House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill
Tuesday 15th October 2024
(5 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberHouse 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
(4 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberHouse 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
(4 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberHouse 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
(3 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberHouse 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
(3 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberHouse 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.
House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill
Monday 3rd March 2025
(3 weeks, 1 day ago)
Lords ChamberHouse of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 49-I(c) Amendments for Committee (Supplementary to the Marshalled List) - (3 Mar 2025)
Lord True
“PurposeThe purpose of this Act is to end the connection between the possession of a hereditary peerage and obtaining membership of the House of Lords.”
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, the effect of Amendment 1 is to underline the purpose of this Bill as ending entry here by the hereditary principle, but which does not endorse the wholesale removal of colleagues who are already here. There thus falls to me the lamentable duty to open Committee on this Bill, whose purpose is, as my amendment has just declared, to end the hereditary principle as a route of entry to Parliament. Some will find that regrettable; others will rejoice, rejoice. But most of us, however, will have feelings in which the elements are very mixed—where the wish the Bill might be stopped is checked by a proper understanding of the conventions; and, on the other hand, where partisan zeal is leavened with the personal respect owed to familiar and valued colleagues.
I submit that this great House draws its strength from that mixing of elements: from an ancestral, indeed very British, wisdom that does not view every question as black or white or insist that every victory must be total. That moderation is symbolised by the presence of those Cross Benchers, untainted by party. In what sense will culling and cutting those independent ranks ever benefit our House?
It is a paradox little understood outside that most of the myriad improvements we make to Bills are won not in the Division Lobby but through discussion and shared reflection. Our Chamber is unique in the world in conducting its business in order and courtesy without anyone to discipline us. That is possible only because we are a House of consensus, courtesy and compromise, of decency and humanity. I trust those qualities will inform us on this Bill in the weeks ahead, including in how we treat fellow Members.
We will hear that this is a simple Bill that brooks no amendment. Indeed, we are told no amendment will be allowed. Since when did this revising Chamber accept such an instruction from any Executive? It is in fact a Bill of the greatest constitutional significance. It says that a passing political Executive may scoop their hand into your Lordships’ House and chuck out any group of us that is not to the taste or political convenience of the Government of the day. I spoke of this at Second Reading as a very dangerous precedent, and I will address it again on Amendment 9. Once used, it will inevitably—inevitably—be copied.
The Bill is also of the greatest constitutional significance for what it does not say. It launches, without any checks on executive power or the number and nature of appointments, an all-appointed temporal House stocked at the direction of the Prime Minister of the day, of whatever party. Had that model for a legislature arrived in some capsule brought back from Mars by Elon Musk, we might well look askance at it.
The Government, in my submission, have a duty to set out in detail their plans for this all-appointed House. After all, in 1999, hundreds of hereditary Peers agreed to leave this place on the understanding, said then by Labour to be binding in honour, that 92 would remain until a final reform was agreed. Now it is said that that was some funny old deal of which we now know nothing, past its sell-by date, ready to be tossed aside like some embarrassing piece of mouldy cheese we find at the back of the fridge. It is even said that honour is some old-fashioned, even risible, concept of centuries past. I beg to differ, but I do recognise the raw realities of power. I see this new world around us where the strong may browbeat the weak, but that does not dispense with the constitutional duty of a Government to set out their plans and, as is normal in constitutional reform, seek some consensus across parties and beyond.
No such consensus has been sought. There have been no cross-party discussions, as led by Jack Straw in 2006 and 2007; no draft Bill, as in 2011; no Joint Committee of the Houses, as in 2002, 2003 or 2011; no royal commission, as under my noble friend Lord Wakeham in 1999; not even a White Paper, as in 2001, 2007, 2008 and 2011. At present, your Lordships have as clear a sense of what direction is planned for us beyond this Bill by Labour as Vikings on a longship becalmed in a mid-Atlantic fog without a lodestone.
That is no way to treat a House of Parliament. I ask the noble Baroness the Leader of the House, who always has the interests of this House at heart, whether she will share with us at some point during Committee—it need not be today—when we will see a White Paper on the Government’s future plans beyond this Bill. It should really come before Report. Your Lordships have a right in considering this Bill to ask how the all-appointed House will work and how it will be safeguarded. There have been many thoughtful amendments laid—and some I am perhaps not so fond of—but I look forward to all the discussions. Let no one say that they are filibustering or shenanigans. As I said at Second Reading, who will care for the future of this House if we do not?
Let me turn from what is left out of the Bill, which we must explore in Committee, to the narrow purpose within it, which is addressed in this amendment. Much has been said around this House about what I think and what my party thinks. Let me spell it out again. There are four elements of a sensible settlement that I believe could avert unnecessary conflict and damage to our House. The first is for all of us on this side to accept that the Government have a mandate to end the hereditary principle as a route of entry here. That is recognised in my amendment. This House should not block this Bill, though amend it it may.
The second is to address the danger of unilateral political expulsions of Members from this House by an Executive, with the attendant increase in power of prime ministerial patronage. When the Labour Government closed the gate to the Law Lords into 2009, they gave grandfather rights—acquired rights—to those already here, the same right that we all have: to stay for life. That showed due respect to those valued fellow Members and was of great benefit to the House. The Government say that is impossible in this case. It is not; it is perfectly possible. It is a political choice and a choice for this House, of whether to expel all existing Members of our House in scope of this Bill or treat them more generously. Were the Leader of the House to act generously, as I know is her normal instinct, and sign my Amendment 9 in its present form, or some mutually agreed modified form at a later stage, then all manner of resentment and difficulty would at once fall away.
Lord True (Con)
If I may: this is Committee. The noble Lord can come in. I am concluding my remarks, but I will answer him later. We have seen in recent days the nature of negotiation with a big stick. That is not the House of Lords way, nor is it the way in which the noble Baroness leads us. I urge her not to reject these proposals or any part of them when she responds, but to agree to take them away. Let the Government block entry of new hereditary Peers, as my amendment accepts and as the House should accept, but otherwise let us together pursue the path of peace with expedition, and with honour and justice. I beg to move.
Lord Howard of Lympne (Con)
My Lords, in considering the purposes of this Bill, it is necessary to remind ourselves of the circumstances in which our hereditary colleagues continue to sit in your Lordships’ House. They are here because of an agreement which was reached in 1999 that they would continue to sit in your Lordships’ House until stage 2 of the projected reform had taken place. The late Lord Irvine said that that agreement was binding in honour; he said it was a guarantee. He gave those undertakings as—
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Smith of Basildon) (Lab)
I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but I think he said “the late Lord Irvine”; I remind him that the noble and learned Lord is not late.
Lord Howard of Lympne (Con)
I apologise, both to the Committee and to the noble and learned Lord. I am delighted to hear that he is still with us. I am most grateful to the Leader.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine, gave those undertakings as Lord Chancellor—an office which then occupied a rather higher position in our firmament of distinction than it has since. “Binding in honour”: those were the words he used. Honour is not, to our collective regret, a characteristic much associated these days with politicians, or even with legislators who do not regard themselves as politicians, so it behoves those of us who regret this lamentable state of affairs to do what we can to remedy it. That means honouring commitments, such as those given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine. This Bill dishonours those solemn assurances, so the conclusion is inescapable, as my noble friend Lord Hannan said at Second Reading, that this is a dishonourable Bill.
Some of your Lordships may argue that those assurances were given more than a quarter of a century ago and we cannot therefore continue to be bound by them. But honour is not time limited. Indeed, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine, could have said, had that been his intention, that his assurances were not intended to last for more than a quarter of a century. He could have said it, but he did not. Some of your Lordships may argue that those assurances are trumped—I use the word advisedly—by commitments in an election manifesto. If that had been his intention then the noble and learned Lord could have said so, but he did not.
There is, as I have said, no escaping the fact that this is a dishonourable Bill, and any votes cast for it are dishonourable votes. I suggest that your Lordships bear these facts in mind when assessing the purposes of the Bill.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, I do not know if I am alone in having a sense of fear and anxiety about the state of the world at the present time. The fact that we are debating ourselves when, at the other end of the Corridor, they are considering the issues of security that are so central to our country’s future and the future of our alliances, makes me wonder whether perhaps we have got our priorities wrong in this place that we should be talking about ourselves and that we should be so divided when we can easily be united, as my noble friend Lord True has so clearly set out. He has offered us an opportunity to avoid any further conflict and dislocation of the great work that this House does.
In recent days, the conduct by the Prime Minister of our affairs as a nation has been exemplary. He has shown great courage in dealing with very difficult circumstances. He has said that he wants to be a bridge between our closest ally, the United States, and Europe. I ask him and the Leader of the House: could they not be a bridge between us and the House of Commons? The Commons is filled with a large number of Labour MPs who won the election fair and square on a clear manifesto commitment to end the process by which hereditary Peers could come to this House and take part in legislation. That is accepted, as my noble friend said in moving this amendment.
I mean no disrespect to any of my colleagues, but I look at these not quite hundreds but dozens of amendments, some of which are a little on the absurd side, and I ask whether this the way in which this House should carry out constitutional reform, in this kind of manner. Constitutional reform should be done, as my noble friend has said, on the basis of consensus. It should be carefully considered, and the consequences and the unintended consequences of one thing relative to another should be taken account of. This is no way to deal with this proud and important House, which plays an increasingly crucial part as the Commons has increasingly used timetable Motions to avoid doing the work carried out in this place.
I ask the Leader of the House, whom I have always held in the highest regard, is there not a better way? Can we not accept that the hereditary principle is dead? Can we not recognise that among the hereditaries in this House are some of the most talented and able people? That may sound like a partisan comment because quite a lot of them are, of course, Tories, but are we really going to say goodbye to the Convener of the Cross Benches? Forgive me for naming individuals. Are we going to say goodbye to the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, who serves on my Financial Services Regulation Committee, has great expertise and knowledge, and has done great work on the equally intractable problem of the restoration and renewal of these buildings? Are we going to throw out my noble friend Lord Moynihan, an Olympian, with his great experience and knowledge of sport? Are we really going to dispense of the services of my noble friend Lord Howe, who can take any issue, no matter how controversial and divided, and make us all think, “Why did we not think of that in the first place?” Are we going to throw out people like my noble friend Lord Strathclyde, who led this House with such distinction?
As he demonstrated earlier today, sometimes the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, gets a bit carried away with himself. We have a duty to try to work together. There has been some criticism of some of the appointments that have been made by the Prime Minister. I understand why the Prime Minister wants to have a reasonable number of Labour Peers in this House. There have been some people who have said, “Why are we getting all these trade unionists? Why are we getting all these Labour MPs?” Some people have even put down amendments suggesting that there should be a quota on the number of MPs in this House. Speaking as a former MP, I think that is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. The response to that is that they are being rewarded for their duty in public service—and quite right too.
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, because I agree with his starting point, which is that we find ourselves as a nation in a more perilous position, arguably, than we have been in in my lifetime and, in those circumstances, the prospect of your Lordships’ House spending days and days discussing ourselves is immensely unappealing in every possible way.
However, I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, about the extent to which any measure of House of Lords reform can be dealt with by consensus. I sat through all the debates on the original proposals that led to the removal of the majority of hereditaries and have sat through most debates in your Lordships’ House in the intervening period dealing with proposals for reform. Consensus there has been none. There will not be consensus, and the sooner we accept that, the better.
The noble Lord, Lord True, said that this Bill is of the greatest constitutional significance. I beg to differ. I do not believe this Bill is of the greatest constitutional significance. I think that it deals with an issue that should have been dealt with originally. It is a freestanding Bill. It is a simple Bill, and it should proceed.
There is, as the noble Lord, Lord True, alluded to, a whole range of issues that need addressing as well. We need to deal with the retirement age, we need to deal with participation levels, and there will be consequences for the Bishops. There is a whole raft of other things relating to the way in which your Lordships’ House is constituted and operates which need to change. However, we will not change anything if we seek to change everything at once. That is one of the lessons of reform in your Lordships’ House. My view is that to change something at this point is better than running the risk of changing nothing.
Where I agree with the noble Lord, Lord True, is that the Government have manifesto commitments that go beyond this Bill, not least around the retirement age and participation levels. It would be to the benefit of the Committee to know how the Government intend to proceed on those things. The Government say that they are very clear in wanting these thing to happen, but, as we are about to discover as we debate them, there are lot of wrinkles and complications. The sooner we get round to the consultation on those other things—which will lead to a definitive proposal—the better. I cannot see why the Government cannot just tell us what is in their mind; that would be extremely helpful.
Beyond that, at this stage in the nation’s affairs, I think we should deal with this Bill expeditiously. Frankly, having 46 groups of amendments to this Bill is ridiculous. Having spent nine days on the football regulator Bill, the prospect of a repeat of that sort of pettifogging argument, going on for days and days, at this point in the nation’s fortunes, seems to me completely unacceptable. I hope that all noble Lords will adopt that position as they approach these debates. Certainly, let us hear from the Government on what they want to do next, but, as far as this Bill is concerned, let us simply get on with it.
The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord. As ever, he spoke with a lot of logic, and I agree with so much of what he said—not quite everything—as I have with so many other people.
I want to comment on only one or two issues that arose from the speech of the noble Lord, Lord True. Clearly, the genesis of this Bill goes to the very heart of the noble Lord’s amendment, but I would not want the amendment itself, which is quite narrowly drafted, to prevent the House from discussing the Bill in the round. I said at Second Reading that I thought it was important for the House to have this opportunity; House of Lords reform Bills come so rarely—as I pointed out, it is 10 years since the last one—and we need to discuss all the issues in the round. I am aware of the external pressures on the use of our time, and I would certainly like us to handle this expeditiously as we go through Committee. I will not detain noble Lords now or elsewhere in Committee.
I think the other discussions referred to by the noble Lord, Lord True, are incredibly important. It is important for the House to be able to settle its own reform package, with due regard to the Executive and to the most important document: the Government’s manifesto. I would very much like these discussions to come forward rapidly. I have been describing this as the thorn in the paw, because it is causing difficulties in all our work at the moment, and in the spirit in which we go about that work. I think everyone here would like that thorn to be drawn rapidly from the paw.
Before I move on from that topic to two final ones, I want to go on the record as citing just how open the Leader’s door has been. I have been watching it and I know how many people—over 40 at the last count—the Leader has engaged with, and the courtesy that there has been during this process. I value that a lot; it has been very helpful. Drawing the thorn from the paw is important.
The first of my two final topics relates to the propensity for Cross-Bench colleagues to retire. I thought that I should think about that, and I have had many conversations over the last two years with many Cross-Benchers. I feel it would be possible for a package of reform to set up an environment where quite a number of Cross-Benchers might want to retire. I say that knowing that our average age is 73, which is rather older than that of the House, and therefore we have quite a lot of people who are over 80 and who would, I believe, consider retiring.
The second relates to the Cross-Bench view—remember that we are sole traders—on reinforcing the conventions and dealing with the trend in ping-pong where more balls and longer rallies are being played. I have not yet met a Cross-Bencher who does not believe that reaffirming these conventions is in the interest of the Cross Bench and of the House. I think it goes to dealing with the ping-pong issue as well.
Lord Strathclyde (Con)
My Lords, I much enjoyed the speech of my noble friend Lord Forsyth, particularly when my name was mentioned and the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, started murmuring on his Back Benches. What is less well known is that the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, used to represent an important part of Strathclyde. Indeed, for many years he was my MP—some people thought it too long, but I thought it was just about right. It was a pleasure when he joined this House of Lords and long may he continue.
Less pleasurable was the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Newby, where he said there could be no consensus and no cross-party agreement. Yet I look back to 1958, when there was a consensus, and even in 1998 there was cross-party agreement to a Bill to remove nearly 90% of hereditary Peers. In 2012, in the Conservative and Liberal Democrat coalition, there was agreement on a Bill that was brought before the House of Commons. Unfortunately, that was kiboshed by the Labour Party, but there was otherwise broad cross-party agreement, as there was again in 2014 on retirement from the House of Lords—and there could be again in 2025. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Newby, that there is plenty of room for consensus and cross-party agreement on this Bill, as there has been on so many others. Nobody is trying to change everything in your Lordships’ House; we want incremental change.
I have said before that I do not much like this Bill, and I do not, but I understand the political dynamics and the motivation that brings it before us. For that reason, I repeat what my noble friends Lord Forsyth and Lord True have said, in that I accept the end of heredity as being a means of entering the House of Lords. After 800 years of hereditary Peers in this House, that era is now over and it will not return. This Bill is therefore the creation of a wholly appointed House, with those appointments in the hands of the Prime Minister, which is in itself an odd concept for a Government seeking to look modern and dispassionate. As we wave goodbye to those who were not brought here by patronage, we should spare a thought for this small part of the British constitution—around 10% of the House today—which existed through a combination of heredity and election.
The Government have a choice in bringing this Bill forward: to engage constructively with the House to find an equitable and unifying way forward or to put their heads down, listen to no one and carry on. The noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, explained how gracious and generous the noble Baroness the Leader of the House has been in taking advice and trying to reach a consensus. We will now see what happens over the next few weeks; how the noble Baroness the Leader of the House responds will tell us how she means this debate to continue.
There is a difficult route to get the Bill onto the statute book—but there is also an easy one, with full co-operation from all parts of the House. I urge the noble Baroness to choose the latter. It will pay dividends for the reputation of this House and for all of us in the future.
My noble friend Lord True has put forward an extremely thoughtful range of suggestions on the way forward. It accepts the end of heredity. What it does not accept is the removal of some 45 Conservatives and 33 Cross-Benchers, many of whom have had years of service in this House and to numerous Governments. I suspect I am not alone when I say I find it extraordinary that the Convenor of the Cross Benches himself, chosen by the Cross-Benchers for his intelligence and calmness to represent them in the House and beyond, has not even been told or signalled, formally or informally, officially or unofficially, that he might be able to stay on. Should he lay down his burden as Convenor now or simply wait for the executioner’s blow? It seems a cruel way for the Government to carry on their business and it leaves everyone affected with a deep sense of unease and uncertainty.
The Earl of Devon (CB)
My Lords, I rise somewhat reluctantly to speak as an elected hereditary who defends the hereditary principle—but we will debate that in response to my Amendment 3, not now. However, I also accept that, if our time is up and we are to leave this House, as I said at Second Reading, we should do so with our heads held high. We should not be horse trading or otherwise frustrating the Government’s legislative programme.
Those who want to continue to serve in your Lordships’ House can lobby for a seat or can apply to become an angel of HOLAC in the normal manner, just like everybody else who is not an hereditary Peer. The privilege of our hereditary positions should not be sullied in a party-political or petty political way. I believe we should accept our abolition, or our execution, with honour.
Lord Mancroft (Con)
My Lords, I must admit that the thought of the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, representing my noble friend Lord Strathclyde has slightly set me aside for a moment. I was wondering which particular bit he represented. Was it the bit from the neck up, from the waist down or everything in the middle? I am sure we will learn that over time.
The Government explain this Bill on the basis that it fulfils their manifesto commitment to end the right of Peers to sit and vote in this House by dint of an hereditary peerage. That commitment is apparently sacrosanct. In truth, that measure is already clearly set out in Section 1 of the 1999 Act. The principle was accepted then and is accepted now. This Bill neither affects nor improves on it—but is selective. The Labour Party manifesto also included a commitment to implement a retirement age of 80, but the Government have, at least temporarily, resiled from that part of their commitment, because they have quite rightly concluded that most turkeys, particularly those on their own Back Benches, will not vote for Christmas. It seems, therefore, that the manifesto is not sacrosanct after all.
The Bill breaches, as we have heard, the commitment made in honour that my noble friend Lord Howard talked about and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, made with Lord Cranborne in the 1999 Act. It is argued that, with the passage of time, this agreement has become obsolete and, furthermore, that no Parliament can bind its successors. But no agreement of this kind does fall away simply by the passage of time. I am afraid things just simply are as not as easy as that. Nor did it and nor does it bind a future Parliament. It was an agreement willingly entered into by both parties and it still stands, so, without the agreement of both parties, it cannot be changed—although, of course, one party can breach it and thus demonstrate its dishonour, as my noble friend Lord Howard suggested. That is the Government’s choice.
I accept that the obvious solution to the Government’s dilemma is not easy, but nor is it that complicated either. The condition of that agreement was that Labour would embark on a full second-stage reform of this House, as we have heard. But, despite 14 years in opposition and now seven months in government, Labour does not appear to be able to do that. Although in opposition Sir Keir Starmer seemed to favour an elected second Chamber, in government he has clearly moved in the opposite direction.
We will debate that in the next amendment, in the name of my noble friend Lord Caithness, and later after Clause 1 in the amendment in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Newby and Lord Wallace of Saltaire, and my noble friend Lord Strathclyde. I will be supporting that, although I am very much looking forward to the Liberal Democrats explaining exactly how supporting a Bill that establishes an appointed House is the best route to achieving an elected House.
If the Government wish to explain what plans they have for the future of this House and even to start to implement those plans, it would be difficult to object to this Bill. But they have not. An alternative, and the simplest way to achieve the Government’s objective, would be, as has been suggested, to enact the measure contained in the various Private Members’ Bills from the noble Lord, Grocott, which, again, the House will examine later in this Committee. Suffice to say that, regardless of the merits or otherwise of that proposal, for some obscure reason the Government believe that the proposal from the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, has passed its sell-by date and can no longer be enacted, although I have been unable to find anyone who can explain exactly why this is so. I rather think it merely suits the Government’s purpose to advance that theory, but it is clearly not the case.
It is also worth pointing out that, although the Bill from the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, may be familiar to some of us, it was last debated in this House some four years ago and only got beyond Second Reading six years ago. Subsequently, over 160 new Members have joined this House who will never have had the chance to debate, discuss or understand that Bill. Perhaps it might help the House if they were able to do so now.
This Bill seeks to achieve an object that has already been achieved. It is currently divisive, unpleasant and wholly unnecessary, but that could all be avoided. Like my noble friend Lord True, I hope that, rather than spending a long time arguing every point, the Lord Privy Seal and my noble friend might find a way upon which the whole House could agree.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful for the comments that have been made and for the different tone from the noble Lord, Lord True, which I welcome. I will just say one thing. The noble Lord spoke about a passing political Executive. He will know, as I do, that that is actually known as the Government, in all cases. I think it was beneath him to make a comment such as that and I am sorry he did. His other comments were welcome, and I am grateful to him for making them.
The noble Lord’s amendment, as he said, seeks to provide a description of the purpose of the Bill. He will know, as I know, that a similar amendment was debated in the other place. It was rejected by a majority of 277 because it is an unnecessary amendment, as we have seen.
We have heard a couple of repeats of Second Reading speeches. The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, repeated some of his comments from Second Reading, as did the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. I am not going to go into another Second Reading speech, but I will comment on what they have said. I will, of course, clarify the purpose of this legislation, which I think will be helpful.
I spoke at Second Reading—and we have heard from noble Lords opposite—about the agreements put in place by the House of Lords Act 1999, which were then expected to be temporary arrangements for 90 remaining hereditary Peers, with a system of by-elections. There would be 92 in total but by-elections for the 90, with the exceptions being the Earl Marshal and Lord Great Chamberlain. Those arrangements were never expected to still be here a quarter of a century later, but they are.
I looked at the amendments and listened to the comments made by noble Lords. I expect my noble friend Lord Grocott will be possibly delighted but also somewhat dismayed by the sudden conversion of so many noble Lords to a Bill he tried so many times to bring forward. There were numerous debates on those Bills and noble Lords who sat through them will recall them well. In those Bills, my noble friend said that he wanted to bring an end to the system of by-elections but would allow those hereditary Peers among us, particularly those who have contributed to this House, to remain in the House for life as life Peers.
For some reason that I do not understand, those who now say that that was a good Bill and ask why we cannot go back to it put so much effort into destroying that Bill that it never got on to the statute book. Had that Bill been agreed then, we would not be here now. What we would be doing is having the discussions the noble Lord and I have had on other occasions about the other issues in our manifesto and finding a way forward that would benefit the House. However, there was a small number of noble Lords who frustrated the passage of that Bill and got us to this point, and I regret that.
The principle that we should not do anything until we do everything—and, in effect, do nothing—is not an acceptable position to hold. That time has gone. I remind noble Lords that this was a manifesto commitment, but I also say, as noble Lords have heard me say time and again, there is nothing at all that is a barrier to those in your Lordships’ House who are here as hereditary Peers to having life peerages. I have said that time and again. I appreciate that the route for that is different for the Cross-Benchers from how it is for the political parties. I am sorry that has come up again, but I have to make the point that there is no barrier to them returning as life Peers. Therefore, the purpose in the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord True, is not necessary in the Bill.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, noble Lords with long memories will recall that my arrival in this House was somewhat unusual and speaks directly to both parts of my noble friend’s amendment. As the then Minister for Energy, I was taking a Bill through a Commons Committee shortly before the 1992 general election when I was summoned by the Chief Whip. We had both learned from the Foreign Office that Tony Moynihan, my somewhat wayward and much older half-brother, had died in Manila. At the time, Tony was the holder of the Moynihan peerage, first awarded to my grandfather—the leading surgeon of his day—and thereafter put to good use by my father as treasurer of the Liberal Party in this House.
In his young days, Tony, who sat on the Liberal Benches, was a colourful character. On his last day in this country he went to Berkeley Square, ordered a Bentley at Jack Barclay, demanded changes to be made by the afternoon, came to this House to make an impromptu speech from the Liberal Benches that Gibraltar should belong to the Spanish, returned to Berkeley Square, presented a forged cheque for the car and, accompanied by his third wife, Shirin—an Indian belly dancer for whom he used to play the bongos in nightclubs—evaded Scotland Yard and drove to Madrid, where he befriended a young Juan Carlos, later to become King. He never legally returned to these shores.
I finally arrived following five long years of legal proceedings. The case reached its denouement in the Moses Room in 1997, when a memorable and rare sitting of the Committee for Privileges finally resolved this most protracted of peerage cases. Two notable hereditary Peers, Lord Cranborne and my noble friend Lord Strathclyde, asked me to take on the responsibility of senior foreign affairs spokesman, when I had the privilege of shadowing the outstanding Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Symons of Vernham Dean. So began the honour of serving in your Lordships’ House.
Few Peers have arrived here with as complicated and colourful a backstory as mine. The best and the worst of the hereditary principle can be found in my family, and if anything gives my words weight, this should. I am clear that reform of this House is not only long overdue but essential. Indeed, I go further: the former Foreign Secretary and Secretary-General of NATO, the sixth Baron Carrington, advocated for an entirely elected House and I personally fully agree with him, although I would seek a means to offer the finest minds in this country—presidents of the royal colleges, recently retired senior ambassadors, and our most eminent scientists and artists, for example—the opportunity to contribute to our proceedings.
My chief criticism of the Bill is the piecemeal and disruptive approach chosen by the Government. Let me be clear: to me the Bill is a short-term political numbers game. It is certainly long overdue, but it should be about the future role and function of this House, to ensure that it is fit for the 21st century. It should be about this House’s structure and—
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord—I always enjoy listening to his entertaining contributions—but we are discussing a specific amendment at the moment. He is making comments on things we will come to later in considering other amendments. This seems to be a Second Reading speech. I do not want to be discourteous, but I see that he has a lot of notes and I wonder whether he wants to address the amendment, rather than giving a wider speech.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
I am doing precisely that by talking about the hereditary principle and the removal of the hereditaries. Both are central to what I am speaking about. I gave my experience from the point of view of a hereditary, and I am now addressing the key point about the Bill being very narrow with regard to the future of the hereditaries. My argument is simple and clear: it should be wider. My view is that by narrowing it as much as we have, it becomes a political numbers game Bill. I am much more in favour of looking at how best this House can fully scrutinise, shape and improve legislation for the Government of the day, and challenge them to think again when necessary.
The point has been made already that this House operates best through consensus, yet the much-heralded usual channels have regrettably become frayed and fractious of late. There must be a way for the leaders of the four main groupings in your Lordships’ House—the Government, the Opposition, the Liberal Democrats and, critically, the Cross-Benchers—to consider how the Government’s objective of numerical majority, for example, over His Majesty’s Opposition, with which I largely agree, can be achieved. For there is a better way to achieve the outcome that is sought in this Bill. There are many Peers, as has been mentioned, who have announced either their intention or willingness to retire, or who would do so if approached on the basis that if they remained, they would henceforth be required to participate actively in this House. The latter could be judged by criteria in a Bill which addressed minimum levels of attendance and contribution. This would also remove the sitting rights of those many life Peers who, at the time of their elevation, promised their respective leaders that they would be active in this Chamber and these Committee Rooms, but who all too soon became notable only by their absence.
So, it is possible to achieve the outcome by combining the end of the sitting rights of the hereditary peerage with the implementation of a decision to reduce the size of this House and still leave the Government with a majority over the Opposition. This solution, based on the principle of self-determination, is surely better than one which vests in the Prime Minister of the day the authority to approve each and every Member of this House, creating the worst of all worlds: a second Chamber without democratic legitimacy, built on short-term, present-day political patronage but shorn of the independence, the reputation and the authority that it currently enjoys. That is why I support this amendment.
Lord Strathclyde (Con)
My Lords, I think it is a little bit much for the noble Baroness to give my noble friend Lord Moynihan a hard time for making what she said was a Second Reading speech. The fact is that we had Second Reading nearly three months ago—there is no reason for the delay. Why were we not dealing with this Bill in January and February? Why has it taken so much time? I began to think that the Government had forgotten about this Bill or had changed their minds and were not taking it forward.
The noble Baroness in her reply—also a reply to a Second Reading speech—did not really look at the merits of the amendment itself, which concerns the
“connection between the possession of a hereditary peerage and obtaining membership of the House of Lords”.
When the noble Baroness said that she is happy for discussions to take place, she said discussions with conditions, and that this Bill has to be passed and agreed to in all aspects before there can be a discussion. That is not a sensible or equitable way to have a discussion—
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I hate to intervene on noble Lords, but I do so because I do not like to be misrepresented by the noble Lord, or any other noble Lord in this House. I did not say that noble Lords have to pass the Bill before any discussions take place. I said that I was happy to have ongoing discussions, but that I did not want to see any procedural shenanigans. I need to see some good faith on the part of the Opposition, as well. I say to the noble Lords, Lord Strathclyde and Lord True, that I did answer the amendment. I said that it was unnecessary—it is actually pretty much contained in the Long Title anyway—but if he is going to describe what I have said, he should at least get it right.
Lord Strathclyde (Con)
I am more than happy to agree with the noble Baroness on procedural shenanigans, which I must say I do not recognise at all over the course of the last few months. I am not doing any procedural shenanigans; I am actually replying to the noble Baroness, but I have made the point I wish to make. Are there no procedural shenanigans from anybody in the Labour Party actually engaging in the debate just started by my noble friend Lord True? I certainly give way to the noble Lord, Lord Grocott.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
Has the noble Lord finished his remarks, because I do not want to encourage him to go on at length? I wish to respond to the point about why Labour Members have not spoken, but is he wishing to get up again? I do not want to intervene on him, I just want to—
Lord Grocott (Lab)
Well, I have been waiting to say this for a long time, but I have managed to keep quiet. It was nine years ago that I first brought in a Bill to end the system of by-elections, which, had it been enacted, would have substantially solved the problem—and I think it is a problem—of people coming to this House by means of heredity.
I find it deeply ironic that the now apparently passionate advocates of my Bill include the noble Lords, Lord True and Lord Strathclyde, both of whom were among those who did all within their power to block it; that is not to mention the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, of course. When I brought the Bill in, the majority of hereditary Peers, as far as I could judge, were in favour of it. However, time and again a small group of people, four of five of whom—probably more— are here today, managed to filibuster in ways incredibly similar to those going on today: degrouping amendments, and putting down amendments at the last minute when there is barely time to respond to them. I would just like to know at what point in their political development this Damascene conversion occurred: from doing all within their power to block my Bill—satisfactorily, of course—to now thinking that it is the golden solution to finding consensus between the two sides of the House.
Perhaps, at some stage, the noble Lords could take this opportunity not only to explain why they have completely changed their mind but to apologise to the hereditary Peers who will be removed as a result of this—in the full knowledge that, if they had listened to my earlier Bill and not filibustered it, this debate would not be happening on anything like the scale that we have at the moment.
As we are taking a slight trip down memory lane, I could go even further if I wanted to, but I will stick to just nine years—mind you, I am tempted to go back 31 years, when I first introduced to the House of Commons a Bill to end the right of hereditary Peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords. One of its sponsors was my good and noble friend Lord Foulkes, alongside my noble friend Lord Rooker—we have stayed together over many years—but of course that was not successful either, so there is a certain satisfaction with where we are now.
Lord Howard of Lympne (Con)
If the noble Lord is correct, why did the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine, use the words “binding in honour”?
Lord Grocott (Lab)
I cannot possibly interpret at this juncture the views of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine—I know that the noble Lord, Lord Howard, has resurrected him during this debate. I really do not know precisely why he used the wording, but I know the context in which that “agreement” took place. I was working in No. 10 at the time. We were told by the then Chief Whip, my predecessor, that he feared for the whole legislative programme if we did not concede to the 92 hereditary Peers remaining. I do not feel in any way guilty or dishonourable by regarding that as an agreement that is not valid.
Lord Northbrook (Con)
I am grateful for the noble Lord giving way. Does he recognise Alastair Campbell’s book when he said that he was very astonished that Viscount Cranborne did the deal and that it was only going to end in tears for him?
Lord Grocott (Lab)
One person asked me to answer for Viscount Cranborne and I am now expected to answer for Alastair Campbell. The noble Lord needs to ask my good friend Alastair Campbell about that, but I know the facts are precisely as I described. Please do not take my word for it; take it from Viscount Cranborne. We are going to have a long debate, and I know that I have gone on far too long, but I hope that no one will again use that tired, dishonourable excuse that somehow a crucial agreement was reached which was binding to all subsequent Governments, when it was reached under duress.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
I totally understand why the noble Lord cannot be expected to answer for the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine, or anyone else, but perhaps he could answer for himself. He is quite right—magnanimity in victory—that he has got what he was asking for. If he thought that it was in the interests of this House when he introduced his Bill—well known as the Grocott Bill—to end the hereditary principle but to allow the Peers to remain in this House, what has changed? Why has he changed his view?
Lord Grocott (Lab)
What has changed is that there was a general election, and this was a manifesto commitment. Broadly speaking, it is a good idea to obey manifesto commitments. The longer answer to the noble Lord’s question is that I was not the first to introduce such a Bill; Eric Lubbock was the first Member of this House to propose that there should be no more by-elections. Had it been agreed at the time that the Lubbock Bill, which I will call it, was introduced, there would be only about 25 hereditary Peers left. Due to the constant refusal of people to accept the end of the by-elections, a whole new generation of hereditary Peers has arrived, so that, for the objective of ending the hereditary principle in this House to be concluded, it would take another 40 or 50 years. It is spilt milk. I respect noble Lord, Lord Forsyth: he occasionally made the odd favourable comment towards my Bill, for which I am very grateful; it was an all-party Bill supported by all parties and in huge numbers. But times have changed. It is the time for apologies from Messrs True, Mancroft and Strathclyde to their colleagues for blocking the Bill in the way that they did. Along with the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, who we will have the pleasure of hearing from in the next amendment, they are the ones who have the explaining to do, not me.
Lord Swire (Con)
Does the noble Lord, who should be a little more cheerful having achieved what he set out to do, not accept that there were many of us who were not in this House and therefore unable to support his Bill or otherwise?
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
Order! I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, was giving way; he had sat down. The time had already been exceeded under the rules of the Companion. In terms of the Companion, is it not time that the noble Lord, Lord True, indicated whether he was pressing his amendment.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I just want to make a comment. At the moment, the Prime Minister is on his feet at the other end, as the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, pointed out, talking about issues of national security and the defence of the nation. Our debate does not hold up terribly well against that. The noble Lord opened it in a moderate and helpful way. If noble Lords wish to continue debating the amendment, they are at liberty to do so; I just ask them to reflect on how the world outside sees the debate.
Lord Swire (Con)
Hear, hear to that—I could not agree more with the Leader of the House. We should not be debating this at this time at all, and we are in risk of rendering ourselves irrelevant and foolish by debating these matters when things of far greater importance are going on. But I just say to the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, that he must accept that the composition of this House is very different from that of the time when he first introduced his Bill. Many of those who are now in this House would have supported it at that time. Surely it is only right that we have the ability to debate these matters, for the first time in many cases, now.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, made reference to me. I want to put it on the record, because he has said it before, that the amount of time that I spoke during the debates on his Bill in 2018—a Bill which had six hours of debate—was under twice as long as the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, has spoken today. In those six hours of debate, I spoke for 16 minutes; that was all. It was not a prevarication at all.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I think it is right for me to intervene. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, who asked me for an apology, that I make no apology for carrying out the policy of my Government when I was a Government Minister. The policy of the Government was that we should not remove the 92 until a stage 2 reform came forward. Our Government, in coalition, in 2011-12, brought forward a Bill which would have led to the removal of hereditary Peers from your Lordships’ House. As was said earlier by others, that was frustrated by a group of Conservative Back-Benchers and the Labour Party in the other place. So, the Conservative Party did address that question, and I say to the noble Lord that I will never apologise for carrying out the policy of my Government.
So far as the noble Lord’s other remarks are concerned, there is a difference between this Bill and his Bill. We have another amendment on this later, so I do not want to protract this discussion now, but the difference was that his Bill allowed for the continuation of valued Members of this House—indeed, it was commended by a number of people who spoke on his Bill for that reason—while this Bill provides for the total expulsion of Peers who are here under the 1999 Act. There is a profound difference between those two Bills.
In the proposals I put forward to the Leader of the House—I am grateful to her for the manner in which she responded, and I hope we can return to that conduct of affairs—I said that part of the discussions we have will have to address what will be, in this moment when partisan zeal runs fairly high, a wound to the House—many people on the other side may accept what I say. If some of the very skilled, experienced and long-serving hereditary Peers whom we have among us are excluded, that will be a wound to the House, and it is right that the House should address that and consider it collectively. The noble Earl, Lord Devon, draws his own conclusion, but it certainly goes beyond horse-trading between parties as regards what the future of Members of this House should be. It is perfectly legitimate in Committee for us to consider the implications of legislation for the future of the House.
I was grateful for what the noble Lord, Lord Newby, said. I do not agree with the noble Lord that consensus is impossible—indeed, the coalition agreement demonstrates that that is not the case—but I am grateful for his agreement with me that it is important. I think the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and my noble friend Lord Forsyth and others said that it would be helpful as we go forward if we could have some understanding about the timing and nature of the Government’s proposals beyond the Bill, because they are material to the future of the House.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
It may be pedantic to point out that it was rejected in the other place by 277. I never said that it was not in the ability of this House to send back an amendment if it chose to do so. I pointed out what happened in the House of Commons. The only Front-Bencher whom I have heard say that the House of Lords should not pass an amendment to a Bill from the House of Commons was the noble Lord during the Elections Bill.
Lord True (Con)
If I may borrow a phrase from a more prominent person than I, did I really say that? The joys of social media and smartphones are very wonderful. I stand corrected by the noble Baroness, but the point remains that there resides great wisdom in this House and there remains the opportunity to reach an agreement which serves all parties and none, but the House collectively.
If such an approach were agreed, it would be easy for someone as formidable and dedicated as the Lord Privy Seal to persuade her colleagues in Cabinet that a generous and thoughtful approach, which offers advantage to all parties, should be followed. I sincerely hope that is what may happen in the days and weeks ahead. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
The Earl of Caithness
“OverviewThis Act makes the House of Lords a second chamber whose membership is wholly nominated by the Prime Minister.”
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, we might think that we know what most of the consequences of this Bill will be for the British constitution, but they are far from clear to anyone who does not take a close interest in these matters, and they are not to be found in the Bill before us. This amendment aims to puts into the Bill what at least one consequence will be.
The membership of this second Chamber of Parliament is unique in the world in how it is constituted and for how long we serve. It is composed of a relatively small number of hereditary Peers, while the Lords spiritual are nominated and life Peers are appointed on the recommendation of the Prime Minister to the monarch. Except for the bishops, who must retire when aged 70, once one is a Member we have the right to a seat, place and voice here for our lifetimes.
The most similar appointment system is that of the Canadian Senate. Although there are no hereditary members there, all its members are appointed by their Prime Minister. There, the similarities end. There is a fixed size of 105 and a mandatory retirement age of 75. That means that a new senator can be appointed only when a vacancy arises. New appointments must also be made on a regional basis, with each province holding a fixed number of seats. We will come on to whether similar constraints should apply here; I make no further comment on that now.
As in Canada, there is considerable adverse comment in this country on how the appointment system works. However, this Bill is about to make the situation much worse. For the first time ever the Prime Minister, on his or her whim, will have an unprecedented power of control over all the appointments to the membership of this House. That is a very dangerous extension of prime ministerial power. It is such a fundamental change to our constitution that it needs careful consideration and justification. I firmly believe that it must be clearly spelled out in legislation.
Of course, our constitution can evolve to meet this new situation, but it has already been clearly demonstrated that Prime Ministers have a less rigorous appointment process than the House of Lords Appointments Commission, which Prime Ministers can and have overruled. A paper by the London School of Economics in November 2023 tells us:
“Party leaders sometimes appoint experts, but they regularly appoint loyalists”.
It goes on to say that
“about a quarter of appointees over the last decade”
to this House
“have been donors to political parties”.
I cannot but agree with the noble Lord, Lord McFall of Alcluith, our Lord Speaker, when he said in an interview that this House is in danger of becoming “out of sync” with its balance of legislators. He went on to say that this House, too full of politicians and former political aides rather than people with outside experience, risked jeopardising the Chamber’s crucial role in taking a broader view on legislation and wider national policy. Those criticisms should be taken seriously. They were made before this Bill could take effect; it hands the Prime Minister untrammelled power to appoint whom he likes, when he likes. Everyone in the country should know about this. Once us hereditaries are forced out, there will be no screen for the life Peers to hide behind when the criticism comes thick and fast. A system so open to abuse cannot last long.
My amendment has three merits: it is concise, it does not affect the Bill’s wording or intention, and the principle has already been accepted by the Labour Party. On 23 March 2018, I moved a similar amendment to the Bill from the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, which sought to abolish the hereditary Peer by-elections. The amendment was drafted to be inserted before Clause 1 and read:
“Overview
This Act amends section 2 of the House of Lords Act 1999 to end the process of by-elections for hereditary peers, thereby making the House of Lords a wholly appointed Second Chamber”.
The noble Lord, Lord Grocott, intervened early in the few words that I was going to say and told the House,
“I am happy to accept his amendment”.—[Official Report, 23/3/18; cols. 547-48.]
It was indeed accepted by the whole House, including the Labour Party’s Front Bench. I hope the noble Baroness the Leader of the House will now do the same. I beg to move.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, I read this amendment with some surprise, because the noble Earl says that everybody is going to be nominated by the Prime Minister. I was not nominated by the Prime Minister and there remains, I think, 20% of this House who were not. As far as I know, this Government have no intention of getting rid of the way in which we are appointed. As I understand the noble Earl to have said, the wording of the Bill from the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, was different. Of course we are appointed, but the noble Earl has limited it to the Prime Minister. To that extent, I profoundly disagree and I hope noble Lords will at least support the Cross-Benchers.
I recognise the manifesto and that this Bill must go through. I regret that there are so many amendments to slow it down. There are a large number of issues that need to be dealt with. I am not at all sure that this is the best place for them to be discussed when there is really a single issue occupying the Committee.
I hope that the Government will look at those whom they are removing and compare them with the Members of this House—at least 200—who virtually never come. I can speak as someone who is not a hereditary Peer but has been here for quite a long time. I have observed the enormous work done by hereditary Peers, who have been of invaluable use to the legislation that has been passed. For us to lose them and keep those who do not come and do not work seems profoundly wrong.
The Earl of Erroll (CB)
My Lords, I was going to speak to the last amendment. I will say very quickly now that it needed a little bit inserted to say, “Also to remove the power of the Prime Minister to have total control over the membership of this House”.
I remember and was very involved in the whole debate in 1998-99. In fact I and a bunch of Cross-Benchers produced a report on it at the time. The real problem with the whole thing is that it put the Prime Minister in total control of everything. He is the Prime Minister of the Civil Service and therefore the supreme person there. He is the leader of the majority party in the House of Commons and therefore controls that. The judges are also no longer separate and are now a Civil Service department, the Ministry of Justice. There were a lot of promises about independence, but it is no longer a third pillar of our constitution in the way it was.
The Earl of Dundee (Con)
My Lords, along with others, I share the concerns of my noble friend Lord Caithness, as I also much appreciate the comments of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss.
As already indicated, the priority aim for a reformed House of Lords must be its quality of function as a revising Chamber and, therefore, the continuation of its present very high standard of legislative and government scrutiny.
In a later amendment, it is proposed that, within a reformed House of 600 temporal members, the non-political Cross-Benchers should be in the majority with 200 members, while the Government and Opposition have exactly 150 each and the Liberal Democrats, and others, 100. Compared with others, this formula can far better protect our present legislative scrutiny high standard, otherwise threatened and undermined if, instead, the Government of the day, whoever that might be, were to be the largest group within a reformed House.
Political patronage to create non-parliamentary peerages would continue. However, its current ability to appoint members of this House would be abolished, becoming replaced by two processes: first, as already indicated, by the Appointments Commission appointing 200 non-political temporal Peers and, secondly, by an electoral college representative of all parts of the United Kingdom indirectly electing 400 political temporal Peers.
For the necessary transitional period, as your Lordships are well aware, the noble Lord, Lord Burns, indicates a very good, workable system, which is this: in a given year, the collective total of life Peers who retire or die are replaced at 50%. That means that, in a natural way and over not too many years, the current number of temporal Peers, which is now just under 800, will have come down to about 600.
Obviously, it would come down more quickly if life Peers were coerced to retire at 80 or 85. Yet it would be much wiser not to enforce that. Instead, with the retirement age of 90, the transitional period can be expected to be a bit more than five years, with the advantage of enabling some new Peers in the reformed House when they first begin to serve their 15 years to do so alongside existing life Peers, thereby being all the more able to develop and uphold the skills, usefulness and democratic efficacy of this House as a revising Chamber.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, has just indicated the difficulty of discussing some of the broader issues that this Bill raises when we have so many different groupings. I suggest, in the very constructive spirit of the noble Lord, Lord True, when he opened the debate on the first amendment, that it would be wiser, if we are going to discuss as we go through this Committee stage some of the longer-term issues that it raises, that we should group the large number of amendments we have together, rather than have a constant repetition of broader points from one amendment to another. This certainly this cannot be done today, but I suggest that, before the second day of Committee, the usual channels have a constructive conversation about the number of groupings that we need. I say to the noble Lord, Lord True, that I think that it is the consensus of the House that we would have a more constructive Committee stage if there was a much smaller number of groupings into which the major themes are contained.
Lord Strathclyde (Con)
On the question of groupings, I understand that the Opposition put forward some suggestions for groupings to the Government Whips’ Office at the end of last week, and they were rejected without even being looked at until the Government had put forward their own proposals. That is my understanding.
I think that the whole question of groupings is important and useful, but we are only on the second amendment of the day and I do not know what the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, was suggesting that this amendment should be grouped with. I am happy to listen to him.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
The first four separate amendments seem to me to have a very natural linkage, and it would have been much more sensible to debate them in a group, for example.
Lord Strathclyde (Con)
My Lords, let me carry on on the groupings that we have and on the speech in introducing his amendment of my noble friend—
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
We are on the second amendment of the day and this is the sixth speech from the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. I think we can all draw our own conclusions.
Lord Strathclyde (Con)
My Lords, I fancy that, if this Bill dealt with the expulsion of all Peers over 80, the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, would be a leading light in opposition to that legislation. I am simply carrying out my duty as a Member of this House to hold the Government to account and ask the questions that need to be asked. If the Labour Party choose not to turn up to this debate, that is entirely up to them.
I also point out that this Bill excludes by law 45 members of the Conservative Party. It excludes four members of the Labour Party, who almost certainly will be given life peerages, as precedent has demonstrated in the past. So it is hardly surprising that, as a group and a party in the House of Lords, we take a great deal of interest in what this Bill says and what it is attempting to achieve.
My noble friend Lord Caithness made a good point about what this Bill does. It does not just remove the hereditary Peers but creates a wholly appointed House. Some noble Lords will take exception to that fact. I know that the noble Lords on my left, the Liberal Democrats, would rather see a democratic House, and I have a great deal of sympathy with that, and there are other noble Lords who are very happy to see a wholly appointed House—but that appointment is almost entirely in the hands of the Prime Minister.
It is worth mentioning HOLAC. I know there will be amendments on HOLAC later on, but they are not directly relevant to the amendment before us. HOLAC is itself a creature of the Executive. There is no statute that has created HOLAC. It is there because the Prime Minister has decreed that it should be so. It could be snuffed out immediately. Therefore, it is right when we say that the appointment system is entirely in the hands of the Prime Minister. HOLAC reserves for itself a small number of independent Cross-Benchers. They are a delightful addition to this House. I very much agree with what the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, said, particularly in respect of the hereditary Peers.
I therefore support my noble friend’s amendment. I have no idea why the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, accepted this amendment some years ago during a debate on his Bill. It may well have been that he got so bored of the debate that he thought he should just accept an amendment to make a difference. I think the noble Lord is trying to get in. I have come to the end of my remarks, so I am happy for him to speak if he wishes to do so.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
I can respond in one sentence. The reason that I caved in on that amendment, on that particular day, is that we had already been rambling on for about an hour and a half on the subject and anything to shorten it was to my advantage. That principle could perhaps be applied to the current Bill.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My noble friend Lord Caithness is right to point out that the effect of this Bill is to make your Lordships’ House a second Chamber almost entirely nominated by the Prime Minister. I say “almost” because his amendment refers only to the Lords temporal; as noble Lords know, the Lords spiritual come here by a different means. As the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, has reminded us, a small number of Cross-Bench Peers have come in through nomination by the House of Lords Appointments Commission and what was at one time called the “people’s Peers” process.
Having served as a political secretary to a former Prime Minister, my noble friend Lady May of Maidenhead, I know that even those recommendations made by the independent commission are laid before the Prime Minister. It is at a time of the Prime Minister’s choosing—not the commission’s choosing—when those nominations are made. The rate and regularity with which those nominations can be made is often a cause of some consternation between the commission and the Government.
When the noble Baroness the Lord Privy Seal stands up, she can perhaps say a little bit about that. I think that the noble and learned Baroness, indeed many of us, would be delighted if there were some commitments on codifying that process a bit more formally, or at least a commitment to the number or regularity—
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
In view of what my noble friend, Lord Strathclyde, and, indeed, the Minister have said, is there not a case for putting HOLAC on a statutory basis, as relating both to its existence and to its manner of appointment?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My noble friend asks a very good question, but that is a question for a different group. The question of the House of Lords Appointments Commission is, rightly, worthy of a debate in a group of its own. If the noble Baroness wants to respond to my noble friend’s question when she rises, she can do so, but I will not anticipate the debate that we will have on HOLAC.
The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, is of course right in what she pointed out about Amendment 2 from my noble friend Lord Caithness. In broad terms, however, he has done us a useful service by reminding us that what is being proposed in this Bill is out of keeping with the history of our Parliament and almost without precedent among other legislative bodies around the world. My noble friend dealt with the similarities and differences with the Canadian Senate; that is about the only other example—in a much smaller House, with term limits—that one can find of a House of Parliament that is entirely nominated by the head of the Executive.
What is before us today is a Bill that will weaken the legislature and strengthen the Executive, tilting the balance of power away from those who believe that power ought to be held very robustly to account, and it will leave those scales unbalanced for as long as the Government see fit, for there is nothing in this Bill to compel them to set those scales right again or even to fulfil the promises of further reform that they made in their most recent manifesto. What we are debating today is an incomplete job.
At Second Reading the Lord Privy Seal spoke at perhaps surprising length about a full stop in the Government’s manifesto. Never has so much constitutional weight been placed on such a small punctuation mark. The same punctuation was used in Labour’s 1997 manifesto, on which the noble Baroness was first elected to Parliament. In that instance, it meant a very full stop indeed. The Blair Government fulfilled their commitment that, to quote from their manifesto,
“the right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords will be ended by statute”.
That sentence, like all sentences in the English language eventually do, ended with a full stop and we did not think very much about it at the time. But, after that full stop, the next sentence in the 1997 manifesto promised:
“This will be the first stage in a process of reform to make the House of Lords more democratic and representative”.
For more than a decade later in that Labour Government, however, the legislative pen was stuck on that spherical stumbling block. Stage 2 never followed.
Lord Swire (Con)
For clarification, the Government pray in aid their manifesto and talk about the grammar of where the full stop falls, but it is worth looking at their latest manifesto. In the same paragraph, where they talks about immediate modernisation and legislation to remove the right of hereditary Peers, they go on to say:
“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”.
It is not an add-on; it is the same paragraph.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
It is indeed. Whether the grammar matters or not, these are clearly linked, and as for those colleagues we are going to lose through this Bill, who were kept here as surety, as a reminder, to make sure that the deal was followed through, surely we owe it to them to answer the question, before they are ushered out of your Lordships’ House, of whether the Government intend to fulfil the rest of their manifesto and what their plans for the future of this House are. If we cannot have that dignified and eloquent reminder through the presence of our hereditary colleagues, let us write very clearly in this Bill, in words and punctuation that should act as a perpetual reminder, that the Government are once again giving us a half-baked reform.
The limbo in which it leaves your Lordships’ House is unquestionably worse than the status quo. This Bill removes 88 hard-working Members, drawn from all corners of the House but predominantly from outwith the Government’s own Benches, and places the sole power to replace them and to appoint the temporal Members of this House in the hands of the Prime Minister. It gives him an unlimited power with no statutory limitations—not even modest guidance of the sort that noble Lords such as the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and others suggested would be helpful when we discussed this at Second Reading.
In this group and later, I hope the noble Baroness will be able to address the questions that are left unanswered through this Bill. Would she be open to an annual cap on the number of nominations that the Prime Minister can make? What does she think of a formula such as that proposed by the noble Lords, Lord Fowler and Lord Burns, in the Lord Speaker’s committee? I was very grateful for her generous words about my former boss, my noble friend Lady May, who adhered roughly to a two-out, one-in process—I crunched the numbers—as proposed by the Lord Speaker’s committee, but subsequent Prime Ministers have not, not least the present Prime Minister, whom this Bill will make even more powerful.
In 2022, Sir Keir Starmer endorsed proposals from former Labour Prime Minister Gordon Brown to transfer power from Westminster to the British people. He said:
“I think the House of Lords is indefensible”,
and said he wanted to abolish the House of Lords and replace it with an elected chamber with a really strong mission. That reformist zeal is not fully reflected in the Bill before us. The Prime Minister in fact has appointed a more Peers in his first 200 days than three Prime Ministers—my noble friend Lady May of Maidenhead, Boris Johnson and Rishi Sunak—put together. He has appointed more even than Sir Tony Blair, who was not known for his restraint when handing out ermine robes. He has already appointed more Labour Peers than the number of Cross-Benchers that this Bill will purge from your Lordships’ House.
And the people he has put forward, although we welcome them all to this House and do not denigrate the role that they will play, are drawn from a rather narrow cadre. Instead of the knowledge of nuclear engineering held by the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, or the professional experience of the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, as a chartered surveyor, or the passionate campaigning for our creative industries that I see from the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, and the noble Lords, Lord Aberdare and Lord Freyberg, we have, since the start of this Parliament—
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
It would be useful to know how this actually relates to the wording of the amendment.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I think very directly, because this is an amendment to remind your Lordships’ House and future Governments that the Bill gives Prime Ministers greater power than ever before to nominate people to this House, and the present Prime Minister, whom this will empower and embolden, has sent us, since he became Prime Minister, 18 former Labour MPs, his former chief of staff and his director of strategy. He is entitled to do that, and it is no insult to any of them or to the contribution that I know they will make to your Lordships’ House to point out that they are unlikely to give the same breadth of independent scrutiny to legislation as the Cross-Bench Peers whom they outnumber.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
The speaker’s own background is exactly the one that he is now criticising others for. He also has forgotten the people that Boris Johnson put in. So could we just have a little humility?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I draw the noble Baroness’s attention to my own amendment, which I hope has been brought forward in a spirit of humility, suggesting that there be a cap on the number of special advisers that Prime Ministers can nominate. The reason I have tabled that amendment, and the one which I see did not find favour from my noble friend Lord Forsyth of Drumlean about former Members of Parliament, is that I worry that a Bill that empowers Prime Ministers to make the sole decision about who scrutinises them and the Government they lead in one of our Houses of Parliament ought not to give such an open-ended power to them.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
My Lords, we started the debate today with a conciliatory and constructive tone from the Front Benches, which I found optimistic and encouraging. I fear that things have gone pretty steeply downhill since that time, and they have also gone way off track from the amendments under discussion. I have Amendment 63: I am beginning to wonder whether I will live long enough to ever reach it.
For all the shadow-boxing and enjoyable eloquence that we have had, this really seems to come down to a numbers question. That is the real horse-trading that is needed here. It is a number between 0 and 88, and I really wish we could lock the noble Baroness the Leader of the House, the Front-Bench leaders and our Convenor in a room, adjourn for the afternoon and see whether they can hammer out that number. If they could, I suspect that a lot of these amendments would fall away. If they could not, battle could recommence.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I respectfully disagree with the noble Lord. I think this is about more than numbers; it is about a constitutional principle. It is right, as my noble friend Lord Caithness has done, to point out the powers that the Bill will give to the Prime Minister in the interim, and for those of us who remember how long the interim was after the 1999 reforms to caution the House about accepting a promise that ends with a full stop and says no more. However, what the noble Lord says about the spirit of consensus is important and, in that spirit, I shall conclude my remarks there and allow the noble Baroness to respond to the debate.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for proposing his amendment. I will come back to the comments made in the debate, but basically the noble Earl seeks to put an overview of the Bill in the Bill. I make the same comment that I made to the noble Lord, Lord True: I am happy to provide that overview.
There will probably be some repetition in what I say about this amendment and the previous one, a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace. Yes, the Bill seeks to remove the right of hereditary Peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords. That is why we feel that the amendment is unnecessary, because that is quite clear.
I dispute the noble Earl’s overview, which does not fairly reflect the situation; nor do I accept the comments made on this by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson. The noble Earl and the noble Lord are right that for the Lords temporal, appointed under the Life Peerages Act 1958, it is for the Prime Minister, as the King’s principal adviser, to make recommendations to the sovereign on life Peers. However, by convention, the Prime Minister invites those nominations from other parties—although perhaps we saw fewer from some Prime Ministers on the other side than we had done in previous years—and it is party leaders who consider who is best placed to represent their party in the House of Lords, and choose who to nominate.
If we are looking at Prime Ministers’ appointments, my noble friend Lord Collins and I were both appointed by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, because he happened to be Prime Minister at the time. My noble friend Lady Anderson was appointed by Liz Truss, who was a fairly short-lived Prime Minister but still had time to appoint my noble friend. So I do not accept the idea that the Prime Minister of the day has this absolute power that they channel by funnelling hundreds of their own appointments into the House.
In terms of numbers, I remind noble Lords that when the Labour Party left office in 2010, we had, I think, 12 more Peers than the party opposite. When the party opposite left office in 2024, there were over 100 more Conservative Peers than Labour ones. In that respect, the point made by the noble Earl has some merit: although most Prime Ministers have behaved and treated the system with the dignity and honour that it deserves, that cannot be said for all of them.
The Prime Minister also invites the House of Lords Appointments Commission to make nominations to the Cross Benches. The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, made the point that just over 20% are Cross-Benchers, and she is right; I think it is slightly more at the moment, 23% or so. I have always said I think that is a fair figure, and that would not change. The commission then accepts those applications from across the UK and nominates individuals that it believes bring depth and merit to the House of Lords.
I take issue with some of the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, I think, about the background of Members and who should come into the House. It is not just about what people have done in the past; it is what they are prepared to do when they are here that really matters. We all want those noble Lords who are appointed to this place to play a full and proper role.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
Does the noble Baroness the Leader of the House accept the arguments from the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, that if his Bill had been passed we would now be left with 25 hereditaries? That would be a decent number and you would not need to get rid of them. Can I get it from there that the noble Baroness would actually agree to 25 life peerages?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I do not always admire the noble Lord’s ingenuity, but I do on this occasion. I think the point the noble Lord was making was that had that been accepted at the time, we would not have any hereditary Peers, in effect, because all would be here as life Peers. I do not know whether the numbers that would have remained was an accurate figure; it was a sort of a guesstimate.
That was the first stage. On the second part, I am grateful to noble Lords around the House who have engaged with me on this issue already. I have a number of thoughts on how it might be achieved, going forward, and there are some helpful amendments in the course of the Bill. It would be nice, would it not, to find a way that gained some kind of consensus around the issues that others mentioned, such as participation and the retirement age? If there was consensus around the House prior to legislation, it would be a helpful way forward, so I am grateful to those who have engaged with that and come forward with suggestions already.
Then there is a longer-term proposal, which is also in the manifesto. It says that in the longer term to look for a way to have a “more representative”—and I think it says an alternative—second Chamber. It was quite clear that there are those three stages.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
Is that “longer term” during this Parliament?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I do not know. It has to be when the policy is determined but I would certainly have thought that the second part of it, around participation and retirement, is something that we can look at quickly. If the House came to an agreement, it could be done quickly as well.
I turn to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, about the grouping of amendments, as the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, raised this. The normal process is that the Government suggest groupings, as we did. In this case, the Opposition said they had their own groupings. They cannot speak for anyone else around the House but had their own groupings. I think there were originally around 18 government groups. The Official Opposition did not accept that and wanted—I think, the latest is—about 46 groups of amendments. The Government have accepted that, because we accept it if Members wish to degroup and have more groups.
My point was—as I think the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, has understood correctly—that a number of themes run through this legislation and if it is possible to debate those in groups, it is easier. At the moment, we have six groups of amendments on the commencement of the Bill. If it is what the House wishes, I would not deny it the opportunity to have those debates, but that seems to be quite a lot. I think three of those groups are single amendments but if that is how the House wishes to debate it, it is open to the House to do so. The Government did not deny the Official Opposition the right to have as many groups they wanted. I have to admit to being a bit surprised at how many there were, given the themes that run through the Bill, but we will see if that was helpful or not going forward.
The noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, wants to lock me in a room with the noble Lord, Lord True—
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
The noble Lord is resisting that temptation but I say to him, as I say to all noble Lords, that I have always been open to discussions. But I need assurances, so when we see degroupings, filibustering and threats on different things, that does not give the confidence that allows me to have those kinds of discussions. To have them, I need some confidence that the Opposition want to do this in a proper way.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness the Leader of the House for her reply. We have some useful additional information from her. However, I would take issue with her, just as she took issue with anybody who tried to misrepresent her in the debate. I did not in any way imply that the hereditaries were better than the life Peers or the life Peers better than the hereditaries. The purport of my amendment was solely that once you get rid of the hereditaries, there is increased power to the Prime Minister on appointments and nominations to this House, because the element of the hereditaries has gone.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I do not accept that at all. There is no change whatever in the powers of the Prime Minister at that point. I have explained the process. I think the noble Earl is saying that it is not everybody in the House. Currently 88 Members are here because of their ancestors being here, on the hereditary basis. The Prime Minister cannot appoint those now and there will not be those places in the future, but it does not increase his actual power at all.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
As a result of this Bill, there will be a greater percentage of the House appointed by the Prime Minister than now.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
Can I just finish? My point was that this could be abused. If I recall rightly the noble Baroness said, and I agree with her, that most Prime Ministers have behaved very responsibly, but on some occasions it has not been quite as we would have hoped. I am grateful for her support on that.
I am grateful for what the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, did. As she will have noted, the amendment is carefully drafted to say nominations—nominated by the Prime Minister—rather than appointments. I focused on appointments rather than nominations, but I think I covered the point that she raised.
The memory of the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, seems to have failed him a little, I fear. He said in response to my noble friend Lord Strathclyde that he had wanted to get on with his Bill and was in a hurry to proceed. That is slightly contradicted by the fact that a few minutes earlier he had taken the House to a Division and appointed Tellers for both the Contents and Not Contents, after the amendment had been withdrawn, and wasted a considerable amount of the House’s time. I think his memory is not quite as good as it used to be.
I am grateful to all those who took part in this debate and beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
The Earl of Devon
“(A1) In section 1 of the House of Lords Act 1999 (exclusion of hereditary peers), at end insert “, except for a child or grandchild of the Sovereign”.”Member's explanatory statement
This probing amendment invites the House to consider the role of the hereditary principle within Parliament and our constitution in the context of membership of the House of Lords.
The Earl of Devon (CB)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to speak to Amendment 3 in my name. It is a probing amendment aimed at focusing upon the hereditary principle in general, and its ongoing role within our constitution and this Parliament in the context of the sovereign in particular.
The Labour Party manifesto asserted that the hereditary presence within Parliament is “indefensible”. The Government also state that in the 21st century, there should be no places in our Parliament reserved for those from certain families. Likewise, the Liberal Democrats state that there should be no space in a modern democracy for hereditary privilege. I respectfully disagree but, having listened to earlier contributions, I am aware that it is a rather lonely furrow that I plough.
For the purposes of this debate and for the entirety of this Committee, I should note my interest as an elected hereditary. I am the 38th Earl of Devon, albeit merely the 19th of the fifth creation. It is a feudal role that my family has had the privilege of undertaking for some nearly 900 years, barring various attainders, executions and abeyances. On the basis of tenure and length of service, the hereditary principle is entirely defensible. It is a key part of what got us here and a bright thread which colours our rich constitutional tapestry. Rather that replead ancient history on this point, I refer your Lordships to my contributions at Second Reading and my speech in defence of the indefensible when we debated Lords reform back in November.
However, the hereditary principle is particularly defensible on the basis that it is the principle by which we select our sovereign head of state, whose presence in this Parliament is symbolised by the Mace, to which we all bow, and around whose seat, the Throne, we are all arrayed. The concern that I wish to raise by proposing this amendment is that without an hereditary presence in your Lordships’ House, the sovereign, who was once a first among equals, will be isolated as the sole hereditary presence within our constitutional system and thus increasingly vulnerable to republican attack.
Lord Brennan of Canton (Lab)
I too come from a long line of parents. My parents were the ones who were actually ploughing the lonely furrows that he referred to—probably on his ancestors’ lands. If he asks who will stand up for the monarch, I will, and my colleagues will. We all swore an oath to do so in this House.
The Earl of Devon (CB)
I thank the noble Lord for his intervention. That is the point of this amendment, and I am very pleased to hear it. I look forward to the Front Benches from each of our parties repeating exactly the same point.
As I said, Sir Keir Starmer was bending his knee to the leader of the free world. In that rarefied context, he offered the President of the United States just about the only thing that Donald Trump and his billionaire acolytes cannot purchase: an invitation from His Majesty to a state visit at Windsor Castle. Whatever one may think of the complex geopolitics that surrounded that visit and the remarkable events that have followed, it is readily apparent that the hereditary principle, as embodied by our sovereign Head of State—it is exactly the same hereditary principle by which I find myself here in your Lordships’ House—is of considerable ongoing importance. We weaken and abandon that at our peril.
The observant among your Lordships may note that the language of my proposed Amendment 3 does not explicitly address the hereditary principle as applied to our sovereign himself. This is because such an amendment would fall foul of the scope and relevance principles. Therefore, I express my huge thanks to the team of the Public Bill Office, who worked so patiently with me to craft an amendment that is admissible, if slightly idiosyncratic; it at least provides a hook upon which to hang this important debate. I am sure that His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, the Duke of Sussex and their children would appreciate the opportunity to debate the minutiae of product safety and metrology until the wee small hours with your Lordships’ company.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
I do trust that the noble Earl is not suggesting that members of the Royal Family should participate in debates. That would be wholly disastrous.
The Earl of Devon (CB)
If the noble Viscount listens to my next paragraph, I will clarify that point.
I should also note, for the record, that we have a recent precedent for a grandchild of a sovereign seeking to join your Lordships’ House as an elected hereditary. In 2018, when I stood for a Cross-Bench vacancy upon the retirement of Earl Baldwin, one of the other 19 hereditary Peers to stand against me was the second Earl of Snowdon, previously Viscount Linley, who is a grandson of His late Majesty King George VI. I believe he withdrew his candidacy before the voting took place—obviously cowed by the strength of the other candidates. The publicly proffered reasoning for his withdrawal was that, as a member of the Royal Family, he should not sit in Parliament by convention—a reason which may indeed render my amendment dead in the water.
This aside reminds us that the only Members of your Lordships’ House that have any democratic legitimacy whatsoever happen to be the hereditary Peers. While we may be tainted by our hereditary privilege, we have at least vanquished multiple highly qualified competitors in transparent elections to obtain our seats. Indeed, I think we fulfil the second sentence in Labour’s 1997 manifesto, highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, by increasing the democratic legitimacy of this House. It is, I submit, a pity that we cannot fill other seats in your Lordships’ House by equivalent means.
I look forward to the debate on this topic. I am particularly interested to hear the views of the Front Benches of each of the main political parties, including the Minister, as this offers an opportunity for them all to clarify for posterity exactly how they view the role of the hereditary principle in the context of our monarch and how they expect to protect and support His Majesty the King in this House once we hereditary Peers have left the building.
In parting, I note that in earlier debates on this Bill, both the Government and the Liberal Democrats have pointed to the King’s legitimacy being based not upon the hereditary principle but upon his popularity and how well he does his job. This is transparently not the case. The monarch is not a competitor in a reality television show; he is our sovereign Head of State. He is born to his position and anointed, for those with Anglican faith, by God by the Archbishop of Canterbury. We all watched the Coronation, and I hope that is a fact we can all agree to. I beg to move.
Baroness Meyer (Con)
My Lords, I will speak in support of the amendment from the noble Earl, Lord Devon. This Bill is about not just the future of hereditary Peers but the stability of our entire constitutional order. Hereditary Peers are not relics of feudal privilege, as the Government claim; they are a vital link between our past, present and future. Remove them and we take another step towards dismantling the traditions that have kept this country stable for centuries.
Make no mistakes: this Bill disregards our history, weakens the House of Lords and ultimately paves the way for abolishing the monarchy itself. If hereditary Peers are obsolete, how long before the same argument is made against the Crown? For generations, hereditary Peers have served the Crown, upholding duty, service and continuity. Strip them away and the Lords becomes a Chamber of political appointees. Once it loses its independence, the monarchy loses its natural defenders.
Britain has never been a nation of radical upheaval. We have adapted, not abolished; we have evolved, not revolted. That careful, deliberate reform has kept our constitutions intact. Contrast and compare this with Russia and France, the two nations of my heritage. Both believed that radical change would bring stability, but instead they have suffered instability and disorder. In Russia’s case, it led to a regime even more oppressive than the one it had overthrown, including my grandparents. Why would we throw the baby out with the bath-water?
This Bill is ill-judged: it overturns the 1999 constitutional settlement; it ignores consensus; and it disrupts the balance that has protected us from political chaos. The path from abolishing hereditary Peers to dismantling the monarchy may not happen overnight, but it will set a precedent. Let us be clear: those who cheer the removal of hereditary Peers today will be the same voices calling for the end of the monarchy tomorrow. This Government reassure us that they support the monarchy, but how can we trust them? If they can remove hereditary Peers today, what stops them targeting the monarchy tomorrow?
History teaches us that, once safeguards are eroded, they are rarely restored. The monarchy is not just a symbol of our national unity but a powerhouse of soft diplomacy and economic strength. It generates billions for the UK. What greater demonstration of its soft power than the Prime Minister presenting the King’s invitation to President Trump—a move that could actually place Britain apart from the European Union in negotiations over tariffs, despite Brexit.
This is not outdated tradition; it is a vital asset for our future. We must stand firm against this misguided attack on the traditions that define our nation. That is why this amendment is crucial. It will protect the delicate balance of our constitution and safeguard the stability, continuity and integrity of our institution. That is why I support this amendment.
Lord Moore of Etchingham (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I rise to support the amendment tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Devon, which is very creative and imaginative. For anybody who thinks this is beside the point, I certainly would not want to press the issue too hard—it is somewhat absurd to suggest that the removal of 92 hereditaries will turn the British constitution completely upside down—but the point is important.
It is said by those who call for the abolition of the remaining hereditaries that the hereditary principle is indefensible. That is often said, and then not really argued—it is simply stated. If it is indefensible, that must apply to other aspects of the hereditary principle, of which the monarchy is the most prominent. One point I would make to the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, is that he is, in fact, mistaken. The present King did make a speech in the House of Lords, when he was Prince of Wales: he made his maiden speech here and was entirely entitled to do so. I remember no parliamentary crisis arising from it.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, that this must be quite annoying because there are so many things flying around; could it not all be grouped? This is the problem with the Bill: it raises a very big issue and then tries to make it very narrow. Masses of issues come out of this which we need to think about, and heredity is one of them.
Heredity is a very important principle in life. It is for our monarchy, which is much respected around the world and here, for all the reasons the noble Earl, Lord Devon, said. It is also very largely the principle on which our citizenship and all families are based. What are families other than hereditary? It answers a very important aspect of people’s way of thinking about things. It may well be appropriate in modern times to remove that from a parliamentary chamber, and that is what is very likely to happen. But we need to understand that this may reflect badly upon us if we get it wrong; that it may expose this House to lots of questioning about what we really are and whether we deserve to be here; and that it may make people feel that our history and our understanding of ourselves is diminished.
Last week I was in Ukraine. I was taken out to Zaporizhzhia, right by the front, by a very nice Ukrainian driver who had previously been a rock star, or at least in a rock band, but harder times had come upon him—as they often do with rock stars. As we parted, he said, “I am so pleased. First time I ever meet real Lord”. I felt very ashamed because I am not a real Lord: I am a Boris creation. I said that to him, but that only made me rise in his estimation, because in Ukraine, Boris is an immensely popular figure. It is interesting that over there in that snowbound, war-torn place, the idea of a Lord means something to an ordinary person. It is a universal idea, and it is an idea which is essentially British and retains a certain importance. All that can be done away with, and it probably will be in legislative terms, but let us think about the way this is being done and be cautious.
Andrew Marvell, the great poet—who was a Parliamentarian, by the way, not a Cavalier—wrote a famous poem about Oliver Cromwell’s return from Ireland. He warned Cromwell about the danger of ruining what he called
“the great work of time”.
That is something we need to think about. This Bill is Cromwellian, and therefore is dangerous.
Viscount Thurso (LD)
My Lords, I have bitten my tongue for the first two or three groups our Committee has considered, but I feel obliged to make a quick comment on the amendment tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Devon—and also because my gluteus maximus has gone to sleep.
We have a constitution, which is the Crown in Parliament. The Crown, based on heredity, works extremely well. Parliamentary democracy, based on heredity, works extremely badly, and I can make the difference between the two. We need a second chamber that is either selected or elected—my preference is elected—and I will stand with the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, in defence of our King.
Lord Northbrook (Con)
My Lords, I rise briefly to say that, as the royal representatives and great offices of state—the Lord Great Chamberlain and the Earl Marshall—are being removed from the House, is it reasonable not to sever the Royal Family’s link entirely with the Floor of the House? I might draw the line at the Duke of York or the Duke of Sussex, but I could tolerate some others.
The Earl of Erroll (CB)
I think the noble Lord is speaking to the amendment in the next group. While I am on my feet, I will say very quickly, because this has made me think of it, that if the King does get removed, we will end up with something very close to the constitution of the People’s Republic of China.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
My Lords, I will just make a couple of points. First, we are not abolishing hereditary Peers; we are abolishing the right of hereditary Peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords. Secondly, 26 years ago we removed 667 hereditary Peers and as far as I can judge, that has not had a devastating impact on the monarchy; in fact, the monarchy seems to have survived quite well. Thirdly, the fundamental difference between the hereditary principle as applied to sitting and voting here, and the hereditary principle as applied to the monarchy—like my noble friend Lord Brennan, I support the constitutional monarchy very strongly—is that if the monarch started to do what hereditary Peers in this House do, which is to express, as they are quite within their rights to do, detailed arguments in favour of one political party or another, I do not think the monarchy would last very long. There is a fundamental difference between the political role of hereditaries in this House, and the wholly significant and important non-political, head-of-state role of the monarchy at a national level.
Lord Swire (Con)
With that in mind, I invite the noble Lord to have a word with those who drafted the Labour manifesto, which says, as a standalone sentence: “Hereditary peers remain indefensible”.
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, I associate myself with the comments of both the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, and my noble friend Lord Thurso. There is not, and never has been, the sort of link between the hereditary Peers and the monarch that I suspect the noble Earl, Lord Devon, was suggesting. We have one period of worked examples of this, and I am afraid it was a little while ago. In 1649, when Charles I was condemned, he was condemned not just by Members of the House of Commons but by hereditary Members of the House of Lords.
A decade later, there was a House of Lords, but it was not called the House of Lords. It was called the Other Place—capital “O”, capital “P”—because the Parliamentarians, led by Oliver Cromwell, recognised the need for a revising chamber but did not like the concept of heredity. Therefore, Oliver Cromwell appointed a House of Lords. That House of Lords did not last very long, and the hereditary principle came back with Charles II. So it was not the case that a hereditary House of Lords meant that we were done with monarchy for ever. The two were just different things, and different considerations applied.
The lesson of Charles I—which is still relevant—is that, at the end of the day, Kings and Queens in this country rule by the consent of the people. If they go outwith the conventions, they will find themselves in difficulties again. With the current King and Prince of Wales, this seems an impossibly unlikely scenario, but it is still a theoretical possibility.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Newby, that I seem to remember that in the House of Lords which, to its shame, agreed to the execution of the King, there were only about six Peers who still sat, because of the exigencies of the Civil War and purges afterward, only two of whom, to their lasting shame, actually watched the execution of their King. A few days later, the House of Lords was abolished by the House of Commons as a “useless” place. The other irony was that, when Cromwell produced his own equivalent of the House of Lords, there were only about 30 people in it, of which a high percentage were relatives either of Cromwell or of his leading marshals. These things can take you down many funny roads. It was in fact the House of Lords that reassembled in 1660 that recalled the House of Commons into being—a very significant constitutional moment.
Before I go on, I will respond to the comments made about groupings. Of course we should proceed in an orderly fashion; the difficulty, as the noble Lord, Lord Moore of Etchingham, said, is that so much is left out of the Bill which is germane to the future that we have to discuss a range of subjects, and I defend our right to do so. I would not personally have put down this amendment on the Royal Family, but since it is down it is clearly a subject that has to be addressed and should be addressed separately.
The noble Baroness referred to a group of amendments on commencement, but the amendments are very different: one proposes a referendum, which I would not support; one wants to move the date earlier and get rid of hereditary Peers very swiftly; another is a delaying amendment; one calls for a review before the thing is taken forward; and another says that there should be no enactment until after stage 2 proposals have been produced. These may lock around commencement, because of the short nature of the Bill, but the idea of having a referendum on the removal of 90 hereditary Peers, is, frankly, with all due respect to my noble friend, nonsensical. To spend tens of millions of pounds on a referendum on whether hereditary Peers should leave the House of Lords is not a case I would argue on “Newsnight”, to put it that way.
These are very different subjects, so we should be careful not to run away. Peers have great freedom in this House to group and degroup. I accept that I asked for my first amendment to be stand-alone; that was because, as Leader of the Opposition and former Leader of the House, I wanted to say something that I hoped the Committee would listen to, heed and reflect upon, and I did not want that to be complicated with other discussions. I apologise if that tried the patience of the Committee, but I did ask for that amendment to be taken separately.
On the amendment, I appreciate the concerns raised by many noble Lords, starting with the noble Earl. I do not think his concerns needed to be laughed at—they are concerns that some people legitimately have. Equally, I totally agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, said. The great Labour Party has always been a patriotic party and the overwhelming number of members of the Labour Party, like the overwhelming number of members of my party, are strong supporters of the monarchy, although there are republican Conservatives and republican Labour Party members. The only thing I would wish to see happen, which I fear is not that likely—I hope it could still be accomplished, and I have great hope that we will be able to carry it forward—is that, in the years to come, the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, and the noble Earl are still here, arguing the case together, for the retention of the monarchy.
The last thing I would want is for the monarchy ever to be brought into the situation that your Lordships’ House is now in, where the hereditary principle is overtly rejected, but the reasons and reasoning, as the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, said, are very different. I do not intend to argue that the removal of hereditary Peers from your Lordships’ House would have that effect on the monarchy. With all due respect to my noble friend Lady Meyer, I understand absolutely what she said about the appalling consequences for the people of France and of Russia when they thought that removing the monarchy would lead somewhere, but we are not there. I do not believe that there is a connection between the hereditary principle in this place and the hereditary principle of the monarchy.
However, as the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Devon, shows, debate around his concern about the decision to expel hereditary Peers from the House of Lords, and what that might say about the hereditary principle, is one of several things that will always prompt debate and reflection about the importance of inheritance in wider society.
The noble Lord, Lord Moore of Etchingham, said that every family is inheritance. The instinct that families should be able to pass on what they have to the next generation is deeply imbued in our society—it is one of its absolutes, the root and the bedrock. One has to look only at the sympathy of so many people for the plight of family farms and family businesses: many people are responding to that, not because of particular views about farmers but because they feel it is unfair that a family cannot pass on its farm to the next generation because of levies on inheritance.
Noble Lords may think that I never have any leisure time, but occasionally I watch that charming BBC programme, “The Repair Shop”. I do not know whether anybody ever looks at that, but you can imagine me sitting sometimes watching it over my Marmite sandwich. Week after week, that programme throws up example after moving example of the natural instinct of ordinary people to preserve what their forebears left them and pass that on to their children and grandchildren, often amid tears and the deepest emotions. The hereditary principle is one of the most basic and honourable instincts of mankind and we should cherish it.
This is the instinct that I recognise gives birth to the sense of duty and responsibility displayed by the noble Earl in his speech, as it does for members of the Royal Family. I think everyone in the Committee agrees with those who have spoken that it is vital that we keep our Head of State hereditary and outside politics. Our monarchy provides a sense of continuity and stability that is unparalleled in any other form of governance. The English monarchy has endured for well over 1,100 years, long before Parliament, and the Scottish monarchy for close to 1,200 years, weathering countless political storms and societal changes as it evolved into our constitutional monarchy. In times of upheaval, the monarchy is there as a stay—a constant, unchanging presence that transcends transient party politics.
Further, the hereditary nature of the monarchy insulates the Head of State from the partisan struggles of politics that characterise a democratic system. It allows our monarch to represent our whole nation, or set of nations, serving as a unifying figure and bridging the divides that often stress our society, and indeed our counsels in your Lordships’ House. It plays a crucial role in preserving our cultural heritage and national identity, steeped in tradition. We here play our own part in the pomp and ceremony around monarchy. The noble Baroness opposite and I have both held the Cap of Maintenance—which is heavier than you might think—at the State Opening. Through this sense of ceremony and by maintaining these traditions, the monarchy helps to preserve Britain’s unique character, ensuring that our cultural heritage is passed down the generations.
I can say to the noble Earl that we absolutely believe in a hereditary monarchy. I know that the noble Baroness, when she speaks, will say the same thing from the point of view of the Labour Party. It serves as a powerful symbol of continuity and resilience on the global stage.
I was amused when the noble Lord, Lord Moore of Etchingham, referred to the maiden speech of His Majesty the King, then the Prince of Wales. I cannot claim to have been here, but there was a kerfuffle about it at the time and a great deal of excitement. Over 50 years ago, he made a delightful maiden speech on the subject of recreation and the importance of sport. I point out to noble Lords that his maiden speech lasted about 14 minutes. Whether that would go down well these days, I do not know.
One thing that he referred to in making his maiden speech was an occasion nearly 150 years earlier, I think it was in 1829, when three Royal Dukes—Clarence, Sussex and Cumberland—who were brothers, had, as His Majesty then put it in his speech,
“got up one after the other and attacked each other so vehemently and used such bad language that the House was shocked into silence”.
You could never imagine such a thing happening these days.
The Attorney-General (Lord Hermer) (Lab)
I am very sorry to disappoint the noble Lord, Lord True, because I am standing to speak to Amendment 3 rather than my noble friend the Leader of the House. I thank the noble Earl for his amendment and also for his transparency in explaining that this is indeed a probing amendment to test the Government’s position on the hereditary principle more generally within our constitution. I hope that the noble Earl will not take it as a discourtesy if my response is brief, not because the constitutional points raised are not of importance, but because we say with respect that the position is quite straightforward.
In explaining why we do not accept the noble Earl’s amendment, it is important, with respect, to disarticulate two principles. The first is that, since 1999, we have recognised that it is no longer appropriate in a modern democracy for direct participation in Parliament to be premised on a generational family entitlement. This Bill seeks to complete that process in line with our manifesto commitment and, by doing so, will end an anomaly that is replicated in only one other country around the globe. The second principle is that we are, and shall remain, a constitutional monarchy. Constitutional monarchy, in contrast to hereditary entitlement in Parliaments, is not a global anomaly but represents a system of governance replicated in very many countries, few—if any—of which require participation of the children or grandchildren of the monarch in their parliamentary process.
I therefore respectfully disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Moore, that there is any form of tension, constitutional or otherwise, in considering it inappropriate for hereditary entitlement to apply to being able to vote on the laws of our land in Parliament on one hand, while being fully supportive of the role of the Royal Family in our constitutional framework on the other. Our constitutional monarchy has time and again proved to be the anchor of stability in this country. The Royal Family are able to galvanise our nation and provide the consistency required for our democratic values to be protected and for this nation to flourish.
The noble Earl asked: without the hereditaries, who is there in this House to stand up for the monarchy? That point was echoed by the noble Baroness, Lady Meyer. My noble friend Lord Brennan answered that he is; so am I, and so, I anticipate, is every one of your Lordships who swore their oath in this House.
As noble Lords will be aware, all hereditary Peers, including those in the Royal Family, lost their automatic right to sit and vote in the House as a result of the 1999 Act. That did not and has not proved to undermine our model of constitutional monarchy and nor does this Bill. The purpose of this Bill, no more, no less, is about delivering the principle settled by the 1999 Act to remove the rights of all hereditary Peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords, and there are no exclusions in this. As my noble friend Lord Grocott pointed out, it does not affect hereditary titles and lands, which will continue to be passed down in the normal way.
This reform does not relate to the sovereign nor the Royal Family. As I have said, there is a fundamental difference between the position of hereditary Peers in the legislature being able to vote on laws by virtue of their families, and a constitutional monarch who acts as the head of our state, providing, as His Majesty does, stability and continuity.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. The noble Lord, Lord Grocott, made the point that the monarchy had certainly survived the departure of 600-plus hereditary Peers in 1998-99, but does the Minister accept that we are now breaking the link between hereditary Peers in Parliament in its entirety if we get rid of the hereditary Peers now?
Lord Hermer (Lab)
Yes, I do—that is the intention of the Bill. My point is that it does not impact at all the principle of our constitutional monarchy. It has no bearing on it whatever, and it is for those reasons that I respectfully ask the noble Earl to consider withdrawing his amendment.
Lord Hardie (CB)
Before the noble and learned Lord sits down, my recollection of 1999 was that the royal Princes specifically indicated that they would not wish to sit in this House. My further recollection is that, in the cloakroom, there were very grand coat hooks for the Prince of Wales and other Royal Princes which were then removed.
Lord Hermer (Lab)
I thank the noble and learned Lord for the little bit of history—I am very grateful.
The Earl of Devon (CB)
I thank the Minister very much for his words and particularly for being so brief, because I did not mean for this amendment to try your Lordships’ patience. I am very grateful to all who contributed to the debate. It is an amendment that deserved to stand alone, and I hope that the Committee will agree that the opportunity to reaffirm our commitment to a hereditary monarchy is worthy of a stand-alone debate.
I had in fact degrouped this amendment from two other amendments. The only reason why I think they were grouped together was that they all happened to be in my name. The other two amendments pertained to the issue of female succession to hereditary peerages, which we will come back to—probably on day seven or eight of Committee.
Before I close, I should admit that there is some personal animus in noting the importance of our hereditary peerage in support of our sovereign, as it was novel that the peerage was excluded from His Majesty’s recent Coronation. The writing was maybe on the wall at that stage. With the peerage having attended almost every Coronation since that of Henry II in the 12th century, it felt like the monarch himself was severing the connection between the hereditary peerage and the Coronation and was perhaps losing touch with his core base.
I am heartened to hear across the Committee the resounding support for our hereditary monarchy. The noble Baroness, Lady Meyer, in particular noted a strong connection between the hereditary Peers and the monarch. The noble Lord, Lord Moore, similarly noted how, globally, people note the importance of our hereditary principle. I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, and the noble Lords, Lord Grocott and Lord Brennan, very much for all reaffirming the principle that I was hoping would be stated in this short debate.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Newby, for the history lesson. He will perhaps recall that at the end of that rather disastrous Stuart monarchy, we were able to welcome William of Orange in the Glorious Revolution. Of course, he came to dinner with Sir William Courtenay of Powderham on his first night on English soil, so the hereditary peerage was again somewhat responsible for that change in monarchy.
With the resounding support for the hereditary principle, as embodied within the hereditary peerage, the purpose of my probing amendment has been fulfilled. I do not think that we have heard a single republican voice from across the House. I gave the republicans an opportunity to speak; they did not. I therefore beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Strathclyde
“(A1) In section 1 of the House of Lords Act 1999 (exclusion of hereditary peers), at end insert “, except for the Earl Marshal and the Lord Great Chamberlain”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would retain the Earl Marshal and the Lord Great Chamberlain as members of the House of Lords with the right to sit and vote.
Lord Strathclyde (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 4 is a short amendment with a very small impact on two Members of this House. It is less a probing amendment and more one that I very much hope the Front Bench will be able to accept. The Leader of the House, at Second Reading and other points of the debate, has mentioned these royal officeholders and said that there would be some sort of arrangement to allow them to continue to come into Parliament. But I think they should be treated even better than that. They are obviously apolitical Members and do not play a great part in political debate, so would it not be right and proper to allow them to remain as full Members of your Lordships’ House to carry out their tasks?
The Lord Great Chamberlain carries a responsibility for the royal parts of the Palace of Westminster—which are on the other side of the Prince’s Chamber, including the Royal Gallery, the Robing Room and everything else in that direction—through Black Rod. The noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk, as Earl Marshal, has been responsible for all the great occasions of state, some of sadness and others of great celebration, over the past few years. Most importantly, and of greatest effect in this House, the Earl Marshal is responsible for the State Opening of Parliament; the noble Duke forms part of the procession and signals to Black Rod to start the great walk between the House of Lords and the House of Commons. My amendment simply allows them to continue as Members of the House of Lords; it is very humble.
Some Peers have asked me if I know whether the Lord Great Chamberlain and the Earl Marshal actually want to stay. Whether they want to stay is not, strictly speaking, relevant. They do not have to come often, apart from the very few occasions when they are required to come. I hope that the Leader of the House will find favour in this principle and that, even if the amendment is incorrectly drafted, she might come forward with her own on Report. I beg to move.
Lord Northbrook (Con)
My Lords, I too have put my name to this amendment. These two Great Officers of State have been in existence since 1386, in the case of the Earl Marshal, and 1130, in the case of Lord Great Chamberlain. It was intended that they were required not only to perform their constitutional duties at the State Opening of Parliament and other events related to the sovereign but to be a vital link between the Crown and Parliament. To sever that link is a severe challenge to the monarch and deeply regrettable. Therefore, they should be allowed to remain as Members of the House.
I have it on reasonable authority that, originally, the Cabinet Office informed the officeholders that their positions were safe. Apparently, two weeks later, the change of mind was made. I highlight the contributions over the years, and since I have been in the House, of the noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk, and the current Lord Great Chamberlain.
The Leader of the House has issued conflicting messages on how the officeholders will continue to have access to the House of Lords. She concluded at Second Reading:
“On the specific issue of access … 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 … There is nothing that impedes the work they do or their roles in this House”.—[Official Report, 11/12/24; col. 1861.]
However, in opening that debate, she had stated:
“I have already raised this with the Lord Speaker to ensure that necessary arrangements can be made”.—[Official Report, 11/12/24; col. 1723.]
Quite apart from the lack of clarity as to whether these two officeholders have to rely on the approval of the commission or the Lord Speaker, what would happen if one refused to give them access? I therefore propose that, if the Government cannot agree to this amendment, there should be an alternative one in the Bill to guarantee that they have access to the Chamber to perform their ceremonial duties.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, I too put my name to the amendment. My point is wholly pragmatic. It seems that the Earl Marshal and the Lord Great Chamberlain would be better placed to perform their functions, which they have to perform, if they were entitled to come here on a regular basis and were familiar with this place and the staff. To deny them that opportunity makes it more difficult for them to perform the functions that they will be required to perform.
Lord Swire (Con)
My Lords, first, retaining the connection between these two Great Officers of State and this place would reassure those who are concerned about the weakening link between this place and the monarch. Secondly, what does the Lord Privy Seal say about the role of the Lord Great Chamberlain? As she will be aware, he has joint control, with the Lord Speaker and the Speaker of the other place, over Westminster Hall and the crypt chapel.
Lord Howard of Rising (Con)
My Lords, these two Great Officers of State are part of the framework that governs the Government and how they function. It would be humiliating for them to have to apply to something such as the commission to be able to come in here and fulfil their roles, which are part of our collective memory and the way we do things. Can you imagine going to the commission and asking, “Excuse me, I want to come in to help with the State Opening of Parliament tomorrow. Please, can I have a pass?” It is beyond reason.
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, it is with reverence for our traditions and institutions that I support the amendment in the names of my noble friend Lord Strathclyde and others, and to defend the continued membership of this House of the Earl Marshal and the Lord Great Chamberlain. This is not merely to defend two historic offices but to uphold the enduring wisdom of our constitutional framework, as my noble friend Lord Howard just pointed out.
The ancient offices of the Earl Marshal and the Lord Great Chamberlain are not relics of a bygone age; they are pillars of our constitutional order, deeply woven into the fabric of our United Kingdom. Their removal from this Chamber would be an act not of modernisation but of heedless vandalism. From the solemnity of a monarch’s funeral to the grandeur of a Coronation, the Earl Marshal is responsible for orchestrating the great state occasions that define our nation’s story. The funeral of Her late Majesty the Queen was not only a moment of national mourning but a masterclass in dignity and order. This was in no small part due to the office of the Earl Marshal and his own tireless efforts to ensure that it was so. Indeed, as my noble friend Lord Strathclyde reminded us, the Earl Marshal also oversees the State Opening of Parliament in this place.
There has been an unbroken line of Lords Great Chamberlain from 1138 to the present. The office has changed over time, but for hundreds of years they have attended this House with the right to sit and vote. The Lord Great Chamberlain ensures that this very Palace functions with the decorum and tradition that befit the mother of Parliaments. Together, they are not merely witnesses to history but actors within it. Together, they ensure that the solemnity and dignity of our state endure beyond the politics of the moment. Together, they have active responsibilities that demand knowledge, experience and deep engagement with the institutions of the state. As my noble friend Lord Northbrook said, they are a vital link between the monarch and Parliament.
To exile these officers from this Chamber is to diminish their ability to discharge their duties effectively. Yet this Bill would remove them from this Chamber, as if their roles could be executed in absentia and as if their knowledge and service could be distilled into a parliamentary pass and a seat in the Public Gallery. The Lord Privy Seal has assured us that this Bill will not affect their ability to carry out their functions, stating that
“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”.—[Official Report, 11/12/24; col. 1723.]
However, there is a profound difference between what is legally permissible and what is constitutionally sound. While statute may not require their presence here, precedent, wisdom and good governance do.
These offices are not purely symbolic; they require ongoing engagement with the legislative process to ensure the seamless operation of state functions. Without a seat in this House, they will be unable to contribute their unique expertise to debates on matters directly affecting their responsibilities, the Crown and Parliament. This was reinforced by my noble friend Lord Hailsham. Would we insist that the Lord Chief Justice never enter a courtroom, the Archbishop of Canterbury conduct his duties from a lay pew and the Speaker of the Commons be heard only from the corridors?
The holders of these offices have a range of functions. I will not detain the House by setting these out in full, but I will set out just two examples to demonstrate why their presence in your Lordships’ House is both useful and important. The Lord Great Chamberlain is entrusted with custody of the Palace of Westminster, and he is one of the three keyholders of Westminster Hall, who decide who may address both Houses of Parliament in Westminster Hall—the others being the Speaker of the Commons and the Lord Speaker. These decisions have been high profile, with international significance in the past. Would it not be odd for decisions about who may address Parliament be made by a Peer who is not a Member of either House?
Turning to the Earl Marshal, in addition to his duties at funerals and coronations, he oversees the College of Arms. The college is the organisation responsible for heraldry in England, Wales, Northern Ireland and across the Commonwealth. Occasionally, issues pertaining to heraldry come up in your Lordships’ House, most recently during Committee on the Football Governance Bill, during which my noble friend Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay expertly argued that the Government had made an error in their drafting. The noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk, was following the debate closely, as was the college itself. There is something to be said for retaining the person responsible for overseeing our heraldry in the House, so we can draw on their knowledge and experience in the future.
This artificial separation risks creating a situation where those responsible for key constitutional duties are sidelined from the very discussions that shape them, diminishing the effectiveness of both their roles and this Chamber. The argument for reform is often cloaked in the language of modernisation, but modernisation must not be pursued at the cost of effective governance. These hereditary offices play a crucial role in the functioning of our state, and their direct experience, knowledge and responsibilities make their presence in this House a matter of practical good sense. The Earl Marshal and the Lord Great Chamberlain do not just inherit their positions; they assume great responsibilities that require them to be familiar with the traditions and mechanisms of governance. The offices are defined by responsibility, not mere title. That responsibility is sharpened, not diluted, by a seat in this House.
Let us not ignore the precedent this sets. Reform, when done without care, rarely stops at a single step. What is dismissed as a minor adjustment today becomes the justification for wholesale destruction tomorrow. We must be wary of any proposal that makes our institutions less effective, less informed and less rooted in the traditions that give them strength.
Beyond our domestic affairs, there is also Britain’s international standing. Our constitutional system is admired worldwide, precisely because it blends continuity with progress. Our state occasions—the Coronation, royal weddings and funerals of heads of state—are watched by billions across the globe. They are not just moments of ceremony, they are demonstrations of national unity and the continuity of the state. The Earl Marshal is responsible for ensuring these moments are executed flawlessly, reinforcing Britain’s soft power and global influence. Denying him a seat in this House would not just be a symbolic loss; it would strip him of the access, authority and insight that enable him to perform his role at the highest level, weakening the very institution he is tasked with upholding on the world stage.
The Earl Marshal and Lord Great Chamberlain must retain their places in this House, not as anachronisms but as a vital component of our constitutional heritage. Let us not mistake removal for reform and let us not diminish this House. Let us say with conviction that those who have served this nation’s highest traditions shall not be dismissed, but upheld, valued and entrusted to continue their vital work. In preserving their place, we preserve the dignity, continuity and wisdom that have long guided both this House and this nation.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for their amendments and for the comments that have been made. I think I can offer some of the reassurance that is sought. Certainly, in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, I can say that we respect and regard the work that they do. We do not wish to hamper that all.
At Second Reading, I addressed some of the concerns raised. There is no contradiction with what I said at the time. I spoke to the Lord Speaker—it is a courtesy to do so, given the role that he plays—and I have spoken to the commission as well. I should clarify that the Bill will not affect the offices themselves and neither does it affect the ability of the officeholders to fulfil their important functions. I have gained the agreement of the commission and I have written to both the noble Earl and the noble Lord to confirm that they will have access. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Rising, that it certainly will not be a case of seeking permission from the commission. That permission has been granted. They will have full access to the Palace to carry out their functions. There will not be an issue there. I wrote to them both today.
Lord Howard of Rising (Con)
I think they should have it by right, not by permission.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
If agreed by the House, it will be a right. There has been some misunderstanding that the only way they can fulfil their functions is by being a Member of this House and having the right to speak and vote in the Chamber. That is not the case. If we go back in time, there have been cases where neither officeholder was a Member of your Lordships’ House. Peter Burrell was the Lord Great Chamberlain from 1781 to 1820. He was not a Peer until 1796. More recently, William Legge was the Lord Great Chamberlain from 1928 to 1936, but only inherited his title at the end of his time as Lord Great Chamberlain in 1936. Hugh Cholmondeley performed the office of Lord Great Chamberlain from 1966 due to his father’s ill-health. He succeeded to his father’s peerage in 1968. The current Earl Marshal took leave of absence from your Lordships’ House from 18 January 2021 for the remainder of that parliamentary Session—and we know that was a very important parliamentary Session in terms of the monarchy.
So I am confident that both noble Lords will be treated with the respect they deserve—and have earned— and they and their officeholders will be granted access to your Lordships’ House. It will not, in any way, impinge on their responsibilities and duties. I respectfully ask noble Lords to withdraw their amendment.
Lord Strathclyde (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Finn, who spoke with great authority and skill. The more she spoke, the more convinced I was that I was right to move the amendment in the first place. Her knowledge of history and precedent in this matter is exemplary.
I am also very grateful to the noble Viscount and the noble Lord who signed the amendment—the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, and my noble friend Lord Northbrook—and for what they raised, and the question that my noble friend Lord Howard of Rising raised. It does seem absurd that these great officers of state, who have a role in Parliament, will be able to come into the House only when they go to the pass office and ask for their pass, which is no doubt countersigned.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
They will have access to the House, however that is arranged. They are not going to have to troll up to the pass office and get a daily pass that they stick on them. They will have the access that is required for this House. All Members of the House would want to show that respect. The only loss will be that they will not be in your Lordships’ House to take part in debates and to vote. They will not be in the Chamber to participate in the proceedings of the House.
Lord Strathclyde (Con)
My Lords, I am reminded of the debates that took place many years ago on the future of the Lord Chancellor, when he was removed from your Lordships’ House. It was the law of unintended consequences. There was much work undertaken to try to keep all of that and I predict that the same will happen again. But I think the noble Baroness has heard what we have had to say. She will no doubt consider, with the Clerk of the Parliaments, what needs to be put in place in order for these two great officeholders to continue to do the work that they are required to do in Parliament. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Soames of Fletching
“(A1) In section 1 of the House of Lords Act 1999 (exclusion of hereditary peers), at end insert “except for peers who are members of the House of Lords on the day on which the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Act 2025 is passed and who are currently serving or have previously served as—(a) a Minister of the Crown,(b) a Deputy Speaker of the House of Lords,(c) a Convenor of the Crossbench Peers, or(d) a Chair of a House of Lords or joint select committee.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would retain hereditary peers who have served the House of Lords as ministers, Deputy Speakers, Convenor of the Crossbench Peers, or Chairs of committees.
Lord Soames of Fletching (Con)
My Lords, in moving the amendment in my name, may I say first, without sounding too much like Lord Copper, what a great privilege it is to take part in this debate, and to have listened in particular to two magnificent speeches from my noble friends Lord True and Lord Forsyth? These matters are not just events and things to be trifled with; they matter. As my noble friend Lord Strathclyde said, English legislation in particular is bedevilled with the law of unintended consequences, so these things matter.
I do not want to detain the House unduly and I have no doubt that other noble Lords will wish to say a few words. I wanted to put down this amendment just to urge the House to recognise the extraordinary service that has been given. I absolutely accept what the Leader of the House said about not differentiating between life Peers and hereditary Peer, which both make a very important contribution to the House. But if you look at the Opposition Front Bench today, of the 33 Peers currently serving on it nine, or 27%, are hereditary Peers. Of the 24 Deputy Speakers currently serving, there are the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, the noble Lord, Lord Ashton of Hyde, the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, and the noble Lords, Lord Russell and Lord Geddes; many more have served as Deputy Speakers in the past. I suggest that that is a staunch reminder of what a significant contribution the hereditary Peers make to this House.
There has been a lot of talk about hereditaries and life Peers. I am still not sure how I got here—which list I was on—because I was fired by the Prime Minister who I thought had promoted me to this House. Whatever it was, I very fortunately made my way here and was lucky to do so, but I recognise the extraordinary role that the hereditaries play, considering their numbers.
I do not wish to sound controversial but while this is a constitutional Bill, obviously of the first importance, it is also a mean Bill. That meanness can be unleavened by my amendment, which will particularly cover the question that the noble Lords, Lord Forsyth and Lord True, asked about honour and justice. The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, said at the beginning of this debate that the world is falling about our ears, and here we are debating reform of the House of Lords. But a sense of certainty and tradition is now more important than ever, and that is represented in this House in a very meaningful and formidable way by the hereditary Peers. I beg to move.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Soames and agree with everything he said, particularly his praise for the two excellent speeches we had at the beginning.
We are removing the 88 hereditaries, but in the first 234 days of the Government’s existence the Prime Minister has created 45 life Peers, which creates a record, and in this Bill, we are removing some of the hardest-working Members in the House. Hereditaries have a better attendance record than we life Peers, they have a better turnout record at Divisions and they participate fully in all aspects of the work of the House. My noble friend talked in general terms about the contribution they make. I think it is time, if the House will permit me, just to briefly name names. Who would we be chucking out?
According to my noble friend’s amendment—I am grateful to the Library for producing this for me at rather short notice—we will be chucking out: my noble friends Lord Ashton of Hyde, Lord Bethell and Lord Camrose, who were also Ministers; the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, a Deputy Speaker; my noble friend Lord De Mauley, a committee chair and a former Minister; my noble friend Lord Courtown, a Deputy Chief Whip since 2016; the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, a Deputy Speaker, Convenor of the Cross Benches and a committee chair; my noble friend Lord Minto, a former Minister; my noble friend Lord Geddes, a Deputy Speaker; my noble friend Lord Harlech, currently a Whip; my noble friend Lord Henley, a committee chair, former Chief Whip and former Minister; and my noble friend Lord Howe, who is currently deputy shadow Leader, and who has been continuously on the Front Bench since 1991.
I do not know whether noble Peers remember the great Raymond Baxter, who was the best-ever commentator at the Royal British Legion Festival of Remembrance. He used to introduce the Chelsea pensioners during it; I can imagine that if my noble friend Lord Howe were there, he would have said, “And now we have the great Earl Howe, known to his mates as ‘Freddie’ and 34 years with the colours”.
Of course, there is also the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, a committee chair and former Minister; my noble friend Lord Peel, the Lord Chamberlain of the Royal Household for almost 20 years, and a superb Lord Chamberlain he was; my noble friend Lord Roborough, a shadow Minister; the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, a Deputy Speaker; and, of course, the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, a Deputy Speaker, who has graced us with his presence for the last hour.
Then there is my noble friend Lord Trefgarne, a committee chair and former Minister; the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, the former finance committee chair—he did a superb job there; my noble friend Lord Younger of Leckie, almost continuously in ministerial office since 2013; and my noble friend Lord Effingham, currently a Whip. Last but not least, there is my noble friend Lord Strathclyde, a Minister and Leader of the House, who was an absolutely superb junior Environment Minister under my command as Minister. I would like to say that I taught him all he knows, but that would not be the case.
Those are the colleagues—the hereditaries—who will be slung out by the Government and who are on the list in my noble friend Lord Soames’s amendment. But, very briefly, that is not the full story; his amendment does not go far enough. Many other hereditaries who do a superb job chairing other committees of this House and doing other work are not included in my noble friend’s amendment. If the House will permit me, I will run through them briefly; I will not use titles, such as “my noble friend” or “the noble Lord” but simply list the names which the Library has kindly circulated in a superb Excel spreadsheet.
Those Peers are: Lord Aberdare, Lord Altrincham, the Earl of Arran, Lord Borwick, Viscount Bridgeman, the Earl of Clancarty, Lord Colgrain, the Earl of Cork and Orrery, Lord Crathorne, Lord Cromwell—I know that the noble Lord was in Georgia, heading up the OSCE delegation that observed the elections; I was with the Council of Europe delegation, and he did a superb job there—and the Earl of Devon, who has also chaired committees. In the main, these are hereditaries who have served on committees or are currently serving on them.
To continue: the Earl of Dundee, who served for many years on the Council of Europe as well and did a superb job, Viscount Eccles, Lord Fairfax of Cameron, Lord Glenarthur, Lord Grantchester, Lord Hacking, Lord Hampton, Viscount Hanworth—we are halfway through.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
But it is worth knowing the names of all those hereditaries who have been working their socks off in this place for years and will be thrown out. There is the Earl of Leicester, the Earl of Lindsay, Lord Londesborough, Lord Lucas, the Earl of Lytton, Lord Mancroft, Lord Meston, the Duke of Montrose, Lord Mountevans, Lord Moynihan —whom I see in his place in front of me, and who has already been rightly praised—Lord Ravensdale, Lord Reay, Earl Russell, Lord Sandhurst, the Earl of Stair, Lord Thurlow, Viscount Thurso, who has already spoken —I think that he welcomed his own demise—and Lord Trefgarne, also a former Minister, Viscount Trenchard, Lord Trevethin and Oaksey, Lord Vaux of Harrowden, and finally, the Duke of Wellington.
I make no apology for reading out those names; I have not taken very long to do so—less than six minutes. If the Committee is going to go ahead with ejecting hereditaries, we simply need to know all of those colleagues, the work they have been doing in this House and the expertise we will lose. We will not only lose their expertise but be doing them a disservice by rejecting all the work they have done over the last few years by saying, “You’re just a hereditary, you can now be slung out.” I think that is an insult to the hard work they have been doing.
Viscount Astor (Con)
My Lords, I knew that I was unimportant when my noble friend Lord Blencathra omitted me from his list, but now it has been confirmed. I am very grateful to him for doing that. As we approach the dinner hour, it is obviously time for very long speeches, and I intend for my speech to be very long and to cover a number of hugely important issues. I congratulate my noble friend Lord Soames on his amendment, because it would actually affect me, as a former Minister of the Crown, by inserting proposed new subsection (A1)(a). I thank my noble friend and support his amendment.
Lord Brennan of Canton (Lab)
I observe briefly to the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, that he is partial in his recollection of the career of the great Raymond Baxter. The other programme that he was famous for was called, “Tomorrow’s World”. I was an avid watcher of that programme as a young boy, and I never remember a prediction on “Tomorrow’s World” that, 50 years later, people would still be sitting in Parliament by virtue of the hereditary principle. On his list and his partial recollection of Raymond Baxter, I point out to the noble Lord that we live in tomorrow’s world, not yesterday’s.
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, Walter Bagehot once observed that the British constitution derives its strength not from rigid design but from its adaptability. Its value lies in its ability to preserve what is valuable while reforming what is necessary. It is in that spirit, and not in defiance of reform but in defence of wisdom, that I support Amendment 5 in this group, in the name of my noble friend Lord Soames.
We are debating the fate of those who have committed themselves to the service of this House, as my noble friend Lord Blencathra has pointed out so brilliantly, and who have earned their place not by entitlement but by endeavour. The amendment before us seeks not to enshrine privilege but to preserve expertise. It does not defend hereditary peerage as principle; it defends the experience of those who, having risen above the circumstances of their birth, have dedicated their careers to the betterment of our legislative process.
Some would have us believe that the mere fact of a hereditary Peer holding office is an anachronism, but I ask this: what is more outdated, a Chamber that recognises merit in all its forms or one that would dismiss its most dedicated servants on the basis of an ideological formula? The numbers tell their own story. Despite comprising only 12% of this House in the last Parliament, hereditary Peers held 20% of government roles and 26% of Deputy Speakerships. This is not a symbol of idleness; it is a testament to diligence.
To those who believe that experience and institutional memory can simply be swept away and replaced at will, I say look at history. When institutions strip themselves of wisdom, when they discard those who have mastered their craft, they do not modernise but wither. There is a reason we do not empty the judiciary of its most seasoned jurists, nor the military of its most battle-hardened commanders. Why, then, should we purge this House of those who have proved their worth in government, scrutiny and debate? We do not strengthen Parliament by weakening its collective intelligence.
Those who propose the indiscriminate removal of hereditary Peers do so in the name of reform, but reform must be guided by the principle that what works should be preserved and what fails should be improved. The amendment before us today embodies that principle. It seeks not to halt the tide of change but to channel it wisely. It recognises that Ministers, Deputy Speakers, convenors and Chairs of Committees are not relics of the past but pillars of the present. To discard those who have upheld the dignity and function of your Lordships’ House is not reform; it is amputation.
Let us keep the best of what we have rather than discard it blindly. Let us not mistake destruction for progress. This amendment supports the very principles that have kept this House a vital force in British public life.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, at the risk of repeating what I said at Second Reading, I have always been totally confused as to why, for some reason, we who are appointed Peers are somehow superior to hereditary Peers—who, let us face it, as the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, has never failed to point out, may be elected by a very small electorate, if they happen to be Labour or Liberal Democrat Peers, but are at least elected. That is not something any of us who are appointed can say about ourselves at all. We are put here because the leader of our party or the Prime Minister of the day put our names forward. Does that make us superior to hereditary Peers, who have, let us face it, been elected by their own number and chosen to be the best people who they can choose at the time? That must give them an edge, I should have thought, over we who are appointed to this House, because at least they have gone through the process of election.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
My Lords, I support my noble friend’s amendment. The exceptions to whom his amendment would apply are people who contain and are characterised by many qualities, but I mention only four here: experience, knowledge, constancy and loyalty to this Chamber, and a non-political aspect. This may seem strange coming from the Conservative Bench, but for many of us who have not been part of a party-political machine, it is very important to see how a non-political Front Bench can work to reach out across the Chamber to all sides of this House. It is these qualities of experience, knowledge, constancy and a type of non-politicalness which allows this House to do the work it does, and which brings it respect right across the world, as has been mentioned today. I commend my noble friend for tabling this amendment, and I hope it will be listened to with sympathy.
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, I think this amendment shows the problem that we were discussing earlier with the groupings, because we have actually been discussing, along with this amendment, Amendment 9 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord True, and they both deal with the question of the future of those hereditaries who play a major part in your Lordships’ House.
The noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, told us what he finds extraordinary. I think the vast majority of the country would find it extraordinary, if they realised it, that 10% of the legislature derives from fewer than 800 families in the country. Most people do not really realise that; if they did, they would be very surprised and most of them, frankly, would be appalled.
I looked at the hereditaries as a group one wet, sad afternoon. I divided them not into sheep and goats but into three: those who were active, those who were partially active, and those who were inactive. In response to the list of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, of those who are very active, I could, but will not, read out to the Committee a list of equal length, if not longer, of hereditaries who are virtually inactive. This is not a criticism of them more than it is of any other group. However, it is the case that some Members in the hereditary group are very active and well respected, but, like in all other groups, there are others who, frankly, are not.
Therefore, if we are looking to what should happen next and whether we should seek to retain some of the expertise that the hereditaries have, surely the way to do it is not as proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Soames, nor by the noble Lord, Lord True, but to encourage the parties to appoint those hereditaries who are very active and eminent in their groups to life peerages as those numbers come up. I hope very much that we will do so in respect of the Liberal Democrats—we have fewer hereditaries than some of the other groups—but that seems to me to be the logical way of doing it. It is what we did, to a certain extent, in our party after the vast bulk of hereditaries left in 1999. That is the precedent that we should seek to follow now, rather than having a broader category of exemptions, as the noble Lord suggests, or a complete continuation along the lines previously proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, which the noble Lord, Lord True, is about to suggest.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
Can I correct the noble Lord on one factual error that he has made—quite inadvertently, I am sure. According to the Library list, leaving aside the one mistake in the case of my noble friend Lord Astor, there are fewer than 20 hereditaries who do not participate in the work of the House or who are, as he said, doing nothing. The vast majority have served the House, are working in the House on committees or have been Ministers.
Lord Newby (LD)
If the noble Lord looks down the list, he will see that there may be some people who come twice a year and vote three times a year, but I did not include those in the list of people whom I consider to be active. I am happy to go down the list with him; I did not do it with the intention of proving anything but wanted to satisfy myself as to the true position.
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, the difficulty with the noble Lord’s suggestion, in my case, is that I would be relying upon knowing the leader of my party. I do not properly know any of the party leaders, and they do not know me either, so I would have as much chance as a snowflake in a blast furnace of getting a life peerage.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, I am sorry to disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Newby, but I am responding on Amendment 5, moved by my noble friend Lord Soames of Fletching from these Benches. In speaking to this amendment, I take the opportunity to recognise the significant and invaluable contribution that hereditary Peers have made to your Lordships’ House. With respect to the noble Lord, Lord Newby, this amendment is a different point conceptually from Amendment 9, tabled by my noble friend Lord True, which is essentially, if I may put it without any disrespect, the Grocott approach.
As my noble friend Lord True said earlier this evening, if we are to exclude anyone from the House, it should be those who do not contribute rather than those who have contributed and do contribute. To introduce a personal perspective, I say that as someone who makes every effort to play a proper part in the business of your Lordships’ House while maintaining a full practice at the Bar. That sometimes means that I miss the odd vote—may I record in Hansard for posterity my entirely sycophantic and appallingly oleaginous thanks to my Whip for his constant understanding? More seriously, that cuts into my downtime. I do not really have any downtime because of my work at the Bar and my obligations here. If I can use this rather demotic phrase, it does hack me off when some people do not contribute at all.
I therefore share the concern of my noble friend Lord Soames that we are removing people who contribute while leaving people who play very little, if any, part in the House. The key to a sensible approach, I suggest, while recognising that the hereditary principle has come to an end—like the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, I also enjoyed “Tomorrow’s World” in its day, and what was innovative then is commonplace now—is to retain those who have demonstrated over many years their commitment to public service and duty to the House. She is no longer in her place, but I respect fully agree with what the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, said in an earlier group. She expressly invited the Government to just look, to use what I think was her phrase, at those whom the Government are removing. She said that the approach in this Bill, which removes the fully involved and the truly indolent alike, was “profoundly wrong”. She is right about that.
Turning to the text of this amendment, I know that there are many ways in which noble Lords can contribute to the business of the House, but those who currently serve or have previously served as Ministers and Whips, Deputy Speakers, chairs of committees or as Convenor of the Cross Benches have made a determined and determinable contribution. Their institutional knowledge and dedication to public service has made them indispensable, I suggest, to the functioning of the House and thus to the functioning of Parliament. The positions which they have undertaken in the House have been earned through merit and service. To remove these noble Lords would be to discard a wealth of experience that simply cannot be replaced. I therefore agree with the points made by my noble friend Lady Finn in that regard.
We have had some stats thrown at us; let me try to identify what the position actually is. During the 2019-24 Parliament, 168 Members had official roles. This includes government and Opposition ministerial posts and parliamentary positions such as the Lord Speaker and Deputy Speakers. Life Peers filled 143 of these roles, 23 were filled by hereditary Peers and two by Bishops. About 18% of life Peers served in an official role compared with 26% of hereditary Peers. Despite making up only 12% of the total membership of the House, in the last Session hereditary Peers made up 20% of government posts and 26% of Deputy Speakers. My noble friend Lord Hamilton of Epsom rightly made the point that hereditary Peers as a group have contributed very significantly.
I will not read out my Excel spreadsheet, but do we really want, I ask rhetorically, to lose people such as my noble friends Lord Courtown and Lord Howe—who, as your Lordships have heard, has provided simply incredible service to the House? My noble friend Lord Strathclyde serves as chair of our Constitution Committee is a former Leader of the House and a former Chief Whip. He has served as a Minister over four departments. The noble Lord, Lord Ashton of Hyde, is a serving Deputy Speaker and Deputy Chair of Committees. His CV in the House reads for several pages.
I am not sufficiently brave to stand for much longer between your Lordships and your Lordships’ dinners, so I will not refer to every hereditary Peer, but I trust that noble Lords recognise the expertise, experience and dedication that those individuals have brought to our parliamentary system.
I make one final point. Some years ago, the House removed a number of Peers. The noble Lord, Lord Grocott, gave us the correct figure, which I think was 667. Yes, I was listening. I always do to the noble Lord, indeed to all noble Lords but especially the noble Lord, Lord Grocott on this topic. Does removing the final 88, or however many are left now, make any difference? Of course, the difference goes to the heart of this amendment. Those who remained some years ago were chosen wholly, or in the vast majority of cases, because they were contributing. That is why they remained. That is what this amendment seeks to do.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
They were actually elected; they were not chosen.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
Sorry, I was using “chosen” as a short form for “elected”. They were elected. My noble friend was here, and I was not, but when the elections took place, the electorate was keen to ensure that experience was not lost. That is exactly the point of this amendment—to retain those who have contributed, are contributing and will undoubtedly contribute more in the future.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Collins of Highbury) (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful for this debate and to the noble Lord, Lord Soames of Fletching, for raising these issues. One thing that concerns me is that, although I do not think that anyone in this Chamber would deny the valuable work of individuals, particularly of the hereditary Peers, the problem with this debate is that it is about selecting people for congratulations on their hard work. That diminishes the work of some of the others. The noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, talked about the period from 2019 to 2024, when 143 of the officeholders that the noble Lord, Lord Soames, talked about were life Peers and 23 were hereditaries, so a huge amount of the work that kept this House going was undertaken by life Peers.
Lord Mancroft (Con)
The manifesto commitment, as the noble Lord has just quoted, is to “remove the right” of hereditary Peers to sit and vote in this House. That right was removed in 1999. We are discussing removing not the right but hereditary Peers from this House. The noble Lord quite rightly said that there is not a lot of difference in working between one hereditary Peer and another, or one hereditary Peer and a life Peer, but there is one crucial difference: life Peers cannot just be thrown out. We are just about to be thrown out.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
Of course, the principle was established in 1999, and we are now dealing with that remaining temporary arrangement that has gone on for 25 years or longer. That is the reality. No one can deny that that remaining element—that temporary arrangement—is specifically addressed in the Labour manifesto for the last general election. It specifically addressed it in the way that this Bill seeks to implement it, so there can be no doubt about that.
Lord Strathclyde (Con)
I am sorry to intervene on the noble Lord, but he is making much store about the manifesto, which also says that Peers who are over the age of 80 by the end of this Parliament should also be slung out. Does the noble Lord think that is really going to happen?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
As my noble friend the Leader of the House has reminded me, she will be consulting on that and looking at ways for it to be implemented—she is already doing so, as she reminds me. The fact of the matter is that we have a clear commitment. The Government have a right to determine when and how they implement their commitments. The noble Lord knows that. I have heard speeches from him telling me that we should not push amendments because the democratic House has laid something down in the manifesto. He has made those points to me over the past 12 years, so this does not really wash with me.
The simple fact is that we established in 1999 that the hereditary principle would no longer apply. We put in temporary arrangements and we have now addressed that in our manifesto. Solutions were put forward in 1999. I say to the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, that his contribution is well known. Leaders know it. I certainly assume that the leader of his party knows the contribution that he has made, both outside and inside Parliament. Why would he not be considered worthy of a life peerage? I do not see why not. It is really important that we can establish a principle—
Earl Attlee (Con)
I am grateful for the kind things the noble Lord said to me, but the fact of the matter is that I do not know any of the leaders of my party. I do not know David Cameron—my noble friend Lord Cameron—or any of his successors. I simply will not be able to get a life peerage. They do not know me. I am not known. None of the special advisers know me. I am nowhere.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I do not accept that for one moment. The noble Earl is well known. His contributions are well known and valued—he must not undersell himself. The important thing is that there was an opportunity in 1999, when people left this House because they were hereditary Peers, for some to be made life Peers. That certainly is the case in relation to this last act, contained in our manifesto, to ensure that the temporary arrangements agreed 25 years ago no longer continue. I do not think that people would understand this amendment breaching that commitment in the outside world, but it is wrong to—
Lord Howard of Rising (Con)
The noble Lord keeps mentioning the manifesto. Would he agree that, if I had a pound for every promise that had been in a manifesto from the Labour Party and the Conservative Party, I would be a billionaire?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
The noble Lord must be happy that at least one manifesto commitment is being kept, and it is this one. We will deliver on it.
I conclude by saying that it is wrong to single out Peers for their contribution. All Peers have made a tremendous contribution to the work of this House, and no one is undermining that. However, this is a commitment that we have made to the electorate, and it is one that we will keep and deliver on.
Lord Soames of Fletching (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Wolfson and the noble Lord, Lord Collins, for their contributions. I particularly express my thanks for another wonderful speech from my noble friend Lady Finn, who, to my mind, absolutely nailed it. I thank my noble friend Lord Blencathra in particular for his encyclopaedic knowledge of the committees and the very important points that he made. I am delighted to be party to the support for my noble friend Lord Astor’s job application and will do what I can to help. I say to my noble friend Lord Attlee to make himself known to my noble friend Lord Hamilton, who acts as a marriage agency in these matters, and would be delighted to introduce him to all the former leaders of my party—it may take some time.
This is an important matter and there is no point in pretending that, manifesto or no manifesto, we are not cutting out a great reservoir of expertise, knowledge, steadiness and experience, and the guardians of the traditions and principles of this House. There is no question about the argument, which is dead and buried—it is gone; it is going to happen—but there is a way to make it happen in a less aggressive and disagreeable manner. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill
Monday 3rd March 2025
(3 weeks, 1 day ago)
Lords ChamberHouse of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 49-I(c) Amendments for Committee (Supplementary to the Marshalled List) - (3 Mar 2025)
Lord Lucas
“By-elections and life peerages for hereditary peer vacancies(1) Section 2 of the House of Lords Act 1999 (exception to exclusion of hereditary peers from membership of House of Lords) is amended as follows.(2) In subsection (2), after “time” insert “no more than”.(3) For subsection (4), substitute—“(4) In any case where a person excepted from section 1 dies or ceases to be a member of the House of Lords, an election must be held in which anyone on the register of electors anywhere in the United Kingdom may stand, and in which all members of the House of Lords may vote. (4A) Any person selected as a result of an election held under subsection (4) must be recommended by the Prime Minister for a life peerage.””Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to probe whether hereditary peer vacancies could be filled by members of the public who would be elected by members of the House and recommended to the Prime Minister for a life peerage.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I shall also speak to my Amendment 7. My objective in this amendment, and indeed in all my others, is to improve the Bill, not upset it. I am not intending to immerse myself in the argument as to whether we should be Grocotted or garrotted. This amendment is written as if we were being Grocotted, but it works just as well if we follow the Government’s intentions and we all leave at once.
In this amendment, I am interested in the opportunity that the Bill presents to improve the House going forward without hereditary Peers. The history of Lords reform shows that this opportunity will not be back in any short order. In the time that I have been in this House, there were opportunities for reform in 1992, which did not come about because of the election; in 1999, when we were promised stage 2 but it did not happen; and in 2012, when the coalition’s Bill did not go through.
Opportunities to reform come along once a decade, and there never is a stage 2 because this is a really hard reform to do. There is no big constituency for it—not for getting rid of the hereditary Peers but for reforming the Lords generally—and those in charge of parliamentary time never find time for it. Why do your Lordships think we as a Government never reformed the Lords? Because there were always better things to do. The same is going to be true of this Government, and the silence of the noble Baroness the Lord Privy Seal is testament to that. There is no worked-out proposal for how the Lords should be reformed, only a thought that there may be discussions in the future.
Everything we know about Lords reform says that this will come to nothing, so we really need to use this Bill to see how we can improve the House. Amendment 6 says, “Don’t throw away by-elections. We can use them to improve the House”. They are a system that works. Look at the flow of talented, hard-working Peers who have come in over the last 25 years through by-elections. None of us expected things to go on anything like this long, and the noble Baroness and her colleagues are quite right that it is ridiculous how long they have gone on; none the less, they have resulted in the acquisition in this House of some very excellent Peers. That was no mean feat, given the smallness of the pool in which we had to fish.
As my noble friend Lord Hamilton of Epsom said, we were a set of voters who cared. We cared for the House. We did not want to bring people in here who would not come up to scratch. Perhaps we also cared a good deal for ourselves; we did not want to be seen to be bringing rubbish into this place. So we did well, and there is no reason why the House as a whole would not do just as well if it had this mechanism open to it.
Amendment 6 throws open the doors so anyone can apply to be in this House. We get round the problem of the aversion to hairdressers which has plagued the Cross Benches. But anyway, this is political Peers. This is not for the Cross Benches; this is for the politicians. The 90 or so places currently occupied by hereditary Peers would be shared among the political parties and would form a different way of becoming chosen to be in the House of Lords, other than the patronage of the political leaders at the time.
We can see from my Benches that this is not destructive of the force of the political party. We have been able to absorb a continued flow of independent-minded hereditary Peers within the Conservative Party on these Benches and it has not harmed our performance. Indeed, many of my colleagues have been chosen to serve on the Front Bench. It has been a success from that point of view. By having another source of recommendations other than the party leadership, we get some diversity in views, outlook and background, which can be quite hard to get when you are operating from within the Westminster bubble.
If we keep the by-elections going, we should have the ability to set the rules for whom we wish to apply, experiment with them, let them evolve, and learn how we can become a more open House. Something along these lines lays the ground in a controllable way for the sort of ambitions the Liberal Democrats have in their Amendment 11. They would like to see a much wider franchise for getting into this House, but with added legitimacy. That did not work in 2012 and I do not think it is going to work in the foreseeable future, but we can reach towards it by using the mechanism of by-elections.
Amendment 7 says that maybe Amendment 6 is a bit wide and that maybe throwing it open to everybody would be quite hard to operate. But we have a government ambition to give a voice to the Council of the Nations and Regions, and through repurposing the by-elections we have the chance to do that straightaway. We do not have to wait for this whole thing to grind through a fresh set of legislative machinery; we can just repurpose what we have and allow members of the Council of the Nations and Regions to nominate people to this place, subject to us being the people who choose, in the way that by-elections work at the moment.
That would allow us to experiment, to find out how this works, to find out what the right questions are to ask of the politically nominated, so that we get a flow of people who really work in this place. We would achieve the Government’s ambition, which would otherwise have to wait for the next reform in a decade’s time. We could combine the by-elections with other improvements. This might work quite well with having a 15-year term in this place, and other proposals that we reach later in the Bill.
My proposal is that we be realistic: that we recognise that we are not going to get another Bill, that we are not going to get further reform from this Government, and maybe not from the next one. We need to use this Bill to give ourselves the opportunity to improve the House as it goes forward, and not just to say goodbye—as my noble friend Lord True says we all accept—to the hereditary Peers. I beg to move.
Amendment 7 (to Amendment 6)
Lord Lucas
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Lucas on introducing his Amendment 6. Today of all days it is an immense privilege to be able to speak in your Lordships’ Committee. Like other noble Lords have said, I feel a little bit diffident about talking about ourselves when so many more important international affairs demand our attention. But this is the way the business has been tabled and so I am following that.
I remind noble Lords that the acceptance of the Weatherill amendment to allow 92 hereditary Peers to remain was described by Viscount Cranborne, as he was at the time, as the “sand in the shoe” to ensure that the Government really would move to stage 2, which would involve a move to a wholly or partially elected House. Indeed, the Parliament Act 1911 envisaged the eventual replacement of the House of Lords, as then constituted, with a House elected on a popular instead of a hereditary basis. I stress that, although I fully accept that many life Peers are extremely popular, the Act clearly meant the introduction of at least a significant elected element.
I would remind the Lord Privy Seal that not only the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irving of Lairg, but many other Ministers at the time made clear their commitment that stage 2 really would happen. I understand that the by-elections which have been held for 26 years cannot in any sense be regarded as democratic, but they have certainly been competitive. I was evicted from this place in 1999 and had to contest a by-election against 36 candidates in 2004, which was certainly competitive.
The Weatherill amendment was successful in avoiding what many noble Lords on all sides of the House thought at the time would be a most undesirable outcome—the establishment of a wholly appointed House. However much noble Lords on other Benches have ridiculed the system for replacing hereditary Peers through by-elections, the existence of any kind of elected part of your Lordships’ House has been valuable because it has maintained 92 independent Peers who do not owe their membership to appointment almost entirely by a Prime Minister.
My noble friend Lord Lucas has demonstrated a stroke of genius by tabling Amendment 6, which seeks to retain this valuable independent element but removes the connection to hereditary peerages. The valuable independent element would be made much more open. The Lord Privy Seal should welcome his amendment because it would end the remaining connection between hereditary peerage and membership of the House of Lords but retains an independent section of Peers who would be elected by Members of your Lordships’ House.
Many might say that the Lucas Peers, if I may call them that, would be no more democratic than the Weatherill Peers. However, we recognise that in 2025 there are many who believe that possession of a hereditary peerage should no longer have a connection with becoming a Member of the House of Lords, as acknowledged by my noble friend Lord True in his Amendment 1, which I also strongly support.
However, the Lucas Peers would be equally independent of the Government of the day, and under Amendment 6 any member of the public may stand. There is a possibility that a very large number of members of the public would stand for election, and it is unlikely that the electorate—the current Members of your Lordships’ House—would have any reliable criteria on which to make a judgment. Therefore, it would be sensible to incorporate a bar to restrict the number who would stand as candidates to a manageable number.
My noble friend Lord Lucas, in his Amendment 7, suggests that this restriction should depend on procedures proposed
“by a member of the Council of the Nations and the Regions”.
I am not as confident as my noble friend that the council will become an appropriate body to determine such procedures. As of today, the House of Commons website states:
“It’s not yet clear how the Council of the Nations and Regions will fit into the existing system of intergovernmental relations, which was established in 2022”.
As an alternative and perhaps a better way to restrict the number of would-be Lucas Peers to a manageable number, my Amendment 8 restricts applicants to those who have three years’ or more experience of serving as a
“member of either House of Parliament, or as a member of any of the devolved legislatures, or of a Principal Council”.
This would provide an opportunity for those threatened with exclusion by the Bill but who wish to continue the work they do in this place to seek all noble Lords’ endorsements to enable some of them to do so. The eligibility of members of the devolved legislatures and councils would also encourage the continuation of a less metropolitan section of the membership of your Lordships’ House, but in a more democratic way than the present hereditary Peers alone provide.
As drafted, Amendment 6 provides that the Weatherill Peers are gradually replaced by the Lucas Peers. It is also possible to replace them all in on big bag, perhaps at the end of the parliamentary Session. In either case, suitable Standing Orders could be drawn up which could ensure that the proportion of the Lucas Peers representing each party would eventually be determined by the average of the number of votes cast in the last three general elections, while retaining 20% for the Cross Benches—in a similar manner as proposed by my noble friend Lord Strathclyde in his Amendment 90A, which will be debated later.
The existence of the Lucas Peers should continue until and unless real constitutional reform takes place, as envisaged in the Parliament Act 1911 and in the House of Lords Act 1999. This is stage 1a of the House of Lords Act 1999. It does not qualify as stage 2, but it satisfies those who wish the heredity principle to end while retaining an independent section of Peers to continue to act as the sand in the shoe to ensure that, one day, the House will change into one with at least a significant directly or indirectly elected element.
Lord Strathcarron (Con)
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Lucas’s Amendment 6, which seeks to open up the by-elections to registered voters—and, in fact, take it even further than that—to correct the wrong impression of by-elections held by many noble Lords who have never had first-hand experience of them.
The concept of by-elections to your Lordships’ House has been dismissed because of the singular nature of the candidates, but if the candidature is broadened, as envisaged by this amendment, the idea suddenly becomes much more attractive. To succeed in a by-election is no easy task; to have succeeded proves the candidate worthy to the selectorate involved in choosing him or, in the future, her.
The candidates must first a show real determination to sit in your Lordships’ House. Library research shows that, on average, an hereditary stands for election four times before being successful. As elections are held on average once a year, on the death or retirement of an existing Member, this typically means committing to a four-year election campaign to succeed. On average, there are 14 candidates for each vacancy and only one successful candidate each time—so one a year. There is no reason to suggest that the by-election process for registered voters, as imagined in my noble friend Lord Lucas’s Amendment 6, would be any less rigorous than the hereditary by-election process that has existed until very recently. First, there are hustings, where candidates hone their skills in political public speaking, followed by some very pointed and topical questions by members of the selectorate, who want only the brightest and the best to join them. Then, the voting process itself could hardly be more democratic, being a secret ballot conducted under proportional representation.
There is a lot to be said for scaling this up, not just for vacancies filled by registered voters, as in this amendment, but as a form of appointment to the whole House. Many amendments have called for a democratically elected House, but the reality is that this would mean the House of Commons agreeing to lose primacy, something to which it will never agree. I contend that that is simply never going to happen. On the other hand, we could have a democratically elected House if new Peers were elected by Members of this House. This is, after all, how political parties elect their leaders in the other place—at least partially. As ever, there is some devil in the detail, but it cannot be beyond the wit of sitting Peers to devise an election process based on the one that has worked so well, selecting only the very best hereditaries standing for election.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I speak in support my noble friend Lord Lucas’s amendment. I say as a preliminary that I was somewhat horrified to hear, from his remarks, that there is an aversion, on the Cross Benches, to hairdressers. I have not heard that before. I cannot imagine why there would be an aversion to hairdressers among Members of your Lordships’ House, on the Cross Benches or elsewhere, and I hope that there will be opportunity before this short debate concludes for at least one Member of the Cross Benches to put my noble friend right about that and give us all a proper, egalitarian assurance.
Turning to the amendment, I remind noble Lords of my general position. I said at Second Reading that in any 21st-century democracy, there will always be a case that the legislature should be elected. That must surely be the default position, and it must apply to both Houses. All those who say that you cannot have two elected Houses are ignorant of the vast majority of functioning democracies which do have two elected Houses, although they are often different in their composition and method of election. Of course, it is perfectly possible to have two elected Houses that work together to generate effective legislation. That is what I find so frustrating about a large part of the debate, and I have sat in for much of the debate today.
My noble friend makes a sally. I do not intend to go into the details of whether it should be an open candidates list, a closed candidates list, a vetted candidates list or any of the other tunes that could be played on this theme; I simply say that he put his finger on something in saying that a House that is entirely appointed in a 21st-century democracy—with the exception of the Bishops—is mildly ludicrous and is indefensible as a long-term proposition. That is presumably why the Labour Party put forward in its manifesto a package of reforms to be delivered at different times; some immediately and some for consultation or enactment later—that is a clear distinction in the manifesto—and why it is such a frustration. The noble Baroness the Lord Privy Seal seems to be frustrated that there is some sort of filibustering going on. If there were a filibuster, I wish somebody had told me about it: I would like to have taken part.
Lord Moylan (Con)
This is the first time that I have spoken in this debate. The two Bills that I have been involved in, sitting on the Front Bench, speaking for transport, have gone through your Lordships’ House in record time. The buses Bill ended on its third day of Committee when it had had four days allocated to it. I find it mildly offensive to be told that there is a filibuster going on when many of us are in fact working to see the House’s business dispatched with reasonable efficiency.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I remind the Conservative Benches that if we are talking about what has been in manifestos, there was a very clear pledge in the 2019 Conservative manifesto to set up a commission on the constitution to examine some of the underlying difficulties of the British structure of government. I recall the noble Lord, Lord True, on a number of occasions, defending from the Government Front Bench the reason why nothing had happened on that. Constitutional matters get easily put off and, once put off, we tend not to get back to them.
With these amendments, we are now beginning to talk about where we go from here, which I am sure the Leader of the House will recognise we all want to hear more about. Where do we go next, after this? This is a rather ingenious proposal from the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. I am not entirely sure that ,as an electorate, this House is the best place. There might be a certain tendency in our current composition to overselect people who have been to the same school as we had, or people who are very like us, when actually, some of the people who are not like us are particularly good.
For example, if you had asked me to vote for a ballerina, on first impression I would have thought that was totally the wrong person for the Lords. I regard the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, as one of the most valued Members of the House, which was a great and wonderful surprise. If you had asked me to vote for the noble Lord, Lord Bird, as the candidate, again I might not have thought at first impression that he was a good person for the Lords. That is the hesitation I raise: elites selecting new members of the elite tend to go for the safe people like them, which is not necessarily ideal.
I will make a few wider remarks about where we go from here. I have on my shelves a full shelf of reports on House of Lords reform and previous Bills. The 2012 scheme, which I had the duty of trying to move in this House, was relatively clear. It was agreed by the coalition partners, although it was Conservative Back-Benchers, as much as the Labour Party, who let down that scheme.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
Well, let us agree to differ on that.
The Gordon Brown proposals are out there, and there are a range of other matters that we could begin to pull together very quickly; we do not need to start again. I find the reference to the Council of the Nations and Regions interesting. In two or three weeks I have a Question on how precisely the new Council of the Nations and Regions will fit in to our constitutional arrangements, because I am not at all sure that I or the Government yet understand how it will fit in.
We need to level up the way our politics are done. I have spent most of my political life in Yorkshire. We now have a situation in which Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have some voice in London, but the English regions and the English principal councils do not. I am not entirely sure that mayors elected on perhaps 29% or 30% of the vote on a 25% turnout will have that much legitimacy to represent their areas to the central Government. The question of how far the second Chamber should be constituted so as to strengthen the representation of areas outside London in the centralised governance of this country is very important, so we need to move on to that.
We shall say from these Benches to the Government Front Bench, several times, that before we clear this Bill we need some assurance as to where we go from here and when we might start to move from here. This is an interesting, slightly idiosyncratic set of proposals, but one could perhaps throw it into the mix.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, that this is an ingenious, but perhaps at points impractical, solution. But it does address one of the more eccentric features of the by-election procedure, not least the use of single transferable vote. Of course, the only Members of the UK Parliament elected by single transferable vote are the hereditary Peers elected in by-elections. I am not sure whether that is the proposal for the by-elections in my noble friend Lord Lucas’s amendment, but I am speaking of the nature of the electorate—or selectorate—for the by-elections. The 92 under the present reforms are largely elected by the hereditary Peers of each party and group, save for the 15 places that were occupied by Deputy Speakers in 1999, when the vote was by all Members of the House. As I understand the proposal from my noble friend Lord Lucas, the Deputy Speaker solution is proposed for these by-elections.
I must say, as a sideline, that I particularly enjoyed voting in one of those by-elections, when the House had to choose between the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and Earl Lloyd-George. I do not think I am breaking any confidences by saying that I voted for Earl Lloyd-George because he demonstrated a particular fondness for the creation of hereditary peerages, although perhaps not always for the best reasons.
Be that as it may, this amendment highlights the core of the mischief of this Bill, in that it means that one of the few avenues of getting into this House that is not controlled by the selection of the Prime Minister—whereby everybody in this House has to be sharp-elbowed enough to catch the eye of the Prime Minister pro tem —is being closed. I commend my noble friend Lord Lucas on proposing a solution that keeps open another avenue into this House.
Lord Strathclyde (Con)
My Lords, I have listened to parts of this debate, and I understand what the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, was saying: this takes this debate down a different course. We are now discussing the “what ifs” and what could happen. It shows something quite serious about the Government’s thinking. Not in this Bill but in the manifesto, they talk about other things that are planned for the future. Yet there is no White Paper, or even any Green Paper, on the Government’s thoughts on the nature of the House of Lords that they want.
All we are being offered is what is in the Bill—that is it. There is no promise of anything in the future, no careful thought, no publication of a White Paper and not even a timetable for those things. There is no promise that anything will be published before the next general election. We could go through the whole of this Parliament—those noble Lords who will still be here—wondering when the next stage of reform is going to take place. There does not need to be anything because the Leader of the House has not yet convinced her colleagues that they should explore their thoughts and study the bookshelves of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, to look at what has happened in the past and come forward with those proposals.
My noble friend Lord Lucas has tried valiantly to build on the existing by-elections, if I can continue to call them that, by having them filled by members of the public. My noble friends Lord Trenchard and Lord Lucas have thought about alternatives. I do not expect the noble Baroness to accept any of these amendments in any shape or form. When it comes to democracy, I know that we have an amendment later on in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Newby and Lord Wallace of Saltaire, which I am supporting, so I will keep back my more general comments about a more democratic mandate. This follows the preamble to the 1911 Act, which the Government, for the time being, seem to have turned their face against, which I very much regret.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friends Lord Lucas and Lord Trenchard for their amendments and for the ingenious way they have tried—as my noble friend Lord Strathclyde just said—to build on what we currently have in this House to propose some suggestions. Their amendments would continue the by-elections provided for by the 1999 Act, and thereby are a reminder that those by-elections have been discontinued by cross-party agreement. It is no longer possible to join your Lordships’ House by inheriting a peerage. The primary objective of the Government’s reform has already been achieved. As the amendments and the discussions that a lot of noble Lords have had in this Committee show, there is a great deal of interest in the stage 2 and stage 3, as the Lord Privy Seal put it earlier. There are a lot of unanswered questions about those.
My noble friend Lord Lucas’s Amendment 6, which leads the group, suggests that anybody on the register of electors anywhere in the United Kingdom may stand in the by-elections provided for through the 1999 Act. As he acknowledged, that is a very large number of people—more than 48 million at the last count. I do not think there is a ballot paper or computer screen big enough to satisfy the process that Amendment 6 envisages. As he said, it may be a bit wide. He and my noble friend Lord Trenchard acknowledged this through their further amendments in this group to try to narrow that down a little.
My noble friend Lord Lucas’s Amendment 7 suggests that it could be somebody who has been nominated by a member of the Council of the Nations and Regions. If the noble Baroness were to delight my noble friend by accepting this amendment, I think it would be the first mention on the statute book of that new body, which was created by the new Government when they came to power and which comprises the Prime Minister, the First Ministers of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and 12 English mayors. There was an attempt to mention the Council of the Nations and Regions within the passenger railway services Bill, through an amendment proposed in your Lordships’ House, but regrettably that was not accepted by the Government.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
Does my noble friend not feel that there is a problem in that if these people are elected by a separate mandate, they will feel they have greater legitimacy than other appointed Members of this House and not adhere to the conventions of the House?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
Certainly, the question of conflicting mandates will be uppermost in our minds when we debate the later group about a wholly elected House. If we introduce an element of election, particularly a proportional election, there will certainly be those who favour different voting systems that say one method of election is greater than another, but that is a debate for a later group.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Smith of Basildon) (Lab)
My Lords, it is an interesting group of amendments and I praise the ingenuity of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, in coming up with their proposals. I say at the beginning, however, that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, the noble Lord, Lord Strathcarron, and the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, spoke specifically to the amendments before us. I have to say that the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, spoke in more of a Second Reading way on a wider debate about other issues.
Lord Moylan (Con)
I am very happy to be rebuked, but I have spoken only once so far today. If the noble Baroness wants to provoke me to speak a second time, that is another matter. I think I spoke clearly to the import of what my noble friend Lord Lucas said, which is the introduction of an element of democracy, the importance of doing that and the context in which it sat, all of which I thought was very pertinent to the amendment. I am sorry the noble Baroness feels she has to disagree with me and rebuke me about that.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
The noble Lord is very sensitive. It was not a rebuke; it was more of an observation that his comments went wider. I think he would agree that he wanted very much to know what comes next. I also think he accused me of being silent—I made some notes of his comments. It may not have been the term “silent”, but it was something about my having nothing to say or bringing the shutters down on what he said.
I will talk to the amendment, but I have been clear from the beginning of the many debates we already had on this issue that there is a process, with this as the first stage. It is not surprising that talks and discussions about Lords reform have so many times, as the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, said, been driven into the ground and gone nowhere. Focusing on what is in front of us and what can be achieved by a single Bill is very important, but we seem to want to talk about what comes next and after that. Amendments later on will address some of these issues, but I say to noble Lords: there is a Bill before us with specific amendments and I will mainly address my comments mainly to them.
That does not mean what comes next does not matter, but I can think of no other area of policy or manifesto commitment where the Minister proposing it is constantly demanded to say what comes next and in what order we will do things. I have been quite clear from the very beginning that this is the first stage. It was in the manifesto and there are two stages following that. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, cannot help himself; I am beginning to love the sound of his voice. I look forward to hearing from him again.
Lord Strathclyde (Con)
My Lords, I hope the noble Baroness does not feel that I have spoken at length. I have not. I have spoken many times to make short points; perhaps I can take up another now that I have mentioned before. I do not think any of us would be putting forward amendments on “What next?” if the Government had not themselves mentioned ideas for what is next in their manifesto. If they had published a White Paper, or even a Green Paper, it would make life so much easier and would allow the noble Baroness not to answer these questions.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I think the noble Lord labours the point a bit. I will address the amendments before us today and, in due course, as we move on, there will be other issues to discuss as well. I am not shying away in any way from our manifesto commitments; they remain and stand. The noble Lord is not one of those noble Lords who have discussed details of them, but others have, and I have been grateful for their suggestions and ideas for moving forward.
Let us look at these specific amendments. I think I said that they were quite an ingenious way of looking at things. I must admit that I interpreted one of the amendments differently to the way the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, did. That might have caused some confusion. Basically, the noble Lord’s amendment seeks to continue with by-elections but, instead of replacing hereditary Peers with others, any member of the public on the register in the United Kingdom—I assume that means overseas voters who are on the register in the UK as well—could stand to be a Member of the House and the electorate would be Members of your Lordships’ House. The by-elections would continue and anybody who won one of those elections, if I have understood him correctly, must then be recommended for a peerage by the Prime Minister. The noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, then looked to amend the criteria for potential candidates, and to have process and procedures on that.
These are creative amendments that raise an interesting and useful point about how we can get some of the best and most able people into your Lordships’ House if they wish to contribute to its work. I sometimes think that we look too much at what people have done in the past and not to what they will do in the future, when they are here.
I took some issue with his comment that the hereditary Peers are, by virtue of being hereditary, always more independent-minded. There are other amendments on the Order Paper, some of which we have heard already, about how Members on the Front Bench or who hold official positions should be able to continue in your Lordships’ House. Being a hereditary Peer does not guarantee the independence of any Member, and Members across the House who are hereditary are affiliated to political parties, which does not render them to be called independent. It may be only the Cross-Bench hereditaries who can claim to have that independence.
The noble Lord will understand why I cannot accept his amendment. It removes Clause 1 of the Bill, which is one of the crucial parts of it, and therefore retains the right of the current excepted hereditary Peers to continue to sit in your Lordships’ House. It is a bit like the Grocott amendment: there would be a by-election, but it would be for any member of the public.
I have some sympathy on how we get the best people to represent the House. The noble Lord, Lord Murray, commented that, in not having hereditary Peer by-elections, an avenue is closed, and this would open up another avenue for bringing Members into your Lordships’ House. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, made the point that, with such an exclusive electorate, this does not really open it up in a way that the members of the public who could put themselves forward would be happy with.
The commitments in our manifesto are quite clear. One of those was to reform the appointments process. Part of that is to look at the quality of candidates coming forward and the national and regional balance of the second Chamber. Members may have noticed in the last list of Peers that was announced by the Prime Minister—not all appointed by the Prime Minister—that all had a citation of why they had been appointed to the House. That was the first time it had happened. I remember saying to your Lordships’ House at Second Reading and even in the debate on the King’s Speech that that was something I was very keen to see. Previously, the only information given about somebody appointed to your Lordships’ House or a hereditary Peer who was elected, was just a line, which did not say anything about them at all. Now there is at least some information being made public—a small change, but an important one.
We are looking at other ways on the appointments process. We have already had discussions about moving forward on the other issues: the second part, looking at retirements and participation. Both will move ahead, but those are not the issues before us today. On this particular amendment, which I think is quite ingenious, while I understand the noble Lord’s reasons for bringing it forward, I am sure he will understand why I am not able to accept it. I urge him to withdraw.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to all who have spoken, and particularly my noble friend Lord Trenchard for his amendment, which is a very useful contribution to considering how to take this idea forward. I think my noble friend Lord Strathcarron is quite right that the elections process produces candidates who have staying power and determination over time, bringing us closer to democracy—not a huge amount closer to democracy, but at least it is a move in the right direction. I share the wish of my noble friend Lord Moylan to be much more radical in that. However, nothing in my experience of the House suggests that we will get there. It never seems to appeal to our colleagues down the other end.
As to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, asking whether we would vote for a ballerina, the noble Lord needs to look at the background of the hereditary Peers that we have elected. We have artists, we have film producers and we have a number of other people whose hearts are very much in the arts. There is a notorious propensity for hereditary Peers to marry ballerinas, so I do not believe that there is any prejudice inherent in us against that particular profession.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
Apart from my curiosity about the noble Lord’s earlier remark about hairdressers, I cannot resist pointing out that my great-great-grandmother was in the Ballets Russes.
Lord Lucas (Con)
There we have it, and a very fine great-great-grandchild she has, too.
I am grateful for the support from my noble friends Lord Murray of Blidworth and Lord Strathclyde, who quite rightly said that, if we are to believe that the Government as a whole, as opposed to any individual, are actually determined on giving us another House of Lords Bill within this Parliament or the next, a Green Paper would be the least of our expectations. Get the proposals out there for discussion. Let us get this process on the road. Without that, all history says that this will run into the sand. Those who, like me, have tried through Governments of both colours to move changes to this House and have never succeeded know just how hard it is. It really is extremely difficult to get the machinery of government to spend time contemplating what should be done with the House of Lords.
Lord True
“Exclusion of remaining hereditary peers(1) Section 2 of the House of Lords Act 1999 (exception from section 1) is amended as follows.(2) For subsection (2) substitute—“(2) No more than 89 people at any one time shall be excepted from section 1.”(3) For subsection (4) substitute—“(4) Any vacancy resulting from the death, retirement, resignation or expulsion of an excepted person under subsection (2) after the day on which the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Act 2025 comes into force is not to be filled by further exception.””Member’s explanatory statement
The purpose of the amendment is to prevent any more hereditary peers coming to the House of Lords by virtue of the 1999 Act in future. However, it allows peers who are already serving the House to remain as members for life in the same way as is allowed to all other Lords Temporal.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I must tell the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, that in the last Recess I visited the tomb of Diaghilev on San Michele. As always, it was covered with ballet shoes. I wonder whether one was put there on behalf of the noble Lord’s great-great-grandmother. You never know.
I am sure not many people are here to listen to me, so I must make it clear that I have absolutely no intention of testing the opinion of the Committee on this or, in fact, any other amendment in my name, as I offer the amendments I put forward as a basis for open discussion and potential improvement of a Bill that will pass, as I said. As noble Lords will recognise, this amendment is based on ideas put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, which he used to love but which, we heard earlier, he now absolutely loathes and condemns, so he would never vote for my amendment.
However, the amendment has the same effect as the noble Lord’s Bill, ending the by-elections provided for under the House of Lords Act 1999, something I think we are all agreed on in light of the Government’s mandate. But it amends the present Bill to leave out what was added to the Grocott Bill—the wholesale expulsion of 88 or 89 fellow Members, one of whom is currently on leave of absence. It would also allow our existing valued colleagues who serve here—we have heard from all sides how much they are valued—the possibility to continue on the same basis as the rest of us came here and serve here: for life. I believe that to be fair, reasonable and in accordance with the practice of this House. That is what happened in 1922, when Irish Peers left the House, as we were told earlier.
In 2009, when the Supreme Court was set up and the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary were abolished by the Labour Government, existing Law Lords were allowed to stay. They were given, in effect, grandfather rights or acquired rights, and that is how the noble and learned Lords, Lord Woolf, Lord Mance and Lord Hoffmann, were and are sitting with us. It is how we benefited for so long from the truly memorable wisdom of noble and learned Lords like the late Lord Lloyd of Berwick and the recently lamented Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood. It is how the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hale of Richmond, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury, sit here.
When the Law Lords were abolished for the future, 23 people—no more—were given these grandfather rights, retaining the acquired right to sit. Did that damage the House? Does that damage the House? I suggest the continued presence and use of that experience does precisely the opposite. Why should it be different with those friends we have among us as elected hereditary Peers? When I say friends, I mean friends on all sides, including in the party opposite. They are people we know, sit with, learn from and share service with every day. Why are they being given, in effect, summary dismissal under the Bill? That is what it is; that is what the Bill says.
In law, summary dismissal is acceptable only in cases of gross misconduct such as physical violence, racism, sexual harassment, theft, or deliberate disclosure of sensitive information. I am not sure that the noble Earls, Lord Minto, Lord Clancarty, Lord Kinnoull and Lord Howe, have ever been guilty of any of those. I am told there is another ground for summary dismissal, which may appeal more to some in government, and that is serious insubordination in the workplace. Perhaps some of my colleagues, seen from Labour headquarters, are guilty of that. Well, good for the independence of the House of Lords.
To be serious, in Amendment 1 I spoke about a four-part plan that I believe would be a good destination for this House, while giving the Government greater security regarding their legislative programme and what they wish for: ending any inflow into the House based on the hereditary principle. That is something Sir Keir Starmer can take to the party conference. Point one of my proposals was that we recognise the Government’s mandate to end this flow. This amendment does not challenge that.
Noble Lords may well know that soon after the election last summer—this was not popular with all my colleagues—I and the Convenor of the Cross Benches, the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, went to the noble Baroness the Leader of the House to suggest the suspension of by-elections as an earnest of good faith and recognition of the direction the Government wished to go. We recognised the Government’s mandate, even if we might regret it. It was also an earnest of our wish to work in a constructive way with the Leader of the House, whom we greatly respect, to find the best way forward for the whole House. That is still my wish.
I know the noble Baroness and her commitment to the whole House, which she has displayed over nine years as leader of her party here, Leader of the Opposition and now Leader of our House. I am sure that if the absolutists and absolute positions are kept in the wings, we can find a way forward, based on the trust I have in her good sense and pragmatism. But there has to be give and take. We accept the shutting of the door, but we cannot back a full-scale purge.
There is a stakeholder far larger than my party, or indeed the party opposite, and that is the House itself. The House may have a view on whether it wants to lose these colleagues. It is not in the interests of the House, either in practice or as a precedent, to have some of its most effective Members summarily excluded. I say again that what I fear in my heart is that what is done once will inevitably happen again when another party holds the reins. The Conservative Party has never yet excluded Members of other parties, and I hope it never will, but I can imagine others around who might not have the same scruples, and a precedent of damping summary exclusion might be in the interests of the House.
In my speech earlier, I suggested as a second point of agreement that there should be a stay on wholesale exclusion, but with, as my third point, some agreed approach to numbers. I add this also for reflection. In the purest practical terms, both presentationally and constitutionally, it is easier to keep existing Members but address numbers by retirement from the ranks and other measures, rather than throw everyone out and then have the Prime Minister bring significant numbers back by creating new life peerages in the most public of all forums. For years, the party opposite supported the Bill brought forward by the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, to end by-elections. That was never our policy, except in the context of a stage two Bill such as we brought forward in 2011-12. Even the coalition agreement of May 2010 saw the issue of existing Peers as something that must be respected. I look back to the coalition agreement, which said there would
“be a grandfathering system for current Peers”.
My amendment follows past precedents and has exactly the same effect as that of the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Grocott. It ends new entry but keeps those now here, just as Labour did with the Law Lords. Why should the Government be against that now? When the ending of by-elections was discussed on 13 March 2020, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, who was in her place earlier but is no longer here, said:
“It would not affect any of our existing Members, whom we look forward to hearing from, I hope, for many, many years”.—[Official Report, 13/3/20; col. 1231.]
On 3 December 2021, the noble Baroness doubled down on that, saying:
“This modest measure would make change very gradually. We are not seeking to say farewell to any hereditary already here; indeed, we look forward to their contributions for many more years.”.—[Official Report, 3/12/21; col. 1569.]
Was that not a wise and humane position? For the Liberal Democrats, speaking to the same Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, said:
“No existing Member of the House—and I accept that we have some very excellent hereditary Members—should feel threatened”.—[Official Report, 3/12/21; col. 1567.]
What has changed? Why is the exclusion of these 88 people so essential? If it is about ideology, we can do little but oppose it, and there seem to be some who are of that mind whom I would wish to restrain. If it is about numbers, we should surely rule no options out, but sit down to discuss it, keeping in mind at all times the best interests of the whole House. If we want to get to a destination—and I think there is scope for agreement on a destination—we need to be open about the potential routes. Let us keep all options on the table if we really wish to enable a settlement.
On 7 September 2020, the noble Baroness the Leader of the House said:
“All Members of your Lordships’ House are welcomed. In fact, most of us really do not know who are the life Peers and who are the hereditary Peers”.—[Official Report, 7/9/20; col. 545.]
How sad it is that this Bill and this provision are driving a wedge. What the noble Baroness said then was the best of the noble Baroness—the best of our Leader. She is a Leader we all know and respect. How she said it then is as it should be, and how it should stay. We are all one, and stronger as one. I beg to move.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
My Lords, as soon as I knew that Labour had won the general election and was preparing its legislative programme, I knew that it would include the removal of the 92 hereditary Peers, and I knew with stone cold certainty that the noble Lord, Lord True, would introduce an amendment to, in effect, put into law the Bill that he had so consistently and passionately opposed over a long period of time.
One welcomes a sinner who repenteth but, of course, circumstances have changed since I last introduced my Bill. I should perhaps explain to Members who have recently arrived that it was then simply a Bill to end the ridiculous, ludicrous, absurd and indefensible by-elections. I first introduced a Bill to do that nine years ago, although I had raised it in the Commons 31 years ago—so I am at least not a Johnny-come-lately on this issue.
What has changed since I first introduced the Bill in the Lords? Since then, 27 Peers of a new generation have arrived. Had there been no by-elections, there would have been just 34 Peers, who were first elected in 1999. They were not a particularly representative group, I have to say. We have heard quite a bit about the variety of people who come in via the by-elections. What has not been mentioned yet but will be many times, I am sure, in the days to come is that they did not include any women. It has gone backwards. In the first cohort of 1992 there were five women; but, according to the electorates that would, by various mechanisms, bring new people in, that was five too many.
Now, 100% are men, and they have particular characteristics. I mention this only as a matter of observation. Something like half went to Eton; I know some 20 of our Prime Ministers went to Eton, but there is at least the argument that they are not entirely a good cross-section of the electorate.
We have heard a lot about the “cruelty” of removing people from Parliament. I have some experience of this. I was removed from Parliament; as I recall, it was around 3 am. There was no debate or discussion about it. In fact, people were very excited about it; many were cheering in the hall as I was dismissed. To those who expect a tearful farewell, I say: this is what happens. It is called democracy.
I know this place is not democratically elected but neither, in my view, should it be a place where people, irrespective of how much they do or the contribution they make, can expect to be here for ever. I say that particularly—
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
Is the noble Lord going to put forward an argument for an elected House then?
Lord Grocott (Lab)
The noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, knows well enough that I am not always in tune with my party. No, I am opposed to a directly elected House. The House that I was most proud to be a Member of—it may offend some people here—was the House of Commons. The one thing I did not want—
Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)
Does the noble Lord agree that, although one would have a lot of sympathy for his ejection at 3 am from the other place, that was part of the contract? It is part of what being a democratically elected Member is, which is very different from having an arrangement here about which many reassurances were given. This is not to say that I am taking a partisan position on this—I have not decided, which is why I am listening to the debate very carefully—but there is a profound difference.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
Of course there is a profound difference. I was not pretending it was an identical comparison, but there is no difference in the sense that, when you are chucked out of Parliament, you are not too thrilled about it. That is the way I can best describe it.
The 34 hereditary Peers who have been here throughout since 1999 have had a pretty good innings. I have a list here, which I will not read out, of the length of service of Members of this House. The top 19 are all hereditary Peers, who have all served more than 40 years in this House. The noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, sitting there, has served 62 years. It is not a bad innings.
The Earl of Shrewsbury (Con)
The noble Lord, Lord Grocott, is a good friend. He lives close to where I live in Staffordshire. Out of those 34 hereditary Peers that he mentions, how many are old Etonians? Because I would like to point out to him that I am an old Harrovian.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
I had not realised we were quite as democratic as that. Obviously, I am sorry for people who enjoyed it here and are going. I dare say it will happen to me before too long. But, really, they cannot complain when they have had an innings of 40-odd years. It is a pretty good deal, especially when they come from a cohort of Peers who have come via the electoral process, of which much has been heard—occasionally with approval, I am amazed to say. People coming via that mechanism can have no complaints if their service comes to a conclusion. I think 40-odd years is a very good innings and there is no reason to weep and wail because it is coming to an end.
I will not go through the rigmarole of asking why on earth the noble Lord, Lord True, has had his change of mind. It is not entirely accurate to say that he was a slavish servant of the Government at the time because, when my Bill was first introduced, unless my memory serves me badly, he was not a member of the Government and, along with the noble Lords, Lord Strathclyde and Lord Trefgarne, and the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, was resolutely opposed to the Bill, just as they were to every attempt to reform this place over the period that they were in power. I am not going to speak any longer, for fear that I will get interrupted.
Lord True (Con)
If the noble Lord will allow me, I was strongly in favour of the proposals put forward by the coalition Government and I look forward with interest to the debate launched by the noble Lord. That was my view.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord True, is talking about the coalition period. He was in favour of the Bill then. I assume that is what he is arguing about, not my Bill. I am talking specifically about my Bill, which he previously opposed in a powerful way and has now tabled an amendment to implement. I have no intention whatever of voting for the amendment, he will not be surprised to hear. Those who have sat it out as hereditary Peers have had a very good, generous innings from a very small electorate. Hereditary Peers on the list who have said that they are available for election have something like a one in 200 chance of becoming a Member of the House of Lords, whereas members of the general public have a one in 75,000 chance of becoming a Member of Parliament—so it has been a pretty privileged group. Many have served well, but the end is nigh and I suppose we will continue to repeat these kinds of assurances.
I will make one more point and then I will sit down for the rest of the evening. We make much of these 92, including many capable people, leaving their position in the Lords. A mere eight months ago, some 220-odd people lost their seats in the Commons and, although most of them were Tories, I am prepared to admit that maybe some of them made a useful contribution while they were Members of Parliament—but you go; you are chucked out; that is what happens. And that is what is likely to happen as soon as this Bill becomes law.
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, this House stands as a guardian of scrutiny, a check on power and a safeguard against overreach. We have endured not by resisting change but by shaping it. The hereditary Peers who sit among us today are not anachronisms or relics of another era; they are some of the most committed, capable and dedicated Members of this House. They serve not out of entitlement but out of duty. They have given their time, expertise and judgment to this Chamber, and the record shows that they contribute more than most. They have indeed sought to come here for that specific purpose, as they already had their titles. To remove them overnight would not be reform; it would be a mistake.
Yet to continue their election indefinitely is also unsustainable. The system of hereditary by-elections, however well-intentioned at its inception, is not defensible in the modern age. So we must find a path forward, a middle way, a solution that modernises this House without undermining it and which strengthens the scrutiny rather than weakening it. That would uphold Labour’s manifesto commitments without damaging the integrity of this House.
That is what my noble friend Lord True’s amendment would do, and why I have added my name in support. It would not expel a single hereditary Peer from this House. It would not silence the voices that have enriched our debates and strengthened our scrutiny. Indeed, most Peers who spoke in the various debates on the Bill by the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, commended it precisely because it did not challenge the position or continued participation of those colleagues who were hereditary Peers.
This amendment would simply ensure that in the years ahead, as nature took its course and time moved forward, the system evolved with it—no more by-elections, no more miniature electorates selecting successors from dwindling ranks, but a gradual transition that was orderly, responsible and fair. The amendment offers the best of both worlds. It would deliver Labour’s manifesto commitment but do so with wisdom, not haste. It would ensure that the sitting rights of hereditary Peers were no longer passed down, but it would do so without stripping this House of its experience, independence or vital scrutiny.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, who is not in her place, once described this as a “modest” reform that
“would make change only very slowly”,
as my noble friend Lord True has referred to. More pertinently, she said:
“It would not affect any of our existing Members, whom we look forward to hearing from, I hope, for many, many years”.—[Official Report, 13/3/20; col. 1231.]
She was right then, and she is right now. The amendment would modernise without destabilising, reform without diminishing and strengthen without undermining. It would do what all good constitutional reform should do: it would improve the best and improve the rest.
As for those who argue that the ship has sailed, I remind the Committee of what my noble friend Lord Mancroft has pointed out: more than 150 Members have joined your Lordships’ House since it was last given an opportunity to express a view on the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Grocott. It is rather galling for them to be told that they have missed the boat when they were not even on the jetty.
Let us not be seduced by grand gestures that weaken our institutions under the banner of progress. Let us reform but do so wisely. Let us move forward and do so together. I am encouraged by the positive tone of today’s debate. Let us ensure that this House remains what it has always been: a place of wisdom, scrutiny and service to the nation.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I was not really intending to address this amendment but I find that the speech from the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, rather provoked me. He is slightly suggesting to everybody that if we had passed his Bill and taken up his suggestion, we would now be left with 35 hereditaries who would be here as life Peers until they eventually retired. What he rather overlooks—and I suspect he knows it—is that they would be the oldest hereditaries that we now have and, by their very nature, the least active. In this debate the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, the Convenor of the Cross Benches, has said that a number of his older hereditaries are prepared to retire and my noble friend Lord True made the same point about the Conservative Benches. They are the ones who will go anyway.
Lord Shinkwin (Con)
My Lords, I support this amendment and do so scarcely able to believe either the damage that we are doing to ourselves as a House through this divisive, hurtful Bill, or the attitudes underpinning it.
On my way to the House in my chair, I brace myself for sneers, smirks, laughter and even derogatory comments on account of my disability. Sticks and stones may break my bones—and they do—but words will always hurt more. They hurt because they are informed by discrimination against difference—how I look and how I sound, in my case, because of my disability. I am not saying that I experience discrimination in your Lordships’ House, at least not directly, but that I am a reluctant expert on discrimination. My life experience tells me. I know what discrimination looks like and what it feels like to be invalidated and devalued.
I see discrimination in this Bill. I support this amendment because it would go some way to mitigating it. Without this amendment, hereditary Members are effectively being told, contrary to what the noble Lord, Lord Collins of Highbury, has said, that their contributions are invalid and valueless by virtue of their being the wrong type of Peer. If their contributions are valid and valuable today, why not tomorrow? Why not, as this amendment implies, for the rest of their lives, which is the basis on which the vast majority of us were appointed? This amendment provides a middle way, as we have already heard, whereby the Government can honour part of their manifesto while we acknowledge, respect and honour what are in many cases huge, selfless contributions from noble Lords who happen to be hereditary Peers.
That is not to detract from the equally important service, as the noble Lord, Lord Collins of Highbury, has reminded us, of non-hereditary Members of your Lordships’ House. But it is to state a fact that the contribution of hereditary Peers adds value, rather than undermines your Lordships’ House, as the Bill implies.
One of the principles of this House, which made a really big impression on me from day one of my joining it almost 10 years ago, was the sense of equality among its Members. I come from a modest background. I was not born with a silver spoon in my mouth. I was born with a broken leg and spent much of my childhood in hospital. I say this not for sympathy but to demonstrate that there is no innate reason why I should support this amendment. However, I do so in terms of privilege versus prejudice. I see prejudice at work in the Bill, to the detriment of your Lordships’ House and its crucial ability to carry out its heavy responsibility of holding the Government of the day to account.
By contrast, what unites rather than divides us is that sense of privilege. I doubt any of us can recall a single maiden speech that did not refer to the sense of privilege that all of us feel when we first speak in this Chamber. The overwhelming feeling is common to us all: hereditary and non-hereditary. Speaking for myself, it has been one of the greatest privileges of my life to serve with our amazing hereditary Peers of all parties.
This amendment would go some way to recognising the extraordinary debt that we owe to our hereditary Members and the enduring values that I think we all associate with this unique place: courtesy, decency and, crucially, mutual respect and equality. As a self-regulated House, surely we have a duty to defend those timeless values. I hope that we can come together as one House, united in those values, and give this amendment the support that it deserves, if and when the option arises.
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, when I spoke to Amendment 5, I dealt with a number of issues which I thought were common to that amendment and this amendment, and I will not repeat them.
I begin by saying how much I enjoyed the speech of the noble Lord, Lord True. For years, we have listened to him with great passion denouncing the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, and everything in his Bill. Tonight, with equal passion, we have heard him advocating it. It was truly a bravura performance.
I have two questions for the noble Lord and one for the Government. The first question is: could the noble Lord explain how he believes that, if we end by-elections, there will be another point at which groups in your Lordships’ House will be excluded en bloc? It is a rather chilling suggestion that this will happen. Is he suggesting that the Conservatives might do it, and who does he have in mind? I feel slightly worried as a Liberal Democrat; he has not always been my greatest supporter. Is he suggesting that the Labour Party will somehow cut a huge swathe at random through other parties? If not, just what does he have in mind? This is a legitimate process via a Bill, and it is very difficult for me to imagine the circumstances that he was putting forward. I am sorry if my understanding is lacking.
Secondly, I suggested when I spoke earlier that the logical way of dealing with Peers who are hereditary but who have an outstanding record of service is that they should return to your Lordships’ House as life Peers. I mentioned that this had happened in 1999 with people like my noble friend Lord Redesdale on my Benches, who came back as a life Peer. The noble Lord, Lord True, said that he rejected the idea of bringing people back as life Peers. That seems strange to me. If the Minister were to suggest to him, in the negotiations which everybody seems keen to have, that additional places might be brought forward for the Conservatives—
Lord True (Con)
The time is late, and the noble Lord is going down a trail that does not exist. I did not say that I rejected that; I said that we should keep all routes to a destination open. What I did say is that, practically and constitutionally, it is easier to keep the people here who are here than to shove a whole lot out and then bring them back. It is a presentational issue and something we can discuss, but please do not impute to me that I have rejected that.
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, I look forward to reading Hansard, because I wrote down the word “reject”. If the noble Lord did not use it, I apologise profusely, but that is what I heard.
My question for the Government relates to the Cross Benches. What I am suggesting might happen can easily happen in respect of my party and the Conservative Party. If a number of additional life peerages are made available, we can decide, as parties, how we want to allocate them, but this does not apply to the Cross Benches. If the Government said that they were going to give, say, 10 or 15 life peerages to the Cross Benches, they would have to decide who they are, would they not? Or are they going to suggest another process, by which the Cross-Benchers decide who they are?
I have sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord True, to the extent that we do need to tease out some of these next stages. This is one area where, during the passage of the Bill, it would be helpful if the Government could be a bit clearer about the mechanism they might adopt if we retain some of the most outstanding hereditary Peers who are Cross-Benchers.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, this has been an interesting discussion, but for me, it feels like a lesson in failure. It was a failure of the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, who was not able to get his Bill through the House previously. It was a failure on my part that, having persuaded my party to support the Grocott Bill in its stages through this House and ensure that it got on to the statute book as best we could, I was unable to persuade the party opposite that they should accept the Bill. It was a failure of those Members of the House who are hereditaries, who, having said to me and my colleagues that they wanted that Bill to go through, were not able to persuade their own party that it should. For all those reasons, for all those failures, we are here today discussing this amendment now.
I take the noble Lord’s point that he could not go against his party’s policy, which is now against the Grocott Bill—and he is now trying to get me to go against my party’s policy. I understand that, but it is a shame, because otherwise we would not be here today having this discussion. Our colleagues who were hereditary Peers at that point, or at any point in the last nine years, could be here now as, in effect, life peers, had the by-elections ended, and we would not be in this place.
I wrote an article for the House magazine probably around five years ago in which I said that if the Conservative Party, the then Government, continued with the by-elections, continued bringing in a significant number of new Peers to be Ministers, and continued making appointments in a greater proportion for their own party than for my party—which is why, as I mentioned, we had a numerical disparity of over 100 when we took office—the only recommendation to a Prime Minister would be that they had to end the right of hereditary Peers to sit in the House of Lords. All those warnings were there. We tried to avoid that, but the party opposite refused to accept it, and that is why we are here now.
I must say that in some ways it is a shame, because I recognise the value and the contribution that hereditary Peers have made to this House. The noble Lord shakes his head at me, but I say that genuinely. Otherwise, we would not even have bothered trying to support, and getting my party to support, the Grocott Bill and to help it through both Houses. We offered to do that. What a shame that that offer was not taken. I appreciate the way the noble Lord has brought this amendment forward today, but we could have done this a number of years ago.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
But we can do it now. What does the noble Baroness say to the more than 150 Peers who have arrived since the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, last had the opportunity to give his Bill a Second Reading? As my noble friends Lord Mancroft and Lady Finn said, more than 150 Members of your Lordships’ House have not had the opportunity to express an opinion on that Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Grocott, reminded the Committee of those who have arrived recently. After three and a half years and 150 noble Lords, we could do it now.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
But we are not going to, because that time has passed. The opportunity was there; it was rejected so many times and that is why we had a manifesto commitment. It was not just to end the by-elections, it said that as an “immediate” first step, we will do this. The noble Lord said he could not go against his party at the time, because that was its policy. We have a policy now, but that policy came about because of the intransigence of the party opposite. The noble Lord may be aware of many hereditary Peers from his party and other parties who say, “Can you not get them to accept this?” We tried. Sometimes, as I said, you have to admit failure. I understand why the noble Lord wants his policy, but it did not come forward with support from the party opposite until there was an alternative proposal in our manifesto. I will give way one more time. It is getting late and I think Members want to hear my response.
Baroness Meyer (Con)
I just want to say that that was then and we are where we are now. The situation is different. Why do we want to evict a lot of people who the noble Baroness’s party admits are doing good things, with just a click of the fingers? Is that not too cruel?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
The noble Baroness has made her point. There are times in life when you have to seize opportunities to make things happen and, sometimes, if you fail to take that opportunity, that time passes. The party opposite is suggesting this now only because an alternative proposal came forward. Had the noble Lord come forward before our manifesto, I would have bitten his hand off and gone with it. It is a shame that he did not.
Looking at other points that were made, the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, was someone who had lots of amendments, as I recall, to the Grocott Bill, although he did not speak to them. It is a shame. I actually stopped coming to the Chamber to listen to the debate because it was the same thing time and again—there were so many amendments. So, here we are now because 25 years ago, the principle was established that hereditary Peers would no longer have the right to sit and vote in the House of Lords. That is what has brought us to this point now.
To answer some of the questions, the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, talked about some of the characteristics of hereditary Peers and the work that they do. The same applies to life Peers, as I am sure she will readily admit. There has always been scrutiny in this House, not just from hereditary Peers but from across the House. This House has always discharged its duties and will continue to do so.
The noble Lord, Lord Newby, asked the noble Lord, Lord True, for his response, which he received. I have always said that there is no barrier to Members of your Lordships’ House who have hereditary peerages receiving life peerages. That does not have to wait until the end of the Bill. If peerages were offered tomorrow by the political parties, they could be made life Peers. It is different for the Cross Benches. I do not think it is for me or the Government, if there was to be a proposal for other Members of other parties, to say who they would be, but there is a way of working this out and I will discuss this with the relevant parties. I accept that the Cross Benches are in a different position and would need different arrangements as well.
The noble Lord, Lord True, talked about his four-stage plan, some of which I had heard before but some of which was new to me as well. He says that this is a way of offering greater security for the Government to get their business through. I am sure that with his normal courtesy it would not be, but I hope that is not a suggestion that, if we do not do this, we will not get our business through. I just want to confirm this. Because he is aware of the conventions of the House—and I hope I understand him correctly—I think he is looking to seek further protections in terms of ping-pong, but if he could confirm that to me at some point, that would be very helpful, because I am sure he does not mean it to sound in any way as a threat. I am sure that is not what he intended, but it did come out a little bit like that. I will read Hansard, or we can talk further on that to make sure we have got it absolutely clear.
I have to be honest with the noble Lord. I understand why he has put this through, but I wish he would have come to this conclusion earlier—I really would have welcomed it—and I ask at this stage that he withdraw his amendment.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all those who have spoken, and of course to the noble Baroness the Leader of the House. We began today with what I thought was a generally very good-tempered debate, one where I felt on both sides that there was a willingness to seek a way forward. I am sorry that we have ended in a slightly scratchy way, which I do not think was characteristic of the day, and I would rather not dwell on the recent words. I will bring this proposition back to the House, subject to whatever discussions we may or may not have before Report, because I suspect that the House—which has a say in this matter, not just the two political parties—might well believe that this is not an unreasonable approach, tempered in the way that I described earlier by agreements on one of the strands of my proposals to address the question of numbers, including by retirements.
I prefer to dwell not on failure but on the future. All I know of the noble Baroness the Leader of the House is her care for this House and her concern for the future, and that is where I am coming from. I do not do threats, and I do not make threats, but anybody who has been present in the worst parts of the debate today can see that people are feeling that there are strong passions on both sides. We heard them from the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, and we heard them from others. Those of us in leadership positions in the House must find ways to calm that, to reach agreements and to find a way forward.
I hear again that it is not possible for the Government to consider this, and that the horse has gone, or the boat has left—or whatever it is. This last weekend, the Prime Minister made a great act of statesmanship and, frankly, political courage, in which he took the incredibly difficult decision to cut spending on aid to protect our country and secure it for the future. The Prime Minister adopted a powerfully held position in the interests of the whole. I hope that we will, in the next few days and weeks, not rule out any route towards finding a solution to this problem, and that includes, as I said in my earlier speech, aspects tempered by ameliorative action on numbers.
It was a very impressive debate. I asked at the start whether it was about numbers; we can deal with that. If it is about ideology or firm places, we will have problems—but they will not necessarily be with me. That is not a threat; it is true that people will oppose that position. I hope that we are better than that.
I very much appreciated my noble friend Lady Finn’s powerful appeal to reason.
I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, might come back after dinner in a slightly more generous vein than before, so perhaps I can recommend him a better accompaniment to his food. The argument of “When you go, you go” is his view. As was aptly pointed out, if you are an MP, you can come back; our colleagues who are being excluded have only an exit door.
My noble friend Lord Hamilton of Epsom rightly pointed out that there are many younger, active hereditary Peers who do a great service to this House.
The noble Lord, Lord Newby, asked me two questions. He asked whether the Conservative Party was planning some exclusion. The fact is that the noble Lord is voting for exclusion, so he should not be too surprised that some other party might look at another group. I said that the Conservative Party never had—and, I hope, never would—go down that route. However, there are other parties on the block—there are other kids on the block—so if we make it, “Yes, you can come in and you can take out a group”, you could, for example, introduce 15-year term limits, which is very popular in the House. You could get rid of anybody who served for more than 15 years. We heard the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, say earlier that lots of people have been around here a long time. What would be the effect of that on composition? I would go. I do not know who else would go, but someone might pick up that plan and, looking at what was done in 2025, say, “No transition, no grandfather rights at all”. I am just warning that it could happen, and it might not be a party represented in this House that would want to do it.
Finally, I must refer to the great speech of my noble friend Lord Shinkwin. The Committee was absolutely silent listening to what he said, informed by his extraordinary life experience and courage, and the wisdom that has come from that. Some of us will have heard his words in different ways but, having heard what my noble friend said, surely we must show openness and inclusion to all our Members. Let us not rule out anything, even tonight; let us come back and consider the best way of solving this conundrum. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill
Monday 10th March 2025
(2 weeks, 1 day ago)
Lords ChamberHouse of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 49-II Second marshalled list for Committee - (6 Mar 2025)
Lord Newby
“Duty to take forward proposals for democratic mandate for House of Lords(1) It is 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), (4), (5) and (6).(3) Within 12 months of the day on which this Act is passed, 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 16 months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must lay before each House of Parliament a report on responses to the consultation. (6) Within 18 months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must lay before each House of Parliament a draft Bill containing legislative proposals on the matter mentioned in subsection (3).”Member’s explanatory statement
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.
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, Amendment 11, standing in my name and those of other noble Lords, seeks to take forward proposals for a democratic mandate for the House of Lords.
When we debated Lords reform last November, I set out the reasons why I thought the Lords should be elected. I said then that it should be elected on the basis that in a democracy, laws should be passed by people chosen by the people to act on their behalf. It should be elected because the unelected Lords leads to a geographical imbalance in membership in which London and the south-east are greatly overrepresented and the north, Scotland and Wales are underrepresented. It should be elected because it would almost certainly be more representative of the ethnic diversity of the United Kingdom, and it should be elected because it would be more politically representative. It would contain members of the SNP and almost certainly more members of the smaller parties. By doing all these things, it would help restore the trust that the people have of Parliament—currently at a low level.
We realise that this Bill is not the place to introduce detailed proposals for an elected second Chamber. Instead, the amendment requires the Government to start a process that would lead to the House having a democratic mandate. It requires the Government to produce a consultation paper on methods for electing the Lords. It suggests who should be consulted—including the nations and regions of the United Kingdom—and it sets out a timetable for undertaking the consultation and then for the production of a draft Bill containing legislative proposals for reform.
I do not intend to dwell on the imperfections of the current system of appointing people to your Lordships’ House. Suffice it to say that if we had elections, we would not be worrying about many of the issues that will concern us later today and on further consideration of the Bill. We would not be worrying about the Prime Minister overriding the Appointments Commission to appoint cronies. We would not be worrying about whether Peers did their jobs properly or about the balance between different groups or types of people. In short, it would cut through the Gordian knot of problems that bedevil the current system.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for supporting this amendment. I remind the Committee that in 2012 the proposals for an elected House of Lords were approved in the Commons by a majority of 338 at Second Reading, with the support of both the Conservative and Labour Front Benches and with only 46 Labour opponents and 89 Tories.
On the other amendments in this group, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, that consideration would need to be given to the powers and conventions of a reformed House of Lords, but we have to be rather careful that this exercise does not become a pretext for delaying the whole process. I do not see the necessity for the noble Lord’s proposal of a referendum. No referendum was envisaged in 2012, and public opinion has for a very long time been strongly in favour of this House being elected. Again, such a move could be a pretext for delay.
We obviously agree with the sentiments behind the amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, but we wanted to put a timetable in our amendment to ensure that, if it is passed, momentum towards reform will not be unnecessarily delayed.
The noble Lord, Lord Brady, would reduce the size of the Lords to 200 and elect people using the first past the post system. I do not believe that the Lords could do its job of detailed scrutiny and a comprehensive range of Select Committees with such a small number of people. The Clegg reforms envisaged a House of 450 and, to do the work we expect of it, that is probably about right. Noble Lords will not be surprised to know that we also prefer a system of proportional representation for the Lords, as for the Commons, for reasons with which the House will be only too familiar.
In sum, we see Amendment 11 and the consequential Amendment 115 as helping the Government to fulfil their manifesto and bring about the long-term future of the Lords on a largely elected, or elected, basis. I commend it to the Committee.
Amendment 11A (to Amendment 11)
Lord Blencathra
“(3A) The consultation paper under subsection (3) must assess the implications of securing a democratic mandate for the House of Lords for its powers and conventions, which may include—(a) the powers of the Lords in relation to money bills;(b) the powers of the Lords in relation to statutory instruments;(c) the Salisbury Convention;(d) the Prime Minister being drawn from the House of Commons;(e) the limitations in the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949 on the powers of the House of Lords;(f) the role of the Lord Speaker and their relationship with the Speaker in the House of Commons.”
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, Amendments 11A and 11B would amend the Lib Dem Amendment 11 to say that we should first consult on the role of the Lords, if it were elected, and have a referendum to see whether the public actually wanted an elected Lords.
Let me reassure my noble friends that I am completely opposed to having a consultation paper on this, and to having a referendum. My amendments are a response to the usual deliberate attempts to advance the case for an elected House without first working out how the whole balance of powers between the Lords and the Commons would change if this House were composed of elected Members.
My Amendment 11A seeks to deliver what the Government Chief Whip, the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, said to the House magazine on 13 July 2021. He said:
“We have to be very clear, what are the powers of the Lords, what do you want the Lords to actually do, and why is it there? Answer those issues, and then we can decide”.
Those were very wise words from the noble Lord. Even the commission chaired by my noble friend Lord Wakeham avoided this by suggesting just 150 elected Peers, so that their membership was so small in comparison to appointed Peers or hereditaries that the supremacy of the Commons would not be challenged.
Then we had the ludicrous Gordon Brown proposals suggesting an assembly of just 200 elected Members from the regions, with our current powers reduced and the Lords just a regional talking shop. I can do no better than quote the words of our new noble ambassador to Washington, who described the Brown proposals as
“a sort of multi-layered cake with an assortment of very diverse ingredients in it with a thin layer of icing at the top, which is called a new second chamber of the regions and nations, which has barely been put in the oven yet, let alone fully baked”.
Thank you, Mandy. So it is raw, not even half-baked—but that is Lib Dem policy for you.
There was one report which suggested 450 elected Members, but most suggest just 300 elected Lords senators. Thus, we would have an elected Lords with about half the number of Lords senators as MPs. Before looking at the new roles of the two elected Chambers, we need to consider who those new senators would be. First, they will all be party-political people—Conservative, Labour, Lib Dem, SNP, Northern Ireland Members—exactly the same as the House of Commons. Just look round this Chamber and see how many here would be selected as candidates. Will the Cross-Benchers form a party? Possibly, but highly unlikely, so we would lose all that expertise. What about the older hands here, those who have had 30 or 40 years’ experience in their various professions, business or industry? Will they apply or be selected as political candidates? Even we older politicians, who have the scars and experience of doing things in government in the past—we will be out too.
Lord Strathclyde (Con)
My Lords, I have signed the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Newby, but I really enjoyed listening to my noble friend Lord Blencathra, who raised many sensible points. The noble Lord, Lord Newby, did not quite give the case for a democratic House as much justice as it deserved. I am sorry to see that most of his Benches seem to be relatively deserted. On the whole, his party has not turned out to support him as ably as I will now try to do.
It is interesting that today we very much turn to a new phase of discussion of the Bill. Last week, we discussed the issue of heredity and whether to fling out certain Peers. I think the Committee broadly agreed, overwhelmingly, that heredity was no longer an acceptable way of choosing a House of Parliament, but there was substantial disagreement about transitionary arrangements, grandfather rights and creating life Peers. No doubt we will return to those at length when we meet again and discuss those amendments on Report.
When discussing a democratic mandate for this House, it is always worth having a look at history—what my noble friend called the institutional memory. I do not think that any of us can go back to 1911, which may not have been the first time that democracy was discussed for this House, but it is a key point because it led to a statute of Parliament which fundamentally reassessed the relationship between the two Houses.
What is important about the 1911 Act is its preamble. I will not quote it exactly, but it said that we should substitute the House of Lords for a Chamber constituted on a popular, instead of a hereditary, basis. That was in 1911 and here we are in 2025, and we are no further to getting that. In the 1920s, after the First World War and the devastation it produced, several commissions looked at the case for an elected House, which came to nothing. In the 1930s, there were other matters. In the 1940s, there was of course the Second World War.
The extraordinary Parliament in 1945, with all those radical Labour policies under Attlee, did so much. Of course, with only a few handfuls of Labour Peers, that Labour Government managed to pass everything they wanted to through this House, which goes to the nub of my noble friend Lord Blencathra’s argument that convention plays an important part in the relationship between these two Houses of Parliament. However, I am not entirely sure that my noble friend was quite so keen on those kinds of conventions existing. They were very powerful in the 1940s, and they are still powerful now.
In the 1950s, there was the introduction of the Life Peerages Act which, at a stroke, fundamentally changed how this House was viewed and injected a good deal of new blood into it. That is what has kept us going ever since. But the dream of democracy did not quite die. Lord Longford introduced a Bill in 1968. That Bill was talked out in the House of Commons by two MPs: Enoch Powell and Michael Foot. They decided that the reason there could not be a democratic mandate for the House of Lords is that it would compete with the House of Lords, and that level of competition was completely unacceptable. The noble Baroness is trying to intervene.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Smith of Basildon) (Lab)
I only wanted to correct the noble Lord. He said that they could not have an elected second Chamber as it would compete with the House of Lords; I think he meant the House of Commons. He just misspoke—that was all.
Lord Strathclyde (Con)
Anyway, that took us to 1998-99 and the promise in the 1997 Blairite manifesto that there would be a democratic reform. Here we are, 28 years after that, and there is no further movement at all. At the beginning of the century, there were various royal commissions and White Papers, which came up in favour of a more democratic House, but none was pushed forward. I think Prime Minister Gordon Brown had an attempt in 2009-10 at a democratic House. But it was not until the Government of my noble friend Lord Cameron that we saw the introduction into Parliament of a Bill for real democratic mandate—an 80:20 elected House—and the noble Lord, Lord Newby, explained very well what happened to that.
It is worth pointing out in this debate about the democratic mandate that the amendment I have signed is not for an 80:20 elected House; it is for a 100% elected House. That would mean that the House would lose the benefit of the Cross Benches. I think having 20% unelected is extremely important. The Cross-Benchers bring something to this House which no democratic mandate would be able to do. You just have to look at the Cross Benches for an example: former judges, trade unionists, businesspeople, churchmen, archbishops, and so on. They would never dream of standing for an election, but they bring their knowledge and experience to bear to the workings of this House and legislation, which is extremely effective. I am in favour of an 80% elected House, not a 100% elected House.
Secondly, the noble Lord, Lord Newby, made the case for a directly elected House. I wonder whether it is worth considering, and whether the noble Lord has considered, that, given the enormous changes in devolution over the last 25 years in our major cities and, of course, in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, there may be a case for looking at the capacity of this House to accept some form of indirectly elected Members, which would perhaps go to stopping what my noble friend Lord Blencathra regarded as too strong a democratic mandate that would challenge the House of Commons.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I have also signed the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Newby, and I am surprised and delighted to say that I agreed with every word that he said. I think that there are some real problems with the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra. I always enjoy his speeches, but he made an awful lot of assumptions in that speech. While it was very entertaining, I am not sure that it would hold up to close examination. Does the noble Lord want to say anything? No.
I am not against getting rid of hereditaries: I think it is a long overdue move. I am extremely fond of some of them—not all of them, but some—and they play the most incredible role in this House. Once they are gone, we will see some really big gaps in all our processes, so we will miss them. However, it is time. It is something that is way past its sell-by date. Quite honestly, my main objection to the Bill is that it is so timid. Why not be braver and think seriously about the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Newby? Why not do something that has really forward-thinking, constructive ideas, rather than just the rather mean-minded blunt instrument of kicking out the hereditaries? I am not defending privilege; I do not like it at all, but in this case, it just seems so petty.
On the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Brady—he has not even introduced his amendment yet, but we all have views on it—I agree that 200 is too small. If I could give my own short history lesson, back in 2013 my noble friend Lady Bennett and I tabled a Bill to redraw the whole House of Lords under PR, and I think that the figure we used was 350, essentially at least reducing this House by half, because we are a bloated, undemocratic, archaic, ridiculously old-fashioned House and it is time to move on.
I am trying not to make a Second Reading speech, but I am not sure I am succeeding. The Labour Government told us they were going to modernise the House, which is fair enough. If I could see that this was the first of many alterations and many different Bills, it would sit easier with me. We have heard that everyone over 80 is going to be kicked out; I personally do not mind that, but the Government have been bringing in new Peers who are over 80; they will not have a very long shelf life. I am curious about that.
I argue that this amendment is a very good one because it covers the crucial aspect of the House being more representative. Certainly, if we had it under PR there would be a lot more Greens, which I know would be very welcome to your Lordships’ House.
Finally, in the Bill I tabled, there was an element of Cross-Benchers—I forget exactly how many, but it might have been about 100—and we can do that under a different form of election. We all agree that Cross-Benchers, hereditary or not, are extremely valuable, and so to lose their skills and expertise would be a mistake. However, I think that one of the first things this Labour Government should do is to stop the ridiculous appointment system by the Prime Minister which brings in people who love having a title but really do not love the work.
Baroness Andrews (Lab)
My Lords, in the interests of institutional memory, I will add a footnote to that. I was very surprised to see the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, as I know his passion for democracy in this House and the way he has pursued it in the Delegated Powers Committee. His explanation was more than welcome.
It occurs to me that in the historical palimpsest that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, offered, the one thing he omitted was the report from the Joint Committee of both Houses in 2011-12 on the coalition Bill. Had the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, served on that Joint Committee, it would have taken two weeks rather than 18 months to write our report. We would have had infinitely more fun and would have come to conclusions that were infinitely crisper and more persuasive. In that report, we took exhaustive evidence from the authors of the Bill, from Ministers, from all the usual suspects and beyond, and—I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, takes some comfort from this—we came to exactly the same conclusions as the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, has about the dysfunctional relationship that would be set up automatically with the House of Commons.
As we worked through our list of Ministers giving evidence, it became perfectly clear that none of them had asked themselves those questions about the implications it would have for the House of Commons, its legitimacy, its effectiveness and its relationship with the House of Lords. They had not considered whether there would be constituents who had competing notions of what was right or what would happen if we had different parties in command in the two Houses. It was an exhaustive review and there were differences of opinion—the chair was Lord Richard—but it was conclusive in its recommendations: the House of Commons must think again about the Bill it had been presented. It was the last time that either House looked at this issue in depth with any sophistication.
My point is simply—just as the noble Lords, Lord Blencathra and Lord Strathclyde, have said—that this is a constitutional issue of massive significance. It can hardly be dealt with through an amendment to such a narrow Bill on such a narrow point and where, frankly, these amendments have no place anyway. We should be addressing the substance of the Bill. Since the issue has been raised, however, we are right to remember that we had worked out our proper views on the implications of this subject separately in 2012. I wonder what happened to that Bill: why was it ever withdrawn? Unfortunately, the Prime Minister at the time is not in his place; otherwise, we might have been able to get an answer after all these years.
Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB)
My Lords, there is one assumption in the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Newby, that needs to be questioned, and that is the total identification of democracy with direct elections. There are other forms of democracy that include indirect elections. I was particularly glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, bring this up. The debate has moved on since the time of a great standoff between those in favour of a totally elected House and those in favour of a totally appointed House. Ideas were floated by the former Prime Minister Gordon Brown, for example, about a House that truly represents the nations and the regions. You can imagine a House that was indirectly elected by the Scottish Parliament, the Senedd, the Northern Ireland Assembly and the English regions. I am not arguing for or against it at the moment; I am just questioning the assumption that the only form of democracy is direct elections. You could have a form of democracy with the indirect elections by the nations and the regions.
I have just one other small point in relation to the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra. He mentioned the royal commission chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, which I had the great privilege to be a member of. The noble Lord suggested that we had recommended that the elected element would be only a third—150, I think. But, in fact, that commission recommended a series of stages in which the elected element would grow. I think on the commission’s recommendations, it would eventually grow to a majority. It is only a small point but that is what it envisaged.
Lord Brady of Altrincham (Con)
My Lords, in speaking to the amendment that stands in my name, I reassure your Lordships that I neither seek nor anticipate achieving consensus on this point but rather hope to stimulate the kind of debate and discussion that we are already starting to hear in the Chamber this afternoon.
To the noble Lord, Lord Newby, I say that my proposal of geographical constituencies would ensure the kind of geographical spread that he would like to see, possibly more effectively than a PR system would. I am not wedded to a membership of 200, although I think it is reasonable for the House to be smaller, and I suspect it could be a lot smaller.
Unsurprisingly, I agree with a great deal of what my noble friend Lord Blencathra had to say. Perhaps my concern comes down to his central point, which I think we usually fail to address and tackle sufficiently in this discussion: this House does a very limited and specific job and does it very well. The point I made at Second Reading is that the hereditaries are actually at the forefront of that and, on average, contribute more than life Peers do. But given that the Government are determined to change the composition of a House that works so well in that limited and specific function, should we not take a moment to reflect on wider questions, not just how the House should be composed but whether our function should be so tightly confined?
We might also pause to reflect for a moment on what the public think of this House. I note from a YouGov poll just a few months ago that 42% of the public have a negative view of the House of Lords and 49% think it is not useful. By a margin of 62% to 16%, there is support for having no hereditaries. But, also, interestingly, 50% of the public, compared with 22%, say that they oppose a wholly appointed Chamber.
We are moving the composition of the House—I have no doubt that the Bill will become an Act—but we are moving to something that is already disliked and disapproved of by the wider public, and to something that possibly has even less legitimacy than a House of Lords comprising jointly life Peers and elected hereditaries. The justification for the current composition, or indeed for moving to a wholly appointed House, is circular and, in many ways, peculiar. It is deemed essential that the House should lack legitimacy and that its composition should be hard to defend, precisely and deliberately to ensure the primacy of a House of Commons that does have legitimacy, derived from elections.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, I support Amendment 11 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Newby, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, my noble friend Lord Strathclyde and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb.
As I have said in earlier debates, the 1999 agreement always envisaged that the House would, as stage 2 of that agreement, adopt proposals for introducing elected Members to the House of Lords. However, I am not sure that all were firmly agreed that the elected Members should be directly elected. I believe that some kind of indirect election system—perhaps one representing the new estates of the realm, such as the CBI, the TUC, the BMA, the Bar Association, et cetera—should also be considered as an alternative way to introduce a more democratic and representative element of the House’s composition. The difficulty would be in agreeing which organisations should be entitled to select or elect representatives, but the possibility should certainly be explored. An alternative way to select indirectly elected Members of your Lordships’ House might be by granting election or selection powers to devolved legislatures and principal councils.
After the Second World War, and under pressure from the American occupation forces, the Japanese Government introduced constitutional changes that replaced the House of Peers with the directly elected House of Councillors, to which elections from large multimember constituencies are held. This introduced an element of proportional representation. Japan has two elected houses and, while they sometimes clash, the new upper house’s powers are restricted in a similar fashion to those of its predecessor House of Peers, and so it more or less works most of the time. I am not supporting moving directly to an all-elected, alternative second Chamber, but the Japanese example should be closely looked at.
Although I support the outcome that could flow from this amendment, it is wrong to make changes to the membership of the House before shaking the sand out of the shoe. To let the Bill go through with this amendment alone will not guarantee that it would definitely lead to any enactment of a Bill laid before your Lordships’ House and another place.
It is clear that the 1999 agreement was that the 92 hereditary Peers would remain until the enactment of proposals incorporating a democratic element. Nevertheless, I will support this amendment, but I believe the House should also adopt something similar to Amendment 6, as previously debated. I will support my noble friend Lord Lucas if he brings back on Report an amendment that would retain an elected and independent element within your Lordships’ House, which would keep the sand in the shoe. A combination of Amendment 6 and this amendment could well be developed to a level where a programme of change would enjoy a broad level of support across your Lordships’ House.
I also support Amendments 11A and 11B in the name of my noble friend Lord Blencathra, both of which seek to ensure that referenda will be held to make certain that proposals for an elected House really would be enacted with popular support. As my noble friend Lord Strathclyde said, some sort of popular support should be sought in making a constitutional change of this nature.
I cannot support Amendment 70 in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Llanfaes, and the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, because a review would most probably conclude that a House composed of only appointed Peers and Bishops would lack appropriateness—that is an understatement. Such a review would just be kicked into the long grass.
I like Amendment 72, but I think that the 92—or 88—should remain until the end of the Session prior to the new House being convened, following an election under a new electoral model.
I am not sure about Amendment 90D in the name of my noble friend Lord Brady, although I agree with much of what he said in his most thought-provoking speech. Clearly, a House comprising only 200 Members would have no room for people retaining activities outside the House and would lack the capacity to scrutinise legislation as it does at present, or to operate the number of Select Committees it does today. It would be a very different kind of House. However, I am certainly attracted by my noble friend’s proposal that elections should be held one year later than general elections. That should be considered as a part of any move to a partly elected House.
Lastly, Amendment 115 makes sense. The Bill should not be enacted without the adoption of at least a partial democratic mandate at the same time.
The Earl of Erroll (CB)
My Lords, I thoroughly support Amendment 11. People have tried picking holes in it, but it does not say that all have to be elected. It says:
“introducing directly elected members in the House of Lords”.
The proposals, which would be thought through and brought with a Bill within 18 months, could contain all sorts of different proposals, which I know everyone wants to debate in a moment. I will leave that to everybody else because there are some very good ideas in there.
The whole point about Amendment 11 is that it gives voice to that promise of Privy Council oath, given from the two Front Benches, that there would be further democratic reform of the House of Lords. That is what Amendment 11 states, and it puts a time limit on it. Therefore, the Secretary of State has to do something about it, not just kick it into the long grass. We will not be here, but those who follow us will be here to see proper further reform of the Lords, introducing a democratic bit to it. As I said before, without that democratic element, it will eventually have all its powers removed because it will have no democratic legitimacy.
Lord Tugendhat (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Brady spoke very eloquently, but he did not refer to his Amendment 90C:
“A person can only be a member of the House of Lords if they are not a Minister of the Crown”.
I do not know why he did not refer to that, but it is a very bad idea.
One of the most striking features of politics in the more than 50 years since I was elected to the House of Commons is that as the diversity in gender and ethnicity has widened—which is a good thing—the diversity of life experience has narrowed considerably. When I was first elected to the House of Commons, there were people who had a lot of business experience, people who had been active in trade unions—
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)
My Lords, the amendment that the noble Lord is speaking to is actually in group 18, whereas we are starting with group 1. We will debate Amendment 90C later.
Lord Tugendhat (Con)
Then I will move to the other amendment which I wish to speak to and take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Newby.
Democracy is the central feature of our governing system, and the House of Commons must always be the superior House. However, precisely because MPs’ experience has narrowed to the extent that it has, we have seen that the House of Commons has given up on its scrutiny function over time. When I was first elected, guillotines were very rare. They are now very common. Bills come up to this House that have barely been scrutinised.
My question to the noble Lord, Lord Newby, and those who support his amendment, is: would an elected House be interested in the scrutiny function? The House of Commons has its representative functions. It does a great deal of useful work in different areas, but in terms of scrutiny it has rather given up the ghost. That has been left increasingly to the House of Lords. That is not a desirable situation, but it is the situation that exists. Would an elected House have the interest in scrutiny that we need? If we did not have scrutiny in the second Chamber, we would not have enough scrutiny at all.
It would be wise to consider that a democratically elected second Chamber is not the only way forward. It may well be better to look at some alternatives and at the function first rather than the form. At the moment, we are all talking about the composition and the form of the House but not its function. If one looks at the function of the House, what system of election, selection, appointment—whatever—would be most appropriate?
The Earl of Dundee (Con)
My Lords, no doubt there are two different ways of furthering a democratic mandate for the House of Lords. One is, as we have heard, through a directly elected House, maybe following a referendum on that principle, as advocated by my noble friend Lord Blencathra in Amendment 11B, and perhaps including a partially or fully directly elected House of 200 Peers with constituencies, as proposed by my noble friend Lord Brady of Altrincham in his Amendment 90D.
The other solution is advocated in a later amendment, Amendment 75, to which the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth, and my noble friend Lord Trenchard have already referred. This is through an electoral college, representative of all parts of the United Kingdom and responsible for indirectly electing two-thirds, or 400, political and temporal Members of a reformed House of 600, where one-third, or 200, Members are non-political Cross-Benchers directly appointed by a statutory appointments commission.
It can be strongly argued that this is a much better formula for three reasons. First, it avoids conflict with another place, which direct elections to a reformed House of Lords would lead to, as my noble friend Lord Blencathra eloquently pointed out. Secondly, it is far more likely to preserve our current high standard of legislative and government scrutiny. Thus, thirdly, through this quality function, to which my noble friend Lord Tugendhat has just referred, it would thereby be better in preserving and improving democracy itself in the United Kingdom.
Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (PC)
My Lords, my Amendments 70 and 72 are included in this group. On recent comments relating to the function of the House, I tried to table some amendments about the function of the House but it is out of the scope of this Bill, so it is not part of what we can debate.
Amendment 70 calls on His Majesty’s Government to review the appropriateness of an unelected Chamber. While I am a Member of this place, it is my mission to see this House abolished and replaced with an elected Chamber that better represents the needs, diversity, backgrounds and lived experiences of people across all four nations. As the late Earl of Sandwich pointed out in his valedictory speech, I will do my duty right up to abolition. My position on an unelected Chamber has been clear from my maiden speech in this place right up to today. An unelected Chamber is inappropriate, outdated and obviously undemocratic. Why is it that the UK promotes democracy at home and abroad, yet fails miserably in ensuring that our own nations are governed by a democratic mandate? With record low levels of trust in politics and a Government who have pledged to restore public confidence in the political system, surely now is the time to radically transform this place.
A recent poll by the Electoral Reform Society found that just 2% of the British public have confidence in the House of Lords. We must ask ourselves why that is. I suggest that an element of distress stems from the fact that this Chamber could not be further removed from the lives of the people we make decisions on behalf of, given that the public have no influence over who gets to become a Member of this place. In fact, the Prime Minister’s hold over appointments to this House was even challenged by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, who said on our first day in Committee on this Bill:
“I simply will not be able to get a life peerage”.—[Official Report, 3/3/25; col. 80.]
We have become a gated community of more than 800 Members, without the public having a say in who those Members are. Democracy is built on the principle that people get to choose; they have a say in how their lives are governed. It seems contradictory that a body with no direct mandate from the electorate should have influence over matters that deeply affect people’s day-to-day lives.
Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (PC)
As we are in Committee, we will all have the opportunity to contribute.
An unelected Chamber is, at best, an assault on democracy. I ask your Lordships to reflect on whether an unelected Chamber is appropriate in 2025. Amendment 70 calls on His Majesty’s Government to do just that. The Prime Minister, Keir Starmer, has himself previously stated that it is indefensible. It is time for His Majesty’s Government to act.
I now move to my second amendment in this group—
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
Before the noble Baroness moves to her second amendment—
Baroness Smith of Llanfaes
As we are in Committee, if possible, I will complete my remarks.
Amendment 72 fleshes out how we could have an elected Chamber. There are currently 78 bicameral parliaments globally, with 55 of those being largely or wholly elected. We are an exception to that rule. The UK has one of only two second Chambers without any elected element, the other being Lesotho.
Another poll by the Electoral Reform Society found that an elected second Chamber was the most popular option, with 47% of the British public saying that they should have the power to choose through elections. Does this figure not clearly highlight the public’s desire to see a second Chamber that reflects their needs and values? We are not here to serve our own interests; we are here to represent the people across our nations. If we believe that, which I hope everyone here does, we have no problem in accepting and indeed promoting the abolition of an unelected Chamber in today’s world.
It has been reassuring to see several Members of your Lordships’ House tabling amendments to probe the establishment of a democratic House. I will briefly speak to these amendments before moving on to my own proposal on how we might want to achieve this through Amendment 72. Amendments 11 and 115, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Newby, function as good starting points for reforming the composition of this House, which I support. However, I do not believe that they go far enough in outlining the model that might bring about a Chamber that best represents the people of these nations. However, they have my support in progressing and securing a move to a democratic mandate for this House.
Amendment 72 seeks to address these gaps and offers a further fleshed-out solution. Plaid Cymru believes that proportional representation should be the mechanism used to elect representatives. Specifically, we favour the single transferable vote electoral system. This system allows voters to have a real choice on who represents them by reducing the pressure to vote tactically. I believe this system would establish a second Chamber that is truly elected by the people, creating a balanced Chamber where everyone is represented.
Adopting this system also results in a greater diversity of candidates, with multiple candidates selected by a party. That a second Chamber in the UK desperately needs more diversity if we are to see a more representative legislative body cannot be disputed. This is not wishful thinking; far from it. Northern Ireland, the Republic of Ireland, Malta and Scotland already use this system in some of their elections, and noble Lords noted other examples earlier.
Australia’s second Chamber also adopts this system, and it works. This has ensured that the Government are much less likely to control the Senate, meaning that the Senate is not always swayed by changing political tides, and the Chamber more accurately reflects the first voting preference of the electorate.
While I firmly believe that STV would be the preferable choice, there are multiple ways it could be implemented. Neither my own amendment nor the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Newby, specify it being 100% elected; there could be space for a Cross-Bench group to be represented as part of that model. It is crucial to consult a broad range of stakeholders to ensure that such a constitutional change follows a fully democratic process. That is why, in new subsection (2) proposed by Amendment 72, I have specified that the Secretary of State must consult various bodies, including devolved Governments, political parties and representative organisations.
If we are to establish a Chamber that generally serves the people of these nations, constitutional decisions must not be confined to the remit of Westminster alone. I call on His Majesty’s Government, as well as everyone in this place, to reconsider the appropriateness of an unelected Chamber in the 21st century and join me in my mission for abolition.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I apologise, my Lords. I think it might help everybody if I confirm the normal courtesies of the House. This is a debate and Members can take interventions, but they can also choose not to; that is in section 4.29 of the Companion.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
The noble Baroness made a very passionate speech in favour of democratic accountability. Why then did she not stand for the House of Commons instead of coming here?
Viscount Thurso (LD)
My Lords, I do not think the noble Baroness wishes to answer the noble Lord’s question, and she has every right to do that.
I rise very briefly to support my noble friend Lord Newby. This is a very straightforward and simple amendment that seeks to place a duty on the Government to do something after this Bill has passed.
Some of us have spent a great deal of time on Lords reform. I started in this place just under 30 years ago and had 27 years between the two places, and one of the things I have observed in that time is that chances to do something to reform this place do not come along too often, and legislation comes along very rarely.
I greatly enjoyed the eloquence and oratory of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, although I have to say that he has once again convinced me that the more eloquent he is, the more incorrect his arguments are. I very much appreciated the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, with grace and gentleness, rebutted them.
The key point in all that—I am desperately trying not to give a history lesson—is that, when we did the draft Joint Committee of both Houses in 2011-2012, so ably chaired by the late Lord Richards, we came to a compromise position that addressed every single one of the points the noble Lord put forward, and they went into the draft Bill that went before the Commons. That Bill had a Second Reading and, had it had not been for a slightly sneaky operation by Jesse Norman on the programme Motion, it would have gone through and been discussed by both Houses.
So I support my noble friend simply because there needs to be reform. There needs to be reform because we need more legitimacy. In 1832, we were powerful and the Commons was not. From 1832 onwards, the power has moved to the Commons. We now need to regain some legitimacy so that we can again be a powerful part of a Parliament that holds the Executive to account. In asking for this amendment, my noble friend is simply saying, “Let’s hold our feet to the fire and get it done”.
Lord Moore of Etchingham (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, on the eloquence of her speech. But she put forward a point of view about this House that I think is mistaken when she said that it is supposed to be representative of the people. It absolutely is not and it never has been. It has other purposes, for better or for worse, and we all sit here as representatives of nobody but ourselves. That is particularly true of Cross Benchers and the non-affiliated, but actually it is true of all party Members as well, and there are important reasons for that. We are well placed to bring to bear on the proceedings of Parliament as a whole a disinterested point of view, in the proper sense of “disinterested”: in other words, not representing an interest but trying to think as hard as we can about what is right.
The speech by the noble Lord, Lord Tugendhat, was very important here, because, if we think about the function of this House, we may come to realise that its current composition is not so idiotic. Its function is to scrutinise, and the type of people that want to scrutinise are not the type of people who want to get on in life. The people who want to get on in life are those in the other place who are, as was eloquently pointed out by the noble Lord and others, trying to get the next position, higher marks on social media, more likes and jobs. Most of us have gone beyond that stage of life. That is obviously not true of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, because she is very young, but she disinterestedly and kindly sits here in order to contribute her wisdom.
The trouble with the Bill is that we are not thinking about function but droning on about composition. As long as we think that it is a good thing to have a powerful House of Commons that forms most of the Government of the day, it is perfectly reasonable to have a not-very-strong House of Lords that tries to scrutinise. If we think that that is perfectly reasonable, we might consider that perhaps we should not be mucking around with our composition.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
My Lords, we have already spent more than an hour on this and I do not intend to prolong that for more than two or three minutes. However, I am getting a bit alarmed by the breadth of the discussion we are having.
I remind the House—maybe the Procedure Committee needs to look at this—that the Bill is the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill. From looking at the amendments, of which this is a particularly bad example, not in the quality of the argument but in the dangers it presents for anyone looking for Lords reform in the future, we can apparently have absolutely any amendment whatever so long as it conceivably, by some long-stretched argument, has some effect on the future composition of the Lords.
A lot of people have been saying that we need to do more things once this Bill has become an Act, but, my word, I have been very much put off thinking that is a good idea having listened to today’s debate, because any one of the other issues—whether it is the age of retirement, the length of service, or the number of Bishops, for example— could apparently lead to precisely the same kind of debate that we have had today on amendments to this Bill. I have to say—and probably anyone could say it about me—that it is very unusual that you hear any new arguments in these debates, of which we have had many in the past.
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, my first point in response to the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, is that the Bill will pass—the noble Lord does not need to worry about that. Secondly, simple constitutional changes can have very serious consequences. We have only to think about a simple change that my noble friend Lord Cameron introduced, the Fixed-term Parliaments Act, which created a disaster.
I think it would be helpful to the Committee if the noble Lord, Lord Newby, could tell us what he thinks the role of the House of Lords is now, and what he thinks it will be in the future. My noble friend Lord Blencathra touched on that. The noble Baroness said that there was mistrust from the public, and I think that arises largely from extremely misleading reporting in the media, which little is done to counter. I would ask the same question about the role of the House of Lords of the Leader of the House, but I expect she would be quite cautious, especially as regards the future. I remind the House that I intend to retire in the spring, so I am fairly neutral.
Many noble Lords—and others inside and outside the House—fall into the trap of proposing to alter the composition of the House of Lords without first considering its role, both now and in the future. I thought that the Labour Government had already studied this matter carefully by means of the Wakeham commission, to which the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, and other noble Lords referred. There is a solution very carefully worked out by my noble friend Lord Wakeham and his commission.
I have always believed that the role of the House of Lords is to revise legislation—and I mean revise, not just scrutinise. In the last Parliament, the House revised the Rwanda Bill: it did not merely scrutinise it. It should be an additional check on the Executive but not determine who the Prime Minister is or financial matters. Most importantly, it should be a source of expertise.
The noble Lord, Lord Newby, pointed out that we have a difficulty in that we are hideously London-centric, but getting rid of the hereditary Peers who are chained to their castles and estates up and down the country will make the situation worse, and it is not clear to me how being elected, either in whole or in part, will make us any better at performing our role—a point touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Moore. Of course, it may make us much less willing to give way to the elected House. Many advocates of an elected House suggest that we would be more effective and legitimate if elected. I suggest that being elected can be a disadvantage. For instance, about two years ago, I was dealing with a problem with a high street bank debanking a business in the wider defence industry—noble Lords will recall that recently the Secretary of State for Defence was forcefully raising this issue in public. I needed to have a meeting with senior executives of the bank in circumstances where a Member of another place would be blanked by the bank; they would get nowhere. Why was I able to secure the meeting and then understand what the problem was? The answer is that the bank trusted me. It could be sure that I was not getting involved in order to burnish my local credentials, my media profile or anything else.
I have a question for noble Lords proposing a change to the role of the House or introducing an elected element. In their proposed reformed House, would it be intended that the Government of the day could still easily be defeated? If it was, surely the House would claim democratic credentials and be far more challenging to the House of Commons, as noble Lords have already pointed out. However, if the new House could only very rarely defeat the Government, then in the case of something such as the Rwanda Bill, surely the courts would step in to fill the vacuum.
Finally, can the Leader of the House say whether she agrees with my view of the current role of the House of Lords? I appreciate that she cannot comment about its future role, which is a much more difficult question. When in the 2010 Parliament the Conservative-led Government tried to reform the House, I gleefully went around my friends in the House of Commons saying that I was looking forward to being Senator Attlee of South Hampshire. They obviously got the message.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, when we debated the role of the House of Lords last November and on every occasion that we have debated the subject to which I have contributed, I have started by saying, as I say again today, that in a modern, 21st-century democracy there must be a case that the legislature should be elected. Although it puts me therefore to some extent at odds with friends of mine on different sides of the House, I have to say that I generally support, not necessarily every detail, the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Newby.
If that was all I had to say, I probably would not have bothered saying it, because I think the Lord Privy Seal must have grasped that there is support for the noble Lord’s amendment from different parts of the House, and all I would be doing is adding my name to that. However, I want to go a little further into the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Newby, and point out that it is really very clever and has a lot of lot in it that should attract noble Lords, because although it sets a clear destination, it is very non-specific about the details of how we should end up and what the new House of Lords would look like in its elected form. What he is doing in his amendment instead is putting in place a process.
I think we all know what a process looks like. It has the sort of things that we find in this amendment: steps that need to be taken, in a certain order, and dates by which those steps should ideally be taken. The Lord Privy Seal seems to have some difficulty with the word “process”. She used it in Committee last week, when we talked about various matters to do with the future of this House beyond this Bill. She said that we were in a process, but the Lord Privy Seal is not actually in a process. She may think she is, but she is not, because if she were she would be able to tell us the steps, the milestones and the target dates that we find in the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Newby.
The only thing we know for certain about the process in which the Labour Government are engaged—the process that so is so important not only to this House, but to anyone who takes an interest in our constitutional balance—is that her door is always open. That is the process as far as the Labour Front Bench is concerned. There is no timetable, there are no milestones and there are no commitments as to what is going to happen, in what order or when. While it is perfectly legitimate for the Lord Privy Seal to say that she does not support the process proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Newby, it now becomes almost impossible for her, given what she has said before, both to oppose the noble Lord and to fail to come forward with a process of her own—which is what so many noble Lords in this House would like to hear. Otherwise, she will show that she is not being wholly candid with us in the way that we would hope.
The essential point about Labour’s sense of direction is that it came forward in its manifesto with a package of measures and obtained a mandate for a package of measures. Some of those measures were to be taken at an early stage—the Lord Privy Seal and I have had this argument about the weight of the full stop, and I am not going to go through that now—and at least one was going to be taken later. It was going to be a consultation involving the democratic character of the House and the representation of the nations and regions and so on. Clearly, anyone reading the Labour Party manifesto would say that that was something to be done in the latter half of the Parliament. It also explains to the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, why these issues arise in what appears to be a very narrow Bill: it is because that very narrow Bill sits in a context of a manifesto commitment and a mandate which is very much broader. It cannot be separated out; those threads cannot be pulled apart without having an effect on the rest of the fabric.
I will come to a close very quickly. If I tremble to find myself in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Newby, I tremble even more to find myself in disagreement with my noble friend Lord Blencathra. While any new system or composition of the Lords is absolutely bound to require a crunching of gears as the two Chambers find a way of working together, the notion that this is impossible—that two democratic chambers cannot work together—is, as I have said before, simply belied. One can look round the rest of the democratic world, where it does work, with crunching of gears and not always ideally, and sometimes with surprises and unexpected turns of events—but of course it is possible to have two democratic chambers.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Blencathra that these matters are so weighty that there is a strong case for a referendum. I am rather more sympathetic to referendums than many people here and in the other place, and I find myself rather out on the extreme wing on this, but I certainly think there is a strong case for a referendum on the constitutional future of your Lordships’ House.
Coming back to my original point, I very much hope that the Lord Privy Seal will stop hiding behind her open door—if that is not too much of a mixed metaphor—and come out into the West Front corridor and tell us, if not in this Chamber today, if she does not like the process proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Newby, what process she has to offer us.
Lord Northbrook (Con)
My Lords, I will focus on paragraph (3) of Amendment 11, suggesting what should be in the consultation paper on methods for introducing elected Members to the House. House of Lords reform has been unfinished business now for well over a century, as emphasised in the Parliament Act 1911. I believe the Bill provides an opportunity for looking at several different ways of reform for the House: elected or appointed, or a mixture of both.
The Electoral Reform Society produced an interesting paper on an elected House in December 2023. I will first explore how other countries select members of their upper houses, to give comparison for an elected House of Lords here. The majority of second chambers choose their members by election, whether direct or indirect. The Inter-Parliamentary Union—the IPU—categorises 55 second chambers as predominantly chosen by either direct or indirect election, and only 22 as predominantly chosen by appointment. Many chambers do, however, combine a direct and/or indirect election with a small element of appointment. For instance, while the Italian Senate is nearly wholly directly elected, a handful of life seats are held by ex-officio members, formerly presidents, and up to five citizens are appointed by the President for outstanding service.
In Ireland, of the 60 members of the Senate, 43 are elected by panels representing different vocations, six are chosen by graduates of the two major universities, and 11 are nominated by the Taoiseach, creating a mix of direct and indirect election for some appointments.
In Spain, the Senate combines direct and indirect election based on different territories. The majority of senators are directly elected in multi-member constituencies based on the 50 provinces. Around a fifth are appointed by the legislatures of the autonomous communities, which are themselves elected by closed-list proportional representation—PR.
Concerns are often raised about the potential conflict arising from having two directly elected chambers. Wholly directly elected second chambers can be found in Australia, Brazil, the Czech Republic, Japan, Mexico, Poland, Switzerland and the USA. Within this group are significant differences in the electoral system used, which in turn affects their composition. It is generally agreed that one party should not have a majority in both chambers. Because of this, few parliaments with direct elections for both chambers choose similar electoral systems for both chambers.
Two notable exceptions are Italy and the United States. Italy employs a similar mixed system for both the upper and the lower house, with both chambers also electing on the same day. Because of this, while there may be some differences, the party balance tends to be the same in both chambers. The United States is the only country to use a majoritarian system for both chambers. While using the same system, the two USA chambers have different compositions because of the difference in size of their constituencies and the length of term. However, with party competition forcing a two-party shape due to the nature of the electoral system, the opportunity for gridlock is high. In both Italy and the USA, similar electoral systems are also matched by similar powers.
The majority of parliaments with wholly directly elected upper chambers use different electoral systems in the lower chamber. Brazil, the Czech Republic, Poland and Switzerland have PR-elected primary chambers and use majoritarian systems for their second chambers. Australia has a majoritarian-elected lower house and a PR-elected upper house. Japan and Mexico use mixed systems for both chambers.
Using different electoral systems for both chambers tends to produce different electoral outcomes, which are also supported by arrangements such as different term lengths and staggered elections. For a wholly or partly elected second chamber, the question remains as to which system of election to use. If direct election is chosen, there are many options for the type of electoral system that could be used.
Previous suggestions for Lords reform have put forward different options, including versions of party lists and single transferable vote, STV. The STV option was recommended in the cross-party Breaking the Deadlock proposals in 2007 and the House of Lords reform draft Bill in 2011. As Liberal Democrats will know, STV is a proportional and preferential election system in which voters get to choose their choice of candidate. Constituencies are multimember, returning usually around three to five candidates per district, although constituencies can be larger, and voters can put a number to as many or as few candidates as they like. Candidates who reach the quota are elected, and any votes over and above what they need are redistributed to vote as second preferences, and so on until the places are filled.
The 2011 draft Bill selected STV to ensure that those elected have
“a personal mandate from the electorate, distinct from that of their party”.
STV is a candidate-based system, which means that independents are placed on an equal footing with party-political candidates. In addition, because it is a candidate system, voters are able to choose between candidates of the same party, putting an emphasis on which party candidate they think will be most suitable. Candidates such as community leaders, who have a party leaning but would rather stand as independents, are able to do so without harming their party’s chances by splitting the votes.
According to the Electoral Reform Society:
“In the Scottish local elections of 2017, between a third and a fifth of voters gave their second preference to a candidate of a different party to their first choice. And, whilst many voters are loyal to their party, when no more candidates are available for their first choice party … the majority go on to give lower preferences to candidates of other parties. This opportunity for voters to make more nuanced choices would likely result in a chamber that has a different political character to the Commons.
STV could also help elect a more diverse chamber. Because STV is a multi-member constituency system, it encourages parties to put forward candidates who differ from each other in order to maximise their vote. District magnitude, the number of people being elected in an electoral district, has an impact on the diversity of those elected, so larger STV districts are … more likely to create a more representative chamber without needing additional measures … STV would likely go furthest to fulfilling the goals of a more politically diverse and independently minded chamber where voters would be able to select candidates according to their expertise and experience, as well as ensuring representation from across the regions and nations of the UK”,
which I believe the Labour Party wished for the Lords in its manifesto.
Another form of rank ordering preference is the AV system. While STV is considered a form of proportional representation using multimember constituencies, AV would operate in single-member constituencies and is not. There are of course other forms of PR, namely list PR, which was recommended by the Wakeham commission and the subsequent White Paper in 2001. In 2010-11 the House of Lords reform draft Bill put forward semi-open regional lists. List PR systems can be open, closed or semi-open.
With apologies to the Lib Dems, I will briefly go into the three main types of list. First, there is the closed list PR; secondly, the open list PR; and, thirdly, the semi-open list. There is a range of these types of list PR. Finally, we must not forget the first past the post system.
The 2008 White Paper modelled the options for election to the House of Lords on the basis of an 80% and 100% elected Chamber of between 420 and 450 seats. Using the four different systems I have outlined, while the first past the post and AV options produced results close to those in the Commons, the list modelling showed a greater proportion of seats for other parties, with no single party gaining an overall majority, but highlighted the problem for independents to get a place under this system.
Baroness Laing of Elderslie (Con)
My Lords, with all due respect to my noble friend who has just spoken, there is no point in going into all those details about methods of election, interesting as they are. Amendment 11 is wrong, and I oppose it because it would undermine the very basis of our democracy, which actually works very well.
The noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, referred to the Joint Committee report published in 2012. I had the duty—I almost said pleasure—to sit on that committee, along with the noble Baroness and others, for eight months while we went into these matters in very great detail. I recommend that report to noble Lords. The report itself was critical of the then Government’s plan to introduce a directly elected second Chamber. The minority report, which was signed by 12 of the 25 members of that committee, was even more critical of the Government; I especially recommend that to noble Lords.
If we had direct election to this upper House, it would not only upset the delicate balance of our constitutional settlement. It would also totally undermine the delicate relationship between the House of Commons and the House of Lords. I seem to recall that in speaking on this matter back then in 2012, I said something like, “Mr Speaker, I don’t care about the House of Lords; I care about the House of Commons”. If I may correct myself, I do now care passionately about the House of Lords. It is for that very reason that I hope Amendment 11 does not have support here.
The great value of your Lordships is that the majority are not politicians, as the noble Lord, Lord Moore, most articulately said a few moments ago, whereas if we had direct election, the moment anybody stands for election and puts their head above the parapet, they become a politician. I can be critical of politicians because I am one to my fingertips; I have been a full-time one for more than 30 years. As a new Member of this House, I appreciate just how valuable noble Lords who are not politicians are in the work that they do and the scrutiny that this House brings to holding the Government to account.
My second point is that if the upper House is elected, that undermines the position of the House of Commons. It undermines the authority and accountability of the House of Commons. The electorate have to know where the buck stops. There is a direct relationship between the voter and the elected person, which is embodied in our House of Commons, one of the best democratic institutions anywhere in the world. If the upper House were to have democratic accountability and authority, that would challenge the House of Commons—and then the electorate would not know where the buck stops. As Tony Benn used to say, “If you don’t know how to get rid of the people you elect, then you don’t have accountability and you don’t have true democracy”. It is very strange to find myself agreeing yet again with Tony Benn.
My third point is simply that a well-functioning democracy is not just about elections. Our democracy works because of the checks and balances of civic society. That includes the work of your Lordships’ House as a revising Chamber, not as a representative Chamber. I beg your Lordships not to support Amendment 11.
Lord Norton of Louth (Con)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow my noble friend, for two reasons. First, I served with her on the Joint Committee on the Draft House of Lords Reform Bill. Secondly, I intend to follow her in actually referring to the text of Amendment 11, which makes me somewhat exceptional in this debate, because it has been about an elected second Chamber. The amendment does not actually stipulate that.
Let me begin with one or two quick points. First, it is not self-evidently the case that an appointed second Chamber is undemocratic. I have developed this case before; there is a democratic argument for an appointed second Chamber.
Secondly, it is not self-evidently the case that elected second chambers fulfil functions that benefit the political system, certainly not in terms of facilitating good law. Following what the noble Lord, Lord Moore, said, this Chamber is defined by its relationship to the other place. This is a complementary second Chamber. It adds value by fulfilling functions the other place does not have the time or political will to carry out. That renders it distinct, it adds value and I would argue that good law is a public good that deserves to be preserved.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, and I both grew up in the post-war era. When I sat in front of our coal fire as a little boy, I used to love pulling at the threads of my woolly jumper and holes appeared elsewhere. My mother, who had knitted it, was furious and pointed to those holes. So it is with this Bill that would create an all-appointed House; holes appear elsewhere, and it is perfectly reasonable for your Lordships’ House, which is uniquely affected, to address some of the consequences.
The noble Lord, Lord Newby, in advocating work on a democratisation of the House—he is doing just this thing—follows a position long taken by his party. The preamble to the Parliament Act was referred to, which said that the House of Lords should be supplanted by a House constituted on a popular, instead of a hereditary, basis. It so happened that Asquith and Lloyd George, who believed in strong government, were not that keen on PR. In fact, Lloyd George, famously told CP Scott that PR was
“a device for defeating democracy, the principle of which was that the majority should rule, and for bringing faddists of all kinds into parliament and establishing groups and disintegrating parties”.
That was a wise man. Probably the father of the noble Lord, Lord Newby, did not know Lloyd George.
Asquith’s Government did not take democratisation forward, although, as the noble Lord said, Sir Nick Clegg and my noble friend Lord Cameron did go for reform in 2010. At the time, the Liberal Democrats saw that as part of a programme to entrench a Lib Dem hold on future Governments, with a PR wedge in both Houses. That did not succeed, but that potential Lib Dem lock is probably why many here, on both sides, would regard a Lords elected by PR as a less than enticing prospect.
However, beyond the principled arguments we have heard in this debate, put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Newby—and it is a legitimate, principled argument—and by others, such as the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Llanfaes, there are two reasons why calls for democratisation might intensify after this Bill. They may appear to be in contradistinction, but they could interlock.
The first is potential overreach by an unelected Chamber. I remember that, when most hereditary Peers left in 1999, the then Leader of this House, the noble Baroness, Lady Jay of Paddington, declared that the new House, stripped of most hereditary Peers, would be “more legitimate”. Will the new House created by this Bill, freed of the drag anchor of so-called illegitimate hereditary Peers, be more assertive? Will it view itself as the rather more expert House, one with more wisdom and authority than an inexperienced House of Commons, where 335 Members are new and only one in 10 was a Member more than 15 years ago? I sincerely hope not.
Will the new House be more confident in pressing its arguments? In the absence of sensible working arrangements such as I have suggested, that is possible. Indeed, the current campaign in the Guardian shows what is already being said about the legitimacy of the unelected House, life Peers and hereditary Peers alike. Faced with challenge, an elected Government might see merit in pressing forward with reform. Which takes one to a second, very plausible scenario, where successive Governments, copying the precedent created by this Bill, simply tear groups of Peers out of your Lordships’ House to adjust numbers here to their party-political convenience.
I have spoken about this before. When I did, the noble Lord, Lord Newby, challenged me to say what other groups might be taken out of the House. I cited an example of Peers who have served for over 15 years, term limits being a very popular proposal for Lords reform. I checked what the effects would be if term limits came in in 2029 without grandfather rights, as this Bill plans for hereditary Peers. Removing in 2029 all Peers who have served over 15 years and denying them grandfather rights would deliver the Conservatives a significant net gain of nearly 70 over the Opposition parties and some 190 against all groups in the House. It would remove 59 Liberal Democrat Peers, which is throwing out more than 75% of them. What about that as a prospect? Before anyone says “threat”, it is not threat but fact. There are really grave dangers and deep unfairnesses in this game of “remove a chunk of Peers here and there”, and they are redoubled if grandfather rights are denied. I do not think that any unelected House could long survive such manipulation. The calls to allow the public, rather than the Government, to choose political Members of the House would inevitably grow. So, like it or not, the debate about democratisation posed by the noble Lord, Lord Newby, will not be shooed away simply by removing hereditary Peers.
After the 1999 Act and the challenge to us on a stage 2 House, my party, as my noble friend Lord Strathclyde reminded us, came forward in 2002 with an idea for an elected Senate of 300 members, with 60 seats reserved for unelected Cross Benchers to damp the electoral mandate. Our manifestos in 2005 and 2010 maintained that, and we sought to put it into action in the coalition Government. As we have heard, that attempt was frustrated, but what is the Labour position? It is the party in power. It is the party proposing, in its manifesto, replacing your Lordships’ House. The gracious Speech for the 1998-99 Session said that the 1999 Act would be
“the first stage in a process of reform to make the House of Lords more democratic and representative”.
Labour’s 2001 manifesto pledged a “more representative and democratic” House. Sounds familiar: is that not the line that we keep hearing spun by the party opposite on this Bill and this package of reforms? I did not believe it then, I am sceptical now and I think that the noble Lord, Lord Newby, has every right to ask for the kind of work that he is proposing. So I must ask how the Minister will respond—I hope that she will.
After succeeding Tony Blair, whose party had been publicly advocating for a democratic second House for years—and then voted against any element of election at all in 2003—Gordon Brown tried to revive Labour’s idea of a representative House. In Labour’s 2009 Bill, he looked to end the entry of new hereditary Peers, but he included grandfather rights: a provision that all existing Peers should stay. It was a different Labour Party then, perhaps. Instead of backing plans for election put forward by the coalition, however, Labour allied with rebels in the Commons to frustrate progress. Given the track record of the party opposite, I am a little sceptical as to the future. Will the Minister set out her plans in detail when she responds? If not, can she place a letter in the Library of the House?
The absence of a stage 2 destination overshadows the whole debate on the Bill and provokes many of the questions being asked. When Sir Keir Starmer became leader in 2020, he pledged the abolition of this House in his first term in office and the creation of a new elected Chamber. He was ecstatic when Gordon Brown’s commission reported in December 2022, acclaiming the idea of a new assembly of the nations and regions and, as he put it, rebuilding trust by
“replacing the unelected House of Lords with a new, smaller, democratically elected second chamber”.
Yet Labour’s 2024 manifesto merely said that
“Labour is committed to replacing the House of Lords with an alternative second chamber that is more representative of the regions and nations”.
The word “democracy” was not there. Where in the long grass is it now?
In conclusion, I will ask the Minister some specific questions. Can she confirm whether Labour’s alternative second Chamber will be wholly or partly elected by the people? The manifesto said there would be a public consultation on this Chamber, but you cannot have a meaningful consultation without a proposition on which to consult. When will consultation start? My noble friend Lord Blencathra asked for one form of consultation: a referendum on an elected House of Lords. Does the noble Baroness leave the door open to such a referendum?
Can the Minister tell us whether the Government will publish a White Paper, or any other guidance, to inform your Lordships as we move towards Report? As my noble friend Lord Moylan said, what is the current timetable envisaged for replacing your Lordships, as the manifesto pledged? It is causing concern and confusion on all sides. Will the Minister, who is Leader of the whole House—a responsibility she carries out, in my judgment, with a high sense of responsibility—set out a clear direction as to the Chamber that will replace us before we come to Report?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful for what has been a long and interesting discussion; I thank the noble Lords, Lord Newby and Lord Blencathra, and others, for giving us the opportunity to have it. As with most debates we have had on the Bill, it has gone rather wider than the precise amendments in front of us. The noble Lord referred to some of the things he mentioned at Second Reading, the King’s Speech and other debates. I welcome that there is a focus on other issues beyond the Bill, but that is not what is before us now. However, they are all worthy of longer-term consideration.
The amendments in this group raise the introduction a democratic element to the House. Amendment 11, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Newby, Amendment 72, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Llanfaes, and Amendment 90D, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Brady of Altrincham, all seek to impose a duty on the Government to take forward proposals to ensure a democratic element of your Lordships’ House once the Bill has passed.
Amendments 11 and 72 would require the Government to consult specified persons and bodies, including from this House and the other place, on proposals for introducing elected Members, whereas Amendment 90D would not require consultation and focuses on legislative proposals for a far smaller House of Lords elected under a first past the post system. I am not sure, if we were elected under any system, that it would be a “House of Lords”; I cannot remember which noble Lord said that they were tempted by the title “senator”, but it certainly would not be a House of Lords if that was the proposal. Amendment 90D also asks the Government to bring forward a draft Bill. A very similar amendment was placed in the other place, which was resoundingly rejected by a majority of 262.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
No, I will not take an intervention. I have listened to everybody with great courtesy throughout the whole debate. Would the noble Lord mind letting me answer the questions?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I shall take one short intervention. I am sure the noble Lord would not want to detain the Committee any longer than necessary.
Lord Strathclyde (Con)
My Lords, I intervene simply to say that I have long been a supporter of an elected House, as many noble Lords are aware—certainly since 1997. I am on the public record. I supported the Bill in 2012.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I am happy to be corrected on that, and I am sure noble Lords will welcome his support.
I found Amendments 11A and 11B from the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, really interesting. Amendment 11A seeks to impose a requirement on the Government to include in its consultation
“the implications of securing a democratic mandate for the House of Lords for its powers and conventions”.
The interesting thing about his amendments is that he was the first in the debate to talk about the functions of a second Chamber rather than the form. Other noble Lords then commented on that, but he was the first and he did so in some detail. My starting point on a second Chamber has always been: what does it do, how does it do it, why does it do it, and how do we best fulfil the role? I was pleased that some noble Lords mentioned the role of the Cross-Benchers, because we all welcome that role, and I think the public would too if they were asked. However, the noble Lord would also require a referendum on the principle of an elected second Chamber. If I understood him correctly, if that principle was endorsed it would have to be followed by a further referendum on the methods of election.
The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, spoke significantly more widely than her amendment, which seeks to place a duty on the Government to lay before Parliament a review of the implications of Act for the appropriateness of an unelected Chamber. She complained that she could not get the functions into her amendment, but the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, expressed surprise at how wide amendments could go on membership when the terms of the Bill are so narrow. But that is the ruling we have: anything to do with membership of the House is seen to be in order, which leads to quite a broad approach.
Underlying all those amendments is the argument that further reform of this House is required. I welcome that, because although this Bill is narrow and noble Lords have commented on the next steps, the Labour Party’s manifesto was clear. I am surprised that noble Lords seem so surprised. The manifesto talks about the steps. It says—I think the noble Lord, Lord True, read this out—that we are committed to replacing the Chamber we have now with
“an alternative second Chamber that is more representative of the nations and regions”,
and that we
“will consult on proposals seeking the input of the … public”.
The noble Lord, Lord True, seems to expect me to have a ready-made proposal to bring forward. I do not; this is a longer-term proposal, and I would have thought noble Lords would welcome the opportunity to have an input into it, which, obviously, they will have. There is a range of proposals. We have already heard today that even those who support an elected second Chamber have a range of ways they would do it, so there is no ready-made blueprint: there are lots of thoughts and suggestions, and we have put forward suggestions in the past, but we want to consult more widely. That is a manifesto commitment.
However, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Newby, said himself, this Bill is not the right vehicle for delivering that proposal and we would not accept those amendments. This is a focused Bill that seeks to deliver the manifesto commitment by removing the right of the remaining hereditary Peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords. I remind noble Lords that that principle was established 25 years ago. This is the final part of that principle. My noble friend Lord Grocott seemed surprised this has taken so long and asked why people had made interventions on a range of other issues. This is a focused Bill on immediate reform, following the principle established 25 years ago.
We heard quite a lot about the history of different parts of legislation. The proposals that matter at the moment are those in our manifesto that we are delivering with this Bill, but the Government are committed to more fundamental reform, as I have said. More geographical representation is clearly part of that.
I come back to the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra. I also thought that the noble Lord, Lord Brady, made a thoughtful speech. I know the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, was not proposing an elected second Chamber, but the primacy of the first Chamber is about its elected status. It is accountable to the electorate. If I understood the noble Lord, Lord True, correctly, he thought this Chamber should have a more enhanced role because we have been here longer and have more expertise. You could also argue that an elected Chamber is more in touch with the electorate who have more recently elected them. That is a very important principle.
The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, raised a number of points to be considered during a consultation on the form an alternative second Chamber should take. One point, of course, is primacy. I am intrigued by the idea that we could have a Prime Minister in a second Chamber; I will not apply for any such role. The noble Lord made an important point about the conventions that apply to an unelected second Chamber. Those conventions have stood the test of time through many changes, and they remain. They serve this House, the primary Chamber and democracy well. I anticipate no change to those conventions; it would be a different kind of Chamber if we did not abide by them. The hereditary Peers leaving in 1999 did not alter the conventions, and it will not alter the conventions now either. It is those conventions that protect the primacy of the Commons, which is extremely important.
These issues are not for your Lordships’ House today in this Bill. The Government are making an immediate start to reform this House with this Bill. Part of the reason why there has been no progress over the past 25 years is this argument that nothing can be done until everything is done. But nobody can agree, even in the debate we have had today, on what “everything” is and the result is that we do nothing. Completing this part of the reform shows good faith and good intentions.
The noble Lord, Lord True, tempted me on a number of points, and I want to challenge him on one. He referred to the exit of some Peers—that is, losing our hereditary colleagues—as being some kind of political attack because it affects the numbers. I ask him: did he feel the same when his party racked up appointment after appointment, creating a much larger disparity between the two main parties than we have ever seen before or than would happen under this Bill? What he suggested is not our intention. I have been very clear in Committee, as well as in Select Committee and in the other place, that this House works well with roughly equal numbers between government and opposition parties—and that is not a party-political point at all. Because of the work we do, we should be a more deliberative and engaged Chamber. The noble Lord is laughing at me, and I am not quite sure why; I am making a serious point about how this House works best. It is important that we do our best work and that we figure out how we can do that.
Lord True (Con)
The noble Baroness challenged me on one thing, and perhaps I can make it clear for the Hansard record that I was certainly not laughing at her, even if other noble Lords were. I think she acknowledges that from a sedentary position.
The noble Baroness asked whether I was concerned about certain things. I did not particularly like it when Sir Tony Blair created the largest number of life Peers ever known, but that was his prerogative. The point I am trying to make—this is a House point, not a party-political point—is that a very dangerous precedent opens up when it is felt that a group can be dismissed from the House. That has never happened in this way, and the Conservative Party has never removed people from other parties. I will not repeat what I said in my remarks, but I believe that this is a profoundly dangerous precedent, and we should find ways to avoid setting it.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, it is a party-political point. I was trying to make the very non-party-political point that the House operates best with roughly equal numbers. It has taken 25 years to get here. The principle was established when the hereditary Peers left in 1999—I have to say that any trade union would have snapped up Viscount Cranborne in a moment—and, in effect, 92 of their number remained in perpetuity. Those were the arrangements then. This Bill will end those arrangements, so that the House can move forward.
The noble Lord talked about a term limit, an issue on which some noble Lords have put down amendments later. That would have to be discussed and debated by this House. That is not one of the proposals we are putting forward, but if someone wants to propose that during the consultation we will have on an alternative second Chamber, they are at liberty to do so. I think there would probably be quite lengthy arguments about the duration of a term limit, but that is not included the proposals before us today. Although 25 years is perhaps quite a long time to take to move forward, it is right that we take time to consider these issues.
I am grateful to noble Lords for the points they have made. Certainly, some useful points for the future have been made on how an alternative second Chamber may be constituted. That is not before us today, but in due course, when we are able to come forward with proposals, we will consult quite widely. At this stage, I respectfully ask that noble Lords and Baronesses take their amendments back and reconsider them, and I beg leave to ask that they not press them.
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, I thank everyone who has spoken, and I slightly apologise for initiating such a long debate. I am grateful to noble Lords who have supported our proposal, and doubly grateful to those who have supported me today who have never supported me before—I thank them very much. I obviously cannot deal with all the points made, and I will try to be brief.
The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, made the classic argument for not having an elected House of Lords, the nub of which relates to the primacy of the Commons. The only thing I would say is that, in 2012, the House of Commons voted by a majority of 338 to have an elected House of Lords, so presumably, it did not think its position was being fatally undermined at that point. The noble Lord was the first person to raise the possibility of Cross-Benchers being included under our proposals, and they absolutely would be. There was a provision for Cross-Benchers in the 2012 proposals, and having them would be perfectly possible under my amendment.
On the question of looking at functions, as I said in my introductory remarks, there is no bar to that happening during the consultation period. However, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, that, at worst, wherever one ends up, one is likely to get a crunching of gears rather than a car crash.
Baroness Laing of Elderslie (Con)
I think I just proved the point there. I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. My point was not that I am not a politician, but that I am a lesser person for being a politician. The great thing about this Chamber is that it has a very large number, if not a majority, of Members who are not politicians, and that is what gives it its value.
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, I am happy to debate the numbers, but I disagree that the majority of people who take a party Whip can legitimately not call themselves politicians. The Cross-Benchers are not politicians, although they are very political in many cases. Under my proposal, they are not being abolished anyway.
On the noble Lord, Lord True, I was intrigued by his reference to Lloyd George. Lloyd George does not come with a totally unblemished record when it comes to matters relating to the House of Lords.
As I said at the start, this amendment is to set up a process. It is not a blueprint. We on these Benches believe that this process should now be commenced. We believe that it is very long overdue, and we will return to this amendment on Report with that in view.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Geddes) (Con)
To the best of my knowledge, we are presently debating Amendment 11A, an amendment to Amendment 11.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I did not intend to respond at length, or indeed to respond at all to the debate. It has been a thorough debate—two hours and 10 minutes.
I raised the point about the problems we would have in this House if we concentrated only on form, rather than on function. That point has been eloquently made by all sides. I have no intention of summarising the debate any further. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Newby
“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 (power to confer life peerages), after subsection (1) insert—“(1A) 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 that a peerage should not be conferred on that person.””Member’s explanatory statement
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.
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, I hope and trust that this debate will be at least marginally shorter than the last.
Amendment 12 and its consequential Amendment 116, in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, relate to the powers of the House of Lords Appointments Commission, HOLAC. Our amendment is very modest. It simply says that the Prime Minister should not be able to override a recommendation of HOLAC not to award a peerage to an individual on the basis that they were not a proper person to hold a peerage. One would have thought that this amendment would be unnecessary; surely no Prime Minister would ever wish to overrule HOLAC on a matter of propriety. Sadly, that is exactly what has happened in recent times. This amendment would prevent it happening again. I understand that, not least from the evidence she gave to the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee in another place, the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, as the chair of HOLAC, supports this amendment.
The amendment in the names of the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, and the noble Lord, Lord Colgrain, would prevent the Prime Minister overriding HOLAC by giving the commission sole power to make recommendations for peerages to the King. In reality, the difference between this and our amendment is one not of substance but of form. However, it would be odd, to put it mildly, if HOLAC had such a power without being already constituted on a statutory basis.
It is a valid criticism of our amendment that it does not go far enough. The position of HOLAC should be placed on a statutory basis and it should be able to assess candidates for a peerage in terms of suitability as well as propriety. Other amendments in this group by the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, and the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, make provisions in these areas. We support these amendments in principle but believe that this limited Bill is not an appropriate vehicle for a more fundamental reform of HOLAC.
The amendment by the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, for example, raises detailed issues of the composition of a statutory appointments commission, which clearly need more detailed discussion than is possible in the context of this Bill. Fortunately, the Government committed in their manifesto to move further on these issues. Our amendment is a stand-alone provision that can be done easily now, and I hope that between now and Report the Government will give further consideration to bringing forward the very limited and uncontentious change covered by this amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment 12A (to Amendment 12)
Lord Howard of Rising
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to render the House of Lords Appointment Commission ineffective.
Lord Howard of Rising (Con)
My Lords, this country is being slowly but inexorably paralysed by committees of all shapes and sizes—departmental public bodies, quangos, you name it. New ones are being created on a regular basis, and every single one of them—new and old—is doing its best to expand its remit, thereby increasing its power and, frequently, its budget. The result, more often than not, is that Ministers are unable to take decisions. They are obliged to seek advice from this committee or that. If something goes wrong, however, it is the Minister who is held responsible and has to take the blame, while these unelected bodies, populated by the people who know best, remain unaccountable. Even the Chancellor of the Exchequer has to consult the Office for Budget Responsibility, an organisation that gets things wrong more often than right. What is wrong with our own vast department, the Treasury—or even the Bank of England, which has been known to get things wrong? When it comes to misjudgments, it is but a rank amateur compared with the OBR.
I draw your Lordships’ attention to one organisation that could be got rid of with no loss: the House of Lords Appointments Commission—HOLAC. It is a non-departmental public body. If His Majesty the King wishes, on the advice of the Prime Minister, to appoint someone to the House of Lords, what is the commission needed for, when exactly the same advice that the commission calls on to take its decision is available to the Prime Minister? Why does this advice need to be filtered through a separate body? What is the point of having an organisation to collate information from government departments to present it to the Prime Minister?
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
One reason is that we do not always trust the Prime Minister.
Lord Howard of Rising (Con)
He can already get this information.
I regret having to say this, but on more than one occasion HOLAC has taken a decision, or made a recommendation, that has been biased by a political view and not as an arm’s-length appraisal, resulting in the rejection of candidates of the highest calibre. That is not what the commission should be doing. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, for whom I have the greatest respect and admiration, will stop HOLAC going beyond the bounds of what it should be doing.
At this very time, this Chamber is coming under increasing scrutiny. We need to welcome into our ranks individuals of talent, vision and extraordinary achievement. I strongly believe that HOLAC is a hindrance to this process and is damaging the future health and viability of the House of Lords. I beg to move.
The Earl of Devon (CB)
My Lords, I rise to speak to my Amendment 51, to which the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, and the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, have kindly added their names. I look forward to their contributions and appreciate their support.
This amendment, along with others in this group, focuses on the exemplary work of the House of Lords Appointments Commission, or HOLAC, whose appointees sit largely here on the Cross Benches. While I do not agree with ranking ourselves by method of entry to your Lordships’ House, I firmly believe that, once here, we are all equal. In my view, the angels of HOLAC have by far the worthiest routes to these red Benches. My amendment would increase the number of HOLAC appointments accordingly. Whereas the amendments from the noble Lords, Lord Newby and Lord Wallace, seek to ensure that the approval of HOLAC would be mandatory before any life peerages were conferred—a proposal I am minded to support given the excellent work of the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, and others and the importance of probity to appointments to this House—Amendment 51 is more limited. It aims to encourage the use of HOLAC as a means by which a further 20 Cross-Bench Members of Your Lordships’ House are appointed during the five years after the passage of this Bill.
Unlike the party-political Benches, which can organise themselves and lobby for their share of prime ministerial patronage to recharge their Benches following the removal of the hereditary Peers, the Cross Benches, as a determinedly independent body of individual Peers, are not in a position to push collectively for new membership. They will inevitably lose out due to this legislation and the House undoubtedly will be more political and thus less effective. This amendment has the benefit of diluting, if only a little, the relative increase in prime ministerial patronage that will result from the removal of the hereditary Peers. That must be a good thing.
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, with the demise of the “good chaps” theory of government, articulated by the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Newby, and my noble friends Lord Dundee and Lord Hailsham, giving statutory powers in terms of probity, capability and experience to HOLAC, are essential. We should legislate for them at the first possible opportunity. Obviously, I do not agree with my noble friend Lord Howard on his amendment, but I understand some of his analysis.
On the amendments tabled by the noble Earls, Lord Dundee and Lord Devon, the Cross Benches have a great selection of hereditary Peers which they have carefully selected and elected and who provide great expertise to Parliament. For instance, we want to get to net zero, so they have a senior civil nuclear engineer. We have problems with shipping, including the Russian shadow fleet and the need for certain ships to go around the Cape of Good Hope because of the activity of the Houthis, so we have a former chairman of the Baltic Exchange. International aid is always important, which is why the Cross Benches have one of the few people in Parliament with any operational experience of international aid, who is in his place today. I could go on. Why does anyone want to get rid of that experience on the Cross Benches?
I have some concern about the selections that HOLAC makes. There is no doubt that noble Lords appointed by HOLAC are exceptionally good, as the noble Earl said, but there are too few of them. The problem is that—and I gently make this point—they tend to be public sector orientated, although there are obvious exceptions. Looking generally, I think that we have too many who are expert at spending other people’s money. Our debates are nearly always about spending more money and increasing resources, and never about spending less. Very shortly, we will have to make some very tough decisions about that.
I am surprised that no noble Lord has sought to put a duty on HOLAC regarding where noble Lords are based. I am sorry to say that the House is hideously London-centric, a point touched on already today by the noble Lord, Lord Newby. This problem will get even worse with the demise of the hereditaries, who tend to come from far and wide. Overall, we need greater involvement from HOLAC in vetting but to limit its selection powers to the Cross Benches. We need some better informal mechanisms to work out what experience and regional expertise we lack. Perhaps HOLAC should have some mechanism to deal with or advise on London centricity.
The Earl of Dundee (Con)
My Lords, in this grouping, there are two connected proposals in my name. Amendment 43 would not prevent political patronage creating non-parliamentary peerages.
Yet it would abolish the right of parliamentary political patronage to appoint Members to this House, replacing that practice, as advocated by Amendment 45, with a statutory appointments commission responsible for appointing 200 independent Cross-Benchers within a reformed House of 600 temporal Members, where the balance of 400 Members are political Members indirectly elected by an electoral college representative of the different parts of the United Kingdom.
These amendments also indicate three background considerations. The first is how thereby, in appointing 200 non-political independent Members, the new statutory commission appoints the largest group within a reformed House of 600. The second is the purpose of doing that and, thirdly, how membership, within a total of 20 appointment commissioners, reflects the proportions of different Benches sitting in a reformed House.
Among the 400 political and temporal Members, the Government and the Opposition would have exactly 150 each, while all other political parties, including the Liberal Democrats, would have 100. With 200, the independent Cross Benches, therefore, would have 50 more Members than either the Government or the Opposition.
The purpose of this is not House of Lords composition; instead, it is continuity of House of Lords quality function. So many of your Lordships have eloquently stressed that point today, including the noble Lord, Lord Moore, and my noble friends Lord Tugendhat and Lady Laing. This quality function is not just our current high standard of legislative scrutiny. As my noble friend Lord Attlee pointed out, it includes our achievements in revisions, and thus also the quality of that evidence. This quality of function would be undermined if the party of any Government having a majority in another place also had one here. That is why the Government and the Opposition ought to have equal numbers in a reformed House, while the non-political Cross-Benchers should be in the majority.
With a total of 20 commissioners appointing 200 non-political Members, subsection (5) of the new clause that would be inserted by Amendment 45 gives the ratios allocated to the different temporal Benches: five commissioners each for the Government and the Opposition; seven for the Cross-Benchers; and three for the Liberal Democrats as the third-largest temporal group. Amendment 46, referring to that subsection (5) in Amendment 45, proposes the additional words,
“or from a party-political group in the House of Lords not otherwise identified in this table”,
for which I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Hailsham.
I also thank my noble friend for the qualification in his Amendment 44A, referring to Amendment 43, that with appointments to this House the statutory Appointments Commission can only select people who are properly reliable and independent-minded. In addition, I am grateful to him and to the noble Lord, Lord Newby, for their proposed Amendments 47 and 12 respectively, envisaging that, in the period of time before a statutory Appointments Commission has replaced political patronage, life peerages can still not be conferred against the recommendations of HOLAC or the present non-statutory Appointments Commission.
In Amendment 51, the strengthening of HOLAC is also urged by the noble Earl, Lord Devon, who has just spoken to that, supported by myself and the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich. As outlined, the aim should be for HOLAC to become statutory, replacing political patronage and appointing one-third or 200 non-political Members of a reformed House, temporal membership being 600 of which 400 are political Members. As a revising Chamber, this arrangement is best able to protect our present very high standard of legislative scrutiny to the advantage of the United Kingdom democracy here and, by example, to that of national democracies elsewhere.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, I very much endorse what my noble friend Lord Dundee has been saying, and what he has said has enabled me—your Lordships will be pleased to know—to abbreviate my remarks very significantly. I have put down four amendments, to which I want to say something briefly: namely, Amendments 43, 44A, 46 and 47. I shall also comment briefly on Amendment 45.
So far as Amendment 43 is concerned, I agree very much, for the reasons advanced by my noble friend Lord Dundee, that HOLAC should be the sole source of recommendations for appointments. In substance, there is too great a risk that individuals will be appointed by a party or Prime Minister in circumstances that will offend the public sense as to what is appropriate. Unfettered discretion on the part of a Prime Minister raises serious questions as to suitability and propriety of additional appointments. That risk will be diminished by giving the right of nomination to HOLAC.
In response to the point made by my noble friend Lord Howard of Rising, the truth is that the decisions of Prime Ministers cannot always be trusted, and we have seen some pretty rum events over the last few years which give force to that conclusion. I prefer the approach set out in the amendment which my noble friend Lord Dundee has moved to the negative approach suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Newby—I think he himself would accept that his amendment does not go far enough.
That takes me to Amendment 45, which puts HOLAC on a statutory basis. I think that it is highly desirable that the existence, composition, role and powers of HOLAC should be enshrined in statute. I have come to this conclusion very much for the reasons advanced by the noble Earl and for the reasons that were advanced by my noble friend Lord Strathclyde in the debate of last Monday. It is very important that the powers and role of HOLAC should be statutory. There is a very good model for this. It is in a Bill which was introduced in the 2022-23 Session by the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, and it may well be that he is going to repeat those points in the debate on Friday when he has a Bill before your Lordships’ House.
The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)
HOLAC is 25 years old in May and, looking at its report card, one would say that it has been a success. Of its two jobs, the production of the 76 Members that the noble Earl, Lord Devon, referred to into the Cross Bench has been a great success. I can say, as I am not one of them, that they really are among our most regular attenders and most valuable contributors. On the other side, its vetting business has also been a success, otherwise we would have noticed standards slipping in the House all round. But HOLAC is a delicate child; it was born of a White Paper and it lacks the permanence that it deserves. It is now a non-departmental government body and an advisory body only.
I suppose there are three things that one could do to HOLAC from here: first, give it the permanence that I think it deserves; secondly, broaden the scope of what it looks at; and thirdly, increase its powers—or, rather, give it powers, because it does not have any at all at the moment. In permanence terms, as I have already suggested, I feel that the time has come, after 25 years of success, to try to find a way to make HOLAC more permanent somewhere in statute, and not just have it as something which appeared in a White Paper.
On broadening HOLAC’s scope, it is clear that the exercise it undertakes when it looks at new Members includes enough data, information and deliberation for it to make a determination on not just propriety but suitability. Given that it is an advisory body, this would be interesting to me, were I Prime Minister, and it should be asked to provide that guidance to the Prime Minister. I would have that element of broadening its scope.
Where I do have a difficulty, though, is on increasing HOLAC’s powers. It would be hugely complex. We would have to sort out who is going to be a member. Today, it is quite a relaxed process—it is going on at the moment to fill two slots—but it would be extremely interesting to all sorts of people to become a member, or indeed a chair, of HOLAC. Its scrutiny, if it had real power, would be something we would have to sort out as well. That would take some time, and the timetable for this Bill would not allow that. I do not feel that this Bill could possibly be a vehicle for increasing HOLAC’s powers, but it could be a vehicle for making it permanent and giving it some breadth.
Lord Howard of Lympne (Con)
My Lords, I will speak briefly to Amendment 45 and the other amendments in this group that would make HOLAC a statutory body. I was a member of the commission for a number of years and, despite the fact that I hold the proposers of these amendments in very high regard, it would be a great mistake to put it on a statutory basis. I say so for the same reason as that given by the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, a distinguished former chairman of the commission, to your Lordships on 18 November 2022.
In a nutshell, making HOLAC a statutory body would make it subject to judicial review. This would mean that someone who was unsuccessful in their application to become a Member of your Lordships’ House could challenge that decision in the courts. It would mean that an appointment that had been announced and, indeed, confirmed could be challenged in the courts. The courts would be drawn into deciding who should and should not be a Member of your Lordships’ House—a Member of this Chamber of Parliament—which is a flagrant breach of what we have always understood by the separation of powers.
It may be suggested that the legislation contemplated by these amendments to make HOLAC statutory could in some way circumscribe the power of the courts to intervene. I am afraid that history demonstrates that in a contest of that kind between the parliamentary draftsman and the courts, the courts usually win.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend is making a very serious point. Would he perhaps consider that the power of judicial review would be reduced if HOLAC was obliged, before making a public statement, to give the person affected the opportunity to respond?
Lord Howard of Lympne (Con)
On the contrary, if reasons were given, those reasons could be the basis of a challenge in the courts. I fear I entirely disagree with the last point my noble friend made in his speech, when he suggested that reasons should be given. If reasons are given, they can form a stronger or a particular basis for a challenge in the courts.
I shall content myself with one example of the attitude of the courts to attempts to circumscribe their powers to intervene. When I was Home Secretary, a decision was made, though not by me, to refuse British nationality to someone whom I will not name. The relevant statute says that in such cases the Home Office is not obliged to give reasons for its decision. The High Court decided that these words meant what most people would think they meant, which was that the Home Office did not have to give any reasons. The Court of Appeal, however, decided that because the statute gave the Home Office discretion as to whether it could give reasons, it was wrong not to give the reasons. Your Lordship will see what I mean when I say that it is extremely difficult to circumscribe the determination of the courts to intervene.
I do not think that the courts should have a role in determining the membership of your Lordships’ House. That would be a consequence of these amendments. I urge your Lordships to reject them.
Lord Butler of Brockwell (CB)
My Lords, with regret, I cannot support any of the amendments in this group. I say “with regret” because there are aspects of them that I like very much. I like the proposal to extend the scope of HOLAC to consider competence as well as integrity. I am also tempted, like my noble friend the Convenor, by wishing to put HOLAC on a statutory basis. But the objections raised by the noble Lord, Lord Howard, are powerful. So, I would go as far in agreeing with my noble friend as to say that I would favour HOLAC being put on a more permanent basis if a way could be found for dealing with the objections raised by the noble Lord, Lord Howard.
One thing that runs in common through these amendments is that HOLAC’s power being extended runs up against a fatal flaw—that in one case HOLAC is given a veto on nominations to your Lordships’ House and in another it is given the sole right to make recommendations. Those aspects are constitutionally wrong. The sovereign, the King, creates Members of your Lordships’ House. There must be somebody to advise him. It must be a democratically elected person and that has to be the Prime Minister. It cannot be the role of a body such as HOLAC, however admirable its work and however admirably it is composed, to give that advice. The advice to the sovereign must come from the Prime Minister.
So HOLAC’s advisory role is very important but, although we may not like it, in the end the Prime Minister has to take the responsibility. That means the Prime Minister can, if he wishes, reject the advice of HOLAC. The right channel is that HOLAC advises, the Prime Minister advises the King and the King appoints.
Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)
My Lords, I support the amendments that would put HOLAC into statute, for the reasons given by the Convenor of the Cross Benches, which I shall not weary your Lordships by repeating. To the noble Lord, Lord Howard, I would say that, if HOLAC’s procedures are fair and if the courts are wise, which I believe they are, they will steer well clear.
Amendment 51, in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Devon, and to which I have put my name, is an amendment that is not for the long term but for the here and now. Although the Cross Benches notoriously still lack a hairdresser, we owe to the People’s Peers scheme a decent share of the expertise that so distinguishes your Lordships’ House. Without it, we would not have the noble Baronesses, Lady Grey-Thompson, Lady Watkins and Lady Kidron, or the noble Lords, Lord Krebs, Lord Pannick and Lord Hennessy. None of them, incidentally, are what the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, described as “public sector experts”, although we have some of those, too. We would not have had Lord Ramsbotham, whose former desk in this place I proudly occupy and whose detailed knowledge of the prison system no current Back-Bencher in any part of this House can equal.
None of those people—and they are only illustrative examples from a short but distinguished list—was active in politics or would have thought of standing for election. None qualified automatically by virtue of a previous job. None was proposed for membership by a political leader. But each has brought qualities of the very highest order to public life. Whether future political Peers arrive here by appointment or by some process of election, I hope they will continue to be joined by a modest stream of independent experts—ideally for a fixed term, as counselled by the noble Lord, Lord Burns—who owe nothing to party affiliation or prime ministerial patronage.
How modest is the stream? The noble Earl has given some figures. Let me give some more. Between the start of the scheme in 2001 and the 2010 general election, HOLAC’s website records that 55 People’s Peers were appointed—around six a year. But, more recently, the stream has slowed to a trickle. In the past 15 years, only 21 People’s Peers have been appointed, balanced between 11 women and 10 men.
I would be wary of any suggestion that might tend to increase either the numbers in this House or the proportion of peers who sit on the Cross Benches—but we do have a problem. The removal of 34 hereditaries will not only leave a large gap on the Cross Benches; it will leave gaps in the collective expertise of the House. How would we have navigated the cladding issue without the noble Earl, Lord Lytton? How could we provide a substitute for the remarkable energies of the noble Lord, Lord Vaux of Harrowden? Such gaps will not all be filled by the current trickle of People’s Peers.
That is where Amendment 51 comes in. It would operate independently of any special arrangement for which there might be support, in favour of the Convenor of the Cross Benches and perhaps others. It would increase the flow of People’s Peers—at least for five years—but the increase would be modest and well within the bounds of precedent. Four a year is somewhere between the current rate and the rate as it was under the last Labour Government.
The noble Earl, Lord Devon, has honourably made it clear that the purpose of his amendment is not to provide a route back to the House for hereditary Members who have been expelled—but, equally, there is no reason why such Members could not apply. I cannot speak for HOLAC, but surely a track record of superlative contribution to the work of the House could only be of assistance to Cross-Bench hereditaries who wish to try their luck again by a route that is open to all.
That leads to my last point. We are right to focus in these debates on the qualities of those who are already here, including the hereditary Peers who contribute so greatly to our work. But let us not neglect the qualities and the potential contributions of those candidates who have already applied to HOLAC or might be encouraged to do so. Though the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, as chair of HOLAC, cannot speak on this issue, I suspect she would agree that among those applicants are some of our very brightest and best—their expertise valuable and current. Let us give them a real chance, however small, to join this House.
The People’s Peers scheme has shown that the reputation and effectiveness of this place is capable of being enhanced by those who do not come from noble families, who do not benefit from political patronage and who are not members of a political party. I hope the Minister will agree that a modest but immediate revival of the People’s Peers, to which she could commit without accepting this amendment, could help to replace the Cross-Bench wisdom that will sadly be lost when the hereditary Peers leave us.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
My Lords, the amendments in this group raise some very serious questions—perhaps the most obvious being the opaqueness of HOLAC and how it will work and conduct its business under these proposals. Why on earth would the public be happy for Peers who are their legislators to be appointed by a group of people most of whom they will never have heard of and who are, frankly, regarded just as members of the same elite club?
This is a political Chamber where the Prime Minister of the day needs his ideas turned into law and the Opposition need champions to challenge them respectfully. The PM and the leader of the Opposition must be allowed to choose their own team. The team need not be political people or people with political experience, but they must be people who the PM and the leader of the Opposition will regard as being helpful to what they want to achieve. A while ago, the Labour Party, I think—forgive me if it was another party—went down the route of their Cabinet being selected by someone other than their leader. It was an absolute disaster, as indeed it would be here.
As my noble friend Lord Howard of Rising said—I do not agree with him that HOLAC should be got rid of; I think it has a very useful role—one can see that, under these proposals, it could overreach itself and decide for itself who to appoint on grounds that might be a mystery to the rest of us but feel good to it. The very minimum is, of course, that such people who are appointed are fit and proper, but that is not enough by any stretch of the imagination. Under these proposals, we do not know on what grounds people would be selected in the future.
In previous Bills that have tried to address this issue, there has been discussion of conspicuous merit. I think the Bill brought forward by the noble Lord, Lord Norton, with whom I agreed on everything he said this afternoon—talked about “conspicuous merit”. How does define one that? I am not sure that I could say I have any conspicuous merit. I would ask each of your Lordships to ask yourselves whether you really do have conspicuous merit. Is long service conspicuous merit? We see that some sports people are put in here on conspicuous merit. I do not think that has gone particularly well. As the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, has quite rightly reminded us, what this Bill has got to focus on is hereditary Peers. I was taken by the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Moore, about the point being that people should be in this House to contribute—to make it more effective, to deliver—which is not a function of what they have done in the past but a function of what they will do in the future. Personally, one reason why I was very keen on hereditary Peers is that they do not come here to get a title, as many people do; they come here knowing, with their eyes wide open, that there is a job of work to do, and, by and large, they do the job of work.
An argument is also made that every person coming here must, in effect, be vetted by HOLAC, and that vetting is to be binding. I note that proposed new subsection (1B) in Amendment 47 would allow representations to be made, but, as ever, my noble friend Lord Howard of Lympne addressed the problem of those representations leading to further judicial review. However, there is no right of appeal—as far as I can see in this legislation—so that cannot be right. Of course, if we go down the route of judicial review—which, as my noble friend Lord Howard pointed out and the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, suggested in the previous debate, would happen—I suggest that very few people would want to sit on a committee knowing that they were going to be subject to the awful process of a judicial review.
If HOLAC were to be made all-powerful—much more powerful—that committee would need to be investigated very carefully. Is it going to be balanced in ethnicity, gender, age, geography, politics, religion or diversity? We can see a real mess developing. Why would that committee be given so much power when it seems to me that we appoint a PM as we trust his—or, hopefully soon, her—judgment and we must let them get on with it? We elect our MPs to select their leader and, like it or not—obviously I do not at the moment, but I have in the past and I respect the will of the people—we must allow them to get on with their job.
If HOLAC is to be on a statutory basis, or if its recommendations are to be binding, surely we will need much greater access to its deliberations. Does HOLAC now work fully effectively? No, clearly it does not. In my case, I was told on 12 December that I was going to be elevated to the House, but it did not happen until the following December, so there was a huge gap, and I was told that part of the reason for that was HOLAC deliberations. Therefore, the idea of giving HOLAC more power, just when government has said that it wants to reduce the number of quangos, seems to me inappropriate.
Lord Northbrook (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak briefly. While I can understand the logic behind the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Newby, I believe that HOLAC, for which I have the greatest respect, is not totally infallible. I examined the issue of my noble friend Lord Cruddas’s rejection by the committee, and to summarise the matter, he was involved in a sting with Sunday Times journalists. He was then cleared by the Electoral Commission of any wrongdoing, sued the Sunday Times in a court and was given extensive damages. He is a respectable businessman, so I feel that, in that case, the Prime Minister was right to overrule HOLAC. There should be some sort of appeal mechanism in that case.
Lord Mancroft (Con)
My Lords, before this debate concludes, I think this House owes a great debt of gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Butler, who has confirmed for the Committee now what I feared in the past: that it is HOLAC’s duty to advise the Prime Minister, the Prime Minister’s duty to advise the King, and the King’s job to appoint. That is as it should be. What he does confirm, however, is that the sole power of appointment to the Second Chamber, from the passage of this Bill onwards, now rests in the hands of the Prime Minister, who has the majority in the House of Commons. If that is not an unbalanced and damaged constitution, I do not know what is.
Lord Norton of Louth (Con)
My Lords, I will speak very briefly, mainly because I endorse the words of the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and agree with virtually everything he said. I do not think it is appropriate for these amendments to be in this Bill for two reasons. First, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, about scope. This is in essence a one-clause Bill with a very specific purpose. Secondly, the amendments—though I agree with a number of them—are, in essence, disparate and discrete, so it is not appropriate to embody them in a Bill of this sort. They need to be drawn together. If there is going to be change, it needs to be in a clear, coherent Bill that addresses the concerns that we have heard today.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
My Lords, I do not want to detain your Lordships long. I feel that I also have to swim rather against the current, as my noble friend Lord Leigh of Hurley was doing. Is there not something intrinsically wrong with a committee of the great and the good getting to appoint one of our two legislative Chambers? Why bother to get yourself elected to another place and be one among 651, when you can get yourself appointed to a committee which would then, in its turn, appoint a huge chunk of one of the two legislative Chambers? Is that not the very definition of oligarchy?
I am conscious that what I am saying is going to be unpopular here, because we are all, I suppose, to a greater or lesser extent, beneficiaries of the existing system, and I am also conscious that it is going to be unpopular beyond this place. In my years as an elected politician, I found that the most popular thing you could say about any subject was: “This is too important to be a political football. Why don’t we just get all the elected politicians out of the way and let the experts get on?” If you wanted a round of applause on “Question Time” or “Any Questions”, all you had to do was say, “Trust the professionals”, because on some level, everybody loves the idea of an expert. Everybody loves the idea of a disinterested patriot who can raise his eyes above the partisan scrum and descry the true national interest. However, I have to tell your Lordships that no such person exists. We all have our prejudices and assumptions—the expert more than anybody if, by expert, we mean somebody who has spent their entire career in one particular field. The idea of having such people appointing jolly good chaps like themselves is the antithesis of representative government.
I heard all the arguments that were made about what is wrong with concentrating this power solely in the hands of the Prime Minister, and I agree with that. If this were happening in Xi’s China or in Putin’s Russia, we would all say, “How terrible—imagine having the Executive filling one of the two legislative Chambers. What a travesty. What an affront to democracy”. I slightly fall back on saying that, if we are not happy having the Prime Minister doing it all, and we do not want a committee replicating itself like some Borg in “Star Trek”, we have to come up with an alternative. My own preference would be to keep something closer to what we have, where we would at least have some diversity, with some of our Members having been through some kind of election, albeit with a small enfranchised group.
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, I think we can all agree that we want the same thing: a House that serves with integrity, a Second Chamber that commands public trust, and an appointments process that preserves the best of our traditions while adapting to the demands of modern democracy.
The House of Lords Appointments Commission provides a non-statutory safeguard within the process for appointments to your Lordships’ House. It has a clear but limited role: to recommend non-party-political Members for the Cross Benches, ensuring that this House benefits, as many noble Lords have pointed out, from independent expertise; and to provide vetting advice on nominations for life peerages. Crucially, its recommendations are advisory and do not bind a Prime Minister.
Many of the amendments in this group seek to place the power of nomination to this unelected Chamber in the hands of an unelected committee, as my noble friend Lord Hannan emphasised. This includes proposing significant changes to the powers and operation of HOLAC, including making its recommendations binding, rendering it statutory or altering its remit entirely. While I deeply respect noble Lords’ intentions in tabling these amendments, I must express my concerns, which were echoed by several noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Leigh of Hurley, about the direction of travel that most of these proposals suggest.
I appreciate my noble friend Lord Dundee’s Amendment 45 and the clarification that my noble friend Lord Hailsham has suggested in Amendment 46. These amendments would establish HOLAC on a statutory basis and establish a cross-party board to oversee its work. They received support from my noble friends Lord Attlee and Lord Norton of Louth, the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and the noble Lord, Lord Anderson. Their aim—to secure greater legitimacy and transparency for HOLAC—is honourable. Their effect, however, would be disastrous: a great mistake, as my noble friend Lord Howard pointed out.
Placing HOLAC on a statutory footing would not clarify its role; it would fundamentally alter it. Legislation would create a legal framework against which HOLAC’s decisions could be formally challenged in court, opening the door for the malicious and the litigious to claim it had failed to fulfil its legal duties. Candidates who were not recommended for appointment as Cross-Bench Peers could contest the basis on which they were excluded. Those who failed the propriety test, which is based on judgment rather than law, could argue it had been misapplied. Instead of providing independent advice to the Prime Minister, HOLAC would become a body subject to judicial review, forced to justify its reasoning in court, constrained by legal precedent and bound to operate based not on judgment, but within the narrow confines of justiciability. The Prime Minister’s discretion, exercised on HOLAC’s advice, would be second-guessed in not this House but the courts—a point made brilliantly by my noble friend Lord Howard. The process would become slower, more contested and more uncertain, exposing every appointment to challenge, delay and dysfunction. We should be under no illusion: making HOLAC statutory would not reinforce its authority but undermine it. It would not enhance trust but erode it, and it would not improve the system but entrench its weaknesses.
Lord Norton of Louth (Con)
In the Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Bill, now an Act, we included an ouster clause. Why could that not be included in this measure?
Baroness Finn (Con)
I defer to my Front-Bench colleague, my noble and learned friend Lord Keen: because of the way the ouster clause would be interpreted in court.
Amendment 43 in the name of my noble friend Lord Dundee takes a step further by transferring the responsibility for proposing peerages to HOLAC and away from the Prime Minister. This amendment would strip the Prime Minister—the only person in this process with a democratic mandate—of the power to propose life peerages and hand it to an unelected body. That would be a well-intentioned mistake. The Prime Minister does not act alone. HOLAC already plays an important advisory role by scrutinising appointments and applying the propriety test; but, crucially, it is the Prime Minister who makes the final decision. That balance matters. If HOLAC gets it wrong, if it misjudges a candidate or applies the propriety test too narrowly or too loosely, the Prime Minister can correct it. If the Prime Minister gets it wrong, he or she faces scrutiny, challenge and, ultimately, the judgment of the electorate. This is a system that holds both in check. If the Prime Minister is stripped of that role, HOLAC’s decisions become final. There is no backstop, no political oversight, no democratic accountability.
More than that—this point was made eloquently by the noble Lord, Lord Butler—the amendment breaks a fundamental constitutional principle. The Prime Minister is the monarch’s chief adviser. It is not for an unelected commission to take on that role. Appointments to this House must be made by those who answer to the people, not by a body with no democratic mandate, no political accountability and no direct link to the people. We all want higher standards, but high standards must be upheld in a way that strengthens, not weakens, our democracy; in a way that builds trust, not erodes it; and in a way that reinforces the legitimacy of this House, not undermines it.
Amendment 44A from my noble friend Lord Hailsham seeks to add an additional test: that nominees must be fit and proper and independent-minded. While I entirely understand the intention behind this, I struggle to see how one could determine legally whether a potential appointee is independent-minded. It is, by its nature, a subjective judgment, and in a democracy such judgments should ultimately rest with those who are accountable to the people, rather than with those who are accountable to no one.
Amendment 12, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Newby, and Amendment 47, in the name of my noble friend Lord Hailsham seek to prevent life peerages being conferred if HOLAC has recommended against the appointment. Amendment 12 establishes this power as absolute, but Amendment 47 concedes that HOLAC must give an explanation and allow representations before a decision is final. Amendment 116 merely amends the Short Title of the Bill in relation to Amendment 12.
These amendments do not simply tweak the appointments process; they fundamentally recast the role of the House of Lords Appointments Commission. HOLAC was created as an advisory committee: to advise, not to command. To make its recommendations binding is to transform it from a source of counsel into the ultimate arbiter of membership of your Lordships’ House. It would no longer be a check, but a gatekeeper. This is not some dry technicality. It is a profound shift in constitutional authority. At present, the system balances expert scrutiny with democratic accountability. HOLAC advises; the Prime Minister decides. If a Prime Minister presses ahead against its recommendation, the commission ensures transparency by informing Parliament. The check is there, the scrutiny is real and, crucially, it is the Prime Minister, not an unelected committee, who must justify their judgment to the country.
We do not strengthen the system by stripping discretion from those whom the people can ultimately hold to account. The power to recommend appointments to His Majesty should rest where it always has: with a democratically accountable Prime Minister, not an unelected tribunal with the right of veto. That is the system we have; it works. These amendments would replace it with something far more rigid, less democratic and more dangerous.
This brings me to Amendment 12A in the name of my noble friend Lord Howard of Rising. This amendment proposes the opposite of the rest in this group, rendering HOLAC ineffective. While I am incredibly sympathetic to my noble friend’s position, especially on the untameable growth of committees and quangos, I accept that HOLAC has some role to fulfil, even if it should be limited. HOLAC plays an important role in safeguarding propriety and ensuring that this House retains, and is seen to retain, its reputation for expertise and integrity. I am sure that the Prime Minister, like his predecessors, will continue to place great weight on the commission’s careful and considered advice. The House of Lords Appointments Commission has an independent and important advisory role, but it is and must remain advisory. It also has a clear remit and that too must remain clear.
There was a suggestion while I was serving in government that HOLAC might seek to dictate the timing or publication of a peerage list. That is clearly not part of its remit and illustrates a potential tendency of the commission, even in its non-statutory form, to succumb to the temptations of overreach.
Finally, I turn to Amendment 51 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Devon, the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, and my noble friend Lord Dundee, which seeks to encourage HOLAC in its current form to confer life peerages on up to 20 Cross-Bench hereditary Peers. As my noble friend Lord True set out so eloquently last week, we firmly believe—
The Earl of Devon (CB)
The amendment does not seek to apply 20 life peerages to hereditary Peers; it merely suggests life peerages to refill the Cross Benches.
Baroness Finn (Con)
I apologise to the noble Lord. His amendment seeks to confer life peerages for up to 20 Cross-Bench Peers. As my noble friend Lord True set out eloquently last week, we firmly believe that all hereditary Peers serving in our House should be permitted to stay as they are, albeit without being replaced or granted life peerages.
No advisory body is truly neutral and objectivity is hard to achieve. HOLAC is no exception. It offers judgment, not infallibility, and expanding its powers risks creating a system neither accountable nor impartial. We must be wary of trading one form of discretion for another, especially when it moves further from democratic oversight. The balance we have is not perfect, but it preserves scrutiny and responsibility. To abandon that balance is not reform but retreat.
Lord Mancroft (Con)
Before my noble friend sits down, will she join me in congratulating the Government Chief Whip on the brilliant management of business in the House this afternoon, whereby there is virtually nobody sitting on the Government Benches? Apart from the wonderful noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, and the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, representing the dinosaurs, I do not think a single Government Back-Bencher has spoken in support of the Government’s Bill today. They have now even brought in Ministers to sit behind the Front Bench so that everybody watching on screen thinks that the Government are being supported. This is not the sort of management of business that we expect to see in your Lordships’ House.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, what is so unfortunate is that I was about to welcome and celebrate the tone of the debate that we had just had. So I am going to move on with the tone of the debate and celebrate the contributions that noble Lords have made, which have been—in overwhelming number— thoughtful and considered. I am grateful for that. I think all noble Lords—as the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, highlighted—want the same thing for this House: colleagues who meet the highest standards of public service, who are dedicated to our country and who want to ensure that our legislation is fit for purpose.
The amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Newby, and the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, allow HOLAC to veto the Prime Minister’s and party leaders’ nominations to the House of Lords. The amendment from the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, also specifies HOLAC’s composition and purpose in statute. The Government are grateful for the discussion on these amendments today. We committed in our manifesto to reform the appointments process, but we cannot, unfortunately, accept these amendments, which fundamentally alter the roles and responsibilities in the appointments system.
Constitutionally, it is on the advice of the Prime Minister that the sovereign appoints new Peers, but it is not just the Prime Minister who makes these nominations. The Prime Minister, by convention, invites nominations from other political parties. After all, as was pointed out earlier in Committee, I was appointed by the former Prime Minister Truss. It is the responsibility of party leaders to consider who is best placed to represent their party in the House of Lords. This is an important principle. The Prime Minister and other party leaders are democratically elected and accountable to Parliament, and ultimately to the electorate, for the political nominations they make to the House of Lords.
The House of Lords Appointments Commission vets all nominations for life peerages to ensure the highest standards of propriety in this House. The amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Rising, would seek to make HOLAC’s advice defunct. If HOLAC recommended a nominee, the Prime Minister would be unable to proceed with their appointment. I hope it is obvious to your Lordships’ House why we cannot accept this, not least given the conversation we had earlier about People’s Peers. HOLAC’s proprietary advice is important to the Prime Minister as he discharges his duty to advise the sovereign on life peerages, and he of course considers it carefully. The Government are very grateful for the work that HOLAC, led by the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, does to provide this advice.
This advice, however, forms part of a process that also ensures democratic accountability in the appointment process. Party leaders must accept responsibility for their appointment. We cannot and should not expect HOLAC to take on that responsibility. Handing HOLAC, an unelected body, the role of recommending new life peerages directly to the sovereign, or giving them the power to veto the Prime Minister’s recommendations, as in the amendment put forward today, would undermine that accountability.
The Government believe that nominating parties should be properly held to account for their nominations to the House of Lords. As my noble friend the Leader of the House set out on the first day of Committee, we have already taken a straightforward but important step to introduce a requirement on all nominating parties to provide public citations that clearly set out why individuals were nominated. I was pleased to see the first set of citations published on GOV.UK following the recent peerage list in December of last year.
The amendment from the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, seeks to introduce a new oath for new Peers and requires HOLAC to be satisfied that new Peers will participate. This is a thoughtful suggestion, but, as a reminder, new Peers already sign our Code of Conduct when they take their seat. As we have said during the passage of the Bill, we are working on developing a participation requirement to ensure that we become a more active Chamber. It matters less what Peers say they will do than what they actually do when they come here. I am, however, grateful to noble Lords for their suggestions on how this could work and ways to take it forward.
More widely, the Prime Minister has made clear that he is committed to restoring trust in Parliament and takes the advice of all ethics bodies seriously. The Government are committed to keeping our ethics bodies under review and, where necessary, delivering reforms to ensure the highest standards in public life. Indeed, the Government have already demonstrated their willingness to strengthen the independent protections provided by the standards landscape. The Prime Minister has, for example, significantly strengthened the remit of the Independent Adviser on Ministerial Standards, ensuring they have the ability to initiate investigations into ministerial standards without requiring the Prime Minister’s consent. However, as I have made clear, the amendments proposed today would undermine the manifesto commitment to look at the current system and the democratic lines of accountability that currently exist in the appointments process.
I now turn to the amendment from the noble Earl, Lord Devon, which would give HOLAC the power to recommend 20 individuals to the sovereign for non-party political life peerages over the next five years. The Cross-Benchers bring expertise and diverse perspectives to the House, which I welcome, and I thoroughly enjoy working with many of them. They make valuable contributions. Retirements and other departures mean that new Peers will always need to be appointed to ensure that the Lords has appropriate expertise, and I acknowledge that the Bill will have a particular impact on the number of Cross-Benchers. As my noble friend the Leader of the House said to the Committee last week, she has committed to discuss this with the relevant parties.
As it stands, new Peers can be appointed to the Cross Benches through nominations by the House of Lords Appointments Commission. HOLAC runs an open-application assessment process to identify and select new Cross-Bench Peers, and the Prime Minister passes HOLAC’s nominations to the sovereign. Many excellent Peers have come to your Lordships’ House this way. The number of Peers that HOLAC is able to nominate is decided by the Prime Minister, and in doing so he of course takes into account the political balance of your Lordships’ House. Prime Ministers can also recommend a limited number of additional Cross-Bench appointments over the course of the Parliament for those with a record of public service. As with all new Peers, they are subject to propriety vetting by HOLAC.
I note that the noble Lord’s amendment allows HOLAC, rather than the Prime Minister, the role of recommending 20 life Peers to the sovereign. As I addressed earlier, constitutionally it is for the Prime Minister, as principal adviser to the sovereign, to recommend new life Peers. I appreciate that the purpose of this amendment is to ensure that the Cross-Benchers remain a significant presence in your Lordships’ House. To give HOLAC, an unelected body, the role of providing advice to the sovereign, even in this limited way, would, however, be a clear break from our constitutional arrangements—one that would require careful thought, as today’s debate has demonstrated, and one that the Government do not support or think necessary.
As we have repeatedly stated, the Government committed in their manifesto to reform the process of appointments to this place, to ensure the quality of new appointments and to improve the representative balance of the second Chamber so that it better reflects the country that it serves. We have heard—and I am sure we will continue to hear—interesting proposals from across the House, and we welcome the discussion on appointments. However, it is right that we take time to properly consider how to take forward our manifesto commitment to reform in this area, as part of the wider standards landscape, in a way that reflects the importance of those lines of democratic accountability. It is also not a debate for this Bill. As has been stated, 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 your Lordships’ House. It is not the vehicle to consider all reforms to the House of Lords. I therefore respectfully ask noble Lords not to press their amendments.
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for a typically interesting debate. As I said at the outset, we were not seeking a fundamental reform of the way that HOLAC operates; we were seeking to do something uncontroversial that I thought nobody could possibly disagree with. I have been in your Lordships’ House for only 27 years, so what do I know?
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Butler, that our amendment does not break the link between the Prime Minister and the monarch. The Prime Minister would still make the recommendations. I am sure there are many other areas in which the Prime Minister gives advice to the monarch where that advice is constrained by various outside bodies, so I am not persuaded by the noble Lord’s argument.
In a way, the problem was set out by the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, who said that the Prime Minister does not act alone. The truth is that he did act alone in this case. That is why we have the amendment. There was no constraint on the Prime Minister in making some proposals. HOLAC could not then do anything about it. I am not saying that it was a whim of the Prime Minister, or done without thought, but it was certainly his decision and his alone.
Lord Butler of Brockwell (CB)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. As I read his amendment, the Prime Minister could not recommend somebody if HOLAC had said that he should not. Would that not give HOLAC a veto and constrain the Prime Minister’s powers?
Lord Newby (LD)
Yes, it would constrain the Prime Minister’s powers; that is what I want to do. In my view, the Prime Minister has, on rare occasions in the past, acted in a manner that has allowed people who HOLAC thought improper to become Members of your Lordships’ House. That is what I want to stop.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, does it not strike the noble Lord as interesting that, in this amendment, he recommends the power of appointed people over elected people whereas in previous amendments he recommended the exact opposite?
Lord Newby (LD)
It may be interesting to the noble Lord; I think it is totally irrelevant to this case. We are obviously done with this issue today. I will withdraw my amendment but I will come back to it on Report.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Morris of Bolton) (Con)
Before I deal with Amendment 12, the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Rising, moved his Amendment 12A; does he wish to withdraw it?
“15 year terms for life peers(1) A member of the House of Lords who has sat in the House by virtue of a life peerage for 15 years or more ceases to be a member of the House of Lords at the end of that Session of Parliament, subject to subsection (2).(2) A member of the House of Lords who has sat in the House by virtue of a life peerage for 15 years or more may apply to the House of Lords Appointments Commission for reappointment for a further five or more years up to a maximum of 15 years, but no member may sit in the House of Lords by virtue of a life peerage for more than 30 years in total.”
Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB)
My Lords, the first and most important point to make about this amendment is that it was not dreamed up by me. It is one of the key recommendations of the royal commission on House of Lords reform. This commission, which reported in 2000 and of which I was privileged to be a member, was chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham. It had representatives on it of all political parties and came to unanimous conclusions.
The commission argued for a mixture of appointed and elected elements, and this proposal for a 15-year term was designed for both kinds of Member. The point was that Members of the House of Lords should not be driven by short-term considerations or looming elections but should be able to take the long view, and 15 years was considered appropriate.
As proposed new subsection (2) of the amendment indicates, this term could be extended in the case of a particular Peer by the independent Appointments Commission. When a 15-year term came to an end, a Peer might find themselves a Minister, chair of a key committee, or deeply involved in an important piece of legislation or some other work that was deeply appreciated by the House. Their term could be renewed, in the first instance for a further five years, but such instances would, perhaps, become the exception. Most Peers would expect to serve 15 years.
Like others of your Lordships, I am very disappointed that the Bill as set out deals only with hereditary Peers and not with the wider issue of Lords reform. I entirely accept the Government’s good faith that they want to bring forward some further reforms but I am deeply sceptical as to whether they will ever be able to get round to doing it. This is because, as the noble Lord, Lord Newby, stressed earlier, Parliament is still deeply divided as to what form major reform should take. Furthermore, other ideas about reform have come forward since the royal commission, notably from the former Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, for a second Chamber representing the nations and regions. Building a consensus for that or for any major reform could take decades.
Viscount Hailsham
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, my Amendments 14 and 15 would have very limited impact. The problem with Amendment 13 from the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, is that it flies in the face of the attempt—which I think is felt within your Lordships’ House—to get the numbers down and to refresh this House. I have nothing against the extension proposed by the noble and right reverend Lord provided that it is confined to this Parliament and limited to five years. Otherwise, we will run the risk of extending terms for substantial periods. That is not what I think this House wants.
Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)
My Lords, I have added my name to the amendment from the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, although, with apologies to the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, it does not actually mention hereditary Peers. This debate has ranged much more widely. At some stage we will need to discuss the next steps for reform. I hope that we will not overlook the work of either the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, or the noble Lord, Lord Burns, who had some very sound proposals in his report that we somehow seem to have swept under the carpet.
I have been here for nearly 18 years and I have no wish to retire, but it is possible that, if I still have my marbles in another 12 years, I would be grateful for an honourable way to go. Most of us are appointed because we have expertise in a particular field, but it is quite possible that, after 15 years, our expertise is not quite as lively as it was when we first came in, so having this sort of term seems to make quite a lot of sense.
I cannot understand why noble Lords have not grouped more amendments in this debate. This seems an unnecessary waste of your Lordships’ time and, I fear, the sort of thing that brings this House into disrepute. I note that the ungrouped amendments all seem to come from the Conservative Benches. I wonder why.
Viscount Thurso (LD)
My Lords, my Amendment 66 has been grouped with these amendments. I will briefly explain what the amendment does and then make a valiant, though likely unsuccessful, attempt to persuade the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, that it would be worth accepting.
My amendment seeks to address the fact that there is broad agreement across the House that in some way, shape or form the length of time that people sit in the House should not be indefinite. The concept of a seat for life has no more validity than a seat for life that has been inherited. The report from the noble Lord, Lord Burns, suggested 15 years, as referred to in Amendment 13. I have chosen a term of 20 years precisely because 15 years sounds like something I can imagine, whereas 20 years sounds somewhat more gentle. The number has been chosen so as not to frighten the horses.
The amendment would amend the Life Peerages Act such that the right to receive a Writ of Summons would be limited to 20 years from the moment someone took their seat in the House. That would mean that if somebody happened to be just under the 20 years when an election was called, they would get a Writ of Summons and could get up to 24 years. If they were lucky—or unlucky, depending on your point of view—to have sat for 20 years when an election was called, that would be their lot. By referring to a Writ of Summons, the amendment has the merit of meaning that anyone who was limited would get to the end of the Parliament they were sitting in so that if they were chairing a committee or running a Bill, they would be able to complete their work.
The amendment is deliberately designed to affect peerages granted after the passage of this Bill. There is quite a lot of feeling, one way or another, about the concept of changing the terms of employment, as it were, for people who are already here. Therefore, people given a peerage in the future would know precisely what they would be doing and the length of time they would serve.
An alternative for terms of reference, which will be debated later, is a retirement age. I do not favour retirement ages because I have met people of considerable age with great faculties and abilities and some people of not very great age who do not have great faculties and abilities. I would rather have, as happens in the other place, a term limit based on moment of arrival and moment of departure, rather than an arbitrary one based on age.
The key difference between this amendment and virtually any other that will be tabled is that it does not affect anybody who is currently sitting in the House. Why, therefore, have I brought it forward? I hope to persuade the Leader of the House that it may be worth considering and possibly accepting.
As I mentioned in the debate on the last group, I have been around the houses on Lords reform for the best part of 30 years, across two Houses. Apart from the fact that anybody who engages in that requires a certain degree of stamina, I have noticed that progress has been remarkably small and often barely incremental. The amendment therefore seeks to put in a longstop. If it is accepted, it would change nothing at the moment. If the Government go ahead, as promised, and bring something forward in the remainder of this Parliament, nothing has changed; this is perfectly reversible and whatever changes might be thought appropriate by the Government can go ahead. It has no impact on anything that might be discussed. But if the circumstance arises—and the odds are probably in favour of this circumstance—that for one reason or another, such as international affairs or all sorts of different reasons, time is not found in this Parliament for any further reform, and the electoral maths changes so that the next term might be more difficult, we would be back to having another 10 or 15 years before something happens.
If, therefore, we are really interested in the size of the House coming down—I think we all wish to see that—and if some form of limited term is appropriate, the amendment puts this out into the distance. It is exactly like crown green bowls, where you put one ball right at the back, just in case. If nothing happens, there would be a longstop that would start to see a reduction in the numbers.
I would like to think that my amendment has been drafted in a way that has some elegance and grace and would solve a problem that I hope we will not have and therefore could be disregarded. But in case we do have the problem, it is a mechanism planted into the future that would have some control over the size of your Lordships’ House. For those reasons, I hope the Government might consider this amendment, or something very like it, as a workable proposition, and use the Bill for this tiny addition that would have no impact on the vast bulk of what they are seeking to achieve.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
My Lords, instinctively, I like limited terms. It is like running a board: you know who is leaving, when they are leaving and what skills they have, and you recruit to replace them in an orderly way rather than relying on the grim reaper to do it for you. I often say about 15-year terms that it is five years to learn the job, five years to be effective and five years to go out of date. I fear that I may offend a few in the Chamber today by making that mathematical assertion.
In practice, there is one point that we need to consider with regard to limited terms: what then? If people have spent their peak career earning years in this House and then leave at 50 or 60—with no pension from this employer, by the way—are we in danger of putting people off from joining us because they have nothing to look forward to as a support beyond the time they spend here? I worry that your Lordships’ House would become more attractive to people of independent means and less attractive to people who are not in that lucky position.
Viscount Thurso (LD)
May I respond to the noble Lord briefly, as we are in Committee? If one looks at the average age at which people come into this House, it is at the end of their careers, just below or above 60. Therefore, 20 years takes most people who come into this House from mid-50s to mid-70s or early 60s to early 80s. Under the current arrangements, there are relatively few people who come into the House as a full-time occupation who are in their primary working years. I know that there are exceptions, and exceptions always prove the rule. However, if we wish to have some longstop, my amendment takes care of most of the points he has made. If people know in advance that they are being offered something for 20 years, they always have the choice of declining.
Lord Desai (CB)
My Lords, I have many things to declare. One is that I came here not as a hereditary Peer but was appointed by John Major, who conspired with Neil Kinnock—the noble Lord, Lord Kinnock—to get me here. Secondly, I have been here for 34 years, so I obviously do not qualify to be a sane, sensible person, because I am too old. I am 85, and after 34 years I am clearly not qualified to be here at all—so I have to fight for my life, because I actually like this place.
When I came here I did not swear an oath, not being a believer, but I affirmed one. I affirmed an oath to serve Her Majesty the Queen, her heirs and successors. I did not say “Till death do us part” but I definitely came on the promise that I was appointed for life. I was not appointed on whether I was qualified, whether I was sane, whether I was solvent, or anything like that. Okay—if I violate the rules of conduct, I may get thrown out. Apart from that, given the logic of your Lordships’ House, I do not see any reason whatever to have age limits and term limits retrospectively. Yes, have a Bill which is not to do with the hereditary Peers but with House of Lords reform. If you want to reform the House and reduce the number of people and so on, then say that normally at such and such an age you would qualify.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)
My Lords, with apologies for interrupting the noble Earl, I want to draw noble Lords’ attention to the subjects coming up for debate in later groups and remind them to try to stick to the subjects of the groups.
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness is of course absolutely correct on her point and I strongly support her.
The issue of fixed-term peerages or membership of the House is indeed closely related to the issue of age limits, so I have some sympathy with what the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, said. I think that the overall answer to both issues is a retirement age that is agreed or understood at the time of appointment for new Peers. I hope that gives some comfort to the noble Lord, Lord Desai.
Once the hereditary Peers have gone, the remaining Peers who are over 70 now will come under considerable media pressure. It is no use avoiding this point. To an even greater extent than younger Peers, such older Peers are, rightly, not very responsive to what the media think or what the media want them to do. Rather, they do what they believe is in the public interest and in accordance with the Nolan principles. I am not sure that that is what the media want. I think that having 80 year-old Peers will be made to seem just as indefensible as hereditaries are incorrectly claimed to be today.
I would not underestimate the value to the House of Lords of having some Peers whose experience goes back a very long way. For instance, I advised a noble Baroness on the Cross Benches who was faced with an assisted dying Bill. She erroneously believed that she could not try to kill the Bill at Second Reading; I advised her that she could and that I had seen it done some time before. Sure enough, she succeeded in her endeavours. Unfortunately, when drafting this speech, I could not avoid the words “kill”, “fatal” or “euthanise” or the phrase “put out of its misery” when talking about the procedure related to an assisted dying Bill.
I am not opposed to term limits, provided that those who propose them are clear about what they want the House to do. However, the Wakeham report identified a danger, in that term limits could deter potential new Members—a point well made by the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell.
Lord Burns (CB)
My Lords, perhaps I could comment on one or two of the points being made. The Lord Speaker’s Committee, which I chaired, did indeed make the proposal that there should be either 15-year or 20-year term limits. We looked at both of them and came down in the end marginally in favour of 15-year term limits.
That was against the background not of this Bill, of course, but of also promoting the idea of a ceiling on the size of the House of Lords. The great argument in favour of term limits is that it generates a predictable number and a predictable flow of levers, which can then work alongside a limit on the size of the House. It then provides the scope for both refreshment of the House and a change in the political balance over a period of time, which is also very important, and it all can be done in an orderly way. The proposal that we made was in this context of several other changes that were suggested, rather than something which was standing on its own.
The proposal we made was also to be applied only to new Peers. We said that it should begin then and was a long-term proposal. It was the only real mechanism we could find whereby you could stabilise the numbers over time and have the capacity to make changes. After all, there are term limits for most people in most legislatures. Most of them are determined by the electorate and by what happens to people when they meet the voter. There is nothing new about this: it is a very useful mechanism, but not really a mechanism for this Bill. I accept that it is for another day, but in the argument about a more balanced and wider group of changes being made, I would be very supportive of this important mechanism at that time.
Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (PC)
My Lords, my Amendment 73 is included in this group and supported by my noble friend Lord Wigley and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. I thank them for their support.
Most noble Lords will be aware by now that my goal is to see this place abolished and replaced with a democratic second Chamber. However, in the meantime, I am determined to push forward even small steps that can have a meaningful impact. Amendment 73 is a simple step towards achieving radical reform. I am asking His Majesty’s Government to implement a term limit for Members in this place, capped at no more than 10 years.
While I commend the tabling of several other amendments by noble Lords proposing term limits, the shortest among them is 15 years. By international standards, 15 years is extremely long for an appointed Chamber. In fact, it is three times longer than the most common term length of five years, with the next most common being just four years. Based on this evidence, we can also see that 10 years is extremely abnormal. However, I wish to note that my amendment seeks to establish a ceiling and not a target.
I have drafted Amendment 73 with a 10-year ceiling to allow His Majesty’s Government to investigate the various ranges of term limits before bringing forward a final proposal. I tabled the amendment because I firmly oppose the prospect that anyone should have a job for life. It is absurd in most settings, but completely inappropriate for an establishment that is supposed to be accountable to the people of these nations. We cannot honestly believe that someone can be forever representative of others.
Others have tabled amendments that would set a retirement age, which we will cover in the next group. Although this could be a good practice to introduce, I fear that setting a retirement age without a term limit would fail to address the imbalanced composition of this Chamber. This approach would not solve the issues that the Bill and these amendments aim to address—namely, the number of Members and the diversity of this Chamber.
Following my advocacy for term limits at Second Reading, I was asked by a Member of this House where I would get a job after my term was up. Would I not struggle with the loss of power and influence after being a Member of this place? I have reflected on this question, and I cannot escape the conclusion that it reveals a deeply flawed perception of what this institution should represent. It is precisely this kind of thinking that underscores the urgent need for term limits. No one in our position should see this role as a source of power. It is and must always be a responsibility, a duty to serve—not a privilege to cling to. If we ever lose sight of that, reform is not just desirable but essential. Therefore, I stand by my statement that term limits are the best way of addressing these issues. Implementing this amendment would guarantee that the Chamber undergoes regular renewal and revitalisation, with Members carrying out their duty with a strong sense of responsibility and commitment to their role, knowing that their time in office is limited and impactful.
Some argue that regular and continuous changes to the second Chamber might be disruptive. However, this amendment does not propose changes that would result in Members being unable to stand for re-election. I propose that we counter the supposed issue of turbulence by following the example of the Australian Senate. There, term limits are six years, with half the Senate elected every three years. This provides a staggered approach that ensures that at least a proportion of the upper Chamber is elected less recently than the lower Chamber. It means that membership is less affected by changes in the political mood. Implementing a term limit can also prove an effective way to ensure that Members of this Chamber do not exceed a certain number, and that representatives better reflect the voices of the public.
I would be grateful if the Minister could share with us some of her thinking about term limits. Does she see this as a possible reform that His Majesty’s Government would consider as part of this Bill or as a short new Bill? What is His Majesty’s Government’s view on life appointments?
Lord Remnant (Con)
My Lords, in view of the hour, I shall attempt to be brief, but I would like to speak in support of the thrust of the amendments proposed in this group. I do so in the context of the Government’s wider manifesto commitments.
I do not want to trespass upon or pre-empt discussion of the next group of amendments, which cover retirement on account of age. But if the Government’s objectives are to reduce the size of this House and continually to refresh the skills and experience of Members, retirement based on term rather than age is a viable and, I argue, preferable alternative. Given that the manifesto commitment to a retirement age is missing from this Bill and that, within a year of this commitment being formally made, new Peers above the proposed mandatory retirement age have already been appointed, one might objectively conclude that the Government may be reconsidering the method by which retirement can best be achieved.
Why do I favour the principle of term limits? Discrimination on the basis of age is illegal in many walks of life, including in the workplace. In the corporate world with which I am most familiar, law and best practice have moved away from age and towards terms. As far back as 2007, the Companies Act requirement setting the age limit for directors of public companies at 70 was repealed. This has effectively been replaced by the Corporate Governance Code, which stipulates that non-executive directors should be appointed for terms subject to re-election. This principle is generally considered to have served stakeholders well, and it is extremely rare that any company would seek to contravene it.
So what should that term be? These amendments span a range of 10 to 30 years, with the upper limit being achieved only by a series of five-year reappointments. Again, I take as my starting point the Corporate Governance Code. It provides that any term for a non-executive director beyond six years should be subject to particularly rigorous review and should take into account the need for progressive refreshing of the board. In practice, all other things being equal, directors would be asked to serve at least six years and most up to nine years. That naturally leads me towards the lower end of the ranges proposed.
I believe that there is merit in Members serving for at least two full parliamentary terms, 10 years, and that the flexibility of allowing a five-year extension is sensible. Beyond that, it may be that the balance of, on the one hand, continually refreshing the skills and experience of Members of the House and, on the other, retaining the wisdom and contribution of existing Members starts to become too skewed away from the former.
Most unhelpfully, my views do not conform precisely with any one of the amendments, but they are best aligned in principle and in detail with Amendment 13 in the name of the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, as amended by my noble friend Lord Hailsham in Amendment 15. However, I strongly believe that, given the significance of such a change, it must be right for transitional arrangements to be put in place for existing Peers. Amendment 66 in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, distinguishes in this regard between existing peerages and peerages yet to be created, a proposal that has much merit.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
My Lords, I support the principle behind terms, but I cannot support and would not vote for any of these amendments. The idea behind terms is a great one because it limits our contributions to while we are fresh. I do not agree with prejudice as expressed by age, which I think is irrelevant and hard to justify. Even murderers do not get life any longer, so I think “life” is an inappropriate term.
Finally, as with many of the speeches on the amendments we have heard today, this is not the time nor the Bill to be debating these issues. They need to be referred to and considered in the round, but that is for another day. There are many issues about our constitution that deserve attention. Should we have an established Church? In what relation is the Supreme Court held to Parliament? Many things have yet to be remedied, but not in this Bill. For that reason, I would not vote for these amendments. These are worthy issues that should be debated in another place when we have the time, but not in the time we are taking to debate this Bill.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, this and the next three groups are about related issues, and we cannot avoid moving from one on to the other. They are about limiting the conditions under which one becomes a Member of this House.
When I was appointed to this House 29 years ago, the majority of Members clearly saw this as a part-time job. It was explained to me that it was a part-time job. I managed to go on being a full-time professor at the LSE for another nine years. Now we have a more professional House. We are expected to commit ourselves to working hard while we are here. Life expectancy has risen and more of us have some expectation of living well into our 90s. I am told that my life expectancy, given my parents and my elder sisters, is around 98, so I can perhaps look for many years to come. Clearly, we need to take this on board and the Government need to give us some indication of how they are going to moderate the lifetime rights to sit in this House.
As we have become a professional second Chamber, do we think that retirement, life terms, participation or attendance is the most useful way to do it? I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, that term limits are the easiest way. The 2012 Bill proposed for the elected Members a single term of 15 years, elected in thirds, and a 15-year term for those who were appointed. That, at the time, commanded widespread support. I suggest that the Government look back to this; we have been around this circuit before.
I will also say briefly that we have to remember the context in which we are discussing this. Popular disillusionment with politics in Britain is high; respect for both the Commons and the Lords is low. We have, outside Britain, much that we dislike in populist politics, anti-democratic tendencies, the belief that strong men make politics easier, and we see the problems of systems where checks and balances built into their constitutions are being ignored. We cannot entirely ignore that, as limited outside opinion looks at the way that we as a second Chamber behave. If the Government are going to push this limited Bill through, they must also respond to that for the longer term. The sort of second Chamber to which we might slowly shuffle is one in which term limits are perhaps one of the ways in which one limits the life cycle of Members.
Lord de Clifford (CB)
I support this group of amendments and other groups that follow with regards to Lords reform. I take this opportunity to say again that, as an hereditary Peer, I am not opposed to Clause 1, but having the opportunity to be elected to the House of Lords is not an appropriate way of selecting people to sit in the House in the 21st century, for many reasons. This is a simple Bill with one purpose: to remove the right for hereditary Peers to continue to sit, contribute and vote. It is a great privilege to be a Member of this House, and I am fortunate enough to have experienced it for a short time.
The Bill achieves some reform of an outdated process, possibly the easiest one, as it is a simple one. If this Bill is so simple, why have so many amendments been put down? That concerns me and others such as the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries. The fear is that there will be no further reform for many years after the Bill has received Royal Assent and the hereditary Peers have left. The noble Baroness the Lord Privy Seal has said on many occasions that further House of Lords reform is under consultation. Sadly, the track record of the House in making decisions on legislative reforms is not a good one, as proven by Bills from the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, and many others, and the implementation of the recommendations of the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and his committee.
This group of amendments makes suggestions for reform, one of which concerns the length of term a Peer can serve in the House. Having been in the House for only just over a year, I would say that the ways of the House are quite challenging at times, especially if you are not used to the way that government works. A bit of time is needed to understand the way that the House works, to gain experience and to be best able to contribute. I feel strongly that, in the majority of cases, a term of 15 or 20 years is appropriate for Peers to serve in the House. As Peers have many skills and experiences that they can bring during their term, they can contribute to the workings of the House. When they come to the end of a term, there are many outside this Chamber, as some Peers have already commented, who have similar skills and different experience to bring to the House: the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, stated this clearly on the previous group.
Another feature of the 21st century is that there are not very many jobs for life with no formal review process, appraisal or performance review. That privilege and the privilege of the role can be maintained with just half a day’s work every year. I agree that a consultation on this matter is appropriate, and I agree with the amendment of the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso. That has great promise, and I agree that it should apply only to Peers who enter the House at this stage. I note what the noble Baroness the Leader of the House said regarding the consultation process that is ongoing. Can I ask when she might bring reform to the House on one or two of the areas that we are about to discuss in the next few minutes?
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I very much agree with the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, that we are extremely unlikely to see any further opportunity of Lords reform in the lifetime of this Government. It would be the first Government that had ever managed to achieve that in my 35 years in this House, and I do not see why the rules should have changed again, so it is really important that we get the discussion done now and move things forward a bit.
I like the amendment in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, very much. It has the virtue of creating a big change at the end of a Parliament, just when you need a big change so that you can alter the balance of the House a bit and bring in Ministers. In my experience of this place, I think that 20 years is the right time; 15 years feels too short. It takes a good long while to embed yourself, and then one does have a decent, useful life after that, so 20 years feels better to me. I agree with the noble Viscount that we should go for a proper way of remunerating Members of this House. The sooner that pensionable, taxable remuneration comes in, the better. There is no excuse for the current system.
I can comfort the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Llanfaes: if she ever feels powerful in this place, she will be immensely lucky. We are like waves breaking on the rocks of the seashore. Most of the time, we just bounce off. Occasionally, we manage to shift a grain of sand, and very occasionally, somehow, we all come together and shuffle a rock down the slope and into the deep, as with the unlamented Schools Bill in the last Parliament, or as my noble friend Lady Owen has achieved with her ambitions in this Parliament.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, the problem with any debate on House of Lords reform is that it very quickly descends into self-interest. As a relatively youthful Member of your Lordships’ House, who is already more than one-third of his way through what would be a 15-year term, it may not surprise your Lordships to hear that I am not especially attracted to this idea. By contrast, I am sure that some octogenarian colleagues on the Government Benches, some but not all of whom are in their places today, are perhaps keener on this potential reform than they would be about implementing that part of the Government’s manifesto which relates to a retirement age, but I think that it has been worthy of separate consideration.
When my noble friend Lord Remnant was speaking, I was struck by the fact that age is of course a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010, which the last Labour Government brought in, whereas length of tenure is a question of good governance. My noble friend spoke from his own experience in the private sector in making his points. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Garden of Frognal, that I have asked for one of my later amendments to be grouped with the others in the next group, so I am keen to make good progress.
I note that both the Minister responding and I are in what I suppose would be called in the terms of the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, our primary working years—I am glad to see her in her place responding. I was struck by the question of the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, “What then?” not so much from the employment rights angle, although noble Lords have raised some pertinent points about the way that active Members of your Lordships’ House are remunerated, but more from the point that, if we were to be ushered out at the end of a term, those of us who have come in at a younger age would be thinking about what comes next in terms of our careers. In government, we have put in place a sensible mechanism, through the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments, to make sure that Ministers are not abusing their position to line up their next gig. I would worry slightly that, if we were to have limited terms here, people who were looking to serve in your Lordships’ House and then leave and do something next, in the next chapter of their career, would be thinking about “What next?” and lining up some lucrative opportunities, whether in financial or political ways.
My noble friend Lord Attlee rightly drew attention to the fact that we have less interest in media coverage or the clips that we might put on social media. I often say, when talking to friends outside the House about our work here, that we do not, unlike another place, play to the Gallery. That is mostly because there are very few people in the Gallery watching debates in your Lordships’ House, but I think that a lot of us are dispassionate, by virtue of the fact that we have taken an oath, as the noble Lord, Lord Desai, reminded us, to sit here and give our dispassionate views for the rest of our service here, and that is something that is worth holding on to. I am grateful to the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth, for bringing this amendment before us for consideration and for highlighting its origins in the royal commission chaired by my noble friend Lord Wakeham under the last Labour Government.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, it has been an interesting debate to listen to. I was brought up properly and told that you are never to discuss a woman’s age, but, in the context of the debate today, it does feel slightly relevant given my own, and that of the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson. I believe we are currently in the prime of our economic earning, in the phrase used by the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell.
The current average service of your Lordships’ House is 13.74 years, and the average age on appointment in the last Parliament was 56. I will be 57 if we get to 15 years of service, so I would be leaving very quickly and would still be a very young member of your Lordships’ House.
With regard to the substance of the debate today, these amendments concern the imposition of term limits, as we have discussed. It may be useful to summarise what the themes of the amendments in this group have been, not least because they demonstrate that there is not yet a consensus on next steps.
Amendment 13, tabled by the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth, provides for a 15-year term limit for life Peers. His proposal includes the possibility of applying to HOLAC for reappointment while providing that no Member can sit for more than 30 years in total. The noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, has sought to further amend this by proposing that Members can apply for reappointment only during the Parliament in which this Bill passes and not beyond. His amendments also seek to limit the length of reappointment to five years, therefore reducing the original total limit proposed by the noble and right reverend Lord from 30 to 20 years.
Amendment 66, tabled by the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso—in an excellent speech—goes for a term limit of 20 years, but also for life peerages granted after the end of this year. Amendment 73, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Llanfaes, would require the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament a draft Bill with proposals for a term limit of up to 10 years.
The underlying intent of the majority of these amendments is to reduce the size of your Lordships’ House—an aspiration the Government share. Some noble Lords, including the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, made clear that they were motivated by the principle that no one should automatically be a Member of this place for life. Both he and I have experienced that at the other end, so making it happen here seems appropriate.
The smattering of amendments in this group demonstrate a range of different ways that term limits could be introduced. It is clear there is not a settled view among your Lordships on the arrangements of introducing a term limit. More importantly, however, the Bill before this House today is not the legislative vehicle for implementing these issues. The Bill is focused solely on removing the right of hereditary Peers to sit and vote in this House. These amendments, while both thoughtful and considered, are not the central issue of this Bill.
Furthermore, the Government’s view is that the introduction of retirement age, as promised in our manifesto, is a more effective way of reducing our numbers, rather than the introduction of a term limit. As your Lordships are aware, my noble friend the Leader of the House has been having an ongoing dialogue with the House on how the manifesto commitment of introducing a retirement age can best be implemented. The Leader has already had in excess of 60 meetings and she is keen for that dialogue to continue. With respect, these amendments would cut across those conversations. With this in mind, I respectfully ask noble Lords not to press their amendments.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
I beg leave to withdraw the amendment standing in my name.
Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB)
I thank everyone who has supported this amendment. Despite the opposition of the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, to it in principle, there is quite a lot of support for it in the Committee, with different age limits proposed, from five years to 20 years. All I would say in favour of the 15-year limit is that it was proposed by the royal commission and in the report of the noble Lord, Lord Burns. The noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, referred to the huge loss of numbers from the House, but that ignores the second part of my amendment, which allows people to apply for another five, 10 or 15 years. One imagines there would be a great deal of sympathy in HOLAC if people wanted to stay on when their 15 years were up. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill
Monday 10th March 2025
(2 weeks, 1 day ago)
Lords ChamberHouse of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Amendment Paper: HL Bill 49-II Second marshalled list for Committee - (6 Mar 2025)
Lord Blencathra
“Retirement from the House of Lords at 80A 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.”Member’s explanatory statement
Alongside other amendments in the name of Lord Blencathra, this amendment has been tabled to permit the House to vote on three options for a retirement age in ascending order. According to analysis of Library figures, this could remove 327 peers by 2029.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, this is one of those rare occasions when I can honestly look the Leader of the Lords in the eye and say, “I am not from the Government, but I am here to help you”. I can help the noble Baroness deliver on a manifesto promise.
The Labour Party manifesto said:
“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. The next Labour government will … 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 … and we will introduce a new participation requirement as well as strengthening the circumstances in which disgraced members can be removed”.
Noble Lords will note that I have also tabled amendments in the next groups that tackle those last two issues as well.
I regret that the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, is not in his place at the moment, because I was going to say how much I enjoy the wonderful speeches he makes after hereditary elections when only two or three people have voted. He complained today that there were too many amendments—a wide range of amendments—that were not specifically related to hereditary Peers. The point is that the government manifesto promised six things in constitutional reform: the Lords is too big; hereditary Peers are indefensible; a mandatory retirement age of 80; a new participation requirement; and the removal of disgraced Peers. The one thing to be kicked further into the long grass was consultation on having national and regional balance.
On retirement ages, I have tabled three options for discussion: a retirement age of 80, 85 or 90. I shall speak to Amendments 16 and 18, and my noble friend Lord Hailsham will speak to Amendment 17. I do not necessarily believe that a retirement age is necessary, but if the Government believe what they said in their own manifesto—that the Lords is too large, even though only about 450 Peers regularly attend—then a retirement age at some appropriate age and the removal of inactive Peers is a far better way to reduce numbers than kicking out the hereditaries, who actually do attend and do work hard.
We can all guess why the Government are not taking forward the retirement age of 80, as in their manifesto. We all know that manifestos are written by 20-something whizz-kid spads, who bunged in getting rid of hereditaries as a Labour Party no-brainer and then, without any research, thought, “Let’s also get rid of the old fogeys over 80 and those who do little”. That was signed off, no doubt by the national executive, and it appeared in the manifesto. Then, after the election, I suspect that the Leader and her team looked at the numbers and said, “Oh my God, a retirement age of 80 means getting rid of about 327 Peers by 2029”. Further number crunching showed that it would include 94 Labour Peers but only 90 Conservative Peers. That was not what was intended, so the retirement at age 80 had to be dropped—and rightly so, since removing 327 Peers during one Parliament would be excessive, and among that number are many of our most able and active Peers.
Of course, the Government will not admit that they made a tactical blunder here, so they came up with the excuse that they will consult. Exactly whom will they consult on a retirement age for Peers? The Pensions Regulator? The Department for Work and Pensions? Age Concern? Martin Lewis? Saga Holidays? There is only one organisation with a legitimate opinion on this, and that is the Government. There is only one body of experts who know all about the potential retirement ages for Peers, and they are in this House, and some of them are sitting here tonight. Over the next hour, let us do the consultation for the Government, and we might just get a consensus on the way forward for Report.
Before Report, I suggest that noble Lords who have not yet seen it ask the Library for the Blencathra Excel spreadsheets, particularly the one entitled “Filter of House of Lords Members by Age and Attendance”. The brilliant Mr Tobin has, at my request, entered into it the names of every Peer from 2019 to December 2024, our party or Cross-Bench affiliations, our ages, our ages in 2029, and our attendance record in the last Parliament, which will be relevant for the next debate. I am aware that there are a few little errors in there: one of my noble friends says that she is not included, and another noble friend says that his age is wrong, but generally speaking the spreadsheet gives an indication of what the effect would be of removing Peers at the age of 80, 85 and 90. Given that it is an Excel spreadsheet, you can select any criterion. Just enter a possible retirement age from 50 to 100, and you get a list of names and numbers. The Library has circulated that Excel spreadsheet to Peers who have tabled amendments, but it will not do a mass mailshot to everyone, and I do not have the capacity or skill to do it for every Member of the Lords.
The spreadsheet is highly instructive, as well as giving endless hours of fun picking random retirement ages just to see who would then be retired. Naturally, I would deplore such behaviour. I think we would all agree that a retirement age of 80 is just not on, so what about 90? First, the figures I have put in the explanatory statements for the ages of 85 and 90 are quite wrong, and I apologise for misreading my Excel spreadsheets. The correct figure is that a retirement age of 90 by 2029 would remove or retire only 16 Peers, including nine who attend more than 50% of the time, and some of them are still active. I leave it to noble Lords to draw a conclusion, but I think we would be open to ridicule if we set a retirement age of 90, and it does not do much to reduce our numbers.
That leaves another of my suggested options, namely, retirement at 85. A retirement age of 85 would mean the retirement of 185 Peers, including some highly active Members, including 14 who attended more than 70% of our sittings in the last Parliament, and some who are Deputy Speakers. However, we have 25 who attended fewer than 50% of our sittings in the last Parliament, and 12 who attended fewer than 30% of the sittings. It is my opinion that a retirement age of 85 would be equitable and justifiable. It would still be the highest retirement age of any organisation in this country, except farmers and the self-employed. It would reduce our numbers somewhat, and if we coupled that with the removal of Peers who fail to attend at all or beneath a minimum number of attendances, we could make an even more substantial reduction. At least this retirement age of 85 would remove the jibe that we just carry on being Members for potentially 30 years longer than the state pension age or 20 years longer than judges. I believe that we can justify a retirement age 10 years later than that of a judge.
I do not intend to offer any firm solution here but to provoke debate with these probing amendments; however, I think we might just get a hint of consensus for Report. I see that other noble Lords have tabled similar amendments, some with different ages. My amendment suggests retirement at the end of the Session when a Peer hits the selected retirement age, but perhaps that is wrong and the end of the Parliament might be a better time, and certainly less harsh.
I have also tabled three other amendments which tweak my three options, in order to give more control and flexibility to the House. If any of the options were agreed to—retirement at 80, 85 or 90—our hands would be tied on the timing. We might want some more time to organise ourselves, and then to produce the retirement requirement when the House concluded that we were ready for it. These amendments are not essential, and noble Lords might think that that would give us an excuse not to do it. Well, that could happen, but I do not think the House would tolerate it.
Thus, I say to the Leader of the House: do not be afraid to support a retirement age that the House wants and votes for. Politically, the Government will get more opprobrium for kicking this into the long grass of meaningless consultation than for opting for a retirement age of, say, 85, instead of the manifesto promise of 80. By the time of the next election, the electorate will be making judgments on far more broken Labour promises than the promise of a retirement age of 80. I beg to move.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, in speaking to my amendment I will be very brief. My noble friend Lord Blencathra articulated a very powerful argument in favour of retirement with which I agree; I have suggested the age of 85 in my amendment. I wish to make three general points and two specific ones.
The general points are these. First, we do need to get the numbers in this House down, and retirement age is one way of doing it. Secondly, and coupled with that, is the need to refresh the membership; that too is important and points to a retirement age. The third point is a difficult one to dwell on too long. In a long political career, both at the Bar and in politics, I have seen an awful lot of people who reached the age of 85 who should have retired—both judges and Members of Parliament, and indeed Members of this House. We need to focus on that.
Turning to my two specific points, the first was touched on earlier in the debate: the fact that our expertise does decay. There was a time when I knew an awful lot about criminal law and practice. I have not practised as a criminal barrister since 2010, and I would hesitate to express any really informed view as to the practice and procedures in the criminal courts today. That is an example of one’s expertise decaying. Similarly—although not quite the same—as one gets older, one has to recognise that one’s expertise on many current subjects is not what the House would wish to have. For example, we are going to be regulating on artificial intelligence. If you ask me what I know about artificial intelligence, the answer is nothing. The same is true of social media too. I do not do social media at all, but we are asked to regulate it. The truth is, there does come a point in one’s life when one’s expertise is not such that the electorate would want us to regulate in any kind of detail.
Therefore, to be brief, I am in favour of a retirement age. We could argue sensibly whether it should be 75, 80, 85 or 90. I plonk at 85, but the truth is that we could properly go for any of those figures.
The Earl of Devon (CB)
My Lords, I rise briefly to speak to Amendment 65 in my name, which is a further variation on the introduction of a retirement age. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, for adding his name. I would also like to thank the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, who discussed this amendment with me, and who addressed the topic so wisely in his speech at Second Reading.
As with the other amendments in this group, Amendment 65 gives effect to the Labour Party manifesto commitment. However, contrary to the other retirement-age amendments, this one introduces important leeway for those who join your Lordships after the age of 70, as it provides that retirement is at 80 or the 10th anniversary of the Member’s introduction to the House, whichever is the later. This is an important distinction, as it does away with the arbitrary 80 year-old age limit. Having noted the number of recent appointments of Members over the age of 70, my amendment would permit such Members to enjoy at least a full decade of activity in your Lordships’ House, irrespective of the age at which they are appointed.
I should perhaps note in the spirit of full disclosure that I am not an octogenarian. Indeed, as a hereditary Peer in his late 40s, I will likely be removed from this House before I turn 50, let alone 80, so I have no dog in the fight. However, I have hugely appreciated the wise contributions of elder Peers and consider the sagacity of our membership to be one of the House’s most valuable features. I remember vividly a Cross-Bench discussion on the constitutional crisis arising from Boris Johnson’s ill-advised efforts to prorogue Parliament, during which a wise voice piped up, saying, “It wasn’t as bad as this during the Suez crisis”.
Just as hereditary Peers provide a length of institutional memory that spans centuries, so individual Members over the age of 80 provide an invaluable personal memory that spans decades. We abandon that at our peril in our rush for youth and the appearance of vigour. Amendment 65 permits us to temper the age-based guillotine, at least a little. On that basis, I recommend it to your Lordships.
The Earl of Dundee (Con)
My Lords, my noble friends Lord Blencathra and Lord Hailsham eloquently compare 80, 85 and 90 as different options for a retirement age from this House. Within this grouping, and following my own amendment in favour of 90 as a retirement age, I would therefore also support Amendment 101D in the name of my noble friend Lord Blencathra, which calls for a resolution to enact this.
The argument is that, compared with the other options, a retirement age of 90 far better assists a transitional House, a reformed House and, not least, the present House itself.
Regarding the necessary transitional period between the present House and a reformed one, as your Lordships are aware, a short while ago the noble Lord, Lord Burns, produced a very useful report. One of its recommendations was that, in a given year, the collective total of life Peers who retire or die are replaced at 50%. This means that, in a natural way and over not too many years, current numbers of temporal Peers, at just under 800, will come down to 600.
Obviously, numbers would come down more quickly if life Peers were coerced to retire at either 80 or 85. Yet surely it would be much wiser not to enforce that. Instead, with a retirement age of 90, the transitional period can be expected to be over five years, with the advantage that some new Peers, when they first begin to serve for a fixed period of time, will do so alongside some existing life Peers, thereby becoming all the more able to develop and uphold the skills and democratic efficacy of this House as a revising Chamber.
Then, for a reformed House, there will be many excellent candidates who have just retired from their professional careers, yet who are still prepared to dedicate their time and considerable abilities here. If new Peers serve for 15 years—and I agree with my noble friend Lord Hailsham that they should—a retirement age of 90 thus enables a commencement age of up to 75.
Regarding the present House, research figures already on the face of this Bill give us the mathematics, as my noble friend Lord Blencathra has just reminded us. By 2029, while a retirement age of 80 would cull 327 life Peers, and that of 85 would cull 187 life Peers, a retirement age of 90 would remove 78 instead. Clearly, that is a much more balanced and acceptable figure. In any case, before reaching the age of 90, life Peers playing an active part here after the age of 80 should surely be left to decide for themselves when they will retire.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak to my Amendment 86, which forms part of this group. The noble Baroness the Lord Privy Seal was not in her place in the last debate when I pointed out that I had asked for this amendment—which was initially down to be debated on its own—to be grouped with these amendments so that we can deal with expeditiously in recognition of the points that she and other noble Lords have made.
I raised my concerns with an arbitrary age or time limit in our debate on the last group, so I will not address the merits of the other amendments that noble Lords have moved so far in this group, other than to ask one question. When I was reading my copy of the Daily Mirror this weekend, I saw that the Leader of the House had given an interview saying that she would like to move quite quickly on the matter of a retirement age, which was in the Labour manifesto. She said it might not even require legislation for that to be done. So, to echo the point raised by my noble friend Lord Blencathra a moment ago, if your Lordships’ House votes during the passage of the Bill for a retirement age that enjoys the support of most noble Lords in this House, will the Government keep it in the Bill and implement it so that they can act with the speed the noble Baroness says she would like to move on this?
My Amendment 86 would make it clear that a peerage can be conferred on anybody over the age of 16. I am sure that, when some noble Lords saw this on the Marshalled List, it caused a few raised eyebrows and they may have wondered whether the point was entirely serious. It is—I have tabled this amendment in order to probe the Government’s thinking in relation to their other manifesto commitment to lower to 16 the age of voting for elections to another place. Is it the Government’s intention also to lower to 16 the age at which somebody can stand for election to the House of Commons, or do they plan to give 16 and 17 year-olds the vote but not yet give them the opportunity to put themselves forward for election if they find that there is nobody on the ballot paper who meets their approval?
As noble Lords will know, for many years after the Representation of the People Act 1969, there was such a discrepancy. People could vote from the age of 18 but had to wait until 21 to stand for election. That was changed in time for the 2010 general election—I think the noble Baroness the Leader of the House was a Minister in the Cabinet Office—and the two ages were finally brought into line. I would be grateful if the Minister who is responding could say a bit more about the Government’s intention on the age for candidacy as well as for election.
Whatever the answer to that question, I have tabled this amendment to see the view of His Majesty’s Government on allowing 16 and 17 year-olds into your Lordships’ House to scrutinise the decisions that are made by a lower House which is to be elected and perhaps also partly filled by 16 and 17 year-olds. A bit of scepticism sometimes accompanies the arrival of a relatively younger Member of your Lordships’ House to these Benches, but we have seen in recent weeks and through the valiant work of my noble friend Lady Owen of Alderley Edge, supported by Peers of all ages from across your Lordships’ House to tackle the scourge of deepfake pornography, the benefits of having a multigenerational House, looking at issues that affect our fellow citizens of varying ages.
There is a barrier to having such a multigenerational House in our Standing Orders. Standing Order No. 2 says:
“No Lord under the age of one and twenty … shall be permitted to sit in the House”.
I see that that Standing Order was adopted on 22 May 1685, so, while it is relatively recent in the history of your Lordships’ House, it is a Standing Order of fairly long standing. Does the Minister think that this 17th century barrier should still be in place, given the Government’s wider commitment to give 16 and 17 year-olds the right to vote for and perhaps stand for election to the other House of Parliament?
Lord Dobbs (Con)
My Lords, I shall say a few words in support of the amendment in my name and that of the noble Earl, Lord Devon. I hope I shall be forgiven, and not accused of parliamentary shenanigans, if, like my noble friend Lord Blencathra, I quote from the Labour party manifesto—although not at the length he did. The words are quite important to our understanding of what is going on. The manifesto says that
“reform is long over-due and essential … 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”.
Same paragraph, same breath, same thought. There is a full stop between those two very important aspects of parliamentary reform, but that full stop seems to have been decisive in the Government’s approach to this matter. It appears that the Government have indeed come to a full stop on these issues. As much as I like the sound of that, it is not quite the point. How can a full stop be a justification for abandoning the ambitions for a comprehensive and properly considered set of reforms?
Why, if it was promised in the manifesto, have the Government suddenly had a change of heart? After all, a retirement Bill—or a retirement amendment, as we are discussing here—would in many ways be much simpler than the Bill that is in front of the Committee. But this Bill is, of course, not so much a breath of fresh air as a sigh of relief on the part of so many Members on the Opposition Benches.
The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)
My Lords, almost everything in life has a retirement age. I put it to the Committee that having the age of 80 as an upper limit is what most people would expect as being a normal upper limit of something that was still credible.
The second issue is something that I raised both in my speech in November, in our House of Lords reform debate, and at Second Reading in December: the wisdom of imposing a retirement age on the current membership of the House retrospectively, as it were. That would probably produce a cliff edge, which would lead to what I termed an “organisational shock”. The loss of organisational power or human capital, in something which I think is adjudged by many to be performing well, would be a great shame and an unnecessary piece of self-harm. It takes some time to train up new Members. Indeed, it takes some time to find new Members, as HOLAC would be able to tell your Lordships. Accordingly, in the commercial environment, one would look for transitional arrangements and try to find some way of doing that.
The very pleasing Amendment 65, which was so well introduced by the noble Earl, Lord Devon, proposes a simple set of transitional arrangements with two legs that would reduce that organisational shock enormously and allow the House to transition to an age limit of 80 without pain or any loss of our capability and effectiveness. The first leg would impose the age limit only on new Members. This was how, as I remarked in November and December, the judges of the higher courts in England and Wales did it about 35 years ago, as they were worried about the loss of institutional power at that time. They found that a number of judges in fact imposed a retirement age on themselves retrospectively, as it were. They could have gone on forever but chose to retire at the new retirement age. I would expect that to apply, as I said then, and still expect it today. The Cross Bench has a slightly higher average age at 73, so we have a number of people who are in this zone. I expect that would apply with us as well, so imposing it on the new is the first leg of this very clever amendment.
The second leg would give everyone who comes in a minimum of 10 years. Selfishly, from the Cross-Bench point of view, one of the things that we need is judges. We need to supply judges in various circumstances. We needed to supply two for the Holocaust Memorial Bill Committee recently and I have to supply others for other private Bills that are coming through. These are just some examples. Some of the judges we need come from the Supreme Court and they do not retire until they are 75. Only having five years of them, with it taking a couple of years to train them up because they are no longer Members of our House beforehand, would mean that it is better for everyone to have a minimum period. That feature of the amendment from the noble Earl, Lord Devon, is also to be commended to the Committee.
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, as I intimated in the previous group, noble Lords who remain after the hereditaries have gone will come under increasing media pressure on the grounds that many are far too old and unelected. Even now, we often see colourful descriptions of noble Lord’s bios, especially when how they speak and vote is not to the particular medium’s liking.
In 2010, on my own initiative, I looked at a list of Peers in age order, expecting to find some age at which noble Lords became ineffective. I can assure the Committee that there is no such point, but over 33 years, what I have sadly seen time and again is Peers losing their mental faculties, alongside a relatively quick physical decline. Now that we have a system of retirement, there is not the moral drive to keep attending past the point of effectiveness, although a few do.
I think we can all agree that octogenarian Peers can be effective and add value. However, at 68, I am beginning to worry that I am out of touch and out of date with the things that I think, and I am experienced in, and that I am out of date with modern society. That is partially why I want to retire in the spring. The noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, made the point about social media. I do not use social media; I have not got the foggiest clue how to use it. Wisdom and experience are valuable to the House, and I frequently seek the counsel of very old Peers.
The problem is this: the maximum practical limit of the size of the House is about 800. I suspect that is part of the reason why the Government want to get rid of hereditary Peers, despite our experience. What matters is the number of active Peers, not the size of the House, but we also have too many active Peers. My theory is that, after a certain size, the effectiveness of each individual Peer is inversely proportional to the number of active Peers—so each Peer has fewer opportunities. For instance, in Parliaments before 2010, if I got fed up with what the Government were doing, I could roll into the Minute Room and say “Right, Oral Question; I want the next available slot”. They would laugh at me if I did that now; you have to go into a ballot. We never used to have to do that.
The problem is not the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of older Peers; the problem is bed-blocking. We should have Peers on both the political Benches and the Cross Benches who have succeeded in their chosen careers, bought and paid for their house, and secured a decent occupational pension—that is to say, appointment at about the age of 55 to 63. There is no shortage of really good-quality people in this situation. The noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, talked about precisely that. We cannot have them because we have around 200 octogenarian Peers.
I am not saying that we should not have much younger Peers. I am saying that the older Peers are bed-blocking younger potential Peers. I think the solution is to make it clear to new appointments how long their term will be. How long that should be is another matter, but I think we should make it absolutely clear how long new Peers are expected to be here. I do not think it would be fair to retire older life Peers, as they would have believed that they would be here for life. We hereditary Peers have known that we were on borrowed time since 1911.
Lord Burns (CB)
My Lords, I want to make two comments on the figures of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra. He has given us the figures on what the impact of various age limits would be; what he has not described, of course, is what the consequential effect in future years would be. My examination of these numbers suggests that the impact of an age limit is quite large to begin with, but after that the impact is really very small. I did an exercise of trying to look at the past and to judge, using one of these spreadsheets, what would have happened if we had had an age limit of 80 in the past. What would have been the effect on the size of the House and on what has happened through time?
The result is that the House would have been smaller, but if the same number of appointments had taken place, it would have still shown exactly the same upward trajectory over time. If we put in place an age limit of 80 that comes into effect in 2029, for the following few years only 20 or 30 people would fall into the bracket of hitting the age limit, which is not such a different figure from the number of retirees that we have in any case. So, I caution against thinking that this would solve the problems, in a sense, going forward over a longish period. There is no doubt that if one wants to bring down the size of the House quickly, an age limit is a very effective way of doing that. If one wants to make sure that one has a balanced profile going forward, so that leavers match new appointments, it will not help that much with regard to that.
That is why I also slightly take issue with the noble Baroness speaking for the Government when she said, just before dinner, that there is somehow a choice between term limits and age limits. To me, they have a very different purpose. An age limit is very effective in bringing down the size of the House, but it does not do very much to ease the challenge of keeping it down at that level. What term limits will do is create an onward larger flow of leavers at a time that we can predict in advance, which leaves scope for appointments and changes in the political balance in the House.
My other point is that, of course, if we are going to have an age limit, we do not have to choose between 80, 85 or 90 for ever. We could begin with an age limit of 85 and then, for the following Parliament, have an age limit of 80: we would get two bites at the process of bringing down the numbers. I support what my noble friend Lord Kinnoull says. I think the transition arrangements for this are just as important as they have been in the whole debate about hereditary Peers.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
My Lords, I feel I am again swimming against the current, but I am very much against having an age limit in this House. I feel it would leave us poorer, thinner and more meagre. I am delighted that Ministers appear determined to break their manifesto commitment on the subject, and I urge them to take the same wise, measured and judicious attitude to the stuff on the other side of the full stop which my noble friend Lord Dobbs was mentioning earlier. We would be deprived of a great deal in this House without the wisdom of the full range of our Members. He is not here at the moment, so I hope it will not embarrass him in his absence if I say that the best speech I heard in tonight’s debate came from the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell, with his erudition and his experience, explaining the role of the Crown prerogative in appointing Members of this House. Again, I hope that he will not think this in any way impertinent, but he would fall on the wrong side of my noble friend Lord Hailsham’s age limit, and I think we would all be the poorer for it.
My noble friend Lord Parkinson spoke about a multigenerational Chamber; I think there is a real importance in having a multigenerational polity. It is important in an age when elected politicians are becoming younger, the 24-hour news cycle and social media are more exhausting and elected politics becomes more of a young man’s game to have a space in our national discourse for people from every generation. It is kind of a variant, if you like, of Burke’s point about a nation being a partnership between the dead, the unborn and the living.
Viscount Goschen (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lords who tabled the amendments in this group have done the House a service in a number of different ways. Given that the 80 year-old retirement age was an important part of the Government’s manifesto, this debate gives us the opportunity to test their motivation for both bringing forward these measures and for not including them in the Bill.
The engagement we have had over the two days so far in Committee have been remarkably good-natured and constructive. They have been conducted in the right House of Lords spirit. An awful lot of what the Committee has been trying to get to the bottom of is around motivation: why measures have been brought forward and what their desired outcome is. You cannot test the efficacy of an outcome without understanding what the question is in the first place. I contend that the first day in Committee was really about whether the hereditary Peers performed better or worse than life Peers. There seemed to be a very broad consensus that there was a neutrality between the two groups.
We then, therefore, had to get to the bottom of why the Government are bringing forward that set of measures. We got on to a deep discussion of the Grocott proposals and why they were right then and wrong now, and how the only person who does not believe in the Grocott proposals is the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, and so I look forward to his intervention on this group. We were talking of dogs in fights, and I think he has got one in this group as well in terms of his distinguished vintage.
We are all very clear that age has got very little to do with how well Peers perform in the House. We are Peers: we are equals, and that is how we are treated. We do not look at someone in their late 80s as any different to a Peer who might be in their 40s. I had the good fortune to come here a very long time ago; I have been here for 37 years, and I am still 12 years under the average I believe. I have seen it over a considerable period of time.
However, the Minister needs to tell us in her response to this group why the Government originally brought forward the age limit. Was it to reduce the numbers of the House? I think we all agree that is a valid direction of travel. Or is it because the Government felt that those over 80 gave a contribution of less quality than others?
I think we need to know why the Government brought it forward and what their current view is. Of all the speeches I have heard over the last two days in Committee, the most powerful and moving was that given by the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, who cautioned the Committee that if we are to amend the constitution to change the make-up of this House, we need to do so for the right reasons, for logical reasons, with the right motivation and with a desire to improve this House, and not for any other reason. I look forward to the Government’s response.
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, I should begin by saying that the reason I am speaking to this group rather than my noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire is not simply that he has a conflict of interest, which he would have to declare. My noble friend has his 84th birthday this coming Wednesday. He intends to spend it as he has spent today, which shows that he has a great sense of fun.
This group of amendments, the previous group and the next two groups are all about how to reduce numbers and make sure that people who are in the House of Lords play a full and proper part. To state the blindingly obvious, there is one way to deal with this, which is to make sure that the House of Lords is elected—but I think we may have discussed that previously.
As for a retirement age, I think I am right in saying that every profession has a retirement age. In your Lordships’ House, we see the Bishops retiring at 70.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, that is actually not right. The self-employed, for example members of the Bar, do not have a retirement age, and nor indeed do solicitors.
Lord Newby (LD)
It is always very dangerous to make a general comment in your Lordships’ House. But judges have a retirement age of 75.
We know that bishops aged more than 70, and indeed judges aged more than 75, in many cases have undiminished mental powers and are able to play a very considerable part in whatever it is they continue to do. But there is a reason for retirement ages, which is that exceptions do not prove a rule. We know here that many Members of your Lordships’ House stay on well beyond a point at which it would be in their best interests to retire. We, the usual channels, have no levers in order to help them leave at a point when, objectively, it would be in their and the House’s best interest. My Chief Whip and I had a signal success last week in persuading someone in their mid-90s to retire, but it was slightly touch and go—and that, frankly, is not acceptable in my view.
If we are to have a retirement age, the question is: what should it be? The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, said that 80 was clearly too young. He prefers 85; the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, prefers 90. We often talk about the dissonance between the ways in which the House of Lords and the outside world view things. I can think of no case where there is a greater dissonance than in the view of a reasonable retirement age.
I am afraid that I find it very difficult to accept the idea that 80 is far too young. The noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, made a suggestion about how we might persuade Peers to retire without having a set retirement age: by having a retirement age that applies only to new Peers, in the expectation that many existing Peers who are over that age, whatever it is, would retire on the basis that that is what the judges did. In my experience, the problem is that people who most should retire are often the ones who are most reluctant to retire. I am afraid to say to the noble Earl, because it is a very attractive proposition in other ways, that I do not think that it would work, and I certainly do not think it would work to the extent that we would want it to.
This debate has shown that there is absolutely no consensus in your Lordships’ House about what a retirement age should be. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, who said on a previous group that this subject should not be part of the consideration of the Bill. The Government say that they will bring forward a consultation and proposals on it and I believe that it is very important that the impetus for this change, particularly the exact retirement age, should not come from your Lordships’ House. If ever there was a case of turkeys and Christmas, it is Members of the House of Lords determining when they should retire. Therefore, it is incumbent on the Government to come forward with their own proposals—I would be very happy if they were in line with their manifesto commitment—but I do not think an amendment passed by your Lordships on a Bill that is, in essence, about the hereditaries is a sensible way to deal with it.
Lord Keen of Elie (Con)
My Lords, first, I apologise if my voice fails—although many noble Lords may appreciate that eventuality.
I begin by addressing the amendments moved by my noble friends Lord Blencathra, Lord Hailsham, Lord Dundee, Lord Parkinson and Lord Dobbs and the noble Earl, Lord Devon. However, I divide them into two categories: the issue of a retirement age and the issue of term limits. I will not address the latter in the context of this debate, but I will address the former, because it is one of the Government’s manifesto commitments. They expressly said that.
Here we are, almost at 10 pm, debating whether it is appropriate for us to have a retirement age of 90 years, 85 years or perhaps even younger. The general public would regard such a debate as quite surreal. The question posed by my noble friend Lord Goschen is very much on point. It is incumbent on the Government now to step up and explain why they put the issue of a retirement age into their recent manifesto. It was not done on the spur of the moment; these things are thought out, debated and considered. Yet we struggle to identify the raison d’être for that manifesto commitment; it simply floats in the air.
Comments have already been made about other professions and pursuits and the issue of retirement, but, clearly, no one has ever contemplated an official retirement age of 90. That is why I wonder about the terms of this debate at all. In banking and finance, one would generally expect retirement at 55. Why? Because those organisations want to refresh themselves. In the judiciary, until recently the retirement age was 70; it is now 75. That is not because of the belief that judges who reach the age of 75 are no longer capable of interpreting and applying the law—many are, some are not and some never were.
Be that as it may, there is a further, more important issue. It is the issue of public confidence. If you walk into a court to have a serious issue determined in a court of law and discover that the judge is 92 years of age, you would rightly have reservations about his ability to determine a complex issue. It is no different for those who do not interpret and apply the law but purport to make it. The issue is not whether Lord Mackay of Clashfern was able to contribute to the proceedings of this House into his 90s, or whether the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, is still able to do so—I do not doubt that for a moment. But there is a very real issue of public confidence. That is also married to an issue about the numbers in this House, and how we deal with that issue.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)
My Lords, before I begin, it would be remiss of me not to wish the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, a happy birthday. But, as I will probably still be here on Wednesday, I will do it on Wednesday.
What is clear from this short debate on retirement age and the minimum age of participation is that there is a broad consensus on the need for change. What that change specifically should be is clearly still a matter for debate, as we have seen this evening. So let me move on to the specifics of the amendments at hand and try to reassure and answer noble Lords.
These amendments raise important questions on the issue of retirement age that warrant further discussion. The Government are keen to maintain an ongoing dialogue with the House about how best to implement our other manifesto commitments on reforming the House, including the issue of retirement age. I look forward to continuing the conversations with your Lordships, building on the discussions my noble friend the Leader has already had.
As was so eloquently articulated by several noble Lords this evening, especially the noble Lord, Lord Burns, the Government agree with the general direction of these amendments, which is to reduce the size of your Lordships’ House. As peerages are for life— and I am aware that when I say that, that may have slightly different connotations, given my age and what that means—the House has become too big. These amendments show the range of possible retirement ages that could be implemented. The Government, as set out in our manifesto, believe that a mandatory retirement age of 80, at the end of the relevant Parliament, strikes the right balance between setting the limit too high, thus reducing the impact on numbers, or too low, which would have a disruptive effect on your Lordships’ House at the end of the Parliament. In fact, during the last Parliament the retirement age was 81.3, in line with some of the conversations your Lordships have had this evening.
However, this Bill is not the right vehicle to make such a change. This is a focused Bill with a sole purpose: to deliver the Government’s manifesto commitment to bring about immediate reform by removing the right of the remaining hereditary Peers to sit and vote in the Chamber, a principle that was agreed when the 1999 Act was passed. This Bill is completing the work of that Act. It is right that we take time to best consider how we implement the other manifesto commitments, including our commitment to introduce a retirement age, engaging with your Lordships.
Amendments 101C, 101D and 101H include the provision to alter the commencement of the Bill. I note that the noble Lord has replicated this draft in his Amendments 101E, 101F and 101G, which we will debate at a future date. The effect of these amendments would be that the remaining hereditary Peers would be removed from your Lordships’ House at Royal Assent, rather than at the end of the Session in which the Bill is passed, as it currently provides for. Given that the noble Lord previously eloquently listed the individual records of service of hereditary Peers, aided by his now famous spreadsheets, I am somewhat surprised that seemingly, he now wants them to leave sooner.
The noble Lord also wishes the commencement of his other amendments on retirement age to be subject to a further resolution of the House. This means that, were the noble Lord successful in making his amendments, their commencement would be delayed further and perhaps indefinitely. The timing of the implementation of the Bill follows the approach set out in the 1999 Act, which is for it to come into force at the end of the parliamentary Session in which it is passed. This is a sensible approach which strikes the right balance between delivering an immediate reform, as set out in our manifesto, and meeting the desire to minimise any disruption to the work of the House, which could arise if hereditary Peers were to depart during a parliamentary Session.
Finally, Amendment 86, tabled by noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, seeks to lower the minimum age of membership of your Lordships’ House from 21 to 16. I thank the noble Lord for the explanatory statement which accompanies his amendment. The Government were elected on a manifesto promising to give 16 and 17 year-olds the right to vote in all UK elections, strengthening our democracy and increasing the engagement of young people. This is about fostering long-lasting engagement with our democracy and building the foundations for their participation in our electoral processes, and it will be a major change to the electoral franchise, with implications for the wider electorate. However, this commitment does not extend to lowering the age at which an individual can hold elected office at a national or local level, or other positions such as police and crime commissioners. The Government do not plan to change the minimum age eligibility criteria for elected office, nor for membership of your Lordships’ House. As I have said before, this Bill is solely focused on removing the right of hereditary Peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I thank the Minister for her clear answer. There is a further discrepancy, in that the age at which someone can become a Member of your Lordships’ House is 21, but to stand for election to another place it is 18. Does the Minister think that this discrepancy should continue, or should the two Houses be equal in that regard?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I was just going to touch on that point. As the noble Lord mentioned during his contribution, as always, the content of our Standing Orders is a matter for your Lordships’ House.
Bearing all this in mind, I respectfully ask that noble Lords do not press their amendments.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, we always say, “This has been an interesting debate”, and when I put down these amendments I expected it to be a fascinating debate, which it was. The Government always complain that this is a narrowly focused Bill, so why on earth are we talking about these other issues? It is because it was in the Labour Party manifesto. It is a narrowly drawn Bill only because, politically, they decided to make it a narrowly drawn Bill. It does not have to be that narrowly drawn.
My noble friend Lord Hailsham, in supporting my amendment that colleagues should retire at 85, made the valid point that we experience decay and that we are now getting a bit out of date on the things that we were expert in a few years ago. I like the idea from the noble Earl, Lord Devon, of retirement at 80 years old or after 10 years of service, whichever is the later. That is an interesting idea and it would permit Peers aged over 70 to get a 10-year term in here. My noble friend Lord Dundee supported an age of 90. He made a good case, but I am afraid we would not convince those on the outside that it was a serious measure to retire at 90.
My noble friend Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay made an intriguing point about reducing the age to 16, to match the age at which people may become MPs. God help us if we have MPs aged 16. I am glad I will not be in the House of Commons if that ever happens.
My noble friend Lord Dobbs supported the noble Earl, Lord Devon. I liked his “full stop” quote; will I have to pay him royalties if I ever use it again, him being a great novelist? The noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, in supporting the amendment from the noble Earl, Lord Devon, said that 80 is still very high for most organisations and that people retired a lot earlier than that, but I liked the point he made about transitional arrangements and allowing new Members to come in.
My noble friend Lord Attlee said that what matters is having active Peers, and that many over the age of 85 are highly active. I agree. I am privileged to serve on the Council of Europe. While I was in Georgia observing its elections a few months ago in my wheelchair, and going through a mob who were trying to ruffle us up and sabotage our vehicle, I felt quite active for a 72 year-old, as I did on a committee where the noble Lords, Lord Griffiths and Lord Foulkes, were considerably older than me—I believe they are in their 80s. They are also highly active Members. I accept that you can be over the age of 80, 85 or 90 and still be active here.
The noble Lord, Lord Burns, made an intriguing point that if we had a retirement age of 85 it would reduce numbers considerably in the first fell swoop, but it would have a diminishing effect afterwards. That will be the case if we continue stuffing in new Peers. He suggested that we could lower the age at a future time. I suggest he looks at my Amendment 32, which we will come to later, which makes that case. It sets up a procedure whereby if we decide that the age is wrong, we can tweak it with a statutory instrument rather than further primary legislation.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Hannan that it is the quality that matters, not the age, but the Government want to reduce the size of the Lords and they have chosen to throw out the hereditaries. I merely suggest in my amendments that a better way to do that would be to have a retirement age. I agree with my noble friend Lord Goschen that Peers of all ages make a valuable contribution. He asked the legitimate question, which my noble and learned friend Lord Keen also asked: will the Government explain why they have adopted this age of 80 as retirement?
I too will wish the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, well if he is here on Wednesday. I am not sure whether he drinks, but I will happily buy him a glass of champagne to celebrate a marvellous birthday. But the noble Lord, Lord Newby, made a good point that it might be in the interest of some Members to retire. Occasionally we see colleagues come into this House and I always say, “I hope my Chief Whip will tell me to get out at once if I get that far gone and poor”.
My noble and learned friend Lord Keen made the valid point that the age of 90 is a bit too late. It is a public confidence thing. Yes, some colleagues perform well in their 90s, but it is not credible to the outside public that we have people making legislation which affect their daily lives at that age.
The Minister said that more discussion is necessary before action. When will we get that action? When will we get the consultation paper on reducing the age limit to 80 or 85? We need it, but we get the feeling it has been kicked into the long grass.
I end as I began. The Government say that this is a very narrowly focused Bill, but it does not have to be. They are trying to reject the amendments that we have suggested, and the others to come, because they do not fit into the mode of getting rid of hereditary Peers. The Bill could easily be extended in a few little areas to include the issues we have discussed in Committee.
Before Report, I hope we can get some traction on two issues: retirement at 85, which some of us have suggested; and the suggestions by the noble Earls, Lord Devon and Lord Kinnoull, for transitional arrangements of about 80 and a 10-year time limit for new Lords coming in, and the suggestions by the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, that we can tweak the age down, perhaps starting at 85 and a few years later lowering it to 80—I think there could be traction in that.
I hope that noble Lords will get together with better brains than mine and decide what we want to run with on Report to try to get something that may get the support of a majority of Members in this House. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment 16.
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, it is a convenient point to conclude our proceedings today, so I move that the House be now resumed.
House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill
Wednesday 12th March 2025
(1 week, 6 days ago)
Lords ChamberHouse of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 49-III(b) Amendment for Committee (Supplementary to the Third Marshalled List) - (12 Mar 2025)
Lord Blencathra
“Attendance requirement of 20%A member of the House of Lords who attended fewer than 20% of possible sittings in the 2019–2024 Parliament must retire from the House of Lords within two months of the day on which this Act is passed.”Member's explanatory statement
Alongside other amendments in the name of Lord Blencathra, this amendment has been tabled to permit the House to vote on three options for requiring peers who have made little recent contribution to the work of the House to retire. According to analysis of Library figures, requiring a minimum attendance of 20% of sittings between 2019 and 2024 could remove 154 peers.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, the Labour manifesto said that
“we will introduce a new participation requirement”.
My Amendment 26, in the next group, deals specifically with the very small number of Peers who turn up and then do nothing.
The Government keep complaining that many amendments to this Bill have nothing to do with the removal of hereditary Peers, saying that the Bill is narrowly focused. That is true, but it was a political decision by the Government to make it so narrow and not include the other priority issues from their manifesto. The Government are seeking to give the impression that dealing only with hereditary Peers is somehow sacrosanct or ordained from on high. If we were in the Moses Room right now, I would be looking at the tablets that he brought down from Sinai to see if there was an 11th commandment saying, “Thou shalt have no other provisions in thy Bill except the removal of hereditary Peers”. Governments often widen the scope of Bills and adjust the Long Title. Indeed, today in the other place the Government have tabled Amendments 262 and 263, which will amend the Long Title to the Employment Rights Bill. They could do so for this one also if they were so minded.
With these amendments, I am seeking to explore the possibility of retiring Peers who have attended few of our sittings. Let me make it crystal clear that I reject the idea of a full-time House of political professionals. The great strength of this revising Chamber is that, with a very wide range of expertise to call on, most noble Lords do not sit here all the time intervening on issues that are not their speciality, but participate in our debates and Select Committees on issues on which they are expert.
I recall a debate on an amendment to the precision breeding Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, was debating a point with the noble Lord, Lord Winston, concerning recombinant DNA—whatever that is. The rest of us sat there watching a very civilised ping-pong match, and they were the only two in the whole Chamber who knew what they were talking about. Indeed, when my noble friend the Minister wound up, he said that neither he nor his officials in the Box knew anything about the subject, either, and would both noble Lords come to the department and explain it to them? That is one tiny example of the superb strengths of this House—that is the House of Lords in action. For the record, both noble Lords had attendances in the last Parliament well above 30% and 40%.
I turn once again to the Excel spreadsheets produced by the Library, which have the attendance record for all Peers in the last Parliament. There may be some names missing and there are other little technical errors; however, these figures are not the full picture, since the attendance data is based on contributions made in the Chamber and Grand Committee and does not include participation in other committee meetings. The Library tells me:
“This is because of the way in which different types of data are stored in the House of Lords’ internal systems and the challenges in extracting it to provide a dataset which we can be confident is accurate for all members and across the full duration of the Parliament, unlike chamber contributions which we can be sure is robust. We are actively looking at ways of incorporating committee attendance into this analysis and hope to resolve this in future releases, conscious that we want to present as comprehensive a picture as possible.”
Nor do the attendance figures count all the days that Ministers are working away from the Lords in their departments, or abroad. Nor do they include the 25 days per annum when 23 Members of this House are away serving at the Council of Europe, the NATO Parliamentary Assembly and the OSCE.
With those caveats, the figures are nevertheless accurate enough for us to debate the concept of retiring Peers below certain attendance thresholds, and they give us a fairly good picture of attendance. If we retired Peers who attended fewer than 20% of possible sitting days in the previous Parliament, that would be 154 Peers. What does 20% mean in actual sitting days? Over the past 10 years—I have done the number-crunching myself —the number of sitting days has averaged 148.1 per annum. That ranged from just 15 days in 2019 to 350 during the 2017-19 Session; thus, an annual average is more accurate than a sessional average. Peers who attended 20% of the time therefore attended for just 30 days out of 148. Peers who attended 15% of the time attended 22 days out of 148, and those who attended just 10% of the time were present here for just 15 days.
If noble Lords access the spreadsheet, they can come to their own conclusions on whether the occasions on which some of those 154 Peers spoke or participated merit continuance in this House. I have seen a few names who made worthwhile speeches, but my recollection is that the vast majority of the 154 Peers in this category have not contributed much to the work of this House. Those who attended fewer than 15% of possible sittings number 118 Peers. When I look at the 10% and below—the 70 Peers who turned up for a maximum of 15 days per annum—I cannot see, in my opinion, any whose contribution was so essential or vital that we should retain their presence in this House for their very rare words of wisdom. Indeed, I can recall only three of them making any speech, and none has served on any of our committees.
This is not one of my amendments, but if we opted for removing those who have attended 5% or less of the time, that would be just 39 Peers. My noble friend Lord Hailsham has suggested a 1% threshold, but that is 12 Peers and, in my opinion, it would make us look a bit silly if we went that low. However, I agree with his other amendments: of course we must exempt those on leave of absence—but not for too long—or those with royal duties, such as the noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk, or the new Lord Chamberlain, the noble Lord, Lord Benyon.
These figures are out by about eight because of judicial appointments and some deaths since the Library compiled them last year, but noble Lords can see the ballpark figure—if that American term is still acceptable. Noble Lords may say, “What does it matter if they don’t turn up? They are not getting any allowance and not costing anything”. I agree with that view, but we are here today because the Government say that there are too many Peers, and the Government’s solution is to get rid of 88 hereditaries, many of whom are assiduous attenders. Indeed, there are only 14 hereditaries who have attended less than 20% of sittings.
I do not have a firm view on my options, but I think that noble Lords would consider the 20% or 15% thresholds to be on the high side and a bridge too far to begin with. When noble Lords look at the names of the 70 who would be retired for an attendance figure of fewer than 15 days per annum, I think we might have some consensus around that, with the necessary exemptions suggested by my noble friend Lord Hailsham.
Now, where this gets really interesting is if one combines an age cut-off and an attendance cut-off. The Excel spreadsheet gives some interesting figures. I will not waste time by running through the extremes: at one end, a retirement age of 90 and an attendance of just 1% would retire 89 Peers; at the other, retirement at 80 and a 20% attendance cut-off would retire 420 Peers, which I think would be a tad excessive.
The more sensible criteria might be a retirement age of 85 and an attendance of 10%; that would retire 304 Peers by 2029. A retirement age of 85 and an attendance of 5% would retire 213 Peers. I suggest that that figure is on the edge of a possible solution, reducing our numbers to those who turn up, take part and are not perceived from outside as too old to do the job.
I have a couple of final points on attendance. I think that it has to be retrospective and based on attendance in the previous Parliament. That is highly contentious, but if we introduced, say, a 10% threshold for about 15 days in future, we would have some colleagues counting their attendance and rushing in to attend for a few days at the end of the year just to get over the threshold. We would also need some special appeal mechanism—a committee to which Peers could appeal if they felt that they were being wrongly excluded. I will say more about that when we debate Amendment 26.
I appreciate that this is contentious and goes against the precedents we have had for centuries. But I come back to my starting point that retirement of those who turn up infrequently and say little is infinitely preferable to throwing out all hereditaries, over 70 of whom who turn up regularly and participate fully in the work of this House.
Of course, if we were to go down this route in future, we would need complete and accurate figures for attendance in the Chamber, the Grand Committee and all our committees, as well as on Ministers and shadow Cabinet Ministers working away from the precincts of this building and those Peers on foreign delegations.
In conclusion, I look forward to the unanimous support of my noble friends, and I beg to move.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
I rise very briefly to speak to the four amendments in my name, Amendments 22 to 25. The first three would amend the lead amendment, Amendment 19, moved by my noble friend. For reasons that I shall come to shortly, I very strongly disagree with it.
First, I express some cautious agreement with my noble friend as regards future participation. My noble friend Lord Blencathra has urged the case for requiring a future minimum degree of engagement as a condition of membership of this House, and there is clearly a case for that. My own Amendment 25 suggests a participation record of 10%. However, I would be a bit cautious about setting too high a requirement; first, because occasional interventions from those who are not regular attenders can be very valuable, sometimes on esoteric subjects, although not exclusively so.
Moreover, and more generally, there is a danger that too demanding a requirement could encourage interventions for the purpose of meeting the criteria from those who are not currently great participators. We all know that speeches in major debates are time-limited, and very often the time available is very short. The question that arises is: do we want to make a more restrictive timetable? I think not, but that could well be a consequence of an increased participation requirement. As my noble friend touched on, there needs to be a degree of flexibility with regard to minimum requirements. Members may very well have good reasons for not participating: illness, leave of absence, overseas commitments, family problems and so forth. My suggestions in Amendments 22, 24 and 25 are designed to address these problems.
Where I actively and positively disagree with my noble friend is in his Amendment 19 and his related Amendments 20 and 21. Your Lordships will have noticed that those amendments relate to the 2019-24 Session. That is retrospective in character, and my noble friend is suggesting that if a Member fails to satisfy the stated participation level in the past Parliament, he must retire.
I am against retrospective requirements or sanctions. My noble friend’s proposal is just that. It imposes a penalty which is entirely retrospective in character, in respect of a failure to meet a requirement which did not exist at the relevant time. I regard that as a thoroughly objectionable proposition and I very much hope that this Committee will not go down that road.
The Earl of Devon (CB)
My Lords, I rise briefly to speak to Amendment 64 in my name, to which the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, has added his name. Like the other amendments in this group, it addresses the question of attendance.
By amending the House of Lords Reform Act 2014, which sets a minimum attendance of one sitting day every Session of Parliament, my amendment aims to ensure that Members attend a minimum of 10% of sitting days in each Session, which is similar to some of the amendments already mentioned. As I have said previously, I am of the view that the broad and largely amateur membership of your Lordships’ House is one of its enduring strengths. The fact that those who sit are, for the most part, not professional legislators is important to ensure that a diversity of experience and views are heard from a wide range of backgrounds. I believe that that was the consensus view of the House when we debated an elected House on Monday.
That said, a minimum attendance is entirely reasonable and this amendment puts that at 10% of the sitting days in any one Session. Such a modest attendance will ensure that Members are committed to service in the House and are able to keep suitably abreast of developments in Westminster. It will not, however, require Members to attend so often as to preclude them from continuing to maintain their outside interests, and will equally not require them to make unnecessary and numerous interventions, slowing down the business of the House as Members seek to pad their records of contribution. This is in nobody’s interests.
I note that the amendment is similar to Amendment 21, proposed so excellently and with so much Excel detail by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, but his amendment would require 10% of sitting days within any one Parliament, whereas Amendment 64 requires it in any one Session, which will ensure a greater regularity and spread of attendance. On that basis, I recommend it to the Committee.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I have Amendment 37 in this group. I think we have Members of extreme expertise in here but, unlike my noble friend Lord Hailsham, that we do not want to hear from them only when that particular expertise is engaged. We want their broader contribution and wider understanding of life; we want them to bring that expertise into our wider debates. We should expect people who are part of this House to turn up for a reasonable percentage of time—certainly 10%. As I learned from my noble friend Lord Strathclyde, Peers whose habit is to blow in, blow off and blow out are really no use to this House whatever.
The other characteristics of my amendment, compared with others, are to leave a lot of flexibility to the House of Lords in saying what the level should be and how it should be determined. That is rather better expressed in Amendment 32, which we will come to in a while and which I thoroughly support.
The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 64, which is the one I am most attracted by in this group. I have in my right hand a copy of the Writ of Summons that we each receive when we come here. I am going to read an extract:
“We, strictly enjoining, command you upon the faith and allegiance by which you are bound to Us that considering the difficulty of the said affairs and dangers impending (waiving all excuses) you be personally present at Our aforesaid Parliament with Us and with the Prelates, Nobles and Peers of Our said Kingdom to treat and give your counsel”.
I believe that the Writ of Summons is a very serious document and this is why I think that Section 2 of the House of Lords Reform Act 2014, which allows for only one day of participation, is not consistent with the Writ of Summons, frankly.
I have been looking at my own spreadsheet; my numbers came from the Journal Office, so they are no doubt slightly different. In looking at those numbers, I felt that, as I said in November and in December, by raising that one day to 10% of the days sat in a Session, we would lose between 50 and 100 of our number who did not live up to what is in our Writ of Summons. I felt that that was proportionate. However, although I clearly looked at other percentages as well, 10% is a figure that, selfishly, suits the Cross Benches, because we have a large number of people on our Benches who are low-frequency, high-impact Members. I need not name them, because all noble Lords will be able to think of several, but they are people at the very top of their professions. They are able to come here to give devastatingly good speeches, but they are not able to make more than 10% of the time here. They go on to our committees and do a lot of valuable work for our House. That is why I feel that 10% is the right number.
The pleasing thing about the amendment in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Devon, is that, in it, attendance is measured as it is today, so the very methods that we use to measure attendance are there. The methods that we use if a Member wants to appeal a wrong marking out, as it were, are there and work well. I have confirmed with the Clerk of the Parliaments that these methods could be applied to this type of amendment. Therefore, in my eyes, the noble Earl has scored a hit.
The Earl of Dundee (Con)
My Lords, as is proposed in Amendment 37 by my noble friend Lord Lucas, this matter ought to be dealt with proactively; for, as may be inferred from that amendment, individual Peers should make their own commitments in the first place. Therefore, at the beginning of every Session of Parliament, each House of Lords Member would sign a declaration of intent to attend more than a certain proportion of sitting days during that Session. Nevertheless, a key question obviously remains: what should this minimum number of days be?
Here, once more, my noble friend Lord Blencathra assists our thinking and comes to the rescue. He has just done so by gently nudging imprecision and indecisive conjecture towards mathematical certainty. For, as he points out, if there had been a 20% attendance stipulation between 2019 and 2024, we would have lost 154 Peers; if there had there been a 15% attendance stipulation, we would have lost 118 Peers; and, through a 10% attendance stipulation, 70 Peers would have been asked to leave.
Yet, having got thus far, mathematics then slightly escapes and retreats back towards conjecture; for, given that there was no minimum percentage attendance requirement between 2019 and 2024—and given that these years would not suddenly come to penalise Peers retrospectively—that leaves us guessing, of course, as to the number of Peers who, in the knowledge that they would be expelled if they did not meet that requirement, would have in fact failed the attendance test. Obviously, these numbers of failures would not be the same as —instead, almost certainly be much less than—those figures between 2019 and 2024, as has already been quoted, when Peers knew that there was no minimum attendance requirement as high as 10% that they had to consider at all.
Included in this grouping is Amendment 64 in the names of the noble Earl, Lord Devon, and my noble friend Lord Dobbs, to which the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, has referred. A minimum attendance requirement of 10% of House of Lords sittings is stipulated. Your Lordships may agree with that for two reasons, the amendment works efficiently and strikes a good balance when taken in conjunction with my noble friend Lord Lucas’s Amendment 37, as other speakers have said. First, following Amendment 64, Members would then know that if they do not adjust their diaries to a known quantity of 10% attendance, they will be asked to leave. Secondly, following Amendment 37, their necessary advance commitments to dates at the beginning of parliamentary Sessions would more than likely be made responsibly and, therefore, to well exceed a statutory minimum of 10% in any case.
Viscount Astor (Con)
My Lords, I offer a different opinion—perhaps a dissenting voice. My noble friend Lord Blencathra’s amendment is terrible. It is a bad amendment to a bad Bill. What he has not said is why, when he tabled it, he chose, for example, five years. What was the purpose of that? Was it one Parliament? Why not 10 years? Why not 15 years, as some noble Lords would like the Session to be? Why not go back further? In my case, the noble Lord could have gone back 50 years. I do not know what my attendance record would look like over that period—pretty shoddy, I suspect, but never mind.
It is a mistake to have this principle, because if it is carried forward we will find ourselves encouraging Lobby fodder—my noble friend is a former Chief Whip. Everybody would be here all the time to vote and get their name down but they would not participate in your Lordships’ House; they would just be here for the benefit of the Chief Whip. That is a bad thing. Also, if we are going to attract some younger Members to your Lordships’ House, they will have careers and other jobs, and maybe would not be able to attend all the time. Some noble Lords are retired and do not have other jobs to do.
This is a dangerous and bad precedent. It should be discarded and it should not be in this Bill. I welcome and look forward to hearing my noble friend’s response.
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, this group and the next deal with the vexed question of how we ensure that Peers do the job for which they have been summoned by the monarch, when we know—the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, has given us the statistics—that not everybody does. Equally, we are all of the view that everybody should.
This is an area where there is a dissonance, just as there is on retirement age, between what people outside think and what people inside think. All the discussion so far has been on how it affects us rather than how we are seen. If you say to most people, “I am an active Member of the House of Lords”, they might ask, “How often do you go?” If you reply, “Well, it’s very onerous you know; I’ve got to go 10% of the time”, then they would ask, “Well, what does that mean?” You would say, “It means that when the House is sitting I have to go—well, not once a fortnight, but roughly that”. They would then ask, “What time do you start?” “I probably go in at about 3.30 pm, 4 pm”, you would say. They would ask, “What time would you finish?” You would reply, “If it was a busy day, I might stay until the dinner hour”. This is not an onerous requirement. Suppose that it is 20%. That is once a fortnight, roughly speaking, possibly for a couple of hours. That, to most people outside, would not be seen as a hugely onerous requirement.
I also think that, following our Writ of Summons and as Members of a deliberative assembly, it is frankly not good enough to turn up just once or twice a year to discuss an issue on which you are an expert. In politics, many of the issues that we have to debate are ones that we would rather not debate, because we are not experts, but they are the most important. Some of them we would rather not debate because they are really difficult, and we are not experts. Take assisted dying: I am sure that many of us, in an ideal world, would at one level rather that other people took a decision on it, because it is so difficult. However, we are summoned by the monarch to give counsel on a range of things. If there is any suggestion, particularly in legislation, that a minimum level is acceptable, then that really would not be acceptable, even though that has been the pattern in the past.
I also have a question about whether legislation is the right place to put such an amendment, in terms of the amendments in both this group and the next. Apart from anything else, it goes in here and then it goes to the other place. Let us suppose that our colleagues in the Commons say, “Hang on a second, those people at the other end seem to think that 10% is enough—that’s ridiculous. Let’s change it and put in 50%. That sounds a bit more reasonable”. Are we then going to have ping-pong on what is the reasonable level of attendance here?
Lord Strathclyde (Con)
We should thank my noble friend Lord Blencathra for introducing this amendment. It is a subject worth discussing. Since this Bill is designed to fling out a cohort of your Lordships’ House who on the whole do turn up and play a part and some of whom hold very senior and important roles in the House, it is worth discussing for a few minutes those who hardly come at all and finding out whether there should be some kind of attendance threshold.
The amendment that we are discussing deals with attendance. My noble friend Lord Hailsham mentioned participation—but I think that participation, which is very important, is a very different issue from attendance, and we will come to it in the course of today’s deliberations. What the noble Earls, Lord Kinnoull and Lord Devon, said about the Cross Benches is very important. We do not want to discourage or reduce the ability of those Peers who have something to say but for a whole variety of reasons come less often than most of us; that is why the threshold should be realistic but relatively low.
I think that what my noble friend Lord Blencathra was saying was that, if it had been set at 10%, we would lose about 100 Peers, from past records. I entirely agree with my noble friend Lord Hailsham that we should not do anything that is retrospective. I do not think there is a problem and that suddenly a whole bunch of Peers would turn up because they wanted to be above the threshold—because the Peers who come hardly at all have already decided that they do not want to play a part in your Lordships’ House, but do not want to retire or take leave of absence. So this is a useful amendment and a useful debate and discussion—and setting the threshold at 10% I do not think will put anybody off.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, I, too, support my noble friend Lord Blencathra in bringing forward this topic, and I very much agree with what my noble friend Lord Strathclyde has just said.
When I looked at my noble friend’s three amendments, I was inclined to think that Amendment 20 struck the right balance. It is important to retain the concept of the House of Lords as a part-time House, but I also believe that, to remain sufficiently involved in what is going on so as to be able to make a contribution to debates on matters in which noble Lords possess expertise and knowledge, a participation level of 10% may be on the low side. But, as long as your Lordships’ House retains its present sitting hours, 15% is a reasonable minimum participation level—although it would be difficult to maintain a full-time job outside the House and a 15% participation level if the House were to adopt similar sitting hours to the House of Commons.
However, my noble friend Lord Hailsham is right to provide in his Amendment 25 for the possibility that the House may resolve to exempt a noble Lord from compulsory retirement if it concludes that there was a good cause for that noble Lord’s non-attendance. I entirely agree with the point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, about low-attendance, high-impact Members.
I also support Amendment 37, in the name of my noble friend Lord Lucas. This amendment would allow the House to provide exceptions to compulsory retirement, but, interestingly, allows the possibility of first fixing and later changing the minimum participation rate through Standing Orders, which would provide for more flexibility. My noble friend Lord Blencathra is absolutely right to ask your Lordships to consider this matter, because the Labour Party manifesto also committed to introduce a new participation requirement, at the same time as excluding the excepted hereditary Peers. Those who believe that the House is too large may also support the introduction of a minimum participation level. I would expect that the retirement of a number of inactive Peers would make it easier for the Government to find a better way forward that would cause less disruption to the ability of the House to discharge its functions in a way that serves the country well.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
My Lords, I find myself questioning the premise on which this amendment rests, and indeed on which the Bill it is amending rests—namely, that there are too many of us here. It is repeated very often, but it is rarely interrogated or properly analysed. The case against the amendment from my noble friend Lord Blencathra has been eloquently made by others, and I am not going to repeat the points that they have made. My noble friend Lord Astor made an extremely good point about the perverse incentives that it would bring in, my noble friend Lord Hailsham made a very good point about its retrospective nature, and who can disagree with the compelling case made by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, about the low-frequency but high-impact Members?
But we would not be having this debate at all if it were not for this general assumption that we need to free up space. Before I came here, I took that as axiomatic. We are always told that this is the second-biggest legislative chamber after the National People’s Congress in Peking. But too many Peers for what? Do we have difficulty finding a seat in the Chamber? I do not think so; if we look around, we see that there is plenty of space. Do we have difficulty booking a table in the Peers’ Dining Room? Do we not have our Written Questions accepted? Are we pullulating in such numbers that the ushers are unable to cope with us? I do not think so. If we are, the one lot of people we do not have a problem with are those who do not turn up very often. They, by definition, are the ones who are contributing least to the problem and, indeed, claiming least from it.
This Chamber has existed in one form or another since Magna Carta—at least if we count the conciliar form of government that took shape under King John and Henry III as the progenitor and ancestor of this Chamber—and at no stage has anyone felt the need to insert a minimum attendance requirement. It was assumed that it could be left to the patriotism and judgment of the bishops and barons to decide when something was sufficiently important to merit turning up. Have we completely junked that idea of trusting people’s own discretion and judgment?
If it really were a question of numbers and we really did feel that we were massively overloaded, why is it that almost every day we keep on admitting more Members here? If Ministers think that the problem is that this is too large a legislature, why do we seem to be gaining half a dozen people a week? I sometimes feel we are in one of those Gilbert and Sullivan operettas where everyone gets a peerage. I sometimes wonder whether that is the end game—that this country will end up becoming an oligarchy, where the real power is vested in the hands of the last remaining 500 people who still have the right to vote for the other place, and everyone else will have the right to sit here. But, you know, as long as they do not turn up, it is still not a problem—so I come back to saying that I dispute the premise.
I know that Ministers share my view, because they are not proposing a cut-off based on attendance, or indeed a cut-off based on age. They have looked beyond their manifesto and have decided to do the right thing, rather than be bound by the dots and commas of what their manifesto says. I hope they will extend that logic to the only democratically elected element of your Lordships’ Chamber, namely our hereditary colleagues.
Lord Dobbs (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to follow my noble friend Lord Hannan, but we do have a problem with numbers. We are constantly being compared with the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party. It is a silly jibe but it does us damage. It makes us seem stuffed like a goose. When did we last see 800 Peers in this Chamber—or 700 or 600? Yet the impression out there is that there are far too many of us who are here only because we are stuffed geese. There is widespread, if not universal, agreement that our numbers should come down. That is why I was very happy to join the noble Earl, Lord Devon, on his amendment, which will help to achieve that objective.
The noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, talked about a part-time House. We all talk about the value of a part-time House. Do we want a full-time House? No, I do not think we do, but neither do we want a no-time house. A peerage is not a zero-hours contract.
It is strange that the Government set out their deckchairs in their manifesto—so far, so very clear about a number of different measures that would help bring down numbers—but for some reason they now seem content to sit on their principles and watch the boats sail by. It is baffling that they do not do what they said they would do, and why they aim their cannons simply at the hereditaries, rather than at, for instance, those who do not participate. A fellow might be forgiven for thinking that some in the Labour Party’s main interest is not so much reform as a bit of cynical old-fashioned class warfare—perish that thought.
I constantly bang on about the fundamental principle that inspires the relationship between individual Peers and our institution, which is that we are here to serve this House. This House does not exist to serve us. The institution, not the individual, must come first. It is not simply a numbers game. More fundamentally, it is about the need to refresh this House to ensure that its experience and advice are up to date and that this House remains relevant. Sometimes you need a fresh wind to blow away cobwebs. If numbers matter, and the Labour manifesto said that they do, I suggest that the amendments we are discussing today would help.
In a slightly wider context, we all know that the Government will get the Bill through, but why do it the hard way—the bitter way? Why strip away the desire to compromise? Why poison the well? Why not show a little willingness, allow a little wiggle room on the Bill? Is it really to be seen just as the use of naked power?
We have, of course, had different points of view expressed, even on this amendment. But I believe that a quick and honourable deal could be reached on the Bill and, indeed, on a wider reform package in line with Labour’s manifesto. That deal could be done this afternoon between the party leaders over a cup of tea, and even before that cup of tea has a chance to go cold.
It is important for the credibility of this Bill, this Government and this House that the Government should try, and be seen to be trying, to come to a broader agreement, than they have done so far. I hope that the Government will open their door and reach out for agreement. That would be so much more dignified and productive than simply being seen to reach out for our hereditaries’ throats.
Lord Sentamu (CB)
My Lords, I ask noble Lords to forgive me for echoing what the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, said on Monday. I listened to some amazing speeches, but their delivery will be in the future, not with this Bill. This Bill is so small and its effect on hereditary Peers is absolutely terminal in the end. I am not a prophet, nor a prophet’s son, but I like to have a healthy check.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, it is a huge privilege to follow the noble and right reverend Lord, who made some very compelling points. I want to pick up on three points and make a suggestion.
First, on this Chamber being overcrowded and everyone being completely under pressure wherever they go, I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Hannan. I come from the other place, where—as the Leader of the House will know only too well—in a Division, there can be up to 600 MPs voting. Even on a really busy Division here, there are never more than about 450, 470 or so. Frankly, when I was an MP, I often had difficulty finding a place in the Library or in the tea room. We do not have that problem here. The idea that that this House is ridiculously overcrowded is a non-starter. It is not the case.
I absolutely agree with what the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, mentioned. When those Members turn up here from time to time—but make a huge impact—the House is captivated by what they say. It would be a great shame to lose them by some rule around 10% or 20%. Would it not be better if the House looked at Section 85 of the Local Government Act 1972, which states that if a councillor fails to attend for a period of six months without due cause they can be disqualified? Would that not cover some of our colleagues who never turn up? If that rule was in place, would that not make them turn up? That would be better way of going about it than looking at 10% or 20%.
One of the reasons why the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, tabled these amendments was to show—and he made it clear enough—that there are many life Peers who hardly ever turn up and may have a lot to offer but do not take their role very seriously; whereas I am told by the Library that if we applied the 20% rule to hereditary Peers, only two hereditaries would be covered by that. All the other hereditaries have an attendance of more than 20%. None has an attendance of less than 10%. Their attendance record is quite excellent and impressive. Could the Minister comment on that point?
As the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, pointed out, we are going to be debating this in Committee for more than four days. We may progress, but, rightly, a lot of different subjects have been covered. We will then have a long time on Report and at Third Reading. Surely there is a compromise that can be found. The Government already know they are going to get rid of the elections. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, that it is very sad that the elections will mean that we will have no more hereditary Peers, but we have conceded that that will happen. If it is about numbers, then surely a deal can be done. Many of the hereditary Peers on our side—there are 40 or so left—have said that they are going to retire anyway. Some of the life Peers, well into their late 80s and early 90s, on our side have said that they would retire. Before you get too far, you find that figure of 40. Surely, we can have a compromise here. It would save everyone a huge amount of time, effort and money.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, it is a great privilege to speak after my noble friend Lord Bellingham, who makes very clear points very persuasively. Attendance in Parliament has been a long-standing issue throughout British history, and my noble friend Lord Hannan spoke extremely well about the motivations of parliamentarians. Previous monarchs have looked at this issue very closely, and both King James and Queen Elizabeth brought in roll-calls and fines because they struggled so much to get parliamentarians to attend.
Many parliaments around the world have attendance criteria. In Belgium, salaries are docked if you do not attend enough. In Oregon, you get only 10 spare days and if you miss your 10 days you are not allowed to stand for re-election. This is an issue that many parliaments face.
The first three Lord Bethells never spoke in Parliament at all. They regarded it simply as an honour. That is a shame and not at all tolerated in modern times. The British public expect parliamentarians to play an active role, and they are absolutely right. I will say two things on that. First, the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, made the point about “deep and infrequent”. I think that is right and I have enormously valued the participation of some Peers with enormous expertise but other commitments. Secondly, there is a collaboration element to being part of what is a collective House. Scrutinising legislation, our principal endeavour, requires an enormous amount of co-operation between Peers, and that requires a relationship that needs a little familiarity. If people do not turn up at all, you cannot build those bonds of trust and collaboration and cannot do your job properly.
For that reason, I strongly support the spirit of the amendments from my noble friends Lord Blencathra and Lord Lucas, and endorse the comments of the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
My Lords, we are all here to bring different things, and I am not sure that participation rates are the best way of going about reform. Peers contribute differently. They bring their counsel, as we were reminded from the Cross Benches. Some bring their expertise or knowledge of a particular subject, and most bring their judgment on all subjects.
The options being proposed as we debate this short Bill are very different. Because there really is no agreement on the best way to proceed, I urge the Leader of the House to consider trying to find a consensus across the House to get some agreement, given the extraordinary differences we hear about how best we should proceed.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I am glad that we are debating this question of attendance separately from the question of participation, because they are materially different. I share the scepticism of the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu, about the Government’s willingness to accept amendments to this Bill and, indeed, his salutary warning about being careful of what we say now and remembering that it is taken down in the official record. These other issues are being raised because we all care very deeply about the future of this House, and one of the great tragedies of this Bill is that some of the people who care most deeply will not be here to give their opinions on the further stages of reform or the Government’s adherence to the rest of their manifesto once the Bill is passed. I know he will understand why they are getting their arguments in early.
As the Convenor of the Cross Benches reminded us, our presence here is not thanks to a democratic mandate of our own or any of our achievements but in answer to a call. We sit here in response to a Writ of Summons from our sovereign, who has commanded us, waiving all excuses, to be at the Parliament holden here at Westminster, to treat and give our counsel on certain arduous and urgent affairs. I agree with the noble Lords who have said that we are invited and treated to give our opinions on arduous affairs, even if they are outwith our own areas of expertise.
It is up to each of us to decide how we answer that call, and it is clear that noble Lords across the House do so in different ways. But we have some insights into how they do so thanks to the spreadsheets of my noble friend Lord Blencathra and to the data dashboard provided by the House of Lords Library. That shows that during the last Parliament your Lordships’ House sat for 701 days. On average, noble Lords attended on just under half—46%—of the days that they were eligible to attend. Of the 966 people who were eligible to attend at least some of the last Parliament in your Lordships’ House, 28 Members did not attend at all. More than 100 Members—116—attended on less than 10% of the days that they were eligible to be here, which is the threshold that many noble Lords have mentioned.
Further interrogation of these data by the Library reveals some interesting points. During our last day in Committee, we debated the ideal age of Peers. The data from the last Parliament show that the younger Peers are more likely to attend than older ones. Noble Lords aged 59 and under attended on more than half of our sitting days in the last Parliament. Noble Lords aged 60 or above were absent for most. While noble Lords in their 80s were with us on 45% of sitting days and those in their 90s managed 31%, those in their 30s were here on 55% of sitting days and the sole noble Lord in her 20s—the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Llanfaes—was here 78% of the time, despite travelling from much further afield than most.
Perhaps most pertinently for this Bill, average attendance rates were highest for our hereditary colleagues, at 49%. For life Peers it was 47%. For the Lords spiritual it was 14%, although we know that the right reverend Prelates have many other duties in tending to their flocks. Our remaining Law Lords were here on just 12% of sitting days that they could have been. These statistics, interesting though they may be, should not be taken at face value. Some may very well think it is better to have 12% of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hale of Richmond, than it is to have half of a thirtysomething.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I am 41. We benefit from having busy people who are active in many areas of civic life and who bring their experience to bear on our deliberations as they see fit. As my noble friends Lord Blencathra and Lord Hailsham said, they contribute with great expertise on esoteric topics.
There are many good reasons for noble Lords’ absence. Many are still active in business and charities. Some serve as chancellors and vice-chancellors, or as ambassadors and high commissioners. Others serve in the no less noble roles of husbands, wives, grandparents and carers. Some are suffering the illnesses and ailments that afflict us all, and they speak very movingly about it when they do. Most of those people would, I think, still be able to meet the modest requirements of Amendment 64 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Devon, particularly if combined with some of the leniency expressed by my noble friend Lord Lucas in his Amendment 37.
As my noble friend Lord Hannan of Kingsclere reminded us, a very important point is often forgotten when we look at attendance. If noble Lords choose not to be here or cannot be here, they cost the taxpayer nothing. They do not cancel out the votes of noble Lords who have chosen to express their view in a Division. I share my noble friend Lord Astor’s concern about stuffing your Lordships’ House with Lobby fodder. The people who are not here do not take up a seat in the Chamber or force us to queue longer for our sandwich at lunchtime—although, as we have heard, it is rarely a problem. What harm do they do? I am glad that my noble friend Lord Bethell picked up the point of history to correct our noble friend Lord Hannan, pointing out that, in some of the early English Parliaments, those who ignored their Writs of Summons found themselves fined. Perhaps that is an idea we should return to.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord. I fear I have been set a challenge by my Leader to try to get Andrew Lloyd Webber’s lyrics into my speech, but with very little notice, so no one is going to cry for me today.
Before I start, I wish the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, a very happy birthday. I am sure he could think of no better way to spend his birthday than to be in a debate with your Lordships.
Since I joined in 2022, one of my favourite parts of being a Member of your Lordships’ House is the fact that every week I learn something. The calibre of debate in your Lordships’ Chamber is exceptional. When I am asked about it by my friends—who do not necessarily follow our debates as much as they should, although I believe my mother now watches every one—I suggest that, at least once a month, I have the privilege of listening to my own version of a Reith lecture. That is the quality of the debate that we have in this House, from those who the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, highlighted as high impact, and from noble Lords across your Lordships’ House. It is a privilege to be part of it, and I welcomed very much that part of the debate.
I thank all noble Lords who have contributed. The debate on this topic has been valuable and insightful. I am aware that the next group of amendments looks at different ways of devising a framework for the changes that have been discussed, so I will try to keep my remarks brief and confined to the attendance requirements outlined.
From debates that we have had in the past, as well as the one we have had today, it is clear that there is broad agreement that Members should attend and participate in the core functions of this House. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Newby, highlighted, that looks very different internally and externally when it comes to quality and the demands that we may make on each other.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, for sharing his data with the Committee and the Government, particularly my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal. It has provided a structure for the conversations that we are having.
As noble Lords will be aware, there are existing measures to remove Peers who fail to attend the House once during a Session, and this Government have indicated their intention to go further in relation to requiring participation. Although this Bill is not the right vehicle to make such a change, this debate has been very helpful in examining the ways in which it might be achieved.
There is rightly a public expectation—and, having listened to the debate today, an expectation among your Lordships—about how Members should contribute. That is why we are developing a new participation requirement, a process which could include looking at the attendance of Peers. It is my hope that we can work together across your Lordships’ House to define what this new participation requirement should look like and how often Members should attend. There are genuine arguments about the quality of attendance and participation, as the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, highlighted. The range of amendments tabled on this topic and those in the next group, which considers other forms of participation, demonstrates that, although we are not at that point yet, we are focused on finding some agreement. As the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, stated in his opening remarks, not even he has a firm view.
The amendments that we are debating in this group all identify attendance as the metric through which to judge a Member’s contributions to this place. As we will see when we come to debate the group of amendments concerned with participation, attendance is not the only way in which contributions could be measured. Is a simple requirement to attend the House for a certain amount of time, as proposed in the amendments tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Blencathra and Lord Lucas, the noble Earl, Lord Devon, and the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, a reasonable measure of participation, or should we be more specific about the type of activities that need to be undertaken? I will refrain from pre-empting the later debate on this point, but this will be an important matter to consider when we look to clarify what is expected of Members of this House.
Before we consider the means by which we introduce a new participation requirement, I suggest that we should think not about the previous attendance records of the current membership, as the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, has suggested in his amendments, but about a long-term solution that is fair to Members. A priority is to ensure clarity on what the right and expected level of participation is, whether it be attendance or some more specific contribution, and to ensure that this is adhered to in the future.
Briefly, I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, for the series of amendments that he has tabled to further shape the proposals for an enhanced attendance requirement. He has made a number of sensible suggestions that should be considered when addressing the matter of participation, such as whether a Member is on an agreed leave of absence. Any work on this area will need to include reasonable exceptions, such as those identified by the noble Viscount. There is a question about the implementation of any enhanced attendance requirement: should the requirement be comprehensively set out in legislation, or should the detail be left to this House to decide and subsequently set out in our Standing Orders, as proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas?
I will briefly address the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, on the commencement of the Bill—Amendments 101E to 101G. I addressed these amendments during Monday’s debate. They would bring forward removal of the hereditary Peers to Royal Assent of this Bill, and make the noble Lord’s other amendments subject to a further resolution of the House, potentially delaying the measures indefinitely should both amendments be successful. The Government cannot support this change to the commencement of the Bill. The arrangements currently set out seek to balance the timely delivery of a manifesto commitment that promised an immediate reform, while not undermining the business of the House. As I have previously noted, they follow the approach set in the 1999 Act.
It is clear that the Committee wants to discuss this issue, and we welcome the suggestions that have been brought forward as part of that. There is positive momentum behind ensuring that there are clear expectations of Members, but this Bill is not the right vehicle to introduce this change. I therefore respectfully request that noble Lords do not press their amendments.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to every noble Lord who has taken part in this debate. Again, as with retirement ages on Monday, we might be seeing some consensus on the proposals from the noble Earl, Lord Devon, supported by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull. I will very briefly rocket through the comments of some of those who have spoken.
I take the point made by my noble friend Lord Hailsham on retrospectivity. Others made that point as well and I think it would be possibly better. Well, the House would never approve that in any case—any changes would be for the future. He also made the point that there is a danger that a threshold would cause Peers to come in to speak just to get past the threshold.
The noble Earl, Lord Devon, with his idea of 10% of sitting days in the future, may be on to a winner. Of course, the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, again supported that. It was a very good point about the Writ of Summons. It is not something that occurred to me—that the Writ of Summons would suggest that we should attend more frequently than some noble Lords do. I think my noble friend Lord Dundee also said no retrospectivity, and he also supported the 10% agreement in future.
My noble friend Lord Astor said there is a danger that it would encourage people just to turn up. And what about those brilliant young men and women, the executives, who could not afford to do 15 days per annum? I say to my noble friend that a threshold of 15 days per annum is not too high for brilliant whizz-kid young executives. If they boast about doing 18 hours a day in the City, I am sure they could manage to turn up here for 15 days per annum.
Oh—I am sorry. I should say, first and most importantly, a happy birthday to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire.
The noble Lord, Lord Newby, was highly supportive of a minimum threshold level, but I suspect that his strong support from the Lib Dems will not enamour him to my noble friends behind and around me. Nevertheless, he did say that we would need future legislation on this. I say to the noble Lord and other noble Lords: look at my Amendment 32, coming up later, because there I see that, in order to avoid future legislation, we can take a special delegated power, a regulation, to make any amendments the House decides in future without further Acts.
My noble friend Lord Strathclyde also said no retrospectivity, and I think he supported 10% as well. My noble friend Lord Trenchard suggested about 15%, so long as the House does not change its sitting hours, and that is a valid point. My noble friend Lord Hannan made a brilliant speech as usual—tremendous rhetoric—and I agree entirely with him. Having 850 Peers on the books is not a real problem, and it is not a problem if only 450 turn up regularly and the others do not come. They are not claiming any money and there is no cost to the system. But the reason we are here, I say again, is that the Government say it is a problem. The Government say there are far too many Peers. The Government want rid of Peers and their solution is to get rid of 88 hereditaries, 70 of whom do turn up. I suggest it is better, if we want to reduce the numbers, to do it through the measure I propose here.
My noble friend Lord Dobbs supports the noble Earl, Lord Devon, and says that the Government should reach out across the House to try to reach agreement. The noble Lord, Lord Sentamu, criticised having these amendments to the Bill—but, as I said at the start, it is perfectly legitimate to amend any Bill. The Government have drafted it very narrowly. They do not have to draft it narrowly; it is legitimate to amend it.
My noble friend Lord Bellingham again supported the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull. He liked the idea of excluding those who do not turn up for six months at a time, following the Local Government Bill. It is an idea to be explored. My noble friend Lord Bethell said that parliamentarians need to appreciate—he thanked me kindly for raising this concept—that it is right that Peers do turn up.
My noble friend Lady Lawlor said that the Government should seek consensus across the House. I am grateful that my noble friend Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay said he found the Excel spreadsheets useful. He made a brilliant and witty speech. But I am not quite sure what percentage he would recommend to the House. If I missed that, I am sure I will be corrected later on. He played a very careful sitting-on-the-fence game, which is an important political skill.
As for the Minister, I like her generally warm welcome for the concept of a threshold, and I think she was being very honest and sensible in saying that. Of course, she says it is not for this Bill. Again, I refer her and noble Lords to my Amendment 32, which may solve that problem.
So I am pleased to have tabled these amendments and I take credit for two things. I think my amendments have provoked and prompted better amendments from some other noble Peers, and of course the Excel spreadsheets have given us all something of substance to talk and argue about. Without those spreadsheets, we would be talking in vague generalities.
Lord Blencathra
“House of Lords participation requirement(1) Standing Orders may make provision for a member to cease to be a member of the House of Lords if they have not met a reasonable level of participation based on requirements other than attendance.(2) A peer who does not meet the level of participation required may be notified and given six months to do so before the provision set out in subsection (1) takes effect.(3) For the purposes of subsection (1), “participation” includes—(a) speaking in the Chamber and Grand Committee;(b) serving on committees of the House;(c) asking oral questions;(d) tabling written questions;(e) participating as an official delegate in international organisations;(f) any other activity which the Committee considers to be participation in the work of the House.(4) The House of Lords may appoint a committee to consider and approve revisions to the Standing Orders to give effect to subsection (1).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is intended to ensure that members who attend but then say or do little or nothing are removed from the House.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, if one thought that my last amendment was slightly controversial, it is nothing in comparison to this one. I and the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, can again say to the Leader of the House, “Neither of us is from the Government but, again, we are here to help you”. We will help to implement the Labour Party manifesto that
“we will introduce a new participation requirement”.
Part of what I propose here is simple and straightforward, but another part would be difficult and highly contentious.
The first question is: why is this necessary? We all know that there is a tiny number of Peers who, shall we say, clock in and then disappear without any participation. Even if it is only one Member or up to 10, that brings the House into disrepute. There is more than enough abuse in the media about hard-working Peers getting the £361 per day tax-free allowance, so we must root out the small number who turn up and do nothing.
The easy bit is collecting the statistics, as per the list in the amendment’s proposed new subsection (3). Thus we know exactly who has spoken in the Chamber or in Grand Committee and how often. As the Library said, statistics are also being collected for our Select Committees. We know who has asked Oral and Written Questions, and how many. We may not record those who attend and work in other committees at the moment, as they do not count for attendance. That work is also vital to the functioning of this House. It can be very time consuming, but we can easily collect the names and statistics there also.
We know who serves on international delegations such as the Council of Europe, NATO and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, and that is 23 Peers in this House. As an aside, if noble Lords will permit me, the half-allowance that we get for that work is nonsensical. The hours and threats that the noble Lords, Lord Dodds and Lord Lancaster, and I faced when we observed the elections in Georgia last November were far longer and tougher than anything we do in this place. I can also say, with all certainty, that those of us who serve in those three organisations are going to some very long and hard days in our next few meetings as we wrestle with the new security threats in Europe. All our meetings start at 08:30 and end at 20:00 and we get £15 per hour for our attendance.
That was a personal aside—now, back to my amendment. My concluding item is to include any other work that a committee would consider to be participation in the work of the House. The only area in which I differ from the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, is that I would not let any Secretary of State get his or her fingers on this. We can set this up ourselves without government help, and either call on the Procedure Committee to do it or create a new committee specifically to decide on the metrics for adequate participation. A new committee would probably be best—one that would keep this under constant review and act as an appeal body for those Peers who objected to retirement on the grounds of attendance below any threshold, and participation below any new threshold also.
That is where the contentious parts will be. It is easy to collect the statistics, but how will we decide what minimum level of participation should entitle one to continued membership of this House? This is where I am looking forward to hearing from the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, particularly on his proposed new subsection (3) on a minimum participation level and the metrics to set it. Neither of us can say today what that should be, but I can pose some of the questions that the committee would have to adjudicate on.
If a Peer did nothing save put down a few Written Questions, would that suffice? If so, how many? Would one speech per annum in the Chamber or two in the Grand Committee qualify? Would we treat participation in all committees as equal, or would we say that some were more important than others and one would have to attend two or three lesser committees to equal one attendance at a more important one, however one defined “important”?
Then there is the vexed question of effectiveness. As soon as I was elected in Penrith and The Border to succeed the great Willie Whitelaw, he said: “David, you must distinguish between activity and achievement. Many MPs run around being active but achieve very little”. Suppose that we have a Peer who has asked only one Written Question in the whole year, but it revealed some terrible scandal or made the Government change policy; or a Peer who came high up in the Private Members’ Bill ballot and his or her Bill became law and changed the lives of thousands—for the better, one hopes and assumes.
I appreciate that, the more I talk about the difficulties of a minimum participation level, the more your Lordships will conclude that it is too difficult and we should leave well alone. But that is not our normal modus operandi in this House. The Lords tackles issues which Governments and departments shy away from. Just look at our Select Committee reports. I cannot believe that a committee of all sides of this House will be unable to draw up the metrics which the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, proposes. If it says after serious deliberation that it cannot be done, that is the end of the matter. If the great and the good of this House cannot find a solution to set a minimum participation level, no one can. Of course, we need to incorporate the exceptions proposed by my noble friend Lord Hailsham. I also look forward to my noble friend Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay naming names, if he has anyone in mind.
I conclude as I began. We have a very small number of Peers failing to participate at all, or participating very infrequently, and that is bringing the House into disrepute. Fixing it is not beyond the capabilities of noble Lords. I beg to move.
Amendment 27 (to Amendment 26)
Viscount Hailsham
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, my amendment is very technical. It provides simply that the sanction should not apply if the Member has good reason for not participating.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
My Lords, I have Amendment 63 in this group. If we can help the Front Bench with musical lyrics, it is surely:
“Oh what a circus, oh what a show”.
I declare my interest as a so-called hereditary Peer. I will make two general points before I turn to the detail of my amendment.
First, as earlier speeches from right across the House have made clear, it is accepted that the hereditary principle is no longer suitable and that the suspension of by-elections should become permanent. The Bill achieves that, full stop—a piece of punctuation that seems to have taken on unparalleled significance in our debates on this Bill.
Secondly, on Monday some noble Lords stated either on their feet or in not very sotto voce sedentary mutterings that all amendments are irrelevant, because this is a single-objective Bill. While I understand that view and share the intense frustration with the speed of the debate, some of the degrouping and the gratuitous rudeness to the Leader of the House, particularly on the first day, I nevertheless understand that amendments have been put down and marshalled in the usual way. Most are probing and, while they may seek to go beyond the tight circumference of the current text of the Bill, I am not sure that they can simply be dismissed as irrelevant. Such amendments have arisen because there is a widely expressed concern that, once the expulsion of the hereditaries is done, all further reform will again grind to a halt and the House will sink quietly back into a pattern of prime ministerial patronage and ever-growing size, neither of which enhance its reputation or credibility.
My amendment does not seek to obstruct the purpose of the Bill, but it does invite the Government to take some practical steps to enable the further reform to which their manifesto commits them. Amendment 63, like some others, addresses the issue of participation, but not by prescribing in advance and in detail exactly what such reform should comprise—rather, by seeking simply to put in place a process and timeline to progress it, something that speaker after speaker has been calling for over the days of this debate. It is thus complementary to the single purpose of the Bill and could be added to it without obstructing that purpose in any way.
The focus of this amendment is participation, for the following reasons. First, it is a Member’s participation and contributions, be they aged 91 or 21, that most affect both the quality and the reputation of this House. To touch briefly on a related point of age limits, I understand the convincing argument for imposing an age limit as a matter of public perception, and a wide range of dates was suggested in the debate on Monday and examples given of very competent individuals who would be lost at each gradation. I am not against an age limit, but what the debate on Monday actually highlighted was the inability of Whips to require Members to retire when—and there is no point tiptoeing around this—participation in the work of the House has become too challenging for them. Maybe that is the problem that needs to be addressed.
Secondly, a participation requirement is a commitment that needs to be transformed from a manifesto statement to an implementable set of actions. Finally, and I apologise for introducing a personal note, it does rather sting to be dismissed en bloc but leave behind some Peers—and there is no shortage—who do not attend, or who attend, claim their allowances and then do not participate.
The amendment has three key features. First, it requires, within six months of the Bill becoming an Act, that a cross-party group be set up to consult, to define participation and to establish suitable metrics to measure it. I have been told that defining participation is too difficult. It is not. The “too difficult” mantra has been given as an excuse for far too long. No doubt a range of views will be contributed to the cross-party group, as other amendments in this group illustrate, and account should be taken of previous work in this area. This amendment embraces both those factors. We already collect most of the necessary data, but previous Governments have, I am afraid to say, simply lacked the firmness of purpose to act on it.
This brings me to the amendment’s second feature: it enables the setting up of the processes required to implement the participation requirement as a basis for continued membership. Not all aspects of the outcome will please everyone completely, but we need to move beyond the wringing of hands and the gnashing of gums in order to resolve the participation gap in a practical way.
Some time ago we had the excellent Burns report, which made recommendations that Members across the House supported, but these have not been implemented. Other speakers on Monday recited a long list of failures to implement change. We need to do better. That is why the third and final feature of this amendment is to require the Government to bring forward measures to ensure that the findings are implemented. While the amendment as drafted anticipates the Government getting a grip on this, the House might itself, if it has the powers to do so, take responsibility for setting up the group, ensuring its work is done and carrying it forward to implementation. That is certainly worthy of consideration, so long as it does not become yet another consultation that, in the best traditions of Sir Humphrey, in “Yes Minister”, simply delays and dissolves what actually needs to be done.
In conclusion, this amendment does not—and I underline this—seek in any way to thwart the single-minded purpose of the Bill. It does not prescribe how participation should be defined, quantified or implemented, but it does put in place a process and a timeframe of 20 months for reform, based on participation, once the Bill is passed. For a Government who are serious about reforming this House, it is an opportunity to address its size, effectiveness, cost and reputation—all things that most Members agree are not currently what they should be. I therefore hope that the Minister will seize on this amendment, both as a means to move forward with the Bill and to demonstrate in practical terms the Government’s absolute commitment to resolving the participation issue: not in a general, aspirational sense, or as something that, in a phrase heard earlier in the debate, “we are working on”, but with a structure and a timetable so that the House can both understand and benefit from long-overdue change. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
My Lords, like a number of noble Lords, I have sat here with Trappist vows avoiding contributions that might prolong the debate further. However, having listened to the whole of our debate on the first group, which took one hour and 10 minutes—and to the noble Lord, Lord Newby, saying in our debate on that first group that we should be careful to ensure that we try to see ourselves in the way we are viewed from outside—I think that we need to reflect on a couple of simple facts.
One is that this is a five-clause Bill. Everyone knows that no organisation is happier than when it is talking about itself. We have been demonstrating this—testing it to destruction, in fact—during our debate on this Bill so far. A simple five-clause Bill would not normally have an attendance such as this on the second day in Committee. So far, up to today, we have discussed 10 groups of amendments. There are 32 groups left to discuss, assuming that there is no further degrouping. We are averaging five groups a day per session. Members can do the maths better than I can but, at this rate of progress, we shall be debating this Bill for Committee day after Committee day.
Some of us will no doubt enjoy ourselves, as we all like talking about our own organisation and how we work, but, in relation to other matters that the Lords should be considering on the Floor of the House, to spend another six, seven, eight or more days on this Bill, as these stats suggest we will do, repeating arguments that have been heard on numerous occasions—as the right reverend Prelate pointed out, 90% of them are, we know, not directly related to the Bill, and some of them will, in any event, come forward at a later time—we really need, if we want to be seen as relevant and persuasive in the eyes of the public, to do better today than debating just five groups of amendments. Bearing in mind that I have spent precisely two minutes and 42 seconds speaking and do not intend to speak again, I hope that we will have the good sense to get through this Committee stage at a dramatically speedier rate than we have managed so far.
Lord Strathclyde (Con)
My Lords, can I just reply to the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, on what I thought was a disobliging and wholly unnecessary speech? He said that this is a five-clause Bill and does not therefore need much discussion. Well, I can remember—I expect that the noble Lord can as well—the Maastricht Bill of some years ago, which was four clauses long. The House was full every day and night, and this went on for a great deal of time. It was an important constitutional issue. This, too, is an important constitutional issue. The difference between me and the noble Lord is that he thinks this Bill is about getting rid of the hereditary Peers, while I think it is about creating a wholly appointed House, which we have never had before, with the appointments in the hands of the Prime Minister. That is why many of the amendments taken today and on previous days are so important.
There is no attempt to try to filibuster this debate. The noble Lord, Lord Grocott, cannot point to any individual who has spoken for very long. It is hardly surprising that so many of us want to get involved in this debate. I am sorry that we are not going to hear again from the noble Lord or the rest of the Labour Party, but that is their decision; perhaps they are so horrified by what the noble Lord’s Government are putting forward that they do not want to listen to it anymore. I, for one, am very happy to sit here.
Lord Swire (Con)
My Lords, I am now genuinely confused by this Bill. It seems to me that the purpose of this place, if it has any purpose, is to look at bad legislation—bad proposals—and seek to improve it. Every time we try to do that for this Bill, we are accused of filibustering. If the Government are simply not prepared to listen to anything we are saying, or to take into account any of our amendments, we are all wasting our time. I am equally confused as to what is really—
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Smith of Basildon) (Lab)
The noble Lord said that the Government accused him of filibustering. He will have heard from every Minister who has responded from this Dispatch Box that we welcome these discussions. I think the point that my noble friend made was that some contributions seem a little long, but we on the Front Bench would not accuse anybody of filibustering.
Lord Swire (Con)
I am not saying that the Front Bench has accused anyone of filibustering, but we have been accused of filibustering when we have probed the reasoning behind some of these rather strange proposals.
To be honest, I am equally confused as to whether this Bill is about reducing the numbers in this House or whether it is about getting rid of the hereditaries. We have heard that the hereditaries contribute far more than some life Peers who do not attend this House. So is the Bill about getting rid of the hereditaries or about reducing numbers? It seems to me that it is not about both.
I have a real problem with this clause. We can argue until the cows come home about what “participation” means; some of the speeches have already conflated “attendance” and “participation”. I fully endorse what my noble friend Lord Blencathra said. During my early days in this Chamber, we listened to the electric exchange between the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and the noble Lord, Lord Winston. I did not understand what they were talking about—and neither did my noble friend, so he confesses. As he said, I do not think that those in the Box understood a word of what they were talking about, and Hansard probably had to stay up overtime to work it out. It was on such a different level that only a fool would have intervened at that point. I was reminded of the adage, which has been attributed variously to Abraham Lincoln and Mark Twain, that it is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.
That makes me think about “participation” as defined in subsection (3)(a), in the new clause proposed in Amendment 26, which refers to “speaking in the Chamber”. Will we really judge noble Lords by how often they speak in the Chamber? Without naming names, we all know that, among our goodly number, there are people who pop up on every occasion to speak. Are we to judge the validity of their existence by the fact that, like Zebedee, they bounce up and ask a question on every topic? Alternatively, will we be a little bit more circumspect in how we judge noble Lords’ contributions?
I heard what my noble friend Lord Bethell said about his forebears, but that is nothing compared to John Erle-Drax, the MP for Wareham in the mid-19th century, who was known as the “Silent MP”. He made only one statement in the House of Commons: on a particularly hot evening, he inquired of the Speaker whether it might be possible to open the window just a bit. He is not recorded as ever having said anything before or since. This ought to be a question of what noble Lords say, rather than how often they say it.
The other issue I have been going on about is the quality of noble Lords’ speeches. I know that not everybody has a background in public speaking, has served in the other place or has the natural fluency and eloquence that the gods vested on my noble friend Lord Hannan. But, increasingly in the Commons—and, I am afraid, here—speaker after speaker gets up and reads out a pre-prepared statement. That is not a debate. That just means that they want to publicise what they have decided; or, worse, what they have been handed by a foundation—very often the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, I regret to say—or some PR outlet. I have sat in this Chamber and heard a speaker read out what was clearly provided to them by some kind of lobbying group, and they got their text muddled up between what “we want”, “they want” and “I want”; it was clear that they had not even previously read what they were reading out. We need to improve the quality of debate in this Chamber, and not judge people on how often they pop up and ask a question.
On
“serving on committees of the House”,
there are not enough committees for all Members to serve on. Are Members who are not fortunate enough to serve on a Select Committee going to be penalised because they do not?
On “asking oral questions”, that is perfectly good, but you do not always get in on an Oral Question session; you have to jump up and down very often, and you are lucky if your hit rate is high.
On “tabling written questions”, let us not look at the quantity of Written Questions; let us look at some of the Answers—let us try to get an Answer. I have noticed over the years that Answers are masterful in their evasiveness. They do not even attempt to answer the Question, and if the Question is too difficult, they say it is at disproportionate cost to gather the information. Why do we bother asking some of these Written Questions, particularly when they cost hundreds of pounds to the public to provide a non-Answer? But we can all do that, if we are going to be judged on asking Written Questions. We can do it remotely, lie in bed and table hundreds of Written Questions. Lo and behold, we will all be judged to be doing terribly well in terms of participation. I rather think not.
The amendment talks about
“any other activity which the Committee considers to be participation in the work of the House”.
What does that mean? That is an all-encompassing statement. What can it possibly mean? This is a terrible amendment.
We should concentrate far more on the quality of what and how we debate here, on the quality of the speeches and levels of engagement. To seek to prescribe and identify how each and every one of us—individuals here for completely different reasons—should behave in some hideous template way to be decided by a committee is not the way to improve what goes on in this place.
The Earl of Erroll (CB)
My Lords, I want to quickly say something about participation—I think back to a long time ago when I was involved in the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill. What goes into the law does not happen in here; by the time a Bill gets into Parliament, it is already set in concrete—the anchor is in the ground. If you want to see what goes into legislation, you have got to influence the thinking behind it with the Civil Service. I, and many others, certainly spent some time on that.
The statutory instruments and regulations that come out of it are the real things that affect how it works and operates. You need to talk to the civil servants behind it, before those regulations appear, because we cannot amend them or do anything about them. It was on that Bill, or perhaps another one, where we said that they had to come back with regulations within a year and that was seen as revolutionary because it almost seems beyond our powers. We did not actually turn them down and it has always been a big problem here.
How do you measure participation in the all-party groups, the discussions behind it, the influencing you have done and what comes out? It happened with that Bill, and it happened again with identity cards—there was a huge amount of work behind the scenes on that, and on the Digital Economy Act, Part 3, and all the age verification stuff—I chaired the British standard on that. The Government had something which they totally ignored, but it has become an international standard. There is all the stuff we do which may not be on the Floor of the House, because, in general, it is too late by the time it gets to the Floor. You have to get to the people who are writing the stuff before it gets here, and that means participation in other groups, such as the all-party groups and other influential ones, which you do not have recorded.
I do a lot with entrepreneurship—in fact, I am on X today, encouraging MPs to support entrepreneurship in their local areas. There is a huge amount of other parliamentary stuff and influence you can do. How on earth do you measure that? Maybe you say that the only thing that counts is talking on this Floor. For many, it is the last thing that counts.
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, I remind the Committee that I intend to retire in the spring and would need a great deal of persuading not to do so.
I did not speak to the previous amendment. I had speaking notes, but I chose not to make a speech because I did not need to. I do use notes; I use them to regulate how long I speak and, actually, in my notes I have cut out several paragraphs because it was not necessary to use them. This is largely a presentation issue, and I agree with what my noble friend Lord Hannan said, but I would very strongly counsel against making any changes, especially strategy ones, because to do so could have perverse effects.
However, we are all grateful to the Guardian for its research, for pointing out that some Peers have been claiming large amounts of allowances while making little or no contribution to the work of your Lordships’ House. It will be obvious to the Committee that it is not just activity in the Chamber that should count as participation. The noble Earl, Lord Erroll, made that point. However, it is what the public are encouraged to think. Some Peers are not so good in the Chamber but are invaluable in Select Committees.
Earl Attlee (Con)
I was delighted to plan to stay overnight in Ipswich; what happened was that the abnormal load movement got cancelled, but I was still faced with the cost of the hotel, and I could not get the cost of the hotel from the heavy haulage company because of the risk of falling foul of the paid advocacy rules.
I did all this activity at my own expense and, save for one day, was not able to claim allowances. This is not unusual. Other noble Lords will be engaged in similar activity which would not be detectable as participation. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, that there could be some mechanism for measuring such activity; possibly at the end of the Session we might be required to say how much money we have claimed in allowances and what we have actually done.
We have already experimented with a participation test during Covid. Noble Lords will recall that we paid ourselves allowances only when we made a contribution. On one occasion we were debating an order that concerned vehicle testing and inspection. I thought that I was the House’s only subject matter expert. Imagine my surprise when I found that not only was the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, the country’s top psephologist but he had expertise on vehicle maintenance and inspection. Leg-pulling apart, we need to be careful to avoid creating perverse incentives to participate when it is unnecessary.
Finally, some Peers have quite low contribution rates but, nevertheless, I have found their private counsel to be invaluable. The noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, talked about low-frequency, high-impact contributions. One has only to think of the contributions of the noble Lord, Lord Owen.
Lord Desai (CB)
My Lords, there are many dimensions in which participation can be measured. We have two problems. As the noble Lord, Lord Swire, said, we do not know the quality of the participation but we know the quantity. These different dimensions are sort of related.
I was a statistician all my life—not a good one, but I was one. There are techniques to combine those dimensions in one single measure, and I urge the Government and the people in charge to use them. It is called principal component analysis—noble Lords can ask me, and I can find out more about it for them. That will give you a more or less objective way of measuring different people’s performance across a number of dimensions. This has been done many times; it is reliable. There is no doubt that quality is difficult to measure, but quantity can be measured, and I urge the decision-makers to use this to be able to sort out who is in and who is out. That would be helpful.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, given the comments of the noble Lords, Lord Grocott and Lord Swire, I will keep my comments short. Although I am reading from a piece of paper, I am reading from my scribbles, not a full text. I hope that is all right. I co-signed Amendment 26 from the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra. I do not think he needed any real encouragement, but I think it is very sensible. In fact, Amendment 63 from the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, has real value. If he took that to a vote, I would probably support it. I absolutely hate Amendment 28 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay. It might as well say, in brackets afterwards, “Kick the Greens out”.
I suggest that we could have got around this debate—all these days, hours and repetitions. We could have just made all the hereditaries life Peers, which would have removed all this. I understand that there is an issue about kicking them out but, personally, I think we will miss them. Making them all life Peers would have just shut them up, and we would be free to go and have an early supper.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
The rest of us are not blessed with the eloquence and wit that the noble Lord, Lord Swire, feels he has, but I think he has missed the point of my amendment and that, as a Committee, we are now trying to do all the detail on the Floor of the House. That is impossible. My amendment tries to establish that after this Bill a system is put in place to define these issues, to which we can all contribute usefully and sensibly—or foolishly, as we wish. That is the way to take this forward, not putting it into the Bill in detail. We need a system for the Government to show a bit of an ankle here and show us that they are really going to do this by putting this amendment into the Bill, not trying to work out the minutiae of percentages here. That is completely pointless.
Lord Lucas (Con)
I have Amendment 40 in this group. I find myself very much in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, which is a travesty of history. My route forward would be by Amendment 32, because I think it leaves the initiative much more with this House than with the Government. I would say, if the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu, were in his place, that St Matthew recorded some excellent advice about getting to grips with your adversary as soon as possible as the best way to deal with something. I think it is rather more likely that the next four and a half years will see the second coming of our Lord than a second Bill on the House of Lords, so to have something like Amendment 32 would be a great advantage.
The thing that unites us all is a determination to improve the way this House serves the public. There are many aspects in which we can work on this. The amendments we have in front of us are restricted by the nature of the Bill, but I absolutely think that this is the right moment to bring them forward and discuss them.
In my years in the House, I can remember one occasion when a Starred Question made a difference to government policy, which was when the Government were asked what their plans were to celebrate the 50th anniversary of El Alamein, in 1992. The answer was, “There are no such plans; it is the Germans’ turn to celebrate anniversaries this year”. With a House full of veterans, that led to a fairly rapid reverse of policy. I cannot recall one since. Much as we enjoy Questions, I think we should be much more critical about whether what we are doing actually has a function. I believe we should commission outside research, be self-critical, try to self-improve as a House and find ways of doing better.
When it comes to looking at our expectations of participation, I very much understand what the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, and my noble friend Lord Attlee were saying. There are many ways in which this happens. The form in proposed new Section 2A(1) in my amendment, asking people to sign a declaration to, as it were, say on their honour that they are participating fully in the business of the House, may be a good way forward. What the noble Lord, Lord Desai, suggests as a way of measuring that is certainly something to explore. We could also explore following the advice of Elon Musk and each week writing a postcard to the leader of our groups naming five achievements. I think that would put some of us on the spot.
In thinking about the worthwhile work this House does, we should focus on committees in all their various forms. That is where I have seen most value delivered and, in terms of what my noble friend Lord Norton says about fitting our membership to our function, that is very much the direction in which we should be trying to go.
The Earl of Dundee (Con)
My Lords, as has been said by practically everybody, participation statistics—such as simply the numbers of annual interventions by any Peer, without enough reference to the contents, let alone to the parliamentary usefulness and quality of those interventions—are thoroughly misleading.
At the same time, adjudications should obviously take into account how a Peer may have contributed in the usual ways through speeches, Written Questions, committee work, voting and so on.
Your Lordships may agree with what I think has emerged very clearly from this debate: rather than going only by participation numbers, a far clearer picture would emerge from assessments made by a cross-party commission set up for this purpose, as proposed in Amendment 63, and just now so eloquently explained and spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, I support the adoption of a participation requirement as provided for in Amendment 26. Standing Orders should be drawn up to set a minimum participation level but should take account of the fact that some noble Lords who seldom speak exert a considerable degree of influence, whereas other noble Lords who speak often and at length may exert rather less influence. Perhaps my noble friend Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay had this in mind when he tabled his Amendment 28, which I look forward to hearing him speak to. It is important that the committee appointed to consider and approve provisions should consider this fact.
I also support Amendment 40 in the name of my noble friend Lord Lucas, which seeks to do the same thing and provides for the House to provide an exemption from compulsory retirement in cases where there are good reasons why a noble Lord may have failed to live up to the declaration of intent that he or she signed at the start of each Session of Parliament. Perhaps the declaration of intent could be combined with the Code of Conduct so as not to lengthen the time required for oath-taking, which is already rather time consuming.
Amendment 63 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, is just another way of ensuring that noble Lords must achieve a minimum participation level to justify retaining their seats in your Lordships’ House. It seeks to establish a cross-party commission to make recommendations and ultimately, after 18 months, would require the Secretary of State to introduce a Bill to put the minimum participation level on a statutory footing. This has both advantages and disadvantages; it would be difficult and would require further legislation to make any changes to participation levels. The amendment is also silent on any provision for exceptions to compulsory retirement being possible in cases where the House considers that a noble Lord should be spared eviction.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, before the birthday boy, the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, begins to wind up for the Front Benches, I will speak very briefly to my Amendment 28, which seeks to provide for a maximum participation threshold, as well as a minimum. I do so with the humility and self-awareness of one who is speaking on the Bill from both the Front Benches and the Back Benches.
My amendment is an important flip side to the debate and there are some salutary examples from what happened in another place. A few years ago, there was the invention of a number of websites and journalistic tools, such as TheyWorkForYou, which track the participation levels of Members of Parliament in the House of Commons. That encouraged some to game the system by making lots of short speeches or interrupting others with great frequency, preferring quantity over quality.
There is value in restraint. I was struck by what the noble Lord, Lord Desai, said about what we can learn from academic theory. The Swiss-American psychologist and pioneer of organisational development, Edgar Schein, set out the concept of humble inquiry. He said that those in public life or leadership positions should ask themselves three questions before making a speech. Does it need to be said? If so, does it need to be said by me? If so, does it need to be said by me now? I should say that I was put on to the work of Professor Schein by one of our more taciturn and thoughtful colleagues in your Lordships’ House.
I have often suspected that, if one looked at the top 10% of speakers and the bottom 10%, it would serve as an interesting competition about those who one would rather hear from. I asked the Library to crunch the numbers for me relating to the last Session. It is not as large or interesting reading as the now famous spreadsheets of my noble friend Lord Blencathra, but it certainly reveals some interesting points.
I am sure we can all guess some of the names that appear in the top 10%, so I will not name names, other than to confirm to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, that the Green Party is the group from which we hear most frequently. We have the pleasure of hearing from the noble Baroness on 68% of the days that she can speak. Personally, I find the other 32% of days to be days of great sadness.
All of us who miss our late noble friend Lord Cormack will be impressed to hear that he still made it into the top 5% of speakers, even though he was sadly taken from us before the end of that Session.
By contrast, 106 noble Lords spoke on only 1% of the days that they could have done. If one glances down that list, which is available from the Library, one sees many examples of what the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, has rightly described as low-frequency, high-impact Members. One sees the names of three former Cabinet Secretaries, a former Governor of the Bank of England, former Leaders of your Lordships’ House from both sides of the House, a director-general of the Security Service rendered quiet by his service in the Royal Household as Lord Chamberlain, and fellows, and indeed the next president, of the British Academy. I see some of them in their places today—I see them in their places frequently—and I am glad that they are using their brains more than they are using their mouths.
I agree with what my noble friend Lord Swire said about the dangers of debate that just repeats verbatim the briefings we are given from lobby groups. I agree with what the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, says about the many other valuable ways that Members of your Lordships’ House can influence the way that we are governed in this country. With that, I shall take my own advice and shut up.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, beneath the wide-ranging and sometimes unfocused discussion we have had on these amendments, there is a degree of limited consensus that we should build on. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, shows us the way we should go. I hope that between Committee and Report, we will have a number of discussions, off the Floor, about where we go from here that will build on that limited consensus. I hope that the Government will consider accepting a limited number of amendments, which would show us the direction in which we go further, as well as committing to make some clear statements about how they would see further developments.
On the questions of attendance, participation and retirement, I agree strongly with my noble friend Lord Newby that some of this can be done through Standing Orders and agreements of the House and does not require legislation. That is part of the way that we may go forward.
I suggest that we all know pretty well what we mean by a minimum level of attendance and participation, and can name quietly, but we will not, some of the people who fail to fulfil it. I recall some years ago being invited to an office in the City of London to brief the CEO of a rather major operation on how to make a maiden speech. He had been a Member of the House for almost a year and I do not think that he had attended more than two or three times. He did not understand the House and he felt that he ought to make a maiden speech. That is clearly below the level of attendance and commitment.
This is a Parliament in which we are supposed to parley with each other—to exchange ideas, to listen and to learn. I have learned a lot through taking part in Bill Committees. I look at the noble Lord, Lord Vaux of Harrowden, and I remember the Procurement Bill, which we worked through in the previous Session. It was not my area of expertise, but I learned a great deal from him and from a number of other participants. We are here to examine in detail proposals that the Government make and to discuss difficult issues that the Government sometimes do not want to grapple with. That requires a minimum level of attendance and interaction between us. That is part of what we are here for.
Having said that, I hope that we will now be able in the rest of this evening to get through several more amendments, much more rapidly. I hope that the Government will think about what assurances they need to give us in order that we can make greater speed on Report. We should never forget that how this House is seen from the outside is something that we all need to be conscious of. The size of our House and those who come in for just 20 minutes and go out again are an embarrassment, and are picked up by the media. Honours and obligations need to be balanced. A later amendment suggests that we should be moving towards separating honours from the obligation to attend and participate, but these are all questions for the longer term. Dividing what we think this Bill can achieve from what we need to commit ourselves to discuss for the future is part of what we need to discuss between Committee and Report. I hope that this amendment will be withdrawn, but we should bear in mind that the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, is offering us a very useful way forward.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all those who have spoken—sorry, I am forgetting that I am not a Minister anymore; that is what the noble Baroness says. This debate has generally conformed to the good-natured debates that we have been having. I am very grateful to the Front Bench opposite and to others that that has been the case.
If I may say so, I was disappointed by the intervention by the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, which slightly changed the atmosphere for a time. The noble Lord and I were good comrades, he will recall, in the Brexit years, when he and I were among the very few people in the House who thought that we should do what the British people had voted for. There were times then when I felt, and I am sure he felt very often, that the House did not really want to hear from us again on the subject. I beg him to understand that we are facing a situation where many of our colleagues are threatened with leaving this House, and it does not help if they are told that they should not be heard from again. We will never be able to hear from them again. I have to say that the noble Lord has never been known not to repeat arguments on the House of Lords that he has put before—I have heard them many times. I shall break the rules of the House and say, “Come on, Bruce, let’s put our smiles on again”.
This has been a good debate. Again, many noble Lords have said, quite correctly—the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, made this point in a measured and sensible way—that it is important that we should understand the direction the Government are going in, and it is perfectly legitimate that House of Lords, faced with a Bill to reform and change the House of Lords, should express views about the future of the House of Lords. Let us recall that this question of participation is not a subject that has been dreamt up by some deviant Back-Bencher to put before your Lordships’ House; it was put before us in the Labour manifesto, so of course we should look at it.
When I hear these debates, it seems there is a widespread feeling in our House that there is a strong case in equity, and in the interests of the whole House, for finding some way towards a transition that allows many of the best of us who are threatened with expulsion to remain. I also believe there is an equally widespread feeling across the House that we should not continue to protect those who never come here, while working to throw out people who do contribute.
The question on participation is, how do we define it? It goes far further than attendance, and this debate has illustrated that. The Government surely must have had a view on this when they put the Bill in the manifesto, but there are many ways in which we can measure participation, and these have been brought out in the debate. I could cite those who serve as Government and Opposition spokesmen, Deputy Speakers or indeed Convenors of the Cross Benches—they are vital to the operation and functioning of your Lordships’ House. Hereditary Peers currently make up 27% of our Opposition Front Bench, 21% of Deputy Speakers and 100% of the Convenors of your Lordships’ Cross Benches. I say these things because I believe that noble Lords who are already with us—all of us, not just the hereditary Peers—should be judged, if we are to be judged at all, on our participation and contribution to your Lordships’ House, and not on any of our identities or characteristics.
I acknowledge how difficult it is, potentially, to define participation, and this has come out in the debate. There are many ways that noble Lords contribute to the House, and my noble friend Lord Blencathra, in his repeated brilliant speeches, keeps bringing up so many of them. Noble Lords can make legislation, propose amendments to Bills, participate in Divisions, ask Oral and Written Questions, contribute to committees, participate in debates, serve as Opposition spokesmen and even take part in international work, as my noble friend pointed out. They can also make use of their expertise and experience—as have several noble Lords who have spoken in this debate—to contribute in myriad ways to the work of this House and the progress of our nation behind the scenes. The noble Earl, Lord Erroll, and my noble friend Lord Attlee spoke to those points eloquently. One Peer, who was recently attacked in the media for not speaking enough, has been a diligent, active and hugely valued member of your Lordships’ committees for decades.
My noble friend Lord Lucas focused on a broad definition of committee work in his Amendment 40. This is extended to participation in all Bill stages, Questions and Statements by my noble friend Lord Hailsham’s Amendment 42, but as I and this debate have illustrated, the participation net could be cast even wider. My noble friend Lord Blencathra suggested a practical solution in his Amendment 26, which sets out some initial suggestions but would otherwise allow for a participation requirement to be determined flexibly through Standing Orders and a committee of the House.
I will come to the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, in a moment, but the more we can do in this House—this is no disrespect to the Minister; I would have said it of my own Government—and the less we can leave to Secretaries of State in the House of Commons, the happier I will be. There is great wisdom in this House, and the more we can reach solutions here through the kind of consultations the Minister is initiating, the better.
In his Amendment 63, the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, has not sought to pre-empt the definition of “participation” or, in fact, the level at which it would be required. But he proposed a structure to make and implement decisions that would need to be made. Given the broad range of views that we have discussed today and our need to reach consensus, while avoiding any unintended consequences, I—like the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire—consider the content of the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, to be a sensible basis for progress. However, I repeat that I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Newby, and my noble friend Lord Blencathra that it would best to keep the House of Commons out of it as far as we can.
The Attorney-General (Lord Hermer) (Lab)
I thank all noble Lords for their amendments and for the thoughtful and good-faith contributions that have marked this debate. The amendments in this group share a great deal of commonality with those in the last group: all of them, in their essence, seek to expand the purpose of the Bill to introduce a participation requirement, attendance being just one aspect of participation.
This debate demonstrates that there is a very considerable measure of agreement that there should be an obligation on Members of your Lordships’ House to participate in our proceedings; that we should arrive at settled metrics to assess the adequacy of participation; and that, absent very good and legitimate reason, a failure to meet the recognised standards should be deemed incompatible with continued membership of the House. There, however, the considerable agreement, if not consensus, ends.
As the amendments and the debate have demonstrated, there is as yet no measure of agreement on what the requisite participation levels—the metrics—should be. As all noble Lords know, participation in this House can take many different forms, but specifying which metrics should be applied to requisite participation is a complicated and nuanced matter. Participation, and specifying responsibilities so as to capture genuine and active work in the House in a way that can be measured in practice, will require further discussion and thought.
For instance, is a simple requirement to attend the House for a certain amount of time, as suggested in the amendments that we considered in the previous group, a reasonable measure of participation, or should we be more specific about the types of activity that need to be undertaken, as suggested in the amendments that we are now considering? If more specificity is desired, is it spoken contributions that should count, or votes in Divisions? Likewise, tabling amendments is a fundamental part of the work of this House, as is the valuable contribution made through Select Committees. Whether any one vote counts as participation, or a single Written Question should have the same weight as an afternoon chairing a Select Committee, are all nuanced questions and issues that will need to be considered.
On top of the identification of the metrics, there is an additional important question about how we implement those metrics. Should the requirements be set out comprehensively in legislation, or should the details be left to this House to decide and set out in Standing Orders, as suggested by the amendments tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Blencathra and Lord Lucas. This throws up numerous problems. On the previous group, the noble Lord, Lord Newby, touched on why legislation might be thought on the one hand to be preferable vehicle for the certainty and solidity that it gives, but may create all sorts of unintended consequences that the noble Lord set out.
In the Government’s view, these questions serve to underline the utility in our intent for the current Bill to remain focused on the single issue of hereditary peerages, leaving the important—I stress “important”—issue of participation levels to be the subject of further consultation and discussion with all your Lordships, not least to see whether a general consensus can be found. It is the Government’s hope that we can work together across this House to define what this new participation requirement would look like. As I have said, although we are grateful for this discussion and for your Lordships’ focus on this issue in this group of amendments, the very range of the amendments and scope of the debate that we have had demonstrate that we are not at a point where consensus has been reached and that further work and discussion are required.
Turning to the particular amendments, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, for his amendment, which seeks to impose a maximum participation threshold. In listening to the noble Lord’s contribution, I assume that the amendment seeks to ensure that minimum participation levels do not have an adverse impact on the operation of this House or incentivise participation for participation’s sake. The Government agree that care will need to be taken when we come to discuss what participation levels look like. It is one factor that will go into the pot as we try to calibrate what requisite participation will look like through discussion—or, indeed, potentially through the algorithm suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Desai.
The amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, seeks to impose an obligation on the Government to establish the cross-party Lords commission which, within six months, would set out recommendations requiring the Government, within a further six months, to adopt those recommendations in a draft Bill. I thank the noble Lord for his engagement on this matter, the thought that he has given to it and the spirit in which it is adopted. In his speech, he said that the purpose of his amendment was to get the Government to show a little ankle as to where we were. I am anticipating that that was metaphorical, not literal and I hope that I can reassure him and this House that the Government are committed, once this Bill has passed, to moving forward, hopefully through consensus, to push to the next level of reform, at which participation will be key.
However, I hope the noble Lord will also understand that we cannot support his amendment, even as we work together collegiately on that issue, for two reasons. First, the Government do not believe that it is necessary or helpful to prescribe on a statutory basis the mechanism by which a proposal for participation requirement is identified. Secondly, the final aspect of the amendment would oblige the Government to publish a draft Bill implementing the recommendations of the commission. We fully intend to work with your Lordships across the House and are committed to finding solutions that have the support of this House, but binding the Government to the recommendations of a commission that is not yet established is not an appropriate way to proceed.
Amendment 26, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, seeks to create the participation requirement that is now based on metrics other than attendance and allow for removal of Members who have not met a reasonable level of participation. The amendment seeks to appoint a committee to approve the relevant standing changes. I thank the noble Lord for his amendment. As I said in response to the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, the Government are committed to working collaboratively on the issue. I also thank the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, for the series of amendments that he has tabled to further shape the proposals for the participation requirement. He has made a number of very sensible suggestions that must form part of any further discussions on participation. They will need to take account of the sensible points raised by the noble Lord.
These are all significant and nuanced questions across the range of amendments, to which thought will need to be given carefully and collaboratively. The Government will welcome that discussion. As many noble Lords will know, my noble friend the Leader of the House has already engaged in over 60 discussions with your Lordships, trying to fashion and develop how we move forward after this Bill. Channelling the spirit of the debate, I respectfully request that noble Lords do not press their amendments.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, once again we have had a fascinating debate. The Government may not have wished us to discuss this and to take an hour to do so, but noble Lords on all sides of the House have welcomed the chance to raise this important point. As I said at the beginning, like it or not, a tiny number of Peers come into this place for only a few minutes each day—then they disappear. That is quite a different matter from those who come here and participate at some level in discussion, including on a committee.
I do like Amendment 63, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell. He made the point that, if we do not tackle this now, we never will. Both our amendments call for this special committee to be set up, which will come up with metrics and decide on a level of participation. My noble friend Lord Strathclyde was right to say that this is an important constitutional matter and that it is right to discuss it now.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
—we would never dream of kicking her out of this place. She was absolutely right to say that all hereditary Peers should be given a life peerage. That would kill this nonsense stone dead.
My noble friend Lord Lucas has proposed an excellent amendment. As he said, we are all engaged here in trying to improve the effectiveness of the House. Asking new Peers to make a commitment for the future has merit, but we still have the genuine problem of the handful of Peers who come here, clock in and do nothing. I say again to my noble friend Lord Swire that I am not suggesting measuring the quality of speeches. If Peers are making speeches, then they are participating in the work of the House. The quality of their speeches is not something to be measured by this committee. My noble friend Lord Trenchard also supports participation level, but I would say to him that legislation is not necessary if we accept Amendment 32 when we come to it later.
As I am leading on all six groups of amendments today, I fear I have fallen foul of my noble friend Lord Parkinson’s exhortation not to speak too much. He quoted an incident that occurred years ago in the Commons, when I was a junior Whip and the marvellous Harold Walker was Speaker in the Chair. We were in government, and we had an agreement with the Opposition on a two-minute time limit for speeches on Commons consideration of Lords amendments. We were rocketing through our consideration of Lords amendments to yet another criminal justice Bill. We were getting on fine until our friend Sir Ivan Lawrence QC —I am not naming names, this is in Hansard—got up and said, “Everything that could possibly have been said on this Bill has been said, but not by those of us qualified to do so”. He spoke for 20 minutes, and the Labour Chief Whip said, “That’s it—the deal’s off!” We spent another two hours in Committee.
The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, whom I congratulate on his birthday, showed support for the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, and a minimum level of participation. He also criticised those who, as he said, turn up for 20 minutes and then leave. I think those were my exact words, too, and we did not collaborate on that.
My noble friend Lord True, speaking from the Opposition Front Bench, said that it is legitimate to discuss these issues, which were in the manifesto. He said that there is a widespread view in the House that we have to do something about the problem of those who do not participate. Peers contribute in myriad ways. The committee that the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, and I are suggesting setting up would take those myriad ways into account before establishing a minimum.
The noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General said that agreement on doing something, having a metric and removing those who fall short of that level is important and that we should do something about it, but we are not setting it up here. All we are asking for is a committee to decide on the detail. The noble and learned Lord was justifying not doing anything because, he said, there were too many nuances. Of course there are nuances, dozens of them—there are hundreds of things to be taken into account—and that is the purpose of the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell. If we pass his amendment and set up the committee, it will do the consultation on all sides and spend a year or two figuring out the details.
I say to the noble and learned Lord that he reminded me of that wonderful “Yes Minister” attitude, where Sir Humphrey says, “Yes, Minister, that is a very good idea. We will set up an interdepartmental working group and consult the Cabinet committees and this, that and the other. Then we will publish a Green Paper first and then a White Paper. I am sure that we will be able to deliver on your promise—eventually”.
In conclusion, there is a mood in the House to take this participation problem seriously. Most noble Lords favour the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell. He stressed that some noble Lords were fussing about the details. He suggests that could be done by the committee.
Lord Blencathra
“Removal of peers with a criminal convictionAny peer convicted of a criminal offence on indictment ceases to be a member of the House of Lords within seven days of the conviction, or the loss of appeal if the peer appeals the conviction.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment intends to ensure that peers who have committed a serious offence are removed from the House, using an indictable offence to provide a clear threshold.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I am sure noble Lords will be relieved to hear that my speech will be much shorter on this occasion. I leave it to my noble and learned friends and other noble Lords to suggest improvements to my amendment.
Again, my starting point is the Labour Party manifesto. It said:
“Labour will ensure all Peers meet the high standards that 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”.
The term “disgraced” is a bit vague. If we get into the business of removing Peers who have disgraced themselves, there will be quite a few, depending on how we judge the subjective word “disgraced”. It is safer to stick with those who have brought the House into disrepute and have committed a crime which has resulted in a prison sentence. My suggestion is that the prison sentence which triggers expulsion should be reduced from 12 months to six. My noble friend Lord Hailsham is right that his amendment would rectify my sloppy and imprecise legal wording. I hope noble Lords will agree that, however it is properly and legally phrased, the term should be reduced to six months from 12.
There are a number of related issues that the Committee needs to tackle. Suppose a Peer is convicted of drunk-driving and gets a three-month prison sentence and a 12-month driving ban—any drunk driver is a potential killer—should we not suspend him or her from the House for the same period as the driving ban, for example? We have a problem—some Peers, two I believe, who have served time in prison are still here because we did not have the expulsion power when they were convicted. Another defrauded the House of over £120,000 —the largest ever expenses scandal—but was never charged with a crime. We need to use the legislative power to retrospectively deal with those disgraced Peers.
No matter how heinous the crime might be, right up to the level you get when applying for a visa for the United States—“Have you ever waged thermonuclear war against the United States?”—if a Peer was instantly expelled and could never enter the House again, their title, Lord, still remains. In those rare cases, I suggest the title must be removed.
A peerage can be removed only by an Act of Parliament. The most recent Act that did that was the Titles Deprivation Act 1917, which I am sure is on the tip of your Lordships’ tongues. It was used to remove peerages from enemies of the UK during the First World War. Specifically, Section 1 introduced powers to remove a peerage from anyone who had
“during the present war, borne arms against His Majesty or His Allies, or who have adhered to His Majesty’s enemies”.
The Act meant that any Peers suspected of assisting the enemy could be investigated by a committee of the Privy Council, which would then lay a report to both Houses of Parliament for 40 days. If this period elapsed without either House tabling a Motion disapproving the report, the report would be taken as final and presented to the monarch. The Peer would then be struck off the peerage roll and would have all rights to receive a Writ of Summons and sit in the House of Lords removed. The Act took away four titles. Three of them—the Dukes of Cumberland, Albany and Brunswick —were high-ranking German noblemen and their peerages came from Victoria. The fourth, Viscount Taaffe, an Irish title, was serving in the Austrian army.
It would be a simple matter to have a new Act of Parliament replicating that, called the “Titles Deprivation Act”, for serious criminal offences, implementing exactly the same procedure of a committee of Privy Counsellors of both Houses deciding whether or not a title should be removed because of the severity of the crime committed by the Peer. Of course these issues are not in the Bill, and I am not asking that they should be, but I cannot think of any other opportunity I would have, this year or in the next few years, to raise that little issue, which I believe should be addressed by Parliament in the future to remove disgraced Peers. I beg to move.
Amendment 30 (to Amendment 29)
Viscount Hailsham
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, I think the Committee would agree that disqualification from membership of this House should follow only a serious conviction. My suggestion is that a better indicator of the gravity of the conviction lies in the sentence rather than simply in the fact of conviction. That is why I have tabled an amendment whereby disqualification should follow the imposition of an immediate custodial sentence or a suspended sentence of at least six months. I suggest that that is a better mark of the gravity of the offence than simply the fact of a conviction, albeit on indictment.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I want to make sure that in this debate we do not forget the case of our late noble friend, Lord Montague of Beaulieu, who was imprisoned for 12 months for homosexual acts and would have fallen foul of my noble friend’s amendment, even as amended by my noble friend Lord Hailsham. He was charged under the same Act of Parliament as Oscar Wilde and many other gay men. The Montague case of 1954 gave direct rise to the Wolfenden report of 1957 and the decriminalisation of homosexuality 10 years later—a campaign led in your Lordships’ House, incidentally, by a Conservative hereditary Peer, the eighth Earl Arran, following the sad suicide of his brother.
On his release from prison, Lord Montague of Beaulieu returned to your Lordships’ House and remained an active and greatly esteemed Member, as well as highly engaged in civic life. He chaired the Historic Houses Association and English Heritage. He was elected to remain in your Lordships’ House in 1999 and announced his plans to retire only in 2015, the year that he died. So, while I agree with the sentiment that lawmakers should not be lawbreakers, it is important to remember that what constitutes a criminal offence is a question for legislation, and I for one am glad that the late Lord Montague was able to remain a legislator.
Lord Hacking (Lab)
I would like to add to what the noble Lord has just said. Some 53 years ago, when I first entered the House, there was a Cross-Bencher who had been convicted and served his penal sentence. I have forgotten where it was. He was greatly respected and was treated as an expert in your Lordships’ House on penal matters.
Lord Keen of Elie (Con)
I am obliged to the noble Lord. I am not able to claim that same degree of expertise.
In speaking to these amendments, I fully understand what lies behind them: a desire to ensure that those who serve in this legislature exhibit the standards of integrity and character that the public would surely demand of them. My concern is that the amendments are perhaps too narrowly focused. We already have a means, since the 2015 Act, of dealing, by way of the Conduct Committee, with recommendations for expulsion or suspension. That broad remit seems to me a more equitable and sensible means of addressing these issues.
I give but a few examples. In the past few years, at least one of your Lordships was convicted of a serious offence in the United States of America. He was sentenced to three and a half years in prison. Would that sentence be attached by the proposed amendments? It would be necessary to extend the amendments to sentences imposed by courts not just within but outwith the United Kingdom. What if a noble Lord was charged with an offence in the Russian Federation on highly dubious grounds and was convicted and sentenced to a number of years in prison? How would we deal with that issue if we had extended these provisions to sentences imposed by courts outwith the United Kingdom?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, this has been a short but interesting and thoughtful debate on the amendments trying to probe these issues. The comments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, on how the House can deal with this matter were very helpful.
Currently, as the noble and learned Lord said, under the House of Lords Reform Act 2014, a Member of this House automatically ceases to be a Member if they are convicted of a serious offence—that is, if they are given a non-suspended prison sentence of more than a year. We have already heard about the House of Lords (Expulsion and Suspension) Act 2015; the Standing Orders of this House and the Code of Conduct deal with that very clearly. If a Member receives a prison sentence—of any length and regardless of what the sentence is—that is deemed to be a breach of the code.
There has been a general view across the House about having some strengthening of their roles but, as the noble and learned Lord has said, a number of factors have to be considered in the round. For example, would it be right automatically to expel a Member if the Crown Court considers that the offence is not sufficiently serious to warrant a custodial sentence? Are there particular offences that the House may consider should be treated more seriously, or as being incompatible with membership of your Lordships’ House and warrant automatic expulsion?
Noble Lords also raised the question of somebody being prosecuted overseas. As well as what we might determine malicious or political prosecutions, somebody could be prosecuted overseas for something that is not an offence in this country. Further debate is needed on how we can strengthen the rules. Another factor that I will take into account is the rules across both Houses. It was interesting that the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, set the threshold in his amendment lower than the recall conditions for Members of Parliament, but the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, set it higher. Some consistency across Parliament would be helpful.
The noble Lord also raised a very interesting point about the removal of peerage. I am sure I am not the only noble Lord to have heard this point—the noble Lord, Lord True, may have had similar correspondence: if somebody has been stripped of another honour, why do they remain a Peer? In fact, that has nothing to do with the membership of the House of Lords. Someone can retain a peerage. That is not a matter for this House, but I think that those comments should be taken on board as well.
That indicates that we would be willing and happy to maintain an ongoing dialogue on this particular matter—
Lord Blencathra (Con)
The manifesto mentioned “disgraced” Peers. I know that the noble Baroness may be consulting on this, but can she indicate what she means by “disgraced” Peers? Is it only those who have committed serious criminal offences?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
It is hard to look at this without looking at criminal offences, but if noble Lords have other examples they would wish us to consider, we would be happy to do so. Ultimately, these are matters for the Code of Conduct and further dialogue, so I respectfully request that noble Lords do not press their amendments.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, we have spent 15 minutes on this, so I hope we will not be accused of filibustering in this small but rather important debate. I take on board the complexities that my noble and learned friend Lord Keen of Elie and the Minister have described. Nevertheless, it has been a worthwhile debate.
There has been a surprising amount of consensus over the deprivation of titles. If one can take away a knighthood, it should be possible, in very controlled circumstances, to take away the title of Peer. It is a matter for this House in conjunction with the Commons, because the Titles Deprivation Act 1917 said that a Joint Committee of privy counsellors from both Houses should look at peerages and decide who had aided the enemy. If we had removal for serious offences, however we determine “serious”, again, it would be determined by a committee of privy counsellors from both Houses. And it would not be automatic; we would not be looking back at someone like Lord Montague and automatically doing it. The committee would determine whether the seriousness of the offence, whether in the last few years or further back, was worth taking forward. It would not be an automatic removal of title.
Lord Blencathra
“Legislating for changes to the composition of the House of Lords(1) Where a resolution of the House of Lords establishes or changes—(a) the age at which peers must retire,(b) a minimum attendance requirement,(c) a participation requirement, or(d) a type of criminal conviction which results in expulsion from the House,a relevant Minister must, within 12 months, take the action set out in subsection (2).(2) Where a resolution is passed by the House of Lords in accordance with subsection (1) (a “relevant resolution”), a relevant Minister must, by regulations made by statutory instrument, amend this Act in order to translate the relevant resolution into statute.(3) The regulations must use the wording of the relevant resolution, without any alteration.(4) The relevant Ministers are the Leader of the House of Lords and the Leader of the House of Commons, by whatever titles they are then known.(5) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to establish changes regarding the composition of the House in law, while allowing the House flexibility to change them.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I consider this amendment quite important and a solution to many of the problems that have been posed by noble Lords on Monday and today; that is, that we may want to change things in the future, but we need to wait for an Act of Parliament to do it—an Act which may never materialise.
Let us suppose for a moment—and it is not beyond the bounds of possibility—that we make an amendment to this Bill which succeeds, so that the Act of Parliament may contain provisions that set out a retirement age, a minimum participation requirement or an attendance requirement, or sets up the committee that the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, described in his amendment. After 12 months or two years or longer, when that committee reports, if this House decided that we needed to tweak it and that the retirement age or attendance criteria were not right, we would need primary legislation to change it.
The justification for my Amendment 32 was in fact made, I believe, by noble Lords on Monday night. Noble Lords may recall the debate we had on retirement ages and the amendment on transitional arrangements proposed by the noble Earl, Lord Devon. It was supported by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, who said that it
“proposes a simple set of transitional arrangements with two legs that would reduce that organisational shock enormously and allow the House to transition to an age limit of 80 without pain or any loss of our capability and effectiveness … The second leg would give everyone who comes in a minimum of 10 years”.—[Official Report, 10/3/25; cols. 560-61.]
The noble Lord, Lord Burns, said
“if we are going to have an age limit, we do not have to choose between 80, 85 or 90 for ever. We could begin with an age limit of 85 and then, for the following Parliament, have an age limit of 80: we would get two bites at the process of bringing down the numbers. I support what my noble friend Lord Kinnoull says. I think the transition arrangements for this are just as important as they have been in the whole debate about hereditary Peers”.—[Official Report, 10/3/25; col. 563.]
Winding up that debate, my noble and learned friend Lord Keen of Elie had a similar argument—to bring the age down to 85 by the end of this Parliament and to 80 by the end of the next Parliament.
What those four speeches have in common is that, at some future point, a further Act of Parliament would be required on House of Lords reform. It is highly unlikely that we will get any new legislation on changes to the House of Lords, even little ones, and it would probably be outside the scope of even the usual Home Office “Christmas tree” Bill—a criminal justice Bill. The Government have had their fingers burnt with this Bill and will not want a rerun of it, even if they worked out ideas on improving
“national and regional balance of the second chamber”,
as they said in their manifesto. Thus, my solution is to have a special regulation-making power in the Act to enable any of the suggestions on retirement ages, term limits or anything else.
As your Lordships will know, all Governments over the last 40 years have ruthlessly extended the delegated powers in Bills to include more inappropriate delegations. I submit that no Government can be trusted with an open-ended regulatory power to change the four Lords rules that I have suggested in my amendment. I was interested in what the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, said about delegated powers: that, in the past few years, they have expanded dramatically, which is not acceptable. The report from our Delegated Powers Committee, when I chaired it, suggested that every Government over the last 40 years had increased their delegated powers.
Therefore, we need a tightly constrained delegated power that the Government could not change or delay. That is why I state in my amendment that the regulation must copy verbatim the wording of the resolution of the House of Lords, and it must be made within 12 months of our House passing such a Motion. We would need to look at it first, just to ensure that there was no accidental wrong wording in the government regulations.
The Committee may think that I am being a bit cynical, but after four years as chairman of the Delegated Powers Committee, I can show noble Lords real cynicism in some of the appalling delegated powers that government departments have inserted into Bills. We revealed that in our report, Democracy Denied? The Urgent Need to Rebalance Power between Parliament and the Executive, and I can slip noble Lords a few copies at very little cost.
Let us build in now the power to make changes in the future. It would not commit us to making any of those changes, but it would ensure that, if this House of Lords decided on a retirement age or term limits or participation—or to implement anything that the committee described by the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, agreed on—we would not have to wait many years for a new Act of Parliament and for the Government to find time in their legislative programme. Looking at the myriad problems that always affect the country every month and year, I cannot see any Government in the next two or three years finding time for another Bill on House of Lords changes. The regulation-making power that I suggest should be tightly drawn, unlike a Bill, which would be fair game for another 116 amendments as per this Bill.
Before concluding, I must say that I was impressed by the transitional arrangements propositions. If those four noble Lords—the noble Earls, Lord Devon and Lord Kinnoull, the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and my noble and learned friend Lord Keen of Elie—can agree some consensus amendment for Report, I will happily not push ahead with the more blunt instrument of retirement at the ages of 80, 85 or 90. In the meantime, I commend my Amendment 32 to the Committee and beg to move.
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for moving his amendment. However, I am not convinced that it is a very good idea, not least because it would alter the constitution and enable this House to exclude Members of another place from coming here at some point, without affording them the opportunity to say no or to express their concerns.
Lord Northbrook (Con)
My Lords, I am not quite sure what
“resolution of the House of Lords”
means: whether it is by amendment and, considering the mechanics of the whole thing, whether it would also have to go through the House of Commons. I am slightly perplexed at how this amendment would work in practice.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I find this a very attractive way of approaching the amendments proposed previously by the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, because it moves the initiative back to the House of Lords, which has to initiate the change. Given that it has to result in a vote of both Houses, the Government can just vote it down—so in reality it would have to be something negotiated between the House of Lords and the Government.
The amendment does two really important things. First, it produces a mechanism that can actually happen. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hermer, said that this Government are determined or committed on making further changes. Some of us heard that 26 years ago and it sounded just the same—and I believe it was just as real. There was a real determination then to move forward with stage 2, but it did not happen. I do not believe that under the circumstances in the world, in this Government, in this country or in this economy, any Government could find the time in the next four and a half years for another House of Lords Bill. It just will not happen. If we use this mechanism, we get the ability to change most of the important things that we are talking about in this Committee. The Government would retain control because it would require a vote in the Commons—but the House of Lords would take the initiative. That is a very attractive way of dealing with a lot of what we have talked about in the past three days.
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, I am afraid I cannot agree with this amendment, because it requires all these changes to be implemented via a legislative route. As I said in my earlier speech, I do not believe that minimum attendance or participation requirements should be dealt with through legislation—they should be dealt with directly by a resolution of your Lordships’ House. As we have just heard, the Conduct Committee is perfectly capable of dealing with criminal convictions and recommending the expulsion of a Member of your Lordships’ House when it believes that he has behaved in a criminal manner.
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, this is an interesting amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Blencathra. To continue the Lloyd Webber theme, he has certainly been a diamond in our dull grey lives today.
As my noble friend described, this amendment seeks to provide a mechanism by which resolutions passed by this House on matters such as retirement age, attendance, participation or criminal convictions could be translated into statute through regulations. I know that my noble friend, as a former and long-serving chair of our Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, makes this suggestion with a great deal of knowledge and consideration for the workings of our House.
This amendment also reflects an important principle that we have discussed throughout our debates: that constitutional reform should be done with consensus and that your Lordships should have a say in any reforms that affect your Lordships’ House. However, we must also acknowledge that the House of Lords is an unelected body, and allowing it to self-regulate its membership with legal force would raise democratic concerns and risk undermining trust in our institutions. Traditionally, and rightly so, significant changes to the composition of the Lords have been matters decided by Parliament as a whole, not merely by your Lordships’ House.
While I understand the spirit of the amendment, I have some practical concerns—for example, about the proposal to require that resolutions be translated into statute without any alteration. Some House resolutions, though well meaning, can contain ambiguities or practical challenges that would need refining before they could be translated into statute. By requiring strict adherence to the wording of resolutions, there is a risk of making ineffective or impractical law and creating unintended complications.
To conclude, there is much to commend in the principle of this amendment, namely that your Lordships’ House should have a meaningful role in shaping its own composition and standards for the future. However, allowing the House to self-regulate its membership in this way would raise democratic concerns that have not been satisfactorily addressed today. That said, my noble friend’s proposal rightly challenges us to consider how we can translate our internal deliberations into actionable reforms, should there be consensus to do so.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, it has been an interesting debate. One thing that strikes me is that the House itself wants to lead on the issues of participation, retirement age, attendance and criminal conviction. The noble Lord, Lord Newby, said that legislation was not the way forward, and the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, was very suspicious of legislation, because he thinks that it is not going to happen. It is interesting how Members are now much more engaged in these issues than we have been in the past, so I am grateful for those comments.
On the noble Lord’s amendment, I feel the hand of mischief here a little. It feels a bit like a Henry VIII power; I wonder whether noble Lords are comfortable with an unelected House passing a resolution and then saying to the elected House, “You must put this in statute”. It goes against the grain of every speech I have ever heard the noble Lord make on that issue, with which I have always agreed, so it is a curious amendment—but just a probing one, I am sure.
On the issue of the House making these arrangements and looking at how it can do that—including whether we can do things more quickly—there are always arrangements in our manifesto for legislation. But if noble Lords can find a way to agree on a way forward on the issues in the noble Lord’s amendments, I am sure the House would be willing to have those discussions.
I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising those issues. As I say, this amendment raises constitutional issues. In any other aspect of the work he has done, I do not think he would ever have agreed to it, but I thank him for his contribution and hope he will seek leave to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Lucas (Con)
Can I ask the noble Baroness a couple of questions? First, as I read my noble friend’s amendment, the duty on the Government would be to put the matter to the vote, not put it in statute. So the House of Commons would have a controlling vote over whether these changes happen.
Secondly, in response to what the noble Lord, Lord Newby, said, is it the noble Baroness’s understanding that the current arrangements would allow us to change the Standing Orders so that we excluded Peers on the basis of non-attendance or non-participation—or would that require legislative change?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
In our Standing Orders we are already able to exclude Peers for non-attendance. That right exists at the moment. The discussion we have had is about whether it is at the right level, but we could do that through our own Standing Orders.
I am not sure that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, is right in the first point he made, because the amendment says:
“Where a resolution is passed by the House of Lords in accordance with subsection (1) … a relevant Minister must, by regulations made by statutory instrument, amend this Act”.
So there are instructions for the Minister to amend the Act—there would have to be a vote, I am sure, but it is an instruction.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for making that clear. It would be an instruction for the Minister to lay it as a statutory instrument but, of course, there would be a vote on it in the House of Commons at any rate.
My noble friend Lord Northbrook asked about the mechanics of the resolution. We write Standing Orders and they are perfect, so we would draft a new Standing Order on whatever it may be; the resolution of the House would then ask for that Standing Order to be a statutory instrument, which the Government would implement.
My noble friend Lady Finn was worried that we would impose on the Government the wording of this statutory instrument but get it wrong. If I may say so, there is a better chance that the House of Lords will get the wording of a statutory instrument right than any government lawyers; that has been my experience in the past. I welcome my noble friend Lord Lucas’s support.
I am sorry to disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Newby, but I believe that we are capable of drafting sufficient regulations on some of the issues in my amendment and that we do not need an Act of Parliament. I regret that I put the criminal convictions in—that was a step too far—but, hypothetically, surely we should have the power to do as I have suggested as far as the retirement age and a participation rate are concerned. Those things do not need massive outside consultation or an Act of Parliament. As the House of Lords, it should be within our power, if the committee of the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, comes up with metrics on participation—or if the suggestions from the noble Earls, Lord Devon and Lord Kinnoull, on retirement ages and transitional rules come up—to say, “These are the rules that we want”. In the current circumstances, we would say that to the Government. If the Leader of the House, on whatever side, said, “Jolly good idea”, he or she would then go to the Government and say, “This is what the House of Lords wants to change. Can we please have an Act of Parliament sometime to make these amendments to our rules?”.
I am suggesting that we would not need to go through that palaver if we built in a tightly constrained regulatory power. It may have to be tweaked—I am not suggesting that my wording here is perfect; clearly, it is not—but, if we gave ourselves the power to change our rules on retirement ages and participation rates, say, and that regulation power could go to the Government, as I suggest, the Government could then put it in an SI the way we have worded it. The House of Commons could then vote on it. I suggest that this would be a simple solution but, as I think I am the only one here with an amendment, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill
Wednesday 12th March 2025
(1 week, 6 days ago)
Lords ChamberHouse of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 49-III(b) Amendment for Committee (Supplementary to the Third Marshalled List) - (12 Mar 2025)
Lord Blencathra
“Lords Spiritual(1) A maximum of five Church of England bishops may sit in the House of Lords.(2) Of those five bishops, one must be the Archbishop of Canterbury, one must be the Archbishop of York, and the remaining three must be nominated by the Synod of the Church of England.(3) No bishop may sit in the House of Lords beyond the end of the Parliamentary Session in which they turn 70 years old.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment reduces the number of bishops sitting in the House of Lords from 26 to five.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I rise to move Amendment 33 in my name, which would reduce the number of Bishops in the House from 26 to five: the most reverend Primates the Archbishops of Canterbury and York and three other right reverend Prelates nominated by the synod of the Church of England. I am delighted to see the right reverend Prelate in his place—he has booked his slot among my remaining three by being here tonight.
I accept that this is not in the Bill, and nor was it in the Labour Party manifesto, but spending perhaps 20 or 30 minutes on this will be worthwhile, and I cannot see any other way to raise the topic. Naturally, I expect all Front Benches to keep a million miles away from this subject. I shall be very brief and leave it to other noble Lords to speak in favour of or against this probing amendment.
I shall give the House some statistics for consideration. The number of Church of England baptisms in 2023 was 67,800. The average Sunday attendance is about 700,000. The average Christmas attendance is about 2.3 million. Of course, we have 26 Bishops and an electorate of 48.2 million people, as of the last election. Therefore, there is one Bishop per 27,000 people at attending church on Sunday. There is one Bishop per 88,500 people at Christmas attendance. The maximum size of a constituency is 77,000.
Last year, the daily attendance in this House was 397. Of course, we do not have constituencies and neither do the Bishops, but the number of Peers who attend divided into the electorate would mean one Peer for every 121,000 electors. But, even with Christmas attendance, we have one Bishop for every 88,000 Church of England attendees.
I accept that it would not take an expert statistician to find fault with my conclusions from these statistics, which I admit are highly flawed, but it seems to me that we are overrepresented by Bishops in this House and I leave it to other noble Lords to offer a view for or against that view. I beg to move.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 48 in my name and the consequential Amendment 49. Perhaps I might begin by saying that I am not making any personal criticism of any of the present Lords spiritual. Most, and perhaps almost all, are important contributors to our debates. However, in a debate of this kind, we have to ask the question: on what basis do the Lords spiritual sit here? My suggestion to the House is that we should examine the criteria and ask ourselves whether they are well founded.
The objection to hereditary Peers is very similar to the objection to the Lords spiritual. In the case of hereditary Peers, while both the pool of candidates and the electorate are small, there are, at least on the Conservative Benches, both hustings and elections. But the way in which individuals become Bishops is very far from transparent, and there is no filter of elections and hustings. Moreover, the pool of candidates for the episcopacy is a very small one, and indeed the selectorate is even smaller. The process itself is very discreet.
Once an individual becomes a fully fledged bishop, that person, subject to gender preferences, has a very good chance of becoming a Member of this House. It is, in short, a case of the Rt Rev Buggins. In the case of the two Archbishops and the Bishops of London, Westminster and Durham, membership of this House is automatic—a self-perpetuating oligarchy. That is obviously not a good way to constitute our legislature.
So one has to ask: what about the tests of suitability and propriety? Most of the Committee agree that such tests are important. These debates—the last three days—have shown that the Committee values the role of HOLAC. Some of us, in fact, want to enhance its role. But HOLAC has no role to play in assessing the propriety or suitability of individual bishops to become Members of this House. I note, incidentally, that my noble friend Lady Berridge’s Amendment 90B addresses this matter. I know of no scrutiny—certainly none of a publicly transparent kind—that addresses the question of the propriety or suitability of appointment.
Then there is regional representation. Again, that is an issue viewed as important by most of this Committee. The Lords spiritual are drawn exclusively from dioceses in England—there are none from Scotland, none from Wales and none from Northern Ireland. So one has to ask: on what basis are the Lords spiritual here? As with the hereditaries, it is historic. The Bishops once represented a landed interest—no longer. The Lords spiritual once reflected the pre-eminent national Church—no longer, I say with regret, as an Anglican who regularly attends my local church. This country is now a secular society and, to the extent that it is not, Anglicanism is no longer pre-eminent.
Then there is the question of numbers: 24 Bishops and two Archbishops—not, I acknowledge at once, a large proportion of the House. But, once we embark on a serious attempt to reduce numbers and refresh our membership—and if, as I suggest, it is very hard to discern reasons of principle to justify the presence of the Lords spiritual in this House—I am afraid that the occupants of the episcopal Bench become candidates for removal. I know that will not be the consequence of the Bill, but I hope that we will be prepared to debate the issue with honesty and candour.
Lord Moore of Etchingham (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I must say that I am a little distressed to hear from Conservative Benches the nature of this criticism of the Bishops. It is unfortunate. I understand, however, that people get cross with the Bishops for all sorts of reasons—I certainly frequently do in columns that I write.
I also hesitate to speak on this subject because these are high and complicated matters. But I do feel that somebody has to speak for the Bishops here, because they will not speak for themselves. After all, our Lord said,
“let this cup pass from me”,
and that is more or less so for the Bishops. They cannot say, “No, I want to keep the cup. I want to go on and have another pint in the Bishops’ Bar”. They have to express a becoming humility, which basically means that they have to shut up on this subject—or so they will tend to feel.
Of course, we feel cross about this sometimes and I believe that there is a problem with the Bishops in this period. I will illustrate it with an example. I had a very lovely, pious aunt, who, as a child, attended her parish church. Two clergy preached there: one was very good at it and one was very bad. She said to her parents, “When Mr X preaches, I listen, and when Mr Y preaches, I keep my mind on higher things”. Sometimes, with some of the episcopal utterances we hear nowadays, we need to keep our minds on higher things.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)
My Lords, the time limit is 10 minutes. If the noble Lord could wind up, I would be ever so grateful.
Lord Moore of Etchingham (Non-Afl)
Forgive me; I end by saying that, if only the Government could apply the wise restraint they show on the matter of the Bishops to the very similar position of the hereditary Peers, they would drop this divisive and unnecessary Bill.
The Earl of Dundee (Con)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Moore. I very much agree with everything that he has said. I refer to Amendment 78 in my name. Within a reformed House, this is for the Lords spiritual to continue under their existing statute with their current numbers of 26 reduced to 20.
Two points should perhaps be emphasised: first, and in general, the importance of having non-political Benches and groups in a reformed House; and, secondly, in particular, the case for retaining enough Bishops in order for them to carry out their rota systems in the House of Lords, these being necessary in view of the heavy work commitments of bishops outside Westminster and the House of Lords.
The quality of the present House is its independent-mindedness over party politics. That attitude may apply to all our Benches. However, with Cross-Benchers and the Lords spiritual, we are fortunate in having as many as two Benches that are non-party political in any case, that benefit being unique and unshared by other Parliaments. That is why, and in this context, my noble friend Lord Hailsham might feel able to concur that our Bench of Bishops should remain within a reformed House: not just to lead it in prayer but to influence its debates. Equally in this context, my noble friend Lady Berridge may feel able to agree that Bishops in continuing to sit here should not have to be dependent on HOLAC, not least since their existing statute already enables them to be here in their own right.
A Bench of Bishops numbering 20 would be 3% of a reformed House of 620, of which 600 might be temporal Members. Yet with their heavy Church commitments beyond Westminster, perhaps my noble friend Lord Blencathra might agree that the rota system for attending to House of Lords duties would become unreasonable and under increasing pressure if their numbers were to reduce too much below 20.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 90B in my name in this group, and I am grateful for the relaxation of the rule so that one can speak in Committee having not been able to be here at Second Reading.
This simple amendment would bring into force the evidence of the chair of the House of Lords Appointments Commission, the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, to the Public Administration and the Constitutional Affairs Committee of the other place in her pre-appointment hearing on 24 October 2023 in which she said that,
“every nomination ought to be checked, even if it is a bishop or a hereditary peer”.
As I am sure noble Lords will be aware, under the public bodies rules, the noble Baroness is not permitted to contribute today.
The appointment of a bishop or archbishop, and their suitability—to use the language of nominations by the Prime Minister or the Leader of His Majesty’s loyal Opposition—are, of course, matters for the Crown Nominations Commission, but propriety checks matter for the integrity of the nation’s legislature and its safety. From recent reports in the media about HOLAC’s decisions—of course, decisions are confidential—it seems to be exercising that propriety muscle. What we know is that there are those who by convention would have joined your Lordships’ House who have not been given a peerage.
I wish to make it clear that this amendment would not affect a nomination by the Church commission—that is a Church matter and outside the scope of the Bill. The amendment would mean that a Writ to come to Parliament would not be issued unless HOLAC had done its propriety checks, checks that, as far as I understand it, even the Chief of the Defence Staff undergoes to come to the Cross Benches. I am, of course, aware that a non-statutory body, HOLAC, preventing a Writ of Summons being issued would be unusual, but I hope this amendment will serve to promote discussion of this important principle. How it is achieved in practice is perhaps a matter for another day.
Sadly, this safeguarding issue relating to bishops has come to the fore with the recent resignation of the Bishop of Liverpool, who would have become a member of the nation’s legislature without any propriety checks by HOLAC. Of course, I must state that those were merely allegations that have been refuted, but there remains confusion about how the proceedings of the Crown Nominations Commission of the Church of England were conducted, and there are allegations, again refuted, that pressure was put on the CNC during that process. I note that HOLAC’s checks are not just for criminal matters, so it could have been appropriate for that independent body to look at such a case prior to the issue of a Writ. Yes, this amendment would mean that there could be a diocesan bishop entitled to come to your Lordships’ House who was not accepted by HOLAC, but that in itself makes clear the different roles of HOLAC and the CNC, and the role of Parliament, which is sovereign, as distinct from the Church of England. Who is safe to be in Parliament should not be delegated to a body from any other institution, despite any assertions of how good the CNC is.
The case of the Bishop of Liverpool and the failure last month, for, of course, unknown reasons, of a Crown Nominations Commission to appoint a Bishop of Durham, who would have come straight into your Lordships’ House—of course, CNCs have to be private—highlight the problem for Parliament: why did that person withdraw? Were there safeguarding issues? Was it the process? We just do not know. I hope His Majesty’s Government will consider this matter seriously.
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, I do not actually believe in God. However, just in case, I always seek to adhere to the highest ethical and moral standards, especially so far as public life is concerned. I do not propose to speak to the next group because it is so closely related to this one.
The vast majority of your Lordships’ House are nominally Christian. If your Lordships want to have Prayers read by a Bishop—and I do—we need about 27 Bishops so that one of them can be the duty Bishop for the week or for two weeks, or however they organise it. An important point about the Bishops is that they normally retire, although, as the noble Baroness pointed out, a few come back as life Peers—and they are welcome. Bishops are appointed by the Prime Minister. If there were a problem, I am sure that in most cases the Prime Minister would find out; I am not sure that HOLAC is any better equipped, especially in so far as some of these safeguarding issues are concerned.
It would be profitable for the Leader to find some way for other religious leaders to have temporary membership of your Lordships’ House in the same way as the Anglican Bishops. I do not think this point has been made today, but just because only a few other states have a revising Chamber with religious or moral input, that is not a good reason for us not having such input. I would counsel leaving the Bishops well alone.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Scriven has his name to Amendments 48 and 49 but is unable to be here, sadly, so let me speak briefly from our Benches. I declare my interests as a member of the Church of England and as a former member of the Westminster Abbey Foundation; I am still active with it.
I am very disappointed that the noble Lord, Lord Moore, did not suggest that abbots should be restored to their places here. Clearly, if we are discussing longer-term reform of the Lords, we need to address the question of the Bishops. At the same time, we might as well—other noble Lords have done this via Amendment 34 —address the question of faith representation in the House. In my lifetime, I have seen the Church of England—and certainly Westminster Abbey—become much more welcoming to ecumenical arrangements of all sorts. The Cardinal Archbishop has read the lesson in Westminster Abbey several times. I have been to a joint Jewish-Christian service in the abbey. I have listened to readings of the Koran in the middle of an abbey service. That is part of how the Church of England now tries to maintain its position as a national Church representing all faiths.
It is worth mentioning in passing that this House is not entirely without representation of other Churches and faiths. My namesake was the Moderator of the Church of Scotland two years ago and the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths of Burry Port, is one of the most distinguished Methodists. The noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger, was the lead rabbi of Liberal Judaism, and we had a retired Chief Rabbi on the Benches of our House for some time.
There is a broader question, which we clearly need to address, about the role of representatives of faith in a different House, if we are slowly moving further in that direction. The Bishops need to respond to that, and I hope they will contribute to that debate. That is as far as we need to go when discussing this Bill because it is not necessarily part of the Bill. But in the broader, wider discussion that we are unavoidably finding ourselves having in Committee, that has to be one of the questions under discussion.
The noble Lord, Lord Moore, did not remark that there were only 14 or 15 Bishops in the Middle Ages, as I remember, and that the reason the number was fixed at 26 was because the number of dioceses was mushrooming so fast in the course of the 19th century. Perhaps that is the number we should go back to as an interim measure, but I look forward to hearing from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Sheffield if he is about to contribute to the debate.
The Lord Bishop of Sheffield
My Lords, I am sorry to disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Moore, in the fact that the Bench of Bishops is briefly going to speak up on its own behalf. He may be surprised, as may many noble Lords opposite, that in the first eight months of the current Parliament the Bishops have voted 29 times, and only five times with the Labour Government. The Bishops are not party political; we really do seek to improve and scrutinise legislation. That is by the way.
I am grateful for the opportunity offered by this range of amendments to address some of the concerns expressed by Members of this Committee about the place and role of those of us who serve on these Benches. Although we are not whipped and do not have a party line, the Lords spiritual are pretty much all of one mind that your Lordships’ House would benefit from some reform, not least to do with numbers and patronage. As noble Lords would expect, we believe that a reformed House of Lords should include Lords spiritual and should continue to reflect the present constitutional arrangement.
I will try to speak briefly to all the amendments in this group, taking first Amendments 33 and 78, which seek to reduce the number of Lords spiritual serving on these Benches. Amendment 33 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, would reduce the number from its current 26 to five—the two Archbishops and three others nominated by the Church’s General Synod.
In practice, since every one of the Lords spiritual has full-time responsibilities outside this place, a reduction to five would make it impossible for the remaining Lords spiritual to perform their functions as parliamentarians alongside their duties as diocesan bishops or primates. Although there are at present 26 Lords spiritual, noble Lords will notice that we are never by any means all present at any one time. That is because the demands of our other responsibilities prevent it. Only a minority of Lords spiritual are able to be present in this Chamber on any given day, and I urge noble Lords to keep this in mind in any consideration of a reduction in the number of those serving on these Benches.
Amendment 78 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, seeks to reduce the Lords spiritual by a smaller number, to 20. As in the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, there is no obvious rationale for the number chosen. We are very open to the possibility of a reduction in the size of your Lordships’ House as a whole, with consequences for the Bench of Bishops, but we believe that a conversation about the number of Bishops should take place as part of a comprehensive review of membership of this House. We would warmly welcome representations not just from other Christian denominations but from other faith groups in this country.
Amendments 48 and 49 in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, would prevent new Lords spiritual receiving writs to join the House but would allow current Bishops to remain until retirement and would not prevent someone who is a Bishop being made a life Peer. However, the amendment would permit a bishop to enter for the purposes of reading Prayers. While we appreciate the latter aspect of this amendment, we note that the role of the Lords spiritual is much more than mere chaplaincy. We highly value the privilege of leading your Lordships’ House in prayer, but we do not regard that as our only, nor always our most significant, contribution.
Ultimately, on these Benches we oppose these amendments on the basis that they would effectively sever the constitutional link between Church and state. This limited Bill is not the place to settle questions about the constitutional status of the established Church of England—that is a bigger discussion for another time.
Finally, Amendment 90B in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, would amend the Bishoprics Act 1878 so that the issuing of writs to Lords spiritual would be subject to the approval and effective veto of the House of Lords Appointments Commission. I understand the noble Baroness’s desire for the appointments process for diocesan bishops who become Lords spiritual to be robust. We on these Benches share that view and, indeed, would be open to the direct scrutiny of this House if that is what the House desires. However, there is already a stringent process for assessing propriety in the appointment of the diocesan bishops who subsequently become Lords spiritual. In fact, I venture to suggest that, while of course not perfect, the process overseen by the Crown Nominations Commission in the discernment of new diocesan bishops is at least as thorough as the other processes used to appoint Members to this House. Moreover, Writs of Summons to Lords spiritual are issued by the operation of law, not by the will of the Prime Minister or the Leader of the Opposition, so any involvement of the House of Lords Appointments Commission would need to be quite carefully calibrated.
Noble Lords will hardly be surprised to learn that we on these Benches are not able to support this group of amendments.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Sheffield, who has made a very robust defence of the Lords spiritual in this House. As he was speaking and outlining the reasons why certain numbers would not work, it occurred to me that the logical thing was not to have Bishops at all. Then, they could devote all their time to their diocesan work without having to worry about sitting in Parliament.
I found the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, very persuasive for a number of reasons. The first is the historical link, which was also mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Moore, between the hereditary peerages and the Lords spiritual. A House of Lords Library briefing in 2017 said:
“The participation of the Bishops in public business dates back to the early feudal period, when Bishops were summoned to Parliament by virtue of their feudal status as royal tenants by barony. It has been said that ‘at one time the Spiritual Peers were the most influential Members of the House. They filled the more important offices of state, and in actual number they had a majority over the Temporal Peers’”.
So there is that historical link. The bishops were powers in the land. They owned land—as indeed the Church of England still does—and it was therefore not surprising that they should have a voice in Parliament, but that argument can no longer be made.
I have been reflecting on what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Moore: no bishops, no King. I come from a part of the United Kingdom, and am a member of the Church of Scotland, which has not had bishops since the Reformation, but I can tell noble Lords that the King is respected and very much loved in Scotland.
Next week, we will debate the Church of Scotland (Lord High Commissioner) Bill, which is a good illustration of the link between the monarch and the Church. It means that the Church is a national church, but without us having any desire or need to be in the legislature, not even the Scottish Parliament. It is a link. So, while the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Sheffield says we cannot break the link between Church and state, I think we can. There is no need for the Church, or any particular church, to have representation in the legislature—and it still can be a national church. It can still reflect the views from the different component geographical parts.
The noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, made the valid point that, while it is said that the Church of England has the great advantage of having its dioceses, and it brings views from different parts of England to your Lordships’ House, it is representation from only one part of our United Kingdom. It does not have any representation from Scotland, Northern Ireland or Wales, and in a Parliament that seeks to be a Parliament of the United Kingdom—and many of us here are very strong in our belief that we should continue as a United Kingdom—it is unfortunate that only one part of the United Kingdom has religious representation.
I have looked at the amendment that suggests a whole series of different denominations and faiths that could be nominated. It brought to mind that, when the Scottish Parliament was established in 1999, the first resolution we voted on was whether there should be a “time for reflection” or “prayers”, and time for reflection it became. One of my colleagues, Donald Gorrie, now sadly deceased, proposed prayers by proportional representation. I looked at the list in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, and thought, “For heaven’s sake! They’ll be wanting to have faith representation here by proportional representation, and who knows where that would lead us to”.
The last time the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland discussed this issue, it took the view that there should be no bishops in a smaller House of Lords, and nor indeed should there be automatic representation of any other denomination or faith. By all means have bishops, moderators, clergy, or presidents of the Methodist Conference who get here on their own merit as life Peers, but there is no need for them to be automatically ex officio appointed to your Lordships’ House. For that reason, I am very supportive of the amendment tabled by the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham.
Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (PC)
My Lords, I extend my sincere thanks to the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, for tabling Amendments 48 and 49, which I am pleased to be supporting today. I rise in strong support of both amendments, which offer an opportunity for meaningful reform.
Plaid Cymru has long advocated an end to the automatic provision of legislative seats to Bishops, a change that these amendments would help to realise. Currently, 26 seats are guaranteed to Bishops of the Church of England, yet, as we have just heard from the noble Lord, no guaranteed seats exist for the Church in Wales, the Church of Scotland or for any other faith group. This disparity reflects a deeper issue: the exclusion of Wales and Scotland from representation within the Lords spiritual. It is, regrettably, another example of the UK Parliament’s continuing disproportionate focus on England.
Beyond the Vatican City and Iran, most countries do not grant automatic seats as lawmakers to religious leaders. While some Members of your Lordships’ House may propose the inclusion of representatives from other faiths, I firmly believe that this is not a viable solution. The complexity of deciding which faiths, denominations or non-religious organisations should be represented alongside the constantly shifting demographic of the UK make such a proposal impossible. This is why I cannot support Amendments 33 and 78; they do not differ significantly from our current system, which already grants 26 Bishops automatic seats. As such, they fail to address the issue of representation in a meaningful way.
Polling data from a YouGov survey conducted last September reveals the depth of public sentiment on this matter. Only 22% of respondents believed that the House of Lords should continue reserving places for Church of England Bishops. This consensus spans political divides, age groups, gender and regions. Across the board, the public support an end to reserved places for the Lords spiritual.
Let me be clear: this is not a reflection of the valuable work done by individual Lords spiritual. On the contrary, many Bishops have made significant contributions, particularly on prison reform, contributing to debates on overcrowding and offender treatment; and through their efforts to support migrants and refugees, including their vocal opposition to the Rwanda Bill, which should be commended. However, these accomplishments speak to the individuals involved, not the system that automatically grants them a place in the House of Lords. In a reformed second Chamber, such individuals could, and should, be elected on the merit of their work and dedication, not based on their religious office.
Therefore, I urge the Committee to support Amendments 48 and 49, which represent a clear and necessary step towards a more equitable and representative House of Lords.
Lord Strathclyde (Con)
My Lords, as somebody who is about to be expelled from the House of Lords, I cannot help feeling a little bit sorry for the right reverend Prelates on the Spiritual Bench. At the moment, they are, fashionably, everybody’s whipping-boy or girl. Everybody is rather against the Church of England at the moment. It is leaderless, with no Archbishop of Canterbury. So it is a pretty rotten way of attacking the Church, when they are down.
There are so many good reasons to have a spiritual side to the House of Lords. There are hardly ever more than three or four Bishops in the House at any one time, and usually there is only one. So they hardly make an enormous amount of difference to our voting, but they do make a difference to how we are seen and to the tone of our general debates. I do not think one should decry that spiritual side of the House and its important links as part of the established Church.
One of the reasons why I hate this Bill so much is that it takes a very piecemeal approach—flinging out just one cohort of the House without caring whether it does any good or what will happen when it is missed. I feel exactly the same way about the Bishops; they should be preserved until there is proper thought given to the kind of House we want. I know the Leader of the House will say, “If you want to wait for everything to be agreed, nothing will be agreed”, but that is not necessarily the case at all. It is not about everything being agreed but making sure that the worst aspects of this removal of various Peers are taken into account.
There has been much mention of other faiths, and I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness. As a member of the Church of Scotland, it would be quite nice to hear from a fellow member of that church, and the noble and learned Lord is himself a distinguished former moderator of the Church of Scotland. There is obviously room for other faiths, and during the time I have been here there have been many occasions when representatives of other faiths have been present and played a useful part. Particularly when we deal with great moral issues of the day, whether on embryology, abortion or—no doubt soon if the Bill passes the House of Commons—assisted dying, the voice of the spiritual side of the House is very much to be welcomed.
When I came here, the noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk, was the senior lay member of the Roman Catholic Church, and I spoke regularly against him. I think the current Duke does not want to take up that role—and in any case, he is going to be expelled as well. Less well known is that, over the last few years, the Roman Catholic cardinal archbishops have been offered places in the House of Lords, and often have wanted them, but have been denied the opportunity because of an issue with the Pope in Rome. I have got no idea what that is, but it is an interesting point about how this House is perceived and the importance with which it is perceived by other faiths.
On balance, this has been a very good debate, and one that no doubt we shall return to, and I hope that my noble friends will withdraw their amendments when the time comes.
Lord Northbrook (Con)
My Lords, times have changed for the Church of England since my ancestor in the 19th century demolished the small village church to build a larger one to accommodate increased demand.
I support Amendment 90B, in the name of my friend Lady Berridge, about some sort of quality control on the appointment of Bishops. I am afraid to say I have to use Tim Dakin, the previous Bishop of Winchester, as an example of where quality control should have been exercised. His predecessor, Michael Scott-Joynt, was absolutely outstanding and made tremendous contributions in the House. Unfortunately, Tim Dakin did not live up to the standard of that previous Bishop. There were queries even about whether he was properly ordained—perhaps the Appointments Commission might have been able to inquire into that more seriously. The Bishop, who managed to alienate his own clergy, commissioned a report on alleged abuse by the Channel Islands clergy—who are actually part of the Diocese of Winchester—and the Archbishop of Canterbury had to issue an apology to the Dean of Jersey for the hurt and treatment they had received.
The Church of England was sadly missing in action during Covid by closing the churches. There was no real danger of getting Covid in the larger churches due to the lack of attendance, and I do not recall many inspiring contributions in the House, apart from the Archbishop of Canterbury remotely celebrating communion in his kitchen.
I have to disagree with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Sheffield, who said that the Bishops’ Benches are non-political. The Archbishop of Canterbury got very political during the passage of the previous Government’s immigration Bill and criticised it seriously. Generally, the Church seems to be keener on giving reparations to apologise for slavery than supporting rural parishes.
On the other amendments, I do not really agree with them. We should keep 25 religious Members of the House of Lords but have a multifaith membership of the House.
Lord Strathcarron (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to this group of amendments in particular and would argue for the retention of the Bishops as currently constituted. I fully appreciate the arguments advanced by noble Lords supporting the group of amendments and equally the intellectual arguments against the Bishops remaining here as advanced by Humanists UK and others.
To the charge sheet against the Bishops, I would add that they are also extremely frustrating politically—at least to those of us on this side of the House—as between 2019 and the last general election they voted with the Government only 4% of the time. Often during the long evenings spent in the Division Lobbies, it seemed as if the Bishops were pre-programmed to vote against anything the Conservative Government were doing, just because it was the Conservative Government doing it.
I also appreciate that they should more accurately be called Lords religious rather than Lords spiritual, as there is precious little spiritual, and a lot religious, in their involvement with identity politics and every fashionable left-wing cause that comes their way. I also appreciate that they are historically illiterate, as seen by the £1 billion target for reparations, supporting the view of the recent Archbishop of Canterbury that the British more or less invented slavery and did absolutely nothing to end it. I also appreciate that they are corporately cataclysmically incompetent, spending precious funds on meaningless virtue signalling while parishes are crumbling around the country.
Nevertheless, the Bishops do represent a continuity with our constitution, history and culture and their presence here acknowledges that there is a power to be considered beyond the material and the political and one which still guides many lives. It is right that this part of life is acknowledged to exist by the Bishops being here. I would also argue that their presence here is a reminder of our religious history on whose behalf many of our laws were written, making what the Bishops represent a kind of canvas on which is painted much about the British constitution we hold dear and which can easily be taken for granted. My argument for the Bishops is that, if we are to lose the soul of this House by removing the hereditaries, we should at least keep the heart of it as represented by the Bishops.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, this is a very serious subject and the fact that some may not consider it to be serious or worthy of a long debate is troubling but, I would submit, it should be troubling above all to the Church of England itself which, to the great distress of many of us, has yielded so much of the spiritual ground in this nation that it once bestrode.
I have said more than once that this radical Bill—one of very few in the history of this House to throw out existing Members—has far-reaching implications. The perfectly logical view is that the removal of one group of Members is closely connected to, and has repercussive effects on, the wider membership of the House. As we have heard, that logical connection elides into the urgent aspiration for exclusion that we have heard in some speeches today. Amendments in both Chambers concerning the Lords spiritual are just one example of this repercussive effect.
The noble Lord, Lord Moore of Etchingham, gave what was, I would give him, not a Conservative speech but a notable Tory speech, to which the noble Lord, Lord Strathcarron, offered a coda. The Lords spiritual have been here since the origins of this House. Indeed, like the hereditary Peers, they were among the creators of our Parliament. They survived Henry VIII’s exclusion of the abbots, to which the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, referred, and when Parliament last decided to throw them out in the Bishops Exclusion Act in 1642, they were welcomed back warmly after 1660.
When the British population moved to the new great cities such as Manchester—again, the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, referred to this—it was considered expedient to create new bishops, although there were not, perhaps, what many of us might consider to be the superabundant numbers in the parishes of today. There was considerable debate at that time about whether it would be possible to limit the rights of bishops to receive a writ to sit in this House. In 1847, the Liberal Government introduced the Bishopric of Manchester Bill, which limited the number of Lords spiritual in this House to no more than 26—that is what we have today.
There was considerable resistance at the time, on the grounds that this interfered with the prerogative and, more objectionably, with the right of any Lord spiritual or temporal Peer to attend the House. But the reality, as people saw it, was that, although new bishops were no longer automatically included and a route of entry was partially closed, no one was being excluded. The House settled on this as a reasonable compromise, as the number of bishops expanded. This House, in its wisdom, has always tended to compromise on matters of composition.
Since 1847, the historic limit of 26 right reverend Prelates has been maintained. There may be no magic in this number. I remember being present at discussions in around 2002, when the Conservative Party was proposing a smaller senate of 300. The right reverend Prelates indicated then that 12 might be the minimum number that would leave them with sufficient capacity to perform their important spiritual advisory duties in the House; I do not know whether that is still the case. They do a lot. After all, last night, one of them—the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Sheffield himself—stepped in to assist the House by acting as a Teller in a Division. He was voting against the Government, but I have to tell him that he was voting against the Opposition as well—perhaps that is how the numbers are now squared. We welcome the Bishops’ presence in all guises and at all times. When a gash—others would see it as unfinished business—is being made in the body of the House, I wonder whether it is wise to alight so fast on the next group to be excluded: some or all of the Lords spiritual.
In the other place, the Bill faced amendments by a Conservative Back-Bencher to expel the right reverend Prelates, and in your Lordships’ House noble Lords from almost every party have signed up to related proposals—although I noticed that a proposal from the Labour Benches to expel all the Lords spiritual in two years was withdrawn shortly before the first Marshalled List was published. I hope no one in this House felt any pressure to keep quiet.
My noble friend Lady Berridge tabled Amendment 90B to require Writs of Summons under the Bishoprics Act to be vetted by the House of Lords Appointments Commission. My noble friend Lord Hailsham took the same line, perhaps even more vehemently, but from a different angle. Although I understand my noble friend’s thinking and salute her constant stand on issues of propriety, which is greatly admired in this House, I am afraid it is an amendment we cannot support. The Church has its own rigorous processes for the selection of bishops, culminating in the Crown Nominations Commission, and it does have processes on conduct, to which no one is immune. Giving a veto to HOLAC would, in my submission, fall foul of the constitutional principle put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Butler, in our debates on Monday.
My noble friend Lord Blencathra proposes the immediate reduction of the Lords spiritual from 26 to 5 in his amendment, which would also introduce a retirement age. That number would be too small, even if we were to move, for the reasons I have given. My noble friend Lord Dundee proposes 20 and my noble friend Lord Hailsham goes a step further by seeking to exclude all future bishops and archbishops of the Church of England from taking a seat here. These amendments have gained support formally from other parties, with signatures, as we have heard tonight, right across the Chamber.
I am glad that the Labour Back-Bench amendment was withdrawn. My party would have opposed it, as I oppose the amendments of my noble friend Lord Hailsham. It is true that, with 890 votes cast by the right reverend Prelates against the Government of which I was a member, and only 36% in favour—the highest percentage of votes against a Government ever recorded from those Benches, in four successive Sessions—noble Lords might think I have some animus in the matter. I do not, because I am a generous soul and I was brought up an Anglican. I believe that considerations of party advantage or disadvantage should not enter decisions about classes of Peers who should sit in this House.
As I said at Second Reading, it will not be long before the Bishops are the only Members not appointed under the 1958 Act. This Bill starts down a path that I fear we will be hard-pressed to close off, with the wholesale removal of blocks in the House; first the hereditaries, then perhaps the Bishops, and then, if Labour honours its manifesto pledge, the over-80s too.
I agree with the wise words of my noble friend Lord Strathclyde on the spiritual dimension. We do not support the removal of the right reverend Prelates. Every institution gains from a spiritual dimension. Taking them out now would simply add to instability in the House, give scant recognition to their important role inside and outside the House, including the territorial dimension, and walk without due consideration into a difficult debate on the disestablishment of the Church and, as my noble friend Lord Moore of Etchingham said, perhaps even the role of the monarch in the Church.
Heaven knows, some of us yearn to hear the Christian voice raised more clearly in witness to the nation and not see it dimmed further. Change, such as is proposed in these amendments, to remove or lessen that voice in this House would require the most careful consideration and debate. I hope that my noble friends will agree not to press their amendments.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Smith of Basildon) (Lab)
My Lords, this group of amendments has raised a number of issues. We have heard impassioned and deeply held views on both sides of the argument. As the noble Lord, Lord True, says, this was debated in the other place, where it went to a Division and was lost by 320 or so votes.
A lot of noble Lords made the point that it is important we recognise that, in this House, we welcome people of all religious faiths and of no religious faith. They all add to the diversity of this place.
The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, made the point that there are questions about the future of this House and its composition, as noble Lords have commented on. We have made proposals about what kind of alternative second Chamber could replace the current House of Lords as a long-term ambition. It would be something more representative of the nations across the UK. That would be consulted on, including with the public, with soundings taken as to how they feel that an alternative second Chamber would best suit them.
There are different kinds of amendments in this group. The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, and the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, are looking to remove or reduce the number of Lords spiritual. The noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, who has considerable expertise and respect across the House and the country for her views on safeguarding issues, wanted to amend the Bishops Act to enable HOLAC to approve any Bishops. In fact, the only two groups that HOLAC does not comment on are the hereditary Peers, who come in through by-elections, and the Bishops.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord True—it is nice to be able to say that from the Dispatch Box—in that I am not sure that a role for HOLAC regarding the Bishops is appropriate. The Bishops have their own method for being considered and an approval process before they come to this House.
I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Sheffield for his comments on this issue. He will have heard what Members have said. I think his voting record in the future may confound us. My experience of the Bishops is that they challenge the Government, whoever the Government of the day are. He was a Teller against the official Opposition and then the other night he was a Teller against the Government. I suspect that we may see this on other issues as well.
We welcome the presence of the Bishops here. They will have heard the comments from noble Lords; some were more measured than others and some were more supportive than others. There is a place in the House for the Bishops at the moment. However, if there are wider discussions on any future composition of the House, the Bishops will be part of them. But, at this stage, I request that the noble Lord withdraws the amendment in his name.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, if I may mix my metaphors, someone had to put on the suicide vest and poke his head above the parapet by putting down this highly controversial amendment for a drastic reduction in the number of Bishops. It had the desired effect: in a debate of one hour and 10 minutes, we have had some very interesting speeches and suggestions for a possible way forward in looking at other faiths in another amendment.
We have had the benefit of three very powerful speeches. My noble friend Lord Hailsham made a very powerful speech about the removal of all Bishops. That was immediately countermanded by an equally powerful speech by the noble Lord, Lord Moore of Etchingham, who made the finest case for retaining the Bishops that I have ever heard; he mentioned the line—in fact, the truth—that we must not disturb the settlement. The third excellent speech was from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Sheffield, who made the valid point that having only five Bishops would make it impossible for them to work here. I accept that, but he also said that the Bishops were open to discussion on their possible numbers in any future settlement or change to the House of Lords.
My noble friend Lord Dundee wanted to reduce the number of Bishops from 26 to 20. Forgive me, but I cannot see the big difference that that would make. My noble friend Lady Berridge called for a check on the propriety of Bishops. I have no intention of entering into that detail, but she spoke at length on adding other faiths, which is the subject of my Amendment 34.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Amendment 34 intends to add representatives of five other faiths, so I accept that our amendments are not exactly the same. She talked about lots of other churches and religions not being represented. That is something I was going to talk about in relation to my next amendment, if I moved it.
When the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, spoke, I asked myself, “What on earth is he doing here at 9.15 pm on his birthday? It certainly can’t be to hear my speech”. I should say that, on my next amendment, a colleague complained that I missed out the Church of Scotland; it was not the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, but the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness. He also made the point about including other faiths.
The noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Llanfaes, quoted the polls. If this House or the Government were to do everything the polls wanted every time they wanted it, they would be changing policy every six months—so I do not necessarily go along with that.
I accept my noble friend Lord Strathclyde’s point that this issue needs further consideration, in the round, with further Lords reform.
I simply do not want to get into the detail of what my noble friend Lord Northbrook said; I hope he will forgive me.
At first, I thought that my noble friend Lord Strathcarron was going to support getting rid of all the Bishops, but his speech was a rather intriguing way of keeping the Bishops by criticising everything they did. But he did make the point that they make a very valuable contribution to this House.
My noble friend Lord True, the shadow Leader, made a very careful and thoughtful speech, mainly arguing for the status quo and making the point that the Bishops may be sitting on the only Benches in this House that will not be appointed by the Prime Minister in future. The Leader also made a thoughtful and wise speech, calling for wider discussion.
I was due to move the next amendment—Amendment 34—which seeks to reduce the number of Bishops to five and add five representatives of other faiths. However, given that we have had some extensive speeches tonight on adding other faiths, I may change my mind on moving that amendment. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.
Lord Lucas
“Rights of life peers to sit in the House of Lords(1) Section 1 of the Life Peerages Act 1958 (power to confer life peerages) is amended as follows.(2) At the end of subsection (1) insert “, and, as the case may be, the incidents specified in subsection (2A) of this section”.(3) Omit from “and” in subsection (2)(a) to the end of subsection (2)(b).(4) After subsection (2), insert—“(2A) A peerage conferred under this section may, if the letters patent so state, during the life of the person on whom it is conferred, entitle him, subject to subsection (4) of this section, to receive writs of summons to attend the House of Lords and sit and vote therein accordingly, and shall expire on his death.””
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, it would be a really useful flexibility in our system if life Peers could be appointed without the right to sit in the House of Lords. Frankly, there are people who deserve a peerage but who do not want the obligations, which we have been discussing today, to attend here and deal with the minutiae of legislation. In particular there are those who have grown senior and grand enough that arguing whether a comma should be moved one word to the right is not how they want to spend their life—unlike me.
So this would be a useful addition to the structure of our life peerage. It would enable people to be honoured properly and to be given a seat in this House only if that is what they really want and they intend to make full use of it. I beg to move.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I support the sentiment of this amendment. Again, this is a longer-term issue, but separating the honour from the obligation is an important part of how we should be moving forward. We know that a number of people have desperately wanted peerages—I am one of the many who found, after my appointment to this House, that the number of people who wished to invite me out to lunch to tell me what excellent Peers they would make increased very considerably.
This House has—happily—become much more professional in the past 20 years. We do now recognise this as a job, but we do not necessarily need to be Peers to do the job. Perhaps if we were called “Senators” or whatever, that would work quite as well. I immensely enjoy my title, in the sense that Saltaire is a very special village. It is now a world heritage site. It has a Hockney gallery, and I suspect that no one apart from me in this House knows that Paul Hockney, David’s elder brother, was a Liberal Democrat councillor and the Mayor of Bradford.
The more important thing for the long-term interest of this House is that we have good people appointed to the second Chamber, and that this is thought of first as a second Chamber and not so much as a House of Lords. Those who wish to have titles could perhaps have titles that do not have the obligations that we all now willingly accept to examine legislation, to debate difficult issues and to play a part in the governance of this country.
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, I just say that I will have to leave at 10 pm, but I think we have time for me to make a speech. I am not convinced that this is a good idea, although I understand my noble friend’s thinking. Like it or not, we live in a much less deferential society. It always depresses me when I read of senior military officers or junior ratings or NCOs in the Regular Army being referred to as “Mr”, even in a military context. Many years ago, when I was just a full corporal in the reserves, I was proud of the rank that I held and what it indicated. However, I am not sure now that being a Peer is an attractive rank or honour any more. We see one Baroness who is a national treasure more often referred to by her damehood than her peerage.
I have a point for the Minister and perhaps the Leader to consider. So far as I am aware, there is no reliable, regularly used database of preferred styles for their Lordships. Googling an active Member will take an unsuspecting user to a highly misleading page on the House website. The result is that the uninitiated will inadvertently send irritating emails to traditional Peers such as myself, but at the same time they may irritate other Peers by being far too deferential—the worst of all worlds. Would it not be better if the House of Lords website made it clear what each Peer’s preferred style was?
The situation is even worse, as some potentially really good members, particularly from the party opposite, may be deterred from putting themselves forward for consideration for a peerage because they would be horrified by the prospect of being addressed formally as a Member of your Lordships’ House. This problem could be alleviated by having the database I have referred to and encouraging its use, particularly by the lobbying industry.
The Earl of Dundee (Con)
My Lords, I refer to Amendment 76 in my name. Its effect is to make a distinction between non-parliamentary and parliamentary peerages. Political patronage, along with awarding other honours, would continue to create non-parliamentary peerages but no longer those which confer a parliamentary right to sit in the House of Lords. As a result, conversely, a parliamentary right to sit in the House of Lords would be decoupled from political patronage.
To that extent, Amendment 76 connects to other amendments to this Bill on the future composition of the House of Lords. These include: first, a revised role for HOLAC to appoint within a reformed House of 600 temporal Peers one-third—or 200—as non-political Cross-Benchers; secondly, the setting up of an electoral college representative of all parts of the United Kingdom to indirectly elect 400 political Members, or two-thirds of a reformed House; and, thirdly, the establishment of different membership group numbers in order best to ensure the continuity of our present very high standard of legislative scrutiny and revision.
In a reformed House, this would be done by having the non-political Cross-Benchers in the majority, with 200 temporal Members—50 more than either the government or opposition parties, which would have exactly 150 political Members each, while other political and temporal Members, including the Liberal Democrats, would number 100.
Amendment 76, therefore, is in the context of a continued high standard of legislative scrutiny in a reformed House. It is achievable, provided that, as a first step, the right to sit and work in the House of Lords becomes decoupled from political patronage.
Lord Mancroft (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Lucas has raised an interesting point. There must be a case for decoupling the gift of a peerage or title from the membership of a legislature. Whether one thinks it a good idea or not, that is the route along which this Bill is slowly taking us. When the hereditary Peers leave this House, that will be another step towards it ceasing to be a House of Lords. It will become a senate, second Chamber or whatever you want to call it. The reality is that, if you take the Lords out of the House, it is not a House of Lords any more. Whether the Government want to go that way or not, that is the route they are going.
There has for years, not just in the last few years or decades, been this discussion about people being awarded peerages and obviously not really wanting to be Members of this House. They want to be called “Lord”; they like coronets and being grand, being called “My Lord” in restaurants, having tables and things such as that. It is done as a reward, whether for giving money to a political party or for some rather better reason—I do not know—but the reality is that some have been rewarded in this way and do not really have any interest in being a Member of this House. They want to be called “Lord” but certainly do not want to sit through Report of the rats and mice Bill at 9.45 pm.
That is the route we are going along, whether we like it or not, and at some stage this House will have to think about it. At some stage, whether on this or on future legislation, there will undoubtedly be a split between the peerage Lords and this House. They will divide and go in different directions. That is the reality of life.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I have signed the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Lucas in this group, but that is not because I agree with every aspect of his amendment. I am not sure that any amendment is necessary to achieve the purpose that he and some others who have spoken want to see. Indeed, it could have the negative effect of locking the absolute right of the Crown to create any form of peerage within the frame of the 1958 Act, which, among other things, says that all peerages created under it can be only baronies. I support the amendment because I have long advocated the course that it seeks to enable, and I sense support for that in the Committee. It seeks the creation of peerages that do not entitle a person to a writ to sit in the House of Lords.
The nation will always want to honour those who are most distinguished among us with the high honour of a peerage, yet, as we have heard, not everyone who might be glad—or perhaps hungry or avid—to accept or secure an honour will wish to undertake the sometimes arduous role of playing a part in your Lordships’ House. We all know such people. We have all have known also some who walk the narrow tightrope between honour and duty.
I do not subscribe to the view that all who come here must smash the pain and endurance barriers in participation or attendance. I deplore the fact that some of our number, including much-respected colleagues on the other side, are being measured in this way in a current media campaign against the House. However, I acknowledge that many in this House and outside have high expectations that someone who accepts a peerage should be active in this House. The noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, reminded us of the wording of our summons in an earlier debate.
As some have argued, if we were able clearly to separate those who wish to play a role in Parliament and those who do not, it would, at the lowest argument for such a proposition, reduce at least some of the inflow in headline numbers to this House, to which many attach importance. In short, as argued by my noble friends, and as I would argue, you could have on one side Lords created under the 1958 Act, with all the expectations of a Writ of Summons conferred by that Act and the accompanying duty to take part, and another set of Peers honoured with the same degree of barony—even, potentially, a higher degree—who had no wish to be in this place but who have been proved deserving of such an honour. That is surely perfectly possible.
I have argued this case to at least three Prime Ministers, but the usual reply comes that the law is uncertain. I do not think it is that uncertain, but, if it is, let us, while we have this Bill before us, rally round my noble friend’s amendment, or some variation of it come Report, and make it certain. This would be an exceedingly useful change for the body politic.
The Life Peerages Act did not create a novel concept of a peerage for life. That had existed for centuries. It corrected two problems that had arisen in decisions by your Lordships’ Committee for Privileges. In 1922, in the Viscountess Rhondda case, it decided that a woman could not sit in this House—a shameful judgment, in retrospect—and in 1856, in the Wensleydale case, it concluded that a life peerage did not confer on a man a right to sit and vote in Parliament.
The Wensleydale case is germane to this argument because, although the House held that Sir James Parke’s life peerage did not entitle him to sit or speak in the House—he was later, as many of us know, given a hereditary peerage to allow him to do so and to take up his role as a Law Lord—the Committee for Privileges did not and could not extinguish his life peerage, which remained in existence as a perfectly proper exercise of Queen Victoria’s prerogative as the fount of honour. The issue was whether the hereditary Peers wanted to have him as a life Peer. Although it was said at the time that the creation of a life peerage for men might have fallen into disuse, the Wensleydale barony showed that it had not.
Furthermore, long after the Restoration and into the 19th century, monarchs created peerages for life which did not confer the right to a writ to sit in this House. Charles II created 10, I think; James II created one; William III created at least one; George I created three, I think; and there were others later into the 19th century. They were all for women—and maybe that explains why Charles II created 10 of them. Sadly, in those days, because they were women, they were unable to sit.
The power to create such peerages without the right to sit is, therefore, in my submission, absolutely inherent and current in the Crown. That was also the conclusion of the Lord Speaker’s committee on the size of the House in 2017, in, I believe, paragraphs 25 and 26 of the report. I see the noble Lord, Lord Burns, indicating assent.
Whenever we listen to the Letters Patent at Introductions, we hear reference, after the words
“in pursuance of the Life Peerages Act 1958”,
to another phrase:
“and of all other powers in that behalf us enabling”.
Among those other powers is, clearly, the power to create other types of peerage than a life peerage under the 1958 Act. Indeed, we had peerages under the 1876 Act until lately.
I submit that a Prime Minister could advise the monarch tomorrow to create a life peerage that did not entitle the Peer to sit in this House. I submit that that would be a useful innovation that would be widely welcomed on all sides, whether you were to call it modernisation or, as I am asserting, a useful revival of a custom of the past. It would, frankly, be a far more useful modernisation than what is in the Bill before us. I commend this proposal to the House, as I commend the purpose of my noble friend’s amendment. It is a change that is long overdue and does not require legislation. If Sir Keir Starmer were to take it up, I think it would be widely welcomed as a modern and sensible innovation.
The Attorney-General (Lord Hermer) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, for their amendments and for the brevity with which they spoke. With the greatest respect to their Lordships, the Government do not consider the amendments to be necessary or appropriate.
The reason why is that the Government believe there should be clarity both in your Lordships’ House and in the public at large as to what a life peerage is and, importantly, what the responsibilities are of those accorded the privilege of appointment. The granting of a life peerage, as we all know, brings with it responsibility for the work of your Lordships’ House: scrutinising legislation and holding the Government of the day to account. As my noble friend the Leader of the House has said, Peers should be appointed not only in recognition of their skills and expertise but in anticipation of those skills being put in service to your Lordships’ House.
The Government believe there is obvious benefit to the reputation of Parliament that the role of life Peers is well understood by members of the public. It may be thought that it would be apt to confusion if there is another class bearing the same name but not carrying with it the same obligations.
By contrast to the life peerage, the honour system represents the monarch’s recognition of past service or achievement without any obligation to future service. We do not consider that there is a clamour, either in Parliament or among the public, for some form of superannuation to the honour system so that some would bear the same title as life Peers who work in this House.
For those reasons, I respectfully ask that the amendment be withdrawn.
Lord Mancroft (Con)
My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General sits down, there already are large numbers of Peers who are not Members of this House, so there are already two classes of Peer in that sense. So that part of his argument is spurious.
Also, if the noble and learned Lord casts his mind back—I am not sure if he was in the House at the time; he probably was—we spent some time earlier this evening talking about Peers who are Members of this House who clearly do not obey the Writ of Summons and do not want or choose, for lots of reasons, to play a part in this House. So, both the arguments he has put forward are completely spurious.
Lord Hermer (Lab)
With the greatest respect to the noble Lord, I made my points by reference to life peerages. Obviously, as your Lordships know well, there is nothing contained in this Bill that will affect the status of hereditary peerages, other than the rights to sit and vote in this House. Were the logic of the noble Earl’s argument to be taken to its logical extension, we would create a third—possibly even, on the noble Earl’s argument, a fourth—class of peerage. The Government simply do not consider that necessary. There is no public clamour for it. Certainly the arguments in favour of it could not possibly, in the Government’s view, outweigh the confusion that would arise in the public’s mind as to what a life Peer is and what their functions are, and that confusion would not serve to enhance the reputation of your Lordships’ House.
Lord Mancroft (Con)
I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his response. I am even more grateful to him for promoting me to an Earl, which I would love to be. Do not apologise; I am delighted to be an Earl and am enjoying the 30 seconds of earldom that I have been given.
The reality is that there are masses of Peers walking around the streets—I say “masses”, but it is quite a lot: several hundred—and going into smart restaurants and not coming into your Lordships’ House who are called “Lord This” and “Lord That”. They do not have a badge on them saying, “I am a hereditary Peer”, or another one saying, “I am a life Peer”. The fact is that most people in the world do not know the difference between a life Peer and a hereditary Peer. Again, the argument that the noble and learned Lord puts forward is a complete fantasy.
Lord Hermer (Lab)
Well, I am very grateful to the noble Lord for forgiving my rookie mistake.
We have already discussed during the course of the evening what I anticipate is an almost unanimous view of those of your Lordships who participate regularly in this House on the unacceptable situation of those who do not. There has been a fruitful discussion today, with insightful contributions from all sections of this House, reflecting a determination to address both that problem and the issue of participation. However, I respectfully say to the noble Lord that the very fact that there are Members of your Lordships’ House who do not participate but nevertheless continue to enjoy the benefits of the title is not an argument for creating yet another class of life peerage; it is an argument for the work that will, I hope, take place to address the problems that we face with participation.
Lord Burns (CB)
As was referred to earlier by the Leader of the Opposition, in the Lord Speaker’s Committee, we looked at this in some detail and had legal advice that it would be possible. However, on this narrow question, surely there is another group of people who are around: those who have retired and have kept their titles but no longer receive a Writ of Summons.
Lord Hermer (Lab)
Again, we need to remember what the amendment seeks to do, which is create yet another category. The question there is: how would this help and who would it serve? The Government’s position is that a further category would not help promote the image of your Lordships’ House in the public eye. It would lead to confusion and it would not add to utility. There is no suggestion that the honours system is somehow bereft of a further status that needs to be met by the creation of a further class of Peer.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
The noble and learned Lord asked how this would help and who it would serve. I had the privilege of acting as an adviser to a former leader of my party, a former Prime Minister, and I certainly saw, as noble Lords have alluded to, the not inconsiderable queue of people who come to offer themselves for service in the upper House. I have seen party leaders of all political persuasions come under similar pressure. It would help them to be able to say, “Look, there are ways of recognising your great contribution to national life without giving you a seat in the legislature”, thus separating the distinction of a barony, earldom, marquisate or whatever from a perpetual role in legislating for the life of the nation.
Lord Hermer (Lab)
That may be a convenient out for Prime Ministers present and future but it is not, in the Government’s view, a compelling reason to create a further class of life Peer; and it is certainly not compelling enough to offset the confusion in the public eye that would be created by such an additional class.
Lord True (Con)
I am sorry to persist. It is clear that we are getting nowhere on this tonight, but I believe this is a very constructive proposal. I am very disappointed by the noble and learned Lord’s response. A peerage is a peerage; a barony is a barony, whatever it is, under whatever part of the prerogative or Act of Parliament, or otherwise, it exists. As the noble Lord, Lord Burns, pointed out, we have retired people, we have hereditary Peers—the public are not reeling about in confusion. It may be that the noble and learned Lord is reeling about in confusion, but there may be many ways and many things that attach to the possession of the title “Lord”, just as if you have a knighthood, you can be a cricketer or a captain of industry, or many other things. The noble and learned Lord is ingeniously trying to create difficulties where, frankly, none exist. I would have thought this modernising Government would have the imagination to take a step forward.
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, at the risk of being sent to a re-education camp by my Chief Whip, I find the noble and learned Lord’s argument more persuasive. However, I gave no notice to the Minister about my issue on styles. Can the noble and learned Lord give some careful consideration to that in due course and write to me on it?
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I understand what the Government’s policy is; I think it is profoundly mistaken. As my noble friend on the Front Bench said, I do not think that people perceive someone who is Lord Hermer to be different from any other species of Lord Hermer who might have appeared as a hereditary Peer or, indeed, a Law Lord. It is a title, and the fact that these things come from different directions would not cause a problem. I think that all of us who have been in this place for a while are aware of people who have come here and are totally unsuited to the job we do and the life we lead but who have, in every way, deserved the honour of a peerage—I will not name names, but it is easy to think of lots of them. I can also think of those who have not taken up a peerage, when they obviously deserve one, because of the obligations that being a Member of this House brings and which they personally would wish to avoid.
I think that something along these lines would be good. I share my noble friend Lord True’s frustration at having been unable to persuade the previous Government of various things, but I did have hopes of this reforming Government, and I am sorry that they have been disappointed. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Lucas
“No majority for one party in the House of LordsAfter section 1 of the Life Peerages Act 1958, insert—“1A No majority for one party in the House of Lords(1) An appointment may not be made to the House of Lords if it would have the effect of taking the total number of peers from parties forming part of the Government to more than 40% of the total members of that House.(2) If at any time the number of peers from parties forming part of the Government exceeds 40% of the total members of the House of Lords, no appointments to the parties forming part of the Government may be made until that number is reduced below 40% either by resignation, new appointments or leave of absence.””
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, it seems to me—and this is certainly something that I would want to take through to Report—that, if we are to have a House that is totally appointed by the Prime Minister, one of the really important things is to have some control of the consequences of that for the House of Lords. It is in our memories the threat that was made in 1911 to flood the House with Peers to support the Government. I think that would be a disaster. I am glad we avoided it at the time. The Lord Lucas at the time was a Liberal, and therefore sensible.
I do not think it is the right basis for a second Chamber in a democratic country that the Prime Minister can, if they are sufficiently upset with the second House, effectively flood it with their own supporters and have done with it. Moving, as we are, to a House where the Prime Minister has total control over who comes in, we ought to have some recognition of the current settlement, which is that the Government do not have a majority in this House. I beg to move.
Viscount Goschen (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend does the Committee a significant service by putting forward this amendment. It encapsulates the arguments around a fully appointed House and this extraordinary situation that we find ourselves heading towards—a fully appointed House, with all appointments made by the Prime Minister, and a ratchet, in effect, in numbers, going upwards and upwards, when there is a change of Government. I think my noble friend’s amendment, which sounds so simple and straightforward, throws up any number of difficulties, and we could spend the next two or three days of Committee, if such things existed, talking about how this mechanism might work.
My noble friend Lord Lucas is absolutely right to raise the question of the balance between the parties and the Prime Minister’s ability to introduce, unchecked, large numbers of Peers into the House. I was very taken —on Monday, I think it was—when we were talking about the question of elections, when a hushed silence went through the Committee and there were some shocked faces. I felt like I was in a Bateman cartoon: the man who dared to mention elections in the House of Lords—shock, horror. But here we are, discussing one version of an archaic situation versus another.
It is quite clear that there is no rational defence of the Prime Minister being able to appoint, without any check on numbers, to this House. The question of coalitions—parties that might come together and then split apart, parties that might themselves divide—would cause all sorts of difficulties. I suspect that this amendment that my noble friend has put forward is a legislative hand grenade, designed to illustrate the difficulties rather than necessarily put forward a carefully worked through solution.
Lord Newby (LD)
The noble Viscount will not be surprised at me saying again that the only way to deal with the problem that this amendment seeks to address is to have an election.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My noble friend’s amendment to ensure that no one party has a majority in the House of Lords is a relatively new idea. In the pre-1999 House of more than 1,000 noble Lords, there was often a majority well-disposed to the Government of the day. I remember observing, as an adviser in the Conservative Government after 2015, that this was perhaps the first Conservative Government in history who did not enjoy a majority in the House of Lords. What we are confronting here is a relatively new phenomenon.
Of course, it was a problem that the Labour Party faced much earlier, and had to contend with under the leadership of my noble friend Lord Attlee’s grandfather, after 1945. Out of that arose what we know as the Salisbury convention, though really it should not be called that. Viscount Cranborne had not acceded to the marquisate at that time, and poor old Viscount Addison never gets remembered.
Under that convention, your Lordships’ House agreed that it would not seek to thwart the main lines of Labour’s legislation provided it derived from the party’s manifesto for the previous election. Sadly, the then-future fifth Marquess did not tell us what to do about full stops or other punctuation in Labour manifestos, but it was a convention that certainly helped the Attlee Government get its business through and make all the changes that it did to this country. It echoed the referendal theory, which was developed under the third Marquess, in relation to legislation that was brought forward by Liberal Governments, but it is clear there was a lack of clarity on this convention.
I remember the noble Baroness the Lord Privy Seal arguing to your Lordships’ Committee on the Constitution, when I was in Downing Street advising my noble friend Lady May of Maidenhead, that it was far from clear that the Salisbury-Addison convention was ever intended to apply to minority Governments and that was not an eventuality that was foreseen by the Marquess of Salisbury in the 1940s.
There are clearly a lot of gaps to fill. There was an attempt by your Lordships’ House—indeed, there was a Joint Committee—to look at the conventions and the two Houses’ understanding of how they operated, back in 2006. I wonder whether the noble Baroness or the present Government have any intention of repeating that exercise, in looking to codify or clarify the convention or to point out other unforeseen circumstances, such as minority Governments in another place.
In the 1997 Labour manifesto, there was a sentence that said:
“No one political party should seek a majority in the House of Lords”.
There was no such statement or commitment in the 2024 manifesto. I think the noble Baroness the Lord Privy Seal has been clear from the Dispatch Box before that it is her view that no party should seek a majority in your Lordships’ House, and I would be grateful if she would expand on that in a moment.
But I think my noble friend Lord Hailsham, who has spoken a few times—
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My noble friend, who has spoken briefly and enjoyably on every occasion, is keen to hear from the Lord Privy Seal, as are we all, so I leave it to her.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I am grateful. I was wondering what the chuntering was—I did not quite catch what the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, was talking about.
It is an interesting proposal from the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. I cannot recall—and I think the noble Lord had this right—the last time any political party had an overall majority in this Chamber. He talked about an overall majority, as the Conservative Party has been the largest party for a very long time; before the passing of the 1999 Act, it had over 40%, so it was the Conservative Party that had that majority prior to the hereditary Peers leaving at that time. Since their removal, no party has ever had more than 40% of the seats. Even when this Bill is passed, the Government Benches will still only be 28% of the seats of this House.
I was not quite sure what the noble Lord meant by a “ratchet effect”. The noble Lord will know that I have decried that. It worked very badly under the last Government, where it seemed that every time the Government lost a vote, they would put more Peers in, even though they had a much larger group than any other party and still lost votes. The issue of losing votes is often to do with the quality of the legislation; it is never just about numbers in this place.
The purpose behind the amendment from noble Lord, Lord Lucas, is to address the fact that it has been said, in the media and in the Chamber, that today’s Government are trying to remove hereditary Peers to create vacancies and bring in more Labour Peers to create a majority. My very strong view is on record—in Select Committee in the other place and here—that this House does its best work when there are roughly equal numbers between Government and Opposition.
I would like to see a House of Lords that is more deliberative. We got into some bad habits under the last Government, where a system of “We have the numbers and can get this through” came about. That largely started during the coalition Government, when there was a very large majority for the coalition. Almost anything the coalition Government wanted to do would get through. When we have roughly equal numbers between the main opposition and government parties, we do our best work, because we are more deliberative in our approach and more engaged in how we work. We are not just thinking it is all about vote; it is about the quality of debate and the quality of advice we can offer.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I recognise the good faith that the Government have shown so far, and we have acknowledged in our previous exchanges the different records of previous Conservative Prime Ministers in this regard. The noble Baroness has been very kind about my former boss, my noble friend Lady May.
Once she gets to the roughly equal numbers of the two Benches facing one another that she sees, does she see a case for putting in a protection so that future Prime Ministers, who may not behave with the same discretion that Sir Keir Starmer is currently behaving with—I am sure with the noble Baroness’s support and encouragement—are not able to do what previous Prime Ministers have done before, to her dismay? We have talked about the need for some check on the number or the rate or regularity with which Prime Ministers can recommend people: they go through the Prime Minister, but at a time of the Prime Minister’s choosing and in the number of his choice. Should there be a protection there?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
The noble Lord tempts me—I wonder whether he is trying to tempt me against a future Cameron or Johnson premiership, because that was the time when the numbers were increased. I have had the same pressure from some of my own colleagues after the behaviour of previous Conservative Governments. I would hope that there would not be a need for it, but I think it is something we would look at in future, if Prime Ministers were behaving in a way that was inappropriate in terms of appointments. However, we are not at that point at the moment and it would be wrong at the moment to put that in.
The Norton Bill also talked about 20% for the Cross Benches. While I think that that is a fair and appropriate percentage of the House for the Cross Benches, I would not define that in statute, because defining only one party or group in statute does not help the balance of the House—it is rather mixed, then. In saying that the governing party cannot have more than 40%, you then have to look at the balance for the rest of the House and not just at one particular group.
I agree with the noble Lord on conventions; they are important and have stood the test of time. I remind him that it is not just the Salisbury convention—it is the Salisbury/Addison convention, because there was a Labour and a Conservative leader at the time who agreed on conventions that have served this House well. They served us through the 1999 legislation and will serve us well in future. I think that we would all want to abide by them, because we do our best work when we abide by the conventions, as we did in opposition.
So I understand the sentiments behind the noble Lord’s amendment and have a lot of sympathy with it. I think that the House works best in that way—but the amendment is too restrictive at present and I respectfully ask that he withdraw it.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Lord Privy Seal for that comprehensive answer. We clearly agree on the state of parties that makes this House work best. We also agree as to who has pushed those percentages in a way that perhaps they should not have done, and it has not been the Labour Party. My concern is to produce a system which preserves the sort of balance that she and I agree we need in the face of a future Prime Minister who does not behave well—of whatever colour; probably our party given the precedence—but, either way, my concern is for the House more than party. For now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
I am not able to call Amendments 38 or 39, as they are amendments to Amendment 37.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
I am not able to call Amendments 41 and 42, as they are amendments to Amendment 40.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
I am not able to call Amendment 44A, because it is an amendment to Amendment 43.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
I cannot call Amendment 46, because it is an amendment to Amendment 45.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
Amendments 53 and 54 are amendments to Amendment 52, so I cannot call them.