditary peers currently in the House of Lords who have done good work and who have acquired a lot of experience by possibly introducing a phase-out or a generous allocation of life peerages to those who are considered worthy on the basis of their past record of participation.
Ellie Reeves
I thank the right hon. Member for his intervention. There would of course be no bar on the Leader of the Opposition nominating any of those who have served as hereditary peers for life peerages in the normal way.
Sir Julian Lewis
That sounds reasonable, except for the fact that, unless there were a phasing of the process, it would not be possible within the numbers available to the Leader of the Opposition to nominate more than a small fraction. Can the Minister offer any more flexibility on that?
Ellie Reeves
I thank the right hon. Member for his intervention, but, with the greatest of respect, it is for the Leader of the Opposition to nominate those whom they consider appropriate for life peerages. On phasing out, the measures in the 1999 Act were meant only to be temporary ones. Twenty-five years later, we are still having these debates.
Clause 2 abolishes the jurisdiction of the House of Lords in relation to hereditary peerage claims. I appreciate that the subject of hereditary peerage claims may be a novel one to hon. Members and one that was not discussed on Second Reading, so let me provide a clear explanation of what hereditary peerage claims are, why they are mentioned in the Bill, and why the Government are proposing to remove the jurisdiction of the House of Lords. A hereditary peerage claim—or peerage claim, as I will refer to them—is when a person seeks to be formally recognised as the holder of the title of a hereditary peerage. Usually, the claimant of the peerage is the undisputed heir and is simply entered on the Roll of the Peerage following an application to the Lord Chancellor.
However, there can be some cases where the claim is disputed or complex. Currently, these cases are usually referred to the other place to advise the Crown on how to determine the claim. The House also confirms undisputed successions of Irish peerages in parallel with an application to the Lord Chancellor. Complex or disputed peerage claims occur very infrequently. There have been fewer than 10 claims considered by the other place in the past 50 years. Given that the Bill removes the final link between hereditary peerage and membership of the House of Lords, it is no longer appropriate for these issues to be dealt with by the other place. That is why the Bill would abolish the jurisdiction of the other place in relation to peerage claims. The intention is that future complex or disputed peerage claims that would otherwise have been considered by the other place will instead be referred to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council under section 4 of the Judicial Committee Act 1833.
Undisputed successions to Irish peerages will, like other types of peerage, continue to be dealt with by the Lord Chancellor. As hon. Members know, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, which is made up of justices of the Supreme Court and other senior judges, already has a well-established constitutional role in advising the sovereign and is the appropriate body to consider these matters. The Government have discussed this matter with the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, which is content to take on this function. Therefore, the Government believe that, following the removal of the hereditary peers, it is appropriate for the other place’s jurisdiction in relation to peerage claims to come to an end.
I thought that it would be helpful to briefly address amendment 26 to this clause tabled by the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart). The amendment makes it explicit that the jurisdiction for considering peerage claims would be transferred to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. The Government’s position is that it is unnecessary to expressly state in the Bill the transfer of the jurisdiction of peerage claims. That is because, as I have set out, matters such as peerage claims can already be referred to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council by the Crown under section 4 of the Judicial Committee Act 1833. I therefore urge the hon. Member not to press his amendment.
Turning to other parts of the Bill, clause 3 makes consequential amendments to reflect the repeal of section 2 of the House of Lords Act 1999, and more generally on the basis that there will no longer be any Members of the House by virtue of a hereditary peerage. The amendments reflect the fact that certain provisions in the Peerage Act 1963, the House of Lords Act 1999, the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, and the House of Lords Reform Act 2014 are now redundant as a result of this legislation.
Clause 4 sets out the territorial extent of the Bill and when it will commence. An amendment or repeal made by the Bill has the same extent as the provision amended or repealed. Subject to that, the Bill extends to England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
There are those who believe that this reform is about making the House of Lords more democratic. Clearly, the Minister cannot be among them, because these provisions do not seem to make it any more democratic in a meaningful way. Can she confirm, therefore, that she is not in favour of a more democratically elected House of Lords?
Ellie Reeves
This legislation is the first step of reform of the House of Lords, as set out in our manifesto. In our manifesto, we committed to this reform immediately, which is why we are discussing it today.
On commencement, the Bill will come into force at the end of the Session of Parliament in which it receives Royal Assent. If the Bill passes in this Session, hereditary peers who are Members of the other place will depart at the end of the Session. The timing of the implementation of the Bill ensures the delivery of the manifesto commitment for immediate reform in a timely fashion while not undermining the business of the House with the sudden departure of a number of hereditary peers in the middle of a parliamentary Session.
Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)
My right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) touched on when the Minister thinks more legislation will be coming forward, and the Minister proudly boasted about delivering on one of Labour’s manifesto commitments. When, over the next two, three or four years, does she anticipate the other pieces of legislation will be forthcoming to deliver on the rest of the manifesto?
Ellie Reeves
We have made it clear that this is a first step of reform. We are committed to the other reforms set out in the manifesto, but it is important that there is proper consultation and that we take time to ensure that they are done in the right way. That work is ongoing.
Subject to the timely progress of the Bill, it will give due notice to existing hereditary peers, allowing for opportunities to give valedictory speeches, which is consistent with the approach taken in the 1999 Act.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
On the future reforms, does the Minister not accept that when House of Lords reform was discussed in 1998-99, the hereditaries were retained as a temporary measure, yet the Labour Government never came forward with the second stage? Does she appreciate that many of us are slightly cynical about this Government’s ever bringing forward a future stage, so the solution might be to delay commencement until they bring forward proposals?
Ellie Reeves
Opposition Members had 14 years to bring about reform of the House of Lords, if that was what they wanted to do—but alas, they did not. Instead, this Government are taking an immediate first step on the road to reform of the House of Lords. It is long overdue and we are getting on with it.
Clause 5 simply establishes the short title of the legislation as the “House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Act 2024”. If the Bill is passed in 2025, the short title will automatically be changed to the “House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Act 2025”.
I note that a number of new clauses have been tabled. Of course, I look forward to hearing from the newest zealous member of the cause for constitutional reform, the right hon. Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson), as well as from the hon. Members for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) and for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) and others. I will not prejudge what they have to say on these matters, but I note again that this is a focused Bill that delivers on a clear manifesto commitment.
As I have said, the Bill is the first step in the Government’s broader plans to reform the second Chamber. We recognise that other elements of that agenda are more complex, and it is right that we take time to consider them properly.
Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)
Why are the Government proceeding with such timidity and “first steps” when they have such a large majority and could push through their will if they wanted to?
Ellie Reeves
This is an immediate first step on the road to wider reform, and one that is long overdue since the 1999 Act. It is right that we are getting on with it, and doing so in the first Session of this Parliament.
Sir Gavin Williamson
The hon. Lady has tried to paint the Labour party as a great reforming party; yet in 2012, when there was an opportunity to reform the House of Lords systematically, Labour Members voted against it. Why is she so scared to take on more bold suggestions to deliver her manifesto?
Ellie Reeves
Previous attempts to reform the other place all in one go have failed. We want to see immediate reform of the other place, which is why we are getting on with this straightaway. We can then engage and consult on how best to deliver the other reforms, which we have set out clearly in our manifesto.
Alongside the Bill, the Leader of the House of Lords is engaging in dialogue with the other place on taking forward reforms to bring about a smaller and more active second Chamber. In fact, as we speak, she is leading a debate on that very subject in the other place. I look forward to further discussions on this matter in the House in due course, so that we get it right. None of the amendments that have been tabled contest the objective of the Bill to remove the right of people to sit and make laws in our legislature by virtue of an accident of birth. They should, therefore, not prevent us from making progress on this important and long overdue reform.
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
It is an honour to speak to the Bill in Committee. When we last discussed it, on Second Reading, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Sir Oliver Dowden)—a very great man—set out why the Opposition do not approve of the way in which the Government are going about this change. We believe that this nervous little Bill is misconceived and perhaps, at its worst, dishonest.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
I am a bit worried about what my hon. Friend is saying. Why do we need a comprehensive plan at all? Why not just leave it alone? As that great conservative, Lord Falkland, once said, “When it is not necessary to do something, it is necessary not to do it.”
Alex Burghart
As ever, my right hon. Friend is one step ahead of me. It is not that we seek a comprehensive reform of the House of Lords. It is that the Labour party promised that this would come. The Government promised that they would leave the remaining hereditary peers there until they had a plan for comprehensive reform, but that comprehensive plan is missing. Labour is throwing out the stone in the shoe of the accepted hereditary peers and dodging the hard, principled questions about how to ensure that the House of Lords functions most effectively.
Sir Julian Lewis
My hon. Friend made a passing reference to a fear that what is going here is a form of gerrymandering. Does he agree that if generous provision were to be made for really active remaining hereditary Members, of whom there are probably quite a few, to be given life peerages on a one-off basis, and on the basis of merit, that would dispose of the suspicion of gerrymandering?
Alex Burghart
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. He strikes at the critical failure of the legislation, which is that really the Government are seeking to remove Members of the upper House who happen not to take the Labour Whip. What we all agree on—or what I hope we all agree on—is that the role of the Lords is that of a chamber of scrutiny, and we must welcome more expert scrutiny. We have seen from the behaviour, attendance and work of hereditary peers that they are an intrinsic part of that scrutiny, so it is highly suspicious that the Labour party should seek to remove them. Indeed, if we set the precedent that the Government of the day can remove Members of one House because they do not agree with them, where will it end? Those Cross Bencher hereditary peers who will be axed by the measures have, as far as I can see, done an excellent job, yet they are not being given another way out such as that suggested by my right hon. Friend.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The hon. Gentleman will know that provisions in the 1999 Act stipulate a specific number of hereditary peers by party affiliation, making the Lords the only place where the party of a by-election victor is guaranteed before a vote has been cast. He is worried about a loss of expertise in the Lords as hereditary peers are expelled. If those peers stay—I do not think that they should—does he acknowledge that the ringfence protecting party political positions ought to be removed?
Alex Burghart
My point is more that the Government are seeking to remove highly experienced people without offering another way out. We would have been happy to debate that, but we are instead seeing an attempt to deliberately cut out a group of peers from the constitution.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the shadow Minister clarify his party’s position on House of Lords reform? We have heard two or three different views from the Conservative Benches. I remind him that, if we feel that hereditary peers are doing a good job, there is an opportunity for the leader of his party to give them life peerages.
Alex Burghart
It is very generous of the hon. Gentleman to say that the Prime Minister will create 40 peers at his command—I had no idea that the hon. Gentleman’s career was progressing at such a rate. We all know that that is not what is happening here; we all know that, in the coded words of the Minister, it is goodbye to the 88 hereditary peers, whose voices will not be heard any more. Our position is that it is time for a constitutional conference to consider these matters, and that the major issue is how to have an upper House that does not challenge the primacy of the Commons in conducting proper scrutiny of Government legislation in order to improve it.
Sir John Hayes
I am immensely grateful to my hon. Friend, who is making a speech in the spirit of his predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Sir Oliver Dowden), on why the legislation does not pass the efficacy test that I set for it on Second Reading. There is no suggestion that it will make the House of Lords a more effective chamber. A reasonable test of the legislation is whether it improves the status quo. If it does not, why on earth are we pursuing it? Indeed, why are we even debating it?
Alex Burghart
As ever, wisdom from the Deepings. The truth is that this will not make the upper House a better Chamber for scrutiny. All it will do is remove some of the Labour party’s opponents from that House.
The Labour party promised in its manifesto that
“The next Labour government will…bring about an immediate modernisation”
of the Lords. The manifesto promised that that modernisation would consist of a mandatory retirement age of 80, a new participation requirement, a strengthening of
“the circumstances in which disgraced members can be removed”
from that House, reform of the appointments process, and improvement of
“the national and regional balance of the second chamber.”
Although we on the Conservative Benches might not agree with those proposals, the Labour party promised to introduce them immediately, but the only immediate modernisation being undertaken is to remove a group of hard-working and diligent peers, including 33 Cross Benchers and their Convenor, for the crime of not being Labour party placements.
Freddie van Mierlo
As I am surprised that the Conservatives, as the so-called party of aspiration, are stalwartly defending the principle of hereditary peers. Do they not accept that, in a meritocracy, positions in the legislature should be open based on merit, not inheritance?
Alex Burghart
The point that we are making through our amendments is that the Labour party is undermining a key facet of the upper House: scrutiny. We are talking about a body of 88 hereditary peers who have already been performing that job, and have done nothing wrong, but are losing that job because of the measures introduced by the Bill.
Alex Burghart
I will give way one more time and then I will endeavour to conclude my remarks.
Gareth Snell
I thank the hon. Gentleman for taking a second intervention. Is he suggesting that life peers—I declare an interest in that my partner is a life peer—are unable to undertake the role of scrutiny? Even with these modest reforms, which are a stepping stone towards greater reform, my party will still be only the third largest party in the House of Lords, while his will still be the largest by some margin. Is he honestly saying that his life peers are unable to take scrutiny seriously?
Alex Burghart
I am delighted to hear that the hon. Gentleman has married so well. Of course, life peers do a fantastic job of scrutiny—they do so every day, and I enjoy reading their lordships’ Hansard. What we are talking about is a group of 88 hereditary peers, who have done a very good job in scrutinising Government legislation, but who are being removed, through no fault of their own, simply because they do not fit with the Labour’s party’s views. We believe that that is wrong.
I turn now to amendment 25 in my name, which concerns the very simple Conservative principle that constitutional change should not be rushed, and should certainly not be proposed for political advantage. We have inherited a constitution that has evolved through the generations and has the distinction of working. The current constitution of the other place has been effective in bringing expertise and a degree of independence to the work of legislative scrutiny. Like much of the uncodified British constitution, one might not have created such a system from scratch, but the tried-and-tested checks and balances of the House of Lords have complemented the work of the elected Commons.
The Lords does not claim to be a democratic Chamber, and that is the point: our House has primacy. We can see the dangers of ill-though-through constitutional change. None of us in this place will forget the difficulties caused by the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011, a foolish measure introduced by the coalition Government that created all manner of unintended consequences. It was rightly repealed by the Conservatives in the last Parliament to reinstate tried and tested long-standing conventions. Let that be a warning to the Government as they meddle, in the name of petty politics, with long-standing conventions that work. Walter Bagehot eloquently described the “dignified” and “efficient” elements of our constitution. In a sense, the hereditary peers represent both thanks to the way in which they diligently scrutinise legislation. Labour must take care that pulling on one thread—in this case, that of the hereditary peers—does not unravel a great deal more.
Amendment 25 seeks to ensure that there is proper scrutiny of the changes to the composition of our legislature. It makes the simple request that a Joint Committee of both Houses should be allowed to scrutinise and report on the Government’s so-called “immediate modernisation” plans, and that this place should agree before legislation comes into force. That plan would be led by the Conservative principle that constitutional change should not be rushed but carefully considered, and implemented only if the House is confident that it will work.
Amendment 26, which stands in my name, seeks clarity on the issue of disputed peerage claims. However, I have listened carefully to what the Minister has said, and I understand that existing mechanisms are in place. For that reason, we will not press it.
To conclude, we on the Conservative Benches think that this Bill is a sham of reform. It is fundamentally misconceived, focusing on the composition of the other place rather than on how we can ensure that it best performs its vital role of scrutiny. This is a Government and a Prime Minister who do not stand up to scrutiny—a Government led by politics, not by principles. My amendments seek to reinsert some principles into this process: that promises to both Parliament and the electorate should be kept, and that we should legislate only for what works, not for political advantage. I see no reason why the Government cannot accept the amendments today.
Gareth Snell
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Madam Chair. I will keep my comments brief, because I know that that will entertain the Committee more. [Hon. Members: “More!”] I have not started yet—give me time. I very much enjoyed the Bill’s Second Reading, which is why I have come back for a second go.
I genuinely welcome the new reforming zeal of the right hon. Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson), and I believe there are merits to some of the amendments that bear his name. I am glad that the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy) has said that those amendments are part of our manifesto, because they are, as is this Bill. I am sure that means that he will want the Salisbury convention to be accepted in the other place when the Bill reaches it, meaning that Opposition Members in the House of Lords will make no attempt to prevent its successful passage. I am sure that at some point in today’s proceedings, an Opposition Front Bencher will be able to confirm for the record that the Bill will pass smoothly once it has passed this House.
We have just heard the importance of the primacy of this House stated eloquently by the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart). This House is going to make a decision on the Bill today—to decide whether we believe there should be a role for hereditary peers in the House of Lords—and it will then be sent to the House of Lords. Given the importance of convention, history and statute, I am sure that he will be able to confirm that the House of Lords will happily pass it, without any attempts by Opposition Members to amend it. I doubt it, but I hope so.
The point of the Bill, and the reason why I believe it deserves support from all sides of the House, is that—as my hon. Friend the Minister pointed out—this is the first step in a package of House of Lords reform.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman is a serious individual on the Government Benches, and I respect him very much, but does he not understand that given the delicate set of constitutional arrangements we have, it is not unreasonable to expect the Government to come forward with a plan that sets out several steps, taking us on the journey that they intend to go on, with some substance behind it? Given the number of years the Government have had since the previous changes over a quarter of a century ago, it is not unreasonable to expect a little more detail on those second, third and fourth steps, or a timetable.
Gareth Snell
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention, and to a degree, I agree. That is why we set out in our manifesto the package of reforms and changes that we hope to see made to the other place during this Parliament, in order to deliver on the promises we made in the election. He is absolutely right to say that constitutional reform is a delicate thing; that is why it is important that we make these reforms with consideration and in small steps, to make sure that the unintended consequences of large-scale reform are not felt.
The Conservative party made modest reforms during previous Parliaments, such as giving Members of the House of Lords the ability to retire from it. That was a small change, but one with consequential impacts—far more Members have left the House of Lords under that provision than will be impacted by the provisions in this Bill. That was done thoughtfully, carefully, slowly and, I think, consensually.
Similarly, I think that the principle of this Bill—that hereditary peers will no longer have the right to sit in the House of Lords—has already been established in this House. None of the amendments that have been tabled today seeks to overturn that; none of them seeks to make a case for the continuation of hereditary peers. As such, the consensus that the right hon. Gentleman rightly talks about exists in this Bill. The more we seek to tack on to the Bill—taking other elements of constitutional reform and adding them to the Bill—the more we risk that consensus falling apart. We risk this House not having a settled position, creating the opportunity for potential wrecking amendments. I do not suggest that Opposition Members are tabling wrecking amendments, but they could be tabled elsewhere to completely flatline what is a very modest and sensible reform.
Sir Julian Lewis
The hon. Gentleman is making a very reasonable speech. Would it be fair to say that he means this is almost a case of going for the low-hanging fruit on which everybody has a measure of agreement, while recognising that future steps may be a lot more complex and potentially dangerous if we get them wrong?
There is one aspect that is not of itself an argument for keeping the hereditary peers, but is something that will be lost if and when they go. That is, the hereditary peers are one group of people who are not appointed subject to prime ministerial patronage. Without straying beyond the scope of today’s debate, could the hon. Gentleman give us an inkling of whether something like putting the House of Lords Appointments Commission on a statutory basis is a reform that the Government might consider, bearing in mind some of the controversial cases where people have been imposed on the House of Lords in defiance of the commission’s preferences?
Gareth Snell
I could not possibly begin to offer an opinion on the thoughts of the Government, but I know that my hon. Friends on the Front Bench will have heard that question.
Gareth Snell
I know when to move on. [Laughter.] I would also never dare to call the hereditary peers low-hanging fruit, because that would be slightly disrespectful to them, but I understand the tenor and the tone of what the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) is saying, and I think he is right. This is about starting with something on which there is broad consensus and where the impact on the other House will change our constitutional set-up, but not in a way that will ultimately be detrimental to the important scrutiny role of the House of Lords.
I agree with the right hon. Member about the important role of the House of Lords Appointments Commission and the robustness with which its advice should be treated. Without wishing to go down the route of political point scoring, there is something to be said for independent verification of an individual’s suitability for that place, and how that ought to be respected and put on a footing that would potentially mean that incidents like those we have seen under previous Prime Ministers would not recur. Again, I would love to be able to make a commitment in this Chamber, but the only things I can commit to are those relating to my constituency and my own personal opinions.
Sir Ashley Fox
The hon. Member spoke about the need for consensus. Has he read new clauses 1 and 2, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson), which would remove the bishops from the upper House? I am sure that is something on which there is great agreement on the Government Benches. Does the hon. Member feel able to support new clauses 1 and 2?
Gareth Snell
The hon. Gentleman has highlighted a great example of where on the face on it, there may seem to be consensus, but I fear the immediate impact would not be as simple as he thinks. We have an established Church in this country. The Church of England is an established Church—it is part of who we are. I fear that the removal of the bishops from the House of Lords would open up a whole series of other conversations about whether or not we still have an established Church. It would potentially open up questions about political and ecclesiastical overlap. Again, I think we should debate those things; we should have time to debate, discuss and consider the role of the clergy and whether it is right to have bishops in the House of Lords. I do not see why that has to be done through a tacked-on amendment to this Bill, but it is something we should discuss in the future.
Sir Gavin Williamson
We do not usually have so much debate in Staffordshire on these matters; we usually have a lot of consensus in Staffordshire. I want to clarify that the amendments that I seek to make to the Bill would not disestablish the Church of England, but would remove from our constitutional arrangements an anomaly—just as the Bill attempts to remove an anomaly.
Gareth Snell
The right hon. Gentleman is right: this is probably more Staffordshire than anybody needs to hear in this debate, so I will conclude my remarks momentarily.
I do not disagree with the necessary principle that the right hon. Gentleman is putting forward about whether or not bishops should be entitled to seats in the House of Lords by virtue of their being bishops. On Thursday, a Bill is to be debated that would amend the right of women bishops to sit in the House of Lords, because we have always, over time, gently updated and amended our constitution to ensure that it reflects the society we want to be. I would welcome an opportunity to properly debate and consider this matter. The right hon. Gentleman says that it is not his intention to disestablish the Church of England by the removal of the bishops, but there are consequences to these actions, which deserve more consideration and debate—
Gareth Snell
The right hon. Gentleman asks, “What are they?” That is why we should have a debate in the future to give us an opportunity to explore that. Today, having had a Second Reading debate, we have the Committee stage of this Bill to look exclusively at the responsibilities of hereditary peers and the role they play in our democracy.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
Instead of saying that we need a debate in future on whether such a reform might risk disestablishment, will the hon. Gentleman explain what he considers to be the legal and constitutional consequences that would risk disestablishing the Church?
Gareth Snell
I think the very fact that we that we would be seeking to expel the bishops, who are the representatives of the Church of England, from the national legislature, would by its nature start a consideration of that process. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman may say that it does not, but he does not know that. I fear that a well-meaning amendment tabled by the right hon. Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge would create a more significant debate about the role of the Church in our country. Although we may want to have that debate, I am not sure it should be triggered on the back of an amendment to a short, tightly drafted Bill about the role of hereditary peers in the House of Lords. If the hon. Member for West Suffolk wants to bring something forward, I would be more than happy to talk to him about how I could support it, but it should not be tacked on to a Bill on which there is already clear consensus around the role and responsibilities of hereditary peers. That, I hope, deals with the point that he raised.
Finally, on Second Reading we heard a great deal about our manifesto and the Labour party’s commitment to House of Lords reform. The ’99 reforms were one of the most significant changes to our constitutional settlement that there had been for a very long time. It was not just about the expulsion of the hereditary peers, but the creation of the Lord Speaker and the removal of the Law Lords to sit in the Supreme Court. It was a package that came forward, over time, in a series of Bills to implement the commitment that we made at the ’97 election. That, for me, is the start of where we are today. We will put through the Bill that does the first part, bank that and then move on. I know that there is an appetite across the House for considerable House of Lords reform—that has been evident from Opposition speeches—but we need to bank what we have done and move forward.
I hope that today we shall pass the Bill through Committee unamended and on to Third Reading, so that it can make its way to the other place where, because of the commitment that I know the Minister will give in summing up later, the Salisbury convention will be engaged; that it can pass through the House of Lords quickly, without change; and that we can move on with the rest of the reform that we require.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
I rise to speak in support of new clauses 7 and 8, which stand in my name, and their associated consequential amendments. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell), simply because I think that much of what he said supports my amendments. Certainly some of the points he made, I shall be making also.
My Liberal Democrat colleagues and I are proud that it is our party that has for decades led the call for reform of the House of Lords with a democratic mandate. The Bill is a welcome step forward, and one that we support. However, we do believe that broader and bolder reform of our upper Chamber is needed, which is why I have tabled these two new clauses to extend the powers of this legislation. The new clauses would finally see the House of Lords with a democratic mandate and would ensure that the House of Lords Appointments Commission could never again be sidestepped and ignored by an unscrupulous Government.
Sir Julian Lewis
I welcome the hon. Lady’s point about strengthening the House of Lords Appointments Commission, but at the risk of broadening the debate a little too far, can she explain why it would be a sensible idea to have a second Chamber of elected parliamentarians? It would be rather like more than doubling the size of this House, but with Members in two separate places, possibly elected by different electoral systems and at different times. It is impossible to imagine more of a recipe for deadlock and conflict.
Sarah Olney
I very much look forward to having that debate in a future Session of this Parliament and on a future piece of legislation. That is why I tabled new clause 7—to call on the Government to make a commitment to future legislation, so that we in this House can debate and support broader and further reforms to ensure the democratic legitimacy of the House of Lords.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
Does the hon. Lady recall that, in fact, we have had that debate? We had it last in a proper sense in 2007, on Jack Straw’s proposals when, on the basis of the consensus that we are trying to establish here, consensus there was none, and the thing descended into complete chaos. Would she remember that, when making her proposals? If she thinks there will be consensus on this extremely difficult issue of an elected House of Lords, I am afraid she is in cloud cuckoo land.
Sarah Olney
Well, how polite of the right hon. Gentleman to say so. Obviously, I do not personally recall what happened in 2007. What we are trying to establish today are the steps that can be taken to reform the House of Lords. We very much support the step that we are debating today—that first step upon which, as the Minister said in her opening remarks, there is broad consensus. We want to see broader reform of the House of Lords and we want the Government to bring forward further proposals in due course. New clause 7 is about pushing them to produce those further proposals in a timely fashion, so that we can hold that debate in this Parliament and progress the cause of measures on which we can find consensus across the House.
Sir John Hayes
Given that the hon. Lady’s amendments are not likely to be passed, I assume that, on the grounds of logic and consistency, she will vote against Third Reading of the unamended Bill. As I said earlier, and she implicitly conceded, as it stands, the Bill does not make the House of Lords one ounce, one iota, one fraction more democratic.
Sarah Olney
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. We intend to support the Bill, because we want to see the abolition of the hereditary peers; that is very much part of what the Liberal Democrats want. However, we want to see more; we want to go further; we want to see broader reforms. I have to say to the right hon. Gentleman that I have heard not only an appetite from all sides to support the Bill—as the Minister said, there is broad consensus across the House for that—but a great zeal on the Tory Benches for further reform. I therefore do not understand why there would not be broad support for my new clause, which calls on the Government to enshrine in this Bill a commitment to go further, because that is clearly what so many Tory Members are saying they would like to see.
With so much trust in politics having been destroyed by the chaos of the previous Conservative Government, we must take this opportunity to underscore the integrity of Parliament, with transparency and democratic authority in our second Chamber. We are grateful to the Government for introducing this legislation so early in the Parliament. Fundamentally, the Liberal Democrats do not believe that there is space in a modern democracy for hereditary privilege.
New clause 7 would impose a duty on Ministers to take forward proposals to secure a democratic mandate for the House of Lords through introduction of directly elected Members. Around the world, trust in the institutions and levers of the democratic process have too often frayed over recent years. In our democracy, we must ensure that the vital link between the people and their institutions remains strong. A democratic mandate is central to that mission. Reform of our upper Chamber has been a long-standing Liberal Democrat policy. We must do all we can to restore public trust in politics after the chaos of the previous Conservative Government. By introducing a democratic mandate for Members of the House of Lords, we can ensure that trust in politics is strengthened.
The disregard with which the previous Conservative Government treated the public’s trust threatened to erode faith in our democracy. The Bill is an opportunity to underline our commitment to democratic values and to begin to rebuild that trust. The new clause would strengthen the democratic mandate of the second Chamber, and Liberal Democrats call on the Government to support it as well our calls for wider reform to modernise our electoral system.
We want to strengthen democratic rights and participation by scrapping the Conservative party’s voter ID scheme.
Sir Gavin Williamson
I am sure that there is a lot on which Members of all parties can agree. As the hon. Lady noted, I tabled a new clause that would remove the bishops. Will the Liberal Democrats support that? It is a policy that Liberal Democrats traditionally supported. Will they support it today if it comes to a vote?
Sarah Olney
I am happy to say that we support that ambition long term. However, I do not believe that the Bill is the correct vehicle for it. As the Minister said in her opening remarks, there is currently a widespread consensus on the Bill and tacking on new clause 1, which the right hon. Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson) tabled, would threaten its passage in the other place. I want the Bill to be passed as quickly as possible, so we will not support that new clause today.
We want to take big money out of politics by capping donations to political parties. We also want this new Labour Government to be bold in transferring more powers from Westminster and Whitehall. We believe that local authorities know best what their communities and towns need, and we want the Government to acknowledge that by boosting their authority and powers.
We continue to support the findings of the Burns report in 2017, which recommends cutting the House of Lords to 600 peers and outlines ways in which to ensure that that happens. Although the removal of hereditary Members is an important step in that process, we will continue to push the Government to make further reforms in future. In particular, we look to them to uphold their manifesto commitment to introducing a retirement age, a measure which would further aid the reduction and subsequent management of the size and membership of the upper House.
We want the second Chamber to have proper democratic legitimacy. Ultimately, we want to move towards replacing the House of Lords with an elected Chamber. We believe that moving to a fully democratic, elected Chamber is essential to strengthening the integrity of Parliament and the authority of our second Chamber. New clause 7 would enshrine a democratic mandate for our second Chamber in the Bill, thus strengthening the integrity of our Parliament.
New clause 8 would prevent a life peerage from being conferred on a person if the House of Lords Appointments Commission recommended against the appointment. We have consistently spoken out against the current system of prime ministerial appointments, which ingrains patronage, reinforces the elitism of British politics and contributes to so many people losing faith in our system.
We would like the Government to reassure us that they will not follow in the footsteps of the previous Conservative Government, who allowed the other House to balloon in size, and that they will do everything possible to prevent a culture of sleaze and cronyism from developing in their Administration, as we saw under the previous Conservative Government. As former Prime Minister Boris Johnson proved by becoming the first Prime Minister to ignore the advice of HOLAC, making deeply inappropriate appointments to the other House, it is far too easy for a culture of sleaze to develop in the heart of Government.
It is essential that we strengthen and improve public confidence in politics. I hope the Minister agrees that accepting this amendment would strengthen the integrity of any Government and prevent the kind of behaviour I have described from returning to Westminster. The new clause would ensure that recommendations made by the House of Lords Appointments Commission could no longer be bypassed by the Prime Minister, improving the integrity and democratic powers of our second Chamber.
I am glad that the Government have indicated that the Bill is a first step in reforming the other place, and that in their manifesto they committed to reforms such as changes to the appointment process. I am grateful to the Minister for the Cabinet Office for his recent commitment to consider improving the mechanisms for reviewing appointments to the other House and implementing safeguards to protect against cronyism. If the Minister and the Prime Minister are sufficiently convinced that they will never override HOLAC—which they should be—do they agree that enshrining that principle in law is a good thing?
New clause 8 would strengthen the powers of HOLAC and I urge the Minister to support it to remove the perception that the House of Lords will now be more subject to patronage. I also ask him to set out a timeline for introducing broader reforms, which would bring the appointment of peers more in line with those of other honours, such as knighthoods, which require an overview of the relevant skills, knowledge and experience of the candidate.
We are clearly living in a new era of politics. Political engagement is at an historic low. Voter participation in our recent general election was the lowest since 2001, with fewer than 60% of eligible voters casting their ballot. It is vital that we do all we can to restore public trust in Government.
It is also important that Parliament represents and reflects the diversity and richness of the people and cultures that make up our country. Currently, not a single hereditary peer is a woman. The privilege of hereditary peer membership exacerbates the distinct gender imbalance of the second Chamber. The Bill, which removes the last remaining hereditary peers’ membership of the other place, is a significant step in moving towards a more representative Parliament.
I hope we can all agree on the inappropriateness of hereditary status as a qualification for membership of a second Chamber in a modern parliamentary democracy, and that being the son, grandson or great grandson of a former courtier, colonial administrator, or 20th-century businessman is neither reason nor justification for a seat in a democratic Parliament.
My Liberal Democrat colleagues and I welcome the Bill and we are grateful to the Government, because in the legislation and subsequently we hope to see the most significant modernisation of the upper Chamber in a quarter of a century.
Mr Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
I am a proud, elected Member of this House. Like everyone in this place, I was sent here by my constituents to fulfil the greatest honour of my life for as long as the people of Leeds South West and Morley give me permission to do so.
I have heard Opposition Front Benchers say today that the Bill is based not on principle, but on political advantage. Serving in Westminster should never be an inalienable birthright. We can all get behind that basic principle. The very concept of hereditary peers remains indefensible in the 21st century. We are one of only two nations that currently has them. There should not be 92 seats in the other place reserved for people born into the right families. It is time to end that.
This Bill not only sets out our ambition to remove this archaic right, but shows our determination to make our democracy stronger and more representative. It is just the start of our commitment to reforming the other place and improving its ability to do what we were all sent here to do: serve the public. It is right that, after the immediate start on hereditary peers, the Government will take time to consider how best to implement further reforms, with the public and peers heavily involved in those discussions. Given the enthusiasm among Conservative Members for the changes that may be coming, I look forward to their leading the charge with us to reform the other place.
That said, there has been some confusion on the Conservative Benches about the Opposition’s position on the Bill. On Second Reading, I enjoyed the suggestions that we were going too far, as well as the suggestions that we were not going far enough. Conservative Members appear to want more debate on the broader changes that we suggest for the other place, but they spent their time in government blocking such changes for more than a decade. Zero progress was made.
Mr Sewards
I will happily give way to whichever Member is more enthusiastic.
Nick Timothy
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and to my right hon. Friend. The hon. Gentleman has presented an argument that is based on the principle that hereditary peerages are wrong. Will he give us a clear, principled argument in favour of life peerages? Why does he believe that that is acceptable when those peers can legislate for a lifetime—for decades—with no accountability at all?
Mr Sewards
I emphasise that hereditary peers are in the House of Lords because they are born into a particular family. That cannot be right. Life peers are there because they are appointed, usually because of expertise that they can offer in scrutinising legislation. I therefore suggest that life peers definitely have the advantage over hereditary peers simply because they are not there through the family they were born into.
Sir Gavin Williamson
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his generosity in giving way. He makes a persuasive and strong argument. What right does he think the Bishop of Winchester has to vote on matters relating to his constituents in Leeds South West and Morley, or to mine in Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge? What gives that bishop the right to be a legislator? What is the argument?
Mr Sewards
I have read the right hon. Gentleman’s amendment and understand his arguments, but the changes that we are proposing today are quite simply a down payment on the broader changes we will be bringing to the other place. And when we bring those other changes forward, I look forward to marching side by side with him through the Aye Lobby.
I gently suggest that many of the problems in our country today have been made significantly worse because the Conservative party has often prioritised keeping its factions happy ahead of any coherent policy making for our country. We have seen a microcosm of that today, and we saw it on Second Reading. It appears from most of the amendments submitted in Committee that the Conservatives do not have a problem with the substance of the change that we are offering, so I look forward to seeing many of them march through the Aye Lobby with us.
The other place plays an incredibly important role in our democracy. Its Members both scrutinise and improve legislation passed in this place, which has been very welcome—depending on who we ask—over many years. But the change we are considering today is very simple and is necessary to fulfil the promise we made at the general election: that we would end the outdated practice of hereditary peers.
I may not look it, but I am old enough to remember the last Labour Government. They started the process of reforming the other place, and it was clear then, as it is now, that it was a transitional compromise. It may have taken a while, but it falls on this Government to see through the work they started. This is an incredibly simple and effective change to the other place and I urge all Members of this House to support it.
Sir Gavin Williamson
I appreciate having had the opportunity to table a number of amendments to the Bill, very much in the hope of improving it and ensuring that we get it into the best possible place to deliver change—change that will ensure that the laws going through Parliament are scrutinised better and more democratically.
I appreciate that in politics there is a certain amount of robustness, a certain amount of argument, a certain amount of the “Punch and Judy politics” at which we all despair. We should be looking to do more and to do better. There are a number of things that the Labour party set out in its manifesto that I think command broad public support, and there are a number of things that it did not spell out in its manifesto that it is implementing and that most certainly do not command support. What does command broad public support is some of the changes Labour set out for the House of Lords. That is why I have tabled new clauses 3 and 4. I firmly believe that there is strong support for the introduction of a minimum contribution requirement in the House of Lords.
Freddie van Mierlo
Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that new clause 4 does not take into account illness or maternity and paternity leave, and that perhaps eight weeks is a little too brief?
Sir Gavin Williamson
New clause 4 clearly sets out an intention to deliver on what Labour’s manifesto wished to introduce, and I would be happy to work with Government Ministers and the Liberal Democrats spokesman to ensure that we get this legislation into the best possible shape.
Some of the attendance records in the upper House leave me a little shocked. In the 2019-24 Parliament, of the 966 Members eligible to attend at least some of the last Parliament, 28 did not attend at all—did not even bother to turn up—and 116 attended on less than 10% of the sitting days, which is not particularly active. I quite understand why Labour Front Benchers, when in opposition, alighted on that and felt that it needed to be included in their manifesto. That is why I tabled new clause 4. I firmly believe that there is support for it not only on the Labour Benches—Labour Members stood on their manifesto, so presumably they support that proposal—but on the Opposition Benches. During that same period, 158 Members of the upper House voted in less than 10% of the Divisions they were eligible to vote in.
Sir Julian Lewis
I hate to strike a discordant note with my right hon. Friend as he and I have fought shoulder to shoulder in many battles, but is it not an illustration of the Pandora’s box one might be opening to consider what the situation would be if all these people turned up at the same time? I doubt very much that the upper Chamber would be capable of handling it, which then leads us to the question of how to reduce the numbers to a manageable proportion. So my right hon. Friend is getting into difficult waters with all of this; he had better be careful what he wishes for in getting all these people to converge on the House of Lords at once.
Sir Gavin Williamson
My right hon. Friend and I agree on so many things, but perhaps I am just wanting to see this change happen. By adding new clause 4—introducing Labour’s manifesto commitment as part of this Bill—we can significantly reduce the size of the upper House and avoid the kind of intimate crush that he sets out.
Gareth Snell
I do not wish to pause the right hon. Gentleman while he is in the middle of his intimate crush, but as someone who is always a fan of a clause IV, I understand what he is trying to achieve with this new clause 4. However, I would put to him one point. Under new clause 4(2), participation in a Division would in itself not be the only thing required; a Member could simply turn up, be seen and take their seat, and they would not have to take part in a Division or contribute. So his new clause would not achieve what he is seeking. He will undoubtedly bring this measure back in a future Bill, so will he consider retrospective application? One of my worries is that a number of Members of the other House have not turned up for many weeks or months, and in fact there are some who over the last two and a half years have an attendance rate of less than 5%, so would it not be wrong for them simply to turn up now, get their tick and then wait eight weeks? If we were to say, “Let’s retrospectively apply this from today,” the right hon. Gentleman would have a huge clear-out of those who have not made any contributions so far, and given that they have not turned up so far, they would not be missing much.
Sir Gavin Williamson
I am getting excited that the hon. Member is discovering a little radicalism, because I always felt I was in his heart, but perhaps the eyes of the Whips have squeezed it out of him of late. The hon. Gentleman makes a very thoughtful and interesting point, and I would very much like to work on a cross-party basis to get the legislation into the best possible shape.
On minimum contributions, a number of peers in the upper House have continuously failed to make a significant contribution. There are routes for them to be able to exit out of the upper House, but they have chosen not to do so. That causes real problems and real challenges for the upper House, and new clause 4 would offer a way to tackle them.
Dr Murrison
I think I will agree with what my right hon. Friend will come on to suggest, but are we being a little unfair on their lordships, since clearly a lot of them did not get the memo that says, “You have been appointed to this high honour, and you will turn up and do some meaningful work”? Some of them think they are simply at the apex of the UK honours system. Is not the fundamental issue that we have failed to separate the honours system and doing a piece of work in our Parliament?
Sir Gavin Williamson
My right hon. Friend is spot on. There has sometimes been that confusion, and new clause 4, or anything that the Government would look to bring forward—as backed up by their manifesto and popular support for such a move—would mean that we could get the upper House working much better.
The introduction of a mandatory retirement age is another thoughtful and, dare I say it, far-reaching policy that was in Labour’s manifesto. I pay tribute to the Paymaster General. We all know he is one of the finest authors in this House, and his publications are still available on Amazon, although they are not quite as sought after as those of the former right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip. I am sure that the volume on the Prime Minister that will no doubt be coming forward will be a real hot seller, but the Paymaster General is a great author and he came up with the mandatory retirement age, I imagine, and it is a good policy. It is certainly worth including in this legislation that he is bringing forward.
It is not onerous in adding too much to the Bill, and it would have a significant impact in reducing the size of the House of Lords. We know that the House of Lords is the largest legislative chamber outside of the People’s Republic of China. The simple act of introducing a mandatory retirement age, which was a key part of the Labour party’s manifesto, would considerably reduce the number of life peers. It would also have a significant impact on reducing the cost of the House of Lords.
Sir Edward Leigh
I am sorry to declare an interest, but why is my right hon. Friend so ageist? Some people are wonderful at the age of 80, and others are useless at the age 50.
Sir Gavin Williamson
My right hon. Friend makes a powerful point. We have to respect the fact that Labour achieved a majority at the last general election. It had a manifesto to enact change—I think that was the phrase. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] This is an opportunity to do it, but the Government seem frightened. I would hate to make the suggestion that deals were done with previous Members of this House who were meant to be sent up to the other House, and that the Government would not introduce this change because it would lead to those people’s automatic exclusion or suchlike. I certainly would not want to imply that, but we need to see this change.
New clause 3 would enable the Government to deliver on their manifesto commitment, and that is important, because there has sometimes been talk about the breakdown in trust in politics. There has sometimes been talk that we need to build confidence in politics. The best way of building confidence in politics is to set out our manifestos, and one party wins, one party loses and then the winner delivers on that manifesto. This is a great opportunity to do that.
I appreciate that both the Paymaster General and his hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham West and East Dulwich (Ellie Reeves) have set out to Members that future legislation is coming. I personally think that is a slightly optimistic view, and I have sat on parliamentary business and legislation Committees in the past, so I understand the pressures on the legislative timetable. If the Paymaster General is under the illusion that he will be getting waves of new Bills going forward, he will end up at the end of his ministerial career slightly disappointed, because that eventuality simply will not happen.
Finally, I will turn to new clauses 1 and 2, which I accept were not in the Labour’s manifesto.
Melanie Ward (Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
It is great to hear the right hon. Gentleman speak of the Labour party’s manifesto at the last election and about how important it is that we can get through our programme for government, having been elected with such a resounding win. Does his support extend to other areas in our manifesto, such as the Employment Rights Bill? Will he also support that?
Sir Gavin Williamson
There are many areas of the Labour party manifesto that I would agree with, and there are many that I disagree with, but the hon. Lady is in the fortunate position of having a great deal more power than any Member on the Opposition Benches. She can bring influence to bear on those on her Front Bench, and I urge her to do so. There is an ability within this Bill to deliver on a number of the commitments that she made to her electorate and that the Prime Minister made to electors across the country. I encourage the hon. Lady to use her position of influence and power to encourage Government Front Benchers to deliver what she was elected to deliver. There will always be areas of agreement on both sides of the House, and there will occasionally be areas of discord where I cannot always agree with my Front Bench team, but there is an opportunity to deliver what the Labour party promised.
Gareth Snell
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for being so generous and gracious with his time. He rightly points out that his new clauses 1 and 2 are not Labour party manifesto commitments, so he will understand why they could cause the Bill to become unstuck when the Salisbury convention is applied at the other end, as the Minister will confirm later. Has he used his position of power and influence to confirm that Conservative Members in the upper House, with their plurality and majority in most votes, will support new clauses 3 and 4, so that the Bill can still make its passage and deliver the one thing on which we have consensus?
Sir Gavin Williamson
The hon. Gentleman flatters me by suggesting that I have any power. Once, as Chief Whip, I could have had a gentle nudge on the tiller to make things happen, but sadly the only army I can now bring to bear is me. I will happily do what I can on these important new clauses, and I will walk side-by-side with the Paymaster General, through the Lobby to deliver for his party on its manifesto commitment, but I am afraid that is the only commitment I can make, because I would not wish to over-promise.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way in his entertaining speech. He makes several references to our manifesto, but I would like to make some references to the Conservative party’s manifesto—
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Judith Cummins)
Order. I hope the hon. Member’s intervention is on the House of Lords and within the scope of the Bill.
John Slinger
It is related to references to reform of the House of Lords. There are no references to reform of the House of Lords in the Conservative party’s manifesto. There is one reference to peers but not to peers in the other place, and there are a few references to the constitution but not to our unwritten constitution. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House why he is now so fascinated by these measures?
Sir Gavin Williamson
I thank the hon. Gentleman for making a point, and I hope that his Whips have noted the support that he was trying to offer. I bring his attention to 2012, when there was an attempt at a major body of reform of the House of Lords. That was something that I was going to vote for; I wanted to see that reform in 2012 as I wish to see that reform in 2024. This may shock him and start to undermine his faith that he joined a party with radical traditions or a wish to deliver reform or change: it was the Labour party—his party—that voted that attempt down and made sure that it could not proceed.
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
The right hon. Member mentioned the 2012 Bill. Will he enlighten us as to how his party voted on that?
Sir Gavin Williamson
I am more than happy to do so. More Conservative Members voted in favour of that legislation, and it collapsed not through lack of support on Conservative Benches or Liberal Democrat Benches but because Her Majesty’s official Opposition at that time were going to vote against it, which meant that the numbers were not going to stack up. The decision by the Labour party and its leadership to collapse that piece of legislation meant that a significant body of reform did not happen.
I turn to the Labour party manifesto. Perhaps the hon. Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) has had a glance at this, but possibly not. It says on page 108 that Labour would introduce
“legislation to remove the right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords. Labour will also introduce a mandatory retirement age. At the end of the Parliament in which a member reaches 80 years of age, they will be required to retire from the House of Lords.”
The subsequent paragraph says:
“Labour will ensure all peers meet the high standards the public expect of them, and…will introduce a new participation requirement as well as strengthening the circumstances in which disgraced members can be removed.”
Those are perfectly sound points of policy, which the party stood on at the last general election, but now it chooses to ignore them.
Sir Gavin Williamson
I appreciate that Labour Members wish to earn brownie points, and I will let another earn his brownie points and edge that little bit closer to the allure of a junior parliamentary private secretaryship.
Josh Fenton-Glynn
Will the right hon. Member remind me how long a parliamentary term is and therefore how long we have to implement our manifesto?
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means
Order. I remind Members that they should be in for the duration of the debate, or make an effort to be in for a considerable duration, before making interventions.
Sir Gavin Williamson
Thank you for your firm chairmanship of this debate, Madam Chairman. The hon. Member made a strong and powerful intervention, which I hope is noted down. I can see him being the Parliamentary Private Secretary for the junior Minister in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs very soon. I am not sure if my commendation and support helps him in his endeavours, but I hope that it does. Of course, the hon. Member makes a thoughtful and interesting point. The Government do have time to introduce further legislation, but the reality is that pressure on time in this place is one of the greatest pressures—time is the most precious thing. I certainly would not engage in any form of political betting—I hope that can be recorded in Hansard—but if, perhaps in a previous age, I were a betting man, I might have offered this wager to the Paymaster General. I would wager a whole £5 that the Paymaster General will not be in a situation of getting any more legislation on Lords reform. I will give way to the Paymaster General, who is going to refute that.
The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Nick Thomas-Symonds)
I certainly would not enter into a wager. I would have hoped that the Conservative party would have learned its lesson on that.
Sir Gavin Williamson
I had hoped that the Paymaster General would have given a categorical assurance that there would be further legislation and that in the next King’s Speech a retirement age in the House of Lords will be introduced as part of that legislation, along with a minimum participation level, but he stayed silent. He made a little quip. I will give him another opportunity to do so, although he will probably stay in his place, which is of course his right.
Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
I do not know where the naive assumption or belief on the Labour Benches that there will be further Lords reform comes from. There will not be any more. I was here during the ’90s when Labour attempted to bring in Lords reform and gave up immediately, with no intention of ever bringing that back. This is it—this is all we are going to get—and unless we make this a good Bill, this is all we will get in this Parliament.
Sir Gavin Williamson
I thank the hon. Gentleman for making an incredibly powerful point. He is absolutely right. He is a veteran of these arguments and knows how it will go because we have seen it before. This is the moment. There is not going to be another one—this is it.
I turn to new clauses 1 and 2, which are the most important of the ones that I have tabled. It is fundamentally unfair that we still have a situation where a bloc of clerics have a right and a say over our legislation—over how my constituents live. I cannot see how in today’s world that can be justified. We have not seen arguments come forward as to why these 26 bishops should be defended.
Sir Gavin Williamson
I will give way in a moment.
As an Anglican, I cannot see why I have a right to greater representation than my children, who are Catholics. I am often told, “The bishops have been there since the Reformation.” Well, lots of things were happening around the Reformation that I am not that keen to see happening today. I appreciate that the Paymaster General may have a different view on that and may want to revive some of those age-old traditions, but I do not. This is an opportunity not to jeopardise the Bill but to improve it. I recognise that the proposal was not in the Labour party manifesto, but I ask Members across the House to consider whether, in all conscience, they should vote for this anomaly to continue to exist. From my perspective, this is an issue of conscience, and of what we think and feel is right.
Those 26 bishops do not come from every component part of the United Kingdom—they do not come from Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland, but only from England. The composition of those bishops is probably not reflective of today’s world. I feel it is fundamentally wrong that, because of the statute of 1847, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Archbishop of York, the Bishop of London, the Bishop of Durham and the Bishop of Winchester have a right to legislate on my constituents. I believe that they have an absolute right to influence the course of public debate, but from the pulpit, not in Parliament.
Sir John Hayes
My right hon. Friend allows me, on that basis, to give him a short lecture on the character of conservatism. He needs to understand that the collective wisdom of ages, vested in great institutions like the monarchy—which, by the way, is hereditary—the Church, this Parliament and the small institutions that Burke called the “little platoons”, transmitted in age-old form is always more important than the fads and fashions of any one generation at any point in time. If he understood that, he would understand why he is a Conservative.
Sir Gavin Williamson
I always have felt that my right hon. Friend was all the collective historical, accumulated wisdom that we could ever possibly want. I have always believed that the greatest strength of conservatism can be the ability to reform and to have a radical approach to change our country and the world in the shape that we wish it to be.
Dr Murrison
I am very much warming to what my right hon. Friend has to say. He rightly speaks of the Reformation, but will he recall that, broadly speaking, there were two reformations in this country? There was the English Reformation and the Scottish Reformation. We never have any discussion about the place of the other established Church, the Scottish Church, in our constitutional arrangements. That seems to be a quirk of history. I am not for one moment suggesting that Moderator of the Church of Scotland should sit in the other place, but it underscores and highlights the issue that my right hon. Friend has raised about the position of the English bishops.
Sir Gavin Williamson
My right hon. Friend is absolutely correct. The position of the Lords Spiritual throws up more questions than it answers, and that is why I deeply urge those on the Treasury Bench to look at my amendment and to ask whether they can make their legislation better. Can they be the Government that I think they wish to be, in order to deliver that change?
Freddie van Mierlo
I certainly share much of the right hon. Gentleman’s zeal on the removal of the Bishops from the Lords. Does he share my concerns about the privileged speaking and seating positions that they have in the Lords?
Sir Gavin Williamson
I do, and if we have the opportunity to divide on my amendment, I am looking forward to the hon. Gentleman joining me in the Lobby. We can sort that problem out with this piece of legislation by voting to get rid of them, and therefore there will be no privileged seating arrangements, and a little bit more space for the wife of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell), the husband of the hon. Member for Lewisham West and East Dulwich (Ellie Reeves) and all other peers on the Government Benches, as that is where I think they sit.
I can go through all the arguments on the presence of Bishops in Parliament. Only one other sovereign country has clerics in its parliamentary body, which is Iran. I do not think that is necessarily the best model for us to base ourselves on. This piece of legislation gives us the opportunity to have a more reflective parliamentary body. Across Europe, many countries have a strong faith, where religion plays an incredibly important part in national debate and national discourse. But none of those countries, whether France, Germany, Italy, Spain or Portugal, feel the need to have that assured clerical block of Bishops in their legislature.
Less than 2% of the British population attend Anglican services on a Sunday. By taking this action to remove the bishops, we recognise that Britain is a changed country. Britain is very different today from how it was in 1999. If we look forward to when Lords reform legislation next comes forward, probably in another 20 years, Britain will be changed again. Let us use this opportunity to ensure the upper House is more reflective of our nation.
The reality is that the Lords Spiritual do not take part in many Divisions—14%. If the Labour party introduces participation requirements, it would probably mean the exclusion of a number of bishops. Data has shown that the support for having bishops in the House of Lords is incredibly low. Indeed, even in the Anglican Church support for having bishops in the House of Lords is incredibly low. Some 60% of priests back reform to the bishop’s Bench. Going back to the 2012 legislation, there were proposals to shrink the bishop’s Bench from its current 26 to 12. Yet the Labour party has shied away from all attempts to do even the most modest reform.
There are no credible examples of where it is reasonable to have bishops legislating on our constituents. The only argument from the Labour party seems to be that this is a simple Bill. Well, this is a simple amendment. It is not right that so many of our constituents who do not have an Anglican faith are legislated on by Anglican bishops. We have to make these changes and we have to seize the opportunity, because this will be the last and only opportunity to make them while this Government are in power.
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Madam Chair.
I would like to speak in support of the Bill, which I believe is long overdue. I thank the Minister for her contribution and welcome in particular her warm words on the importance of the Bill as a clear manifesto commitment to reform how the other place functions as “an immediate modernisation”. Since the groundbreaking House of Lords Act 1999 was passed by a Labour Government, there has been no substantive reform to the hereditaries in the other place despite an obvious public appetite to do so. Indeed, a study conducted by University College London’s constitution unit found that only 6% of respondents supported the current system.
Before having the enormous privilege of representing the people of Bolton West, I spent over a decade tackling bribery and corruption. Time and again, I have seen how trust is developed only when those responsible for decision making are truly held accountable. I will focus on the word accountability, which is gravely lacking with the remaining hereditaries. Over the course of my working career, it has become clear that the UK has an important role to play on the global stage as a world leader on political integrity, but this country’s reputation as a well-governed and, frankly, clean jurisdiction has been degraded over recent years. Countries that previously welcomed our counsel with open arms now look on it with scorn. That is why this long-overdue reform matters to me and why I passionately support the Government on the Bill.
I am sure there are some hereditary peers who undertake hard work and I have no doubt that many have a genuine commitment to public service, but the concept of hereditary peerages, hereditary privilege and being able to legislate for life merely by dint of birth belongs in the same breath as second jobs, lobbying scandals and the revolving door. It is an anachronism that needs to go. Contrary to the protestations from Conservative Members, the Bill is not about spite. Rather, it is about improving trust and accountability in our politics. The public expect high standards from our legislature, but the simple fact is that too many hereditary peers do not play a proper role in our democracy. We made that point in the Labour manifesto earlier this year, which Opposition Members will no doubt note resulted in a resounding mandate across the country to deliver change.
Sir John Hayes
The facts do not bear out what the hon. Gentleman has said. If he looks at the record, he will see that hereditary peers tend, proportionally, to speak more often in debates, they tend to be more involved in tabling amendments, and more of them tend to be Whips. They are more active, in proportional terms, than the appointees—who also, by the way, lack democratic legitimacy.
Phil Brickell
I thank the right hon. Member for his contribution, but he will note that I did not mention activity or participation in the other House. I mentioned democracy and democratic accountability, which hereditary peers do not have.
Phil Brickell
We will come on to life peers shortly.
This is an important change that was in our manifesto. As you will recognise, Madam Chair, it is important because we need equality of representation, which is vital if we are to retain confidence in the way in which both this House and the other place operate. It is 66 years since women were allowed to sit in the other place, but there are currently no women among the hereditary peers there, and I for one am embarrassed by that. It is a disgrace. As a member from the north-west, I should add that it has not escaped my attention, or that of my constituents, that individuals from my part of this great nation are under-represented in the other place—especially, again, among the hereditary peers.
According to the Electoral Reform Society, 35% of hereditary peers live in London and the south-east. I do not accept that a hereditary peer who is the son of a duke, an earl, a viscount or a marquess is any better prepared to scrutinise education than the daughter of a plumber or the son of a nurse.
Sir Gavin Williamson
The hon. Gentleman is making an incredibly powerful speech, and one of great merit. Does he believe it is right for English bishops, and only English bishops, to be able to vote on Scottish affairs and rule the roost over Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland? I think that that point is very much akin to his own argument.
Phil Brickell
I admire the right hon. Member’s penchant for House of Lords reform, but I will come to these points later, if I may.
The consequences of not acting are no less than existential when it comes to trust in our politics, in this place and in the other House. Trust in politics is at an all-time low, which is a legacy of 14 years of cronyism and corruption from the party opposite. Indeed, polling conducted by the UK Anti-Corruption Coalition earlier this year—[Interruption.] I think that if the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy) listens to what I have to say, he will reflect on it. Two thirds of respondents—two thirds—felt the UK was getting more corrupt, and in 2023 only 12% of respondents told the Office for National Statistics that they trusted political parties. It all adds up. Turnout in July was 60%, the second lowest in a UK election since 1885. At a time when autocratic hostile states seek to undermine us at every turn, democratic engagement has rarely been so important.
I believe that that this Bill is a small but important step towards restoring that trust, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister promised we would do during the election campaign. The Committee will also note what I very much hope are the impending appointments of an ethics and integrity commissioner, an anti-corruption champion and a covid corruption commissioner. Those are all vital measures, alongside the Bill, to improve standards and increase accountability. I urge the Government to confirm those appointments as soon as possible. They are further steps towards showing the country that it is vital to regain trust in politics as a means of improving lives for all.
Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)
The point about trust in politics is valid, and the hon. Member’s statistics showing a deterioration in that trust over the last couple of decades are probably something for all of us in this Chamber to reflect on, notably the politicians who are newest to the House. I am not sure how hereditary peers, who have been serving for decades, since the time when trust in politics was far higher, are to blame for the modern lack of trust. That is more for those in this House to consider, especially newer Members, rather than people who have given lifelong and diligent service in the other place.
Phil Brickell
I thank the hon. Member for his contribution. Hereditary peers are there by dint of birth, not by dint of their service or contribution to public life. He talks about decades of service, which may accrue over a period of time, but that is merely by dint of birth. We will shortly come to appointments to the other place, which touches on the point about accountability and trust.
I want to talk about the various amendments tabled by the right hon. Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson). As colleagues have said, it is a great shame that he did not discover that he had such a penchant for reform and modernisation during his 14 years as a Member of the governing party.
Sir Gavin Williamson
I point out to the hon. Gentleman that I voted for House of Lords reform in 2012. I hope that he will take the opportunity to withdraw his comment, given that in 2012 his own Front Benchers voted against reform or indicated that they would do so.
Phil Brickell
Unless I am mistaken, the previous debate on this Bill was the first time that the right hon. Member mentioned House of Lords reform in this place.
The hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) and the right hon. Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge have correctly noted that our manifesto included many of the amendments that the Conservative party is attempting to push through today. I look forward to working with our Front Benchers on further modernising commitments that were enshrined in our manifesto, which I can assure Conservative Members I have read. Those commitments include changes to the appointments process to improve the national and regional balance of the second Chamber, a mandatory retirement age, a
“long-term commitment to replace the House of Lords with an alternative second Chamber that is more representative of the regions and nations”,
and a participation requirement. However, I am sure that Conservative Members agree that anything as knotty, unwieldy and fundamental as constitutional reform will inevitably have to be incremental. Doing too much too soon may cause damage.
I note that the Conservative party took that logic to its extreme over the last 14 years by bringing forward no substantive reform whatsoever. There was no mention of Lords modernisation in the Conservative party manifesto, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (John Slinger) mentioned. The meagre changes made under previous Conservative Administrations comprised nothing more than tinkering around the edges at a time when the other place needed to be urgently dragged into the 21st century.
I will not support the amendments. If Members present are genuinely committed to modernising how our democracy works, I look forward to constructive engagement with the Government and the Opposition throughout the course of this Parliament. I commend the actions taken so far by the Government and will support further measures over time to modernise how the other place works. A mature democracy such as ours—centred around the mother of Parliaments, no less—simply cannot continue with an unelected, hereditary upper House.
We heard earlier from the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar, who talked about, in his words, gerrymandering. Let us talk about gerrymandering. Let me recall one statistic that is worth reminding the House about: for every one and a half days that former Conservative Prime Minister Liz Truss was in power, she created a life peer—a total of 32 during the course of her 49-day premiership. Much like the hereditary peers, those new legislators will have a seat in the House of Lords for life. How can that be right? Indeed, it is clear to me that the House of Lords Appointments Commission does not present a particularly high bar for appointments. Once the immediate first step is completed, a number of ambitious steps must be taken to deliver genuine, lasting reform of the way we do politics in this country.
In summary, this Bill will help to wrench our political system kicking and screaming into the 21st century. The Conservatives, including the right hon. Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge, sat on their hands for the last 14 years. We have been in government for four months, and we are already delivering. I look forward to voting for the Bill tonight.
Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
I rise to speak in support of new clauses 9 to 14, which stand in my name, and all the associated amendments, but I will also support any amendment that would reduce the size of the House of Lords and limit its authority in our legislature, as long as it remains a wholly democratic institution.
I am quite a simple soul. I am just someone who intrinsically believes that if you represent the people, you should be voted for by the people. I believe that if you are to legislate, it requires consent through some sort of electoral mandate from a group of people who vote for you to go into a legislature to represent them and who allow you to make the laws of the land. That is a simple belief and I think it is generally supported by the majority of the British people. Certainly the latest opinion polls on the House of Lords show that only about one in seven people in the UK think that the House of Lords in its current condition is worth supporting. A vast majority want a fully elected House of Lords, and that is what Labour promised. That is what they said they would deliver. That is what they commissioned Gordon Brown to do, and he came back with a report that said he would do it. And, of course, it has not happened.
I am touched by Labour Members’ naive faith that there will be more than this Bill. It is quite touching that they actually believe that a succession of pieces of legislation is going to come through that will incrementally deal with all the issues of the House of Lords. I am sorry to break to it to them, but that is not going to happen.
Richard Baker (Glenrothes and Mid Fife) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman’s party has long talks about constitutional change in this country, but it is our party that delivered devolution in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, as well as a Mayor for London and the London Assembly. His party has only talked about it. Is that not the reality of our party delivering on constitutional change?
Pete Wishart
Yes, of course we are delighted that we have the Scottish Parliament. I congratulate and thank the Labour Government for delivering that, and they were right, but they have never delivered anything when it comes to the House of Lords except the reforms of 1999. That is the only thing that they have brought forward, other than this pathetic, minuscule Bill that does something that should have been done centuries ago. We are supposed to congratulate them and thank them for getting rid of the most ridiculous class of parliamentarians anywhere in the world: the hereditary peers of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. It is absurd. Well done for finally getting rid of the barons, the dukes, the earls and all the other assorted aristocrats! That should have been done centuries ago.
The commitment that I am waiting for from Labour is the commitment that it gave over a century ago. Do Labour Members know what that was? They do not know what it was, so I will tell them. A Labour party commitment from over 100 years ago—I cannot remember the exact year—said that it would abolish the House of Lords. That is a historic commitment by the Labour party that it has not even come close to realising, but it is now—thank you, Labour party!—getting rid of the earls, the dukes, the barons and the graces, so I suppose we have to be thankful for that.
Sir Gavin Williamson
I would be interested to hear the hon. Gentleman’s assessment of how that radical reform from 100 years ago is going. I appreciate that he may not have studied the Labour manifesto—many Labour Members have not done so either—but it states that Labour aims to make a
“second chamber that is more representative of the regions and nations.”
I wonder whether he could share his thoughts on how that is going, and whether he thinks that Mrs Gray will be able to contribute to that in a significant manner.
Pete Wishart
Let’s just say that the progress has not been all that was anticipated or all that we hoped for. We could say that progress has been practically non-existent. We also had the crushing news today that our British envoy to Scotland will no longer be going there to represent this Parliament as part of her duties in the nations and regions. I can tell the House that the nation of Scotland is almost inconsolable about the fact that our envoy will no longer be going to Scotland. We were planning the street parties and practising the haka, just to make sure that she would be properly welcomed to our northern territories, but she is no longer going to be there.
Torcuil Crichton (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Lab)
Although the hon. Gentleman wants to get rid of the hereditaries, his party seems to want to create a hereditary system by allowing the right hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn) to stand for the Scottish Parliament.
Pete Wishart
I gently break it to the hon. Gentleman that no SNP Member will ever end up in an undemocratic outrage like that place down the corridor. I do not know how many Scottish Labour Members will be in Parliament for 20 or 30 years, but about 15 of the last generation of Scottish Labour Members are now in the House of Lords. This conveyor belt that rewards a distinguished career in the House of Commons with a place in the House of Lords is one of the things I want to address with my amendments.
I had hoped to table an amendment to try to realise Labour’s historical ambition to abolish the House of Lords. Thanks to the good work of the Clerks, I knew that I was highly unlikely to secure such an amendment, and that is probably right, so I thought I would be creative and try to abolish its membership. I therefore drafted a series of amendments to try to get rid of all the distinct groups and classes of Members of the House of Lords. Again, I thought I would be singularly unsuccessful in that mission and endeavour, but I have three amendments on the amendment paper.
Those amendments are crackers, believe me, but I look forward to speaking about them. They would abolish the prime ministerial donors, appointees and cronies who fill the other place, and they would abolish the idea that former Members of Parliament can assume they will get a place in the House of Lords. I am really pleased with myself.
Melanie Ward
It is a pity to interrupt the hon. Gentleman when he is in such a state of excitement about his work, but it is difficult to take a lecture from him on delivery when this Labour Government have delivered so much in just a few short days. He may want to talk to his colleagues in the Scottish Government about their delivery on, for example, the state of the health service in Scotland.
What is the hon. Gentleman’s stance on the multiple occasions in recent years when senior figures in his party have approached friendly peers to table amendments to legislation on their behalf? It seems that those senior figures are quite happy to use the other place when it suits them.
Pete Wishart
There is a point of principle behind our position on the House of Lords, and it is a simple word: democracy. We refuse to have anybody in the House of Lords because we believe that people should have an electoral mandate—democratic backing from the people of this country—to serve in the legislature. That is something on which the hon. Lady and I will never agree. I believe she is quite happy and satisfied that unelected peers continue to inhabit the other place.
My party is hopeful that the House of Lords might sometimes challenge Governments, and perhaps make them think again, but it always backs down. Any attempt to get the House of Lords to agree to any sort of principle is a waste of time.
Gareth Snell
The hon. Gentleman is clearly very pleased with himself and his amendments. The only seat as secure as a seat in the House of Lords is a seat at the top of a regional list for proportional representation. He has tabled a well-meaning amendment to prohibit any Member who has served in this Parliament or the last from seeking a seat in the House of Lords. Would he apply that to his own party, so that any Member who has served in this Parliament or the last is not eligible to seek nomination or election to the Scottish Parliament?
Pete Wishart
I say to the hon. Gentleman, ever so gently, that he should leave bypassing devolution to his friends from Scottish Labour, because they are just a little bit better at it than him. It is their job to constantly speak about the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government. To be fair to them, they have done a fantastic job—they barely even mention the UK Government. Every single contribution they make is about the Scottish Government, so maybe just leave it to them, shall we?
Several hon. Members rose—
Pete Wishart
What is wrong with that? Maybe the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) will tell me, but first I give way to the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter).
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
Is the reason the hon. Gentleman’s amendment refers only to the first three UK establishment parties so that it does not affect his own party, now that it has fallen to being the fourth largest party in this place?
Pete Wishart
We do not put people in the House of Lords. If people want to give us a million pounds, they can—please, if anyone is watching on TV, we could do with a million pounds. Sorry to disappoint anybody thinking about doing that, because we cannot give them a place in the House of Lords. I will give way one last time to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central, who I have given way to once already.
Gareth Snell
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way again. I agree with him about the necessity for probity, ethics and transparency in politics, and I also enjoy his righteous speeches in this place. Obviously, he is a moral guiding compass for us all, so will he now make a clear and unambiguous declaration that not a single person who has ever donated to the Scottish National party or served as a Scottish National party Member of Parliament has ever been given a position in a publicly funded quango, or a publicly funded seat on a board, or been in receipt of any publicly funded donation? Obviously, I want to ensure that we aspire to the bar that the hon. Gentleman sets.
Pete Wishart
What I can say categorically to the hon. Gentleman is that there is nobody who has given one single penny to the Scottish National party— [Interruption.] Again, I appeal to people watching, if they want to give us money, please do so, but one thing we can never do—we never have and never will—is, in return, offer a place in our legislature or the ability to govern in this country. We do not do that, we cannot do that and we will never, ever do that.
Let me point to the scale of the difficulty of the problem when it comes to the donors. Some 68 out of 284 nominations from political parties between 2013 and 2023 were for political donors who had handed over £58 million to one of the three main parties. Over the course of that decade, some 12 of them gave £1 million. Now that might sound familiar to some Labour Members—£1 million is what people used to give to the Labour party under Tony Blair in the early 2000s to get a place in the House of Lords. Come on! Where is inflation when it comes to this? We would expect it to cost £1.5 million to get a place in the House of Lords now, but the going rate is seemingly still about £1 million.
Cash for honours was a disaster for Labour. It was absolutely awful. We saw the spectacle of a sitting Prime Minister being interviewed by the police about the donations that were being given to the Labour party. Those donations were interpreted as inducements to secure a place in the House of Lords. The Prime Minister was interviewed under caution and two of his personal staff were arrested. After that experience, we would be right to expect some sort of clarity in their thinking to take place. They could have decided never to get into that type of territory again—that they would do everything possible to ensure that money was taken out of politics, so that there would never be a whiff of suspicion that such a thing would happen again. But not a bit of it. Donors still go into the House of Lords, money still goes into the political party, and the public want it stopped.
Sir John Hayes
I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I intervened merely to say this: many people might assume that he is being foolish for raising issues of financial shenanigans, mismanagement, concealing money, bribes and so on, but I think that he is just being brave. Just as a matter of record, I want it to be known by the whole House that this man is not a fool; he is a very courageous man.
Pete Wishart
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that. I will never again chastise him for quoting Proust in the House of Commons. I am sorry that I did that to him last time around.
That covers the donors. The other amendment that I managed to get included—again, this was a surprise to me—is one related to cronies. It would deny the Prime Minister the power to appoint people to the House of Lords. The Prime Minister has a prerogative that is almost unknown to any other western industrial leader—that he is exclusively responsible for appointing so many people to one part of our legislature. I think that something like 30% to 40% of the total membership of the House of Lords has now been appointed by a Prime Minister—by one man. That would make a tinpot dictator in a banana republic blush. He would want those powers in his hands immediately, but we have them in the United Kingdom. We allow a Prime Minister to determine—on his own—so many people in our legislature. That must come to an end. Of course, the temptation for the Prime Minister is to appoint his friends, to reward those who have been denied a place, to compensate people for losing their positions, to encourage people to take a role, but mainly it is to make sure that the donors are rewarded.
Sir Gavin Williamson
I think we can all pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for his genius in crafting amendments; he has been very innovative. If we saw the House of Lords Appointments Commission being put on a statutory and independent footing, that would go a considerable way towards dealing with that concern. Is that something that his party might consider supporting?
Pete Wishart
If that comes up for a vote this evening, we would support it. That is one way forward. It certainly would deal with some of the more egregious power that the Prime Minister has. I think that people across this country forget that our Prime Minister has this power—that he has this prerogative to singlehandedly design our legislature. The more that people learn about some of these issues the better. The one in seven who currently support these arrangements will fall to one in 70, because the place is an absurd embarrassment—by the way that it does business, by the way that it is allowed to set its membership and by the way that it presents itself to the world.
We have an opportunity this evening to improve, deal with and get some sort of solution to what this country does on a democratic basis, but the Government are not grabbing it—they are not even prepared to kick out the bloody bishops, for goodness’ sake. How on earth, in 2024, can we be in situation where we have bishops legislating in a modern, advanced, industrial democracy? It is beyond a joke.
We are removing the hereditaries, and those on the Government Front Bench are right: there is no great objection to the hereditaries being removed. I do not even sense much of a defence from some of our crustiest, oldest colleagues, who are sitting next to me; they half-heartedly feel that they have to do it for their pals, but they are not sincere and they do not really mean it. They know that time is up for the hereditaries, and quite rightly so—it is absurd that they are still a feature of our democracy in 2024.
After this, the bishops are going to stand out like a sore thumb in a cassock. They will be the ones on the frontline when it comes to the ridicule. I have a little suggestion for my friends, the clerics down the corridor: how about sticking to their ministries? It is not as if they are without a whole range of issues just now. Would they not be better deployed dealing with some of the things that we have seen in the news over the course of the past few days, instead of concerning themselves with attempts to run our country? We live in a multi-faith and no-faith complex democracy, where so few people actually attend their Church.
This historic remnant from medieval times—that we have to have bishops in the House of Lords—is totally absurd. I will be supporting the new clauses on this subject in the name of the right hon. Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge. In fact, they are only in his name because he beat me to the Table Office when I was trying to remove the class of bishops through the many amendments that I tabled.
The last amendments that I managed to table are a bit more trivial, but they address something that I think we still have to consider: the idea that former Members of Parliament should automatically expect a place in the House of Lords. We all know what it is like, don’t we? Towards the end of a Parliament, we all ask each other—well, no one asks me—“Are you going to get a place in the House of Lords, then, for standing down?”, and some say, “Ooh, I think so, I think so.”
There is always that tap on the shoulder for the parliamentarian who may be in the autumn of his or her career: “We’d like you to do the right thing, colleague. Would you mind thinking about standing down? We’ve got a new youthful, more energetic colleague, who would be a bit more helpful to the Prime Minister. We’ll make sure you’re all right; there’s a place in the House of Lords waiting for you.” How about ending that? It is a feature that the public particularly loathe and despair of, and it is just not right.
If colleagues want to continue to have a place in our legislature, they should stand for election. That is what most parliamentarians across the world do. Do not expect a place in the House of Lords. I have tabled new clause 13, which would deal with the issue. It states quite clearly that no one should be given a place in the House of Lords if they have served as a Member of Parliament in the current or last Parliament. I think that is fair and I encourage the Government to think about it as the Bill goes forward.
I will not be supporting the amendments tabled by those on the Conservative Front Bench. I do not suppose that they would expect me to do so. I do not even understand them, and I do not think that they really understand them either. The Opposition seem to be encouraging the Government to move quicker when it comes to House of Lords reform, and at the same time they are telling the Government that they are going too far. I will let the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds), who is on the Front Bench, explain exactly what they are trying to achieve, because I am having real difficulty following.
I will support the Liberals Democrats’ amendments, as I think they make a reasonable stab, but I say ever so gently to my Liberal colleagues that they have more places in the House of Lords per capita than any other political party in this place, so if they are serious about developing the House of Lords, why do they not just stop appointing people? That might have an impact—because all this mealy-mouthed, silly reform is not doing anything.
I will finish on this point: this is our only chance. There will not be any more House of Lords reform, regardless of what the Government say, and I know that they have said something to their Back Benchers to encourage them to come along today and tell us that there is further reform to come. There will not be further reform. All of us have seen this before. There are colleagues on the Conservative Benches who have seen this, been there and got the T-shirt—and that T-shirt says, “No more Lords reform in this Parliament.” That is what happens.
Mr Sewards
I am very grateful to the hon. Member for giving way, although perhaps less so now that I realise I have put myself in his sights. Looking back to the 1999 law, it is tempting to be jaded—especially for Members who were here then—and to think no more reform is coming. Does he accept, however, that many Labour Members, including almost all those present today, are brand-new and cannot be compared with that 1999 cohort? We are prepared to make further reforms in this Parliament—after all, the public voted for change, and we are here to deliver it.
Pete Wishart
I will hold the hon. Gentleman to his word and hope that he is successful in ensuring that it is heard by his Front Benchers. I will also say to him—and I do not mean this with any great disrespect—that I have never seen a more malleable set of Back Benchers than the new Labour Members. They do everything that they are bid—the way they read out the crib sheets from the Whips is absolutely magnificent. I have not seen a great deal of rebellion from the Labour Back Benchers, but maybe he will show the way and ensure that something happens.
I suspect that this will be our last opportunity to consider the matter in this Parliament, because it will get punted into the waiting long grass. The person I feel most sorry for is Gordon Brown. I think he actually felt that he was going to be listened to this time, and that Labour was sincere about taking forward his agenda. After the Scottish independence referendum, we were promised almost-federalism, but instead our Parliament is getting attacked day by day, Government by Government, Back Bencher by Back Bencher. Let us see if we can get back to that almost-federalism. Let us see if we can get a degree of ambition from this Government. It might be—I certainly hope so—that their Back Benchers will hold them to account, and in us they will have willing allies in achieving that.
This is an absolute mouse of a Bill, but it could be made better by voting for and passing my amendments. I encourage the House to do so.
Several hon. Members rose—
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Caroline Nokes)
If there is nobody else from the Government Benches, I call—
Richard Baker
It has been a long afternoon, Madam Chair. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship.
May I say how much I enjoyed, as I always do, the witty and skilful speech of the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart)? He has perhaps fired an early starting gun on his own campaign for election to an elected second Chamber, given that the tap on shoulder will not come for him—although his party will have to do somewhat better if he is to stand a good chance, given that he is here on his own. He spoke about donations for peerages. We can only wonder what the SNP would do with a £1 million donation, but perhaps Police Scotland know by now, given their investigations into such matters.
We have also spoken about the delivery of constitutional reform. The point that I made to the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire was that Labour has been delivering on constitutional reform. I served in Holyrood for three terms: for all the talk of the Scottish National party about reform, that Chamber is in great need of constitutional reform, but nothing has happened at all on that, while in this place, we are bringing forward a significant and important piece of constitutional reform within our first five months in government.
I absolutely agree that we want a faster pace of constitutional reform in this Parliament, but let us be clear about the proposal before us. In 1997, we set out—as an initial self-contained reform that was not dependent on further reform—that the right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords would be ended by statute. That is what we are here to deliver this evening. Of course, it is long overdue, as the Minister said, and that is why we have introduced the legislation so early in this Government. It is also important that this reform is a stand-alone one, so we can progress it with the utmost urgency. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) is absolutely right that by taking this Bill forward as a stand-alone reform, we give it the best chance of progressing quickly, which is what we need it to do.
Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent point. Returning to the substance of today’s debate, surely there should be agreement across the House that this reform is very long overdue, as my hon. Friend is explaining clearly and succinctly to colleagues. I hope that people will be mindful of that and ignore some of the more outlandish suggestions made by the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart).
Richard Baker
This is a fundamental issue of principle. It is important that we in this House recognise that the presence of the hereditary principle within our second Chamber is outdated and indefensible. As other Members on the Government Benches have rightly pointed out, the UK is one of only two countries that still has a hereditary element in its legislature. It is not before time that we are considering this legislation.
Sir Gavin Williamson
The hon. Gentleman is making an important point about how difficult it is to defend the hereditary principle for legislators, but how does he go about defending the principle of English bishops being legislators in Glenrothes and Mid Fife?
Richard Baker
We do actually have a former moderator of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland in the House of Lords. I very much enjoyed the right hon. Gentleman’s speech—his points were made very passionately and with great conviction—but his party was in government as a majority Government for many years, and it did nothing on that issue.
Gareth Snell
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point: not only were the Conservatives a majority Government in this place, they had a plurality in the other place, so they were unfettered. Does my hon. Friend accept that, while the argument of the right hon. Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson) may be well-meaning, bolting a non-manifesto commitment on to a manifesto commitment risks derailing a Bill that has already been all but agreed under the Salisbury convention at the Dispatch Box by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart), and therefore risks losing all forms of reform that we are offering?
Richard Baker
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point—I could not agree more. It risks derailing the Bill and the potential to make urgent progress on this particular issue, which it is so important that we as a House deal with this evening.
As other Members have said—I want to make this point very clearly—this reform is about principle, not about personalities. In my own career before taking up my seat in this House, I received the support and assistance of hereditary Members of the House of Lords in many campaigns on a whole range of matters of public policy, and I valued that support. Since my election, I have had the opportunity to speak with hereditary peers who have brought significant experience to the House of Lords, who have been diligent and committed, and who have greatly valued their role in the House. Nevertheless, it is clearly the case that in advance of further reforms, membership of the House of Lords should be based on experience and expertise, not birthright. The fact that there are still no female hereditary peers is another example of how that approach to membership of the House of Lords cannot align with what I believe should be the shared goal of making the House more inclusive and representative of wider society.
Earlier in the debate, we heard some contributions suggesting that passing this Bill would somehow jeopardise the work of the House of Lords or reduce its effectiveness. There will still be over 700 peers left, so I do not think we are in danger of a shortage of peers in this Parliament. I believe that this reform must be taken forward now, and having recently joined the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, I look forward to further deliberation on reform of our second chamber.
Turning again to the speech made by the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire, I was pleased to hear him laud Gordon Brown—that has not always been the case in speeches he has made. Gordon Brown’s leadership of the Commission on the UK’s Future, established by the Labour party in opposition, was a vital contribution to the debate on how we take forward the constitutional arrangements for government in our country. The commission’s report absolutely needs to be an active document in this Parliament, discussed in this Chamber and I hope by the Select Committee that I have just joined, when we look forward to the future of our constitutional arrangements. The report is right to set out the proposal for a council of nations and regions. It shows also the necessity for reform in regard to hereditary peers, and why those wider reforms of the House of Lords will be important in relation to public confidence in our institutions of government.
The report highlighted research showing that 71% of people in the UK back overhauling the House of Lords. That support cuts across all parties, nations and regions: nearly half the British public think that the Lords does not work well. Support for the current composition of the second Chamber was reported by the commission at just 12%. I believe my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) has recorded even lower levels in other research. It just shows why this reform is desperately required if we are to attain confidence in our second Chamber.
Analysis shows that a majority of Members of the House of Lords are based in London and the south-east. If we want to increase confidence in this Parliament, in Westminster, that issue must be addressed, along with further devolution to other parts of the United Kingdom and the nations of the United Kingdom. A second Chamber whose membership is far more reflective of all the nations and regions of the UK can only help generate greater confidence in our legislature in every part of the country.
Sir John Hayes
Interestingly, the hon. Gentleman cites the Gordon Brown study, which one of Gordon Brown’s allies told me had just gone too far and therefore was not acceptable to the Labour Front Bench. But on the issue of representation in the Lords from farther away and from less-advantaged people, to achieve the sort of balance that he describes you would have to salary the Lords, would you not? It is very hard to provide for a second home or accommodation in London on £300 a day.
Richard Baker
There are many ways to achieve the balanced representation that I have spoken about. The right hon. Gentleman has shown that he is passionate on these issues too. I hope that he would participate in further debates, which will go much more broadly into the issue of reform of the second Chamber. I am sure that we will have opportunities to have such debates and discussion over the next five years.
Regrettably, we must also reflect on why confidence in the second Chamber is so low. Why have people lost faith in the second Chamber? I have to say that it is because of the actions of the previous Government, which so traduced and blighted the reputation of the second House that this reform—and others—is desperately needed. Public confidence is crucial. Too often, despite the best efforts of the Speaker, the Members of this House and of the other House, and the parliamentary authorities, our constituents feel detached and remote from their Parliament as a whole. I want my constituents in Glenrothes and Mid Fife, and all those we represent, to have confidence in this Parliament and our democratic structures as effective and connected to them and their communities. I am sure that we all share that ambition.
Of course there is much further to go, but I very much welcome the fact that we are finally addressing and concluding the issue of hereditary peers as Members of the House of Lords. It is an important step in the journey of much-needed reform of our second Chamber.
Sir Ashley Fox
The Labour party promised immediate reform of the House of Lords in its manifesto and set out several steps that it would take. However, the Government have introduced just one of those steps—the step that is most politically convenient for them. Is it a coincidence that their proposals would remove 84 hereditaries who do not take the Labour Whip? They seem reluctant to take the other steps. Very few Government Members seem to want the 26 bishops to stay, but perhaps their remaining is convenient because when the bishops turn up, they vote with the Labour party more often than not.
I object to the Bill because I have a genuine fear that there is no second stage. The hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) is right: it will be this Bill and nothing else for the rest of the Parliament. Labour Members will wait in vain for the second stage. That is what happened when the Blair Government tried to reform the House of Lords. They ensured that the 92 hereditaries remained as a permanent reminder of the need for proper reform. Now the Government are removing the hereditaries, but not making clear any time scale or further proposals.
I therefore tabled amendment 24 and new clause 19. I want to pause commencement of the Bill unless and until the Government introduced legislative proposals for second-stage reform. Amendment 25, which my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) tabled, goes one better than amendment 24, so I am happy not to press my amendment and to vote instead for his. It provides a guarantee that proper reform will be introduced and an opportunity to reflect on the type of upper House we want.
I believe that we should have a smaller upper House, which should be wholly or largely appointed. It should not act as a rival to this place. Liberal Democrats who desire an elected second Chamber do not understand what they are letting themselves in for. Let us consider the United States, where the two chambers are sometimes commanded by different parties and very little can happen. A country with an executive presidential system can get away with that, but a parliamentary democracy could not function with a Government with a majority in this Chamber permanently blocked by an elected upper House.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson) has tabled several amendments that help enact the Labour party’s manifesto commitments: a retirement age, participation rates and other features that would improve the upper House.
I will vote for amendment 25, which I commend to the Cttee.
Sir John Hayes
Last time we debated this issue, I talked about legitimacy, continuity and dignity, and nothing I have heard today refutes the arguments I made then. Of course it is true that this House’s authority is drawn from the democratic legitimacy that enables each of us to speak for our constituents. We are chosen by them and answerable to them. However, that is not the only form of legitimacy.
When the Liberal Democrat spokesman offered her views on the subject, I was minded to ask, “Where do you stand on the Head of State?” Our sovereign is chosen by birth, not election. A Head of State is critical—at the apex of our constitution. As I pointed out on Second Reading, the Minister for the Cabinet Office, for whom I have great regard, as he knows, was appointed by the monarch, as I was when I became a Minister.
Sir John Hayes
I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, who is edging towards the edge of his seat. I gave his speech four out of 10: two for energy, one for enthusiasm, and one for content.
Phil Brickell
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is a clear distinction between having a monarch, who is a constitutional sovereign and who does not withhold Royal Assent through the legislative process, as opposed to hereditary peers, who are legislating in the other place on a daily basis?
Sir John Hayes
I will try to be helpful to the hon. Gentleman because he is a new Member. We all learn something every day here, and when a Member has been here for 27 years, unless we are entirely stupid we learn a great deal, so I have picked up one or two things. The critical frailty in his argument is the difference between authority and influence. Of course it is true that the King grants Royal Assent to the Bills that we pass and so they become Acts, but the very business of him granting Royal Assent reinforces his authority, and the fact that he has a personal audience with the Prime Minister on a weekly basis, which is more than the hon. Gentleman ever will and more than I do, suggests that his influence over our affairs is considerably greater than that of most of the people elected here. It is quite wrong to suggest that the monarch does not exercise political influence and thereby political authority.
I also spoke about continuity. The importance in our constitutional settlement of the continuation of the role of the House of Lords is that it provides a degree of continuity. Members have talked about what is time-honoured and cast that aside as though it does not matter. What is time-honoured counts because it has been honed by generations of people, not merely decided upon by one group of people at one point in time.
I heard another speech which criticised birthright. If I stood here and said it was the birthright of every Briton that habeas corpus prevails, or if I said it was the birthright of every subject of this kingdom that they can speak and think and act freely, everyone would feel that it was entirely right and proper for me to make those pronouncements, yet birthright has been criticised in this Chamber as if it was nothing.
Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)
The point is that the birthrights the right hon. Gentleman describes are available to all of us, whereas the birthrights we are talking about are restricted to very few people, some of whom have inherited them from a point that is literally in the history books and is so far back, and the contribution is so archaic now, that it really means nothing. We have to be realistic about this, and that is why we are looking at the hereditary peers first.
Sir John Hayes
Some of the things which we inherit by birth are indeed universal—universal in the sense that all Britons enjoy them. They are not of course universal in the sense that those across the world enjoy them; they would love to enjoy many of the freedoms that we had earned over time due to those who came before us. As the hon. Lady said, these things go right back. The evolution of our constitutional settlement is rooted in history and shaped over time—it evolves.
And it is right that the House of Lords evolves too, so I am not against Lords reforms per se. There is a case, for example, for saying that attendance matters in the House of Lords. We do not have an amendment to this effect, but it would be perfectly reasonable to agree that those appointed to the House of Lords as life peers who never attend or attend very rarely give up their right to do so. That would seem to me to be a perfectly reasonable and measured reform of the House of Lords, and it would cut the numbers dramatically, because although we are frequently told the House of Lords has many hundreds of Members, those who regularly vote in Divisions tend to be drawn from the same group on both sides of that Chamber.
There are sensible reforms that could be made to the House of Lords, but this reform delivers neither in terms of legitimacy, for it makes the House of Lords no more democratic, nor in terms of efficacy, because it makes the House of Lords no more effective. One is tempted therefore to assume that it is prejudice dressed with spite that lies behind this proposal, and I find that hard to believe given the high opinion that I have of the two Ministers sitting on the Front Bench.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir John Hayes
Many of my newer parliamentary opponents—I would never say enemies, of course—wish to intervene. I shall take them in order, with the Member on the right first.
John Slinger
The right hon. Gentleman was keen to score my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell). He gave him four out of 10, and I think he was rather unfair.
John Slinger
Significantly higher, let us put it that way—eight or nine, I would say. If I may, I suggest that I would give Opposition Members between seven and 10 out of 10 for being patronising.
Sir John Hayes
I did not mean to patronise the hon. Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell). I was being paternal or avuncular, rather than patronising, in how I dealt with him. It is a known fact, proven by events, that I have tended to encourage new Members to this House, perhaps to a greater degree than many other senior Members, and that includes Members from across the House. One of the things that one learns here—I spoke about the learning curve we all face—is that the relationships that pervade across this House are as important as the relationships we form on our own Benches.
Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)
I have been here a little while—seven years—and the right hon. Member has never encouraged me, although he has scolded me once or twice. He has talked about democracy and democratic reforms on several occasions in his speech. Democracy emanates from Athens and the Greek republic. That is the origin of demos, and what does that mean? It means the common people. We are talking exactly about giving common people the right to sit, not the uncommon people of the hereditary peerage. That is the point we are talking about. Demos means universal rights for everyone, not the select few.
Sir John Hayes
Ms Nokes, you will not allow me to go into immense detail about Athenian democracy, although I did study ancient philosophy. The hon. Gentleman will know that Athenian democracy was very far from the democratic principles that we hold dear. Only citizens had the vote in Athens, and the assembly there was a very partial affair, and certainly it would satisfy neither you, Ms Nokes, nor other Members.
I will return to the subject in hand for a few moments before I give way to the hon. Member for Telford (Shaun Davies). Having made the case that the Bill does not afford greater legitimacy or efficacy, I want to speak about the authority of this place, the authority of the constitution, and the authority of Government. The authority of this place, as the hon. Member for Bolton West and others have argued, essentially derives from the fact that we are elected, but not just from that. It also derives in part from the balance in the relationship between this House and the other place.
Bicameral systems that pitch democratic chambers one against another are often less successful than the model that has evolved in this country. Although the upper House sometimes chastises this House—it certainly scrutinises us—and although it might clash occasionally with this House in its role as a reforming Chamber, in the end it defers to the elected House. A bicameral system borne of two Houses of Parliament, one of which is elected and one which is not, seems to me to be more desirable for that very reason: we do not have competing democratic legitimacies between the House of Commons and the House of Lords. That is why I disagree with the amendments in the name of some of my right hon. and hon. Friends and with the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart).
Shaun Davies (Telford) (Lab)
The right hon. Gentleman is being generous with taking interventions. I will boil it right down: this Government were elected on a mandate to remove the hereditary peers from the House of Lords, not to set up a wholly elected House and the concerns he is talking about right now. Does he support the Government’s mandate and legitimacy to remove those hereditary peers?
Sir John Hayes
The Government’s mandate was for a more widespread reform of the House of Lords. I will not go into it again, but the manifesto of the victorious party at the general election, which now forms the Government, suggested a whole range of measures to reform the House of Lords. I do not really approve of any of those measures.
Sir John Hayes
I will give way one more time to the hon. Lady and give her a second bite of the cherry.
Patricia Ferguson
I am grateful to the right hon. Member for taking the intervention. I struggle to understand what the Conservative party’s line is on the Bill. It would appear that he disagrees with a number of his colleagues. At the end of the day, how will Conservative Members vote?
Sir John Hayes
That is a matter for those on the Front Bench. I see members of the Conservative Whips Office in their place and I see my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) sitting behind the Dispatch Box. These days, I am merely a highly regarded, distinguished and senior Back Bencher. [Laughter.] The days when I had any say in how the Conservative Opposition—or in previous times the Conservative Government—chose to vote in Divisions are gone, but they are not gone forever; this is only a sojourn on the Back Benches. I want to make that perfectly clear.
Let me return to my principal theme, which is that of authority. The authority of this House is partly born of its relationship with the other House. Were the other House to become elected, its authority would by definition grow and our authority by comparison diminish, so I am strongly opposed to an elected second Chamber. While I accept the principled argument of the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire and others, it is not for me. There is also the matter of the authority of our constitution. Our constitutional settlement, which we have rehearsed briefly in the debate, is dependent on that relationship, but also—I think it is fair to say—on reforms of this kind being measured.
It might surprise Members to hear that last night, I was looking at a short book written by Hilaire Belloc and Chesterton. That book, which is available from the Library of the House, rehearsed the arguments that prevailed at the time of the debate on the Parliament Act—it was then the Parliament Bill—in the House of Commons. It might surprise right hon. and hon. Members to learn, as I learned last night, that when Asquith introduced those changes—when the House of Lords rejected Lloyd George’s Budget and it became necessary to curb the powers of that House—rather than rushing to legislate, he set up a conference between both sides of the House to determine a compromise. Belloc, as Members will remember, was elected as a Liberal MP. He parodied that process and said that what came out of it was no better than what went into it. None the less, it was an attempt, at least, to reach a settlement in a dignified way on how we might reform the second Chamber. [Interruption.] It did take two elections. It took the 1906 election, as the Paymaster General will know, when the Liberals triumphed. I wonder whether he wants to intervene on me to sharpen up the history.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
That particular constitutional convention did not produce a consensus. It took two general elections in 1910—one in January and one in December.
Sir John Hayes
That is precisely right. In the first general election, there was an assumption that the Government would proceed, but the constitutional conference did not produce an outcome that brought about a reform that both sides could agree on. A further general election followed, and the right hon. Gentleman rehearses exactly what that short book describes. The point is that even Asquith at that time, who was determined to reform the House of Lords, felt that ideally that reform should be based on some kind of consensus, or at least a conversation about how that reform might happen and what shape it might take. That is important, because the authority of our constitution to some degree depends on its dignity.
Finally, I want to talk about the authority of Government. We have talked about mandates. It was long ago that the term “elective dictatorship” was first used. The nature of the relationship that I described earlier between Government and Opposition and between different sides of the Chamber is important to counter the risk of a Government with a very large majority ignoring counter-arguments and becoming—I hesitate to say corrupted—altered, changed or distorted by the scale of the majority. Frankly, in this Parliament, the Labour party will be able to legislate as it chooses at every turn. As experienced Members of the House know, including those on the Treasury Bench, Governments are better when they need to compromise, reach agreements and consider amendments.
When I was a Minister, many times in Bill Committees in particular, the shadow Minister would table an amendment. I would routinely and systematically have the argument and make sure that the amendment was voted down, but I would often go back to my civil servants and say, “I think that was rather a good argument. Why aren’t we doing it? I think he or she was right. We ought to alter the Bill.” I would engage with the shadow Minister privately and look at ways in which we could improve the legislation through that kind of scrutiny. Good Ministers and good shadow Ministers always worked in that way, as I did with the now Prime Minister when he shadowed me as Security Minister.
Governments need to understand that to alter their position through that kind of exchange and consideration improves the exercise of government and adds to, rather than subtracts from, the Government’s authority. Good Governments behave in a way that, rather than taking advantage of their power, mitigates it by the choices that they make.
Josh Fenton-Glynn
The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point about the need to govern responsibly and reasonably, whatever one’s majority. While I was sitting here, I was interested in his record of following through on that strong belief, so I googled his name and “Prorogation”, and I did not see any results. Will the right hon. Gentleman perhaps reflect on any points when he thinks recent Governments might have abused their power?
Sir John Hayes
When I was a shadow Minister for many years, I found that some of the Labour Ministers I shadowed did the job I just described very well, and some did not. When I became a Minister, I saw that some Conservative Ministers engaged in the kind of process I have described, and some did not. There has always been variability in the way that power has been exercised across political parties. I invite the hon. Gentleman to speak to any of the people who shadowed me when I was a Minister to see if they would validate how I described the way I acted in those days. The authority of Parliament, the authority of our constitution and the authority of Government are all at stake as we consider these matters.
I return to where I started in terms of efficacy. The last time we considered these matters, Members will remember that I quoted Proust. It was a bit too rich a diet for the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire. He is not a Proustian. I think it stretched the canon of his reading matter beyond breaking point. Today, I am going to test him a little more and refer to G. K. Chesterton, who I think might be more within his scope. [Interruption.] From a sedentary position, he is acknowledging that. Chesterton said:
“To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it.”
It is certainly true that, based on their mandate, the Government have the right to bring this legislation, but I am not sure that they are right in doing it, measured against my tests of dignity, legitimacy, continuity and authority. For as Chesterton also said, before you take a fence down, you consider why it was put up in the first place. The balance that exists at the moment, both within the House of Lords, and between the House of Lords and this House, is precious. It works. It ain’t broke and we don’t need to fix it.
Before I finish, let me say this to my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar. We must vote against the Bill on Third Reading, because whether we are in favour of more reform—as some of my colleagues are—or no reform, the Bill does not meet the standards we would expect of good legislation. It is therefore vital that the official Opposition make their position crystal clear by opposing this undesirable and unnecessary legislation.
Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)
For the record, when we talk about more reform, it is with a lower case “r”.
For many people, the other place in its current format embodies what Britain really should not be: it is undemocratic, it is unelected and—to touch on this only very lightly—it has had its fair share of controversial appointments. There is a suggestion of nepotism here and a dash of financial scandal there, not to mention a sprinkling of oligarchy. Therefore, it represents what a classist society of haves and have-nots can produce. As we know, some Members are there on a hereditary basis, and some are there on the whim and wishes of political leaders who, of course, have their own political motives for having them in position. It is also clear that the different regions that make up the United Kingdom do not have fair representation. The other place does not just have a geographical imbalance, but a gender one—none of which I care for.
I believe that there should be an upper Chamber. In Scotland, we have seen some ill-thought-out political policy that has been financially costly. An upper Chamber would likely have prevented that with the benefit of added scrutiny.
Like British society, the other place needs transformational change. What the Government propose is only a step in the right direction to what I, as a Labour party member, will continue to campaign for from within the party, which is ultimately to change the other place into an elected Chamber where class and privilege are not the entry requirements, but where talent and ability are what get you there.
Sir Edward Leigh
It is an honour to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes), such a well-loved, distinguished and senior Member—even if he has only served 27 years in this House.
I have sat through the whole debate and I did not intend to speak, but I just want to reply to a few comments. By its very nature, the debate has been confrontational—that is what we do in this place. We tend to concentrate on what divides us rather than on what unites us, and I want to say something about what might unite us.
First of all, on the ideas that divide us, we are debating whether to abolish the hereditaries. The Labour party says that it is in its manifesto and therefore it can do what it wants. We say that that is gerrymandering, that the bulk of these people are hardworking and that by nature they are Conservatives, so this is an excuse to get rid of a large number of Conservative peers. The Government will carry on and do it anyway. That is clearly very controversial.
The next proposal, it seems, is to abolish the bishops. I heard what was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson), but there are all sorts of objections to doing that, not least because this is an established Church. Do we really want to attack a faith community? It is part of our history. Are the bishops really doing much harm in the House of Lords? Incidentally, because of our canon law, the Catholic bishops do not want to be Members of the House of Lords anyway, although they are apparently quite willing to support distinguished laymen to help the Catholic cause there—but we all know that. I do not think that we will ever reach an agreement on abolishing the bishops in the House of Lords.
Sir Julian Lewis
Does the Father of the House agree that inevitably, given the nature of the Bill, we have been talking more about the process by which people become Members of the House of Lords than about the activity that it carries out? In particular, although not everyone in the House of Lords is an expert, a large number of them are: people who have reached the top of their respective professions, whether those professions be academia, the law, the arts or the judiciary.
Can the Father of the House cast his mind back to 1984, when he and I, having both fought the 1983 general election—he stood in Gainsborough and Horncastle, which is why he was in the House; and I stood in Swansea West, which is why I was not—co-operated on trying to have postal ballots for trade union elections? Does he remember that he introduced a Bill that got nowhere in this House, because of the strong whipping system of elected Members, but when we took it to the House of Lords we were able to persuade people on the arguments because of the light whipping? The amendment went through, and when the Bill came back to the Commons the then Government brought in their own measures to meet the point. Does he agree that, apart from creating gridlock, an elected second Chamber would not have the possibility of introducing fresh ideas that, once introduced, may be accepted by a Government in this place, but which would never get off the starting blocks if they were introduced in this place initially?
Sir Edward Leigh
That is a very good point. I remember that rebellion very well—it was the start of my many rebellions. I suggest to Labour Members that they should not rebel if they want get on in this place. We had a rebellion and finally won on that issue, and my right hon. Friend makes a very good point about how we won the argument. That underlines how important it is to have a second Chamber that is not composed of elected politicians. I really do not see the point of electing politicians to a second Chamber, because it would just be like this place: full of people who want to become Ministers and who are completely subordinate to the Whips.
What is the point of having an elected second Chamber? The whole point of a second Chamber is that it should be independent-minded, and the Lords are independent-minded. They regularly defeat the Government, and they actually have better debates than we do. The House of Lords is full of people who have tremendous experience in the professions, business and charities. I just do not see the point of getting rid of them lock, stock and barrel, but there is a perfectly good consensual argument that the number should be reduced. There are some people in the Lords whom we should remove either because they have not been appointed in an entirely right way or because they do not turn up.
Sir John Hayes
Further to the point made by my right hon. Friend, Bagehot spoke about this issue. He said that the distinguishing feature of the House of Lords is that its Members’ views are emphatically their own views. In his terms, they are not subject to social bribe, by which he meant that they are not answerable to constituents in the way we are, so they can make judgments entirely free of that pressure. That is a virtue of the current arrangements and, frankly, a virtue of the hereditary peerage too.
Sir Edward Leigh
I think we can all agree that the other place, for all that it is seemingly undemocratic, works quite well. The Lords actually listen to debates, and they vote according to their conscience. They regularly defeat the Government, and they improve Bills again and again. If it works, why change it?
Will the Paymaster General please think about the idea that I have suggested? We could get some sort of compromise by which all parties in the House of Lords are reduced by the same amount. We could reduce the Lords to around 600 Members, give more power to the House of Lords Appointments Commission and, in future, keep the number at about 600.
Dr Murrison
I am very much attracted to the argument laid out by the Father of the House. He is right to say that consensus in these sorts of matters is nigh on impossible, as poor Jack Straw found out in 2007. The Father of the House is also right to aim for a reductionist strategy in trying to decide what we can do to improve the situation. That will get a majority consensus in this House, difficult though census most certainly is in these matters.
This debate has been characterised by some levity, which is okay—it is positive. It probably reflects the fact that most of our constituents are not usually seized by constitutional matters, which is not to say that such matters are not important, because plainly they are. The attendance here today is not what one might expect for a matter of this importance. That probably reflects the fact that when we are all knocking on doors a few months ago, this kind of thing really was not No. 1 among people’s concerns, but it remains important nevertheless.
I confess that I have been on something of a journey since 2007, at which time I was persuaded that the upper House ought to be elected. I am not any more, because I have seen in the workings of this place how it is possible for this place ultimately to be challenged by a subordinate secondary Chamber that is itself elected. Try as I might, I cannot work out how it is possible to avoid that kind of situation. This is the primary part of our legislature, and that must remain the case. We must be unchallenged, but we need checks and balances, which is precisely what the upper House aims to provide.
Many have spoken today about who we might remove from the upper House. I have no objection in principle to the things that the Government are trying to do, but I am persuaded that matters of this sort should be part of a wider package, which is why I will be supporting the Opposition amendment today. However, my view is that we have probably got this round the wrong way, which is why I very much support the amendments being brought forward by my right hon. Friend the Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson) in relation to the bishops.
I remember when I was pontificating in another country—a majority Muslim country that was a nascent democracy—on democracy. At the end of my spiel, a lady put up her hand and, to her great credit, said, “I have listened very carefully to what you have said, but with the greatest of respect, who are you to come here and lecture us, given that you have within your legislature people who are there by dint of hereditary right and people who are there because they are part of a particular religious persuasion?”
We have heard some quotes today, including from G. K. Chesterton. I am not sure whether I can match that, but I think I probably can. Robert Burns said:
“O wad some Pow’r the giftie gie us
To see oursels as ithers see us!”
I like that. He is saying that it is important to note how we appear to other people, other countries and other legislatures, and it seems to me that that lady, all those years ago, had the measure of it. We may not think we are a theocracy in the same way as Iran is, or that we retain the hereditary principle in the same way as Lesotho or Swaziland do, but we are and we do. We need to remedy that, because appearances matter and that lady was absolutely right. That is why I support my right hon. Friend’s amendment, and I hope that the Government will reflect on that.
I also agree with the assertion of the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) that this is it, and that it is no good hoping for another Bill. That Bill is not going to come. If it does, there is no guarantee that it will not end up in the same place as poor Jack Straw’s measures ended up in 2007. Given the difficulty with consensus, I suspect that that is exactly where such a measure would land. So this is it.
I do not particularly want to see our legislature populated by people who are there because they are representative of one particular faith community in this country. I am an Anglican, just like my right hon. Friend the Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge. I am a practising Anglican and I value the views of bishops —of course I do—but it is simply not right to have them being politicians in dog collars generally propagating a left liberal world view. I would much rather that they were in their dioceses engaged in the cure of souls. That is where I, as an Anglican, want to see them.
I will certainly support my Front Bench’s measured amendments this evening. I very much hope that the Government have been listening carefully to what has been said. These grave, serious matters need to be debated in a careful and measured way. I see virtue not in ploughing ahead with the Bill as an emergency but in incorporating it into a wider set of proposals at a later stage, although hopefully not too late, so that we can consider these things in the round. I hope we will be able to see those proposals before too long. I live in hope.
The Labour party has had 14 years to consider all of this. My view is that this Bill will be it. That is disappointing and a missed opportunity.
Sir Julian Lewis
It was not my original intention to speak but, given the nature of the debate, and in view of the signal I have received that I might be given a little latitude to go slightly wider than the narrow terms of the Bill, I will make a single point to elaborate slightly on the intervention I made upon the Father of the House a few minutes ago.
A lot has been said about how the public are deemed to regard the status of the upper House. I am not sure on what basis such sweeping statements have been made, although I can understand that when, from time to time, someone manifestly unfit or inappropriate to be ennobled is ennobled, it may cause a degree of public concern and disillusionment.
New Members on both sides of the Committee, but particularly on the Government side, should avail themselves of the opportunities to understand more closely what the House of Lords can do that the House of Commons cannot. In the first instance, peers can bring their expertise to bear. That is not to say that all peers are experts—they are not—but a lot of them are, because they have reached the top of their profession. They are not necessarily any brighter, more intelligent or more cultured than Members of this House, but as we chose to divert ourselves from whatever escalator we could have been on, in order to become full-time politicians, we do not reach the giddy heights of those in other professions, who are then able to bring their expertise to bear on the legislative process by being taken into the upper House.
Josh Fenton-Glynn
I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman is not a doctor, but could he explain the biological process by which someone inherits expertise?
Sir Julian Lewis
I am not aware that anything I have said this afternoon has been in favour of retaining the hereditaries. It has not. If the hon. Gentleman had listened to my earlier interventions, he would have known that is the case. That is why I said I am going somewhat wider than this Bill, which focuses solely on the hereditaries.
The suggestion that the upper House stands in low repute is ill-conceived, and I urge the hon. Gentleman and other new Members to take advantage of the seminars that Labour and Liberal Democrat Members and I try to organise to enable new Members from all parties to be brought into contact with leading Members of the upper House, to see what they do. That would be a good use of his and other Members’ time.
Sir John Hayes
My right hon. Friend is making an important point about the subtlety of the relationship between the two Houses. I spoke earlier about the relationship between the Government and the Opposition. In an unwritten constitution, political culture prevails, and that political culture is informed by that subtlety and by those relationships. My right hon. Friend described an occasion when legislation emanated from an origin in the other place, but very often legislation is improved and perfected through that connection. That should not be lost as we rush headlong into a piecemeal reform of the House of Lords.
Sir Julian Lewis
The elements that make up the House of Lords consist of different groups of people: some have got there by accident of birth and are now going to leave; some have got there as the result of political horse-trading of some sort, and perhaps should not have been put there in the first place; but a great many have got there, as I said earlier, by having reached the heights of their various professions and having proved themselves to be outstanding intellectuals who can bring a level of specialisation to the scrutiny of legislation. Even if we in this House were on exactly their same level of accumulated knowledge, we cannot bring that same level of scrutiny because of the demands we face on our time and in looking after our constituents, which inevitably works to the cost of the amount of attention we could give purely to focusing on improving legislation.
I wish to place on record that the reason why I became an ardent advocate of an unelected second Chamber—and why I would rather have no second Chamber at all than two elected Chambers—is precisely that it is impossible to whip such a Chamber to prevent people with good ideas from persuading peers of the virtue of those ideas. Members of an unelected second Chamber are able to have at least a sporting chance of amending legislation in good ways that would not get beyond first base in this House, because the elected Members, for the most part, almost all the time, obey the whipping.
Before I was an MP, when I was a political activist, I and my colleagues managed to get four pieces of legislation into law. Since I have been an MP, I have got only one, on the privacy of Members’ home addresses, on to the statute book, because, exceptionally, that was a free vote. How many free votes happen in this House? Hardly any. The equivalent of free votes in the upper House happen all the time.
We required postal ballots for trade union elections, which was incorporated into the Trade Union Act 1984 and the Employment Act 1988. We outlawed political indoctrination in schools, which was incorporated into the Education Act 1986 and carried forward in the Education Act 1996. We prohibited local councils from publishing material that
“promotes or opposes a point of view on a question of political controversy which is identifiable as the view of one political party and not of another”,
which was incorporated into section 27 of the Local Government Act 1988. Finally, we more strictly defined the concept of “due impartiality” in the coverage of politically contentious issues on television and radio, which was incorporated into the Broadcasting Act 1990.
Every one of those measures was got through the House of Lords first, and then either adopted in the House of Commons directly or brought forward by the Government in their alternative proposals. We do away with the expertise of the House of Lords at our peril. All we will be left with are machine politicians, whether they are in one elected House or two elected Houses, and that is to the detriment of our democracy, not to its enhancement.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
Thank you for calling me to speak, Madam Chair. I am honoured to serve under your chairmanship.
Before I begin my prepared remarks, I wish to commend and pay tribute to right hon. and hon. Members across the House for their skills of oratory and persuasion and their education and ability to entertain. It has been an absolute privilege to hear Members with such experience speak, so well-informed are they on such topics.
I also wish to speak to new Labour Members who, like me, are finding their feet and learning the ways of the world in this place. I am pleased to hear that they are passionate about pushing and challenging their party to implement the laws and changes that the constituents and the country demand. but I remind them of the consequences of that. Rebellion, as I have seen in this short time, is rewarded with sanction or suspension, so it is better to get as much as possible into this Bill now than to hope that they may ever get a chance to do so again.
The House has been made aware that faith in political parties and institutions is at a low ebb—perhaps the lowest in my lifetime. We have been told that only 12% of the British public say that they trust politicians; political parties are the least trusted of any UK public institution, and trust in Parliament is on the decline. Any measure that helps to rebuild that trust is to be supported, which is why I support this Government Bill to remove hereditary peers. The anachronistic nature of hereditary peerage contributes to the sense not only that the House of Lords is out of touch, but that all our political institutions are out of touch. It feeds a disconnect between the people and their systems of governance and reinforces a belief that politics is the preserve of another elite, the political elite, that lives in its own bubble in Westminster.
Given this urgency to rebuild faith in politics and the need for radical change to that end, it is disappointing that the Government have chosen to be so timid in their ambition. I understand that further changes could be introduced further down the road. Indeed, hon. Members have said that they will try to push for more changes. For instance, perhaps they could remove the over-80s from the Lords, or retire the 26 bishops who are automatically given a seat.
The Lords themselves have raised the idea of removing those Members who rarely, if ever, attend. But even these tame reforms appear to be too much for this Government at this stage. We need much bolder action.
Phil Brickell
I thank the hon. Member for giving way. Does he accept that this is the first immediate measure of modernisation of the other House and that there are a number of other commitments that are enshrined in the manifesto of this Government, which will be seen to in due course in this Parliament?
Iqbal Mohamed
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. I agree that the Bill is a positive step, but it is the smallest of the steps that could have been taken by this Government. As we all know in this place, the promise of jam tomorrow is just a promise and hardly ever materialises. We need much bolder action now. It is bad enough that we are alone in Europe in having a fully unelected second Chamber. It is frankly ridiculous that, with more than 800 Members, it is so large. I will put that into some perspective: the US Senate has 100 elected members, who serve a six-year term, and a third of the membership is elected every two years; the Canadian Senate has 105 members and a mandatory retirement age of 75; and the French Senate has 348 elected members, who serve six-year terms, half of whom are up for election every three years.
The fact that our second Chamber has been allowed to balloon out of all proportion looks more sinister when we consider that last year Lords appointees donated over £50 million to political parties. When it looks like our political institutions are up for grabs to the highest bidder, with jobs for life, is it any wonder that people see it as another private members’ club?
Sir John Hayes
The hon. Gentleman seems to be making a case for an elected second Chamber. Does he imagine that that Chamber would be elected at the same time as this one, in which case it would be a duplicate because the electorate are very unlikely to vote in different ways on the same day, or is he suggesting that it would be elected at a different time, in which case the Chamber that was elected most recently would surely claim greater legitimacy and therefore greater authority?
Iqbal Mohamed
The right hon. Member makes a very important point. I, as a new Member of Parliament, am not educated or informed enough to answer it immediately, and I would defer to the House to define how that process would work.
Dr Murrison
I am listening with the greatest of respect and interest to the hon. Member. Does he think that there would be virtue and merit in having a unicameral system, a bit like the plan B suggested by my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), rather than having a competing elected upper House—because this is the primary Chamber in our system?
Iqbal Mohamed
Again, I will confess to my lack of knowledge on the detail around the alternative proposed by the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis). I would defer to the House to select an appropriate working model that best represented the people of our country.
Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)
The hon. Member makes a powerful point about listening and having the best system. However, does he agree that having all the power located in one Chamber and not having a division of powers—as exists in other countries—is an idea with merit, which should be looked at? The principle of sovereignty, of course, differs between English law and Scots law, and therefore we need to have a good and proper look at our governance mechanisms.
Iqbal Mohamed
That is a very important point. I agree that representation across the four nations is key, and that the balance between the two Houses and how they work together is also very important.
We have seen what happens when people feel alienated from their political system: they can gravitate to those with divisive answers. Unaddressed political grievances combined with a lack of faith in political institutions can be a toxic combination. Reforming the House of Lords so that it is fit and proper is not the sole solution to that problem, but is a key part of the solution. We in this House, as elected officials, have a duty to do the right thing at the right time in the right way to deliver the right outcome for our constituents and our country, and the right thing is to adopt the sensible and democratic amendments that have been tabled, and the right time to do that is now.
Ellie Reeves
Thank you, Madam Chair. I am grateful to right hon. and hon. Members for taking the time to debate these issues in Committee, and I have listened to their contributions with interest. I am particularly grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell), as well as to other Labour Members, for providing a powerful voice in support of this important legislation.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), who demonstrated on Second Reading that there is strong cross-party support for this first step in reforming the upper Chamber. I am also grateful to the right hon. Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson), who has taken a surprising interest in these issues, and to the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart). I stress that we are grateful to all peers, including hereditary peers, who have committed themselves to valuable public service. I reiterate that there is no block to hereditary peers coming back as life peers if their party wishes to nominate them.
What has become clear during the course of this debate is that the Conservatives do not have a coherent position on House of Lords reform. It is not clear whether the Opposition Front Benchers want to retain hereditary peers; it is not clear whether they want faster and further reform; and it is not clear whether they agree with the amendments tabled by the right hon. Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge. But what is clear is that they cannot agree among themselves about the Bill—more division and chaos.
Stephen Gethins
The Minister will be aware that it has been over 100 years since Keir Hardie committed to abolishing the House of Lords so, to be clear, will we have to wait another 100 years for the Labour party to get around to it?
Ellie Reeves
We have taken an immediate first step, as set out in our manifesto, to remove hereditary peers from the House of Lords. The hon. Member will know well that there were a number of other commitments in our manifesto, and we are considering the best way to implement them. It is right that we take the time to do that properly.
I will address the amendments. New clause 20, tabled by the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart), seeks to provide a description of the purpose of the Bill. The Government cannot accept his new clause. His explanatory statement says:
“This new clause describes the purpose of the Bill.”
For his benefit, I am happy to clarify the purpose of the Bill, which should be self-evident to anyone who has taken the time to read it. The Bill is designed to remove the outdated and indefensible right for hereditary peers to sit and vote in the upper Chamber. In 2024, no place in our legislature should be reserved for individuals who are born into certain families. I add that his new clause fails to take into account the presence of the Law Lords. Several such peers sit in the other place, and make a valuable contribution to its proceedings, as Members of the Lords Temporal under the Appellate Jurisdiction Act 1876. His new clause therefore falls at the first hurdle, and I respectfully ask him not to press it to a Division.
Amendment 25, also tabled by the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar, seeks to delay the Bill’s implementation. Delaying its implementation goes against the Government’s manifesto commitments. We were clear that we would implement immediate reform to the second Chamber by removing the outdated and indefensible right for hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords. The Government set out in our manifesto a number of other commitments to reforming the other place, and it is right that we take the time to consider how best to implement them. I therefore ask the hon. Member not to press the new clause to a Division.
Amendments 8 and 9, and new clause 7, which were tabled by the hon. Member for Richmond Park, seek to impose a statutory duty on the Government to take forward proposals to secure a democratic mandate for the House of Lords via the introduction of democratically elected Members. Although the Government agree with the hon. Member that the second Chamber needs reforming, we cannot accept this amendment. This is a focused Bill that delivers the Government’s manifesto commitment to bring about an immediate reform by removing the right of the remaining hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords.
The Government have committed to more fundamental reform through the establishment of an alternative second Chamber that is more representative of the regions and nations of the UK. The Government will consult on proposals in order to provide the public with an opportunity to give their views on how to ensure this alternative Chamber best serves them. Details of the process will be set out in due course, and the House will no doubt take a close interest in that process as it is taken forward. It is right that we take time to consider how best to implement the other manifesto commitments, including our commitment to consult on an alternative second chamber, engaging with parliamentarians and the public where appropriate over the course of this Parliament. With that in mind, I ask the hon. Member to not press her amendments to a Division.
I now turn to new clause 8, tabled by the hon. Member for Richmond Park, and new clauses 9, 10 and 14, tabled by the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire, regarding the role of the House of Lords Appointments Commission in advising the Prime Minister on appointments to the other place. I thank the hon. Members for their interest in reform of the House of Lords’ appointment process. I think we are all in agreement that it is vital that peers meet the high standard that the public expect of them, for the good functioning and reputation of the second Chamber and of Parliament more broadly.
Constitutionally, it is for the Prime Minister—accountable to Parliament and the electorate—to make recommendations to the sovereign on new peers. As part of its role, the House of Lords Appointments Commission advises the Prime Minister on the propriety of nominations to the House. In that role, HOLAC considers whether a person is in good standing in the community in general and with the public regulatory authorities in particular, and whether the past conduct of that person would not reasonably be regarded as bringing the House of Lords into disrepute. The Prime Minister of course respects and values the commission’s advice, and will place great weight on it when making decisions on peerage recommendations. The hon. Members will be pleased to know that the Government’s manifesto committed to improving the appointments process to ensure the quality of new appointments, and to seek to improve the national and regional balance of the second Chamber so that it better reflects the country it serves. The Government are actively considering how this can be achieved.
New clause 14, tabled by the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire, would remove the Prime Minister’s role in advising the sovereign on new appointments and hand it completely to the House of Lords Appointments Commission. That would be a significant change to the commission’s role, one that would require very careful consideration. This, however, is a focused Bill that delivers the Government’s manifesto commitment to bring about an immediate reform by removing the right of the remaining hereditary peers to sit and vote in the other place. I therefore respectfully request that the hon. Members not press their new clauses to a Division.
New clauses 11 and 12, tabled by the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire, relate to Members or prospective Members of the other place who have made registered political loans or donations of over £11,180 since 2001. The Government believe that the second Chamber is enriched by Members who bring diverse experience in support of the House of Lords’ core functions of scrutinising legislation and holding the Government of the day to account. The House of Lords Appointments Commission is responsible for vetting all candidates for propriety, and considers party donations as part of that vetting. I therefore respectfully ask the hon. Member not to press his new clause to a Division.
Amendment 15 and new clause 13, tabled by the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire, would prevent individuals who were Members of the House of Commons in the current or previous Parliament or in the previous five years from being appointed as, or remaining as, Members of the House of Lords. I should declare an interest: my husband, until recently the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead, is now a Member of the other place and is also a Government Whip. This is recorded in the list of Ministers’ interests that was published last week.
I thank the hon. Member for tabling those amendments; however, the Government cannot accept them. As I said, the Government are supportive of the inclusion of individuals from all backgrounds, and believe that the other place is enriched by Members who bring diverse experience. That of course includes former Members of this place. Former Members can bring valuable insights to the other place, particularly with their experience of the scrutiny of legislation. Denying such eligibility for a specific time period would be unnecessary and prevent valuable contributions being made. I therefore ask the hon. Member not to press his amendments.
Ellie Reeves
The Bill has the simple objective of removing the remaining 92 spaces reserved for hereditary peers in the House of Lords, thereby completing the process started in 1999.
Ellie Reeves
I was very generous with my time in my opening remarks and we have had a full debate.
Of course, the Government have committed to wider reforms to the other place, including establishing an alternative second Chamber that is more representative of the regions and nations of the UK. The Government will consult on proposals to seek the input of the British public on how politics can best serve them. However, as I have set out, this Bill is not the vehicle for considering wider changes. I therefore respectfully request that the right hon. Member does not press the amendments.
Amendments 3 and 7 and new clause 3, which were also tabled by the right hon. Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge, would introduce a retirement age of 80 for Members of the other place. Amendment 4 and new clause 4, which were also tabled by the right hon. Member, seek to impose a participation requirement on all Members of the House of Lords.
Ellie Reeves
The introduction of a retirement age or a participation requirement is not the purpose of the Bill. The right hon. Member, along with other Members of the House, will be aware that the Government included a commitment in their manifesto to introduce a mandatory retirement age, whereby at the end of the Parliament in which a Member reaches 80 years of age, they will be required to retire from the House of Lords. I am sure he is also fully aware that the Labour manifesto included a commitment to introduce a participation requirement for peers. The House of Lords plays an important role in scrutinising legislation and holding the Government of the day to account, and the Government recognise the valuable contribution of many peers. It is important that all Members participate in support of those core functions.
Sir Gavin Williamson
I thank the hon. Lady for giving way. What is being proposed in these clauses is very much in the spirit of the Labour manifesto. I appreciate the fact that the Government are going to whip their party hard in order to defeat their own manifesto and any potential changes, but will she engage with me and other colleagues to discuss how she could implement these changes as part of the Bill in the other House, because there is an appetite for them and it is disappointing, especially on the Lords Spiritual, that they are going to impose a three-line Whip on an issue of conscience?
Ellie Reeves
It is good to see the right hon. Member’s enthusiasm for reform of the House of Lords; it is a shame that he has only found it now that he is in opposition, not over the past 14 years when his party was in government and could have done something about it. This is an immediate first step, as was set out in our manifesto. We have been clear that we will consult about the implementation of the other measures set out in our manifesto and we will do just that.
We have heard a range of views today on the Government’s other manifesto commitments, including exactly how a participation requirement might work. The debate has shown why it is exactly the right thing that the Government take time to consider how best to implement the other commitments, while starting with the immediate reform that the Bill will deliver.
In conclusion, the amendments tabled by Opposition Members are not appropriate for the Bill, which deals with one principal issue—the need to remove the outdated and indefensible right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords. That is our objective and we are focused on delivering it. The Government intend to deliver the other manifesto commitments to bring about a smaller and more active second Chamber. We are also committed to replacing the other place with an alternative second Chamber that is more representative of the regions and nations. As I said, we will consult on proposals and seek the input of the British public on how politics can best serve them.
Reform of the House of Lords is long overdue and essential. The Government are committed to delivering those reforms, and passing this vital legislation is the first step on that journey. In that spirit, I commend the Bill to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 2 and 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 4
Extent and commencement
Amendment proposed: 25, page 2, line 16, leave out from “force” to end of line 17 and insert
“only when the House of Commons has agreed a resolution which—
(a) endorses the conclusions of the report a joint committee appointed for the purpose specified in subsection (3A), and
(b) determines accordingly that this Act shall come into force at the end of the Session of Parliament in which this resolution is passed.
(3A) The purpose of the joint committee of the House of Commons and the House of Lords referred to in subsection (3) is to consider and report upon the Government’s stated plans for reform of the House of Lords, including—
(a) the removal of the right of excepted hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords,
(b) the introduction of a mandatory retirement age for members of the House of Lords,
(c) a new participation threshold to enable continuing membership of the House of Lords,
(d) changes to the circumstances in which disgraced members of the House of Lords can be removed, and
(e) changes to the process of appointment of members of the House of Lords.”—(Alex Burghart.)
This amendment provides that the Bill would only come into effect after the report of a joint committee on wider reforms of the composition of the House of Lords has been approved by a resolution of the House of Commons.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I thank right hon. and hon. Members from both sides of the House for their scrutiny of the Bill throughout its passage. I am grateful to all those who contributed in Committee, as well as those who contributed to the lively debate on Second Reading last month. I also thank you and your colleagues for their chairmanship, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I thank Members on both sides of the House for their contributions, including my hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) and for Leeds South West and Morley (Mr Sewards), the right hon. Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson), my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell), the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart), my hon. Friends the Members for Glenrothes and Mid Fife (Richard Baker) and for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman), the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox), the right hon. Members for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes), for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) and for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), and the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed).
This Bill is a matter of principle. It has been introduced to address an outdated and indefensible feature of our legislature, rather than as a criticism of any contribution made by individual Members. The Government have listened to the debates in this House with interest and I look forward to following the Bill’s passage in the other place, where I am sure there will be further thoughtful contributions. I thank my officials and the whole team who have worked on the Bill.
This House will send to the other place a Bill that fulfils a manifesto commitment, and our manifesto was very clear:
“The next Labour government will…bring about an immediate modernisation, by introducing legislation to remove the right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords.”
That is precisely what the Bill does. It has a clear and simple purpose, a single focus, and it completes a process that started a quarter of a century ago. It sends a powerful message to people growing up in my constituency —in Blaenavon, Pontypool and Cwmbran—and beyond, right across the country: “You do not need to be born into certain families to make our laws.”
On Third Reading of the Parliament Bill—that landmark reform of the House of Lords—on 15 May 1911, the then Prime Minister, Herbert Asquith, said:
“I repeat, as I began, that our first duty, in view of the electoral and Parliamentary history of this measure, is to place this Bill on the Statute Book. It is stamped, if ever a measure was stamped, with the authority and approval of the electorate of the United Kingdom.”—[Official Report, 15 May 1911; Vol. 25, c. 1699.]
In that spirit, I commend this Bill to the House.
Alex Burghart
I echo the words of the Paymaster General in thanking everyone who has spoken this afternoon. It has been a good natured and interesting debate.
I want to echo some words of my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) in praise of the House of Lords. When I first came to this place, I bumped into Lord Young of Cookham, who I had known a few years previously, and I said, “How are you getting on in the upper House as a Minister?” He said, “It’s rather harder there than it is down your end.” When I asked him what he meant, he said, “Well, you see, when I stood up as a Minister in the House of Commons, I normally felt that, with the support of my officials, I was probably the best informed person in the room. But when you get to the Lords, you face five former Secretaries of State, three former heads of the civil service and people with expertise from across the sector, and what you find there is real scrutiny.”
I love this place and I do not wish to take anything away from it, but I do not wish to see it replicated; one of us is enough. That is why, despite the fact that the Opposition disagree with many of the things that the Labour Government are doing, we have been pleased to see that they have edged away from their long-standing commitment to an elected upper House. An elected upper House would replicate this place unnecessarily. It would inevitably get in the way of the primacy of the Commons and make the passage of law harder. It was very significant that, on 5 March, Lord Mandelson made an intervention with the Lord Speaker—on his very popular podcast—and said that the proposals of the former Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, for constitutional reform had
“barely been put in the oven…let alone…baked.”
I am very pleased that the Labour Government have taken that on board.
That said, the Bill in its present form cannot have the support of the Opposition. The Labour party has reneged on the solemn promise it made in 1998 not to get rid of the remaining hereditary peers until it brought forward a comprehensive plan for a reformed upper House. Many Government Members have said that the hereditary peers sit in the House of Lords by duty of right; well, that is not entirely right. The reason the remaining hereditary peers are in the House of Lords is that the Labour Government put them there. That was the agreement that was reached in 1998.
The remaining hereditary peers—who already sit in the Lords and scrutinise, night after night, the legislation introduced by this House—should not be treated in this way. Had the Government respected their position and made provision for them in a reformed Chamber, it would be very hard—not impossible, but very hard—to oppose this legislation. However, as it is, the Government are seeking to remove established scrutineers in order to replace them with Labour appointees, and we cannot support that.
The Minister’s argument that the Conservatives can nominate replacements is obviously not entirely genuine. Although we can put people forward, we cannot guarantee that they will go into the upper House. The Government could make that commitment tonight, but they have not done so. They have said nothing about the 33 Cross-Bench hereditary peers who will be removed by the legislation. Labour has broken its promise from 1998, and it has broken its promise to bring forward all its reforms immediately. The Conservative party will not support it.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
I will endeavour to be brief. I think that the Bill is to be welcomed. It is many things, but it is not, I fear, what the Government have tried to dress it up as. It is the fulfilment of a manifesto commitment, but one that was made, as my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) made clear, back in 1997. Blair blinked because my friend Robert Salisbury did what all Cecils have done since their appointment by Queen Elizabeth: he did a bit of deal-making and they found a solution.
If you are very quiet and listen, Madam Deputy Speaker, you can hear the voices of Labour radicals of the past muttering to themselves, “Is that it? Is that what all the intervening years since 1997 and the 14 years of Labour navel-gazing in opposition, as it contemplated its radical programme for government, have produced—removing 92 people who would have been removed in any event had Blair not blinked? No democratisation at all of the House of Lords? What a wasted opportunity.” What a wasted period of opposition that was—something I hope and know that our Front Benchers will not replicate. This timid church mouse of a Bill says, “We will take away some people who we would have taken away more than a quarter of a century ago.”
The Paymaster General, who I always consider to be one of the stars of the Treasury Bench and who is a good friend, told us that the principal motivation behind the Bill is for young constituents of Torfaen to say, “Ah, a glass ceiling has been removed,” as if they have sat there thinking, “You know, I would love to get involved in public life, if it wasn’t for this roadblock to my advancement”—namely, the 92 hereditary peers. With the greatest of respect to those on Treasury Bench, I think that a greater percentage of the right hon. Gentleman’s constituents—and constituents of all Labour Members—are probably asking themselves when the Labour party will crash the glass ceiling of having either a person of colour or a woman lead it.
Pete Wishart
I, too, congratulate the Paymaster General and his ministerial team on getting the Bill through Parliament at such pace and so early in the parliamentary calendar, as he has said on several occasions. I really hope that this will not be it. As the Conservatives have said, this really is a timid pipsqueak of a Bill.
The Paymaster General quoted Herbert Asquith’s words about the House of Lords, but could he not have quoted Keir Hardie, who pledged over 100 years ago to abolish it? Could he not have quoted Gordon Brown, who said only a few months ago that Labour would bring forward a new democratically elected second Chamber to represent the nations and regions of the whole of the United Kingdom?
Instead, what we have is the low-hanging fruit of the hereditary peers. Is it not remarkable that it has taken until 2024 to remove the earls, the barons, the dukes—all the assorted aristocrats—and we are to give Labour great credit for doing so? This should have happened several centuries ago, not in 2024.
I hope that Labour Back Benchers are not going to be disappointed, because we have heard several contributions, on Second Reading and today in Committee, suggesting that further reform is going to be coming; that these are the first stages of a whole package of reforms that will come before this House. I have to say that we have heard it all before from successive Governments, particularly Labour ones. We were promised a succession of reforms to the House of Lords, only for nothing to be delivered, so what we need to hear from Government Front Benchers is when those further reforms are going to come. We need a clear road map for their ambitions when it comes to the House of Lords, and that has to start with ensuring that that circus down the corridor is properly reformed and that we get to a position where it will be a democratically elected House.
Well done to the Government on getting this Bill through. I really hope that Labour Back Benchers have not been sold a pup and that they will get the further reform that has been promised to them, but what we really need to hear from the Government now is about solid progress on proper reform of the House of Lords.
Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill
Wednesday 13th November 2024
(1 month, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 12 November 2024 - (12 Nov 2024)
House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill
Wednesday 11th December 2024
(1 week, 3 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 12 November 2024 - (12 Nov 2024)
Baroness Smith of Basildon
That the Bill be now read a second time.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Smith of Basildon) (Lab)
My Lords, there are a number of noble Lords here today who sat in this House when my noble friend Lady Jay of Paddington stood at this same Dispatch Box on the afternoon of Monday 29 March 1999 to open the Second Reading debate for what became the House of Lords Act 1999. Following many long debates, that Act provided for the removal of the hereditary Peers from your Lordships’ House. However, in accepting the principle, an exception was made for 90 of the hereditary Peers, as well as those holding the offices of the Earl Marshal and the Lord Great Chamberlain, to remain.
Subsequently, under the Standing Orders of the House, any vacancy resulting from the death, and later the resignation, of one of the excepted 90 hereditary Peers was to be filled through a by-election. I do not think that at that time, anyone envisaged that the subsequent system of by-elections would still be running a quarter of a century later. Indeed, I think it was envisaged that by-elections would never happen in many cases. Twenty-five years on and those arrangements remain, although the by-elections have been paused for this Bill, and the change started in 1999 has still not been completed, despite opportunities to do so.
Numerous Private Members’ Bills introduced by my noble friend Lord Grocott sought to end the system of by-elections while allowing those hereditary Peers among us to remain for life. Noble Lords will recall that there was strong support for these measures across the House, including from many hereditary Peers. It was frustrating that, unfortunately, rafts of amendments and long debates ensured that those Bills never progressed to the other place, but I pay tribute to my noble friend for his persistent and valiant efforts.
Many of those here today will have heard me say numerous times that we offered our support to the then Government to get that Bill on to the statute book. It was a missed opportunity for your Lordships’ House. The time for more limited measures has passed. The reform in the Bill before us today is now long overdue. The Government are acting decisively to complete this phase of reform, as we clearly committed to do in our manifesto.
The legislation brought to this House in the other place has a clearly defined purpose, a clearly defined aim and a clearly defined objective: to finally remove the right of hereditary Peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords. In being clear about what the Bill does, I also want to be clear about what it does not do. This Bill is not about disrespecting any individual Peer, and it is not about eroding the scrutinising function at which this House excels. It is about completing the work of the 1999 Act, which defined the principle that seats should no longer be reserved purely because of the family a Peer was born into.
In November, the House debated the broader issues relating to Lords reform that go beyond the Bill before us today, and I am grateful for the thoughtful and many well-considered contributions in that debate. I repeat that I welcome that ongoing engagement on the wider issues, and I anticipate that the House will provide constructive scrutiny of this legislation as it progresses.
I am interested to hear the many contributions from those who have signed up to speak in today’s debate. I hope the House will permit me at this stage to single out two—my noble friend Baroness Quin, who is making her valedictory speech as she retires from the House, and the noble Lord, Lord Brady of Altrincham, who will be making his maiden speech. I look forward to hearing them both.
Through my ongoing engagement through questions, debates and meetings, I am able to address some of the issues that noble Lords have previously raised, which I hope will be helpful in the debate.
The Government set out commitments in our election manifesto that seek to return politics to public service and to put the interests of the country first. That includes constitutional reform, some of which relates to your Lordships’ House. These commitments apply across government and across Parliament, and some are already in place or are in play. It is for the Government to decide how best to implement our manifesto, and it is not usually expected that a department legislates for the entirety of its commitments in a single Bill in the first Session. Specifically on your Lordships’ House, the Government’s manifesto states:
“The next Labour government will therefore bring about an immediate modernisation, by introducing legislation to remove the right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords”.
Full stop.
Following that sentence, it continues on to the issues of retirement age, participation, appointments and standards, with a longer-term commitment to consult on proposals for an alternative second Chamber. The intention is crystal clear: to end the hereditary element of the second Chamber before embarking on further changes.
There are those who argue that no reform should take place until everything is agreed, but with no agreement on what everything should entail, nothing gets done. This has created a track record of stagnation and stalled attempts at reform. To continue to assert that wider reforms must be implemented alongside this Bill is a wilful misinterpretation of the manifesto. In this case, as with many other areas of policy, taking a staged approach represents the best and most practical way forward and is entirely in line with the manifesto commitments. It also provides for further discussion on how these wider forms can be implemented, building on the meetings I have had with various noble Lords and the debate we had last month. However, these are not the issues before us today.
It may also be helpful for me to address some of the other misconceptions and perhaps misunderstandings about the Bill. Since it was introduced, some noble Lords have asserted, both inside and outside this Chamber, that it is partisan and will erode the scrutiny functions of this House. I can reassure those with genuine concerns that that is not the intention of the Bill, nor its effect. Noble Lords will continue their constitutional duty to scrutinise and seek to revise. The legislation has no impact on the functions of your Lordships’ House. If the issue is one of concern regarding political balance, the facts deny the claim. Indeed, the removal of hereditary Peers barely shifts the dial on the political balance of your Lordships’ House. The effect of this change will be that the Conservative share of seats will decrease from about 34% to 32%; the Cross-Bench share will decrease from around 23% to 21%; the Liberal Democrats will increase from 9.5% to 10%; and Labour will increase from around 23% to 25%—still considerably lower than the party opposite. So, the bottom line is that the Conservative Party will remain the largest party in your Lordships’ House after the Bill has been implemented, and no party will have a majority.
It was also suggested that the Bill had somehow been “sprung” upon the House and that we are being rushed into a decision. Hardly. First, the principal of this policy was established in the 1999 Act, which removed all but the 92 hereditary Peers a quarter of a century ago. Secondly, the manifesto at the election pledged to remove the hereditary element of the House. Thirdly, the Bill was referenced in the King’s Speech and, noble Lords may recall, formed a significant part of the debate. The notion that the legislation has “snuck up” on this House is not a serious argument, and we should take into account the fact that it is the culmination of 25 years of discussion and debate.
There has also been some concern about how the Earl Marshal and the Lord Great Chamberlain will be able to fulfil their duties given that, as a result, both will cease to be Members of the House. I am pleased to confirm that the Bill will not affect the offices themselves or the ability to fulfil their important functions. As your Lordships may know, there is no legal or procedural requirement for either officeholder to be a Member of this House in order to be able to carry out their functions. However, it is of course right that the Earl Marshal and the Lord Great Chamberlain be able to continue to perform their constitutional roles. I have already raised this with the Lord Speaker to ensure that necessary arrangements can be made. I have also met both officeholders, and I will keep the House updated.
I now turn briefly to summarising the Bill clause by clause. Clause 1 removes the membership of the remaining hereditary Peers in the House of Lords and ends the right to participate and vote. Clause 2 removes the current role of the House of Lords in considering peerage claims, reflecting the removal of the link between the hereditary peerage and your Lordships’ House. Instead, the intention is that complex or disputed claims that would otherwise have been considered by the House of Lords will be referred to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council under Section 4 of the Judicial Committee Act 1833. Clause 3 makes consequential amendments. Clause 4 sets out the territorial extent of the Bill and when it will commence, which is at the end of the parliamentary Session in which it receives Royal Assent. Finally, Clause 5 establishes the Short Title of the Bill.
This Bill stands on its own terms. It delivers an election manifesto commitment and completes the work of the 1999 Act. We have been having this debate for more than a quarter of a century, and the time has come to pass this legislation and allow the House to move on.
From the debates, meetings and many discussions I have had, I understand that some noble Lords feel unable to support this Bill. But I want to be clear. I have outlined why this has been brought forward and addressed some of the arguments that have already been made against the proposals, but this is not a judgment on the work of those who remained after the 1999 Act or who have been elected in those unusual by-elections. The Government are clear, and I am clear, that this is not a slight in any way on the contributions made by hereditary Peers to the work of this House. I do understand the strength of feeling of some noble Lords at the thought of seeing colleagues depart. It is of course never easy, as we work closely with one another across the House. We build enduring friendships, and have respect and affection for many of our colleagues. Indeed, I also regard Peers across the House, including many hereditaries, as good friends. I also know from experience that many MPs in the other place feel exactly the same and also miss those who lose their seats. As I outlined previously, I think we need to consider how better to support all Members who leave and retire from Parliament, and I look forward to continuing constructive dialogue with noble Lords on how best to do that.
This is a reasonable and well-trailed piece of legislation. I believe it commands the support of not only this House but the public. I trust noble Lords will engage in the debate constructively and in good faith, in the interests of both this House and those we serve. I beg to move.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, like the noble Baroness the Leader of the House, I very much look forward to hearing the maiden speech of my noble friend Lord Brady of Altrincham and the valedictory speech, sadly, of the noble Baroness, Lady Quin, a well-liked and respected Member whom we will miss.
This is a strange day. Outside, there are desperate farmers, fearful of their future after a shock tax attack on their families; inside, here in this Chamber, the Government are focusing not on helping those hard-working people out there, but on purging Parliament of 88 of its most effective Members. Well, we can see this Government’s priorities.
The noble Baroness opposite, the Leader of our House, spoke skilfully and courteously, as she always does, and tried to gild not so much as a lily as a gigantic stinging nettle for many Members here: the blunt message that the Bill sends out to 88 of our number is, as the noble Lord, Lord Sugar, puts it, “You’re fired —you and you and you!”. By the way, I wonder how often the noble Lord, Lord Sugar, comes here, but he counts for one of the Cross-Bench numbers, the same as the noble Lord, Lord Vaux. Indeed, one of the many regrettable features of the Bill as it goes forward will be seeing some of those who do not participate very often being whipped to vote out those who do.
I say to the noble Baroness that this will be a fiercely contested Bill, not for its declared objective that no more hereditary Peers should come here— I have made clear that we all recognise that, even if we do not share the Government’s promise to do it—but, frankly, for the Bill’s sheer inadequacy. The noble Baroness tried to argue that away, but the Bill is defective not just for what is in it but for what it fails to address.
I also recently referred to the unpleasantness and hurt that there will be, and I appreciated the noble Baroness’s tone on this. Voicing what is an obvious truth seemed to cause some disquiet, and I know that there are many on all sides who feel uneasy; who feel, privately, that they wish this purge was not going to happen; and who feel that the House will lose a great deal.
I was sad when the Bill’s arrival was met with a loud cheer. It was hurtful. I was sitting then alongside the noble Earl, Lord Howe. That is not who we are, as represented by the tone of the speech we have heard already, and it is not what we should ever become—although we have seemed a little scratchier and more partisan of late, if I may say so. I trust that, through the difficult passage of the Bill, we will not fall short of our traditional courtesy but, frankly, the Government cannot expect all of us on this side or on the Cross Benches to like the Bill or, indeed, what is threatened in the manifesto to those among us who were born in the 1940s. If it is pushed through with a flinty inflexibility, that flint cannot help but strike sparks of resentment and sour the atmosphere in this House, not just in this Session but for Sessions to come.
The noble Baroness advanced three main reasons why we must make the Bill the flagship measure of this Government’s so far miserable first Session in office. The first is because it is in the manifesto. Well, when I asked her on Monday about the commitment in the very same paragraph of the manifesto to require Peers aged 80 to retire at the end of the Parliament, what was her reply? It was not, as you might expect, “Yes, of course, we will implement that because it was in our manifesto”. Instead, she resorted to what was known in the US election as something of a word salad—you could feel the grass growing as long over that manifesto pledge as the grass will grow long in the shires as the farmers wait for justice. Why this manifesto commitment at all costs, and, to the other, “No, George, don’t worry. We didn’t really mean it”? Is it because one is popular with the party opposite and the other has proved not to be? Frankly, that demonstrates that it is all about party expedient and not principle, and we should not pretend otherwise. Eighty-eight non-Labour Peers go and four Labour Peers go. Frankly, my six year- old grandchild can do the maths on that.
The second justification we hear is really more Keir Hardie than Keir Starmer—an outdated class-warrior one, like driving 15 year-old students out of their private schools by imposing VAT. The hereditary principle, the noble Baroness says, is indefensible. It is the same logic, of course, that leads you to jack up inheritance tax, and perhaps takes you to other, darker constitutional places, but that is another story. The Liberal Democrats, of course, enthusiastically agree, but just wait: once they have their promised peerages and the cuckoos on those Benches have shoved 33 Cross-Benchers and 45 Conservatives out of the nest—increasing, as we have heard, their weight in the House—just watch how fast they turn on the party opposite, on which they are now fawning.
The reality is that no one inherits a seat in this House as a hereditary Peer any more. That was dealt with in 1999. The then Lord Chancellor, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, declared then that the 1999 Act was historic and:
“No longer will membership of this House be a birthright”.—[Official Report, 30/3/1999; col. 204.]
The noble and learned Lord was right. That has been the case now for a quarter of a century. The days when you could inherit a seat here are long gone.
The noble Baroness says that there is unfinished business: there are some hereditary Peers still here and, despite what was agreed by Parliament in 1999, we must root them out. But I ask noble Lords: will driving out those hard-working Members improve our House? I do not think so. As I said in our recent debate, there is an easy way—a proven House of Lords way—to square the circle and to end for ever the arrival of hereditary Peers, yet keep our colleagues who serve us all well. It is what was done with the Irish peerage and the Law Lords: the House ended the inflow but kept its Members. That, effectively, as the noble Baroness said, was the proposition of the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, but now we hear that the time for that is past. Why? Why did Labour think it was a good idea to keep the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, here on 3 July but not 5 July? It defies all logic and is also, frankly, unreasonable. The House should test that proposition in later stages of the Bill: it might bring an early and honourable peace where long conflict looms.
The third justification the noble Baroness uses is about numbers. This, as the House knows, is not something about which I agonise, but I recognise that most of the House, and the Government, worry about it. As I said in my speech last month, let us reflect on it, discuss a way forward and take the opportunity of the Bill. I reject, however, the idea that, if one wants to reduce numbers, the master plan is to find some of the best and hardest working among us and kick them out while clinging to the laggards and the no-shows. No rational institution would do that, and the House of Lords is a rational institution. We should use the Bill to explore better approaches on numbers and address the as yet obscure propositions that the party opposite has put on participation. That, too, could offer a way forward on numbers. The noble Baroness may say, and has said, “What about the disparity in party numbers?”. There is a disparity in numbers, though it has been worse in the past, but, as she well knows, I have said more than once in this House that too many Conservative and too few Labour Peers have been created. This can be addressed and we are open to discussion of other methods of redressing it.
I beseech the House to appreciate what I offered inside and outside this Chamber as your Leader and what I still offer from this side: a refreshment and renewal of the conventions surrounding the relations between this House and the other place, going beyond the Salisbury doctrine made for the old hereditary House. That is the only sure way to address disparities in numbers and ensure that the King’s government is carried on under all Governments. I still believe that is desirable, and I still think it is possible, but there is a great overarching convention that major constitutional change should follow reflection and discussion across party lines. That has not happened here. Convention rests on consensus, and I fear the appetite in my party for broadening conventions as I would wish risks being in inverse proportion to the Government’s appetite to drive this and other Bills through unamended. It need not go that way. It is in the hands of our Leader, the Leader of the whole House, with her unique influence at the Cabinet table with the Prime Minister, to follow her great predecessor in that place, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, and urge a compromise that suits us all.
I end with a general point that should guide how we approach the Bill. This Bill, like it or not, risks destabilising the House. It will have far-reaching consequences, some unintended, many perhaps unavoidable. We have already seen in the other place how a plan to remove the excepted Peers has led to calls to expel the right reverend Prelates from Parliament. After the Bill passes and the last Law Lords fade away, the Bishops will be the only Members not here under the 1958 Act. They will be on an exposed slope if the north wind should blow.
This House has stood for centuries. We meet below the statues of those barons who, long ago on the meadow at Runnymede, constrained the power of the Executive and gave the British people Magna Carta rights. They did not do such a bad job, did they? The Bill snaps that historic thread, and the House it will leave will be one not centuries old but 66 years old.
Unless we make the right decisions on the Bill, this House will be vulnerable, for the upshot will be a House in which the power and prerogative of the Executive to stock it and direct how it is stocked will run ever wider. The untrammelled power to create new Peers will be matched by the power to use a majority in the other place to purge Members of Parliament, with 369 marked down to go in Labour’s manifesto.
Since the 1958 House was created, there been five Acts—in 1999, 2005, 2014, 2015 and 2024—to remove Members and alter composition. Why should we believe that the House will be immune to future Acts by future Governments to alter our composition to their advantage? History shows that what is once controversial slides easily into habit.
That is why those of us who love this House, as I do, might have wished that a Bill to change it would have come after, not before, consideration of all the proposals to fortify and improve the 1958 House. The noble Baroness the Leader of the House could have proceeded that way, but by tabling the Bill she has said she cannot wait for that and she declared it again in her speech—yet surely we must try.
Manifesto or not, as there is no accompanying stage 2 Bill—we do not see it, and who really believes that will happen?—then where better to scrutinise all the implications of change? Where better to consider legislative options, including those floated by the Government on participation, appointment, age limits and number, than on this Bill? It is the only vehicle that the Government have allowed us and there will probably be no other opportunity. Scrutiny of such matters is what Committee in your Lordships’ House is for, and if others do not lay amendments to enable consideration of these ideas, we on this side will—and let no one call it delay if Members of this House bring their wisdom and experience to bear to seek to improve the Bill and so improve this House. After all, that is what this revising House exists to do. Who will care for our future if we do not?
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, I am looking forward to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Brady, and the valedictory speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Quin.
The Bill before us is limited in scope and, in our view, long overdue and we support it. When we debated the future of the House of Lords on 12 November, I set out why we on these Benches believe that fundamental reform is required, involving the election of Members of your Lordships’ House. I also set out why we believe the time has come to remove the remaining hereditary Members. Noble Lords will be pleased to know that I do not intend to repeat those arguments today. Instead, I shall examine the arguments made on 12 November against the Bill. I carefully reread the November debate and listed no fewer than 30 arguments deployed against it. The noble Lord, Lord True, has helpfully repeated some today—although in many years in your Lordships’ House, where I have been called many things, I have never before been called a cuckoo.
The arguments fell into two broad categories. First, there were arguments about procedure—basically, that it was the wrong Bill at the wrong time. Then there were arguments of substance: that the qualities that hereditary Peers brought to the House were unique and substantial, and therefore their removal would weaken the House and the constitution more generally.
I shall address the procedural issues first. It was repeatedly asserted that the Labour Party was effectively stopped from removing the remaining hereditaries because in 1999 Ministers had said they would not do so before more fundamental reform. That is a curious argument because we have a convention in this country that no Parliament can bind its successor. The acceptance that Parliament and parties can change their minds is particularly relevant on the issue of Lords reform, because there has been no consistency from the largest parties on what they propose to do on the matter from Parliament to Parliament. The Conservatives, for example, were in favour of an elected House in 2012 and voted at Second Reading for the Clegg Bill, but are not in favour of it now. They are allowed to change their minds, so it is no constitutional outrage when Labour does the same.
It is then argued that this reform should not be pursued except, as we have heard, as part of the simultaneous implementation of all the other proposals for Lords reform set out in the Labour Party manifesto, and that to do so in isolation is somehow improper. Surely it is for a Government to decide in which order and at what pace to implement their manifesto. They will be judged at the next election on how far they have done so, not after five months in office—something that the Government at the moment will be very relieved about. Anyone with an understanding of the history of Lords reform will understand why they have chosen to do so in an incremental manner.
We were told that the proposal was ill thought-out and hasty, and that a constitutional convention or conference should be held before moving forward. Over the years there have been umpteen reports on the size and composition of your Lordships’ House. Not a single argument now is even vaguely new. The doctrine of unripe time is typically a cover for basic opposition to the proposal under debate, and this is what is happening with this Bill.
It was further, and lyrically, suggested that the constitution was a priceless piece of porcelain that the Government planned to break with the Bill, never to be put back together again. The truth is that no other components of the constitution will be affected, for good or ill, by the Bill. It is far too modest for that.
Those were the procedural arguments. The substantive arguments related to what were seen as the hereditary Peers’ unique contributions to our lawmaking and the deleterious consequences of their departure. Central to that line of argument were what were described as the unique qualities that the hereditaries brought to your Lordships’ House. It was variously claimed that the hereditaries worked harder, had a higher sense of public duty, were able to follow their conscience and be independent, had more in common with the country than the remainder of the House because they supported Brexit, have unique knowledge and insight, were not self-assertive and represented the whole of the UK.
Like everyone else, I have huge respect for the hereditary Peers currently in your Lordships’ House. They are often model public servants: hard-working, thoughtful and diligent. However, those qualities are not unique to them, and frankly it is unfair and inaccurate to the rest of the House to claim that mere life Peers do not show the same qualities in equal measure.
I particularly smiled at the suggestion that hereditaries had a unique independence of spirit as I contemplated the number of extremely loyal hereditary Front-Benchers who, over many years, have never broken the whip. I thought how I, when I was Chief Whip, would have treated an outburst of independence amongst Liberal Democrat hereditaries purely on the basis of their hereditary nature. Cross-Bench hereditaries are indeed independent, but so are their lifer colleagues.
In terms of representing the country as a whole, I merely point out that all hereditaries are male, all are white and virtually all come from similar backgrounds. Diversity is not among their strengths.
On the back of the unique qualities that hereditaries were said to possess, several constitutional consequences were said to flow. It was argued that they formed a link with Magna Carta, that they maintained a strand of legitimacy without which Parliament would become “a toothless farce”, like the Chinese national congress, and that the country as a whole, if given the choice, would back them. However, the link with Magna Carta is formed by Parliament and the courts, and an ongoing commitment to the rule of law and basic freedoms that Parliament and the courts uphold. The lack of legitimacy of your Lordships’ House flows from the lack of elections, not from the absence, or presence, of a small minority of hereditary Peers.
As for public opinion, recent polling by YouGov showed that, of those who had a view at all, some 79% thought that hereditaries should not continue to have places in your Lordships’ House. Incidentally, the same poll showed that 71% of those who had a view thought that the House should be wholly elected.
A final constitutional argument advanced in our last debate was that the exclusion of the hereditaries would leave the King without an hereditary partner, isolated and vulnerable to republican attack. I have no doubt that His Majesty takes daily comfort from the presence of hereditary Peers, but his fate depends on the way he does his job, not on the knowledge that he has the support of the Captain of the King’s Bodyguard of the Yeoman of the Guard and his hereditary colleagues if things get tricky. So I do not believe that the arguments advanced against the Bill undermine it—quite the opposite.
Nor do I think that that the House should seek to use this Bill as a Christmas tree on which to dangle every other possible reform to the composition of your Lordships’ House. There are a small number of amendments —for example, those relating to the independence of the House of Lords Appointments Commission—which could usefully be made, and the Bill should, of course, be properly debated. But it should then be passed, as a small but necessary contribution to the broader reforms we need to make this Chamber fit for the future.
The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)
I haven’t said anything yet!
I should begin by saying that I too very much look forward to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Brady, and to the sad occasion of the valedictory speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Quin.
In the last 25 years, excluding the two ecclesiastical Measures, only three Bills containing substantial reform of our House have had a Second Reading in government time. The last of those was in October 2014. Thus, the Bill before us is a rare opportunity for this House not just to talk about our reform, but to engage in it. Although the subject matter of the Bill that has arrived in this House is small, the available scope is much larger, and in the amending stages the House will want to consider thoroughly other potential reforms.
As I have remarked before, the British constitution is a three-legged stool, one each for the Executive, Parliament and the judiciary. Major change by the Executive to the legs of the stool needs to be undertaken with great care, especially if the net effect of the change is to accrue more power to one or other of the legs. I would also underline again the importance of ensuring that, following any major change, the Salisbury convention runs smoothly. I will come back to this.
In giving evidence to the Commons Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee in May, I commented that there were three unfairnesses in the make-up of the membership of our House: the hereditaries, the bishops, and the unlimited and unfettered power of the Prime Minister to make appointments to this House. The greatest unfairness, I continue to feel, is this last one, which is both most powerful and vested in one person. The Prime Minister’s very large power is without precedent in any other liberal democracy, and however comfortable we may feel about our recently elected Government today, this is not a satisfactory state of affairs going forward for a major liberal democracy.
In 2017 the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and his committee produced their seminal report about the size of the House and, by implication, some sort of conventional cap on the Prime Minister’s prerogative powers. We unanimously endorsed it. Many of those who were a part of that endorsement are on the Front Benches of the major groupings here today. In any event, we all remember our agreed target of 600. This Bill is the first suitable vehicle to have arrived that could assist in reaching this target.
The constitutional reform section of the Government’s manifesto contains six separate propositions that involve this House. To the extent that each of these would require primary legislation, we will inevitably discuss them as the Bill progresses. The first proposition concerns the hereditary unfairness, and is the subject matter of the Bill. The second is the proposal to restrict the age of Members of this House. While the specific proposal in the manifesto does not, I feel, quite work, producing as it does large numbers of departing Members at the end of a Parliament, the underlying point is a clear manifesto commitment. I feel that the introduction of an age limit for newly created peers would be a good idea; it would mean amending Section 1 of the Life Peerages Act 1958. To introduce age limits on the existing membership would be a very large organisational shock. That is not necessary and should be avoided.
The route of implementing a new retirement age for newcomers only was chosen by the senior England and Wales judiciary 40 or so years ago. In that case only newly promoted senior judges had the new retirement age. Existing judges were unaffected. The exercise was deemed a success, and it turned out that many of those who could have continued retired at the new limit in any event. I would expect that to happen here, and I estimate that if only one in five of those protected stood back, 50 extra colleagues might retire this Parliament.
The third proposition in the Government’s manifesto concerns addressing participation. My office estimates that changing the requirement for Members to attend from at least one day per Session, pursuant to Section 2 of the House of Lords Reform Act 2014, to 10% of the days sat in a Session, could affect as much as 20% of the Cross-Benchers alone. Some Peers would clearly choose to sit a few extra days, but I still believe that such a required level could reduce House numbers by getting on for 100 Peers. I am in favour of this as well.
Those three changes—participation, age limits and the provisions on the hereditaries in this Bill—could thus represent more than 200 Members leaving this Parliament. Even allowing for necessary government reinforcements, we would then have a House of about or below our target of 600.
I will finish on conventions. The Salisbury/Addison convention is at the core of a successful relationship between the Lords and the Executive. The modern version has served us well, but it should be renewed as part of our reform processes, in particular to address the upward trend in ping-pong. We have been playing ping-pong on more Bills, with more balls and longer rallies. A renewed Salisbury/Addison convention would benefit relations between Parliament and the Executive so that the Government could have confidence that their manifesto Bills would move through our House at reasonable pace.
However, to preserve the balance of the constitutional stool I started with, the Prime Minister’s power of appointment must also be addressed. A proportionate thing would be for the Prime Minister to enter into a new convention whereby 600 Members was our conventional limit, and the Prime Minister agreed to take advice on propriety and suitability from HOLAC. I feel that we should grasp these opportunities. But as we seek to navigate these difficult waters, I repeat that at all times we must balance constitutional security, the proper relationship between Parliament and the Executive, and the words of the Government’s manifesto.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
My Lords, I am honoured to follow a characteristically measured and thoughtful speech from the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull. With all of us, I look forward with genuine expectation to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Brady of Altrincham, and with real sadness I await the valedictory speech of my noble friend Lady Quin, who has made a substantial contribution to Parliament over many years. She will be missed.
The issue in this debate is not whether the remaining 88 hereditaries currently in your Lordships’ House have made a worthwhile contribution to this House; they have. They have our genuine respect and affection and therefore their leaving will be a source of sadness. The issue is whether the 796 families in this country with a right to a hereditary peerage should continue to have exclusive access to 10% of the places in the second Chamber of our country’s legislature. The answer is no.
The principle is no longer defended, not even by those who oppose the Bill. Instead, other grounds of opposition are advanced. First, some, including the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, who speaks after me, oppose it because it would lead, he says, to a wholly appointed House. This argument necessarily seeks the continuation of the by-election process. This is the equivalent of a subset of a closed club electing Members of the legislature—with the possible distinction that clubs such as the Garrick have a more progressive policy towards women than the hereditaries. If it comes to a choice between the appointer being the hereditaries or the democratically legitimate Prime Minister, I prefer the Prime Minister.
Secondly, from the opposite end of the scale, come the Conservatives who say that kindness and the good working of this House favour abolishing the by-elections and letting the hereditary principle wither over time. It would, happily because of our personal affection for the 88 but unhappily from the point of view of sensible constitutional change, take a very long time for the withering to occur—47 years for the last to go, on average life expectancies. After 20 years, a little more than half would have gone.
The 88 include six Deputy Speakers and 24 of the 88 have Front-Bench experience. We have heard from the excellent Convenor of the Cross Benches, who is also hereditary. The removal of the 88 would reduce the size of the House from 806 eligible Peers to 718. Over 300 of the life Peers who would remain have Front-Bench experience. There are 420 places on Select Committees, of which 24 are currently filled by hereditaries. Their replacement would mean that there would be losses, but they are replaceable and the exclusive right of entry would be brought to an end. There are plainly exceptional contributors among the 88 whom it would be invidious to name. For those who are party Peers, it will be for their party to decide whether their contribution should be retained by their appointment as a life Peer; and, for the Cross-Benchers, whether they or some of them return as life Peers will be a matter for the Prime Minister and HOLAC.
Thirdly, it is said that the removal of the hereditaries should await all the other changes which would occur to this House. History tells us that that is an excuse for no change. The principle is established that the hereditaries should go. It is right. It was the only immediate change promised in the manifesto; we should act.
Finally, reliance is placed on the words of my noble and learned friend Lord Irvine. In accepting the preservation of the 92, he said that they would go only when there had been full-scale reform of this House. It is explicit that his commitment envisaged immediate full-scale reform. In 2003, the Commons refused to accept any proposal for compositional reform and in 2012 the Commons again refused to progress that full-scale reform. The justification for retention had gone by 2003, certainly by 2012. Our Parliament is not a private club where membership can be determined in perpetuity by commitments now expired and made in a different time. Now is the time. For the sake of the hereditaries and for the sake of this House, we should not prevent their removal. Let us recognise their achievement and accept that it is time for them to go.
Lord Strathclyde (Con)
It is always a pleasure to follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton. He and I have debated this issue over many years, and I am sorry that we will not debating it for very much longer. I know he will not agree, but this is a thoroughly nasty little Bill, rushed through the House of Commons and brought to us with little thought about the future. It breaks a fundamental and solemn agreement made in 1998 by the then Labour Lord Chancellor, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, that the remaining hereditary Peers would leave only when the Labour Government had introduced their plan for a fully reformed House. It did not seem like a very big statement of intent in 1998. After all, as was said at the time, the Labour Party was about to come forward with a fully reformed plan. We have been waiting 25 years for that and the Labour Party has demonstrated no thought, no thinking and no progress whatever.
Why are the Government bringing forward this measure now? Is it because it is in the manifesto? I do not think that is really good enough. It does not stop it going through but there needs to be a more serious justification for why this Bill is being brought forward. What is worse, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, explained a moment ago, this creates a wholly appointed House where—and this is what he did not say—the appointments are almost entirely in the hands of the Prime Minister. The noble and learned Lord suggested that the by-elections were still continuing but, of course, they were suspended in July. There is therefore no hereditary Peer in this House, because there is nobody able to pass on their place to sit and vote in the House of Lords on to their heirs.
This is not a reform. It tells us nothing about the Government’s thinking. We will wait many years before a future Bill is published. Also, the Bill offers no continuity. Rumours abound of life peerages being offered to those due to be purged—if they behave. If the Government are planning life peerages, why do they not tell us who is going to receive one or how many life Peers are going to be created, and then those affected can make plans for the future? Is it really conceivable that the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, who has been picked by the Cross Benches to be their convenor, is to be expelled in the purge? If he has not been offered a life peerage yet, why not? Why are these matters secret? The Government must have a view. They must have discussed these issues.
Who are the Peers to be purged? Will the Government publish a list of all those to be purged from the House and place it in the Library? They should find that very easy to do. Peers in the House sometimes who have no idea who is a life Peer or who is a hereditary Peer; it is quite an issue. I have lost count of the number of Peers who have said to me, “Ah, well, you’ll be all right, you’re a life Peer after all”. Do many Peers know if the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, is a life Peer or a hereditary Peer, with his distinguished record as a Minister in the House of Commons, or the noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, who is an expert on Africa and business? Is the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, a life Peer or a hereditary Peer? Perhaps we ought to have a list.
Lord Strathclyde (Con)
It is wonderful that some Peers know who the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, is but not everybody does. Would his name appear on the list or not? I can let noble Lords into a little secret —it would not.
As my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition asked: is this about numbers? I can see the attraction for the Government to get rid of several dozen supporters of opposition parties or Cross-Benchers, but why remove a cohort who are generally committed, younger and harder-working, rather than picking those who turn up very rarely? I listened carefully to the suggestions made by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull. Is not the reality that this is a nakedly partisan Bill, whose key aim is to reduce the number of the Government’s opponents in the Lords and throw some red meat to extreme Labour?
For those who have borne a grudge against the Lords for most of the last 100 years, the temptation to remove 45 Conservatives is just too much to resist. Is this not the real motivation behind the Bill? The Prime Minister will then be able to control who comes into the Lords, taking control of the Lords as much as he controls the House of Commons.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to speak after the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. In asserting my support for this Bill, it in no way detracts from the respect and esteem in which I hold the noble Lord, or indeed the other hereditary Peer who has already spoken in the debate: the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull. The fact that one supports the removal of hereditary Peers does not in any way reflect on the contribution that they have made.
The Bill falls short because it fails to meet the bigger challenge of a more fundamental reform of the House. Removing all the remaining hereditary Peers at least helps us move into the 20th century. As my noble friends Lord Newby and Lord Rennard noted in a debate on Lords reform on 12 November, the preamble to the Liberal Government’s Parliament Act 1911 read:
“And whereas it is intended to substitute for the House of Lords as it at present exists a Second Chamber constituted on a popular instead of hereditary basis, but such substitution cannot immediately be brought into operation”.
That was 113 years ago: I think we have waited long enough.
I read some of the Second Reading debate in the House of Commons on that, and it is interesting that it would appear that the preamble was put in to give some reassurance that further reform of the House of Lords would take place, because at that time, the Conservative Opposition in the Commons were saying that there should not be any change in the powers of the House of Lords, as was proposed by the Parliament Act, until there was a more fundamental reform of the House of Lords. This has echoed down the century again and again, but one also suspects that it is a bit of a delay rather than an act of principle.
There is a need to work out reform. As the noble Lord, Lord True, said was necessary—one of the few things on which I agreed with him—we should refresh the conventions to clearly establish the relationship between the Lords and the Commons. Indeed, in the debate on the Parliament Bill in 1911, the then Prime Minister, Herbert Asquith, outlined his goals:
“First, that this House must be predominant in legislation. Next, that the functions, and the only functions, which are appropriate to a Second Chamber, are the functions of consultation and revision and, subject to proper safeguards, of delay. Further, that the body which is to perform those functions shall be a relatively small body. Next, that it must be a body which does not rest on an hereditary basis”.—[Official Report, Commons, 2/3/1911; col. 588.]
Most of us today would readily sign up to Asquith’s limits of what the second Chamber should be. Refreshing the conventions would help to reinforce that. In a representative democracy, direct election is the basis on which those promoting and revising legislation should be chosen.
The proposals brought forward in 2012 did try to take into account all the difficulties and recognised what the relationship should be between the two Chambers, albeit it was going towards a fully elected House. It follows that if there should be a direct election, there would no place in a second Chamber for the Lords Spiritual. I do not have a problem with that. The right reverent Prelate the Bishop of Sheffield, in the debate on 12 November, said:
“It is an expression of our vocation to service in all communities that is core to our constitutional status as an established Church”
and that the Bishops brought
“a voice for faith and for our local communities”.—[Official Report, 12/11/24; col. 1714.]
I am sure that the right reverend Prelate did not mean to imply that there were no other voices of faith in your Lordships’ House, because I can look around and see many of them at the moment.
Although the right reverend Prelate said that the Bishops served the local communities, they are the communities in only one part of the United Kingdom. This is a Chamber of the Parliament of the whole United Kingdom, and it is not logical that only one part of the United Kingdom should be represented by the Lords Spiritual. If we had a properly directly elected Chamber, there would be people of faith here; there would be an opportunity to make sure that the whole United Kingdom was well represented. One of the ways in which we go forward might be to ensure that all the nations and regions are fairly and properly represented.
I do not subscribe to the idea that the Bishops could be balanced out by bringing in representatives of other denominations. My own denomination, the Church of Scotland, made it clear, last time the General Assembly debated it, that in a small House, there should be no faith representatives at all. I would go along with that, but I do not suspect that it is going to happen in the near future; it would certainly be a healthy thing if that is the direction that we move in.
Lord Burns (CB)
My Lords, I support the Bill, and I support it because, along with others, I cannot accept that there should be a fast-track, reserved route into this House because of a person’s parentage. Despite the long history of the House, which I respect, it cannot be right that 10% of the seats in this House should continue to be filled in this way.
My first reservation is the implication that all excepted hereditary Peers should be required to retire once the Bill becomes law. Often, they have given up alternative careers to join this House and they make a valuable contribution. As a group, they attend and vote, if anything, more often than life Peers.
However, I am afraid that the blame for this potential cliff edge lies clearly with the previous Government. The Private Member’s Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, provided ample opportunity to abolish the by-elections and to allow this category of membership to disappear gradually. Not only did they refuse to support the noble Lord’s Bill, they made appointments to this House disproportionately to their own party. They tried to defend it using the opportunistic argument that they were underrepresented in this House compared with the House of Commons. The result, as we know, is that the present Government arrived in office with around 100 fewer seats than the present Opposition.
I accept the criticism that, if all we do is remove the excepted hereditary Peers, this will leave this House in a position where the number, affiliation and timing of future appointments are entirely at the behest of the Prime Minister of the day. As we have seen in the past, this is a mechanism for leapfrogging between the parties and increasing the size of the House.
However, there is a better answer to this criticism than the continuation of the hereditary principle. As proposed by the Lord Speaker’s Committee, this could be avoided by having a limit on the size of the House and having a fair allocation of appointments to political parties, with reference to their performance at previous general elections. In addition, all appointments could be required to be approved by HOLAC.
I support the Government’s proposal that in future the relevant party should publish a statement of the reasons for a proposed appointment, if it is successful; but I would go further and require the individuals concerned to make a statement to HOLAC about the time they would devote to the activities of the House, and the ways in which they would contribute. This could also be published if they were successful.
It follows from my earlier comments that I have a second reservation: the Bill does not take the opportunity to impose a ceiling on the size of the House. Without a ceiling, I fear that it will be possible to fill all the spaces created by the removal of the excepted hereditary Peers by appointments at the whim of the Prime Minister. I hope that the Government can be persuaded to include in this Bill—or at a later point—a ceiling on the size of the House, and a mechanism for a fair allocation of appointments.
The presence of Members through the hereditary route is undoubtedly a historical anomaly. However, the position whereby a Prime Minister can make whatever number of appointments they wish, and to whichever party they choose, is also an anomaly. I am not sure which of these is the most difficult to justify.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Burns. I want to start with what is undeniable. This House is good at its job; a core cohort of committed Peers and the bishops makes that possible. Let me say in relation to the bishops that I believe in a presence of faith in this House. They have the best Chief Whip of all, the Almighty, and that is good enough for me.
The principle of hereditary Peers is unsustainable. The Labour Party, in its manifesto, committed specifically to removing the remaining hereditary Peers and to introducing a mandatory retirement age of 80. These changes proposed by the Government have significant constitutional consequences, so where does this amalgam of undeniable facts get us?
It gets us into a bit of a mess, I am afraid, because there are no logical linkages between the start point of a House which is good at its job, reducing numbers, abolishing remaining hereditaries, sacking everyone who is 80 and over and ending up with a House which is good at its job. That will not be the end point. Others will have their view about how such fractured and disjointed reform can work. They will express specific concerns about the Bill and rightly focus on the very real problems of addressing poor attendance and minimal contribution to the work of the House, and a much-needed refreshment of the Salisbury convention. Well, I am a pragmatist, so I am going to address what is before us now.
I want to tease out what the Bill means in practice and explore whether there is any way we can reconcile the Government’s manifesto commitments with an end point of delivering a well-functioning House. Yes, of course, the Government can charge ahead with this legislation, but there are constitutional consequences. Let me make it clear that the following are my personal views—and I am not deliberately assaulting my colleague on the Front Bench with my notes.
I suggest that it would be helpful to separate the principle of what the Bill seeks to achieve from the consequences, and then have an intelligent conversation about managing the transition. To inform that conversation, I have done my own research on who the hereditary Peers are and what roles they have in the House. I can tell your Lordships, because I believe so passionately in this place, that this was a labour of love, because the task was not easy.
Of the 88 hereditary Peers, this is what I discovered. There may be minor errors, but I believe the main facts to be correct and am more than happy if anyone wants to verify them. They do not completely match what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, referred to, but we may have been looking at different sources. Six are Deputy Speakers, one of whom is the Convenor of the Cross Benches. An additional three discharge advisory panel duties for the Lord Speaker. Eleven are opposition Front-Bench spokespersons. Thirty-six serve on committees, of whom 20 serve on a single committee, 12 serve on two committees, two serve on three committees, one serves on five committees and, deserving of an award for valour, one serves on six committees. These 56 regularly contribute to the proceedings of the House. As for the remaining 32 not holding roles, I am here every week and my impression is that a considerable number of them also contribute. That is all part of scrutiny, so the question is: will removing the hereditary Peers impact on the efficacy of this House? Yes, I strongly believe it will.
Let me turn to the second commitment: the cull of the octogenarians. There are many people in their 80s in this House who are sharp as tacks. They do their share of the heavy lifting regularly and impressively, supporting the work of the House. They have the experience and mental acuity to do that well. Will their removal impact on the efficacy of this House? Yes, I strongly believe it will.
What happens if both culls take place at the same time? In my opinion, the functionality of the House is then seriously challenged, so, if the Bill is to progress, the Government, if they really care about this House and are not trying by covert means to reduce scrutiny and transfer predominant control of appointments to the Executive, have to be sensible and reassurance is urgently required. Here is what I suggest.
First, to preserve some degree of stability in this place, the Government should cancel the cull of the octogenarians and confirm their willingness to do that. Then, with immediate effect, through the usual channels, they should engage in productive discussions to invite party and group leaders to identify retirals of any of their Peers to assist in an early reduction of numbers. Secondly, the Government should consult with party and group leaders to prepare a list of the abolished hereditaries who should then be converted into life Peers; that conversion list has to be entirely separate from any party or HOLAC nominees presented for appointment in the usual manner. If the Government are able to provide such reassurance by amendment to the Bill, I anticipate that the proceedings of this House would continue to run smoothly.
I know there are many Members of this House, not least on the Labour Benches, who believe in this place and do not want to see it diminished. I believe that is the view of the Leader of the House, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith. But what is very clear to me is that, unless we can find some practical way forward, there is going to be a very difficult period ahead of us for this place. I have endeavoured to offer a non-partisan, practical way forward and I hope that the Government can be receptive.
In conclusion, in my view, any further reform of this House should proceed by way of consultation and consensus, not by a unilateral party edict.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
My Lords, I think I can be forgiven for reflecting that, in five Sessions of Parliament over a period of eight years, I introduced successive Bills to deal with the outstanding problem of the remaining hereditary Peers. Each time, my Bill was filibustered by half a dozen Peers, some of whom are speaking today, and blocked by successive Conservative Governments. No one so far has explained why they thought that was a good idea. I shall concentrate my remarks on the principal arguments used against this Bill so far and in previous debates.
First, we have been told or reminded already that we cannot legislate to remove the hereditaries because of a deal reached by Conservative and Labour leaders in the Lords a quarter of a century ago. The deal, it is said, guaranteed that 92 hereditaries should remain until some unspecified date in the future. Anyone who uses this argument clearly does not understand the most fundamental principle of the British constitution, namely that no Parliament can bind its successor. It would be ludicrous if it were otherwise. Are the defenders of the 1999 deal really saying that today’s Parliament can legislate on war and peace, can join the EU or leave it and nationalise the railways or privatise them, but the one thing it must never do under any circumstances whatever is to remove the right of hereditary Peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords?
There is a far more damning indictment of the 1999 deal. We now know from no less a source than Lord Cranborne, the Conservative Leader in the Lords at the time, that the Labour Government were forced into retaining the 92 hereditaries because their whole legislative programme was under threat. Viscount Cranborne himself said:
“My whole tactic was to make their flesh creep … I threatened them with the Somme and Passchendaele”.
Viscount Cranborne said he would call off the threat, but only if at least 92 hereditaries were retained. I happened to be working at No. 10 at the time and we did indeed believe that, if we did not concede on the hereditaries, we would be unable to get our manifesto commitments through the Lords, with its huge, huge Tory majority. It was the most flagrant breach by the Tory Opposition of the fundamental convention of this House: namely, that the Lords respects manifesto commitments. It was not a deal; it was blackmail.
The second palpably weak argument against this Bill is that by removing the 92 hereditaries you somehow undermine the constitutional monarchy. The answer to that is simple: 25 years ago, we removed 667 hereditary peers and, quite patently, the monarchy has remained entirely unaffected. The key reason is precisely that , at all costs, the monarch keeps out of party politics and for centuries has taken no part whatever in the process of legislation. The situation of the hereditaries could not be more different. Most of the 92 who have inherited their titles are extensively, and sometimes decisively, involved in party politics and voting on Bills as they pass through Parliament. I should also point out that the removal of the 667 hereditaries has had absolutely no detrimental effect whatever on the operation of this House. If there are any Members here today who think we should never have passed the 1999 Act, it is entirely within their rights to put down amendments to the Bill to reinstate the 667—and good luck with that one.
Thirdly, we have the astonishing party-political argument that has been put forward by the noble Lord, Lord True, and others, that the removal of the hereditaries is grossly unfair to the Tory party, and will put them in an unacceptably weak position in the House. To appreciate the audacity of that claim, just look at the figures. Even when all the hereditaries are removed, the remaining party strengths will be as follows: Tories 228, Labour 182 —a Tory majority over Labour of 46. And listen to this: that figure of 46 is larger than any majority ever held by Labour over the Conservatives in this House. The largest ever Labour majority over the Tories was just 26 in 2010. For any Tory to claim that their party either today or after the departure of the hereditaries, or indeed at any time in the party’s history, has had a raw deal in the House of Lords is simply risible.
That brings me, finally, to the critics of the Bill who say that it is bad because it will lead to some valued Members of the House having to depart. Well, I agree with that. Of course, that is true and it is inevitable. It would be true of any group of people who were given a privileged position in the legislature by virtue of some characteristic acquired by birth. We could reserve 92 places for people with green eyes, or red hair, or—one that I would find quite appealing—92 places reserved for the eldest sons of railwaymen. Whatever random category you select, including hereditary Peers, you will have some who are very good, some who are average and some who are not so good, and one or two maybe who are a complete waste of space. And, no, I am not going to identify which Members fall into which categories.
This Bill is long, long overdue. The whole idea of inheriting the right to legislate is indefensible. The manifesto commitment is clear. The Commons have backed this Bill with an overwhelming majority of 362. So, let us get on with it.
Lord Wakeham (Con)
My Lords, although it is almost certain this Bill will become law, we have heard enough from a good part of the House to say that it is unwise to try to reform the House piecemeal in the way that the Government propose. It is a serious mistake. When I spoke in the recent debate on the future of the House of Lords, I declared two interests. I was for some years the chairman of a royal commission on the future of the House of Lords, invited by the then Prime Minister, Tony Blair. I am also a member of the committee set up by the Lord Speaker to find ways to reduce the size of the House. We have heard from the chairman of that committee, the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and I do not need to repeat what he said, because I agreed with it almost entirely.
I declare these interests again, but I have one important thing to say which is relevant to our ongoing discussions. During the early stages of the royal commission, the senior Conservative on the royal commission came to me and said, “Unless the commission proposes an element of elected Members, I shall resign and I will not sign the report”. This was a bit of a blow. But it was followed the following week by the senior Labour member of the commission, who came to see me quite separately, and said that if the commission proposed and recommended elected elements of the House of Lords, he would not attend a further meeting and would resign. If you are chairman of a committee of that sort, and your two senior members come to you and tell you that they are going to resign right at the beginning of the proceedings, it is a bit of a shock. I persuaded both of them to stay on the commission, to argue their point of view and to see what we came up with at the end of over a year of discussions on these matters. In the end, both of them agreed and signed the report. But it was, I have to say, a tricky moment at the time.
The first point that I want to make is that what happens to the House of Lords for the future needs a lot of thinking about. Snap answers by this group or that group, and easy solutions, will be a disservice.
My second point is that, as the only living person who has been both Leader of the House of Commons and Leader of the House of Lords, I just want to say that the Leader of the House of Lords has, in one respect, a wider responsibility than any other Cabinet Minister, in the sense that they are responsible for the whole House of Lords and how it is run in the interests of our nation and democracy.
The Leader of the House was a very successful Leader of the Opposition of the House of Lords for 10 years and is highly regarded by everybody on all sides of the House. She has a very special responsibility at this stage to bring forward proposals, to listen to the arguments and to see whether she can end up with a proposal that is accepted by all Members of the House. If she does that, we will all be proud of what she has achieved, and our successors will look back in 100 years from now and say that the modernisation of the House of Lords was effectively achieved and the noble Baroness, the Leader of the House, will get the credit.
Lord Birt (CB)
My Lords, I will make three points. First, I entirely agree that the participation of hereditary Peers in the upper Chamber as a birthright is a medieval overhang and should be ended, but there is wide agreement that a number of hereditaries, on all sides of the House, make a substantial contribution to our work and in all justice should be retained as life Peers. The noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, provided a very compelling analysis a moment ago. I hope the Leader of the House will undertake in her closing remarks to initiate discussions with other party leaders and the convenor to identify a common approach to achieving this goal—perhaps on a one-in, one-out basis, with Members who, for whatever reason, make little contribution to this House, retiring and making way for ex-hereditaries who manifestly do.
Secondly, this Bill should be amended to remove another feudal overhang: namely, the right of Church of England Bishops to have a guaranteed place in this House. In the last census, 56 million people answered the question about their religion; 40% said that they had no religion at all; fewer than half declared themselves to be Christian. In other surveys, of those who do declare as Christian, more are Catholic than Anglican; and more people say that they do not believe in a God than do. We are a country of many faiths and of no faith. Our established Church is not even a church for the whole of the United Kingdom, its very name reminding us that it is established in only one of the four nations of this United Kingdom—again, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, said a moment ago. Moreover, recent events have demonstrated powerfully and emphatically that the Church of England is losing moral authority. I ask the Leader in her closing remarks to offer a clear and cogent rationale, which we are yet to hear, as to why the Church of England should retain a privileged position in the upper House of the United Kingdom’s Parliament.
Thirdly and finally, the House, as I am sure we all agree, performs an invaluable constitutional role, above all by bringing intense and expert scrutiny to the passage of legislation. But there are many aspects of this House that require reform, and the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, picked out some of them, as did the noble Lord, Lord Burns. We are too big and should reduce our number. A system is needed to determine the appropriate size within this House of the main political parties. A minority of Peers barely attend and contribute little. We are insufficiently diverse—by gender, ethnicity, regional origin, sexuality or area of expertise. While most Peers are appointed on merit, some are not, and some have bought their way in to this House through party-political contributions.
I ask the Leader if, in her closing remarks, she will commit not to allow these and other issues to fester—perhaps for another 25 years—and instead, once the Bill has passed, as it will, to produce a Green Paper on holistic Lords reform, setting out and weighing all these options.
Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (PC)
My Lords, my position on the House of Lords is no secret: I am unequivocal in my belief that an unelected Chamber should not exist in 2024. Although we are discussing hereditary Peers today, noble Lords should be assured that I do not discriminate; I am working towards putting us all out of work, regardless of how we got to this place.
In their manifesto, His Majesty’s Government stated that they were
“committed to replacing the House of Lords with an alternative second chamber”.
In the light of that, it is disappointing to see a Bill come to this place which only tinkers around the edges. I acknowledge that I need to be patient to see my vision for this place become a reality, but, in the meantime, some reform is better than none.
I will support the Bill because it is a question of fairness. I have been privileged to hear in this place contributions from noble Lords on poverty, housing and justice that have addressed at their heart the inequality in these countries. We have heard lived experiences and the stories of those who have suffered because of the circumstances that they found themselves in. It feels widely accepted in this place that that inequality is wrong. In that case, the same must be true for the opposite side of the coin. We are almost a quarter of the way through the 21st century. We should no longer have to accept that one may be granted a lifetime of legislative power and a say in how these countries are run, along with a taxpayer-funded allowance, all because of the luck of their birth.
I turn now to respond to some of the questions that the Leader of the House has asked us in recent times, and in the introduction of today’s Second Reading. I view reforms of this House in two categories: first, short to medium-term changes to how this place is run; and, secondly, long-term change that transforms the structure completely.
When pressing to change how this place is run, I mean the procedures, standards and working practices of running a Parliament efficiently and effectively. Just down the Corridor in the other place, they have recently set up a Modernisation Committee with three strategic aims: driving up standards, improving culture and working practices, and reforming procedures. Would the Leader of the House support establishing our own such committee? This would give a structure and timeline to how we proceed in the short to medium-term. Such a committee would be able to run evidence sessions and give opportunity to consult with the public.
I often visit schools and colleges to run sessions on how Parliament works, and young people share with me their ideas on how they would design a second Chamber. Their ideas are credible and innovative; they deserve to be fed into Parliament. I strongly believe that we must have a way for public opinion to contribute to such changes.
Moving to the long-term changes that would reimagine the role, structure and composition of the second Chamber, this is a change that features in His Majesty’s Government’s manifesto and that has been batted about in report after report for decades, as we have already heard today. I am disappointed that details of proposals still have not been shared and that no timetable has been committed by the Government. Without a timetable set, I fear that transformative changes will not happen.
To close, I ask again for His Majesty’s Government to be bold in this regard and publish a timetable for wholesale reform of this House. Diolch yn fawr iawn.
Lord Mancroft (Con)
My Lords, what a pleasure it is to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Smith. I can remember when I spoke in this House at the age that she is now, and I think she did a great deal better job than I did then. I suspect there may be a reason that she is less worried about the prospect of a retirement age than some of the other speakers today.
We are told that the Bill before us is the first step of several leading to comprehensive reform of this House. The reasons we have been given that the other small steps cannot be done at the same time are not really credible, and of the comprehensive reform there is no more sign now than there was 25 years ago.
It is difficult to see how removing a small number of the most experienced and hard-working Members will improve this House—and that assumes that the objective of reform is indeed to improve the House. I think it is probably simpler than that. The Bill is just the first step in gerrymandering the membership to ensure that the Government have a majority. Labour is simply putting its party interests before those of the country.
The Government pray in aid their manifesto, but the removal of former hereditary Peers is a cherry-picking commitment. The primary commitment is to reduce the size of the House, and that can be achieved in a meaningful way only if the Government introduce an age limit. Unfortunately, this needs the turkeys to vote for Christmas. Having spoken to quite a lot of turkeys on all sides of the House, it is clear to me that this is not going to happen. That is why the Government have shelved their commitment to enact an age limit of 80 in favour of “further consultation”. They can consult as much as they like, but the over-80s are not going to vote for it.
The commitment to remove former hereditary Peers is coupled not only with an age restriction but with a commitment to a participation test. The Leader has suggested that this is complicated and requires further thought and consultation. It really does not. There is a great deal of resentment among Peers from all parts of the House towards those who are neither willing nor able to devote sufficient time to their parliamentary duties. A requirement to attend at least 10% of our sittings, as the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, suggested, would be widely supported. The only objections to such a measure are from the Government Front Bench.
There is even more resentment towards those noble Lords who are clearly physically incapable of participating, yet who we see turn up in the House—whether to collect their allowance or for some other reason—without participating in our work in any meaningful way. The Bill should include measures to address that. If anything damages the reputation of politics in general, and this House in particular, it is that—it should be dealt with. Failure to do so in the Bill will show whether the Government really want to reform this House, or whether they are just playing to their gallery.
The Government’s main justification for the Bill is that it is a question of principle to remove the hereditary Peers, but it is not the purpose of legislation to keep going back over old ground. The right of hereditary Peers to sit and vote in this House was removed in 1999 and is clearly set out in Section 1 of the 1999 Act. There is therefore no issue of principle to be resolved, and to claim otherwise is wrong.
The primary objective of the Bill can therefore only be to reduce the size of the House. Removing hereditary Peers is one way to achieve this; it is also the least effective and most disruptive. A participation requirement is another simpler and more effective way, and I expect we will have a chance to debate that in Committee. Another way, as the noble Lord, Lord Birt, said, is to partially or completely remove the Lords spiritual from the House. I am sure that we will get an opportunity to debate that in the future, and it seems to me that overwhelming support is moving in that direction.
It is a bit rich for the Leader of the House to claim that these measures are too complicated to resolve in the Bill and require further consultation. It is the Government who have set these hares running. Although Labour does not seem to have had an original thought in the last 15 years, this House is far ahead of the Government on these matters—as this debate is revealing —and the Bill is the perfect vehicle in which to resolve them.
If the Bill is not a question of principle—because it has already been resolved—and is only one small part of a manifesto commitment, and the Government intend to squirm out of their other commitments, what does it really seek to achieve? The Leader of the House has gone out of her way to explain—with great courtesy, I may add—that the expulsion of the last of the hereditary Peers is not personal. The noble lord, Lord Grocott, has made that point repeatedly, both on the Floor of the House and outside it. I am quite sure they are quite sincere in saying that. But whether noble Lords opposite like it or not, what is now being proposed is personal—it is very personal.
We are all colleagues and friends, and we are all equal in this House. We know each other well: we work together, debate with each other, eat side by side in the dining room, drink together, laugh, joke and even commiserate with each other. The way the Bill treats former hereditary Peers is inescapably personal and offensive.
One advantage in being a hereditary Peer is that I had the advantage of learning about this House before I came here from my father, who was a Member for 45 years and a Minister for eight. One of the things he taught me was that all Governments legislate incompetently because that, I am afraid, is the nature of government, but that Labour Governments also legislate vindictively, which means not in favour of a particular policy but against particular groups of people. This Bill is a classic example. The Bill is not part of a carefully thought-out policy of constitutional reform. Not only are our precious constitutional arrangements to be put at risk by the Government’s plan but, as with the imposition of VAT on private schools and inheritance tax on family farms, sheer vindictiveness is to take priority over common sense and decent government.
This Bill will not improve this House. It risks starting a process towards unravelling the conventions that bind our constitution, altering the delicate relationship between the two Houses and weakening the link with the Crown in Parliament. It will do nothing to improve the reputation of Parliament or our body politic. It will, however, serve as a useful reminder of what a nasty, vindictive and destructive party Labour has become.
The Duke of Wellington (CB)
My Lords, it is not a comfortable sensation for a hereditary Peer to be speaking in this debate. As I have said before, it is a great privilege to have performed a public service as a Member of this Chamber, and I will certainly be very sad to leave. However, I do not oppose this Bill. It was in the Labour Party manifesto, it was in the King’s Speech, and it has passed through the House of Commons unamended, so I conclude that the Government have every right to bring forward this legislation, and it must be allowed to pass.
However, the Government can be criticised for not yet committing to a second Bill to enact other reforms to the House of Lords promised in the Labour Party manifesto. To quote from that manifesto:
“Labour will also introduce a mandatory retirement age”.
I realise that this point has become contentious and that the Government are now consulting on it, but it is not unreasonable to have a retirement age, and it should be done in such a way as to avoid a mass exodus at the end of any Parliament. The Government should also consider a maximum term of years for membership of this House. Appointing someone in their 20s or 30s and giving them the right to remain for life does not seem reasonable.
I quote again from the Labour Party manifesto:
“Labour will ensure all peers meet the high standards the public expect of them, and we will introduce a new participation requirement as well as strengthening the circumstances in which disgraced members can be removed”.
I am very grateful to the Leader of the House for the two meetings which a number of us had with her last week. However, I would like to press her on when the Government will introduce legislation on a participation requirement and the removal of disgraced Peers. I realise that it is difficult for Ministers ever to commit to the timing of future legislation, but could she not at least say that those manifesto commitments will be legislated for before the end of this Parliament? It would not be right for the Government to pretend or claim at the next election that they have reformed the House of Lords simply by removing the hereditary Peers.
Although it was not in the Government’s manifesto, I ask the Leader of the House, and the leaders of the other political parties, to consider how to prevent those who donate large sums to a political party being given a peerage by that party. The Leader of the House would have support across the Chamber for some of these other measures, and the Government should have the courage to prepare a second Bill. However, I completely accept that this Bill cannot and will not be expanded.
All of us who believe in the important role which this House performs in the legislative process of this country also believe that there are other necessary reforms. I am not at all certain that a House composed solely of Members recommended to the monarch by the Prime Minister of the day, or through him or her by the other party leaders, will persuade the public that the composition of this House is wholly appropriate in this century. Surely it must be right to give the House of Lords Appointments Commission greater power and prevent a Prime Minister ignoring a negative HOLAC opinion. HOLAC should at least have a power of veto and be able to opine on suitability as well as propriety.
I will not oppose this Bill, and I am most unlikely to vote in favour of any amendments. However, I urge the Leader of the House and her ministerial colleagues to commit to a further Bill to reform this House of Lords, of which I am so honoured and privileged still to be a Member.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to participate in this debate, and I look forward to hearing the maiden speech of my noble friend Lord Brady of Altrincham.
The Government won a very large majority in the general election—helped a little bit by some people on our own side. In respect of this House, they have a clear manifesto commitment to
“bring about an immediate modernisation”
by removing the hereditary Peers and introducing an age limit and a new participation requirement. The Leader of the House repeatedly tells us that these measures are essential in order to reduce the size of the House. She has also claimed that if we had adopted the Grocott Bill to end the hereditary by-elections, this Bill would not have been necessary. What has changed?
The noble Lord, Lord Grocott, made herculean efforts to get his Bill on the statute book, which would have allowed the hereditary Peers to remain in place until they either resigned or, as we say in Scotland, they were gathered. Instead, we have a Bill, supposedly necessary to reduce the size of the House, from a Government who I understand already have a list of more than 30 potential Labour Peers that the Prime Minister plans to recommend to His Majesty The King. No doubt others will follow. The Government say that they are outnumbered by the Conservatives and that kicking out the exempted hereditaries is essential to even things up. Really? Does the noble Baroness not have enough talent on her Benches to deliver the Government’s business? That is a point made she to us, but it applies to her.
Clement Attlee was able to introduce one of the most radical programmes of the last century while faced with an overwhelming majority of Conservative hereditary Peers. The last Conservative Government may have had more Peers than Labour, but they were nevertheless defeated a record number of times by the party of the noble Baroness, with the support of the Liberals—sorry, the Liberal Democrats—the non-aligned and the Cross Benches. In the end, this House will always give in to the elected House. Ironically, the removal of the hereditaries in 1999, and the packing of this House with former MPs such as me, has made it more assertive, perhaps excessively so, in challenging the decisions of the British people and the other place—which the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, played a prominent part in. The truth is that we have a Bill which sabotages the ability of the Official Opposition and the independent Cross-Benchers to carry out their duties in scrutinising vast tracts of legislation which come to us from the House of Commons not even debated and with insufficient time even to consider amendments by them.
As my noble friend Lord Strathclyde asked, are noble Lords opposite really comfortable with kicking out the Convenor of the Cross Benches after his magnificent contribution today? Can it be right to have a Bill which seeks to execute some of our most experienced, hardest-working and talented colleagues simply because their fathers were Peers? The then Labour Government recognised this in 1999 and recommended life peerages for some of the hereditary Peers being expelled and left 92 elected, exempted hereditaries in place until a comprehensive reform was brought forward.
I noticed that the Leader of the House flinched when my noble friend Lord Mancroft said that there were no hereditary Peers left in this House. He was making the point that they were exempted hereditary Peers who have got their place by election, unlike any of us.
Twenty-five years on, we are still waiting for that reform. The noble Lord, Lord Grocott, is right that no Parliament can bind another, but this Bill is an insult to those senior Labour people, including Sir Tony Blair and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, who in good faith promised it. Various attempts have been made to reform this House and all have been defeated, not here but in the House of Commons. This piece of gerrymandering has of course whizzed through the other place, but it is not reform and it betrays Labour’s manifesto promise of immediate modernisation. It is nothing less than a nasty, partisan, drive-by assassination dressed up as constitutional reform.
The Bill also undermines the Crown in Parliament, in a sop to Labour’s republicans, by expelling the members of the Royal Household—the Earl Marshal and the Lord Great Chamberlain. The Lord Great Chamberlain will remain in charge of the most important parts of this building while not even having a Member’s pass. The Bill is in absolute breach of the essential convention that care, consensus and consultation are essential before making constitutional changes. As has been said, it will result in every one of us owing our place here to prime ministerial patronage and being subject to removal at the whim of an Executive riding roughshod over our Writs of Summons.
It may turn out to be unsustainable. The Leader of the House may turn out to be the midwife of an elected second Chamber, which cannot be as effective as a revising Chamber and will inevitably challenge the supremacy of the House of Commons. This might in part explain the strange behaviour of the Liberal Democrats. Perhaps they see this as a route to get their wish of an elected second Chamber. It certainly does not explain why they should today vote for a wholly appointed House. Those who believe—
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
The speaking limit is advisory. If a noble Lord wants to move a Motion, they can. Labour promises that there will be another Bill in this Parliament, after consultation, to carry out comprehensive reform. Really? Those who believe that should hang up their stockings in two weeks’ time in the hope that Santa Claus will come. I think they might be disappointed.
Lord Brady of Altrincham (Con) (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, I am delighted to follow my noble friend and to have the opportunity to speak in this important debate. I am acutely conscious of how many noble Lords are due to speak, so I shall be brief.
First, I thank Black Rod, the clerks, the doorkeepers and all the staff of the House for their assistance and the warmth of their welcome. For those of us used to serving in the other place, perhaps the most novel experience is the warmth, courtesy and civility shown by noble Lords on other sides of the House, which is greatly appreciated. I am also grateful to those noble friends who supported my introduction: my noble friend Lord Howard, whom I was honoured to serve as Parliamentary Private Secretary when he was leader of Her Majesty’s Opposition, and my noble friend Lady Williams of Trafford, whom I encouraged to join the Conservative Party in Altrincham when I was canvassing as a candidate for the 1997 election—if I may say so, Susan, it is all going quite well. Most importantly, I express my gratitude to the people of Altrincham and Sale West, who allowed me the immense privilege of serving my home constituency for seven Parliaments over a period of 27 years. I am proud to have taken my title from the ancient town where I grew up and which I represented in the House of Commons.
When I gave my first maiden speech all those years ago, I spoke about grammar schools, opportunity and social mobility, highlighting the damage that would be done to the life chances of many children from less affluent backgrounds by the abolition of the assisted places scheme. I fear that the imposition of VAT on school fees from January will have a similar negative effect by making Britain’s independent schools more socially selective, not less. I hope to use my time here to say more about the importance of social mobility and spreading opportunity. This summer, I was honoured to be asked to be a trustee of the excellent Sutton Trust. I also hope to use my voice here to stand up for freedom of speech and for the liberties of British citizens. It is too often forgotten that the real purpose of this Parliament is to defend the liberties of the people, not just to deliberate on how and when those liberties should be constrained.
Having thanked all sides of the House for their courtesy and civility, I hope that I will not spoil it all now by pointing out that, when I was in the other place, I consistently voted for an elected upper House—although, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Newby, never for any kind of hybrid such as that proposed by the coalition Government. Indeed, the first time that I voted for an elected Senate, I was surprised to find myself in the Division Lobby with the noble Lord, Lord Clarke of Nottingham, and the late Tony Benn, whose son, the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, now sits here in an elected capacity.
Supporting an elected upper House may be a controversial position here but not one that relates to the Bill before us today, which touches on the composition of the House only in a way that avoids any consideration of what the proper function of the House should be. I am unafraid of radical reform of your Lordships’ House and am open to the idea of a fully elected bicameral Parliament such as those which function well in numerous other democracies. I think it is clear, though, that the settled will of this Parliament is to avoid creating a second elected House which might have equal democratic legitimacy alongside the first and therefore challenge its primacy.
So, if the settled view is that your Lordships’ House should serve only the important—but limited—function of a revising Chamber, should we not be more concerned with the efficacy of the House than with its composition? It is a privilege to sit here as an appointed Member and I hope that my contributions will justify that privilege, but it is not immediately obvious to me that our appointed status is inherently superior to the position of those who are elected to sit here—albeit by a very limited franchise.
As others have noted, the excepted hereditary Peers who sit here add greatly to the effectiveness of the House and contribute more than many who are appointed to sit here. It seems likely that this measure will reduce the efficacy of the House as a revising Chamber rather than improving it, while narrowing the expertise, experience and independence available to the House. Certainly, whatever this Bill may be, it does not constitute an enhancement of democracy. For those who think that the exercise of patronage is one of the things that diminishes the elected House, the move to an entirely appointed second Chamber can make that only worse.
For my part, I enjoyed an unusual Commons career in which I successfully avoided ministerial office for the whole of the past 14 years during which my party was in government. I chose instead to champion the Back Benches and play a role in scrutinising and holding government to account, and I hope to continue that role from these Benches.
I promised to be brief. Other noble Lords free of the constraints of a maiden speech will expand on the deficiencies of this Bill and the Government’s motivations in bringing it forward. I will conclude that I look forward to contributing to the scrutiny of this legislation and of many other Bills in need of improvement in future.
Lord Dobbs (Con)
My Lords, it is a special moment for me to be able to follow and welcome my noble and dear friend Lord Brady of Altrincham. We have known each other many years, during which a lot of water—and, I have to say, a fair amount of whisky—has flowed under the bridge.
He was a Member of Parliament for 27 years and chairman of the 1922 Committee, it seems, for ever, where he saw the comings, and the goings, of three Prime Ministers. He became the guardian of the deepest secrets of the Conservative Party: how many letters had been signed, and by whom. He was the one who held the sword of Damocles, but his hand never trembled and his integrity never wavered. His voice was known around the land. Great men and women went weak at the knees as they heard his words: “The result of the ballot held this evening is as follows”.
He has made a remarkable first speech. I hope it will be the first of many, many speeches that he makes in this Chamber. I predict he will continue to get many letters—although, in this House, letters written in praise, rather than those written with poisoned pens. The whole House wishes him well, as we say a grateful farewell to the noble Baroness, Lady Quin.
So, to the Bill: it ducks so many issues. For instance, we love to talk about age in this House, but we should be talking about age balance, not just age limits. There have been far too many offstage mutterings about how disgracefully young and inappropriate some of our new colleagues are. The misery merchants have been so busy chomping on their dentures that they have completely failed to see the tireless work of, for instance, the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, as a previous Government Whip, the charm and indefatigable eloquence of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of—I hope I get the pronunciation right—
Lord Dobbs (Con)
Llanfaes—thank you. I do not always agree with her—with scarcely a word, sometimes —but that is not really the point, is it? The noble Baroness, Lady Owen of Alderley Edge, will on Friday introduce her immensely important Private Member’s Bill on non-consensual sexually explicit images and videos. Youth is not a curse. They are not the problem; in fact, they are the future.
But what is the future of this House? Are the Government going to say to our hereditaries, “Thank you for your contributions, for your expertise, the invaluable experience of generations. You leave this place with your head held high”? That would be a beautifully British way of doing things. Or will the hereditaries be sent away with their heads in a basket, guillotined in front of the mob to provide a “Gotcha” moment, an act of political spite? That would be a disaster, not only for this House but for the Government, too.
So, show respect; that is all I ask. But how? Setting up a former Members’ association has been whispered, or having an old lags’ lunch every Christmas. Forgive me, I do not think that would go anywhere near far enough. Why not, rather like MPs, allow them to retire at the end of the Parliament, rather than the end of the Session, so that they could contribute but not vote? It is a solution that was proposed by a previous Labour Government and would mean that hereditaries would not get in the way of this Labour Government.
As for nominating some as life Peers, the simple question is: how many? The Government have not said, which is why it looks like a “Gotcha” moment. You can have your nominated hereditaries, but only at the expense of others you would otherwise want to bring here.
Now, these issues could be simply resolved by agreement: the Salisbury convention replaced by the Angeline convention. I would say that would be a victory for both the Government and this House. Or will the Government choose to leave a great part of this House angry and bruised, with the goodwill of the Opposition and the Cross Benches lost? Goodwill matters. What do you want? A repeat of the days of Brexit, when the then Opposition and Cross Benches thundered and filibustered night after night in an attempt to frustrate the elected Government and the referendum result? Is that what we want? I hope not.
Let us find ways to give our hereditary colleagues the dignity they deserve. They deserve to walk out as princes, not be pushed out as pariahs. The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, knows I have great personal respect and affection for her. If she can get the balance of this Bill right, she will have earned her place as one of the great Leaders of this House. I wish her wisdom, and I wish our hereditaries well.
House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill
Wednesday 11th December 2024
(1 week, 3 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 12 November 2024 - (12 Nov 2024)
Baroness Quin (Lab) (Valedictory Speech)
My Lords, before the House adjourned this debate at 1 o’clock, we had heard the excellent and interesting maiden speech from the noble Lord, Lord Brady of Altrincham, whom I warmly congratulate on his appointment to the House. He began his speech, as many maiden speakers rightly do, by thanking the staff off the House for their helpfulness in welcoming new arrivals. That helpfulness, friendliness and efficiency of our staff has, in my experience, lasted the full 18 years I have been here, and I would like to begin my valedictory by paying a warm tribute to all of them.
It seemed like a good idea for my last speech in this House to be in a debate relating to the House, and on a Bill which I strongly support. However, when I saw the number of speakers signed up for the debate, I thought, “Will I get only two minutes to reflect on 18 years?” So the extension of the debate agreed by the business managers and the advisory time of five minutes came as something of a relief, for which I thank them. In such a well-attended debate, I also have the unexpected privilege of speaking before a large number of colleagues, including many friends from all sides of the House with whom it has been a pleasure to work during my 18 years here. I was very touched earlier by all the kind comments directed towards me.
I support this Bill and very much accept the argument that it is better to deal with this measure separately, rather than in a wider package of reforms on which it would be much more difficult to get a consensus. As my noble friend Lady Smith said in Question Time on Monday, the big-bang approach of trying to deal with all aspects has led to inertia and the absence of reform. As has been widely pointed out, this measure was in the Government’s manifesto and is unfinished business from 25 years ago, when it was only ever intended as an interim agreement in the compromise reached then.
Having listened to many speakers earlier on today, I have to say that it is not true that after 1999, the Labour Government forgot about reform. I worked with the late and very much lamented Robin Cook, who came up with a number of options, but on which the House of Commons as a whole failed to agree.
While the Bill is about the composition of the House, I hope that a changing composition will not in any way detract from its essential role as a revising Chamber. This role is badly needed in our democratic system, particularly given the complex nature of much modern legislation. This House has traditional strengths which are still relevant today. Walter Bagehot, writing way back in 1877, said:
“The House of Lords, as is well known, does a great job in committee work”.
Nearly 150 years later, this statement still rings true.
What I wish, however—I direct this comment to our new Government as they move forward—is that government will take our committee work more seriously in future, respond much more quickly to the recommendations of our reports and timetable early debates on them, rather than our waiting many months to discuss them. I also appeal, without much hope, sadly, to our press and media generally to pay more attention to our reports. By ignoring them, they do democracy a disservice, and they fail to highlight the important evidence given to us by witnesses with expertise in and significant experience of the subjects of our inquiries.
Going forward, I make a plea to improve the regional balance here, whether as a nominated House or a directly or indirectly elected House. We need to be a Chamber of the nations and regions, and I believe that this regional imbalance is our main weakness. It has been said that the old hereditary system created a kind of regional balance, because of the pattern of landed gentry estates across the UK. The noble Lord, Lord Newby, referred to this in his speech, but he was also right to say that it did nothing to create a real cross-section of our society, or to reflect our increasing diversity. But going forward, regional balance must be a guiding principle that the Government, the Official Opposition and the appointments commission all take very much to heart.
I recently had my 80th birthday, and one reason behind my decision to retire was reaching that landmark. However, on reflection, I am also sympathetic to the idea that, rather than having an age cut-off, the proposal to limit terms of office to 10 or 15 years has some merit. I hope there will be discussions on these issues and that progress on them will be made in future legislation that comes before this House.
Regarding my retirement, that frequently heard phrase of politicians—resigning because of wanting to spend more time with the family—is entirely true in my case. I also look forward to spending much more time in that wonderful part of the country that is my home area, the north-east of England. My last words in this House are an invitation to you all. Some of you perhaps know that I am a long-standing volunteer tourist guide to the City of Newcastle. As a guide, I delight in showing visitors around our wonderful city, which, like London, has a history of continued importance since Roman times and many fine Norman, medieval and Georgian buildings to show for it. Particularly to those of you who have not visited Newcastle before, I invite you please to come and sample one of the many different guided tours and discover it all for yourselves.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, it is a real privilege to follow my noble friend Lady Quin, although it is tinged with sadness that this is the last time we will share her wisdom in this Chamber. We are really grateful for what she has said today, but also for what she has done over the years.
I have known my friend, Joyce—if I can use her name for once in this Chamber—for many years. I have followed her stellar career with awe and great admiration. She spent 10 years in the European Parliament, which is a life sentence for some people. She did a wonderful job there. Then, as she said, she had 18 years in the other place and was a Minister of State in three separate departments: the Home Office, which sounded an interesting job; Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, which was even more interesting; and, above all, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, where she was Minister for Europe—and a really great one. She has also had 18 years in this place, and we have all benefited from her wisdom and enjoyed her company. We are really sorry that she is leaving us. We look forward to taking up her invitation to be shown around the north-east. If we had had a north-east assembly, as we should have, my noble friend would have stood for that and would have done a really great job as a member of such an assembly. Sadly, we did not have it. We wish her well, we thank her greatly for her service and wish her a very long and happy retirement.
I turn now to the Bill, in fact to Lords’ reform more generally, on which my noble friend Baroness Quin and I agree. With no disrespect to the great work that this House has done, which I acknowledge, it is unacceptable that the second Chamber in a 21st-century legislature is not in some way accountable to the people. My long-term preference, and that of my noble friend Baroness Quin, is for a senate of the nations and region, indirectly elected and so accountable, but not a challenge to the primacy of the House of Commons. Meanwhile, we need to sort out, as others have said earlier, some of the worst aspects of our current system.
The first, and most outrageous, one that needs to be dealt with is the fact that 92 men are here solely by an accident of birth. This is why I wholeheartedly support this Bill, which is long overdue. I nevertheless join in the plea that others have made to the Leader of the House—the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, made it very effectively in his outstanding speech earlier —that we should look at some of the other aspects that need to be dealt with.
First, the House of Lords Appointments Commission needs to be reformed and, as others have said, given more powers. Secondly, we need to deal—again, as others have said—with the geographical imbalance. It is unacceptable that more than half the Members of this House are resident in London and the south-east of England. That is not a representation of the nation as a whole. Thirdly, we need to consider whether an age limit is needed, particularly, as some have said, on new appointments.
Fourthly, as I have argued on two previous occasions, we need to separate seeing the peerage as an honour, on one hand, and as a working peerage on the other. That confuses everything. As I said the other day, when I attacked the noble Lord, Lord Botham, for not turning up, I was attacked in return by his daughter, but we need to understand the difference between an honour and a working peerage. Then, fifthly, as others have said, we should set participation criteria for working peers. It is in our manifesto, and we should take that up. Sixthly, if we have working Peers and we accept that they are working, then there should be proper support to enable them to do their job properly. We do not have that at the moment. Finally, I say with a great deal of trepidation that we need to consider whether it is right that members from one Church—as the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, said, from one country—should have an automatic right to membership of this Chamber.
We must plan ahead for the long term as well, including, I would suggest, looking at the senates in western democracies such as France, Italy and Spain and the German Bundestag, so that we can at last move to a second Chamber that is fit for a 21st-century democracy. That also is long overdue.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock, and I served together on the Council of Europe. Chief Whips of both parties may be appalled to know that we often agreed on many issues in Europe. Again, I agree with the noble Lord today in his glorious tribute to his noble friend Lady Quin. I also find that I am in agreement with almost half of what the noble Lord said on the Bill today.
The Bill reminds me of the stalwart efforts of the late Tony Banks MP, later Lord Stratford, to ban hunting. I opposed his policy, but I pay tribute to his efforts to deliver it. I am reminded of this because I recall a few occasions during his passionate speeches when it seemed that what was driving him was not the love of foxes but his dislike of the people whom he thought did it: Tory toffs in red coats on horseback. Indeed, the Guardian, in an article in 2010, said,
“It wasn’t the sport Labour MPs hated, so much as the ‘tweedy toffs’ who enjoyed it. That’s why they never went for anglers. The hunting ban was always an unsubtle excuse for class war”.
And so, we have this Bill, and the class war is restarted again.
The Labour manifesto promised full-scale reform, but instead we get a narrow, highly partisan measure just to remove hereditary Peers. In one sentence of the manifesto, they say that the House “has become too big”, but in the same paragraph they say,
“too many Peers do not play a proper role in our democracy”.
So, what is the problem to be fixed then? Since the average daily attendance last year was only 397, what does it matter that there is a list of 805 Peers but that 400 do not turn up regularly? There is no cost to the taxpayer for Peers who do not come here.
However, I plan to lay amendments to implement the Labour manifesto—someone has to do it. Back in 2015, I commissioned the Lords Library to provide me with Excel spreadsheets listing all Peers, their ages and attendance records. I used that information for the inquiry of the noble Lord, Lord Burns. Then, in July this year, I asked Mr Tobin in our Library for a whole new set based on the last Parliament from 2019 to 2024. He and Mr Bolshaw did a brilliant job and gave me three superb Excel spreadsheets. I believe that the Library has now published them for us all to use. These spreadsheets list every Peer during the last Parliament who is alive today, their age at appointment and their age in 2029. They list their attendance record for those five years. I also asked the Library to produce a special one for hereditaries, and it shows what excellent work the majority of them do here and which committees they serve on. As they are Excel spreadsheets, you can select any criteria you like and get accurate figures and names. Thus, if you want to find out how many Peers would have to retire at a retirement age of 95, it is 26, including 11 who attend more than 50% of the time. A retirement age of 90 gives us 78 retirees, and a retirement age of 85 in 2029 gives us 185 retirees, including some of the most active Members of this House, and 50 of them have attended for 70% and more of our sittings during those last five years.
Like most of us on these Benches, I believe in a House that is not composed of full-time professional politicians. We benefit from the wide range of experts who participate on their specialist subjects. I suggest, however, that if we want to the reduce overall numbers, there should be a minimum attendance criterion. Is there any colleague whose contribution is so valuable that we wish to keep them on our active list if they have attended only 5% of the sittings over the past five years? There are exactly 40 Peers in that category, and 71 Peers if we set the attendance at 10%.
Personally, I would set it at 20%; that would remove 155 Peers. Noble Lords can look at that list; in my opinion, not one of them has a pearl of wisdom so important that we should permit them to turn up for only 25 days per annum. Interestingly, of the 88 Peers listed to speak today, there is only one with an attendance record of just under 20%. None of the other 155 Peers are listed to speak. I think that rather makes my point.
Hypothetically, if we introduced a cut-off age of 85 for the year 2029, and combined it with less than 20% attendance, that would retire 204 of us, including 18 hereditaries. I suggest that is a more equitable and sensible solution, rather than the partisan chopping of 92 hereditaries, including some of the hardest workers in this House. The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, Liz Kendall, recently said that people who “can work, must work”. Here however, Labour is sacking the workers, not the underperformers.
The Labour manifesto also said, “Hereditary peers remain indefensible”. Four blunt words. There was no explanation of why they are more indefensible than supporters and funders of political parties, or bishops, for that matter. I notice that, unusually for a major constitutional issue, not a single bishop is down to speak. I will need to float some amendments on the number of bishops in this House, as well as a few other amendments, as I faithfully try to implement the Labour Party manifesto.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I echo the praise that has been directed to my noble friend Lord Brady of Altrincham for his fine maiden, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Quin, who grew up in Whitley Bay. I am very grateful to have had the opportunity during our overlapping time in this House for the sort of cross-party friendship that so many people have spoken about in today’s debate, and I will always fondly remember being serenaded by the noble Baroness on the Northumbrian smallpipes in the River Room during the last Parliament.
I have seen the future, and it is the Football Governance Bill. We are presently debating that Bill in Committee. Now is not the time or place to talk about its merits, although I note that we were supposed to be in Committee on it again today until the Government asked us to make way for this debate. What is pertinent today is the way that our work and scrutiny have been characterised. We have had only four days of Committee: nowhere close to the 10 days we spent on what became the Online Safety Act or the 15 on what became the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act.
However, the Government have already been crying foul, rather in the manner of a footballer clutching his leg and writhing around in agony on the pitch. We have been told off for tabling too many amendments, even though 46% of them—more than 150—have come from the Government’s own Back Benches. The Secretary of State has told us to get a move on and last week at Business Questions, the Leader of the House of Commons said that Members of your Lordships’ House needed to “pipe down”. I know that the Lord Privy Seal takes her responsibilities and duties to this House very seriously and I hope she will ask her right honourable friends in another place to correct the record on that matter. I say that not to get it off my chest but because I fear it reveals rather more about the present Government’s attitude to your Lordships’ House than they realise.
All Governments find Parliament a bit of a nuisance; that is the purpose of Parliament. However, this Government, with their huge majority in one House, are seeking to remove 92 Members, only four of its own allegiance, from the other. The problem with debates about the House of Lords is that they are usually fixated on process rather than function: how people get here, rather than how they work when they do. That is the problem with this Bill as well. It says nothing about how your Lordships’ House ought to function, its role in our bicameral system, or even how future Members ought to be selected: it merely seeks to remove 92 of our number. Such a removal will leave us a less effective and less assertive House, and I fear that might be in part the Government’s aim—or at least a corollary with which they are not unduly concerned.
This Bill is not about ending the right to inherit a place in Parliament. As my noble friends have said, that was achieved a quarter of a century ago. The deal that was made at that time to allow a small number to remain, by virtue of election and not of inheritance, was as surety: a reminder to finish the job properly. This Bill breaks that deal and does not rise to the challenge that reflects it. It will leave us with a House, as the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, rightly highlighted, whose Members are entirely selected by the Prime Minister, with no limit on the number he can appoint, no statutory process for him to follow, and not even any of the sensible guidance that the noble Lord, Lord Burns, pointed out in his contribution.
I am proud to have worked for a Prime Minister who exercised her power of nomination judiciously and with restraint, but, if we are to become a House of prime ministerial patronage, there ought to be checks on that unbridled power. There could be an annual limit. We could separate the granting of a peerage from a seat in the legislature, as the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, has just said. In particular, we need a better process for deciding which former members of the judiciary are awarded a place in this House. If they do not inherit one with the job, as they used to, there will be dangers in allowing politicians to pick which judges they wish to favour. The same could be said of police commissioners, chiefs of the defence staff, senior civil servants and so many more. Careful thought is needed.
It is the work of this House to think carefully about the legislation placed before us. We respect the democratic mandate of another place, although I have listened with interest to the comments about one Parliament not binding another and wonder why, if an undertaking to the seventh Marquess of Salisbury is no longer to be honoured, one made to the fifth Marquess should continue to be observed. It is our duty to caution and give counsel. That is all the more important in the present Parliament. More than half of the current House of Commons were elected for the first time this summer. They have sat for just 62 days. Most MPs have not yet had a chance to see our bicameral system at work. They have never experienced ping-pong or seen how alliances across all parties, working between both Houses, can make our laws better. I wonder how many have stood at the Bar of the House and listened to our debates. I wonder how many have met a hereditary Peer. We are well within our rights to encourage them to think more deeply about the profound constitutional questions that this Bill leaves unanswered.
In the end, the Government will get their football Bill. I dare say they will get this Bill as well. But we must not shirk our duty to ensure that these and all other Bills put before us are properly considered and made better in the modest, careful and patriotic way that your Lordships’ House has been doing for more than 800 years.
Lord Beith (LD)
My Lords, I gladly if slightly sadly extend my good wishes to the noble Baroness, Lady Quin, as she looks forward to a Northumbrian retirement. I hope I shall see quite a bit of her. She has done excellent public work in so many capacities. I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Brady of Altrincham, on an excellent and very interesting maiden speech—interesting not least in his support for an elected second Chamber. That is the position of my party and has been since we put it in the 1911 Act, as well as pursuing it during the coalition Government.
I support this Bill. It will lead to our losing some much-valued and able colleagues, but we will have won the principle that ancestry confers no place in the legislature. Of course, the Bill takes no steps towards wider and more fundamental reforms, such as the creation of an elected House, which my party and I want, but blocking the Bill would not do so, either, and the notion that keeping the 92 Peers would somehow make it more likely for wider reform to take place has been shown to be quite false. The Government are talking a bit about consultation on time limits, participation and age limits, but no fundamental change will come before this Parliament under the present Government. They would have to be a very different Government for that to be the case.
There are two particular reasons for this. One is that it is difficult to the point of impossibility to get legislation through the House to make fundamental changes to the composition of this Chamber. Even this Bill might have a few difficulties, but a fundamental Bill would have considerable ones. Secondly, and more importantly, the Government—any Government—like the situation we have now. What is not to like if you are the Executive in having a second Chamber that does all the spade work on legislation but, if it says, “This is going too far and needs to be reconsidered”, can be denounced and dismissed as having no mandate as an unelected House? It puts the second Chamber in a weak position that we have to address, and having an elected House would be one way of addressing it—elected not in an identical way to the House of Commons or on the same timescale, but under a different procedure.
Since we are up against what I see as a severe barrier to radical reform, certainly for the time being, it would be quite wrong for us to say, “Because everything can’t be done, nothing should be done”. That applies not only to this Bill. I took part in the Burns committee, set up by the then Lord Speaker, the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, to consider ways of controlling the ever-growing size of the House. We proposed an agreement between the parties and groups, to be matched by restraint on the part of the Prime Minister, to limit the number of new appointments on a two-out, one-in basis, which would have allowed for retirement and refreshment of the various groups by bringing in new Peers with much-needed skills and experience, with a formula reflecting past election results.
Of course, the noble Baroness, Lady May, showed restraint during her time as Prime Minister. Her successors did not, and that pretty much torpedoed progress on the Burns proposals. At the moment, we are preserving a situation in which the occupant of No. 10 Downing Street can send whomever they like to this House: special advisers, lawyers to fill law officer posts, donors, celebrities and people, mentioned several times today, who think they are getting an honour and do not seem to realise that they are getting a job with duties and responsibilities.
The House of Lords is at its most popular when it challenges the Executive on some matter of great public importance. It is at its most unpopular when attention is drawn to the methods by which people are appointed to it. Over the years, this House has, by agreement, made quite significant changes and adjustments to cope with a changing world and expectations, and the need to be less distant from those whom we serve. We have a capacity, perhaps to a greater extent than the Commons, to reach agreement and resolve disagreement pragmatically and achieve results. Since we are not going to get radical legislation in the very near future, that kind of reform seems to be barred for the moment. Surely, we can make some progress rather than persisting with a broken appointments system. Once this Bill has passed, we should look again at the potential of the agreement, which the House supported, in the Burns proposals and the means that they suggested for achieving a better representation in this House and a dignity which the House deserves for the work that it does.
Lord Howard of Rising (Con)
My Lords, getting rid of our esteemed colleagues, the hereditary Peers, is unnecessary and it is cheap. It creates a precedent for gerrymandering for which there is no need. In the five years between 2005 and 2010, the Labour Government suffered 175 defeats in the House of Lords. In the five years between 2019 and 2024, the Conservative Government suffered 410 defeats—more than twice as many as Labour. Why is there such a fuss about trying to get rid of a few hereditary Peers, just in case? It is despicable.
Get rid of the hereditary Peers and what will come next? Will be it an intensification of the silly attack on the number of Peers in this House? The average daily attendance last year was 397. If you shrink the House, where would you get the Peers with the relevant knowledge to go through Bills in detail? Since the other place took to timetabling everything, our House acting as a revising Chamber has become ever more essential. You have only to look at the number of government amendments in Committee to realise this. To have a sufficient number of Peers to properly examine the wide range of Bills, a sizeable pool is needed.
Let us reflect for a moment on how well this House works at present. Getting rid of that part of the House not appointed by today’s politicians will change the dynamic of the House for the worse. If His Majesty’s Government feel oppressed by too many Conservative hereditary Peers, they should brave the wrath of the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, and create more hereditary Labour Peers. We should not risk losing this important element of our House. Hereditary Peers may be a random and illogical element of the House of Lords, but they are nevertheless an essential part. I will not waste your Lordships’ time by repeating the statistics which prove the contribution that hereditary Peers make, as my noble friend Lord Blencathra has already talked about it.
Constitutional reform should be carefully considered, which is not the case with this Bill. There is talk of different reforms for our House. Beware of what you wish for; you do not know what might come next.
Baroness Hooper (Con)
My Lords, this is a sad day for me as we face the prospect of breaking with over 800 years of history and tradition, and development of our democracy. Since our recent debate on the future of your Lordships’ House, and prompted by numerous rumours, I attempted to table a Question for urgent and topical debate, to ask the Government to announce their plans to give life peerages to the excepted hereditary Peers. My Question was not accepted, even for the ballot, on the grounds that there was no general public or media interest in the subject. That rather proved a point that I had made—that reform of the House of Lords is not a priority for most people in this country, whether a manifesto commitment or not.
In spite of being one of the few remaining Peers to have voted against the 1999 Act, I do not intend to repeat all the comments from the previous debate except perhaps, once again, to ask the Leader how, when the Labour Party’s manifesto referred to over-80s being doomed as well as the hereditaries, it became possible to drop the one pledge but not the other? In the interest of reducing the size of the House, can the noble Baroness supply us with the number of Peers who have taken advantage of one of the incremental changes that have taken place in recent years; namely, the system of voluntary retirement? The noble Baroness, Lady Quin, is an excellent example. This allows Members to make a valedictory speech and to retire amidst tributes to their contribution to your Lordships’ House and it reduces the numbers. Is there no way in which we can do more to encourage those who clearly do not wish to be active Members of your Lordships’ House to take advantage of this process on a voluntary basis?
This debate has ranged rather more widely than I had anticipated, and away from the specific provisions of the Bill. I would like to see it disappear completely, but at the very least it ought to be amended to make it less abrupt and painful to those whose ancestors made this place what it is and who themselves have served diligently and conscientiously. For example, I would support any amendment that altered Clause 4(3) and changed the enforcement of the Bill to the end of the Parliament instead of the end of the Session. I believe that that would, in some way, alleviate the pain and abruptness of it all.
This has been an excellent debate, with many wonderful suggestions over and above the provisions of the Bill. I take this opportunity to congratulate my noble friend Lord Brady on his maiden speech and to say once again how sorry I am to see the noble Baroness, Lady Quin, choosing the path of retirement, even though I have said that it should be encouraged—but only for those who are not making a contribution to this House.
Lord Morse (CB)
My Lords, I shall speak briefly because I do not dispute the fact that the removal of hereditary Peers was in the Labour manifesto and that the Government therefore have a right to remove them and a big enough majority to do so in whatever summary fashion they care to. My concern is that we see the Government’s purpose carried through without inflicting unnecessary self-harm in the meantime.
The inconvenient truth—or perhaps it is a convenient truth—is that the current arrangements work rather well and deliver the cream of the hereditary crop to the service of the House of Lords and of Parliament more widely. Many hereditary Peers have had substantial career responsibilities in the business world, in politics or government and elsewhere, and they bring heavyweight expertise, practical experience and good judgment with them to the service of both Houses. I have observed that from my position on the Restoration and Renewal Programme Board for the Palace of Westminster, the Finance Committee of the House of Lords and the House of Lords Commission. These Peers bring expertise that helps defend the reputation of both Houses for their management of public resources—and, believe me, the public are always willing and ready to believe the worst on that score. If we deprive Parliament of these services, we are at risk of cutting off our nose to spite our face, or, to quote the Prime Minister, of “putting party before country”.
It is also fair to point out that the loss of the hereditary Peers would be particularly damaging to the Cross Benches, threatening to reduce our numbers significantly and carry away our excellent convenor, my noble friend Lord Kinnoull. As I understand the current position, based on a very helpful briefing from the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, to the Cross-Bench Peers a few weeks ago, there is a suggestion that the Government may consider admitting some of the sitting hereditary Peers as life Peers at some point after the passing of the Bill into law. Assuming that the removal of hereditary Peers is to go ahead, I strongly recommend that the Government move quickly to get the life peerage arrangements in place by the time the Bill comes into effect, so that the hereditaries who will remain as life Peers can continue to contribute without an unnecessary hiatus. This would show leadership on the part of the Government, help build trust and keep damage to the public interest as low as possible.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Brady of Altrincham on his maiden speech and wish the noble Baroness, Lady Quin, every happiness in what I am sure and hope will be a long retirement with her family.
There have been only two successful attempts forcibly to remove a body of Members of Parliament, consisting mostly of one’s opponents, from Parliament. One was carried out by the New Model Army in the 17th century, and the other by the Labour Party in 1998. It is not a very flattering comparison, but it illustrates—or, at least, the former case illustrates—that violent action taken against this Parliament results only in constitutional complications that can take several years to extract oneself from.
One has to ask oneself: what is the practical political benefit to the nation of carrying out this measure? There could be several. The noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, could have said that her purpose is to achieve a permanent reduction in the size of your Lordships’ House. She could have said that her purpose is to create capacity for the appointment of Labour Peers to fill up those places. A perfectly respectable case could be made for doing either, but in fact she has given no practical benefit or purpose for carrying through this measure. The Government are doing this entirely because they can, which is exactly the same rationale that Colonel Pride used.
I take this opportunity to say that the attempt by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, somehow to blame the Conservatives, and particularly my noble friend Lord True, for this measure, on the grounds that he should have embraced the Grocott Bill in the past, does not succeed in putting me or many of my colleagues on the moral back foot. Many of us were not here for the Grocott Bill; we know almost nothing about it. I did not reject the Grocott Bill, because nobody ever asked me to give an opinion on it. The one thing I would say about the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, for whom I have a great deal of respect, is that the abolition of the by-elections for hereditary Peers—by what undoubtedly remain legally dubious means—has the very sad result that we will be deprived of his commentary on the results of the by-elections on each occasion that they are announced. That has always been a highlight for me and, I think, for many other noble Lords.
I turn to the political and constitutional basis for what the Government are doing, which rests, of course, on their manifesto. To anybody picking up their manifesto, as I have many times, it is absolutely plain that under the heading
“Immediate reform of the House of Lords”,
a series of measures and commitments is proposed. One is the removal of hereditary Peers but there are others that I do not need to recite since they have been mentioned several times. They include the age limit, getting rid of disgraced Peers and so forth. There is a list of them. They sit together quite clearly as part of that immediate commitment. There is another commitment, which has no timeline attached to it—a separate matter—which is that
“Labour will consult on proposals, seeking the input of the British public”.
That does not have a timeline commitment, but the others do, and they clearly belong as a package.
Today, and previously in a meeting that the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, was good enough to have with all Peers, she said, particularly in respect of my comment about this in an earlier debate, that I had “missed the full stop at the end of the sentence”. It is true that I may be at fault. I had taken little notice of the full stop at the end of the sentence. I assumed that there would be a full stop at the end of the sentence. It turns out that this full stop is to bear a constitutional weight that the noble Baroness relies on. God knows where we would be if there had been a paragraph break at the end of the sentence.
In that meeting, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, characterised my position as “Do nothing until you do everything”. That has never been my position. My position is that the Labour Party should commit to carrying out, and show us that it is carrying out, its own manifesto. Why is that so difficult?
Baroness Whitaker (Lab)
My Lords, I am sad at the departure of my noble friend Lady Quin, whose speech I, as a granddaughter of Newcastle, much admired. I enjoyed the impressive speech of the new noble Lord, Lord Brady of Altrincham. Change has set the tone for this debate.
In your Lordships’ House there is, quite rightly, a proper appreciation of the contribution of hereditary Peers. I thought that I should look at what the electorate outside thought. They do not seem to have much interest, judged by the paucity of polling. But what they have evinced is not at all the same as the opinion of your Lordships. According to YouGov, 62% think that there should not be any hereditary Peers in the second Chamber of Parliament. This discordancy can perhaps be explained by the fact that only 4% thought that they really understood what the Lords did, sadly, while 49% thought that the House of Lords was not useful. Of course, we know that the reality is quite different.
I think that this gap originates from the way in which our present second Chamber came about. In some ways, it was an ingenious way to modernise. It was evolutionary, as is our habit now. Our history does not predispose us to like revolutions. We often prefer incremental change, such as this Bill. The life peerage system was more or less spatchcocked on to the feudal nobility without modifying the latter. Even after the partial reform of 1992 reduced the proportion significantly, the hereditary principle remained validated. This is a very British fudge. Fudge is nice but it does not have much of a structure.
The public cannot easily discern the nature of the House of Lords because it is all thought of as part of an ancient and undemocratic system. It is no accident that the unfavourable accounts of your Lordships’ activities in the newspapers are habitually accompanied by a photograph or cartoon of an ermine-clad noble. When I spoke at my granddaughter’s primary school about the Lords, the very first question asked was, “Are they very posh?” I was able to explain that some were but that many were not, just like society in general, and that in any case that was not the important thing, which was the work we did. But “posh” is not a compliment in most circles; it speaks of unmerited privilege.
Apart from being fundamentally undemocratic, the hereditary element influences popular perception of the Lords, and perception matters—that may be unwelcome, but it does. It matters in politics, as all politicians know; it matters in justice; and it is the essence of art—we need to watch it. Of course, it can be mistaken or misled, but we cannot get round it. I am afraid that the perpetuation of even a minority of hereditary Peers as parliamentarians has undermined the reputation of the House of Lords—unfairly, perhaps, from some points of view, but in a way that contributes to the general mistrust of politicians and damages democracy.
I applaud the respect of the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, for the vote of the electorate for a manifesto commitment. I too support the Bill. However, we should pay attention to the reality of the valuable contribution of individual hereditary Peers—no one doubts that it would be a pity to lose that when we dispose of the hereditary principle in our Parliament.
I therefore propose that we should have an equivalent of the emeritus status for retired professors, with, perhaps, a dedicated email address, such as “@emeritus-parliament.uk”, WhatsApp groups for particular interests, and the capacity to issue news releases and generally communicate opinion like the Elders—the retired senior United Nations dignitaries. Access to digital support would be very helpful. Emeritus professors have the use of their university library, and it is for discussion whether this might work for emeritus Peers. I hope my noble friend the Leader of the House will recommend a scheme of this sort.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I think the Bill, which is a bit odd, must have been drafted by somebody who had just read Animal Farm. For some reason your Lordship’s House has been divided between life Peers, who are good, and hereditary Peers, who are bad. This whole concept was elaborated on by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, who seemed to think that it is better that we lifers are appointed by the Prime Minister than that the hereditaries are elected.
The noble Lord, Lord Grocott, whenever he pushed his Bills—which he constantly did—tried to persuade us that it was derisory that in some cases there were so few hereditary Peers electing other hereditaries. The product of that is the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, who, let us face it, was elected by probably three Labour hereditary Peers. The noble Lord, Lord Grocott, thought that that was ridiculous, but I say to him that at least the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, was elected. The noble Lord, Lord Grocott, was not elected, I was not elected, and neither was the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer. We were all appointed. Is there something superior about appointed Peers over elected hereditary Peers? I think not; I think the reverse is true.
I will take your Lordships back to one or two people who have been life Peers. Life Peers were first brought into this House in 1958 and there was a bunch of them. Probably the most memorable name among the life Peers brought into the House at that stage was Lord Boothby. Lord Boothby’s claim to fame was that he had slept with the Prime Minister’s wife. That completely kiboshed the advice I used to give to people who wanted to be life Peers in this place. I would say to them, “Whatever else you do, make sure you don’t sleep with the Prime Minister’s wife”.
Lord Boothby was rather more exotic than just that. He was photographed enjoying a drink in a Soho club with the Kray twins. Most of your Lordships are too young to remember anything about the Kray twins, but they were a very sinister couple of mobsters who were the nearest thing we had to the mafia in this country. They ran a protection racket that was absolutely ruthless. They tortured large numbers of people, and one of them was so psychotic that he rather enjoyed doing it. It took some time for the legal authorities to catch up with the Kray twins, but they eventually ended up in prison, and I think both of them died there.
Lord Boothby was lucky because he did not end up in prison, but on the other hand Lord Kagan did. Lord Kagan, if you remember, was Harold Wilson’s favourite businessman; he set up a business to produce Gannex macintoshes and actually gave one to the Prime Minister. The noble Lord, Lord Alli, should take note of that, because he follows in the great tradition of stocking the wardrobes of Labour Prime Ministers. Lord Kagan eventually was released from prison. He used to come to your Lordships’ House to lecture people on prison reform, on which he regarded himself by that stage as something of an expert. We then have our colleague Lord Archer of Weston-super-Mare, who spent time in prison as well.
I point this out because, quite clearly, it is wrong to say that all life Peers are criminal convicts, as only a very small number are, but the damage that one or two do to your Lordships’ House is very great. People outside find it extremely difficult to understand why people who are supposed to be writing the laws cannot uphold them themselves and are actually outside the law. So when we say that hereditary Peers are bad and life Peers are good, that does not apply in every case of life Peers by a very long way.
A lot of the expertise that has been gained by some of the younger Members, particularly on the Conservative Front Bench while in government, is very valuable when it comes to holding the Government to account in forthcoming years. If we want to get rid of all that expertise, as would happen with this Bill, so be it, but that seems to be an extremely negative way of planning the future of this House and holding the Government to account. We will be looking at this Bill with very great intensity. I have a number of amendments that I would like to put down, because I think that this is a very facile Bill that needs exploring in great depth.
Baroness Laing of Elderslie (Con)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Hamilton. I am one of the latest recruits to your Lordships’ House and I have to say to my noble friend that, in the very few weeks I have been here, I have so far encountered no violent criminals at all, as far as I am aware. Everyone has been extremely kind and gentle, and, given that I spent nearly three decades in the other place, I have been astounded at the courtesy and politeness. Being new, I hesitated to take an active part in today’s debate, but it is perhaps my very newness that allows me to observe your Lordships’ House from a slightly different angle.
I begin by congratulating my equally new noble friend Lord Brady of Altrincham on his excellent maiden speech—90% of which I agreed with. We will argue about the other 10% for many years to come, I hope, as we have for many years in the past.
I had the privilege of serving, during the consideration of the Bill that was brought forward by the coalition Government in 2011, on the Joint Committee on House of Lords Reform. Some noble Lords might recall that committee. I remember very well that the noble Baroness, Lady Symons of Vernham Dean, who I see in her place, was a very active member of that committee and that we drafted together an excellent minority report, which I draw to the attention of noble Lords. That committee sat for nine months, so we looked at this matter in some depth.
I make just three points this afternoon. First, there is a general misunderstanding among journalists, commentators and Members of the House of Commons about what this House actually does. The fact is that your Lordships’ House has influence but not power. The elected Government have power. This misapprehension means that many observers of the current constitutional settlement are looking at it through the wrong end of the telescope.
Secondly, the hereditary Peers are in a unique position in the democratic world because they have genuine independence. They owe their position to no one—well, perhaps to their great-grandfathers, but to no one to whom they are answerable now. Our unwritten constitution requires inbuilt checks and balances, and the hereditary Peers provide a very important element of that balance because they are truly independent. We should value that independence.
Thirdly, there is a sharp contrast between theory and practice. If we were constructing a constitution from scratch, we would not start from here, but our constitution has developed over centuries, and the fact is that it works. The current balance between our two Houses of Parliament works. It is our duty as Parliament to hold government to account. Government is held to account in one way by the elected Members of the House of Commons, and in a different way by your Lordships. The current system works, and, as a wise man once said, if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.
Lord Strathcarron (Con)
My Lords, having read and listened to all I can about the Bill, I am still none the wiser as to why the Government are going ahead with just this reform on its own, or how it will lead to better governance of the country—surely the only real justification for any reform. The official reason given in the manifesto is that the presence of hereditary Peers remains indefensible. But if this is really so, why are there so many Labour Peers, many of them household names, who have benefited themselves or whose children are now benefiting from this “indefensible” principle? And so it will continue: the son of Sue Gray—she is soon to be welcomed among us, apparently—finds himself an MP in a safe seat and an instant PPS, all with generous funding from the noble Lord, Lord Alli; and the current Cabinet is full of examples of rank nepotism. So the objection from the Labour side cannot be to the hereditary principle as a principle, which still leaves the question of why.
Is it to reduce the size of the House? All of us who work here know that this 805 number is largely a red herring, as nearly half that number rarely if ever attend. Library research shows that in 2023, the average daily attendance was 397, of whom 53 were hereditary Peers; without them, the daily number becomes 344, which, I suggest, is borderline for efficiency. So the real reason cannot be to reduce the size of the House by this reform alone, which still leaves the question of why.
Is it simply gerrymandering to ease the path of government business, as is the favoured explanation on this side of the House, especially as the Bill seems to have a suspiciously high priority in the legislative programme? Related to this, is this one-step-backwards, no-steps-forward approach going to lead to better governance of the country? The answer is emphatically not. When the last Government were in power, we were always in the minority and frequently defeated in Divisions, as noble Lords will well remember. A very good thing it was too: the combined forces against us then will be against us now in opposition, and it is not good governance for any party to have an easy majority in both Houses, made worse by any new life Peer being appointed by the Prime Minister, on the basis that loyalty repaid works both ways.
Of course, the Government do not want the country to be governed badly, so that still leaves the question of why. Is it that the hereditary Peers do not pull their weight? As well as the high daily average attendance, no fewer than 51 hereditary Peers are currently serving on the various House of Lords committees. Further research shows that, of the 15 most recently elected Conservative hereditaries, no fewer than nine served or are serving as Ministers, shadow Ministers or Whips—all unpaid, of course. If you include party Whips, it becomes practically a full house, so not pulling their weight cannot be the reason for being kicked out.
That still leaves the question of why. Is it to cull the House of private sector representation? The hereditary Peers stand out as being almost exclusively from the private sector—the only such cohort—and there seems to be a strong disdain for the private sector, as witnessed in the recent Budget and in the fact that nearly all the newly appointed life Peers have come from the public sector.
Those are the “why” questions, and I now turn to the “how” questions. How is this one stand-alone reform going to make the country better governed? How is it going to make this House of Lords a more efficient revising Chamber? How is it going to make this House of Lords a better, happier and more encouraging place in which to work?
If the Bill becomes law as it stands, there is at least one unintended consequence. Nearly all the elected hereditary Peers have come from the private sector and, in order to be elected here, have had to make a firm commitment to give up their current careers and income so as to devote enough time to becoming working Peers. They have all done so willingly, but now they find, through no fault of their own, that they are about to be expelled. In other words, they have kept their side of the bargain and now find that the other side has not. As the elected hereditary Peers will now have to find alternative employment back in the private sector, it would be only fair and reasonable to extend their time here until the end of this Parliament, so they have a chance to do so. That would enable the 51 hereditary Peers who are sitting on committees to complete their work on them. It would also be within the wording of the Labour Party manifesto.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
My Lords, the Bill ends the so-called hereditary aspect of this House. Christmas is approaching, and while, as one of the so-called turkeys directly affected by the Bill, I might abstain on it, I certainly do not propose to obstruct or delay it. However, I note the suggestion of quite a number in this House, including life Peers, that, in ending the hereditary aspect of the House, useful so-called hereditary contributors should be converted to life Peers. We shall see.
I turn to wider reforms, some of which were trailed in the Government’s manifesto. The Minister has had many informal representations, and I think we all admire her for her openness to those. Nevertheless, there comes a point when discussion ends and action follows. I realise that asking “When?” in a Parliament is typically an exercise in futility. However, the hereditaries shortly departing this House in the good faith expectation of wider reform without delay deserve a specific assurance that the Government have a timeframe in mind that they can share with the House. [Interruption.] If the noble Lord could stop gesturing in front of me, that would be very helpful. I therefore ask the Minister to indicate in summing up how and when any formal structured consultations will be organised, over what period they will occur and when legislation for further reform will be brought forward.
Many speeches today include suggestions to the Government, and I shall make two that I believe will be fundamental to successful reform. First, the unrestrained ability of party leaders to dangle peerages as rewards before, and then to appoint, their mates, their loyalists and their donors is both a numerical disaster and a reputational cancer at the heart of this place. I welcome the recent announcement that party leaders must explain their nominations, but that is a long way short of a proper selection and appointment process. Crucially, such appointments must be subject to a tight numerical limit that cannot be exceeded. That would at least put a lid on the inflows from that source.
Secondly, on participation, this is a place of work—of public service. If we can produce legislation to discard some of the most engaged and hard-working Members of this House, surely we can summon up the courage to send on their way those who do not engage or put the work in. I do not take the “everything or nothing” line—I agree with the Government on that—but the participation element should have been part of this Bill, and it would have accelerated progress towards a resized House with active Members. Failure to include that is not only unjust to those who do engage but also has two ongoing negative consequences: first, it tells new, and current, Peers that non-engagement is perfectly acceptable; secondly, it ducks the only meaningful way to reduce the membership both at scale and on a logical basis.
I hear some say that it is too difficult to construct a metric or criterion for that. It is not difficult: we already collect the data; we just need to have the guts to use them. I am talking not about an automated process but about a factual basis for discussions, giving ample opportunity to understand an individual Member’s situation. But Members unable or unwilling to engage sufficiently should resign or, failing that, have their membership ended—courteously but firmly.
No system is without its challenges, but the current lack of any real system to remove non-contributors is exactly why we are where we are today, in terms of both size and engagement. Some others say that this might lead to performative participation, for the sake of it. But engagement with the work of the House, in debates, speeches, committees and so on, requires time, effort and turning up regularly, so I believe that such performative behaviours would die back pretty quickly.
If we are genuinely serious about reducing numbers, and if a peerage does mean turning up and participating, we need to get on with making that the case. The alternative is the continuation of the current culture—something that the removal of the so-called hereditaries by the Bill does nothing to address. Indeed, ejecting engaged Members while leaving untouched the disengaged is an insult to the former and would simply ingrain the behaviours of the latter.
To conclude, I take on trust the manifesto promises of further reform, but I hope that the Government will do four things. First, look again at the “babies and bath-water” aspect of removing useful so-called hereditary Members of this House. Secondly, limit numerically the patronage of party leaders in appointing new Members. Thirdly, commit themselves, within a given timeframe, to implementing an effective participation requirement as a condition of a peerage for both new and existing Peers. Finally, look seriously at limited terms and at enforcing the “two out, one in” principle.
Lord Norton of Louth (Con)
My Lords, time precludes me from digressing to explain why my noble friend Lord True and the noble Lord, Lord Newby, exaggerated the significance of Magna Carta. The charter of 1215 did not have the impact they ascribe to it. I fear that this may be the only observation I make today that has not already been made by others.
As several speakers in this debate have stressed, any proposed changes to the composition, or indeed the structure or powers, of the House should be assessed in terms of their impact on the capacity of the House to fulfil its functions. Form should follow function. This House complements the House of Commons by fulfilling tasks that the elected House does not have the time, or sometimes the political will, to carry out. It fulfils these tasks by virtue of having, at the individual level, a membership that is characterised by experience and expertise and, at the collective level, the composition that gives it some detachment from government. It is the latter point on which I wish to focus.
The principal argument for the membership of the House of hereditary Peers derives not from who they are, or what they do—important though both are, as we have heard from many speakers—but rather from how they get here. They constitute the only body of Peers who arrive independent of prime ministerial patronage. Not only who they are, but their number, is not within the gift of the Prime Minister. That ensures some degree of detachment.
Prime Ministers may nominate persons of distinction; they may show some restraint in the number they nominate; they may be generous in inviting leaders of other parties to put forward names. The problem is that they may do none of these things. This has the potential to degrade the capacity of the House to fulfil its essential functions. As several noble Lords have already said, there is value in having a route into the House that is independent of prime ministerial control.
That is not an argument against passing this Bill. It is an argument against passing it is as a stand-alone Bill. If one removes the independent route into the House, one has to substitute a route that brings in Members that are not here on the basis of unrestrained prime ministerial power. The Bill therefore needs to be linked to one that covers the process by which names are proposed to the sovereign, be it independent of the Prime Minister or through ensuring that the Prime Minister does not nominate individuals who lack the experience or expertise—or for that matter the commitment —necessary to fulfil the essential tasks of the House.
The passage of this measure addressing output therefore needs to be conjoined with one that addresses input. I have a Bill being debated later this Session that addresses the points I have made, but obviously it does not need to be that Bill. The key point is that the provisions of this Bill should not be commenced until such time as a Bill addressing nominations, ensuring that there is some means of Members coming in independent of unrestrained, and possibly ill-judged, patronage is achieved.
This is wholly in line with the Government’s proposals for House of Lords reform. It ensures that two of their proposals are linked rather than treated as discrete measures, each independent of the other. The Government’s commitment to reform the appointments process must march in step with their commitment to enact this Bill. Picking up on the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Quin, this would not be a big-bang reform and I believe there would be consensus. It will be valuable to hear from the Leader of the House what is the argument of principle against adopting such an approach.
Viscount Goschen (Con)
My Lords, like many who have spoken in the debate this afternoon, I was delighted to hear the excellent maiden speech of my noble friend Lord Brady and saddened to hear the valedictory speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Quin.
We are Peers; we are all Peers. The word means equal and that is how we speak, behave and vote, and that is how we are treated in this House. There is no rank; we are equals as Peers. That should be held at the front of our minds throughout this debate. I certainly do not intend to follow the noble Lord, Lord Newby, down the line which he advanced in his speech, which I felt was uncharacteristically trying to be a little divisive between hereditary Peers and appointed life Peers. In fact, I think the reverse is true: in my third of a century or so in this House, I cannot think of a single instance where a Member’s rationale and motivation for the way that they speak or intervene has been questioned on the grounds of what type of Peer they are. They are a Peer; that is how they speak and that is how they behave, and I think that is how it should continue.
My second point is that our routes into this House—unless we seriously consider elections, and I think we should—are really, for the purposes of this debate, a giant red herring. The reality is that all Peers in this House are now de facto life Peers. The hereditary element has now gone. The hereditary principle, with the abolition of the by-elections, really is a non-issue. We have to look at numbers, composition and performance of the House, but I think to produce the hereditary issue as a great dragon that needs to be slain now is a very strange concept indeed and one that I do not think people outside Westminster would recognise as any sort of a priority.
Just take my noble friend Lord Strathclyde, for example, with his service as a Whip, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Minister of State, Opposition Chief Whip, Opposition Leader, Leader of the House, and no doubt a whole lot of roles that I have forgotten about over that time of nearly 40 years or so. Would anyone in the Chamber this afternoon seriously say that their own experience was superior to his on the grounds that he came to this House through a hereditary peerage some 38 years ago and they came as a prime ministerial appointment? I am prepared to take an intervention if anyone feels that they should.
Why have we got this Bill? I am very tempted to say that we should join together the three measures that have taken up so much time in this House recently: the debate on farming—the attacks on farmers and the settlement there that we have heard so much about, and will do again tomorrow—VAT on private schools, and the attacks on hereditary peerages. They could all be bundled together as a unified blood-letting Bill. Let us be honest and transparent about why this is being done.
I was most taken by the powerful speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, who is not in his place at the moment. He has done so much in the field of constitutional reform and was ready to mount his charger and draw his trusty sword of truth to fight the non-existent battle with the forces of heredity. He concluded by saying that he preferred the patronage of the Prime Minister. I am not sure that that conclusion was more than a modest bombshell. Unless and until we tackle the frankly preposterous system whereby the Prime Minister appoints his own jurors with no binding numbers, we are just tinkering at the edges of this issue. In my view, we ought to have a serious debate and move ahead with full constitutional reform, and leave this Bill to one side.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I strongly support this Bill. Before I joined your Lordships’ House, I had somehow assumed that the body of hereditary Peers would wither away, so I was surprised to discover the farce by which their number is maintained through the only electoral process that touches this House, so that the magic number of 92 is preserved in aspic. Of course, as others have emphasised, this is not about the individuals who make up the 92, some of whom I have worked with closely, but about the principle—and it is a principle and not a red herring—of membership resulting from an accident of birth. It is an accident that, as has been pointed out already, contradicts the principle of diversity in its various forms and produces an overwhelmingly male group because of male progeniture rules. This, in turn, contributes towards a House of which only 29% are women, putting us 37th in the global ranking, according to the Electoral Reform Society.
I look forward to the next stage of reform, which we will be able to discuss as colleagues, including the appointments process; a possible retirement age, although—here I have to declare an age interest—what was proposed in our manifesto seems rather arbitrary and blunt; and a participation requirement, although the difficulties in measuring that were noted in the recent debate on Lords reform. In addition, and I hope I will be forgiven, it should include the position of the Bishops, which has rightly been questioned. Again, it is a question of principle, not people, because I highly value the contribution made by many on the Bishops’ Benches, particularly on issues relating to refugees and poverty.
These, however, are all just stages, leading to the more fundamental reform envisaged in the manifesto, which those who want a genuinely democratic second Chamber—including myself—eagerly await. In a recent letter to the Guardian, representatives of 10 organisations working on power and democracy—I refer here to my registered non-financial interests—called on the Government
“to announce a timeline for the public consultation”
that was promised “as soon as possible”. They were echoed today by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Llanfaes. They also argued that a representative citizens’ assembly
“as part of a national conversation would help ensure this public consultation would bring together people from all walks of life, to hear from experts, deliberate and make recommendations”.
I will be honest and admit that I am not sure what would be the best model to replace the current House with a genuinely democratic and geographically balanced Chamber. But citizens’ assemblies have provided very useful mechanisms for enabling the public to debate knotty problems in other countries, such as Ireland, where they successfully considered abortion and same-sex marriage. I therefore support this proposal to help us chart a way forward that might have broad public support.
I would welcome my noble friend the Leader of the House’s thoughts on this suggestion and any indication that she can give on the timeline for public consultation on longer-term reform. In the meantime, it is the right strategy to reform in stages. I hope the current Bill will pass swiftly, so that we can move on to the subsequent stages.
I too congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Brady, who is now my neighbour in Millbank House, on an excellent maiden speech. I also say how sorry I am to hear the wonderful valedictory speech of my noble friend Lady Quin, but she will always remain a friend, I hope.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I repeat those congratulations. It is great to briefly have the company of my noble friend Lord Brady, in this House and very sad to lose the company of the noble Baroness, Lady Quin, a few months early. I find myself agreeing with the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, in that it would have been very nice to get the hereditary peerage made sex-blind. Her colleague Lord Diamond tried and I supported him early on; I tried in my turn, as did the noble Lord, Lord Northbrook. None of us has managed to convince a Government of any colour that they should be prepared to give time to that. It is, I think, the one regret that I shall carry with me as I depart this House.
I support the Bill, and I accept its principle. I accepted it in 1992 when I joined. I expected Neil Kinnock, now the noble Lord, Lord Kinnock, to win the election and abolish us, so I joined in the expectation of being abolished but it has taken rather a long time. Along with the noble Lords, Lord Newby and Lord Norton of Louth, I think that the Bill is an opportunity to make some important changes for the benefit of the continuing House. We need to do something about the Prime Minister’s power of patronage. I favour doing that by defining the proportions of this House that are made up of, or appointed by, various parties. We also need to do something about quality, because this ought to be a self-improving House. Many noble Peers have mentioned ways in which this House could do better, which seems entirely in tune with the Government’s objectives as set out in their manifesto.
I will take quality first. We should be on our honour at the beginning of every Session by confirming, in writing, that we have the mental and physical capacity to play a full part in the House, and that we intend to attend a certain percentage of sitting days and play an active part in the committees of this House, which are the core of its business. Those who can, for one reason or another, not manage that should gracefully retire. As the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, says, there should be some stick available if Members who are clearly not acting on their honour refuse to retire. Obviously, the ability to grant leave of absence to Peers who are away temporarily should remain.
As the Government have proposed, when a party leader proposes that someone should be a Peer, they should make a declaration of what their qualities and experience are and how that will add to the work of the Lords and represent the interests of that party in Parliament. I suggest that, together, that would make a good way of approaching the problem of quality. The basic jury is public opinion, and our own sense of honour. Those are suitably deep and flexible ways of dealing with what would otherwise become a rather bureaucratised system.
Then there is the question of proportions. Having no set proportions of Peers in this House allows the Prime Minister to flood the Chamber with new Peers whenever he or she wishes, effectively rendering Parliament unicameral and the legislature ineffective. We could deal with that simply by saying that the Bishops and the Cross Benches have a set proportion of this House, and the Opposition has at least half of what remains. That would make sure that the Prime Minister was no longer able to pack the representation of parties in this House. It would seem to me entirely appropriate in the context of a House where there was no longer a hereditary principle, and it was entirely an appointed House. As my noble friend Lord True pointed out, we have a strong set of conventions to allow that sort of House, where the Government are in a permanent minority, to be manageable, and allow the Government to get their business through.
As other noble Lords have said, it would help these processes if peerages were no longer tied to a Writ of Summons. There are some people in this world who deserve a peerage, but who are really not interested in arguing “may” and “must” in the recesses of some 500-page Bill. Let them have the honour and not impose on them the obligation to attend this place.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock, that we need to do something about regional representation. I have been, in recent months, sampling what you can get for £100 a night, and I cannot see this is a great incentive for people to travel down from the north. I have not encountered any bedbugs yet, but I should not be surprised to do so.
If we wanted to introduce election to this House, why not open up the hereditary Peers’ by-elections to everybody, as has just happened with the chancellorship of the University of Oxford? All Members of this House could vote, but anybody could stand. That way, we could introduce an interesting principle of election without changing the law, much as it is.
I look forward to long and interesting debates on this Bill. As we have seen from the amendments there were accepted in the Commons, there is quite a lot of scope for arguing how we can use this Bill to improve the House that remains after we have gone. That, for myself, is the legacy I should like to leave.
Baroness Meyer (Con)
My Lords, I too congratulate my noble friend Lord Brady for his maiden speech, and the noble Baroness, Lady Quin, for her valedictory speech.
This Government claim that this Bill aims to modernise the House of Lords, break away from feudal traditions and fulfil a manifesto pledge. It promises to replace the House with a Chamber that is representative of the regions and nations. Yet hereditary Peers represent diverse regions better than any other group of noble Lords. Today’s hereditary Peers are not a relic of feudal privilege. They bring diverse political views, professional expertise and unparalleled knowledge of the constitution and our nation’s history. Their contribution goes far beyond their “accident of birth”, and their historical ties mean that they are directly involved with rural community, ensuring that the countryside is represented. The fact that this Bill targets non-Labour Peers reveals, as many Lords have mentioned, the true intent of this Bill.
Forcing major constitutional changes without cross-party agreement undermines the delicate balance between tradition and evolution, a balance critical to Britain’s political success since the Civil War. We can contrast and compare that with the histories of France and Russia. Since the revolution in 1789, France has experimented with two empires, a monarchy and five republics in search of stability, and they are still searching. In one short century, Russia demolished an empire and got rid of its aristocracy, replacing it with a communist tyranny after a civil war which claimed 8 million lives and displaced several million more, including my grandparents. This was not modernisation; it was a step backwards. They replaced the Tsar’s regime with a worse form of autocracy. Today, the new Tsar, Putin, exerts more power than the Tsar ever did.
The UK’s unwritten constitution has evolved through adaptation rather than revolution. In times of great change, we have managed to adapt and modernise without having to resort to violence. The lesson is clear: change masquerading as progressive politics rarely delivers improvement, particularly when there is no consensus on what shape that change should take.
This Bill threatens our national identity and sets a dangerous precedent. It allows Governments to remove Members they dislike, transforming the House into a political, powerless body. Imagine if a future Prime Minister decided there were too many former Members of Parliament, and he or she applied the same principle. I am not sure that this House would welcome that.
Ironically, as many have pointed out previously, most hereditary Peers have more democratic legitimacy than life Peers. There are only 23 excepted hereditary Peers. The majority have been elected in a fair, competitive process. These elections are based on merit and expertise rather than inheritance. Cancelling elections retroactively undermines the very principle of democracy, setting another troubling precedent.
As many noble Lords have noted, if the Government truly want reform, they should address inactive Peers, improve the appointments process and ensure greater transparency in the selection process. This Bill does nothing like this. Instead, it scapegoats a particular group to advance a partisan agenda. Such hostility is misplaced and risks eroding the very foundations of Britain’s constitutional stability and its long-standing ethos of balancing tradition with modernity. The last time we tried that, almost 400 years ago, was certainly not a happy experience.
This Bill is not about evolution but a poorly disguised revolution.
Lord Rennard (LD)
My Lords, this Bill is a very modest measure from a Government that so far, in terms of constitutional reform, have much to be modest about. The Bill is a long way away from proposing an elected House, which Labour supported overwhelmingly in 2012, and from previous Labour manifestos, such as that in 2010, when it was previously in government. However, the modest nature of the Bill is not a reason to reject it today.
Some Members of your Lordships’ House were here, as I was, through every stage of all the attempts to end the farcical process of holding by-elections to elect new hereditary Peers. But for the by-elections since 1999 topping up the number of hereditary Peers by 57, the modest measure before us today would therefore have involved only around 31 Peers. I am not sure that, in those circumstances, this Government would have felt it necessary to proceed with this Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, who opposed the gentle measure of ending those by-elections, said today that this is a “nasty little Bill”, and suggested that Members of your Lordships’ House do not know who is a hereditary and who is a life Peer. He needs only to look at the UK Parliament website if he is in any doubt. From his Front Bench, we heard the noble Lord, Lord True, promise full-blooded opposition to this Bill, as the Conservatives fight to preserve the position of hereditary Peers, but his party’s position will be seen as blue-blooded opposition. If his party delays the Bill, the question then asked will be why they do not have other priorities that matter more to people in this country.
The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, appeared to consider that removing the hereditary basis for membership here is somehow a democratic outrage, while the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, accused those of us supporting the Bill of gerrymandering. However, the arguments about democratic outrage are a bit rich from those who abused their power in the last Parliament to gerrymander every possible election rule in their favour. The noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, want to postpone the Bill taking effect until the end of this Parliament, which is the classic approach of Saint Augustine’s prayer:
“Lord, make me pure, but not yet”.
We need not spend much time on this Bill, but will we see numerous, barely relevant amendments and unnecessary de-groupings that ensure we spend many more days debating it? We hear often that ending the hereditary basis for membership of the House is a breach of a gentlemen’s agreement made in 1999, but as the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, made clear, this agreement was based on blackmail; agreements made under duress should not be considered binding. In any event, no gentlemen’s agreement carries more weight than the legislative process, and as my noble friend Lord Newby said earlier, no Parliament can bind its successors. I wonder how some noble Lords would feel if Brexit had been blocked in 2020 simply because Parliament agreed on membership in 1972 and that could not be changed.
In the last 25 years, only Peers have been able to vote for Peers, and only from a very limited pool comprising only men who have inherited their position through their fathers. This Bill does not provide for what should really be done in relation to Lords reform, far from it, but that is not a reason to block a modest reform now. What we want to follow is more fundamental reform.
The Leader of the House explained how this Bill will make a modest contribution to moving the House in a more proportional direction in terms of voting. I hope therefore that this is a first step towards proportional representation more generally, as most of her Labour colleagues in the House of Commons voted recently in support of Sarah Olney’s Bill providing for PR, which was passed by two votes.
Lord Roberts of Belgravia (Con)
My Lords, speaking as a historian, it seems to me that severing the link between Parliament and the noble families of Britain, after so many centuries of their service, will damage the prestige of this House. The grandeur of this place is bound up not just with its art, books and architecture but with the connection that these noble houses provide to our national past.
For example, the noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk, and the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, are direct descendants of Lord Mowbray—to whose statue in this Chamber I point noble Lords. He helped force King John to sign Magna Carta, the charter document of the liberties of us all. To pick up on what the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, said, admittedly those Barons were very undiverse—none the less, that is what they did. I know that Peers are not supposed to use props for their speeches, but I thought that noble Lords would forgive me for referring to a 10-foot high, two century-old statue.
Mention of the noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk, prompts me to ask the Leader of the House whether the Government approve of him continuing in his hereditary role as Earl Marshal, an office that his family has held since 1672, and the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, continuing to hold his hereditary role as Lord Great Chamberlain, which has been in continuous existence since 1138. In this fatwa against the hereditary principle, surely the Government should advise the King to throw open these posts to public competition in a transparent process overseen by the DCMS, of course after due advertisement in the Guardian—that will look terrible in Hansard; I hope there is a special font for irony.
One argument repeatedly made in the debate on the Motion to Take Note of Lords reform on 12 November was that, because only Britain and Lesotho have an hereditary element in their constitutions, it is somehow illegitimate and embarrassing. We should not be embarrassed about the exceptionalism of the British constitution, which is born of a quite different historical development from those of other countries. That does not make it better or worse, simply different. Over three and a half centuries, it has been the result of evolution, and not of revolution, war and invasion.
It will damage the prestige of this House to become entirely appointed. The accusation that it was a Prime Minister’s cronies’ Chamber was always vitiated by the fact that it had plenty of cronies of the Stuart, Hanoverian and Saxe-Coburg monarchs too, who are not beholden to anyone living. We ought to cherish that. Furthermore, the Bill will drive up the average age of Members of this House, when we are trying to bring it down. It will also make it more London-centric—although, admittedly, with the title I have chosen, I am in no position to grandstand about that.
A sense of continuity, stability and tradition must be good for Parliament. It is true that we probably would not invent the House if it did not exist, but it none the less does a fine job of revising the occasionally substandard legislation sent over to us by the other place. The House of Lords is thus reminiscent of the old joke about the French post-structuralist philosophy professor at the Sorbonne, who asks his class: “I accept that it works in practice, but does it work in theory?” It is not mere romance, snobbery or reaction that motivates those of us who wish to keep the House of Lords, as Disraeli called it on coming here as Earl of Beaconsfield, “the Elysian fields”.
A tradition of service which holds power in no awe and which sees itself as an ancient council of state rather than a glorified quango is worth defending. When this Bill passes, as, sadly, it will, the hereditary Peers shall, as the Duke of Argyll predicted 130 years ago, “return into the bosom of the people out of which we came, which we have loved so long and served so well”. Those of us who are left and who value selfless, disinterested government will mourn their removal.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton of Epsom, thought of Animal Farm when he first read the Bill. I thought of one of those dread brainstorming sessions; I could hear some bright spark saying, “I know, let’s go after a bunch of pale, stale and male aristocratic toffs in the Lords. That’ll be popular with the masses”. It strikes me that this Bill may have gone through a similar policy wonk consultation as “Let’s go after those well-off pensioners taking advantage of our generous winter fuel allowance” or “Let’s go after those greedy, tax-dodging, land-owning farmers or those wealthy parents who can afford to send their special needs kids to posh private schools”. It feels a bit chippy and based on caricatures. At lunchtime, seeing that magnificent array of tractors driving past should be a salutary lesson for Ministers of what happens when lazily stereotyped villains bump into material reality—in this instance, working farmers cheered on by the public as they demonstrated against government policy.
The Minister for the Cabinet Office, Nick Thomas-Symonds, justified the Bill by saying that, allegedly, if the second Chamber reflects modern Britain then it can restore public trust in democratic institutions. Do the Government really believe that all it will take to tackle profound political alienation, and a yawning disconnect between millions of voters and mainstream institutions, is to erase 88 hereditary Peers? That seems just a tad complacent.
I understand the rationale that, in the 21st century, it is outdated and indefensible for those born into certain families to decide on the laws of the land. That is fair enough, but surely it is equally indefensible that any of us, with no mandate, should be sitting here at all. Okay, we are not here because of parentage, but, as other Peers have acknowledged, we are here due to another arcane form of top-down patronage. We should be careful to avoid any self-regarding discussion that imagines that the majority of us are here based on merit or our virtues. It is equally egregious to appoint those infamous cronies, donors, former MPs—many appointed after they were rejected by the electorate—and all the odds and sods who have been put here based on some prime-ministerial whim; yes, that includes me. I apologise to the great and the good, by the way, and to the Bishops, because I know that they are all blameless, but nonetheless, all of us, however virtuous, are unelected and represent an affront to democracy.
I say this not to be churlish. Many here are brilliant, hard-working scrutineers. There is an abundance of expert knowledge, and plenty of rhetorical and analytical accomplishment, which is often lacking in the other place. Regardless of all that, it is hard to argue that we are the epitome of democracy.
I am therefore still bemused that the Government have narrowed the scope of reform to hereditary Peers only. That seems like such a waste of parliamentary time and energy. For goodness’ sake, if you are going to do constitutional reform, do it with conviction and gusto. We should not be gaslit into accepting that this bitty, piecemeal approach is anywhere near the constitutional shake-up that was promised. I appreciate that to be radical would require courage, with a grown-up debate in both Chambers and a national conversation about how Parliament should enact the will of the people via lawmaking, and that it would encounter problems—yes, an elected upper Chamber would be a challenge to the primacy of the Commons, as was pointed out in the excellent maiden speech by the noble Lord, Lord Brady of Altrincham—but maybe looking at the Lords is the wrong focus.
When this Chamber is lauded for amending poorly drafted laws, spotting unintended consequences, and having the time to scrutinise legislation properly after laws are rushed through the other place, surely our focus should be on a proper democratic solution that bolsters the time available and the scrutinising powers of the Commons. The focus should be on the Commons, to improve the quality of the laws drafted; in other words, to abolish this second Chamber and adopt a truly unicameral model, to improve and upskill the Commons, and to concentrate on improving the most important relationship, which is not between the two Houses but between the elected and the electorate.
Finally, I believe that we have, at present, a problem of elitism in the UK. But in 2024 the culprits are not the gentry, lording it over the public; they are the new political and cultural overlords, who look down on ordinary people and think they know best about everything, from the public’s consumer habits to the virtues of mass migration, in defiance of popular disquiet. Forget the “to the manor born” types, correcting the P’s and Q’s of the hoi polloi; beware instead the patronising diversity and inclusion commissars who police everyday words and pronouns on pain of cancellation, and who, without irony, lecture others to, “Check your privilege”. Entitlement and elitism are alive and kicking. The hereditary principle is the least of democracy’s problems—and, by the way, victory to the farmers.
The noble Baroness, Lady Quin, made her valedictory speech. If anyone is proof that 80 is an arbitrary, mad and ageist line at which to cut off somebody in their prime—I hope she has a wonderful retirement in Newcastle, which I love—she is a perfect example.
Lord Reay (Con)
My Lords, the United Kingdom constitution recognises two broad classes of Peer: the Lords spiritual and the Lords temporal. I do not often think of myself as a Lord temporal, but perhaps I should, as it has a certain to ring to it. It even has echoes of Doctor Who and the Time Lords—it might impress my children. There are four categories of Lords temporal: the Earl Marshal and the Lord Great Chamberlain, both royal offices and both hereditary; life Peers; and, finally, hereditary Peers, elected under Standing Orders—I repeat that they are elected, not appointed, and in a number of cases, including my own, elected by the whole House.
It is a source of political and personal sadness to me that this Bill seeks to remove altogether that latter category—in other words, to cancel their elections and to do so not merely prematurely, in flagrant breach of the agreement as enshrined in the law of 1999, but as soon as the end of this parliamentary Session. As for the cancellation of elections—our own elections—how strange, as my noble friend Lady Meyer suggests, those words sound in the mother of Parliaments. How strange, discordant and dismaying.
There is a small consolation, I suppose, that, if the Bill passes, I will spend a short time only on a constitutional death row as an altogether new kind of Lord temporal: a Lord temporary, a dead Peer walking—titles which I fear will not impress my children at all.
The truth is that, however things are dressed up, with no matter how many friendly smiles and whatever warm or weasel words, we are to be bundled out of this place with something that looks a little too like contempt for comfort. Moreover, we are to be bundled out not, say, by a burly bouncer at closing time, or because we have become drunk and disorderly—if only, perhaps—but by an institution and by people we know well, who know us and the nature of our service, its seriousness and quality, and the strength of our participation. This means that things will inevitably feel personal; they will feel personal because they are personal. That is a source not only of sadness but of real disappointment.
There is no public clamour for our instant removal; the Labour Party’s election manifesto made no such commitment. It is also inconsistent with the spirit of the Government’s Employment Rights Bill. We may not be employees but we are people. Frankly, it is not a great look for a governing party to remove from this House, in needless haste and in the absence of wider reform, large numbers of its opponents. It is not a great look, not a great example, and not a great precedent. Who knows who will be next?
The excuse is the strength of feeling to which the issue gives rise in the Labour Party—the passionate intensity with which it rejects the hereditary principle. I feel differently. I accept without hesitation that the hereditaries should depart when this House is fully reformed, and I accept the reasons why. But, at the same time, I do not underestimate our value—as legislators, of course, in a revising Chamber, but also, so to speak, our human value. Democracies are inherently imperfect and in constitutional arrangements, as in life and in love, rationality is not, thank goodness, or should not be, the be all and end all. Strict rationality, dry reason and narrow logic can actually be the foes of the body politic, not its friends—not the tiger in its tank but its kryptonite.
We live in a time of great—I would say revolutionary —cultural change. It is a time to remember that healthy, happy countries, with a coherent sense of themselves, have a past as well as a present and a future, with a soul and beating heart as well as a brain. It is a time to remember the importance of British culture and British political culture, and the growing importance of our historical and ancestral roots, and of watering and respecting those roots. This is one reason we have, and today need more than ever, a monarchy. Is it also the reason the hereditary Peers have survived for as long as they have?
Parliament has many roles. One of those roles is to represent the British people where it really matters and to reflect them back to themselves; to represent their character, fears and desires, hopes and dreams, and humanity, and to give expression to their inchoate feelings—feelings which are no less real or important, perhaps especially at times such as these, for being hard to articulate.
This House is a revising Chamber but it is also, or should be, part of the national conversation. One of its jobs should be—above all, at a time of cultural upheaval—to help elucidate, elevate and lead that conversation. Because they are neither politicians nor appointees, the hereditaries have had, and still have, a valuable role to play in this mission, as have the Lords spiritual and as did, once upon a time, the late lamented Law Lords. In a sense, perverse though this may sound to some, it is by virtue of our very ordinariness. This is neither the moment to remove us, nor the way.
Lord Hacking (Lab)
My Lords, I did not have the pleasure of hearing the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Brady, but I am sure that he is most welcome to the House. But I did have the opportunity to hear my noble friend Lady Quin’s exquisite valedictory speech, and I am sure that we will all miss her.
I stand as a very rare species: I am a hereditary Labour Peer. More than that, I am the only hereditary Labour Peer taking part in this debate. My noble friend Lord Stansgate has avoided having to speak to the House by taking the chair for one hour as Deputy Chairman, so it has been left to me.
In the parlance of these days, I should state where I am coming from, so I will express it to your Lordships. I took the oath for the first time in February 1972, nearly 53 years ago, when I was 34 years of age. At the time, Earl Jellicoe was Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House, and Lord Shackleton was Leader of the Opposition. One was the son of Admiral Jellicoe of Jutland fame and the other was the son of the great Antarctic explorer Ernest Shackleton—I felt a touch of heredity existed. I remained in the House until 1999—I was here for 27 years—and returned in 2021 at the encouragement of my noble friend Lord Kennedy, my Chief Whip. I have therefore been in the House for 30 years, with my first spell being 27 years.
Since I arrived in this House in 1972, I have always held that, in the world of the Mother of Parliaments, no membership of this or any other House should be by the accident of birth, and I remain strongly committed to that principle. That is why, in 1999, I refused to put myself forward for election among the 10% of excepted hereditary Peers. I am afraid that I did not keep to that same purity in 2021, but my noble friend Lord Kennedy is very persuasive.
Yes, as the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, said, there are improvements to be made, and I hope they will be put forward. The noble Earl suggested that absent prayers—I mean absent Peers: a slip of the tongue—should be excluded on a tighter basis than just one absenteeism in the whole five-year period of a Parliament. I hope that that will be attended to in Committee.
Therefore, I will address only one issue, which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord True. He argued that the removal of the hereditary Peers was unnecessary and that they should be allowed to wither away. He cited the treatment of the existing hereditary Irish Peers in the 20th century, who were not removed but allowed to wither away. Indeed, they did wither away some time ago. The trouble is that the noble Lord’s argument runs against the principle that nobody in Parliament should be here by the accident of birth.
It has been a great privilege for me to be in this House from 1972 to 1999, and then again since 2021. I end my short brief speech with praise for my Leader for the very tactful manner in which she introduced this Bill and her readiness to give rightful praise to a number of hereditary Peers. In her earlier speech, she actually identified two hereditary Peers of great distinction. This contrasts with the noble Baroness who was the Leader of the House in 1999, who, in a rather brief speech, addressed the hereditary Peers with the words, “Thank you and goodbye”.
Viscount Astor (Con)
My Lords, it is a certain pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, because when he first came to this House, he did not sit on the Labour Benches but was on this side of the House. He has played a very successful game of musical chairs around the House in a clockwise motion, going from here to the Cross Benches to the Labour Party. With his ability to do that, after the Bill has passed he will probably pop up on the Bishops’ Bench.
The Bill is notable not for what is in it but for what is not in it. It is a Bill of missed opportunities to reform this House. It does not represent the Government’s own manifesto. Our fear is that there will be no further reform or follow-up of Gordon Brown’s idea for a Chamber that will be fit for the future, representing all the nations of this country. As drafted, it is an opportunity for this Government to enable the Prime Minister to pay off friends and donors. More Prime Ministers’ bag carriers will receive peerages, sadly, following the example of the last two Conservative Prime Ministers. I hope that noble Lords note that I said “two”— I absolve my noble friend Lord Cameron of any such behaviour.
In the recent debate we had on reform, the Leader of the House did not tell us what she believes the future of this House will be or even what options the Government are considering. However, looking at the amendments that were laid in the Commons, we have the opportunity to prise out the Government’s thinking on the future of the second Chamber. The Labour Party’s general election manifesto committed to removing the right of excepted hereditary Peers to sit and vote in this Chamber. The commitment was made alongside other proposals to reform the House of Lords. The manifesto proposed the introduction of a “mandatory retirement age” that would require Members to retire from the House of Lords at the end of the Parliament in which they reached the age of 80. It also proposed establishing
“a new participation requirement as well as strengthening the circumstances in which disgraced members can be removed”,
reforming
“the appointments process to ensure the quality of new appointments”,
and seeking
“to improve the national and regional balance”.
The Labour manifesto also proposed
“replacing the House of Lords with an alternative second chamber that is more representative of the regions and nations”.
Finally, it said that the Government would consult on these proposals. When will they start consulting? Who will they consult? We want to know what the Government’s view is on retirement age and length of service. Is 80 going to be the retirement age? If so, why did the Prime Minister appoint two new Peers to this House who are already over 80? It was somewhat surprising.
A lot of us do not want to get rid of the Bishops or disestablish the Church of England, but after looking at the debates in another place we should consider looking at other faiths taking part in Prayers in this House. On Remembrance Sunday, all the denominations were included. I looked up the list: the Chief Rabbi, the director of the Sikh Network, representatives from the Roman Catholic Church, the Methodist Church, the United Reform Church, the Baptist Union, unitarian churches, Greek Orthodox churches and the Church of Scotland, and Muslim, Hindu and Buddhist representatives. If they can attend that important service, why can they not attend Prayers in your Lordships’ House?
Do the Government believe that in the future, large donors or those who represent large donors should be excluded from consideration for peerages? Should there be a participation threshold? I note, as other noble Lords have, that in the previous Session, the largest vote was 515 Peers and the largest in recent years was just over 600, on the European withdrawal Bill. That was out of a possible 805. However, if we exclude some who are unable to attend due to illness or not being in the country, that leaves about 200 further Members of your Lordships’ House who could have attended. Where were they? If the Government really want to cut down the size of the Chamber, they should identify those who do not attend, and those Peers should retire. It is also noticeable that 53 of your Lordships have not spoken in the last five years. Do they really deserve to carry on taking part in your Lordships’ House without making more of an effort to attend?
There will be amendments to the Bill. They will not be, as some have claimed, a delaying tactic but a chance to discuss the issues around reform. I recognise that the Bill is a manifesto commitment and that at the end of the day it must pass, although not without proper scrutiny. To those who object to the scrutiny ahead of us, in Committee and on Report, all I can say is that if we do not properly scrutinise the Bill, what is the point in having a second Chamber at all? If this happens, the danger is that since most MPs already do not see the point of a second Chamber, their preferred reform will be a unicameral Parliament. That would be a terrible mistake and an unintended consequence of a bad Bill.
Lord Keen of Elie (Con)
My Lords, I extend my welcome to my noble friend Lord Brady of Altrincham for his maiden speech. I express my thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Quin, for her charming valedictory speech. I noticed her intention to carry on with a different form of public service after she leaves this House. I confess that my knowledge of Newcastle does not extend beyond a short stop between Waverley and King’s Cross, so I note her kind invitation to extend my knowledge beyond platform 4.
Much has been said and little requires repetition; be that as it may. We are concerned with a very specific Labour Party manifesto commitment under the express heading of “Immediate modernisation”. I remind the Leader of the House of the ordinary English usage of “immediate”: done at once, without interval of time. What was proposed to be done at once and without interval of time? It was the removal of the elected hereditary Peers, the introduction of a mandatory retirement age for those who reached the age of 80 during a parliamentary Session, the very necessary introduction of a participation requirement, and a very necessary reform of the appointment process. Taken together, these would address, to some extent, the numbers in the House, the quality of those in the House and the contribution of those appointed to the House.
Yet the only immediate action of this Government is not modernisation but an immediate departure from their manifesto commitment. In a vain effort to mitigate Labour’s departure from immediate modernisation, the Leader expressly quoted the presence of a full stop. As the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, observed, such constitutional weight has been placed upon this small dot. There we are: the disclosure, surprising to many, that the Labour manifesto was broken down into sentences. Who would have thought it? Nil desperandum.
There is a logic and coherence to the Labour Party manifesto commitment to immediate modernisation, and it is not present in the Bill. The Leader of the House spoke of the Government being able to decide whether, how or when they would implement their manifesto commitment. However, with respect, this was an expressed commitment to immediate modernisation, not an expression of separate steps hopefully heading in the direction of some modernisation at an indefinite time in the future. The Minister referred to people not being able to sit in this House because of the family they were born into. That might extend beyond the hereditary principle.
Reference has been made to the constitutional anomaly of hereditary Peers. I am inclined to the view that all Peers are, to some greater or lesser extent, a constitutional anomaly. The vast majority are appointed for life, but without any commitment or obligation to turn up and do anything. But the greatest constitutional anomaly is that the Executive, in the form of one individual, the Prime Minister, have untrammelled power to determine the membership of the legislature without any reference to quality or qualification.
Reference has been made also to the medieval overhang in this Chamber. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Birt, observed, that applies with considerable force to the presence of 26 Church of England bishops who inherit a seat in this House when appointed to their bishopric. What do we have from the Government on this point? Complete silence.
The Bill may be presented as many things by diverse interests, but the one thing it most certainly is not is the immediate modernisation of this House, much though it may be required.
Lord Moore of Etchingham (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I join in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Brady of Altrincham, whom I am proud to call a friend in the non-parliamentary sense of the word. I also thought that the noble Baroness, Lady Quin’s valedictory speech was lovely, and I am very grateful to her personally, because she was instrumental in putting up a plaque to my great aunt Kathleen in Newcastle, who was imprisoned for suffragette activities. I am glad to put that on the record.
I am sitting next to the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, and I admired the self-sacrifice with which he went to the scaffold, as it were. But it rather spurred me in the opposite direction. Why cannot those of us who oppose the Bill, and many of us clearly do, act like Prince Blücher to his ancestor and get there just in time? I think we should try to.
Your Lordships may be familiar with the story of Randolph Churchill, the irascible son of the great Winston. Randolph was diagnosed with a tumour. Surgeons removed it and, having inspected it, declared it benign. On hearing the news, Randolph’s acerbic friend, the novelist Evelyn Waugh, remarked, “How typical of modern science to find the only part of Randolph which is benign and cut it out”. The Government are offering similar surgery today.
It is generally agreed in your Lordships’ House, and has been repeated by the Government Front Bench, that the 92 hereditaries do good work in this place, and their collective presence is benign. Yet here we have a government Bill whose sole purpose is to excise them from the body politic. This is a strange approach to constitutional reform.
Last week, the Prime Minister sought to revive his prematurely flagging Government by announcing six milestones. Milestones mark progress on a journey. On what journey will the Bill take us? We already have good reason to suspect that no other Lords reform will come into Parliament before the next election. So this journey is a cul-de-sac and, when drivers go down a cul-de-sac by mistake, the only sensible thing they can do is reverse. But, since it is likely that the Bill will become law, we need to think ahead. Speaking as a journalist, one thing you sometimes say when inventing a headline is, “Let’s throw it forward”—and that is what we have to do here.
What will this House be once the last element of the principle on which it has existed for 800 years has been surgically removed? I do not want to pursue my Randolph Churchill analogy any further because, even without the hereditary element, your Lordships’ House will do its best to remain benign and public spirited. But I foresee two things. The first is that it will inevitably become more partisan. This is partly because the change will weaken the Cross Benches, who will lose significant numbers and talent, including that of their Convenor. More generally, it is because a House chosen almost solely by government patronage will naturally tend to put party first. There is surely enough partisanship in the other place: the more it is replicated in your Lordships’ House, the less valuable and distinctive we will be.
The second effect is on public perception. Shorn of the historic associations that many people respect, and which the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Belgravia, so well described, we who remain shall be looked at more bleakly. Once accident of birth is fully removed from our composition, we shall be exposed as creatures of successive Prime Ministers. We shall lack the legitimacy of tradition on the one hand or of democratic validation on the other. As the noble Lord, Lord True, pointed out, we shall be a House of Lords born in 1958—therefore very slightly younger than me, and therefore not to be revered.
It is no coincidence that, since the great majority of hereditaries were removed in 1999, your Lordships’ House has been ridiculed and challenged more often than in the past. This experience fulfils the famous prophecy of Ulysses in Shakespeare:
“Take but degree away, untune that string,
And, hark, what discord follows!”
Because we observe our own workings every day, we can see the genuine value of our collective contributions to the work of Parliament. We should recognise that this may be much less obvious to the wider public. We probably tend to think of the 92 as a rump. But I predict that, if the Bill is enacted, we life Peers shall look like a rump instead, and so, as is the way with rumps, more people will want to kick us.
Lord Ashcombe (Con)
My Lords, it is always an immense privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Moore. I am one of the more recent to have been elected as an excepted hereditary Peer, and as such was reluctant to speak today, until I realised that there have been some 60 life peerages granted since my arrival towards the end of 2022—this is prime ministerial patronage.
The by-election process is challenging. It was plain to those of us recently elected that we were expected to participate actively in the House. I now realise that most people have little idea of the function of this House. Many hereditary Peers have not been part of the political system prior to admission and look at life through a different and longer-term lens.
It is generally agreed by all Governments that the work of this House is consistently of the highest standards and delivers significant improvements to parliamentary legislation. The Bill is merely destructive, with no positive or constructive elements. It is clear that, in the discussions leading up to the passing of the House of Lords Act 1999, a commitment was made to complete reform of the House, but that, until such time, 92 hereditary Peers were to remain. Simple removal of the hereditary Peers is not reform.
We have heard the thoughts of the late Lord Irving. This was intended to allay the fears that reform would not take place—now wholly justified. If the solemn promise of a Lord Chancellor given to this House should be so casually overturned, Parliament itself would be demeaned and its integrity impugned. The Government of this country would certainly lose national credibility and possibly international credibility.
The Benches opposite continually refer to their 2024 manifesto and the single sentence under the constitutional reform section to evict hereditary Peers. Constitutional reform is a most serious, important long-term issue that will have significant impact on the governance of this country, now and in the future. Any reform should be comprehensive: taking it piecemeal will result in dysfunctional change, as has already been mentioned.
We know about the other proposals in this section, as noted by my noble friend Lord Astor—I will not repeat them. The claim is that, although these actions will be an improvement to the House of Lords, Labour is still committed to replacing the House with an alternative Chamber. But, as mentioned by my noble and learned friend Lord Keen of Elie, there is no mention of the bishops—why not?
The Labour Party manifesto contained big ideas—the “five missions”. Whether I agree with them or not is neither here nor there, but the electorate certainly did in July. We have seen the Budget, which the Benches opposite argue will provide growth, and the Great British Energy Bill, which is currently in Committee in this House. I ask the Lord Privy Seal: where is the legislation to tackle the other commitments? I would have expected them to be regarded as significantly more important than this Bill. They will have substantially more impact on the lives of the electorate.
The Government say that they want to consult on other reforms after the passage of this Bill. Why not now? Surely, the electorate would expect comprehensive reform as in the manifesto. It would be perfectly possible to have a detailed consultation led by a Joint Committee and to bring the Bill forward later into this Parliament.
In the meantime, I respectfully suggest that the Government should focus on the five missions mandated to them by the electorate. The Bill is but a sideshow in the eyes of the electorate, which voted for change. If the Government are truly committed to reform, they should commit to a formal process with a clear timeframe. This is what is being asked for by many, and I am one of them, rather than a piecemeal approach with the suspicion that nothing will occur again for decades. In my opinion, hereditary Peers have a duty to remain until such time as Parliament fulfils its commitment to full reform of this House. To give one individual total control of both Houses is an open road to a potentially dangerous place. None of us wants that.
When I took my seat, I hoped to celebrate my 21st birthday in this noble House, noting that, of course, the Almighty might have other ideas. I look forward to that day, but sadly I fear that it will be with only a small proportion of those here today, as it will be 29 February 2048.
Lord Northbrook (Con)
My Lords, the Bill to remove the remaining hereditary Peers from the House eliminates many centuries of tradition, a golden thread going back to the 13th century. In considering the legislation, I believe there should be further reform included, as promised in the previous hereditary Peers abolition Bill by the then Lord Chancellor. On 30 March 1999, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, stood at the Dispatch Box and said the 1999 Bill to abolish the majority of the hereditary Peers,
“reflects a compromise negotiated between Privy Counsellors on Privy Council terms and binding in honour on all those who have come to give it their assent”.
The noble and learned Lord continued his most carefully worded statement. He said that the “10 per cent”—that is the 92—
“will go only when stage two has taken place. So it is a guarantee that it will take place”.—[Official Report, 30/3/1999; col. 207.]
The words could not have more unequivocal, and 650 Peers left quietly on the basis of that promise. Will the Leader say whether this overrides the convention that no Parliament can bind its successors? That Privy Council promise has now been broken, so why in consequence should we honour the Salisbury convention on this Bill, particularly as there is legal opinion that it should not apply to constitutional changes? I believe that it is the responsibility of the remaining 92 and those colleagues who believe that the former Lord Chancellor’s promise should be adhered to in order to make sure that the proposed legislation includes provision to move to the stage two promised.
I will highlight areas that need to be discussed in greater detail in the proposed Bill. First, because this is a major constitutional issue, there should be a referendum to ask the public what sort of second Chamber they would prefer. Secondly, there should be measures to restrict the size of the House. It cannot be right that the number of Peers keeps increasing so that only the National People’s Congress of China has more members. The right size of the House should reflect the political balance of the parties at each general election. Measures proposed by the Burns commission on retirement and new Peer creations should be included in legislation.
Next, there should be an attendance and contribution minimum, and I note the comments of my noble friend Lord Astor that 50 noble Lords have not spoken in the past five years. There should also be a debate on the retirement age of 80 that was proposed in the Government’s manifesto. The current retirement procedure works well, but unfortunately its effect is totally negated by the more than compensating appointment of new Peers. Slightly confusingly, the Prime Minister has already authorised the appointment of two Peers over the age of 80. I believe that new Peers should not be appointed over the age of 80 and that 85 should be considered the retirement age. The only Prime Minister to limit appointments was Theresa May, and more should follow her example. Next, the Appointments Commission should be put on a statutory basis and be firmly applied to all new appointments, political appointments included, thus controlling the quality of prime ministerial patronage.
In addition, amendments should be considered on the structure of the membership of the House. First, whether the Chamber should be elected should be debated and genuine attention should be paid to the Liberal Democrats’ views on this. As the noble Baroness, Lady Jay of Paddington, opined in the interesting TV programme “The Lady and the Lords”, this is what the general public would expect, as is reflected by public opinion polls. We should also consider rebalancing the 25 Bishops to include representatives of all faiths. Next, I propose that the name of the House should change to the Senate, as it will not allow hereditary Peers to be Members or claims to hereditary peerages to be considered by the House of Lords.
Another issue that should be looked at, which is probably outside the scope of this Bill, is the powers of the House. We should be able to amend the reams of secondary legislation that come before us rather than just having the stark choice of agreeing it or throwing it out. Also, I believe that we should have the power to amend badly drafted Finance Bills, particularly where, due to the guillotine procedure, clauses are not even discussed in the other place.
Finally, will the Leader say how some business mechanics are going to work when the hereditaries are gone? Can there be life peerages for shadow Ministers and Whips on the Front Bench? Will there be enough noble Lords to sit on the Woolsack?
I understand that a key reason for the proposed Bill is to remove a number of Conservative Peers from the House, which means that the Government will not have to create the equivalent number of new Labour Peers. However, I feel that the Cross Bench hereditaries have been caught in the crossfire unnecessarily. Very often under the previous Administration they supported Labour and Lib Dem amendments, so they are no major threat to the Government getting their business through. In particular, the convenor should be spared abolition.
What will happen to the Earl Marshal and the Lord Great Chamberlain? I note that they are also to be excluded from the House. Why can the Government not make an amendment to the Bill to make clear that they can still carry out their ceremonial duties at State Opening?
In conclusion, I am sure that without negotiation the proposed legislation will need the most thorough scrutiny so that it honours the promise made by the then Lord Chancellor in 1999 and includes the additional issues I have mentioned.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, in his devastating book How Westminster Works … and Why It Doesn’t, the noted commentator Ian Dunt describes this House as,
“one of the only aspects of our constitutional arrangements that actually works”.
The words that he, as a neutral observer, uses to describe this House include diligence, expertise, consensus, seriousness, independence and a willingness to stand up to the Government. Mr Dunt draws no distinction between hereditary Peers and others, and neither could he. Those qualities are daily exhibited by our hereditary colleagues.
To summarily remove such Members damages not only this House but the constitution by removing many able, experienced and effective Members of the Legislature with no accompanying plan for reform or constitutional safeguard against future Executive abuse. As many others have said, we must distinguish between the end of the hereditary principle on one hand and managing the transition on the other, particularly to minimise the sudden loss of expertise and to guard against future risks.
To manage that transition means two things: retaining the wisdom and experience of our valued colleagues for a defined period, and actively introducing safeguards and reforms to address the points made by many in this House, particularly the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and the noble Lord, Lord Burns. These are regarding, notably, the appointments process; strengthening the role of HOLAC; addressing the questions of the size of the House; attendance; retirement; and, above all, the risk of excessive prime ministerial patronage, as the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, so clearly demonstrated, among others. That risk of excessive patronage applies whatever Government is in power. Without safeguards, the Bill standing alone will simply not do, constitutionally speaking.
I will make four quick points. First, without the checks and balances of a written constitution, our unwritten constitution depends on the Government of the day, however large their majority in the Commons, showing restraint on constitutional matters and moving forward with consensus. The Bill’s “fell swoop” approach, if I may so describe it, is contrary to that deep constitutional tradition.
Secondly, as my noble friend Lord Northbrook has just pointed out, the words of the then Lord Chancellor, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, in 1999 were expressed as a guarantee. If I may respectfully disagree with the noble Lords, Lord Newby and Lord Grocott, yes, no Parliament can bind its successors, but a guarantee given in Parliament by a senior Minister of the Crown at the Dispatch Box—technically, at the time, at the side of the Woolsack—is binding in honour and by constitutional convention, unless good reason is shown. Without very convincing reasons, the right honourable Prime Minister and his Government cannot, in honour, break such a solemn guarantee.
Thirdly, the consensus approach does not contradict the manifesto and may indeed strengthen it. I can find no document that says that the Salisbury convention applies to constitutional matters.
Fourthly—no one so far has mentioned this—surely a great strength of this House is that no one has a majority. That is what drives the consensus and our working arrangements. Let us not put that at risk through the Bill.
Finally, as the noble Lord, Lord True, said, this does not need to be a rancorous debate. I say “Step forward now” to the bridge builders—those whose only motive is to safeguard the constitution—to find decent and honourable solutions. I hope and trust that the noble Baroness the Leader of the House—whom, as the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, said, we all so much admire and respect—will forgo the steamroller and bludgeon and will work for consensus in the best traditions of her office.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, I did not expect to be elected in 1999, but I was honoured and delighted to be so, as it allowed me to become the fifth Earl of Caithness elected to this House. It should not be overlooked, let alone forgotten, that there has been an elected element in this House not just for 25 years but for 271 out of the last 317 years. I agree that it has not been the widest franchise, but it is the only nod to democracy in this House. Sadly, this Government wish to dispense with democracy rather than extend it.
Given the promises of the then Labour Government, I believed that I would be told to go in 2002 or 2003. Later, I expected the call for eviction row soon after 2012, until Labour refused to agree a timetable Motion for a sensible reform Bill of the House and the then Deputy Prime Minister and leader of the Liberal Democrats, Nick Clegg, retreated, humiliated, at the first whiff of battle. That was such a botched opportunity to reform this House. Soon after that, I had anticipated the call in about 2016 if Scotland had voted for independence.
The threat of being cleansed from here is nothing new, and I am not speaking today to try to keep my bottom on these red Benches. I am speaking because, in 1999, some of us hereditaries were retained for two purposes. The first was continuing to hold the increasingly powerful Executive to account. I believe that we still do that, and it must be an irritation to the Labour Party that, proportionately, we attend and vote more often than life Peers do. The second, as we have heard, was a guarantee that stage 2 would take place. That guarantee was binding in honour—some guarantee, some honour. I accept that no Parliament can bind its successors but, as behaviour never lies, Labour has demonstrated a very cavalier attitude to keeping its promises. Although disappointing, it is not surprising that, after having had 25 years to think about it, Labour have come back to the House without any new proposals.
Manifesto commitments will soon be forgotten. The consequences of the 1999 Act were a loss of about 100 hard-working Peers, an increase in our daily expenses as the incoming Labour life Peers would not accept the then level of allowances, and the dramatic increase in the percentage of ex-MPs here, from under 10% to over 20%. That will increase to 33% when the Bill is enacted. Ex-MPs are appointed for a variety of reasons, and I have nothing against some of them serving here. However, it would be sad if this House had the reputation of just being a retirement home for ex-MPs. I do not have the faith that some others have in a Prime Minister using his or her unfettered powers of patronage for the benefit of this House and the constitution. The Government should withdraw this spiteful little Bill and, at the very minimum, bring it back fulfilling all its manifesto commitments.
Viscount Bridgeman (Con)
My Lords, I say how very sad we shall be to lose the noble Baroness, Lady Quin. Fortunately, my one of my sons has married a Northumbrian, and the comment I received from a friend was, “I hope he makes use of the Northern Counties Club”. I remember my noble friend Lord Brady making a very historic speech to the sixth form of the school of which I was then a governor, which is remembered with great pleasure.
I take up a point that my noble friend Lord Strathclyde made. I think we can take it that, whatever the outcome of the Bill, the by-elections are a thing of the past. The effect of this is that no hereditary not currently a Member of this House, will, by virtue of his or her heredity, be able to become a Member of this House. The birthright of heredity, to quote the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine, will no longer exist. This therefore leaves the current hereditary Peers, of whom I am one.
I make two points. Why is the proposal in the Bill to terminate membership geared to this Session, whereas other criteria such as age provide for leaving at the end of the Parliament? I cannot too strongly remind your Lordships that the retention of the accepted Peers these past 25 years was not a cosy, nostalgic link with the past hereditary tradition in your Lordships’ House but rather a running reminder of the need to take reform forward.
The other point I want to make is that, at the last general election, the party opposite secured just 33% of the popular vote, whereas the electoral arithmetic provided them with almost exactly double that percentage: 411 seats out of a total of 650, or 67% of the membership of the other place. That margin between popular vote and seats held is historically the widest. I mention that because I hope it will act as an additional incentive on the part of the Government to do all in their power to drive forward plans for the future of your Lordships’ House. The presence of hereditary Peers—I have to repeat this—which formed so important a part in the memorable explanation by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine, in 1999 will no longer be there.
I have been searching around for how I see the Bill, and the word that occurs to me is “impatience”. There is much in it that appears to have been compiled in haste, and I hope the Leader and her team will take that on board and be aware of the responsibility to get the Bill, unsatisfactory as it is, in the best possible state.
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman. Some 27 years ago, a Government were elected with a manifesto promise to end the hereditary principle in the House of Lords, resulting in the 1999 Act. Earlier this year, this Government were elected, promising to finish these reforms, and that was reiterated in the King’s Speech.
When just 2% of our population say they have a lot of confidence in the House of Lords, it is to the benefit of this House that we look at how we can improve that perception and be more representative. The earlier reforms set up HOLAC, the Appointments Commission, to create a more representative House, including people’s Peers. The commission has made 76 recommendations in total, 57 of which were between the years 2000 and 2010. Since I joined the House via that system without prime ministerial patronage—though I am aware that, technically, the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, appointed me—only nine further appointments have been made in that way, but since 2000 at least 58 new hereditary Peers have been appointed through the replacement electoral system. Of those, 42 were elected involving only hereditary Peers from the relevant party or the Cross Benches, and the remaining 15 by the whole House. I thank the Library for supplying those figures for me.
Had the replacement system been amended as recommended in the Bill by the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, some vacancies could have been used by the commission to ensure that the House was representative and drew on the expertise that our country can offer. There are over 60 million citizens in our four countries, so we could without doubt find excellent people to join us in our work.
I recognise that many hereditary Peers hail from areas outside the overrepresented London and south-east region. However, I suggest that new appointments would allow us to increase diversity and geographical representation, give us a wider industrial and professional base and improve gender balance. A strengthened commission with more opportunities for appointments could create a more representative and proportionate Chamber from our population.
Like others, I appreciate the valuable contributions to the House made by many hereditary Peers, some of whom I hope will still consider me a friend after this speech. I would therefore welcome the Government considering supporting a process for currently sitting hereditary Peers to apply for admission as life Peers, with the support of their parties or the Cross Benches, through the Appointments Commission, perhaps with a number to be agreed between the usual channels. Such an approach would ensure that the Cross Benches were not denuded of significant expertise and would enable political parties to support a small proportion of their numbers to remain, with the Appointments Commission’s endorsement.
It is a shame that we cannot debate the full reforms and consider the Burns report again but, even though this has been expressed by many noble Lords today, taking an incrementalist approach cannot be avoided. I welcome the important step taken by the Bill and hope that the House can reach agreement in the kind of way that has been debated throughout the day.
This House recognises the diversity of backgrounds of the other House, particularly the latest intake, and that their real-world experience is essential to good governance. It is only through reform to House of Lords composition and appointments that we can safeguard our role as a second Chamber to scrutinise and improve legislation. At the interview in 2014 for appointment to this House, I was asked what I hoped to contribute. My answer then, as now, was to insist on the reform of the Mental Health Act 1983 in order to increase patients’ rights, and to contribute to House of Lords reform.
I regret that I missed both the valedictory and maiden speeches earlier because I was at a meeting about the Mental Health Bill with the Care Minister. I did not think it would be 10 years before either of these Bills would be before us. On a lighter note, we might ask ourselves: are the two Bills inexplicably linked?
Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak slightly earlier than I expected.
I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Quin, on her well-earned retirement, having given such great service to both Houses. I also congratulate my noble friend Lord Brady on his excellent maiden speech, although that is slightly through gritted teeth because he takes a huge sideswipe at me in his autobiography, where he unfairly accuses me of having been to school at Eton. I have to tell your Lordships that that is fake news and disinformation of the worst kind. Still, I assure noble Lords that they can listen to my noble friend in future and be assured that he will speak truth unto power, having learned his lesson.
I have some skin in the game in this Bill. I inhabit a very small office with five of us in it, but after the Bill there will only be three of us. Noble Lords might expect me to vote for it and have some self-interest, but I have decided to put my self-interest aside and talk more objectively about the Bill.
I think it goes without saying that the hereditary peerage cannot be intellectually justified, as others have said, but neither can the hereditary monarchy be justified, nor, really, an appointed Chamber. We in this House all know that we are looking at an institution and an organisation that works, in its quirky and eccentric way. In some ways, it is rather like an old banger in the garage: we cannot quite work out which bits of the rubber bands are keeping the show on the road, but it is working.
I therefore approached this whole issue with a very open mind. Obviously, I like to be seen as a modernising, hip and trendy Conservative and would therefore like to say that hereditary Peers are unjustified, but I wanted to listen to the argument. The most persuasive argument, echoing what was said just now about the Bill being put forward in haste, is the need for wider reform.
I have often thought that you could incrementally reform this House easily with sensible changes. We have talked about a retirement age, and it cannot be beyond the wit of man or Peers to work out a proper one. We have talked about perhaps limiting the size of the House. Amendments may even be put down—dare I say it?—about the Lords spiritual and their future. A personal bugbear of mine is the appointment of Ministers who are then put into the Lords; they can resign a week later and stay here for life. Why not give the Government the opportunity to appoint people to the Lords to serve as Ministers and then leave once that job is done? There are so many changes that could make the work of this House not just as effective but appear more effective to those who look on our work.
However, it is also true that, having been in this House now for four or five years, I have become a fully paid-up member of our inchoate trade union. All those in the Chamber today arguing for the virtues of the hereditary peerage have at least provided clear and unequivocal evidence of the astonishing work rate of our hereditary colleagues—people who come here with a great sense of obligation, knowing that they are here partly by a quirk of fate, although paradoxically they are the only people in this Chamber who are actually elected to serve in it, however quirky that electoral system may be. They serve not only as Ministers, shadow Ministers and Whips but on our committees as well.
With the greatest respect to the Leader of the House, who pointed out some compelling statistics about how the make-up of the House will be barely changed when our hereditary colleagues depart, she failed to mention the impending New Year Honours List, and the appearance, no doubt, of many new Labour Peers, which will skew the balance further.
That goes to the fundamental point. Once the hereditary Peers go, this House will be fully appointed on the whim, effectively, of the Prime Minister, or the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, of the day. That will inevitably shape the character of the House. It will remove not only people who work extremely hard in this place but, as has been pointed out—this is an argument I had not heard before—people who have, by and large, had to make their way in the private sector before coming here, unlike people such as me, who have been career politicians and have a narrow, blinkered view of the country.
There are so many compelling arguments that should give us pause for thought. Somebody earlier said, “Be careful what you wish for. What next?” There are so many parts of our constitution where the beacon of democracy does not shine. Judges are appointed, effectively, behind closed doors, and they exercise powers almost as great as those of this Chamber and this Parliament. I urge the Government to hear those arguments and to think again about a wider case for reform and changes to this House, which would give the public the confidence that it is updating itself but not losing the best of itself.
Lord Horam (Con)
My Lords, I first congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Quin, on her entirely delightful valedictory speech. As she knows, I was once an MP for Gateshead, and I know her area well. She is a doughty champion for that part of the world, which does need champions. I also congratulate my noble friend Lord Brady on his excellent speech. He was a marvellously discreet chairman of the 1922 Committee. I have not yet read the book, as the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, has, but I hope I have no mention in it at all—my noble friend Lord Brady is nodding. I might buy it now—who knows? There will be more indiscretion in that book.
Having been an MP for 31 years and having spent 11 years in this House, I am absolutely persuaded that we need major change in our parliamentary system if we are to improve the level of government in this country. My concern about this particular Bill is that it tackles, as a priority, the wrong target. The target should be not the House of Lords but the House of Commons, where things are going seriously wrong.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, mentioned a very interesting book, which I have read, and reread recently. I have recommended it to my stepson, who has recently become the MP for Spelthorne. It is called How Westminster Works … And Why it Doesn’t, by Ian Dunt, who is a Liberal Democrat and therefore very useful and objective about such matters. He makes the point that one of the only two things that really work in the whole of Westminster is the House of Lords and its scrutiny of legislation. One thing that the noble and learned Lord did not mention in his speech, because he is a kind man, is that the book equally condemns the lack of scrutiny in the House of Commons.
We all know why that is. It was not quite the same in the 1970s, but in the last 20 or so years the timetabling of Bills has reached extraordinary levels. The life has almost been taken out of them, and when Bills have not been timetabled there have not been Bills at all. There have been proposals for which general scrutiny has been avoided. There is a real problem in the House of Commons, which we should address before we address the House of Lords.
There is a way in which we could do that comparatively easily, and I commend it to the Government. I know they have set up a committee to look at the House of Commons as well, but I understand that, at the moment, it is dealing with the behaviour of Members of the House of Commons. That may well need addressing, I fully admit—we are much better behaved here. It is also looking into second jobs and matters of that kind, so they are doing something sensible there. However, the real issue is how the Commons scrutinise the Government and deal with legislation.
The way forward, if I may say so, is to abolish Public Bill Committees and send Bills to Select Committees. I was chairman of a Select Committee in the House of Commons—the Environmental Audit Committee—for six years. Those committees do a serious job: they get people together and they look at evidence. It is astonishing how ideological differences disappear when confronted by the facts. Select Committees produce reports, and I never had a single vote when I was chairing a committee. We managed to agree, even though many of us approached environmental issues from diametrically opposed positions. That would be a way forward for the House of Commons to generally modernise things, without too much disruption. They do it in Denmark, and I saw it working there 20 years ago. I watched the Danish Parliament in action, and that is what it was doing. There are ways forward here, which I commend to the Government, that do not depend on this sort of Bill.
The Government have said that they want to do something now, if not the whole thing. I understand that; I agree that it is often a pragmatic and sensible way forward. The danger is that they just do this. There is a window for change, which disappears after a period and then no further change takes place. That is what happened 25 years ago; that is why we have had no change for 25 years. The appetite for change disappeared under the weight of other considerations. The danger for the Government is that they have a big majority, with a lot of desire for change, yet, at the end of the day, they will produce a mouse because they have not sufficiently prioritised and do not have the right plan, and have not gone forward with real dynamism.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
My lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Brady, who was so welcoming to us in his 1922 Committee meetings a few years ago. I wish the noble Baroness, Lady Quin, the very best in her well-earned retirement.
I oppose this Bill and support the right of hereditary Peers to remain in this House. I am not a hereditary Peer. However, I just attended the Hanukkah party, which a number of Peers also attended, where I bumped into the Chief Rabbi and mentioned that I was to speak in this debate. He reminded me that, as a Levi, I can trace patrilineality and lineage back some 4,000 years —so I have some skin in the game, though it did not give me any right to sit anywhere, I am afraid.
I have been looking at the history of the House and how we got to be here. The position is not as clear as I had thought. The concept of hereditary Peers can be traced to Saxon times, although Parliament did not really come into being until the 12th century. It was Henry II who first convened a court of bishops, earls and barons, and it was from 1254 that we can determine that Parliaments were held, but only to advise the monarch. Hereditary Peers as we understand them emerged in Edward I’s reign, with no right to legislate. The Lords spiritual predate the Lords temporal in that regard. It was from Henry VII’s time that hereditaries had the right to sit. We are talking about dispensing with 800 years of history.
During the civil war, the Commons determined that the House of Lords was “useless and dangerous”, but we survived its instincts to abolish us, and subsequent monarchs helped fashion us. Even in the First World War, in 1917, there was the Bryce committee, which came up with plans much more radical than those in front of us today. However, they were dismissed, because wise heads realised their limitations. Since then, we have seen lots of papers, discussions and proposals, but generally we have stayed as we are because, as the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, has explained, the current system works, and we get the work done and deliver.
My concern is that these proposals will neuter the effectiveness of our House and I hope the Minister, when she returns to her place, will consider the situation as I see it. Many life Peers are, frankly, so focused on entering this House that once they enter it, they are so satisfied with their title that they regard as the crowning of their career or their community service that they do not realise that there is work to be done. They do not want to work; they are too tired to work; they do not want to exert themselves. Hereditaries, on the other hand, already have a title, by definition. They do not have to push to get one. They do not regard a title as the end in itself—I am in danger of agreeing with the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, on this point; they push only because they want to serve. They want to be in this House to enable them to carry out duties. So we have a body of people who appreciate that being a Member of this House is to serve, to attend, to take office and to contribute.
I would far rather a Bill which excludes those who do not contribute, as many have said. I often ask Peers and friends, “If you had the choice between the title and the opportunity to work here, which would you choose?”. I know which I would choose. In many ways, the appointment of life Peers is random, not necessarily best in class. So meanwhile, let us not object to the only group of people who really are independent from anyone political when they are selected, who want to do the job properly and, if I may say so, represent a part of our very rich history and culture which defines who we are.
I want to end with something that Lord Acton—the man who pointed out that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely—said when he was talking about the transition from feudal law to the current law:
“The one thing that saved England from the fate of other countries was not her insular position, nor the independent spirit nor the magnanimity of her people … but only the consistent, uninventive, stupid fidelity to that political system which originally belonged to all the nations that traverse the ordeal of feudalism”.
By “stupid fidelity”, Acton refers to our steadfast, uncreative adherence to our political institutions and the gradual development of constitutional liberty over time, despite the complexities and imperfections in the system. He is warning us to pay attention to the importance of tradition and continuity in preserving political liberty.
Baroness Mobarik (Con)
My Lords, considering the very serious challenges we are facing, both domestic and international, it is difficult to understand why this debate is taking precedence. If the House requires reform, then choosing to expel a small number of Members, regardless of their contribution or achievements, can hardly be seen as a positive step.
If the original purpose of the 1999 Act was to make this House a more diverse and inclusive representation of society at large, then this move is rather contradictory. Whatever the broader sentiment about the hereditary principle, I find it difficult to agree to evict respected colleagues. Most of the hereditary Peers make a huge contribution and have a strong sense of public service, born of history, so let us not do a disservice to this House by purging them. At the very least, we should consider that all noble Lords who are currently in this House as hereditaries be allowed to continue as life Peers.
We should be careful about tinkering at the edges of our democratic set-up. Other countries around the world are rather envious of what we have in terms of the stability that it has given us for centuries. The appointed, not elected, House of Lords is part of this arrangement and the hereditary Peers in turn have played a role. Change for the sake of it should be considered with caution, with checks and balances critically important. Is this group of Peers not delivering? Should we not require some quantitative evidence to abolish them? If so, what defines quality contribution here among us? Is it attendance? Is it voiced views? It is all rather problematic in the round. Once we have established what quality contribution means, then we must all be held accountable to those definitions.
The Prime Minister has articulated a desire to rebuild trust in politics. Any move to give himself more power would be against this stated aim. What material difference will this disruption make to the composition of the House? What material difference will it make to the quality of our debates and to our decision-making? I request the Government to articulate a clear plan for how this elimination will serve the nation better in respect of the legislative process, since the argument is that removing hereditary Peers will have a positive effect. Some would say that their offence is that they were born into it, and we live in a meritocracy. I get that. However, they have individually done an amazing service to this country over a number of years and generations. Here, then, the practice refutes the theory.
The sense of community and camaraderie within this House will be compromised by this act of ideological prejudice against a small group of long-standing Members. Practising intolerance is surely not the intention. It is seemingly uncomfortably close to ideology when who they are and not what they do is their greatest crime.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
My Lords, it is well known that the Scots are the best and the Glasgow Scots are the best of the best, as the noble Baroness, Lady Mobarik, has proved again. I look forward to hearing more from the noble Lord, Lord Brady, and the whole House will greatly miss not hearing any more from the noble Baroness, Lady Quin, who is a great northerner, a great parliamentarian and a very good European. We will all miss her.
Two hundred and thirty-two years ago today was a pretty bad day for the hereditary principle too. It was then that the trial started in Paris of King Louis XVI. That did not end well for him. I knew that historical analogies were compulsory today when I heard the imaginative interpretation of Runnymede from the noble Lord, Lord True, and I knew that bad taste would be entirely in order when I listened to the admirable speech from the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton of Epsom.
The Leader of the Opposition in his elegantly cynical speech urged the Government to abjure “flinty inflexibility”—I think I have his words right—and accept multitudinous amendments to the Bill. I got the impression that he might be drafting several himself. Indeed, I hear rumours that his amendment factory is working night and day. We have had in this debate some clues as to the possible scope of those amendments: the size of the House, the appointments system, HOLAC, required participation ratios, age limits, fixed terms, the fate of the Lords Spiritual and even, of course, the perennial issue of whether we should go electoral and not appointed.
I call the Opposition Front Bench’s position a bit cynical because they know full well what happened in 2003 and 2012 and know that sweeping amendments here would fail in the other place. There is actually quite a lot of cross-dressing going on here today. Our not very red, not very revolutionary Government are arguing for a cautious, painstaking, step-by-step, incremental approach. It is rather conservative, not very Keir Hardie, but the Opposition, by contrast, are disguised as Robespierre and Danton—absolutists. This Bill does not go nearly far enough for them. There must be no reform until there is full reform, with the end state defined in advance now. It is all or nothing and I call that a tiny bit cynical, because while they say they want all, they actually want nothing; despite the revolutionary garb, the aim is stasis. It is not entropy but atrophy.
Seriously, how would this House look to the outside world if the Opposition got their way? The Bill was clearly spelled out in the manifesto. The other place passed it by a majority of 262. If we delay it—or worse, amend it—and so take on the other place in a bout of ping-pong, we will be seen as self-serving and undemocratic. No, it would actually be anti-democratic: dying in the last ditch to preserve the hereditary right to legislate.
I want further reform. I set out my set of suggestions at excessive length in our debate a month ago, and I will not repeat them now; but actually, they are not germane to this little free-standing Bill, which we must pass. It will be sad to see friends go, but some will surely stay, rebadged to match the rest of us. To seek to wreck this Bill by expanding it in ways that we might like but the Commons would not, would be to do serious damage to public perceptions of this place. If we care about its reputation; if we care about its standing—and I hope we all do—we must pass this Bill quickly and unamended.
Lord Magan of Castletown (Con)
My Lords, already in this debate, it is clear that this House is more than apprehensive about passing into law this particularly dishonourable proposal to defenestrate the remaining hereditary Peers. One of the glories of our unwritten constitution is that it allows pragmatic solutions to be found to the perceived problems and conflicts of the day. The House of Lords Act 1999, through the Weatherill amendment, was just such a pragmatic, wise, effective and, ultimately, most successful compromise. No longer was membership of this House a birthright: our election process then ensured that only the best-qualified hereditary Peers passed the test to become elected Members of this House. The election process was byzantine, but it was fair and it worked. Consequently, as has already frequently been stated in this debate, the contribution over many years of the excepted hereditary Peers has been of an exceptionally high order. This pragmatic development of 25 years ago has stood the test of time. It has indeed proved to be a most judicious and successful compromise, which has earned great respect across the whole House.
What we therefore now have before us is simply a highly controversial, venal, ill-thought-through and deliberately destructive piece of constitutional vandalism, setting a radical and extremely dangerous precedent. This new Administration—already very rapidly losing total credibility—are fixated, for no rational or explicable reason, on trying to force through into law some of yesteryear’s hackneyed dogma, which is only a small part of their declared manifesto commitment.
However, the country has moved on, and the world has moved on. House of Lords reform is in no way a high priority for hard-pressed, working people. While the country’s current economic condition and competitiveness is declining rapidly and alarmingly, this new Administration seem intent only on giving priority to this rough-and- ready, piecemeal, mean and very damaging legislative proposal. This new Administration should be positive and constructive; they should listen to the advice of this House and not persist with being wantonly destructive. As has already been proposed, why not retire 150 Members who hardly ever turn up in the House, who do not attend or participate in debates and who do not vote? They surely should be the first ones to go. Why throw out very hard-working and effective Members, so frequently working very effectively for the best results in the national interest in a conciliatory, constructive and considerate cross-party basis? This is one of the most admirable features of the great work of this House. The excepted hereditary Peers play a vital and central role in this process.
What is intended to fill the massive, self-inflicted damage to the country’s legislative effectiveness? The Prime Minister has spoken of
“replacing the unelected House of Lords with a new, smaller, democratically elected Second Chamber”.
This is clearly another wholly disingenuous utterance. For starters, we know that the other place is never going to cede or water down its legislative primacy. Let us be clear: it is not possible to camouflage in any way what is simply a grossly irresponsible attempt at wrecking legislation with totally disruptive intent. This intemperate and reckless measure will be strenuously resisted, and it is clear that deep-rooted amendments will have to be tabled. This legislative proposal deserves a rough passage.
The Earl of Shrewsbury (Con)
My Lords, when I came into this House nearly 44 years ago, I was given great advice by my godfather Earl St Aldwyn, a greatly respected former Conservative Chief Whip. He advised me: “You are here to speak and vote on your conscience. Do not be bullied by the Whips or Ministers into changing your mind. Always be polite, courteous and respectful of others, be they friend or foe. Be mindful that, to have a seat in this House is a huge responsibility, and it is your duty to take it seriously. You are here to bring your experience of your life and work outside of this House to the benefit of this House’s deliberations”. My word, how things have changed.
I am very much in favour of the reform and modernisation of this House and its membership. I am a strong believer that there should be available, in the honours system, an honorary peerage—and here I agree, probably for the first time in my life, with my noble friend Lord Lucas—which would be one step up from a knighthood, if you will, to recognise those who have been exceptional achievers but do not warrant, either through lack of available time or lack of interest, a seat and a vote in this House.
As we all are aware, there are individuals among our Members who perhaps should retire but will not. I am sure that this is the case in many such institutions. However, this Bill to eject the excepted hereditaries does little to reform the House, and it is certainly not stage 2 of reform, as promised by the 1999 Blair Government. We should expose it for what it is: a blatantly obvious move by this Government to kick out a large number of Conservatives and Cross-Benchers to make way for the Prime Minister’s appointment of a similar number of Labour supporters. Why does this plan not affect the Bishops’ Benches? I believe that, following the passage of this legislation, there will be no more reforms for a very long while.
My noble friend Lady Finn will confirm that I approached senior Conservative figures on a number of occasions over recent years, suggesting that they convert the excepted hereditaries into life Peers—for that is almost what we have become. I proposed ceasing the by-elections as part of the deal, while ending the hereditary principle in this House. Old Father Time would have played his part as well, as would retirements. Sadly, however, although my plan had considerable support, it fell down a stony path. In hindsight, it would have saved us all from wasting our time with these distractions now. The by-elections, which were unpopular on all Benches, have produced a raft of extremely talented and able hereditary Peers who are nothing but a credit to this House.
My family were awarded their titles not, as has been stated in various previous debates, for sleeping with a king or a queen—although actually, I believe that one of them did sleep with the Duke of Buckingham, who then killed Lord Shrewsbury in a duel and ran off with his missus. He should have been an hereditary. They have served this great country at home and abroad, but we made a serious error in the Hundred Years’ War, when one of my ancestors—in fact, the first Earl—won the vineyards of Château Talbot and then lost them.
I understand that my time is up, in more ways than one, and I shall adhere to my late godfather’s advice. I shall go quietly, with dignity and courtesy, knowing that my family have served for 600 years and that I shall be the last. I have made many friends on all Benches and shall be eternally grateful for the great privileges which have been afforded to me—yes, I grant you, by an accident of birth. I conclude by expressing my grateful thanks to all the staff who support us so diligently, especially to my friends the doorkeepers, without whose wisdom and friendship life here would have been very much the poorer. It has been a privilege to have known them all and, sadly, they will have to find someone else to cook their game pie next Christmas.
Lord Verdirame (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the section in the Labour Party manifesto on constitutional reform begins with praise and recognition for the work of this House in performing its two crucial constitutional functions: scrutinising the Government and improving the quality of legislation. It is against this background that the manifesto goes on to set out specific areas for reform. It would be rather ironic if, in assessing this legislation, we chose to abdicate the constitutional responsibilities that the manifesto recognises. On the contrary, we have to live up to those responsibilities and, while not wrecking the Bill, we can and must do what it takes to improve it.
I would not regard as wrecking amendments those that, for example, introduce a one-off transparent mechanism for converting at least some hereditary peerages into life peerages. I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Watkins, referred to a similar idea. The objective of ending the connection between hereditary peerages and the right to sit and vote in the House would still be met. Another option is to agree that there will be a one-off special list of peerages, specifically designed to deal with a situation that will not recur. It would be important to keep such a list separate from the ordinary political list that the PM, five months into the new Administration, will understandably need to publish. There has to be transparency about what is agreed. It would not be a great look for the House if it were otherwise.
In that introductory paragraph in the Labour Party manifesto, which is important because it really frames the commitments that we are discussing, it is also said that the House has become too big. In answers to an Oral Question from the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, on Monday, the Leader of the House confirmed that the removal of the hereditaries is one of the measures designed to reduce the size of the House. Disappointingly, however, in her Answer the Leader did not commit to a policy of restraint in making new appointments. I ask her to tell us if she can do so now. Does she not agree that, if most of the hereditaries are, in short time, replaced with new life Peers, the Government will have failed to meet their objective through this measure and damaged our credibility in the eyes of the public?
It is important to have clarity on these questions sooner rather than later because they cannot be separated from our assessment of this legislation. If we cannot get clarity on these matters from the Government, it would be proper, in my view, to find ways of securing it in statute. Ours is a constitution still centred on the principle of parliamentary sovereignty, so legislation affecting the composition of Parliament always has the greatest constitutional significance. This Bill is not a minor event; it is a constitutional moment.
I very much hope that the Leader of the House will use not only her diplomatic skills but her constitutional sensibility to ensure that there will be some compromise, so that the House can proceed on this matter with the widest agreement. After all, future holders of her office and, dare I say it, occupants of Downing Street may not possess the same degree of constitutional responsibility as the current incumbents. A particular long-term aspirant to the office of Prime Minister of this country, who currently sits in the other place, comes to mind. When we are dealing with constitutional reform, we must have these scenarios in mind, however unattractive.
I urge the Government to think beyond the present and really about the future, four or five years from now. I am afraid that, like the noble Lord, Lord Moore of Etchingham, I do not see the future as particularly bright if we proceed as proposed. We already have no limits on the size of the House or on the power of prime ministerial appointment. That situation will be made worse, once all the non-prime ministerial groups of appointments—the Law Lords yesterday, the hereditaries today and the Bishops tomorrow—are shut down and if it becomes acceptable to legislate on the composition of the House without that wider support.
We would fail in our constitutional responsibilities if we simply relied on a vague commitment that the outstanding matters will be addressed later. Of course, we cannot address all outstanding matters now through this legislative vehicle. But this is certainly the time for some clearer commitments, clearer convention and, where necessary, for targeted improvements to the Bill that help us move in the right direction.
Lord Rooker (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Brady of Altrincham, on his maiden speech. I will be very sad to lose my noble friend Lady Quin although, both as a Minister and as a private citizen, I have done my Newcastle visitor trips. I almost had a lump in my throat, as a former engineer before I came into Parliament, when I saw the first factory where a railway engine was built. It was an amazing operation.
I made my general views on reform clear in the November debate, so I will not go over those now, but the Bill is a clear manifesto commitment within the conventions. Everyone has quoted page 108 of the Labour manifesto, but I will start off with Conventions of the UK Parliament, the report of the Joint Committee of both Lords and Commons, which is still valid today. After that report was done in 2006, both Houses voted to support it. In its conclusions, in paragraph 99, it says:
“The Convention which has evolved is that: In the House of Lords: A manifesto Bill is accorded a Second Reading; A manifesto Bill is not subject to ‘wrecking amendments’ which change the Government’s … intention as proposed in the Bill”.
Any of the amendments about reforming the Lords that have been hinted at today would therefore be, in those terms, wrecking amendments because they change the Government’s proposal that was in their manifesto and its operation. My view is simple: both Houses need to agree the Bill and send it back, not get it mixed up with other matters.
This will be my negative bit for the Government, as I do not want to be a toady now that we are in government. The other bit that has been quoted a lot today, again on page 108, is the part about Labour being
“committed to replacing the House of Lords with an alternative second chamber”.
That is quite distinct from the other promise, and it cannot operate as a commitment under the conventions. The words in the manifesto are vague; they are not at all specific and therefore it cannot be covered. I say to my Front Bench that, if that commitment is based on the report of the so-called commission headed by Gordon Brown, I will vote against it. I would not give an O-level to that report and the Labour Peer on the commission voted against it. To be clear about this, I sent the establishment’s House magazine a note on it in the summer, but I was not establishment enough to get it published. That report was all about Scotland. It was not about genuine reform of a revising second Chamber, but I will not go over that anymore.
The Bill has got to go back to the Commons without any amendment. That way, we can get down to putting pressure on the Government, because I want reform. The issues raised by the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, and the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, were all positive ideas. We cannot carry on just as we are, but I have seen and heard of plans by some of my new colleagues who want to amend it to include the Bishops. That will be a big mistake. It is a fundamental change to the Bill. It would amount to a wrecking amendment, because it is not consistent with it, and it would take the Bill outside the conventions that I have just quoted. At some time in another Session—if I am still here, being over the age limit—I would vote to remove the clerics from lawmaking. I do not want more of them in here; they have a job outside, which is not making laws, although I would make an exception for the Bishop of Newcastle, who has proved to be a Bishop of substance.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, following the constitutional crisis of 1911, the Constitutional Year Book of 1912—then an annual book of political writers and speakers—expressed at page 84 the prevailing nature of appointments to your Lordships’ House in the following terms:
“The unlimited power of the Crown to add to the House of Lords has at times been looked upon as dangerous to its independence. As long, however, as a peerage is necessarily hereditary, the permanence of the creation and the necessary succession of an heir who be wholly independent would restrain a Sovereign or a Minister, save in the most exceptional cases, from any lavish exercise of this power.”
While, to our modern ear, this sounds very much of its era, I suggest it contains a vital kernel of truth, which remains wholly valid today. As my noble friend Lord Roberts of Belgravia pithily put it, they were cronies of the previous Monarchs and Ministries whose successors are not beholden to anyone living.
To place this 1912 analysis in its legal context, your Lordships’ House, in the Wensleydale Peerage case of 1856, held that the Crown no longer possessed the right of creating a peerage for life which conferred a seat and vote in this House. Interestingly, a life peerage without a seat and vote in this House, was seemingly valid—something which is perhaps worthy of an exploration given the comments earlier in today’s debate.
All this had, of course, evolved by 1911 with the admission of Law Lords to your Lordships’ House by statutes passed in 1886 and 1887, by which those judges held the rank of Baron for life. The Life Peerages Act of 1958 ultimately reversed the effect of the Wensleydale Peerage case. However, at the time of the passage of that Act, and until the 1999 Act, life Peers were greatly outnumbered by those here through the lottery of heredity.
The fundamental truth, which echoes down to us from this statement of 1912, is this: the power of membership of this House should not solely be in the hands of the Executive and, more specifically, in the hands of the Prime Minister of the day. Let us be in no doubt: this Bill will bring about a fundamental shift to our constitutional arrangements, as already observed today by, among others, my noble friend Lord Norton and noble and learned friend Lord Bellamy. The Prime Minister alone, as a result of this Bill, will have the sole power of patronage under the 1958 Act. The only group in this House not subject to that power will be the 26 Bishops of the Church of England.
From the date of commencement of this legislation, these other avenues of entry to this House, entirely separate from the world of political patronage, will be locked and barred. As a consequence of this expulsion, we will become a House composed only of those political or sharp-elbowed enough to be able to catch the eye of a Prime Minister. This Bill will thus deprive the House of much experience and expertise of those from outside the world of politics and its penumbra. The House will be a much weaker place for it. As the noble Lord, Lord Moore of Etchingham, rightly pointed out, public opinion is not likely to look favourably upon a House composed solely of those appointed by comparatively recent Prime Ministers. As the noble Lord observed, it is we, appointees, who are likely to be viewed as the rump.
As my noble friend Lord True said at the outset today—and repeated by others—in passing this Bill we will be snapping the threads of history, so well described by my noble friend Lord Roberts. This in turn reflects the Labour Government’s cavalier approach to our constitution, as embodied in these proposed expulsions from our Parliament of many valuable colleagues on the grounds, as noted by my noble friend Lady Mobarik, of their accident of birth.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Murray, with whose excellent speech I find myself in complete agreement. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, for her introduction of the Bill. I ask, however, whether she agrees that the Bill appears to lead to an undemocratic result that Parliament never contemplated when the Parliament Act 1911 was enacted?
The preamble to the Parliament Act 1911 is interesting. Its second sentence reads as follows:
“And whereas it is intended to substitute for the House of Lords as it at present exists a Second Chamber constituted on a popular instead of hereditary basis, but such substitution cannot be immediately brought into operation”.
Parliament’s intention, as expressed in that preamble was to move a democratic direction. There was to be, first, a future second Chamber based on a popular rather than hereditary basis and, secondly, future legislation to limit and define the powers of the new second Chamber.
Over 100 years later, neither of these events has come to pass. The current Bill will result in an entirely appointed body—the opposite of a body constituted on a popular basis as contemplated in 1911. The idea that an Act of Parliament in 2025 can result in a less democratic body than was contemplated by Parliament in 1911 will strike many as odd. Some may regard it as a matter that would profit from further reflection, perhaps under the aegis of an all-party constitutional conference, as was attempted in 1910 and 1948 in the run-up to the Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949.
In the debate held in your Lordships’ House on 22 July 1999 on the Standing Orders to be introduced to fill vacancies among the excepted hereditary Peers, the late Lord Bledisloe proposed an amendment which would have allowed the political party groups to enfranchise their life Peers as well as their hereditary Peers in hereditary Peers’ by-elections. I was struck by Lord Bledisloe’s observation:
“One of the unfortunate consequences of the debates on the House of Lords Bill is that, for the first time, Members of the House have been distinguished from each other by virtue of the fact that they are hereditary or life Peers. That division is a great pity and every effort should be made to ensure that it disappears as quickly as possible after the Bill is passed. The process would be greatly assisted if the House recognised that all its Members are of equal value and have a right to an equal say in the election”.—[Official Report, 22/7/1999; col. 1144.]
That division has unfortunately again reared its ugly head as a result of this Bill. Noble Lords are allocated to serve on their Front Benches, to serve on Select Committees, or to stand as candidates for positions as officers of all-party groups, irrespective of the route by which they entered your Lordships’ House.
The Leader of the House has said that this Bill represents a manifesto commitment. That is a little disingenuous. Labour’s manifesto commitment was to do four things now, and then later to consult on proposals to fulfil its commitment to replacing the House of Lords with an alternative second Chamber that is more representative of the nations and regions. Can the noble Baroness explain why she thinks that the Bill before your Lordships today does not in this regard do the precise opposite of what the manifesto argued for?
I believe the former Lord Chancellor, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, was being honest when he declared that the 1999 compromise
“would guarantee that stage two would take place”,
as my noble friend Lord Northbrook and others have said.
“So it is a guarantee that it will take place”,—[Official Report, 30/3/1999; col. 207.]
he said. The binding agreement envisaged that stage two would involve a move to an elected House, or at least the adoption of a significant directly or indirectly elected segment within a reformed House. If such a reform were now to be brought about, as was promised, I would be keen to stand for election in order to continue my work in this place, which I have always regarded as the most enormous privilege.
The Lord Privy Seal rued that the change commenced 25 years ago has still not been completed. So she should withdraw this Bill and replace it with one which would actually lead towards the completion of that process. This would add to the limited legitimacy your Lordships’ House enjoys, which derives in part from history—that we have had a House of Lords for many centuries—and from the effectiveness with which we perform our work of scrutinising and improving legislation.
Viscount Eccles (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard. We were elected very early in the days of by-elections. The most important thing about this House is that as a revising Chamber, it works. However, this House has influence, but it does not have any power. Of course, the ultimate decision-making on nearly everything rests in places where the power is held, not in a place which makes very good sense and gives very good advice, but whose advice does not have to be taken. We have no way of enforcing that.
One thing that needs to be remembered about 1999 is that two people—the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, and the member of the famous Salisbury family, Viscount Cranborne; we have been reminded of how far people go back—both lost their jobs. Now, if we think about it, this House is not a good candidate for reform. Of course, the composition is troublesome, in part. But it is very large, and enough of the Members of this House are diligent, professional and careful, and they do a very good job. Down the other end, they are grateful for the good job that is being done here.
My particular memory is of the quality and the culture of the staff of this House. This seems to me to be a more than essential element, perhaps a necessary condition, of why we are as successful as we are. My memory goes to the legal advisors on the Delegated Powers Committee of some years ago. I do not think it that would have been possible to have been served in a more professional, careful and courteous way.
We have great strengths, but this does not make us a good candidate for reform. Why spend a lot of time and trouble looking for reforms when an institution is delivering what you want, and not giving you any undue trouble? I go back again, briefly, to 1999, to the introduction of the by-election system. There were, of course, some questions as to how well it would work. That was a case in which the staff of this House put in a system which has worked extremely well. As we have heard, something approaching two-thirds of the hereditary Peers who are here now have arrived by way of by-elections. It has worked, and that is the feature of this House which—I reiterate—is the most compelling aspect of it.
We can ask ourselves what this Bill will achieve, what its purpose is and how it will improve the operations of this House, but we will not get very satisfactory answers to any of those questions. What we may need to remember is that we might have thought that we had come to the end of a period of tribal point scoring. I regret to say that we have not, and it is not likely that we will.
Lord de Clifford (CB)
I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate today because if House of Lords reform had taken place in last 25 years, I would not have had the opportunity to be elected to this esteemed House.
In principle, I cannot disagree with the Bill, despite being one of the last hereditary Peers to be elected to the House. I am obviously disappointed that my time in this House is most likely going to be curtailed before I have learned the ways of the House and how I can best serve and contribute to its workings.
Whenever I am asked whether it is appropriate in the 21st century that hereditary Peers should have the opportunity to be elected to the House, I have always said no. As for why it is not appropriate, in a modern Parliament, individuals should not have the opportunity to be elected based on the patronage of the King 725 years ago, which is my privilege. Also, the make-up of the candidates for the hereditary by-elections lacks the diversity and equality needed in this current century.
It is clear from the recent debates and the many contributions made today that further House of Lords reform is needed and welcomed by most in the House. The Bill is the first stage in that reform, and possibly the simplest, but how can this House and the general public know that the further reform that is needed will take place?
In 1999, the retention of 92 hereditary Peers was negotiated to try to ensure further reform. That reform has not happened. It is probably correct that the 92 hereditary Peers should lose the right to sit in this House, but I feel the House needs to introduce a timeframe for Lords reform. With so many different opinions in the House on House of Lords reform, without a timeframe—or even better, a deadline—no possible decision will be made. In business, if something needs to done, putting a timeframe in place focuses the mind, and decisions are made.
I acknowledge that this Government have a lot of legislation to work their way through, and Lords reform may not be at the top of that agenda. Despite this, and as other Peers have suggested, I ask the Leader of the House to consider setting out a timeframe, and even making an amendment to the Bill to ensure that the Government report to Parliament on Lords reform within a reasonable timeframe.
With no timescale in place for Lords reform and the removal of most of the hereditary Peers, I do however hope that some Peers may be granted life peerages, in light of their extraordinary service to this House.
The Bill would leave the House in a weakened position, as the balance of power for appointments would be in the hands of the Executive, with HOLAC providing limited nominations of future Peers. Sadly, in the past few years, the Executive have chosen to abuse that power, which has damaged the reputation of the House.
The government manifesto stated that there will be a retirement age of 80 at the end of this Session. I personally do not agree with an age limit, as lots of experience would leave this Chamber at the same time. I support the Burns report and suggest that there should be a limited time to serve in the House of 15 to 20 years. There is no other institution I can think of, other than our monarchy, that is a job for life without any form of review or appraisal.
The House needs to have a minimum participation requirement to ensure all Peers contribute to the workings of this great House. There has been much debate and suggestion on how this should be measured. The noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, made many excellent suggestions in the debate in November. Each system will have its flaws, but once a system is introduced it can be reviewed, changed and updated by an appropriate committee. Until you implement something, you will not know whether it works. Any changes made here will certainly not be an issue to the majority of hard-working Peers. I would also support reforms that enabled an increase in regional representation in this House.
The House currently works well, and I acknowledge that small changes have been made to improve its working. It is now the time to make more significant changes, other than just removing the hereditary Peers, to ensure that it continues to do its great work to improve legislation, using the expertise and experience that we all bring to the House. This Bill is a stage in that reform. I ask the Government and the House to ensure we do not have to wait too long before more reform happens to further enhance the workings and reputation of this esteemed place.
Lord Swire (Con)
My Lords, it has been a privilege to listen to most of the speeches today. Without singling out too many, it was particularly nice to hear my former House of Commons colleague, my noble friend Lord Brady of Altrincham, who is not in his place, make his very good maiden speech. He did that great trick as a writer: when anyone asks, “Am I in your book?”, he assents to the fact that they are, meaning they all rush out and buy it. What he did not realise is, being perfidious politicians, everyone will go to see if they are in the index; if not, they will not buy the book.
I was sorry to miss the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Quin, because I understand it to have been a great speech. She and I crossed in the other place, and we both variously served as Ministers of State, not least in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. We have that in common, and I wish her a well-earned retirement. But if there was any speech that impressed me most—perhaps not unexpectedly—it was that of the Convenor of the Cross Benches, the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, this morning. He gave an extraordinarily interesting, intelligent and measured speech, as one would expect. There was much in it on which we would do well to reflect.
There will be opportunity enough in Committee to probe the Government closer on many of the points that we have heard often today. To avoid repetition, and with your Lordships’ indulgence, my comments will range wider than the narrow confines of this rather unsatisfactory Bill. I genuinely believe that the Government are missing a trick. Instead of nibbling around the edges of our fragile and rather well-balanced constitution, we should call for a royal commission on how this country is governed, not unlike the commission that produced the Kilbrandon report between 1969 and 1973.
Since devolution, and since Brexit when we lost our MEPs, we have had no serious cross-party discussion about how we wish this country to be administered and governed. I agree with my noble friend Lord Horam that more than half the problem of the system not working must be due to what is going on in the House of Commons. We need urgently to review the role of Members of Parliament, how many of them we want, their pay and conditions, and to try to get them to behave as Members of Parliament. I regret to say that it was, I believe, the Liberal Democrats who rather skewered the behaviour of MPs. As a Member of Parliament I often found myself doing the job of a local councillor because that was what was expected of one, since that was what the Liberal Democrats were doing, rather than holding the Executive to account.
We also need to look at how our regional Governments are working, or not. Is it really desirable or justifiable that the House of Commons has 650 seats and an average of 105,000 electors per constituency, whereas the Scottish Parliament has 129 seats which, on average, each represents only 42,000 electors? The Senedd in Wales currently has 60 seats—although I see it is demanding to increase that number to 96—which, on average, each represents only 52,000 electors. The Northern Ireland Assembly has 90 seats which each represents only 21,000 electors.
Do the differing systems of elections we have make sense anymore? The United Kingdom Parliament uses the first past the post system; the Scottish Parliament uses the additional member system, the Welsh Senedd similarly; and the Northern Ireland Assembly uses the single transferable vote. What about voting ages? Is it really sensible that in United Kingdom general elections, the voting age is 18; in Scotland, it is 16; in Wales, it is 16; and in Northern Ireland, it is 18? What is the rationale? What is the justification?
Of course, there are some good reasons behind the differences, not least in Northern Ireland, where the Assembly is designed to ensure a power-sharing agreement. In 2016 and 2017, power to reform the electoral system, the electoral franchise and the size of the devolved legislatures was devolved to Scotland and Wales, subject to the support of two-thirds of membership. There is an idea: the requirement of two-thirds of membership to alter them. The Northern Ireland Assembly cannot reform its own electoral system.
Yet here we are, now debating the removal of one small grouping from this House, who are legitimately here, without addressing the bigger pictures and anomalies that persist. Not least is the fact that, as has been mentioned, we have Bishops, but no other faith leaders, by right, to represent other faith communities. We have no one from the SNP, we have no one from Sinn Féin, and more ludicrously, given their current standing in the polls, we have no one from Reform. This House is not currently representative of anything, let alone the electorate. So by all means let us embrace change, but let us do so with an eye on the bigger picture. Let us convene this commission in partnership with the devolved Parliaments and, while we are at it, let us discuss the funding formula, which is ludicrously out of date; even Lord Barnett accepted that, shortly before his death. Then we can see what role a second Chamber can play, who it should be composed of and how many people should be in it—even, indeed, whether we need a bicameral system at all.
I have just recently seen that I have been invited—and I imagine other noble Lords had been invited too—by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, to a meeting next week to discuss what is termed English devolution. I imagine this will be a further look at local government reform—
Lord Trefgarne (Con)
My Lords, I hate to interrupt my noble friend, but I wonder if he has seen the flashing light.
Lord Swire (Con)
I am most grateful—I have reached the advisory time and I shall take your Lordships’ advice and begin my wind-up immediately. I imagine the meeting will be a look at local government, not the regional assemblies championed by Gordon Brown and Lord Prescott. We need to look at where want to have unitaries, district councils or county councils. Let us look at all this, but let us also look at a bigger review. The Government should look at Lords reform in a wider sense when we look at constitutional reform. It should not be done piecemeal, and I hope that they will rise to this occasion.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)
My Lords, I support this Bill as a useful step towards a reformed second Chamber. This further step towards reform has been a long time coming, notwithstanding the remarks from the Conservative Benches about the fact it has been produced in haste.
I count myself very fortunate to have joined your Lordships’ House in 1998, when the hereditary Peers were still here en masse. In 1999, I took part in the passage of the House of Lords Reform Bill and was surprised that the Conservative Opposition Front Bench, almost all hereditary Peers, sat with their feet up on the Dispatch Box, red socks ablaze. Surely it cannot have been mere bad manners, so I presume it was a mark of disapproval towards the Bill and the Government. I wonder what form that disapproval will take, beyond the remarks we have heard this time round.
Early on, I learned that some hereditary Peers make a substantial contribution to this House. I particularly remember those who became friends: the Earl of Selborne, who chaired the Select Committee I was on, with his wise contributions on the environment and agriculture; the Countess of Mar, exceptional for being a female hereditary and in how seriously she took the role we all have in keeping the House properly self-regulated; and my late noble friend Earl Russell, whose forensic knowledge of history and the constitution was counterbalanced by his sense of humour. However, for the reasons so ably laid out by my noble friends Lord Newby and Lord Rennard, the time has come to end the right to sit in this House because you were born into a certain lineage.
With that end in mind, the logical next step is to reform the titles of those who sit in the second Chamber and the name of the Chamber itself. The noble Lord, Lord Northbrook, and others have mentioned the term “Senate”, which is well understood by the public. There are lots of problems associated with having a title such as “Lord” or “Baroness”. Most importantly, for me, having that title means that many people feel automatically distanced from you when you are trying to talk to them about the work and issues here. The noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, explained it so well, saying that titles and ermine distract from the nature of what we actually work on.
One of the more amusing moments over my title came at the Gramercy Park Hotel, in New York. The receptionist, on seeing my passport, said: “‘Baroness’, that’s a cute name. What do they call you for short, ‘Nessie’?” It was perfectly understandable in a country where “The Dukes of Hazzard” was showing on TV.
There is a more invidious reason: the fact, as others have mentioned, including the noble Lords, Lord Birt and Lord Foulkes, that some people want a title but do not want to take part in the legislative process. Those people make a fat donation to their party, get the title and then barely show their faces. The argument must be made to have titles as honours but to divorce them from the job we do here as a legislature.
I wish this modest step of reform well and hope that the next steps are not long in being brought forward by the Government.
Lord Glenarthur (Con)
My Lords, as I have listened to today’s debate, I have been wondering what I or anybody else can usefully add to what has been said, but after almost 48 years in your Lordships’ House, I feel compelled to speak briefly.
First, I echo those who have suggested that constitutional change must be brought about only if fully considered and if there is good reason for it. If it is not necessary to change, it is necessary not to change. This Bill attempts to fulfil an ambition of the Labour Party which it claims fulfils its ambitions laid out in the 1999 Act. As my noble friend Lord Murray of Blidworth said, it is not thought-through.
My next point, which was eloquently made by my noble friend a few minutes ago, relates to history. I greatly appreciate that inheritance provided my opportunity 48 years ago to play a part here—ultimately, with eight years on the Front Bench. To remove that opportunity from the remaining rump of the elected hereditary peerage currently here, or their successors who might wish to take it up if it were open to them, is another snapping of the threads, as my noble friend Lord Murray referred to, which have helped hold our constitution together for years. What good will this Bill do? Something will be lost should the hereditary element leave your Lordships’ House—something perhaps indefinable but, once lost, impossible or at least impracticable to replace.
Dwelling on the past is one aspect of this. The other point, as has been well made, is that the Government have no clue what they want to do to reform your Lordships’ House. They seem to appreciate neither the complexities of the relationship between another place and this House nor the delicate balance of the constitution, so well described by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull. Great minds have worked on this for years; my noble friend Lord Wakeham’s royal commission was but one. Each attempt has failed, and I doubt that agreement will ever be reached.
This is a spiteful Bill which, in the great scheme of things, will achieve nothing to improve this House, as my noble friend Lord Eccles hinted a few minutes ago. Yet over the years, before and after 1999, the House of Lords has done its job, helped by its hereditary Members with great diligence and loyalty to whatever party they belonged or none, but particularly to the House as a whole and what it is here to try to achieve.
The noble Baroness the Leader of the House and others have paid a degree of commendation towards hereditary Peers over the years. I hope she will recall that, in various forms, their predecessors have been part of our legislature for about 1,000 years, going back as far as the Magnum Concilium in the early 11th century. These historical aspects have been well ventilated and thoroughly explained by my noble friend Lord Roberts of Belgravia. They may not be well known or even seem relevant, but they should not be glossed over.
If, as a Parliament, we throw away elements of our constitutional history on the whim of political expediency, without any agreed alternative, and all on the altar of so-called democratic opinion—which, in any case, cannot apply to your Lordships’ House, because it will be wholly appointed—and to which the Government have shown no alternative either to your Lordships or the country at large, we risk impoverishing the constitutional aspects that have helped bind together elements that the United Kingdom has stood for over many generations.
The Earl of Devon (CB)
My Lords, given the late hour, your Lordships may appreciate that I will not reprise my previous history lessons offered in defence of the indefensible—Hansard has those—but I note to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, who is not in his seat, that the hereditary principle is defended. He might recall our discussion on Radio 4’s “Today” programme.
I remind the House of my interests as the Earl of Devon—a condemned hereditary. I accept that this Bill will likely pass. It was a manifesto commitment and mine remains one of the minority of voices supporting our continued presence here. I still consider us an important bulwark against the short-term tyranny of politics. Parliament will miss our indelible links to the past, our connections to the regions and our passion for the long-term sustainable future of this island. I will use my few minutes to pose five questions to the noble Baroness the Leader of the House.
First, why do this now? On what possible basis is it essential that this happens as a priority? Other than offering Sir Keir’s stuttering premiership a much-needed legislative rosette, this has the hallmarks of a cheap political coup aimed to even numbers. Where is the public demand? This is a time of tyrannous politics: elections in America see right-wing nativism returned to the White House; moderate Governments in France and Germany are assaulted from left and right; the Middle East is ablaze and Ukraine is on her knees; meanwhile, Reform’s popularity grows and extremist views are normalised. With mainland Europe so fragile, is it sensible to discard our real link to Waterloo and the post-Napoleonic settlement? With the eastern Mediterranean in tatters, do we not increase our collective amnesia by removing our link to the last emperors of Constantinople, the Frankish kings of Jerusalem and the crusading counts of Edessa, whence HTS heralds? By abolishing hereditaries, I worry that we will forget our historic responsibilities in the pursuit of modernisation.
I never received an answer to why Lords reform is an appropriate response to the ghastly riots of last summer. Are the Government aware of how many members of the public earnestly believe that Article 61 of the Magna Carta remains in force? They write to me. Under that provision, citizens exercise their ancient right to pledge allegiance to a committee of barons when their sovereign no longer represents their interests. Removal of hereditary barons from your Lordships’ House can only inflame their insecurities.
Secondly, as many others have commented, why not complete the wholesale reform of the Lords that Labour has so long desired? The Government have a clear mandate and a massive majority. If they really wanted to use their political capital to worthwhile effect, they should complete a proper reform of this House and honour the Weatherill deal that was struck 25 years ago. If we are to be abolished, I would rather leave this House in a better state, but I fear that, instead, it will be worse. No headlines critique the conduct of hereditary Peers; rather, recent column inches are devoted to the abuse of patronage in the appointment of life Peers and the conduct of the Lords spiritual in wrestling with the demons of historic child abuse. Are those not more urgent issues?
Thirdly, if the hereditary principle is indeed indefensible, then hereditary privilege, logically, can play no role within our constitution. The Government state:
“In the 21st century, there should not be places in our Parliament … reserved for those who were born into certain families”.—[Official Report, Commons, 15/10/24; col. 719.]
As we sit in this Chamber, there is a most notable and gilded place reserved solely for one person, born into one family—the Throne. The Liberal Democrats agree, asserting that there is no
“space in a modern democracy for hereditary privilege”.—[Official Report, Commons, 12/11/24; col. 691.]
Despite protestations to the contrary, the abolition of the hereditary peerage is a significant step towards the removal of our hereditary monarch. A republic is the inevitable intellectual conclusion, and a principled Government would admit this. Does the Minister agree? The Government state that the monarchy remains popular, so its removal is not on the agenda. The noble Lord, Lord Newby, claimed that the King’s rule is dependent upon not hereditary principle but how well he does his job. This is wrong: it conflates democratic legitimacy—which does indeed require popularity—with the hereditary principle of duty and public service. To claim something different might result in a reality television star becoming our Head of State.
Fourthly, the Government argue that there should not be seats effectively reserved only for men. I hoped I had done enough to expose the fallacy of this discriminatory argument. The fact that the hereditaries are all men is not our fault but that of successive Governments refusing to legislate for female succession. I am grateful to the Public Bill Office for considering my efforts to amend this legislation to permit female succession, but I understand that it falls outside the test of “relevance”.
However, noble Lords should note that the Bill not only removes hereditary Peers but strips from your Lordships the right to determine claims to hereditary peerages too. On removing such a power, it is surely appropriate to investigate how such claims will be determined in the future and to place some non-discriminatory guard-rails around the exercise of that power by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, which will inherit the jurisdiction. The Leader of the House has engaged positively with me on this, and I believe that this Parliament, given its sovereignty, can ensure that all future successions to hereditary peerages occur in a manner that is non-gender discriminatory.
Finally, many noble Lords have referenced the retention of certain hereditaries via life peerages, and I understand that such discussions may be taking place in the context of threats against the Government’s legislative programme. This is regrettable and should not happen. The privilege and honour of our hereditary seats in Parliament should not be sullied by horse-trading. If the democratic process requires our abolition, we must not frustrate that process. Parliament does not need to retain any more upper-class, middle-aged, white, male Old Etonians. We should accept that our time has come and should leave with grace. Those who covet a seat in this House can apply, like everyone else, to be an angel of HOLAC, or perhaps they might purchase the Prime Minister some suits.
Personally, I look forward to a return to the bosom of Devon, and I hope that any space afforded by my abolition might be filled by someone perhaps new to this country, preferably female, with expertise and an apolitical passion for public service. I fervently wish that we could leave this House a better place and better suited to its essential constitutional role, with our heads held high—not in an executioner’s basket—and with pride and gratitude for our 900 years of service.
Lord Borwick (Con)
My Lords, in February 1987, nearly 38 years ago, I had the good fortune to be appointed chief executive of a public company at the age of 31. It was a terrifying prospect for me, the shareholders and the employees. It was an engineering and manufacturing company, employing 1,000 people. I also had the good fortune to be friendly with a wise union leader. Perhaps the noble Baroness the Leader of the House is in a similar position now.
My friend taught me a lesson about redundancies: the fear of redundancies is more stressful than the reality. Who will go? Will we all go? These are the questions in the minds of the victims. He taught me that morale would improve when the facts were clear, as any suggestion that the managers or CEO knew more about the business than the shop floor workers was a mistake.
One of the many changes in HR law since that date is that it is clearly illegal to choose the candidates for redundancies by political differences. Can this Bill pass the same test? I know that we are not employees here; we are different, and our terms are different, but the Labour Party has often preached that an individual should behave with a generosity of spirit towards his staff, as shown in the best of other organisations. I gather that hereditary Peers show up for work in the Chamber rather more frequently than other Peers. Do the civil servants in Whitehall and around the country show the same dedication to their employers?
I was elected in 2013, in an election of the whole House: an electorate of about 700 Peers, of whom about 400 voted, as I remember. There are MPs in another place, chosen to stand in a safe party seat by an executive committee smaller than that. However, my biggest problem is with the mean-spirited way in which the Bill has been drafted. That attitude shows up the differences between this Bill and its nearest equivalent, that proposed by the generous noble Lord, Lord Grocott. His Bill granted life peerages to sitting hereditary Peers, a course of action available to the Starmer Government if they were not, as rumoured, labouring under the self-imposed ambition to gain an overall majority in this House by appointing about 200 Labour Peers.
The Labour manifesto is clear that the reforms that they would like to propose include the abolition of Peers who have reached the age of 80 at the end of the Parliament after reaching this landmark. Personally, I believe that people age at different rates, so a better plan would be to introduce health checks at the age of 80, which might reasonably lead to voluntary retirement.
This Bill has the abolition of elected hereditary Peers at the end of this Session, perhaps four years earlier than those over-80s, and I can foresee amendments proposed to equalise that date by delaying the date of execution of hereditaries to the end of the Parliament.
I can also expect amendments addressing the subject of the Church of England Bishops, whose presence is an institution older than the majority of hereditary peerages. But why should we not widen the franchise, so to speak, by including bishops of other faiths, such as Catholics, imams and rabbis? If Catholic bishops would not be willing to take their place, perhaps Catholic theologians should be appointed. Either that, or all clerics should depart with the elected hereditary Peers.
In summary, my problem is with the bold statement in the Labour Party manifesto that hereditary peerages in the House of Lords are “indefensible”. I believe that there are several features in our constitution which are wrong in theory but right in practice. The monarchy leaps to mind; an unelected second Chamber is another. To take action because something offends your theory of government is not only unwise but rather petty. The reason to amend or reject this Bill is that the existing system works—do not redecorate with a bulldozer. We accept that the Labour Party won by a landslide—congratulations. Now build a good peace; do not sow the soil with salt.
The Earl of Dundee (Con)
My Lords, on their excellent speeches, I join your Lordships in congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Quin, and my noble friend Lord Brady of Altrincham.
Regarding directions and measures taken and adopted after this Bill, and hence caused by the Bill if it should become an Act, I will briefly focus on three aspects: first, the priority that this House should persist as an effective revising Chamber; if so, and secondly, certain pitfalls to be avoided and prescriptions to be encouraged; and thirdly, how Lords reform, if properly thought through and completed, can enhance regional and national democracy, both in the United Kingdom and, by example, elsewhere.
Irrespective of the political allegiance of the Government of the day, all your Lordships will be very proud of our cross-party usefulness in this House. As has been said, it is this which persuades Governments to think again. For greatly improving proposed legislation before it reaches the statute book, in any given year a large number of House of Lords-tabled amendments are always accepted by the Government and their parliamentary majority in another place. The evidence of that pattern has been constant, whether during the years of Thatcher, Major, Cameron and Johnson or during those of Blair, Brown and now Starmer.
There is also our convincing record as a think tank House of Parliament, through many debates and Motions over a wide range of subjects, all the time providing innovative thoughts and constructive suggestions. This is, in my experience, similar to the think tank achievements of the 46-states affiliation of the Council of Europe and its Parliament in Strasbourg. The United Kingdom remains a prominent member, and I am a recent chairman of the Council of Europe’s committee on education and culture.
In his 2012 paper, Lord Steel of Aikwood correctly argues against elections to this House—the disadvantages being conflict between two elected Houses, territorial Peers threatening the purpose of constituency MPs and the huge expense of further national elections and of full-time salaried Peers. Does the noble Baroness the Leader of the House therefore consider that instead of providing remedies, elections to this House by universal suffrage would simply throw up more difficulties and anomalies?
On appointments to this House, as many have urged, there is a pressing need for a rather obvious and long-overdue shift, switching these to be made by a statutory appointments commission, replacing political patronage. Nevertheless, the Government and Opposition would, of course, continue to confer non-parliamentary peerages and other honours, which are distinct and separate from parliamentary appointments.
Yet the irony is that as soon as an appointments commission might adopt this new role, the Government, in spite of their manifesto commitments, would still be tempted to rest on their laurels, wrongly alleging that, thereby, enough Lords reform had then been carried out. However, that would not be the case. This is since, although an appointments commission would function wisely and honourably, beyond London and this part of England, it is perceived as an establishment organisation behind closed doors, insufficiently comprehending and being in touch with the rest of the country.
By contrast, the expedients proposed by Lord Steel are able to win the support and confidence of the United Kingdom’s different regions and localities, for his suggested formula, which even if its details may require some amending, is ingenious, highly relevant and workable. Voting would not be by universal suffrage. Instead, an electoral college would consist of parliamentarians from the House of Commons and the three devolved legislatures: the national assembly for Wales, the Scottish Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly. On the usual party-political basis, this college would then choose or elect the majority of the membership of the senate or reformed House of Lords.
Does the noble Baroness the Leader of the House agree with Lord Steel that not only is this arrangement, as he puts it:
“Simple, inexpensive, and probably likely to produce a less London-centric Chamber than at present”
but, being consistent, as it is, with the necessary relationship between this House and another place, far more acceptable than others as a measure of prudent Lords reform, since, as he further comments:
“Such a fundamental democratically reformed Upper Chamber would maintain the existing revising role, be part-time and unpaid”.?
In addition, does she concur that, once up and running, this same formula would make significant further contributions on a much wider front; for example, improving the quality of political devolution within the United Kingdom, this arising from the new and regular structural links, as already indicated, between United Kingdom regional Parliaments and membership of a reformed House of Lords?
Then there is the opportunity for building up cross-party teamwork among regional and Westminster parliamentarians together to check and rein in over-powerful central UK Governments and Executives, these in turn reflecting, and to which my noble friend Lady Laing of Elderslie referred, the slippery-slope tendency of our own version of parliamentary democracy, most aptly described by Quintin Hailsham, the father of my noble friend Lord Hailsham, as “ elective dictatorship”.
Thereby, in these respects, we would not least inspire any modern democracy to adopt much better practice, to the obvious advantage of this country in the first place yet also by example to that of international colleagues, many of whom, still regarding this House and another place as the mother of parliaments, are ever ready to be influenced and guided by our United Kingdom procedures and their appropriate adjustments.
A reformed version of this House must maintain an ecumenical balance as well, therefore within its membership ever including the leaders and representatives of different faiths, while keeping our traditional Bench of Bishops to add to the wisdom of debates and to lead the House in prayer.
As has already been emphasised, in 1999 we were promised full Lords reform. Since then, this process has dithered and prevaricated. If the present Government now claim to grasp the nettle, they have to act accordingly in a timely manner.
Over the next 12 months, and for appointments to this House, they should empower a statutory appointments commission to take over from political patronage. Yet if they stop there, they will have only tinkered at the edges, undermined expectations and tarnished their own reputation.
Therefore, before the next general election, the Government should have already embarked on the type of formula advocated by Lord Steel of Aikwood. If they do that, then both here and abroad they will have earned the respect of democratic legislatures, their regions and communities.
Lord Hampton (CB)
My Lords, it is always a joy to follow a couple of Earls, except possibly into battle. It was a great pleasure to hail the noble Lord, Lord Brady of Altrincham, and bid farewell to the noble Baroness, Lady Quin. I enjoyed both their speeches very much.
I spoke at length in the debate on the reform of the House of Lords, so I will stick to the Bill. At first reading, I was reminded of the words of the popular music group Bananarama when they sang
“Na na na na
Na na na na
Hey hey hey
Goodbye”,
for is a very simple Bill, somewhat terminal for some of us. I was tempted to draft an amendment adding the words “except for my friends and me”, but I did not think that the Public Bill Office would wear that one.
We have a problem: people like their hereditaries. We are house-trained, hard-working—we turn up. Considering this problem, I had one of those lovely conversations you have in the House of Lords. Walking down the corridor, I met a Peeress whom I knew by sight, and we got talking. We started talking about the hereditary peerage and she said, “The problem is, you have to separate principle from the people”. That is what we have to do here. How do we separate the emotion from the legislation?
As ever, we can learn from the American military. In his very fine book, “The Men Who Stare at Goats”, Jon Ronson talks about how American special forces trained. They had a kennel of dogs; they would take a dog, shoot it with a bolt gun, then train one of their men to give it a wound dressing as if it had been shot. The trouble was that, after a while, people got too attached to the dogs and could not do it. After a lot of experimentation, the American military discovered that no human can form an attachment to a goat, so the Americans now train on goats. Noble Lords need to start thinking of the hereditary Peers as goats.
My father served in your Lordships’ House for 25 years, retiring in 1999, when the House was dominated by hereditary Peers with perhaps a less diligent approach to turning up. When he was asked whether it worked, he tended to say, “Yeah, pretty well. The only time it gets weird is when there are debates on horseracing or fly-fishing and suddenly you get groups of men around the place who have no idea where the lavatories are””
When this is all over and the hereditaries have been moved out of the House, if noble Lords ever think of me, I hope they will think of me sitting quietly at home with my wife, with the butler ironing my copy of the Times Educational Supplement—or perhaps on a crisp morning riding to hounds on Hackney marshes. If they think of me at all, I hope they will think, “Ah, Hampton—he knew where the lavatories were”.
Lord Colgrain (Con)
My Lords, it is difficult to follow the noble Lord, Lord Hampton. Now, as a goat, I am sure that he will be a hero to my sons, who will make great use of that as a joke.
I am the 76th speaker in this debate and we are going into the seventh hour. I hope that noble Lords will feel slightly sorry for me, as pretty much everything I wanted to say in my speech has not only been said by other noble Lords but has been said many times and a great deal better than I would ever have said it in the first place. I hope your Lordships will be pleased to hear that I propose to throw away the first half of my speech and concentrate on the second.
The workings of this House are opaque to those outside it: indeed, they are sometimes pretty opaque to some of us within it, too. In truth, most people are not remotely interested in who we are or what we do—goat or no goat. However, when it is explained that the removal of the hereditaries will also remove the considerable representation of the private sector experience of your Lordships’ House, interest picks up. Hereditaries, after all, have an almost exclusively private sector background. When it is explained that, in the other place, there is not one person on the current Government Front Bench who has had a career in the private sector—and that there is only a small minority in this House—there is disquiet.
Like the noble Baroness, Lady Watkins, I have asked the Lords Library to help identify from where recent appointments have been made, to see whether there is a chance that this imbalance can be redressed. During the last eight years or so, in which I have been privileged to attend your Lordships’ House, 217 new Members have been appointed. Of those, 96 had held public office, as an MP, MEP, local councillor or Member of a devolved Assembly. In addition, 17 further appointments were of special advisers or those who had had a Downing Street role, and a further four had senior party roles—ample evidence of a heavy public sector weighting. During the same time, only nine appointments were made through HOLAC.
The recent Budget has shown a heavy bias against the private sector: after all, the rise in NI did not apply to the public sector. There will be even fewer voices to champion the private sector when the hereditaries are expelled. Without comprehensive—as opposed to piecemeal—reform, HOLAC will never be given the priority that it needs, and that this House deserves, to remedy this imbalance.
The quality of debate in your Lordships’ House never ceases to impress. The degree of scrutiny that it applies to legislation sent from the other place, particularly given that it is increasingly poorly drafted there, is where hereditaries are able to apply their particular commercial expertise. It is rumoured that the Government are proposing the appointment, as Peers, of yet another raft of ex-MPs, local councillors and trade union officials —your Lordships were somewhat surprised to be saluted as “Comrades” by the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, in a recent Oral Question. So I respectfully ask the Leader of the House to abide by Lord Irving’s binding-in-honour pledge and review the role of HOLAC before rushing pell-mell towards the dissolution of the hereditaries and making such an imbalanced constitutional reform.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean (Lab)
My Lords, if you thought number 76 was difficult, here goes number 77. I first congratulate my noble friends Lady Quin and Lord Vaizey on their speeches earlier this evening.
Many who have spoken in support of the Bill have acknowledged that a number of working Peers are very important to us. They are dedicated in the way they come to this House and deal with our debates. Many have been here for many years, making contributions to all our debates, and I acknowledge freely that they have enriched those debates with their widespread expertise, knowledge and—yes—their sheer hard work.
I have not heard many Members in this debate acknowledge what I believe to be one of the fundamental flaws in the hereditary peerage and its continuation here. Apart from some of the Scottish titles, all hereditary Peers are men. They have hereditary titles that pass down the male groups in their family. They pass down to sons and, if there are no sons, to nephews or other younger men in their families. They are never passed to daughters or nieces. If they have no sons or nephews, they go into a difficult position in how to move forward. It is very straightforward and there is not a nice word for it: it is sexual discrimination and it is practised in that part of the peerage.
When the Prince and Princess of Wales became engaged to be married, this House voted—unanimously, I think—that their first-born child, irrespective of gender, would inherit the Throne. Surely, what is good enough for the Throne is good enough in this House for younger people who are the offspring of the hereditary peerage. It is wrong that they do not have that entitlement. It is sexual discrimination.
In this country—one of the most long-standing democracies in the world—we do everything we can to encourage the emerging democracies to support the rights of women, and that includes women in public life. We are the upholders of equality between the sexes, so our second Chamber cannot create this exclusive and significant breach in what most of us would consider to be proper equality for men and women. The hereditary Peers need to be reformed in that respect and I do not think that any of us should forget that.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I thank very much the noble Baroness for her kind words on the hard work and diligence of hereditary Peers. I strongly support the sentiments she expressed about the gender inequality in the hereditary peerage. I ask her to support the succession to peerages and baronetcies Bill proposed by my noble friend Lord Northbrook earlier this year. It is an important Bill and it is a shame that it has not had time in the House. I strongly support it, as I am sure she does as well.
I absolutely love the House of Lords and I always have done. I was greatly inspired by my great-great grandfather and my father, both of whom worked as reformers—a Liberal reformer in my great-great grandfather’s case—and people of immense public service. I am not so attracted by the pomp and the honour of this place; it really is the opportunity to serve that has always inspired me. So it was absolutely fantastic to hear the valedictory speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Quin, who exemplifies those values enormously. I particularly value and support her campaign in the war on osteoporosis, which, as I saw in the Daily Mail last week, she is still working incredibly hard on—it is impressive to see that.
I am also very pleased to see the incredible diligence of the uber Back-Bencher, my noble friend Lord Brady of Altrincham. My goodness, his inspirational talk about the work of the Back Benches, in both the Commons and the Lords, is exactly the kind of spirit of diligence and selfless public service that exemplifies the values of the House of Lords and what I love so much about this place.
That is why it is with such sadness that I have sat here for so many hours listening to this debate. The Bill is nothing to do with public service, diligence or the actual effectiveness of the people who are here. It is a Bill about a performance. It is a performative Bill that addresses form over substance, as the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, rightly pointed out. It has created a tone in this Chamber of a nature that I have never seen before. I have felt extremely uncomfortable here, being singled out among Peers, people whom I would normally regard as being on the same level in every way, as a member of a distinct group which has attracted quite a lot of negative comment.
I was very disappointed by the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Grocott. He normally goes around this business with such care, but his trying to single out certain Peers as being a waste of space I found extremely regretful and hurtful. The word “indefensibles” really jars in this Chamber. There are plenty of things that are indefensible going on in this Chamber. There is hardly any noble Lord who has not got a story behind how they were appointed. However, to single out a particular group of Members for some kind of special status is extremely disappointing.
What is particularly disappointing is that there are so many opportunities, which have been articulated so clearly by so many Members, to improve this place that I love very much indeed. It is a shame that the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, is not here because I am going to come behind him and support his words, something that I have not done many times in this Chamber. He was absolutely right: the reform of the Appointments Commission is a big priority, reflecting the age limit and looking at ways to make that a workable solution. The elevation of judges, a seemingly arcane point, is very important indeed. There is the support that Peers have; I have worked in three Parliaments during my career, and this is one where legislators are given minimal support. That is why I am going to support the kinds of amendments that have been discussed so thoughtfully by so many Peers. They are to improve this Bill—not to drag it out, not to wreck it, not to veer it off course but because this should be a platform for improving an institution that already does a good job and could be doing a better job if time were given to those kinds of improvements.
The one that has stuck out, which has come up again and again in this debate, is the weird situation of a group—a group committed to this Chamber, who have sought out this appointment and who are demonstrating their commitment by sitting on committees, by attendance, and by participating in Front-Bench commitments—being signalled out and chased out while the people who do not turn up, do not participate and do not attend are protected and defended. That strikes me as particularly odd. The noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, put that very well and my noble friend Lord Blencathra came up with a very good solution.
I urge the Minister to take those suggestions seriously. We have all inherited election manifesto promises that have been the product of political strategists and have had to try to turn them into effective policy during debate and the process through Parliament. I urge her to take that opportunity.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
My Lords, we need to consider the context in which this Bill comes forward. I am sorry to say that this House is not well liked or well respected in this country. There are various criticisms; we have heard some of them today. The principal one is that some people are here only because of their family connections. People regard that as indefensible, and so do I. The noble Lord, Lord Bethell, found that word offensive. It is about not the people but the principle and whether it can be intellectually defended. Most people who have spoken today have said that they are not sure that they can defend it and that the only justification really is of distant history. The noble Baroness, Lady Symons, made the point that the indirect consequence is that those who are here by that method are all white males—not their fault but it is the consequence, and therefore very unrepresentative of this country.
As we are talking about hereditary principles, I mention my own background. I was born into the slums of Sheffield, the illegitimate son of a steelworker, to an incredible woman who was unmarried at the time. I mention it because it speaks to my pride at being here. I guess that hereditary Peers will feel exactly the same. They will be proud, quite rightly, of their own families. However, it says nothing about whether I should be here. We should all take that very seriously because people from the outside look and consider these issues very carefully. Earlier, someone mentioned that surveys have shown that only 2% of our population generally support the present constitution of this House. The same survey said that the most supported option was to have an elected House. That is not the direct proposal at the moment, but it shows that any Government will have to consider radical changes to improve the trust in this House.
It is said that expelling hereditary Peers is unfair and rushed, given the contribution of some of them. It is not rushed from 1999. It was considered in the election, and it is hardly unfair given that hereditary Peers have been able to speak in this debate today and can, if they choose, vote on the amendments and any Bill. Many people affected directly by this sort of legislation would not have had that opportunity or would choose not to take that right. Therefore, it cannot be said to be an unfair process that does not take some account of what they believe.
We have heard other criticisms today, such as that the House is too large—behind China the second largest. France has a second Chamber of about 375 but the rest have around 100. Even America, with 350 million people, has a second House of about 100. Some people have said that we need over 400 just to service the committees. That is an argument for fewer committees, not to have more people here. We probably could be a little more efficient in how we organise those things.
My view is that the Bill should pass unamended, but there are some serious issues that have been raised today that need to be considered, including whether people contribute when they are here, and whether they continue to contribute over the term of their being here. I would aim not to have an age discriminator but a term discriminator that reflects the amount of time people spend here, because outside this place age discrimination is illegal. In fact, this place passed that Act, but apparently age discrimination would be okay in here. I do not know if that is fair. Judges may be subject to that, but I do not think age should be a discriminator; it should be about the contribution someone can make and their ability to make it.
One of the things I could say against myself is that I could become a roaring dinosaur about policing—in fact, I often am—but, to be fair, after 15 years would I have as much to contribute, or could newer colleagues come along and talk better and with more power and relevance? We all need to consider that. We all believe we have that wisdom that only our experience can bring, but it fails us at times and we need new people to challenge us and bring new ideas and new ways of thinking about things. For everybody here who is excellent and fantastic, there is always somebody behind us who will be better; we just have not met them yet. There is always someone who will come along and put us to shame and make us realise just how little we have delivered as opposed to how much.
My final point is directed at His Majesty’s Opposition. I understand why these things happen, but I honestly think that filibustering appears to the outside to be a childish mechanism. All parties have done it—nobody can sit here and say they have never done it—but I wonder how people react to that sort of operating, even from people of their own side. I talked to someone who used to be a Minister and he was tired out earlier this week. It is not a nice process. It does not add much to the wisdom of the process either, and I would charge that it is probably better avoided.
I support this government Bill. It should pass unamended, and if there are any other issues, a commission can consider them over a timetabled period in the future.
Lord Harlech (Con)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe. I congratulate my noble friend Lord Brady of Altrincham on an outstanding maiden speech and the noble Baroness, Lady Quin, on her valedictory speech.
Turning to the Bill, I keep asking myself why: why are the Government doing this? Others have asked why too. The only answer we have been given from the noble Baroness the Leader of the House or from Labour Ministers in the other place is that it was in their manifesto. But for such major constitutional reform, Parliament has a right to understand why it was in their manifesto. Why are the Government saying that the House needs reform at all? Do they not believe that it performs its role in Parliament well enough?
We are already representative of country, region, occupation and background. From barristers to publishers, artists to farmers, scientists to soldiers, titans of industry to start-up entrepreneurs, former parliamentarians from the other place and our spiritual colleagues, I cannot think of a sector that is not represented in your Lordships’ House. Can noble Lords think of another legislature with such a breadth of knowledge or experience?
As an illustration, can you think of another Chamber, assembly or Government where in a six-month timeframe a Member was on the Front Bench during a pre-election wash-up, was placed top in the Army Reserve’s platoon commanders’ battle course in Brecon and won an award for project managing the restoration of a 17th-century house? But that is precisely it: what makes your Lordships’ House so unique is that I am not; every one of us—life Peer, hereditary Peer or Lord spiritual—brings something to the table. Yes, it is eccentric and, in a way, Britishly so, but it works. So why do the Government want to destroy this ecosystem?
Removing hereditary Peers will not improve the House’s discharge of its duties. The House already does its duty with exceptional scrutiny, commitment and dedication from Peers of all sides and backgrounds. If the House loses some of its most committed and hard-working Members, how will that improve the House’s role in scrutinising legislation and in holding the Government to account? Constitutional reform must be enacted only with cross-party support after pre-legislative scrutiny and reaching a consensual outcome.
For the reasons I have explained, I am afraid the Bill is not about serious reform of the House; it is about damaging the Government’s opposition as severely as possible while infecting collateral damage on the Cross Benches. Since the Labour manifesto’s age restriction measures and proposal to exclude the Bishops—both measures I oppose—were dropped in place of just the expulsion of hereditary Peers, we have had no official documentation about what the next stage of reform would be and when it would happen.
Yet what I find most cruel and shameful about the Bill is that it has disrupted the of unity this House. Yes, we have had our differences on legislation, we have debated vigorously, but we have always remained one House, working together and compromising when necessary for the good of the country. The Bill destroys that unity. It has poisoned the well, sown discord and created a rift amongst Peers.
The Bill literally seeks to expel a category of Peers from membership in the House because of how they were born. Can you imagine if a Government sought to expel Members because of other characteristics, such as ethnicity or religion? There would rightly be uproar. So where are workers’ rights?
Those who are supporters of the Bill—and I will not forget the gloating and howls of delight from the government Benches when this Second Reading debate began—should be careful what they wish for. Before long, noble Lords might find themselves in a category of Peer that the Executive no longer find useful to their cause and might face deletion and unplanned obsolescence. If Parliament is a garment, an ermine robe perhaps, hereditary Peers are the thread that binds it together. Our removal will without doubt start the unravelling of the House of Lords and, I fear, the destabilising of our democracy. I urge the Government to think again.
Lord Inglewood (Non-Afl)
My Lords, this Bill is specifically and ostensibly about the membership of the excepted hereditary Peers in this House—I must declare at the outset that I am one of them—but it is also, and I think much more importantly, a part of a wider debate about the future of our country’s second Chamber of Parliament and our constitution more widely. That is more important. Not much has been said about the volatile state of the world we are in. Domestically, politics is looking very much as if it is evolving in a rather startling manner that was not anticipated even a few months ago. Internationally, we have seen all kinds of change that was not anticipated over the past three or four years. In talking about our constitution, we need to remember that if the world changes dramatically, perhaps some of our ideas may need to change dramatically too.
My understanding of the Government’s position is that they see this proposed variant of Pride’s Purge of 1648 as the first step on a journey. A journey has to have a destination. All journeys go somewhere. I slightly feel that, as described by the Leader of the House, we are on a bit of a mystery tour. I do not think that the Government know exactly where they are going. I do not think I know either. I was on national television just after the general election when Jonathan Ashworth conceded that in fact there was not a worked-up plan when the Labour Party manifesto was drafted, which seems to me a bit careless, a bit foolish and slightly reminiscent of the days of the South Sea bubble, but—and this is the important thing—I think the merit or lack of merit of the Bill we are considering very much depends upon the answers and the responses to these wider, longer-term implications rather than simply the detail of what is being proposed.
From all that I have heard this evening, I think there is general agreement around the House that change, which may well include a reduction in numbers, is required. Against that wider context, I think we must try to see ourselves as others see us. I, and, I think, most noble Lords, believe as a generalisation that we conscientiously fulfil our wider role, but, as the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, asked: is that the general perception across the country? Noble Lords need only look at the tabloid newspapers and the media more generally to see an almost prurient interest in and sometimes ersatz horrified surprise about how people become Members of this House. Getting a Writ of Summons, the basis of our membership, appears very often to depend, at least partly, on luck or chance. Clearly, that is absolutely true for hereditary Peers, although I must confess that I have sometimes wondered whether it was good luck or bad luck, but that is for others to decide. Equally, in the case of a large number of other people here, the same principle applies. What it boils down to is that what in the Middle Ages was known as Fortune probably plays a decisive part in everyone’s life at some stage.
I am concerned that, if we are not careful, this House could become perceived in the wider world as a kind of political mates club writ large. Indeed, I think some of those who disparage us may already think that is the case. If that becomes a widely held view, the integrity and robustness of our constitutional arrangements and our place here in it would be severely impugned. The Westminster bubble, in which we are all sitting, is not, in fact, all that favourably viewed outside the M25. It is perceived as being too self-regarding, too introverted and out of touch with much of the country, which in turn devalues the perceived worth of the work done within it, taking the UK as a whole. As a number of Peers have already said, we cannot allow this second Chamber of which we are part to become too metropolitan and south-east focused in either its concerns or its membership, because that devalues its impact, value and importance for the country as a whole. I add my tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Quin, who has been a doughty champion of the north of England, where I come from.
The way I look at it is that what the Government are proposing in this legislation is to send a platoon comprising the excepted hereditaries over the top in the first wave, leaving the others behind, at least for now. In circumstances like that, somebody has got to be in the first wave. Normally being at the front of the queue is thought to be a good thing. I am also conscious that greater love hath no man than to lay down his life for his friends, but I think it would be not unreasonable for those of us who may be going over the top to be a bit clearer about what the longer-term plan actually is and how it will make our country a better place.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
My Lords, there is one insuperable objection to the Bill, and it is not to do with the qualities of our hereditary colleagues, which have been referred to many times in this debate, most recently by my noble friend Lord Bethell. It is absolutely true that they do the unthanked, workaday, unremunerated jobs—they serve as Whips and sit on all the dull committees that make the place work—but I do not expect that to be as persuasive an argument on the Government Benches as on these Benches.
Seeing my noble friend Lord Remnant, I rather had this fantasy that he might be the very last hereditary Peer. That would have been an enormously suitable thing, but, again, I do not expect it to be a convincing argument.
It is not, by the way, the fact that we are removing the only elected element from the Chamber. Yes, they are elected by a tiny group of people but, none the less, that is more of a mandate than the rest of us have. We are here by the whim of the Executive. If you think about what a legislative Chamber exists to do and has existed to do since Magna Carta, we have been here to hold the Executive in check. On the idea of having one of our two legislative Chambers wholly appointed by the Prime Minister, if that were happening in Zimbabwe or somewhere, we would all say that it was shockingly undemocratic. Being beneficiaries of it does not make it any less so.
It is not even the breaking of the link back to Magna Carta, which my noble friends spoke of earlier. Look around at the architecture of this room: it was in the minds of Barry and Pugin to recreate the idea of a medieval King taking counsel of his bishops and barons. You take the hereditaries out of it and it is very difficult to see how we can remain being a House of Lords—the idea of our having titles will become absurd once we have snapped that thread with history.
Finally, it is not about the Government’s failure to build consensus behind this major constitutional change—and it is major, not a tiny tidying-up measure. Imagine if Olaf Scholz decided to remove 10% of the members of the German Bundesrat, or if Emmanuel Macron decided fundamentally to change the composition of the French Senate. It could not be done without a major constitutional process. There was an opportunity to build consensus, but the Government have a mandate, and there is no rule that says that a Government with a mandate need to be wise or consensual—we are all allowed to be immoderate and mistaken. That is how the system works.
I would make a defence not of the hereditary principle, which everyone says is indefensible, but of the hereditary practice that we see around us and which seems very defensible. We see it from high streets—every time we see a sign saying “Williams and Son Butchers”—right up to the Throne, and people do not seem to find that at all indefensible. But none of that is going to persuade the Government Benches.
Frankly, I am a supporter of an elected House. It always sounds transgressive to say that here, and I always feel slightly guilty doing it, even though it is, I think, the position of every party represented at the other end, from the Greens to Reform. I do not know why it is such an odd position.
The fundamental, insuperable objection to this legislation is simply that it breaks a deal. That was conceded by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, in her opening remarks, when she said that the mechanism for hereditary by-elections was never expected to be used. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, confirmed at the time in the late 1990s, this was because he expected the second stage of reform to have come into effect before the first by-election took place. There was a bargain, in effect, between the hereditaries and the Labour Party, and the bargain was that the hereditaries would not hold up Tony Blair’s 1998 legislation in exchange for the remaining reprieved 92. To say that it is indefensible or irrational or does not make sense is utterly beside the point: the 92, if you like, were there precisely to be the pebble in the shoe, the reminder that the second stage of reform had not been delivered and that we were not going to remain with a Zimbabwean system of the Executive appointing half the legislature.
This Bill taps that pebble from the shoe without delivering the rest of the bargain and moving to a democratic upper House. Fundamentally, that is what is wrong. It is dishonest and dishonourable. To claim that the only reason that this cannot be done is because it is a delaying tactic and that, unless we all agree on everything until it is all agreed, nothing will happen, simply does not apply when you have just won 411 seats at the other end. The Government are perfectly capable, if they want to, of having a democratic upper House. They are refusing to do so for the same reason that every previous Government have: they like to have the patronage powers and to be able to move people out of the way.
I remind the party opposite that it has been its commitment since 1902 to have a democratic upper House, and they entered into an explicit bargain in 1998. The hereditaries delivered their side; the Labour Party should deliver its side. Pacta sunt servanda.
Viscount Thurso (LD)
My Lords, we have reached that point in the debate when pretty much everything that can be said has been said, but not yet by me. I will confine myself to one observation and one suggestion but, before I do that, I offer my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Brady. I served with him on the Treasury Select Committee in another place. Of course, he has gone on to great things as a hirer and firer of Prime Ministers, while I just sort of went on. I also pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Quin, for her exemplary valedictory. Lastly, I thank the Leader of the House for her courteous tone and the way in which she introduced the debate. I hope to follow her example.
The Bill is rather small, containing five clauses, or four if you leave out the one about the short title. It has to be said that rarely can so much have been said by so many about so few clauses. It is a remarkably simple Bill that has at the heart of it one basic proposition, which is the removal of us hereditaries. Since I have spent my whole time talking about reform of this House from the point of view of a wholly elected House, it would be odd if I had to oppose that principle, so I will not. However, equally pernicious as the hereditary principle is the principle of life tenure. We need to confront that and come up with some way in which terms are limited, and I will come to that in my suggestion.
Frankly, I never expected to arrive in your Lordships’ House, because my father assured me that reform would have taken place before it came to me. Unfortunately, 29 years ago he died, and I arrived here having never had any interest in politics as something I should do. I came to enjoy and respect what happened, but I also learned how much the reform of this House could add to the strength of Parliament, a theme that I have spoken about on many occasions.
So in 1999 I was happy to go, by which time Lord Maclennan had persuaded me that I should try for the other House. I duly ended up as the elected Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross, and I had a very happy 14 years when I got more job satisfaction after looking after my constituents and doing other things, such as sitting on the Treasury Select Committee, than I have had in many other walks of life. I never expected to come back here because I thought the job would have been done by then but, lo and behold, there was an election and I got back here in 2016. Now I am off again, adding to my remarkable collection of political P45s.
My observation from that is that House of Lords reform does not happen, or, rather, it happens in very small chunks with large amounts of time between them. That leads me to my suggestion, based on something in the report by the noble Lord, Lord Burns: to look at introducing term limits, not for anyone who is in the House at the moment but by a simple amendment in the Bill to the 1958 Act saying that anyone coming in the future would be limited to a term. It could be 15 years or 20, I do not really mind; it is simply about the principle that people should not be here for their life. That would be a modest and simple thing to do. I am trying desperately not to cut across the desire of my leader, my noble friend Lord Newby, not to create a Christmas tree, but I think this would be a very small bauble that would have no great effect on the other major events but would have a strong effect on the future of the House.
That is my observation and my suggestion. Above all, as I said in our debate on 12 November, I am a parliamentarian and I believe in the strength of Parliament. We need a strong second Chamber that is legitimate in the eyes of all its stakeholders so that it strengthens Parliament, in order that Parliament can continue to hold the Executive to account. The threat we face of a public who are becoming ever more disconnected from the parliamentary process would be reduced by a stronger Parliament.
Lord Wrottesley (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest as an excepted hereditary Peer. I wish to expand on some of the themes in my contribution to the earlier debate on Lords reform. I stand here for the third time in a row on the graveyard shift. However, fortunately, this affords me the opportunity to be surrounded by the great and the good of this House, basking in their reflected glory. What a way to go.
It is exceptionally difficult to be novel at the back end of such a long and thorough debate, but the very strength of this debate is that common threads have been woven throughout it. In the previous debate and this one, it has been clear that many of your Lordships rightly have significant concerns with the reasoning behind bringing this specific Bill forward and in this form. At that time, I asked your Lordships to bring this back to first principles and consider what the purpose of this House is to be. Are we to hold the Government to account as part of an effective process of checks and balances, at the same time able to scrutinise legislation in more detail and with more diligence than the other place can?
If one of the aims of this House is to hold the Executive, led by the Prime Minister, to account, having a wholly elected second Chamber that reflects the composition of the other place would hand the power of this House wholly to that very Executive, headed by the Prime Minister. That is not check and balance. In much the same way, if the House is wholly or partly appointed by the Prime Minister, that hands power over it back to the political patronage of the Prime Minister. That is not check and balance.
We see direct parallels with these issues in the US system, where, if the President, as will be the case with President Trump, has control of the Senate and the House of Representatives, and effective control of the judiciary in the form of the Supreme Court, as well as a politicised civil service, he will have untrammelled and unfettered power, without effective check and balance. That is a heady and highly attractive mix for any leader to contemplate.
The only way to ensure that the second Chamber is able to carry out an effective check and balance on the Executive is, in my view, to have a substantially appointed House, with an elected element but—this is crucial—one free from the untrammelled power of political patronage of the Prime Minister. Decisions on its membership would be vested in an appointments commission with the power to appoint, free from political influence—in short, a House of Lords appointments commission, but this time with teeth. In addition, in order to preserve deep corporate memory, term limits should not be less than 25 years, subject to five-year reviews to ensure that all appointees are carrying their weight through attendance and contribution. Why 25 years? Quite simply, that is the accepted length of a generation, and quite enough time for someone to give effectively and fully to the House.
Composition of the House should be structured according to a weighted average of the composition of the parties in the other place over that same period. In short, if you are in government for longer, you will have more Peers appointed. “But hang on a minute”, I hear your Lordships thinking, “Isn’t that what already happens?” The only difference is that most of your Lordships propose that these appointments should not be dependent on the Prime Minister’s political patronage.
Unfortunately, this is what His Majesty’s Government seems to be trying to engineer by getting rid of a large part of their opposition from right across the House—and, we have to assume, as no alternative has been offered, filling in the gaps created with their own appointees. By summarily dismissing 90 hereditaries in one fell swoop, mid-term, as well as the expressed intention to impose a retirement age, this is ungracious, and creates a huge void that we assume the Government will want to fill. The concern of many of your Lordships is that this would be done with people appointed by the Prime Minister—deeply ironic, as this would rely on the very patronage that the Government will, we are told, seek to prevent with any supposed further reform of the House.
My question of this House is: why are we doing this to these active, committed Peers who make a valuable contribution to the House, rather than weeding out those who hardly come? Is there not an easier way of working, cross-party, to reduce the size of the House, rather than expelling some of the most active and senior Peers? If I may be so bold, as one of the younger—at the age of over 50, that is difficult to say—and more recent entrants to the House, to offer some advice to the Leader of the House. In the spirit of good will, particularly in this festive season, please do not treat your Lordships as if they are turkeys voting for Christmas; it is much easier if you consider them as wise men, and occasionally women, and then encourage them to vote for Christmas. You will likely get a somewhat different response.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, as we come to the end of a debate with many fine speeches—I mention in particular the contributions of my noble friend Lord Brady of Altrincham, whom I welcome, and the noble Baroness, Lady Quin, whom I wish a long, happy and healthy retirement—I begin with a declaration of non-interest and a declaration of interest.
First, I declare the non-interest. Unlike my noble friend who it is a pleasure to follow, I am not a hereditary Peer. Although I am the fourth Lord Wolfson in this House, I do not think I am related to any of the other three, despite sharing a forename with the late Lord Wolfson of Sunningdale and having enjoyed a long and close friendship with his son, my noble friend Lord Simon Wolfson of Aspley Guise, the CEO of Next—and they both arrived here as life Peers. “Wolfson” followed by an “S” and “Wolfson” followed by a “D” are next to each other on the keyboard, so when it comes to parliamentary emails, he often receives emails asking for advice on points of law and I get emails complaining that trousers do not fit.
Secondly, I declare the interest. Even a few years back, I do not think I would have believed that I would be uttering these words, but I now confess that some of my best friends are hereditary Peers. But that is not why I am opposing this short, focused and very partisan Bill. The fact that I—I think this goes for everybody in this House—have friends who are hereditary Peers is not a good enough reason to oppose the Bill; nor is the fact that the hereditary Peers, as a group, comprise many of the most talented and hard-working Peers, or that the House would miss both them and their contribution. All of that is true—as we have heard today, the evidence supporting those propositions is unanswerable—but that is not why I am opposing the Bill.
I oppose the Bill for a simple reason. To explain why, I quote the Labour manifesto on which the Government fought and won the election:
“Although Labour recognises the good work of many peers who scrutinise the government and improve the quality of legislation passed in Parliament, reform is long over-due and essential. Too many peers do not play a proper role in our democracy. Hereditary peers remain indefensible. And because appointments are for life, the second chamber of Parliament has become too big”.
So here we have three points: too many play no part; hereditary Peers are indefensible; and there are too many Peers, which is what led to the age limit of 80. There are three points, but we do not have a three-clause Bill; we have a one-clause Bill, for material purposes. Indeed, if you take out the explanatory parentheses, you have a 10-word Bill—removed if not quite in one stroke of the pen then certainly with one flourish on the word processor.
My question, and the reason I oppose this Bill, is: why? Let me explain. On Monday, my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition asked the noble Baroness the Leader of the House when the Government would be bringing forward the other two parts of their manifesto commitment: the participation requirement and the age limit. The answer he got—I have paraphrased, but not, I hope, unfairly—was that it is a matter for the Government to decide when to bring forward their manifesto promises. I respectfully agree with the Leader about that. That is absolutely right. I am not asking when, I am asking her to deal with why. That is the point that has been unanswered throughout this debate. What is the answer to the question of why? Why are the Government bringing forward only this slice of their triple-decker package of reform, leaving to some indefinite, unplanned, unscheduled future moment of parliamentary time the other two parts?
The only answer we have had so far from the Leader of the House is that it all rests on the full stop, and you have to read the manifesto in a particular way. She warned this morning of,
“a wilful misinterpretation of the manifesto”,
which is why I read out what it actually says.
The Lords spiritual, who have been sadly mute today, I have noticed, might be the experts here as to how many angels can dance on the head of a pin; but it seems that the Lords temporal on the Government Benches are now experts on how many manifesto commitments can dangle on the head of a full stop. I respectfully suggest to the Leader of the House—for whom, as she knows, I have deep personal respect—that, just as in the law courts, if the best answer one has is to seek refuge in punctuation, it is because the case has been punctured.
There is not, and there cannot possibly be, any answer to the question of why the Bill does not also deal with the age point, which would fulfil an express manifesto commitment, or the participation point, which plainly commands wide support across the House. If the Government were to bring forward a Bill that truly encompassed their manifesto commitments, they would have an argument that deserved the conventional respect—and also the respect for conventions—which this House gives to such Bills. This is not such a Bill, and for that reason, I will be opposing it.
Baroness O'Loan (CB)
My Lords, it is a privilege to be appointed to your Lordships’ House and to be given the opportunity to serve here. It is, perhaps, also a privilege to be speaker number 86 in this profoundly important debate, especially as I came into your Lordships’ House by filling in a form and applying to HOLAC. I think that my noble friend Lord Devon referred to us as HOLAC’s angels.
There can be no doubt that many of our noble colleagues who hold hereditary peerages have made great contributions over the years. I have always found them thoughtful and courteous and have valued their contributions, just as I have had the same experience with regard to other Members of your Lordships’ House. There is a great sense of duty and a desire to serve here right across the House.
Despite that, membership of the House of Lords by virtue of heredity is a reality which cannot continue to apply in a modern democracy. The concerns about how people become Members extend beyond those who come in by virtue of heredity. The process by which large party donors become Peers, and the appointment of party members and advisors without explanation are very questionable. I speak here of process, not individuals. There can be no doubt that the way in which appointments are made, the regularity with which your Lordships call for the reduction in the numbers of the House, and the equal regularity with which further appointments are made to the House, bring your Lordships’ House into disrepute.
The Labour Party has said that the House has become too big; yet, with respect, the size of the House has been determined by the two major parties. Since the beginning of 2023, 66 of our number have died, retired or ceased to be Members, but we have had 69 new Members. I do not think the numbers are actually the issue here, because we know that 45% of us attend on the days we are entitled to attend. We do not get paid unless we attend, which is very relevant. Moreover, many Members can be seen to attend on days when the business of the House engages their particular expertise. That gives the House the advantage of access to significant expertise, while not having to pay the salaries and allowances at the level that is applicable in the Commons. There are very few occasions when we cannot get a seat in your Lordship’ Chamber apart from during Questions.
Noble Lords are right to draw attention to the actual work of the Lords. The scrutiny and revising role of your Lordships’ House is fundamental to improving legislation and to drawing to government attention nuances and complexities affecting what is proposed in a particular measure. It does not always work. Last year’s passing of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act was a travesty that caused great trauma and distress, and huge sums have had to be spent successfully challenging it.
On how many occasions have your Lordships been faced with a Bill that has been passed by the Commons without any examination of the content of significant parts of the Bill in question? To call for an elected House in place of your Lordships’ House is under-standable. However, even a cursory examination of the proposal does not pass muster in the absence of root-and-branch reform of the House of Commons as well. For example, we have a convention, though that is all it is, that we do not reject but should only amend and improve a measure that has been passed in the Commons. Were the House to be elected, that convention would no longer apply and it is not inconceivable that an elected lower Chamber might have a very different composition from an elected upper Chamber, making the passage of legislation, on occasion, almost impossible. We have seen that in other jurisdictions.
As has been said, the way forward lies in putting the HOLAC appointments process on a statutory basis; requiring the justification of future appointments by reference to the need for greater diversity, including addressing the fact that only 30% of your Lordships’ House are women; and by reference to the need for particular expertise and experience. We will lose significant expertise and experience when our hereditary Peers leave us. There should be a cap on the size of the House. The simplest way to reduce our numbers significantly would be by legislating to enhance the arrangements to remove those who do not play an active role.
In concluding, I simply thank the many hereditary Peers whom I have come to know during my time here for all that they have done for this country.
The Lord Bishop of Leeds
My Lords, I rise to speak in the gap because there was a clerical error. My name should have been on the list and was not, so the remarks about Bishops being strangely mute are perhaps unmerited. I too congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Brady, on his maiden speech. All I can say to the noble Baroness, Lady Quin, is that the end is now more nigh than when this debate began, but I wish her well in the future. We heard Jesus quoted earlier:
“Greater love hath no man than this, than to lay down his life for his friends”.
Your Lordships will remember that Jeremy Thorpe famously said of Macmillan, after the night of the long knives:
“Greater love hath no man than this, that he lay down his friends for his life”.
That might provide another lens through which to see this debate.
I have heard the observations about the Lords spiritual. I listened carefully to them and there were few surprises. But if we are going to look at reform in any way, we have to be a bit cannier about some of the facts. It has been said here today that we are all Peers. The Lords spiritual are not Peers; we are Lords of Parliament and that is different. If your Lordships do not know what that means, it is legitimacy for being here. The Lords spiritual have no illusions about the need for changes. We are behind that, but we need to be wiser about the nature of what we are doing.
We do not see our establishment as privilege but as obligation to serve. My life would be considerably easier if I did not have to do the day job, which is demanding enough, and this is an obligation to serve. The Lords spiritual were not born in dog collars, so we bring other stuff as well. In my own case, it was Soviet military intelligence as a multilinguist at GCHQ. That is not a reason for not kicking us out, but let us be a bit more nuanced about what we say. We bring experience and expertise.
We are also regional. We have heard a lot about the need to represent regions. Probably some of the best connected people in this country are diocesan bishops who oversee and engage with the whole of civil society, at just about every level in the regions. We are not whipped; we are independently minded, which is why we vote in different directions. Most importantly, as the current Government will find, we retire at the age of 70, so what one or two noble Lords have asked for is guaranteed: a turnover to bring in fresh blood. For one part of the House, that seems to me to be quite helpful.
The major thing I want to say is that I agree with what was said earlier—I cannot remember who said it now—about form following function. That is an important principle and I wonder if we have got the questions in the wrong order. If this reform is to go through, and no doubt it will, we have to look at how we guarantee the basic functions that this House is here to fulfil—and then what expertise and qualifications we need to enable the House to function properly. We will otherwise be left with the law of unintended consequences, where you pick at one bit and then the whole lot comes apart.
I am an advocate for wholesale change, not piecemeal. My fear is that you cannot look at reform of the House of Lords without looking at the whole picture of the constitution. I know that this has been rubbished in the course of this debate as the way of putting off any change, and that you have to start and do it bit by bit. I ask the noble Baroness the Leader of the House in her response to address the question of whether, if this is going to go ahead piecemeal—one element which might be approved or disapproved of by many—can it be in the context of the Government establishing a constitutional commission to look at the whole picture? Even as this element is being looked at, it should form part of a greater whole that then gives the assurance that there is a sense of direction in which all the different elements that have been raised here today can be looked at. Then we can have the confidence that the further changes will be rational, properly thought through and credible.
Lord Saatchi (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the two Front Benches in the Whips’ Office for allowing me to speak at this very late stage. I have been given a very strict time limit and I will stick to it exactly. I give my salutations to the noble Baroness, Lady Quin, and congratulations to my noble friend Lord Brady. Will the noble Baroness the Leader of the House allow me to address her directly now with an appeal to put aside, just for a minute, hereditary versus life Peers, the over-80s, participation rates et cetera and look at the broader context of the Bill in British politics today?
Everyone agrees that there is a general demoralisation. All polls show that the British people think things have “got worse” in the last five years and will not get any better in the next five years. Maybe that is just about money, the cost of living and so on, or maybe there is more to it. Maybe people do not like it when Governments keep breaking their promises on immigration, tax, the NHS et cetera. Maybe they do not like having to wait five years until the next election before somebody will listen to what they say. In their manifesto, as we have heard many times, the Government made a promise of “modernisation”. It is a good word. I looked it up. It means development, renewal and upgrade. I would like to help the noble Baroness the Leader of the House to deliver on that good promise of modernisation.
An obvious way to demonstrate modernisation is to do something modern. How about some new technology? Would it not be wonderful if our House would lead the way with new technology to invite people to participate a little more with questions, discussion and conversation about what we do here—what the noble Lord the Lord Speaker himself has called a “direct connection” between Westminster and the people—to overcome what my noble friend Lady Stowell calls “the democratic deficit”? ChatGPT now speaks to 280 million people a week. With a little help from our friends in OpenAI and Microsoft, we could easily create our own parliamentary version of ChatGPT, which we can very happily call ChatLords. The noble Baroness the Leader of the House may wonder why she should take any advice from me, of all people. After all, Professor David Butler, the master of the history of British general elections, told me directly that I was “personally responsible”—I am quoting his words—for “ruining British politics”. I asked how I had done that, and he explained that it was by, “Turning all British general elections into negative campaigning”. I defended myself by pointing out that nine of the 10 commandments are negative. He was not impressed.
I will end. The noble Baroness the Leader of the House is rightly proud of her party’s electoral success, built on its reputation for caring about the people. If that promise too is not to be broken, I hope she might consider taking forward this proposal for a more participative form of democracy led by your Lordships’ House.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, in spite of the fireworks we have occasionally had from the Conservative Benches, this long debate has shown some elements of agreement about where we go from here, and I hope we will pick those up and take them further.
I will be very sorry to lose the noble Baroness, Lady Quin, with whom I have worked on many things for many years. I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Brady, who may remember that we first met 20 years ago, when the temperature was dropping from minus 10 towards minus 20. He had not brought a hat with him, and I lent him mine. We look forward to cross-party working with him, as we all do here.
When I was appointed to this House three years before the 1999 reforms, it was in many ways a club. The Conservatives were the dominant party, and the hereditaries were the dominant element within the Conservative group. One Tory life Peer told me that his hereditary colleagues referred to their lifers as “the day boys”. Public school people will know exactly what that means. It has changed a lot since then; it has become much more serious. The Cross-Benchers work infinitely harder than they did then—so do we all. It has become much more clearly a working House, and there is now clearly a consensus that Peers are expected to pull their weight, and that those who drop in only occasionally do not deserve their place in the House. However, its reputation outside remains poor and its work is little understood there.
We on these Benches are disappointed at the modesty of the Bill. We want to hear from the Lord Privy Seal what the Government plan to do next. What we most wish to hear from her is a commitment that, within this Parliament, there will be further measures along the lines agreed across the House, and that those will be carried through. That will make the passage of this very modest Bill much easier.
I am astonished at the obstinacy and self-denial—and occasional hysteria—on the Conservative Benches. There is constructive opposition, and there is obstructive opposition. I fear that we are faced with what may easily slip into very obstructive opposition. The Conservative manifesto of 2010, nearly 15 years ago, said:
“We plan to work to build a consensus for a mainly-elected second chamber to replace the … House of Lords”.
We have not got very far with that. After cross-party negotiations had successfully been agreed in 1999, the White Paper stated that
“For the transitional House, the Government will ensure that no one political party commands a majority in the Lords. The Government presently plans to seek only broad parity with the Conservatives”.
As has been remarked, the number of Labour Peers did not pass that of the Conservatives until 2005. The elephant in the Chamber is that there are now over 100 more Conservative Peers than Labour, and I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, as she winds up for the Conservative side, will at least address that elephant and recognise that it is there, and that it is one of the underlying motivations for doing this first and only before we move on to other things.
We know why: Boris Johnson, as Prime Minister, broke the 1999 agreement. Let us be clear when we are talking about who broke what. Indeed, the last Conservative Government broke a whole host of constitutional conventions. You have only to read Tim Shipman or Anthony Seldon to know just how bad it was. Conservative Ministers in that Government have to take responsibility for what went wrong. The noble Lord, Lord True, was a Minister of State in the Cabinet Office for the first two years, and thereafter was a Minister in the Cabinet. To call now for consensus, when the Conservatives did not pursue consensus in any way in the last five years, is, to say the least, a little odd. Conservatives must take responsibility for what went wrong and recognise that, if we are talking about rebuilding public confidence in our constitution, they have to start from where they were.
The noble Lord, Lord Swire, called for a constitutional convention. The 2019 Conservative manifesto promised us as a convention on the constitution, to explore
“the broader aspects of our constitution”.
I remember that the noble Lord, Lord True, tried to explain to us on a number of occasions in the years since why the Conservative Government had not actually done anything about that. Now they are out of office, they would like the Labour Party to do it instead. Perhaps there will be consultations in which we will reach some agreement as to where we go ahead. I remind the Conservatives that in this election they received 23.7% of the vote and that they have only 121 MPs in the other Chamber. That does make it difficult to justify a Lords group getting on to 40% larger than their group in the Commons.
The language in this debate has been quite extraordinary. The noble Lord, Lord True, talked about class war; the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, talked about political assassination. We had “sheer vindictiveness”, “political spite”, “despicable, intemperate and reckless”, comparisons to Pride’s Purge in the midst of the Civil War, to Animal Farm, and even to communist dictatorship. Above all, we had “gerrymandering”. I am not quite sure what that means, I think it means fixing the election, in this case, for your advantage. The fixing that went on was to add the extra 100 Peers in the last Parliament. We are going to unfix that, so let us all discuss it and have some consultations. Of course, consultations require compromise on all sides; they do not simply require the rest of us moving towards the Conservative position.
We have heard quite a lot about the romantic image of the hereditary peerage. Those of us who have watched “Wolf Hall” have heard about the Courtenays causing trouble for Henry VIII. I am sure they caused trouble for Elizabeth I and James I as well. As I have looked around at hereditary peerages, I discovered that a Camoys commanded the left flank at Agincourt, and that the first Lord de Clifford was killed at Bannockburn. I wish I could say that it was a Wallace who was responsible for that, but unfortunately the most distinguished Wallace was killed by the English nine years before.
Since the end of the 17th century, and certainly since 1714, all hereditary peerages, and now life peerages, have been a matter of prime ministerial patronage. As Prime Minister, Walpole produced so many new peerages that the first Bill to cap the size of the House of Lords was introduced in 1719—it did not get very far. Under Gladstone and Disraeli, two-thirds of those appointed to the upper House were former Members of the lower House. That is, again, political patronage. In the House of 1958, the clear majority had been appointed since 1900.
The difference between the lifers and the hereditaries is that the lifers were appointed by the current Prime Minister under patronage, while the hereditaries were appointed by a previous Prime Minister’s patronage: that of Lloyd George, Churchill, Attlee or Eden. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, whose grandfather was appointed by Anthony Eden, was one of the last hereditaries. Had the noble Lord’s grandfather been appointed to the House of Lords five years later, he would probably have been made a life Peer. We would have been deprived of the wonderful lectures that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, has given us over the years on the importance of the House not standing up to a Conservative Government when there are a Conservative Government in power. The noble Lord, Lord Moore, said that the Lords has been ridiculed more since 1958 than before. I recommend that he reads Lloyd George’s speeches of 1910-11, or even Lord Rosebery’s speeches of 1894-95, when he was proposing the abolition of the House of Lords.
We are asking the Government to move forward with the next stage of reform and to consult us on what it should be. The consensus in the House is fairly strong. We want to talk about term limits or age limits. I am older than President Biden, so I think that age limits might be a good thing. Biden clearly went on for too long, just as Gladstone, who was Prime Minister into his 80s, went on for too long—he should not have done.
There should be a separation of appointments to the second Chamber from honours; HOLAC should have much greater powers to disapprove of nominations; there should be agreement on a formula for the balance of new appointments, and there should be something on improving the regional and national balance.
Above all, we have to remember how we look to the outside, as the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, and the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, have said. How do we look to our disillusioned public? All the opinion polls show that the British public are more disillusioned with national politics than any other democratic country except the United States. They also show, as my noble friend Lord Newby pointed out, that a clear majority believe that an elected House would be preferable to the current one. Only 25% of Conservative voters have a positive view of the Lords as it is now. For Labour, Liberal Democrat and Reform voters, the figure is much lower.
Everything we do on this Bill—and how long we spend on it—has to take the broader public issue into account. We and the Commons have to regain the public’s trust. That means being not a club but a working House. We have a job to do, and we should pursue our reform in that constructive context, with constructive opposition on all sides.
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, this has been an excellent and constructive debate on the composition of your Lordships’ House and the Government’s proposals for reform. I thank the Lord Privy Seal for her measured and courteous introduction. I apologise that I will not be able to address all the points raised.
I congratulate my noble friend Lord Brady of Altrincham on his maiden speech. His thoughtful contribution reminds us of the diversity of thought and expertise that this House nurtures and I welcome him to his place. It was also a privilege to hear the heart-warming valedictory speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Quin. Her record of public service is long and enviable. I hope I speak for the whole House in wishing her well for the future; the people of Newcastle are lucky to benefit from her continued service.
Reform of this House is no simple task. History bears this out. As many noble Lords have pointed out, successive Governments, including those of my party, have struggled to achieve lasting change. When the coalition Government attempted to pass their House of Lords Reform Bill, it was the Labour Party that blocked its progress. If we have learned anything, it is that meaningful reform demands consensus, respect for precedent and an understanding of what makes this House effective. This Bill does not meet that standard. It is piecemeal, short-sighted and damaging to the institutional integrity of this House.
Let me be clear: the hereditary principle is unsustainable. The House of Lords Act 1999 abolished the automatic right of hereditary Peers to sit here. What remains today is not hereditary privilege but a carefully constructed compromise that was agreed by both Houses of Parliament. This Bill abandons that compromise. It seeks to exclude a group of Peers who currently have the right to sit and vote in this House— the 92 excepted Peers who remained Members of your Lordships’ House after they were elected to remain under the terms of the House of Lords Act 1999. That Act is clear, as I have said, that:
“No-one shall be a member of the House of Lords by virtue of a hereditary peerage”.
That is the law. No Member of this House sits by right of inheritance and I make no argument to the contrary.
However, the 92 excepted Peers were retained on the explicit understanding that they would stay until comprehensive, second-stage reform was enacted. The Government may wish to argue that this Bill fulfils a manifesto commitment, at least up until the full stop in their manifesto, and that we on these Benches should not seek to prevent them from delivering their manifesto commitments. Yet this Bill remains silent on retirement age, an express commitment in the same paragraph of their manifesto. It is similarly silent on participation requirements and HOLAC reform. I am struck by how many noble Lords today have expressed support for such measures.
The Government have in fact already achieved the removal of hereditary Peers from this House, as by-elections for the election of new excepted Peers have been suspended by agreement.
On Monday, I read that a senior government official had briefed the press that “This Bill is focused on completing what was started 25 years ago”. Yet this Bill is a naked breach of what was promised 25 years ago. In 1999, the then Lord Chancellor, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, said the retention of the hereditary Peers until the second stage of House of Lords reform had taken place was “binding in honour”, a point reinforced by my noble friends Lord Strathclyde and Lord Mancroft, and my noble and learned friend Lord Bellamy. Removing the excepted Peers without the promised second-stage reform is a breach of that promise, as my noble friend Lord Hannan so eloquently argued. It is not completing a process, as many have claimed today. It is betraying an agreement; it is removing the keystone of a constitutional bridge while leaving the structure incomplete. Without a clear plan for second-stage reform, the Bill risks becoming not a fulfilment of promises, but their abandonment. I therefore ask the Lord Privy Seal whether she can provide us with certainty that the second stage of reform will come before we proceed with the exclusion of any excepted Peers. Do the Government intend to fulfil those parts of their manifesto promises—the parts that followed the full stop that she was so keen to point out—in this Parliament?
Our challenge to the Government is rooted in the need for an effective upper House, one that scrutinises legislation rigorously, holds the Executive to account and brings vast depths of knowledge and experience to Parliament. This House, as with so much of our unwritten constitution, is both unique and the product of the history of these isles, as my noble friend Lord Roberts so beautifully observed. Nobody designing a modern constitution from scratch would conceive of such a Chamber playing a role, a point made by my noble friends Lady Laing and Lady Meyer, but through organic, historical evolution, it is no exaggeration to say that this House is the highest policy-revising chamber in the world. The House brings together some of the most accomplished and dedicated individuals who apply their skills, insights and expertise to scrutinising legislation and holding the Executive to account. All constitutional reforms have profound and far-reaching consequences, whether intended or not. The legitimacy of this House derives not from democratic consent but from its ability to act as a positive constitutional force in lawmaking and governmental accountability. This legitimacy is grounded in the capabilities and dedication of our Members.
The question, therefore, is: will the Bill enhance or hinder the capacity of this House to scrutinise the Government and draft Bills effectively? I would aver, as would many noble Lords who have spoken today, including the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, and my noble friends Lord Reay and Lord Bethell, that, judged against this test, the Bill fails. It threatens to remove some of the most active, knowledgeable and experienced Members of this House, individuals whose contributions have been vital to its effectiveness.
Many noble Lords, including my noble friends Lord Strathcarron and Lady Goldie, pointed out that excepted Peers have higher average attendance and participation in Divisions than life Peers. Moreover, a quarter of them served in government, opposition, or formal parliamentary roles in the previous Parliament. Take my noble friend Lord Howe, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, whose expertise in defence and health is unparalleled, or the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, the Convenor of the Cross Benches, whose leadership has been instrumental in maintaining this Chamber’s independence. Consider also my noble friend Lord Strathclyde, a former Leader of the House; the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, whose work on secondary legislation is exemplary; and the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, whose insight on European and environmental matters is invaluable. The excepted noble Lords are not relics of privilege; they are contributors who have enriched this House. Their expertise spans finance, regulation, law and governance, areas where their insights are indispensable. These Members and other noble Lords have brought unparalleled insight to our deliberations.
Can we truly claim that dismissing such colleagues will improve the quality of lawmaking in this House? Will the removal of noble Lords such as the noble Lords, Lord Vaux of Harrowden, Lord Cromwell and Lord Remnant—who have tackled complex financial and regulatory issues—enhance scrutiny? Will losing contributions from noble Lords such as my noble friends Lord Roborough, Lord Harlech and Lord Ravensdale on apprenticeships, Welsh affairs and environmental policy be in the public interest?
The legal acumen of my noble friend Lord Sandhurst has been a beacon in navigating difficult questions of law, while my noble friend Lord Courtown not only has the difficult job of being my Whip but has served on the Front Bench with distinction over many years. I ask, therefore, whether the Bill is about improving the House’s effectiveness or is a mechanism to create space for the Government to nominate their own loyalists.
If it is the size of the House that concerns the Government, why does the Bill target the excepted Peers who have actively stepped up to serve? As my noble friend Lord Leigh points out, it was certainly not in pursuit of a title. There are many other groups of Peers whom the Government might look to remove. Several noble Lords, including the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, and my noble friend Lord Astor as well as my noble and learned friend Lord Keen of Elie, spoke of those Peers who rarely attend and rarely contribute to debates in your Lordships’ House. Other Lords, such as the noble Lords, Lord Birt and Lord Foulkes, mentioned the Lords spiritual.
The report produced by the noble Lord, Lord Burns, recommended an agreed approach between all parties to encourage Peers who may wish to retire to do so. There are 22 Peers currently on leave of absence, some of whom have been so for many years. Retirements by agreement, removing Peers who do not participate or have long been absent from your Lordships’ House—such approaches must be considered in the first instance if the goal truly is to reduce numbers. We are not merely losing Members with this Bill, we are losing wisdom, institutional memory and the dedication of those who continue to serve with distinction. These Peers have much more to offer, and their removal will diminish, not enhance, the effectiveness of this Chamber.
However, the Bill goes beyond practical flaws. It raises serious constitutional concerns; its impact will be to weaken the Cross Benches and the Opposition disproportionately, while leaving the Government Benches almost untouched. The result would be a consolidation of Executive power in this place.
I understand that the Lord Privy Seal may have told an all-Peers meeting that the Cross-Bench Peers should remain at around 20% of the size of the House. That implies that excepted Cross-Bench Peers could remain in the House as life Peers. That was also mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell. I was not at that meeting, so I ask the Leader to clarify whether this was the case. I am sure that I was not the only one perturbed by the comment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, that it will be a matter for the Prime Minister to decide which Cross-Bench hereditaries might be brought back as life Peers. Can the Lord Privy Seal confirm that that will be the case?
Lord Cromwell (CB)
I believe the noble Baroness just quoted me as saying something about the number of Cross-Benchers. I did not say any such thing; I just said that I hope that some useful hereditary Members would be retained as life Peers. That is all I said.
Baroness Finn (Con)
I thank the noble Lord. I said that I understood the noble Lord’s understanding to be that there would be some Cross-Bench Peers who could be converted to life Peers.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
I hope that there will be some; I did not give any number, I believe.
Baroness Finn (Con)
I thank the noble Lord. If the Government accept that some excepted Peers deserve to stay, why not extend that principle to all those who have contributed so much to the work of this House? Does the Lord Privy Seal accept that an unwillingness on the part of the Government to make such a concession gives rise to the impression that the motivations for presenting the Bill are not as principled as the Government would wish us to accept?
If the Bill passes in its current form, the result will be a disproportionate reduction in the number of Cross-Bench and Opposition Peers. We will say goodbye to over 80 noble Lords who come here to scrutinise the Government’s legislation, while the Executive will lose just four of their Peers in this House. If the Bill were seeking to remove any other group of Peers, everyone would see it for what it is. So does the Lord Privy Seal accept that it would be altogether better for the Government to offer life peerages to all those excepted Peers who wish to continue to serve, as my noble friend Lady Goldie has suggested, rather than cherry-pick excepted Peers who may receive life Peerages after the passage of the Bill?
Such an approach would, at the very least, help assuage concerns that many of us have about the Government’s motivations for presenting the Bill. Let us not pretend otherwise: this is not neutral reform. This is about neutering the ability of this House to hold the Government to account, a concern raised by my noble friend Lord Parkinson in relation to the passage of the Football Governance Bill.
The constitutional role of this House can be justified only by the quality of the contribution that we, collectively, are able to make to public life. In the absence of any electoral mandate, we must justify our work through the care with which assist, oppose, scrutinise and amend. Excluding an entire category of Members is profound and fundamentally alters the balance and collective experience of the House. The Bill proposes the removal of many dedicated noble Lords based not on the quality of their contributions but on their collective legal status. It places far greater power for the Prime Minister alone to determine the legislature, a point made by my noble and learned friend Lord Keen of Elie, my noble friend Lord Murray, the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and the noble Lord, Lord Burns. Judged by legal status alone, none of us can be secure that our future in this place will not be cut short at the whim of the Executive.
This Bill does not honour the past, nor does it secure the future. It weakens this House, betrays constitutional commitments and serves no public good. Reform is necessary, but it must be principled and founded in consultation and consensus. Reform must strengthen Parliament, not diminish it. A Government who fear scrutiny are not strong; they are insecure. A House that loses its independence is not modern; it is diminished. I urge this House and this Government to reflect on the path we are taking. Let us find a better way forward that respects our history, honours our promises and secures the integrity of this Chamber for generations to come.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Smith of Basildon) (Lab)
My Lords, in closing this debate, I first pay tribute to my noble friend Lady Quin for her excellent valedictory speech. We are sorry to see her go, but we also admire her reasons for doing so. Some may know of her interest in Newcastle, which she spoke about, and the tours she does, which are strongly recommended, but Members may not be aware that she is also a local historian. Her two books about important and influential women in the north-east are not to be missed, and I thank her for the work that she has done on them.
The noble Lord, Lord Brady, has already proved that he will be a welcome addition to your Lordships’ House. In his past roles, he has not been unknown to some controversy, and I am sure he will navigate his way with his usual charm and diplomacy.
A range of views have been expressed today, and I am grateful to those who have engaged in what has been, in many cases, a very thoughtful and constructive manner. However, I have been somewhat surprised and disappointed at some of the language that we have heard in the Chamber today, and it is important that we bear in mind the need to approach our discussions in the tone that the public expect of us. Hearing references to guillotines, assassinations, executions, cleansing and rough passages does not reflect the House at its best.
The other place has sent us a Bill to scrutinise and review that completes the work of the 1999 Act. In the other place, amendments to the Bill were considered and voted on, but none was agreed.
I will concentrate briefly on how manifesto commitments are recognised by your Lordships’ House. I note the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord True, the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, to look again at the conventions of the House. I am happy to see that in a positive light, but the conventions of this House, particularly the Salisbury/Addison convention—I am grateful to the convenor, in particular, for the work he has done on them—are fundamental to our relationship with the other place as the primary and elected Chamber. The Bill alters neither that nor the primacy of the other place. Those conventions survived the 1999 Act and other legislation.
It was suggested by a couple of noble Lords that, somehow, the conventions do not apply because this is a constitutional issue. Yet that argument, rightly, was never advanced during the debate about leaving the European Union, which was also a constitutional issue. To assert that somehow this Bill has a special status that allows the House to ignore convention and embark on a different path is not one that has any credibility.
The Salisbury/Addison convention does not prevent the scrutiny of legislation. I turn to the points raised by the noble Lords, Lord Hamilton of Epsom and Lord Brady, and the noble Baroness, Lady Laing, about the possibility of the Bill negatively affecting the way the House can scrutinise legislation and hold the Government to account. I have already spoken about the balance of the House following the departure of the hereditary Peers and how this Bill does not really move the needle at all in terms of the representation of each party. But I have to say, without in any way denigrating the work of hereditary Peers, that the notion that life Peers are unable to hold the Government to account is just nonsense. Peers on this side of the House have been holding the Government to account for the last 14 years. I do not think that they have done a terribly bad job of it. The claim that hereditary Peers are more independent is probably news to those who have served on the Front Bench and as Ministers. As Chief Whip, my noble friend Lord Kennedy would be amazed at the idea that life Peers are not showing independence when it comes to following his instructions.
The noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, is back on the Front Bench; he was on the Back Benches earlier. He said he had seen the future in the form of the Football Governance Bill. He compared that Bill with previous Bills and quoted the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill and the Online Safety Bill. I have to say to him that both those Bills were considerably longer than the Football Governance Bill. The Football Governance Bill has about 100 clauses. There were 223 clauses in the levelling-up Bill and 262 clauses in the Online Safety Bill. I have no objection to proper scrutiny of legislation. However, I do not think it is always necessary to de-group quite as many amendments as has been done on that particular Bill. However, I repeat that I welcome constructive engagement across the whole legislative programme—a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe.
By-elections have been mentioned as well. These have not been ended. They have been paused during the passage of this Bill. If this Bill is not passed, we will return to the by-elections, because they are paused under the Standing Orders of the House. However, as I said in my opening remarks, this House has had numerous opportunities to end the practice of hereditary Peer by-elections. That would have allowed those remaining hereditary Peers to remain here for life, since without by-elections they would have been life Peers. My noble friend Lord Grocott introduced five Private Members’ Bills to do just that. Those Bills were repeatedly blocked and delayed by a small cohort of Conservative Peers. I said to the then Government, “We will help you to get this through, we will help you to get it on the statute book”. If that had happened on any of those occasions, I very much doubt we would be dealing with this Bill today. The opportunity was there and it was not taken.
Noble Lords opposite may groan, but the facts speak for themselves. That Bill was there and we could have helped to get it on to the statute book, but that was ignored by the then Government. I have to say that it is a little disingenuous to claim that the existence of by-elections means that hereditary Peers in the House today have a different status from their status before the 1999 Act or, as some have said, have a greater mandate than life Peers because they are elected. I have to say that the claim that this brings an element of democracy to your Lordships’ House is not one that withstands proper scrutiny. In the Labour case, for example, it is very easy, as happens on a number of occasions across the House, for there to be more candidates standing for election than people able to vote for them, given that only other Peers can vote.
The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, was amusing and very entertaining on his interest in punctuation in the Labour Party manifesto. I am not relying only on punctuation, but I did smile and laugh at his comments. Perhaps I can recommend to him a book that is on my bookshelves at home. If he does not have one, I will buy him a copy. It is called Eats, Shoots and Leaves. It makes the point that punctuation is quite important. However, I am not relying just on punctuation but the entirety of the manifesto commitment that was put forward by my party at the last election.
The manifesto committed to immediate reform by removing the right of hereditary Peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords. I have heard the suggestion that we should just stop, stay where we are now and just proceed with no further new Peers coming in. That happened with the Irish Peers. That legislation went through in 1922 and the last Irish Peer to leave the House was in 1961. If that approach were adopted today, as my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer identified, it would take some 47 years to complete the process.
In a spirit of co-operation, many noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, and the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, expressed a desire for the outgoing hereditary Peers to be treated with respect, and I wholeheartedly agree with that. Part of this will involve finding the appropriate arrangements for access rights for departing Members, and for support as they leave. I have already engaged with the Lord Speaker on that point. But that is an issue for anyone who retires from your Lordships’ House. I have spoken on this before and I look forward to having constructive dialogue about retirement from the House generally.
On the specific issue of access rights for the Earl Marshal and the Lord Great Chamberlain, I completely recognise that they need access. I have written to the commission to ask that they keep their access passes, and the usual channels have agreed that. I am grateful to them for their support on this matter. There is nothing that impedes the work they do or their roles in this House.
I turn to the comments that have been made on life peerages. I want to be absolutely clear: no one has been offered a life peerage in order to support the passage of the Bill. There have been no aside-comments or dodgy deals whatever. I have said, and continue to say, that it is possible for departing hereditary Peers to be nominated in future peerage lists. Political parties of course have the opportunity to do that. I am sure the noble Lord is talking to his party leader about that as well. I also recognise the importance of maintaining the special position of the Cross-Benchers.
Concerns were raised by some noble Lords—the noble Lords, Lord True, Lord Strathclyde, Lord Parkinson, Lord Howard of Rising and Lord Moylan, the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, and the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen—that the Government were embarking on a piecemeal approach without setting out in detail what the plans are for future reform. The manifesto—punctuation and all—should provide a sufficient guide to understand the direction of travel and how this will work out. The overall objective is to have a smaller Chamber and one that is more active. The point about participation has been made.
Some noble Lords have said they want an immediate timetable for these reforms, they want them in the Bill and it should happen now. Other noble Lords have been very clear in saying that they do not want that now and that they would rather proceed with discussion and debate before we bring forward legislation to try to find—the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Finn —some agreement across the House. I think that, on the balance of debate, Members do want further discussion. I cannot do both of those things at the same time.
On this issue, the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, asked “Why?” The principle has already been established about hereditary peerages but we have not had the debate on issues such as retirement and leave of absence. We have not had those debates and I think the House should have those debates first. If we can find consensus, I am happy to do so and will listen to the various suggestions on how we can implement the measures in our manifesto.
I hope I have a helpful response to the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, about moving forward by the end of this Parliament. I have already undertaken some 50 meetings with Members of your Lordships’ House to gauge the opinion and views on those issues.
The noble Lord, Lord Swire, made some interesting points in his speech that were not directly relevant to the Bill. I take those on board. I have to say that the manifesto is enough to be going on with, but the points he made should be addressed.
The noble Lords, Lord Newby, Lord Foulkes, Lord Parkinson, Lord Burns, Lord Beith, Lord Norton and Lord Lucas, the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, all suggested a greater role for the House of Lords Appointments Commission, and one of the issues raised was assessing the suitability of nominees to your Lordships’ House. We have talked a lot about prime ministerial patronage and it being for the Prime Minister to make recommendations to the sovereign. The Prime Minister does so on behalf of other political parties, of course. As noble Lords know, it is not the Prime Minister who puts forward all the names.
It is for party leaders to do more to consider who is best placed to represent their party and to take responsibility for those whom they nominate. HOLAC should have a role perhaps in seeking assurances from political parties specifically around—and I take this very seriously—issues of participation and suitability; it can check how and whether that is done. However, individuals should be appointed to your Lordships’ House on their own merits. We talk a lot about their experience and expertise, but it is also about their commitment to contributing to the future work of this House, which I think is essential.
Several noble Lords referred to the fact that we announced last week that, when people are nominated, there must be a citation that will be published on a nominee’s successful appointment so that the public can better understand why an individual has been nominated to the House. It is a fairly straightforward and simple change, but one that I think is important. It gives greater clarity to the public on why someone is nominated. I am sure we will return to this issue during the passage of the Bill.
A number of noble Lords noted the importance of ensuring that any reduction in the size of the House can be maintained. I said in the debate last month that there is little point in the House reducing its size by whatever means if that is not a sustainable position to hold—if there is almost an arms race in appointments. I cannot remember which noble Lord it was, but someone said that we are about to appoint 200 Labour Peers to try to seek an overall majority. I assure the House that that is absolutely not the case. I have said before, and I stand by this, that I think this House works best when there are roughly equal numbers in the government party and the main opposition party. It is a sadness to me that, under the last few Prime Ministers, we saw an explosion in what were then the government ranks to over 100 more than the Official Opposition. That does not allow the House to do its best work. It is not about winning votes—I think that is a secondary role in many ways—but about Members contributing in proper dialogue and engagement, which is what we do best.
I turn to what I call second-stage issues around participation, retirement et cetera. The noble Lord, Lord True—who is in a conversation at the moment—and others spoke in support of clarifying the expectation on Members to ensure active participation. I think that we all accept that this is a serious issue, and I hope that we can make progress on it. My sense is that we have all got a pretty instinctive understanding of what participation means, but that can reasonably change from one person to another. The current attendance rules require Peers, subject to exceptions, to attend the House just once per Session, otherwise a Peer ceases to be a Member of this House. Those rules have been in place since 2014 and just 16 members have been auto-retired. My sense is that we all feel that those arrangements are inadequate.
As part of this, I agree with those who said that we should consider our rules on leave of absence, in particular for those who repeatedly renew it. The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, raised this with me in the House earlier this week; I have previously raised this in the Procedure Committee—it did not find favour with his party at the time, but now I am Leader of the House, I am keen to pursue that matter. I recognise there are very good reasons why some Members take leave of absence, and I would not want to deny that, but repeated leave of absence when people do not intend to come back is an issue. I would like to make some progress on that and am in active discussions at present. I think we want a policy that is robust but also proportionate. There is also the matter, which I think he mentioned, of those who are unable to take up or play a full role in the House; I am conscious of that, and we will have further discussions on that as well.
The noble Baroness opposite rested her case for not supporting this Bill on the basis that, a quarter of a century ago, it was said that if the by-elections were in place, they should be in place until there was further reform. It was never expected, anticipated or thought that, 25 years later, no progress at all would have been made.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
The noble Lords who are heckling should let me answer the question raised. I have to go back to this point: to those who say that they do not want piecemeal reform, if people only want this big bang kind of reform, the consequence is that people say, “We cannot do anything unless we do everything, but we do not know what everything is, so we are going to do nothing”. That is not a sustainable or acceptable position in this House. There is nothing in the Bill before us that means we cannot work as effectively as a scrutinising and revising Chamber in this legislature.
This Bill will deliver the first part of the manifesto commitment, which takes the hereditary element away from the second Chamber. It is long overdue. The point made by my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer was that, in the 21st century, to reserve 10% of places in the House of Lords, part of our Parliament, just for those who are members of 726 families is not a position that can continue. I recognise, however, that this will result in the removal of valued Members of this House. I understand the strength of feeling of noble Lords, who will be sad to see them go. That is not confined to those opposing the Bill: many of those supporting the Bill feel exactly the same on that. There will be time for further debate and scrutiny of the legislation, and rightly so, but, today, the message I take back from your Lordships’ House is that we must make progress on the Bill. It is a small reform, one that is necessary and was committed to. I look forward to the further debates and to scrutiny in a sensible and genuine way.