Grand Committee
(1 day, 19 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Arrangement of Business
(1 day, 19 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
My Lords, if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, this Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells have rung.
Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [HL]
Wednesday 11th December 2024
(1 day, 19 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [HL] 2024-26 View all Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [HL] 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 18-IV Fourth marshalled list for Grand Committee - (9 Dec 2024)
Lord Holmes of Richmond
“Review of product regulations and supply chains(1) On the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must initiate a review of all product regulations and standards as they pertain to supply chains.(2) The review must assess how product regulations align with the principles of traceability, transparency and trust.(3) The review must recommend a new supply chain standard to take into account factors including the supply chain of a product’s—(a) environmental impact;(b) transparency and traceability, in real time, of products, financial, trade and legal documents.”
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to take part in today’s Committee proceedings on the Bill. In doing so, I declare my interests as set out in the register, not least my technology interests; in particular, I have advised and socially recruited for an AI business.
In moving Amendment 52, I shall speak also to Amendments 53 and 79 in my name. These may seem disparate and interestingly grouped together, but they have three things largely in common. There are three of them, I wrote them all and, most importantly, they are all underpinned by the potential of having a golden thread of inclusion and innovation running right though them.
On Amendment 52, I am looking for the Government to consider a metrology standard around supply chains, which are notoriously opaque. If you try to go beyond even one step back in any supply chain, things start to get a bit fuzzy. As a result of the technologies now available to us, however, there is the potential to unite in real time physical goods, legal documentation, financial documentation and all customs documents. More than that, there is the potential to link all the environmental factors, not just of that supply chain but of the goods and services involved in it, right from the point when they were brought into being. This is another example of the extraordinary power of the new technologies and what the data that underpins them can bring in driving economic as well as social benefits, while under- pinning environmental benefits as a consequence. What is the Government’s position on how we could look at developing such a standard for the supply chain, which would be beneficial not just in each specific supply chain—for all those businesses and entities involved—but right across our society and economy?
Amendment 53 looks at large language models—the foundational models that have had so much publicity and focus, not least in the last two years. As with Amendment 52, I suggest the development of a standard around LLMs and consider the achievement of that standard to enable access to the UK market and economy. Again, that would be beneficial to consumer and citizen, and social, economic and, yes, environmental benefits could all flow from it. It is important to consider not only the economic and environmental costs of developing those foundational models but their usage, every time somebody asks one of these models—we all know their names—a query about those costs. All that would be worth considering in the development of a standard. On the specifics of some of the data used in the development and training of those models, we should look at the IP and copyright issues and consider the legislation and whether the LLMs would fall into the category of an article for the purposes of the copyright Act.
I should be interested in the Minister’s view on the specifics within that amendment and the benefit that could be gained from the development and work—even if a standard was not the final output—to be done around these models, and the levels of understanding and public awareness that could flow from such a piece of work.
Amendment 79 suggests the development of a standard: inclusive by design, or IBD. Be one young, old, a disabled person, or somebody from any socio- economic group, geography or city, putting IBD in a product benefits everybody by the very nature of that inclusion. There are two parts to this. First, all new products should be developed and deployed as inclusive by design. That should be self-evident and relatively straightforward to bring about. Secondly, and perhaps as important, largely because it is less discussed, there is what happens when a product has previously been inclusive and accessible but then, as a result of a change, an update or a new product rollout, becomes inaccessible and exclusionary.
It is probably best to draw this out through example. Consider the card readers that we all use to pay for goods. For many years, they were inclusive to me as a blind person and to all members of society, not least through the simplest elements of raised keys and a dot on the “5” key. I would know exactly where that was and I, inclusively and independently, could put my PIN into the card machine. Then we saw the rollout of completely flat-screen card payment machines. They are not inclusive or accessible, and of no use to me and millions of people up and down the country who, prior to that product rollout, could have inclusively, independently and—crucially in this context—secretly made their payments. What option is there now, if presented with a flat screen machine? Should one whisper, sotto voce, “4982”? That is not my PIN number. Even if it were, the paucity of funds in the account renders it worthless for noble Lords to remember. Or should I give my card to a friend or ask the person in the store to make the payment under those terms?
None of that is inclusive, independent, secret or in any sense dignified for a citizen in 21st century Britain. Amendment 79 is all about looking into the development of a standard, inclusive by design. Imagine what we could do right across our society and economy. Think about the debate, discourse and discussion, and the positive input that the development of this standard could have across this country, and then connecting right around the world. Such a positive piece of work could drive benefits, business, economic opportunities and social inclusion. It would be good for citizens, business, innovators, investment and our country.
I look forward to the Minister’s response. I hope it will be seen as a positive piece of work that could easily be picked up and rolled out by the Government. I very much look forward to the debate. I beg to move.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
My Lords, I always like the opportunity to hear my noble friend Lord Holmes because his amendments mostly very much appeal to me. Today’s Amendment 79, to which he has just spoken so eloquently, certainly appeals to me, and I just wanted to add a few words.
I am responsible, for my sins, for the Parking Act 1989, which I am sure noble Lords will spend a lot of time reviewing and considering. The nature of that Act was for the first time to allow parking to take place in this country in a way that did not exclusively require the use of cash. We were slightly ahead of the game at the time, because I think we had only Barclaycards and not telephone exchanges that you could ring into to park your car. All these things have come about because of that simple Act.
I share the frustrations of my noble friend Lord Holmes when we look at how so many things nowadays are developments of such initiatives but without taking into account the great importance of trying to be as broad as possible in their appeal and use. A good example of that was given by my noble friend. There are many machines—I know he has expressed his frustration before about cash machines—and other products, in the general sense, that cannot be accessed by people with disabilities, or where there is insufficient explanation of how they can be implemented. I very much support his ideas about inclusive by design and see no reason why, in the 21st century, we cannot be more enlightened about this. It seems unnecessary for it to have to be raised in this way regularly in legislation that we pass in Parliament, but here we have a marvellous opportunity for the Government—the Minister is looking very excited about this prospect—to introduce, in a legitimate area of the Bill, something that will really make lives much better for those with disabilities through product development. I very much support Amendment 79.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate, and to commend the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, for a very clear introduction to three amendments. The Green group is very happy to support all of them. I apologise to the Committee that was I absent for the last two days of Committee. Once I was stuck in the Chamber and the other day I was unavoidably away, so I apologise for missing some of my own amendments, but I really wanted to speak on these amendments. I will start with Amendment 79. We have just heard a very useful argument for it and I will briefly add to it.
Inclusive by design is talking about going beyond accessibility and beyond saying, “We have this thing. What do we do now to make it accessible?”. This starts from the very beginning and takes us back to the social model of disability. Our society and our products are designed to be non-inclusive. That is what we are doing now and that is wrong in terms of allowing so many people to fully participate in our society. It is also always important to make the argument that it is better for all of us, not just those who may have a disability, now or in the future, if products are made to be easy to access so that you are able to do things. There is wrestling with opening a jar or that terrible rigid plastic packaging on toothbrushes and other things that many people struggle with. If you made those things inclusive by design, they would be better for all of us.
Following the technological arguments already made, I thought back to when I helped an elderly man attempt to access his banking. It was certainly not accessible to him and, as a friend, I knew his password and everything else because I had to. The machine he had to press was about the size of a matchbox; the keys were on it and I struggled to press them. There was two-factor authentication, and I could not understand the text message or work out which numbers in the text message you were supposed to put in, and I have been using technology for many decades. This is so important and could be a real advance.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, I shall be brief and start with Amendment 79. We could join in the chorus of approval and my noble friend Lady Brinton could come up with dozens of examples that justify the noble Lord’s amendment but, in the interests of time, we will not. If noble Lords would like more examples, I am sure my noble friend could provide them. We very much support Amendment 79.
I commend the noble Lord for persuading the Public Bill Office to allow him to table Amendment 53. The spirit is very much met. Given the nature of all the digital Bills, with which he is completely familiar, I suspect this is an argument we will have again and again in those Bills. The spirit is correct.
I want to say a few words on Amendment 52 which are different from the words noble Lords have heard. I sit on the International Agreements Committee and we look at the CPTPP trade deal. Rules of origin are central to all this. The nature of CPTPP is that, for example, a product built in Malaysia can start to move freely within the countries that are signatories to that trade deal. Whether we have the details of the components of that product before it starts moving around our alliance depends on His Majesty’s Government asserting their right to know what is in those products. Whether the Government like it or not, in this Bill, with their signing of the CPTPP, they are going to have to start to interest themselves in a detailed way on what is in the stuff travelling around the CPTPP.
Why is that? One of the biggest exporters of components into Malaysia is China. That brings us back to the whole China question, which I will not repeat here. If, for example, we find that that country is the subject of either embargo or tariff, we will really have to know what is going on in all those products. So it makes a lot of sense, from the very start, for the department to flex its muscles and develop its skills to understand the supply chains of the things coming through people’s doors every day, courtesy of the large online retailers.
When a piece of electrical stuff comes through our door, we have absolutely no idea what is in it, where it was made and its safety for our families. We cannot know that without knowing the supply chain and the rules of origin of what is moving around our country. It is difficult, of course, but it is something in which we will have to increasingly interest ourselves.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, before I start on these amendments, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Leong, for the generous letters that he sent the Committee after previous sessions, which answered a number of questions. I generally commend the Government on their spirit of co-operation on these matters.
I am sincerely grateful to my noble friend Lord Holmes for introducing this critical amendment and for supplying his PIN. Like my noble friend Lord Kirkhope, it very much appeals to me too, because the principle of being inclusive by design reflects a visionary and much-needed step forward in ensuring that products in the UK are accessible and equitable for all members of society—as my noble friend so eloquently and powerfully set out.
The establishment of an inclusive-by-design standard underscores our collective commitment to creating a society where accessibility and inclusion are the norm and not the exception. Moreover, inclusive design benefits everyone, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, pointed out. Features designed for accessibility, such as voice commands or larger interfaces, often enhance usability for all users. For businesses, I would have thought it an opportunity to innovate and differentiate themselves in a very competitive market. For consumers, it is a guarantee that their needs are being respected. So I have no hesitation at all in supporting Amendment 79.
I am also happy to support Amendments 52 and 53. I will not say much about them except to add that Amendment 52 also addresses pertinent and indeed poignant national security or—perhaps this is a better expression—security of supply concerns. A complete national understanding of supply chains makes unarguably good sense.
In conclusion, I wholeheartedly support Amendment 79 and am very sympathetic to Amendments 52 and 53, and I urge the Government to think seriously about them.
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate, and I specifically thank the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, for his amendments. During the second day in Committee, the noble Lord illustrated his knowledge of and passion for the subject of AI.
I turn first to Amendment 53 on the review of large language models. We have already discussed the intersection or interaction between this Bill and AI in a previous group, and I will briefly restate some of the key points I made in that debate which are relevant here. Evidently, the use of AI in products is still in its infancy. How exactly this technology will develop remains to be seen, but we have drafted the Bill in such a way that it keeps pace with technological change; Clause 2(2)(a) allows regulations to take account of intangible components of a physical product.
However, the Bill does not and will not regulate digital products or artificial intelligence in and of themselves. Instead—I hope this reassures the noble Lord, Lord Holmes—the Government are developing a wider policy around AI, which I am sure will take into consideration proposals for AI safety legislation as announced in the King’s Speech. I recognise that noble Lords keenly anticipate the detail of these proposals, so I assure your Lordships that my noble friend Lady Jones will update the House in due course.
The Office for Product Safety & Standards is considering the use of AI in products and the regulatory challenges for product safety associated with that. We are just at the start of that process but know that it will become more important as technologies develop. I will ensure that the House is kept up to date with progress on this work.
Amendment 52 addresses product traceability and responsibilities within supply chains, including digital supply chains. I agree with noble Lords that it is essential that those responsible for producing or importing products are identifiable. Existing regulations already require relevant supply chain parties to maintain necessary documentation for tracing product origins and, as we consider updates to product requirements, we will also review these traceability provisions to ensure that they are fit for purpose. The noble Lord, Lord Fox, mentioned CPTPP, which in fact comes into force this Sunday when the UK becomes a full member. I suppose we will just have to review the application of this whole supply chain and traceability, and monitor how it goes.
Lord Fox (LD)
I thank the Minister, but perhaps there is another of his letters here—for which I also thank him. The CPTPP is not like the European Union—there is not a secretariat overseeing what is going on. If you think something wrong is going on, it is up to the Government to raise it. It would be useful to know how the department is now going to police or at least find out what it needs to deal with. Otherwise, it is essentially transparent.
Lord Leong (Lab)
I totally agree with the noble Lord. I will ensure that officials in the department look into this and either write to him or have a meeting on this.
Over the coming year, our priority will be continuing to address the sale of unsafe goods on online marketplaces—an area that noble Lords are right to highlight and on which they have demonstrated extensive knowledge and passion in the best traditions of this House. As outlined in the Government’s response to the product safety review consultation, we will also explore digital solutions, including the use of voluntary digital labelling, to streamline business processes and support authorities in monitoring product safety.
However, it should be noted that issues of traceability are much broader than ensuring the safety or proper functioning of products. This would bring in myriad other policy issues, such as the nature of global supply chains and cross-border jurisdictional arrangements. I believe that noble Lords would agree that these issues warrant careful discussion and debate, but they are distinct from the Bill’s purpose of ensuring the safety and functionality of products.
Amendment 79 relates to the creation of a mandatory inclusive-by-design standard. I am pleased to inform the noble Lord that the British Standards Institution has already developed and published a British Standard that provides guidelines for the adoption of an inclusive approach to the design of products. The standard sets out a strategic framework and processes to enable business executives and design practitioners to understand that inclusive design should be a core organisational driver.
I refer back to the example the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, gave of credit card payments. We have come a long way, but I still remember those zapping machines that zapped your credit card and you had to sign the receipt. That obviously creates a lot of situations where fraud can happen. Then we had the PIN, and nowadays contactless. I have been reading some articles before today’s debate, and some of the financial institutions are looking at mobile wallets, whereby an encrypted account number is embedded within the wallet itself. But these are early days, so we have to keep watching this area and see how it develops.
Furthermore, an updated version of the ground-breaking, government-sponsored, fast-track standard on inclusive data use in standards was published by the BSI in August this year and is free to download. This helps standards makers to work with data with inclusion in mind so that the standards produced are representative and include communities that are traditionally excluded, helping to minimise harm and deliver more robust products. Standards are voluntary in nature and the Bill, as with our current product safety regulations, continues to allow the use of standards to remain voluntary, avoiding potential barriers to trade.
I hope that the noble Lord is satisfied with the explanations given today and that the amendment will be withdrawn.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
I thank all noble Lords who took part in this interesting debate, and the Minister for his response. Clearly, there is still a long way to go when it comes to an inclusive experience, inclusive products and inclusive services—and, thus, a sense of living in communities and cities, and in a country, that are inclusive by design.
I thank the Minister for his response. I would not be averse to a letter; it is always nice to receive one. Christmas cards are also possible at this festive time. I will certainly look carefully at Hansard, but I fancy that we may well return to “inclusive by design” on Report. For the time being, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 52.
“Clothing safety: regulations and requirements(1) Within three years of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must, by regulations under section 1, make provision to reduce risks as defined in section 1(4) presented by clothing.(2) For the purposes of this section, clothing means items of fabric, leather, plastic and similar materials usually worn on the human body.(3) Within three years of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must also make provision about clothing product requirements by regulations under section 2. (4) Regulations in accordance with subsection (3) must set out product requirements for the production, use, marking, marketing, testing, approval and provision of information (including information about risk) of clothing.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment intends to probe whether the Secretary of State will use powers under sections 1 and 2 to regulate clothing products, given the human and environmental health risks they represent from artificial fibres and chemical constituents.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 57, I will also speak to Amendments 58 and 59 in my name.
I feel I must begin by offering credit to the noble Earl, Lord Lytton. I was looking at the Bill and thinking, “How do we address particularly pressing issues of safety and environmental concern around products, addressing particular types of products?” The noble Earl put down an amendment on building products, and my drafting owes a great deal to his amendments, so I feel I should acknowledge that. I note that my amendments mirror each other in many ways, although noble Lords will notice that there is a difference: the clothing safety amendment suggests a three-year period before action is taken, while the single-use plastics amendment suggests two years and the period products amendment suggests one year. That is a reflection of capability, scientific understanding and the importance of having the ability to take action as quickly as possible. Viable timeframes have been carefully selected in each one.
These three amendments fit together very well because all of them address the way in which we are exceeding the planetary boundary for what are known as “novel entities”, as identified by the Stockholm Resilience Centre. These are substances made by humans and previously unknown in the natural world. Generally speaking, the natural world has no capacity to deal with, process or get rid of them. In talking about the natural world, I am also talking about the bodies of human animals—all of us. These products, chemicals, plastics and other substances are accumulating in our environment day by day, week by week, month by month and year by year. They are not going away. It is the people in the most disadvantaged communities and situations who are most exposed to these products and their increasingly understood health effects.
Amendment 57 concerns clothing safety. I suspect that there was probably puzzlement in some quarters when people saw this: “Unsafe clothing?” I have to pay credit to a new independent feature documentary by the fashion designer Jeff Garner, called “Let Them Be Naked”. I went to a London Fashion Week showing of this documentary, which focuses on the use of toxic chemicals in fabrics and the harmful impacts on human and environmental health. Clothing worn next to our skin for long periods exposes us to chemicals that can cause short-term and long-term health effects, including cancer and fertility issues. Repeated testing of clothing such as socks, school uniforms and work uniforms has found harmful quantities of toxic chemicals well above legal limits and standards. It is worth noting that, whether it is school pupils or workers with a uniform, people have no choice in these matters. Of course, this issue affects not just the people wearing this clothing but the people who make it, where the material is dumped, et cetera.
I will briefly bring in some detailed information. Laboratory research commissioned by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation showed that, out of 38 samples of clothing and accessories, one in five contained high levels of harmful chemicals such as lead, PFAS—known as “forever chemicals”—and phthalates. A North American lab study of stain-resistant school uniforms identified high levels of PFAS—of course, these uniforms are worn by often very small children, so the ratio of the amount of PFAS to body weight is very high. Another chemical of concern is bisphenol A. Research for the Center for Environmental Health found that over 100 popular brands of socks contained up to 31 times California’s legal safety limit for BPA. There is a famous case of Alaska Airlines, which introduced a new uniform. Staff who were forced to wear it reported symptoms of chemical sensitivity, sore throats, coughs, shortness of breath, itchy skin, rashes and hives, itchy eyes, loss of voice and blurred vision.
I will pick up one chemical and cite some interesting British research from just this year, published in the journal Environment International. This was a real break- through piece of research. Previously, it had been said of PFAS, these forever chemicals, “Don’t worry—they don’t cross the skin barrier, so you can be wearing them, but they won’t harm you”. But this research demonstrated that that is simply not true. It is of course already known that PFAS can enter the body through being breathed in or being ingested in food or water, and it is known that, by those routes, it causes a lower immune response to vaccination, impaired liver function and decreased birth weight in babies. In this study from the University of Birmingham, 15 of 17 PFASs tested showed substantial absorption through the skin. Remember that it had been said, “No, no—this does not happen. It’s fine”. But 15 of the 17 tested were being absorbed through the skin and at least 5% of the exposure dose was being absorbed. For PFOA, which is one of the most regulated ones—it is regulated because it is considered dangerous—13.5% was absorbed through the skin. This is on people’s clothing, effectively being injected into their bodies.
There is also the important issue of plastics. It is starting to be understood—but still little understood—that, as the marine conservation organisation Plastic Soup Foundation pointed out recently, 69% of fashion is now synthetic materials. Noble Lords have heard me talking before about how microplastics are being found in human testes, placentas, breast milk and brains. But it is not just the microplastics themselves. At the Future Fabrics Expo in London earlier this year, it was pointed out that nylon in particular is very detrimental to our lungs, especially in terms of repair and growth. It is not the fibre itself that is the primary culprit but the chemicals associated with it. I was looking around this Committee and thinking that I cannot see a lot of artificial fibres, but we are a very privileged group of people; if you looked at a different socioeconomic group, that would not be the case. That is my clothing introduction.
I turn to Amendment 58, which of course is closely related because it is about single-use plastics. We mostly hope that clothing is not a single-use item, but in our environment today there is an enormous amount of single-use plastic that is sometimes used for seconds and then will exist in our environment for hundreds of years.
Here I pay credit to City to Sea, a campaign group that I am sure many noble Lords are aware of. If noble Lords have not seen its briefing, I would be delighted to share it. Some 220 million tonnes of plastic waste were created in 2024. Globally, the average is 28 kilos per person. That is a 10% rise since 2021. Although we have been talking about plastics and having a UN plastics treaty, the amount of plastic being produced and put out into the world is still going up.
As we referred to on the previous group, so many of the products we are talking about have unnecessary single-use plastics wrapped around them. If we are to be serious about making a safe world for people to live in, we need product regulation that drastically slashes this amount of single-use plastic. In the UK alone, households throw away an estimated 90 billion pieces of plastic packaging. That is nearly 70% of our plastic waste. If we are regulating products, we need to think about the packaging as well.
Thinking again about the health impacts, a letter by the Plastic Health Council and signed by a range of doctors, including from the Alder Hey Children’s Hospital, the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, Queen’s University Belfast, Doctors Against Harm, and NHS trusts, calls for action. This was in the UN context, but it also applies to the Bill. The letter recognised that endocrine-disrupting chemicals in plastics can impair sperm quality and fertility, and cause cancers, endometriosis, early puberty, neurological and learning disabilities, abnormalities in sex organs, altered growth and nervous system and immune function, and diverse respiratory, cardiovascular and metabolic diseases. I note that there has been a global decline in sperm counts of more than 60%. Leading scientists have suggested that most couples may have to use assisted reproduction by 2045.
I am aware that noble Lords may feel I am battering them over the head with a whole lot of statistics, but we are talking about people’s lives, health and future. I have talked about things that apply to us all—clothing and single-use plastics—but I turn now to the amendment in which I have suggested that we should see action from the Government within a year on period products. Here, I draw extensively on the work of the Women’s Environmental Network, which has a proposed menstrual health, dignity and sustainability Act containing elements of this and much more besides.
I will start with the biology. The vagina contains a very large number of blood vessels, which means that the skin is very absorbent. What is in period products really matters. Yet, as I learned from Helen Lynn at Wen, there are currently more regulations about what can be in a candle than what can be in a tampon. Earlier this year, lead, arsenic and cadmium were all found in a variety of tampons tested in the UK and internationally. Single-use menstrual products have been shown to contain phthalates, bisphenols and parabens, which I have already talked about in other contexts. Despite their apparently cottony appearance, tampons and pads can be up to 90% plastic, meaning they continually shed microplastics during use and afterwards.
Many of these products contain fragrances, which are of particular concern. These synthetic fragrances are compiled from a cocktail of up to 3,000 different chemicals, none of which, of course, is recorded in the packaging or—to pick up the point from the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, about transparency—available to consumers, even if they go hunting to find what they are. They contain chemicals that are carcinogens, allergens, irritants and endocrine-disrupting chemicals, which I have talked about before. Despite changes in bleaching practices to purify wood pulp, chlorine and dioxin—you really do not want to put dioxin in your body—can still be found in menstrual pads and tampons.
Finally, I come to a fast-developing and crucial issue that is a real illustration of how a lack of regulation lets us go horribly wrong. Because of environmental concerns, we have rightly seen a shift towards reusable menstrual products. Broadly, that is obviously a good thing, but there is a stigma around menstrual products and period blood. These products are often advertised as tackling menstrual odour—which is not a thing; it is an advertising construction—and contain silver or nanosilver. This applies not just to menstrual products; see also socks, T-shirts and other clothing. That causes direct toxicity to the human body and negative impacts on the vaginal microbiome—known as microbiotoxicity —which can lead to bacterial infections and even problems with pregnancies.
Of course, noble Lords have heard me talk many times before about antimicrobial resistance. The silver washes out of these reusable products and down our drains to join the cocktail of other antimicrobial-inducing products swilling around in our drains, where there are microbes that will be influenced by them and develop resistance.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for tabling these three amendments. I have a question about Amendment 59.
Paragraph 9 of the Schedule says that:
“Medicines and medical devices as defined in the Medicines and Medical Devices Act 2021, other than devices designed for weighing or measuring for medical purposes”
are excluded from the Bill. I say that because the guidance on what is and is not covered by that Act is somewhat contradictory. It says that sanitary towels and tampons are
“not normally considered to be medical devices”,
yet incontinence pads, which are not internalised in the body, are. In America, tampons are deemed medical devices because they are used inside the body.
I appreciate that I am putting the Minister on the spot. I do not expect an answer, but I wonder whether the very good speech by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, might point to a problem with the Government’s guidance under that Act that needs to be amended.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I was not planning to say very much about this, but I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. I do not feel remotely battered; I feel significantly better informed, and I am grateful for that.
It struck me that Amendment 57 is somewhat pertinent to the discussion we have just had about supply chains. I wonder, for example, whether the habitual buyers of fast fashion would be quite so enthusiastic if they understood how it was made and the environmental despoilation it entails. Of course, a lot of fast fashion is single use.
I am also intrigued to know—I have just been thinking about this—what makes a non-iron shirt non-iron. I imagine it is some sort of chemical. As a fan of said shirts, I would rather like to know, not least because the noble Baroness’s description of the destination for microplastics made me wince slightly, to be honest.
Of course, a lot of single-use plastic ends up in the ocean. Frankly, as a keen scuba-diver who has found single-use plastics below depths of 30 metres, I think that societies across the world need to address that.
I do not have much to say apart from that, but I will be very interested in the Government’s answers. I would also be keen to pursue these issues later.
The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath) (Lab)
My Lords, that was a very interesting debate, and I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for her amendments. She spoke tellingly about the impacts the products to which she referred are having on the world, on disadvantaged communities and on human health more generally. She gave a lot of information and I will try to respond to the general principles, but I will also take away her speech and ask my noble friend to write to her with a more considered response, as I would like our officials to have a look at some of the details of the concerns she raised.
Amendment 58 is about single-use plastics. The Government recognise the concerns the noble Baroness raised about plastic products, plastic waste and plastic pollution. We think we already have the right powers and, to an extent, with what comes in this legislation. The question she is really challenging us on, I think, is whether the Government’s action is sufficient. I will try to persuade her that we are very much on this, that we have the legislation and we are pursuing the issues she has raised.
For instance, there are powers under the Environment Act 2021 and the Environmental Protection Act 1990 that allow us to regulate certain matters relating to products, including single-use plastics and plastic packaging, that show evidence of harm to the environment and/or human health. This includes powers for bans on manufacture, product design and labelling requirements, charges and targets. UK REACH also contains powers to address harmful additives that might be added to plastics to ensure the safety of consumer products. We know about, and I pay tribute to, the carrier bag charge. It has been very successful and has had a great impact on the United Kingdom. We have also seen other product bans and restrictions, such as those relating to microbeads, and plastic straws, cotton buds and stirrers.
Additionally, the forthcoming extended producer responsibility for packaging uses the powers in the Environment Act 2021 to make producers responsible for the costs of managing packaging once it becomes waste, and encompasses packaging of all materials, not only plastic. The improved packaging design—and I think the noble Baroness made a very important point about this in the previous debate—will be incentivised through the modulation of the fee the producer must pay based on its environmental sustainability. There is, of course, a risk in focusing just on plastic that we encourage companies to use some other material that might be equally damaging. Therefore, it has to be considered in the round.
Also, the noble Baroness may have seen the Statement made by my colleague Emma Hardy, the Minister for Water and Flooding, in the other place about the final negotiations that we are involved in to develop an international treaty on plastic pollution. The Minister said:
“Plastic pollution is one of the greatest environmental challenges that the planet faces. The world produces 400 million tonnes of plastic waste each year. Scientists predict that there will be a threefold increase in the amount of plastic entering the ocean between 2016 and 2040. A global agreement on plastic pollution is urgently needed”.
She then goes on to say,
“The Government have an ambition to catalyse the transition to a circular economy”—
which we have debated in previous days in Committee—
“and the treaty is one of the key levers available to us to achieve the systems-wide changes needed to make that a reality”.
She went on to say:
“Plastic waste has for too long littered our streets, polluted Britain’s waterways and threatened our wildlife. This Government are committed to cleaning up Britain and cracking down on plastic waste. We will roll out extended producer responsibility to incentivise businesses to cut plastic packaging and the deposit return scheme to incentivise consumers to recycle”.—[Official Report, Commons, 25/11/24; col. 31WS.]
So we are taking this seriously and we think we have the legislation that we require. It is worth noting that, as part of this work, the Defra Secretary of State has convened a small ministerial group on the circular economy and asked his department to work with experts from industry, academia, civil society and the Civil Service to develop a circular economy strategy.
We will come on to the issue of clothing. In the meantime, the Government continue to fund action on clothing through Textiles 2030. This is a voluntary initiative that supports businesses and organisations within the fashion and textiles industry to transition to more sustainable and circular practices. I also assure noble Lords that Defra will keep the House updated with work in this area and we are happy to ensure that the noble Baroness can speak with relevant Ministers to discuss this matter further.
Amendments 57 and 59 seek to ensure that regulations are made to reduce the risk posed by clothing and period products. Again, the noble Baroness made a powerful speech. I must admit, a frisson of fear shook me when she mentioned London Fashion Week because it recalls the time when I was Minister for Sustainability in Defra, quite a long time ago. We were involved in starting developments in sustainable clothing, and I was invited to make a speech on sustainability on the first day of London Fashion Week. I thought it went well until I saw the review in the Daily Telegraph, which ignored my speech but referred to my suit being rather crumpled, which was a trauma I have never recovered from.
I come to the substance of what the noble Baroness said and the legislation. The General Product Safety Regulations do not make specific provisions for reducing the risk to consumers from harmful chemicals among some products, potentially including those that the noble Baroness raised, including period products. Although the legislation requires that the product placed on the market must be safe, it is not tailored to mitigating these risks. What it does is enable the introduction of new regulations to ensure that the Government can continue to reduce and mitigate the risk to health and safety posed by products, which could potentially include those listed in Amendments 57, 58 and 59.
The Bill can ensure that we are able to regulate the use of chemicals in consumer products, as we currently do for cosmetics and toys, as well as in other consumer products with similar chemical exposure risks. I reassure the noble Baroness that we will use the powers to identify product sectors and hazard types that require action, including period products where regulations may need to be strengthened or updated. This will be done on a risk-led basis. It will be evidence led, proportionate and follow appropriate stakeholder engagement. It goes back some time but, as an example, the Nightwear (Safety) Regulations 1985 set flammability and labelling requirements for children’s and adults’ nightwear. They are an example of risk-based regulations where a particular hazard was identified, and that can be done again.
To conclude, the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, made a powerful speech. I want us to have a look at some of the details. We think we have the legislation. The debate is really about what the Government should do and we are active in this area.
I am afraid that I shall have to duck the interesting question from the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and write to her. We will have a look at the details of that.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
The Minister worked on the medical devices Act, as indeed I did. That Act is mentioned here, and I hope we might be able to table an amendment to this Bill to amend that Act because of the inconsistency. Will he look at that before he writes to me?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
I very much remember the debate because we worked closely on it. We will look into this and get back to the noble Baroness with a detailed explanation of the issues so that everyone is clear.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I thank everyone for their kind words about my introductory speech. I thank the Minister for his detailed response. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, that I also worked on the Medicines and Medical Devices Act. Well done for picking up that cross-reference, because my understanding was that tampons, pads and reusable products were not medical devices under that Act. There is a complication there that we need to address.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, we are still but just over five months in office. Clearly, we have to think very carefully about the actions we are going to take. What I seek to demonstrate to the noble Baroness is that we have the powers and determination. There are a lot of areas that we have to look at, but I think that the Written Statement I read out in relation to plastics shows where we want to go. We want to see real progress in the areas that she has developed.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
I thank the noble Lord for his intervention. I think he perhaps misunderstood where I was going with that. It was not meant to be a criticism of this Government—I fully take the point of five months in power. What I was criticising or questioning was the legal framework, which allows the Government to act, whereas in these amendments each proposed new subsection (1) says that the Secretary of State “must” regulate. This is proposing a different kind of framework. It is asking the Houses of Parliament whether they are prepared to direct, within a certain timeframe, that the Government have to take action. I am questioning not what the Government are doing but whether we as a society and a Parliament want to say, “There is a real problem; the Government must take action and that is what the legal framework should be”. That is what each of these amendments does.
While I fully acknowledge that the Minister expressed some good intentions, I have to pick the noble Lord up on the reference to the straws, cotton buds and stirrers regulations. I am afraid that, when I was responding to that regulation, I was accused of being rude. I pointed out that, in 100 years’ time in a plastic- choked world, the generation then will not say, “Oh but they banned straws, stirrers and plastic cotton buds back then in the UK”. It is a very tiny scale tackling of a very large issue.
None the less, I appreciate everything that has been said. I will note that the phrase “precautionary principle” did not appear anywhere. I think that is very relevant here. We will continue the discussion. I very much appreciate the Minister’s offer of meetings to talk about these issues. I would be delighted to take that up.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I apologise for interrupting and delaying the Committee, but I did say that we would use our powers to identify products and sectors that require action and that this work would be evidence-led and proportionate.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
Proportionate is not precautionary principle. Anyway, I am not going to pick up that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to clarify the offences which could be created or expanded under subsection (9), as well as the civil sanctions which might be imposed.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 68 and 90, which are in my name. These amendments address the serious concerns raised by the provisions in Clause 3 and Clause 6, which give the Government sweeping powers to create or widen criminal offences and impose civil sanctions.
I have to revisit some old ground here but, given the gravity of this issue, I feel we have no choice. As was pointed out by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and the Constitution Committee, these clauses are skeletal legislation, meaning that they lack detail, leaving critical decisions about enforcement and prosecution to be made at a later stage via secondary legislation. We feel that the approach of using skeletal legislation for such crucial issues is problematic. These clauses give broad powers to create and enforce criminal offences without providing clear primary legislative guidance on who will have the authority to impose sanctions. This is particularly concerning because it leaves us very little clarity on which bodies will hold the responsibility to prosecute criminal offences.
The DPRRC and the Constitution Committee have highlighted these concerns, noting the lack of detail in the Bill and its potential to bypass parliamentary oversight. The Government’s decision to leave critical decisions about enforcement powers to be determined later by regulation, rather than in the Bill, undermines the transparency that businesses and consumers need. The Bill as written provides no information about the exact scope of the criminal offences that could be created or widened. This is not just a technical issue. It raises serious questions about the accountability of the bodies that will enforce these sanctions. The Minister may not be happy that these issues continue to be addressed but, until we receive clarity, we have a duty to bring these issues up, as I hope the Committee would agree.
The most concerning aspect of the clause is the provision allowing the creation or widening of criminal offences by regulation. The powers given to the Secretary of State or any other body of a public nature in this regard are overly broad, with little or no clear guidance or justification on what these offences will be. The Bill should, at the very minimum, provide some specification of the type of offences that may be created, rather than leaving this to broad, undefined powers that will most likely lead to overreach. The question has to be asked: why is it necessary to give the Government the power to create new criminal offences by regulation in the first place? Given the gravity of criminal sanctions, the Bill should be more transparent and specific about what offences will be created and who will be responsible for enforcing them—a point that the noble Lord, Lord Fox, made in his reference to the CPTPP, incidentally.
Criminal sanctions carry serious consequences and it is fundamental that Parliament has a say in the creation of such offences, rather than allowing the Government to define them through secondary legislation. We understand that the Government have argued for flexibility in enforcement and that the regulatory framework must be adaptable, but that flexibility should not come at the cost of clarity or proper oversight.
We have heard serious concerns from businesses and industry stakeholders about the skeleton clauses in this Bill. Specifically, there is real uncertainty about which public bodies the Government intend to designate as having the authority to impose criminal sanctions. Again, the question has to be asked: what additional public bodies are the Government planning to empower to prosecute businesses for currently barely defined criminal offences under the Bill?
As my noble friend Lord Lansley pointed out on the previous Committee day, currently enforcement responsibilities for consumer protection laws are set out clearly in Schedule 5 to the Consumer Rights Act 2015, which names very specific enforcement authorities, but the Bill removes that clarity and instead gives the Government the power to designate by secondary legislation which public bodies can impose criminal sanctions. This creates a situation where businesses may have to deal with a wide array of bodies, many of which may not have the expertise or experience needed to understand the complexities of product and metrology regulations.
This broad power to assign enforcement duties to any body that is deemed appropriate opens the door to a wide range of unknown authorities, so the question here is: why are the Government attempting to create this uncertainty? Why not retain the existing list of enforcement bodies in the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and allow changes to be made to that list through normal, well-defined procedures, rather than using secondary legislation to grant powers to an unknown set of authorities? Businesses deserve to know exactly who will be responsible for enforcing the regulations and imposing sanctions. The Bill’s current drafting creates a legal vacuum where there is no certainty about the powers of various public authorities, which could have serious consequences for businesses’ legal security.
The ambiguity surrounding criminal sanctions is deeply troubling for business, especially when these powers can be used by a range of authorities that may not be clearly identified at this stage. It raises serious concerns about due process and the fairness of enforcement actions. If a business is unsure whether it is complying with regulations and there is uncertainty about which body will be enforcing them, the risk of facing criminal sanctions obviously becomes much higher and that creates an environment of fear and uncertainty for business, which is already facing difficult economic conditions.
This situation is further complicated by the fact that secondary legislation will define the details of how these sanctions are imposed, potentially without proper scrutiny by Parliament. Criminal penalties should never be determined by regulation alone; they must be clearly laid out in primary legislation with full parliamentary oversight.
The balance of probabilities standard in civil cases can create significant challenges for businesses as well, especially in the context of the provisions outlined in the Bill regarding enforcement and sanctions. The balance of probabilities standard makes businesses more vulnerable to claims from enforcement authorities or competitors. In the absence of clear regulations and objective criteria, businesses may find it difficult to mount a defence as the mere likelihood of non-compliance could be enough to trigger sanctions. This could result in a climate of fear and uncertainty whereby businesses are hesitant to innovate or engage in new activities, due to the potential for legal action based on speculative or incomplete evidence.
The Government have claimed that this Bill will support economic growth and innovation, yet its skeletal nature and the conversations that we have had with leading industry experts suggest that they are concerned. Moreover, the Bill already includes an emergency clause—we will come on to this in our debate on the next group, I think, and we will address it later—that allows for swift regulatory action if necessary. So there is no reason why criminal sanctions cannot be made clear at the outset. There is simply no need to leave the scope of criminal offences and enforcement powers so broad and undefined.
To clarify, we absolutely recognise the importance of product safety and the need both to protect consumers and for necessary regulations. We oppose the various skeletal clauses in the Bill, as we have made clear over the course of these Committee sessions, because of the lack of clarity and the potentially authoritarian powers given to unnamed, undefined public bodies in some of these regulations. I hope that the Minister will address the many concerns the amendments in this group address and will commit to clarity for business. I beg to move.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, my amendments in this group—Amendments 69, 91 and 107—cover a somewhat wider area than those in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom. I shall return to his amendments and the speech he has just made later, to comment on them—but I start by saying that Amendment 92 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, is helpful. One of my concerns at Second Reading was how Parliament can be made fully aware by more than just the laying of regulations, when a Minister or another body decides to create or widen the scope of criminal offences, that they must lay an Explanatory Memorandum in the Libraries of both Houses. I look forward to hearing the noble Lord speak later; his amendment is part of a possible solution.
At Second Reading, the Minister said:
“We have minimised the use of the powers in the Bill as much as possible and we have worked closely with the Attorney-General—who, quite rightly, is a stickler for these kinds of things—to find the best approach. So we look forward to the report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which we will carefully consider”.—[Official Report, 8/10/24; cols. 1940-41.]
In my speech later on in that debate, I raised my concerns about a Minister who was not based in the Justice Department being able to create or extend criminal offences by regulation, with no ability to amend and much less detailed debate in both Houses of Parliament.
At Second Reading, we had not seen the second report of the Delegated Powers Committee, because that was published on 15 October—a week afterwards. Its summary about this part of the Bill is blunt. It says:
“We consider that … the Government have failed to provide a convincing justification for the inclusion of skeleton clauses in the Bill”
and suggests that
“the delegations of power in clauses 1, 2, 3 and 9 are inappropriate and should be removed”.
There is some detail about why it thinks that, in particular, there is a problem with the creation of, or the widening of the scope of, criminal offences. I mention this because I absolutely appreciate everything that the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, has said about the skeletal nature of the Bill earlier on—indeed, my noble friends have also made those comments—but I want to focus on the impact of having new criminal offences on the criminal justice system. I shall come to that in a minute.
My first two amendments tackle the creation of criminal offences—in the first part of the Bill on product regulation and in the second part on metrology. I have also laid Amendment 107, which seeks to ensure that new criminal offences are not created through the clauses on information-sharing regulations. Clause 7(3)(d) talks about
“sanctions for non-compliance … including … creating, or widening the scope of, criminal offences”.
That is exactly one of the points that the Delegated Powers Committee is making: the Bill is so skeletal in nature, it appears that information sharing is a route by which criminal offences could be made. I would be grateful if the Minister could respond to that.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to have the opportunity to contribute to your Lordships’ Committee. I apologise for not having been here throughout all the deliberations on the Bill. I was called away by the excitement of the Football Governance Bill, but I am back to speak to my Amendment 92.
This is pretty straightforward. That the Bill will be unamended is a big assumption, because I sincerely hope that the Government will see fit to bring forward their own amendments or accept opposition amendments on Report—I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for her kind words. However, my amendment seeks to fill the gap in appropriate scrutiny and oversight of a very wide-ranging and pervasive Bill, particularly in this respect of potentially creating criminal offences arising from non-compliance.
It is vital that, if new offences are created or if other powers are exercised by Ministers in this clause, it should be subject to some form of rudimentary scrutiny by Parliament. That is why I have tabled this amendment, which says that at least 30 days before making such provisions the Secretary of State must put that rationale into the Library of both Houses in the form of an Explanatory Memorandum.
Let us just remember what this clause on enforcement of product regulations does. It allows, by regulations, the Government to appoint inspectors to
“enter, inspect and search … seize and retain products or evidence of non-compliance … require a person to retain or provide a document or information … dispose of a product or require a person to dispose of a product”.
Those are pretty draconian powers, and they have significant ramifications for civil liberties, the unwarranted interference into the lawful operation of markets, and the potential undermining of due process and norms in the criminal justice system. Most importantly, there is a lack of accountability.
It goes without saying, of course, that I strongly support the amendments from my noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom. In fact, I agree with all the amendments in this group, including those from the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. I do so because—it bears repetition—this is an egregious example of skeleton legislation, as the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee found. I also had an opportunity to look at paragraph 12 of the Guidance for Departments on the Role and Requirements of the Committee—the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. I give Ministers half points rather than nil points, because they have actually done half of what the memorandum asks them to do under the heading “Criminal offences”. It says:
“Where a bill creates a criminal offence with provision for the penalty to be set by delegated legislation, the Committee would expect, save in exceptional circumstances, the maximum penalty on conviction to be included on the face of the bill”.
We have seen that, so that is great. But it also says in that same paragraph—and the Government have not met this requirement—that
“where the ingredients of a criminal offence are to be set by delegated legislation, the Committee would expect a compelling justification”.
I am afraid, as with virtually all of the Bill but particularly and specifically on this issue of the creation of criminal offences, that skeleton legislation gives rise to significant risks of the creation of offences, with punishment meted out to businesspeople and others associated with commerce without proper scrutiny and oversight.
For those reasons I strongly support all the amendments in this group, and I look forward to the Minister addressing the particular issue of what are the compelling reasons that necessitate that wording in the Bill and why the Government have chosen to go in that direction. I hope he will think again on Report about perhaps amending the wording in the Bill, as we have argued for today.
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their amendments in this group related to criminal offences. This is an important area, and I am grateful for the knowledgeable and informed contributions in this debate, demonstrating the significant expertise in this House. My response sets out the general principles relating to criminal offences, but I will try to answer many of the various questions that noble Lords asked.
As I mentioned previously, I am very aware of the concerns that noble Lords have raised on delegated powers and the importance of consultation and scrutiny more generally. In particular, I am grateful for the thoughtful and comprehensive reports of the Delegated Powers and Constitution Committees. I have mentioned this before: noble Lords will be aware that we have provided responses to both committees, and my colleague, Minister Madders, and I gave evidence to the DPRRC. I was very grateful for the opportunity to explain the Government’s approach to these issues.
I begin by stating a central point. The severity of the harm caused by breaches of regulations across different product sectors varies. To proportionately reflect harm, offences and penalties must be tailored to individual sectors and duties.
I hope noble Lords would agree that, with regard to criminal offences, the rule of law is best served by precision. Only by having criminal enforcement provisions alongside product requirements can proportionality be ensured. Take, for example, a penalty for failure to properly mark a product: the harm will be very different for a highly sensitive product within a nuclear energy installation versus a lower-risk product.
As well as creating issues of proportionality, codifying criminal offences and penalties in the Bill would likely lead to enforcement gaps later. Offences would not correspond directly to new duties created for existing supply chain actors or responsibilities placed on new actors who enter the supply chain over time.
Lord Bingham’s principles require that the law be accessible and, so far as is possible, intelligible, clear and predictable. Setting out the details of offences and penalties in the Bill would undermine those principles. It would necessitate drafting speculative penalties to fit duties yet to be created. That would leave ambiguity over to whom offences may apply in future and create statutory maximum penalties that would be disproportionate for some actors.
Lord Bingham’s principles go further to support the approach of tailoring clear, proportionate offences and penalties that correspond to supply chain actors’ duties as they arise over time. If we instead place the detail in primary legislation, we risk undermining those crucial principles by locking in terms that become ambiguous over time as business models and products evolve, and with penalties that can cater to only the most serious version of the offence. Setting the maximum penalty in primary legislation means that the penalty can be calibrated to only the most serious version of the offence, leaving a broad discretion to judges to determine the appropriate sentence for less serious cases. Legal certainty and predictability of applicable penalties are better served by specific, tailored provision being set out in secondary legislation.
Noble Lords have highlighted that the DPRRC, in its report on the Bill, recommended that elements of criminal offences are set out within primary legislation. The Government value the work of the DPRRC and the incredibly important role it plays. We have considered its recommendations carefully within the department. However, the approach taken to setting out criminal offences within regulations is not novel. Other Acts that underpin broad regulatory regimes allow for the creation of criminal offences in regulations, including the Building Safety Act 2022, the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023 and the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. I also highlight some examples of existing product regulations that set out criminal offences and penalties, such as the Nagoya Protocol (Compliance) Regulations 2015 or the Simple Pressure Vessels (Safety) Regulations 2016.
Noble Lords may also be interested to note that, to ensure proportionality, the maximum criminal penalties that may be implemented by regulations are set out in the Bill and follow existing precedent, as seen in sector-specific regulations such as the Electrical Equipment (Safety) Regulations 2016. This is a key point. Our approach provides this strong safeguard that enables discretion to set lower and more proportionate penalties in secondary legislation, which will also have parliamentary oversight. We submit that secondary legislation ensures parliamentary oversight but also the flexibility required to ensure that we can implement proportionate criminal offences that comply with the vital principles underpinning the rule of law.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, the Minister has been very helpful in explaining about the affirmative process, and he has talked about the Explanatory Memorandum, but he has not responded to my questions about the consultation with the Home Office, the Ministry of Justice and the relevant agencies. If that happens, will it form part of the Explanatory Memorandum? My concern is that this is all still led very much by the Department for Business and Trade and does not take account of the concerns and pressures faced by the Home Office, the justice system and their respective arm’s-length bodies.
Lord Leong (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for the question. I will need to come back to her on it because I want to be absolutely clear that I am giving her the correct information, rather than me saying something now on the fly.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who contributed to this brief discussion. The noble Lord, Lord Leong, praised our expertise. Can I just say that any expertise he thought he might have spotted in my remarks belongs not to me but to my noble friend Lord Sandhurst, who was very helpful. He cannot be here, I am afraid, and I am not a lawyer.
Unfortunately, in spite of the detailed explanation of the Government’s intentions supplied by the noble Lord, Lord Leong—I am very appreciative of it—I am only partially reassured. I still have some concerns, so I will go back to Hansard and study his remarks carefully, particularly those related to Bingham.
In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Leong, on the list of bodies, I have not seen the letter, so I apologise again if I have repeated something that he has already addressed, but it is fair enough that he agrees that the rule of law deserves provision. I totally agree—that is fair enough—but it does not really seem to explain why there should not be a list of specific enforcement authorities, as per Schedule 5 to the Consumer Rights Act 2015. That seems to give too much latitude, but perhaps the letter explains that, in which case I will cheerfully withdraw these remarks.
In relation to the question asked of me by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, we considered following her example, obviously, but we also felt that leaving out subsection (9) would in effect render subsections (10) and (11) null and void. But I totally accept that the noble Baroness has a point about how that could be interpreted, so I will go back, have a look at it and consider what we do next. For now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
“(3) The Secretary of State must lay before both Houses of Parliament a comprehensive framework outlining the conditions and procedures for the use of emergency powers under this section.(4) Product regulations providing for emergency disapplication or modification may not be made until this framework has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of both Houses.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to present a framework to Parliament defining the use of emergency powers.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 72 and 73, and I thank my noble friend Lord Trenchard for signing them. Clause 4 is a short clause dealing with emergencies. It allows for product regulations
“to be disapplied, or to apply with modifications, in cases of emergency”.
It also provides:
“The disapplication … may be made subject to conditions”.
That is it. I wonder what happened to the rest of the explanation that a clause of this type surely deserves. Perhaps the parliamentary drafter was using only headlines and forgot to fill in the blanks.
These amendments are designed to introduce some checks and balances. As the clause is currently written, there is no definition of what constitutes an emergency. There is no definition in Clause 10, which deals with interpretation. Who defines an emergency? How long might an emergency last? How will emergency provisions be enforced? The committees that we have talked about so much have been very clear. We have discussed this many times. The Bill is skeletal in nature and introduces a number of Henry VIII powers. I am only surprised that this clause was not added to the list of clauses that they think should be removed from the Bill in its current form.
My Amendment 72 is merely an attempt to seek answers to some of those questions and to apply a minimal level of parliamentary scrutiny. I simply do not think it is right that an undefined individual or body could introduce undefined emergency powers of an unspecified duration without a basic level of scrutiny —frankly, that way despotism lies.
My Amendment 73 expands on this and would introduce an element of ongoing scrutiny. Again, I can see no reason why the Government would disagree with this because, in their response to the Delegated Powers Committee’s report, they said that
“the Department is committed to … engage with stakeholders … including in cases of emergency”.
I have included that exact form of words in my amendment, as well as requirements to justify the continuing need for these powers, to assess their impact and to introduce some time limits. I cannot see any reason at all why the Government would not accept this amendment, given that, in effect, they have already committed to doing pretty much what it says. I beg to move.
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, once again I thank the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, for his amendment. I begin by reaffirming that this Government take their responsibility to parliamentary scrutiny very seriously. We have listened carefully to the views expressed and we will reflect on them as we move forward. It is always our aim to strike the right balance between thorough oversight and addressing the technical and practical demands of product regulation.
Amendments 72 and 73 seek to ensure that the use of emergency powers is transparent and proportionate. I fully appreciate the intentions behind these amendments, and I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, that we believe that the Bill already provides robust mechanisms for oversight.
Clause 4 is intended to be used in rare emergency situations. It is introduced in this Bill following the recent example of the Covid-19 pandemic, when there was a shortage of personal protective equipment. To be clear, this clause is not about quickly implementing regulations on new products; it is about emergency situations where there could be a need to temporarily disapply or modify existing regulations to allow current products to be brought to market much more quickly. Any regulations made under Clause 4 are subject to the draft affirmative legislative procedure, ensuring that both Houses can scrutinise and approve them. We believe this process provides a balanced and proportionate mechanism for oversight and accountability, ensuring thorough scrutiny.
The Government are also committed to developing a clear framework of how the policy will work in practice, and this will be done in consultation with stakeholders. However, we do not believe it will be necessary to formally lay this framework before Parliament, as the oversight arrangements provided by the draft affirmative procedure for any secondary legislation under Clause 4 are believed to be sufficient.
The Office for Product Safety & Standards will take the lead in developing the framework and will publish guidance on the conditions and procedures for using these emergency powers. The guidance will then be made publicly available to Members of this House and relevant committees on the GOV.UK website which, if needed, can be used to supplement any future scrutiny on emergency measures. In addition, Clause 4 is intended to provide a proportionate response to emergencies, and conditions can be applied which will be context specific. Therefore, any disapplication or modification of regulations will be targeted, with safeguards in place to ensure public safety remains paramount.
As the House can appreciate, emergencies can be unpredictable and cannot always be anticipated in advance. Imposing an initial fixed three-month sunset period and review process for extensions risks reducing the Government’s ability to respond effectively to emergencies that may evolve over time. Instead of applying a fixed three-month sunset period to all regulations, we believe that each regulation in response to an emergency should be targeted and tailored to its unique circumstances. This approach ensures that the measures remain both proportionate and effective, addressing the specific challenges of the emergency and the product or situation involved while avoiding unnecessary constraints.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
The Minister is making a powerful argument, but he raised the issue of Covid. He is aware, of course, that it is quite possibly the case that you can expedite fast-track legislation in extremis. He will no doubt know that between 1989 and 2009, 15 Northern Ireland Bills that were terrorism and security-related were fast-tracked through both Houses. So, in a fundamentally very serious emergency situation, you can expedite fast-track primary legislation. I offer that as a suggestion to the Minister.
Lord Leong (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for that, and I am sure the officials will have taken notice as well.
I must also highlight that, in line with the Government’s commitment to transparency and informed decision-making, proportionate impact analysis will accompany future secondary legislation. This will be prepared in accordance with the Better Regulation Framework, ensuring that Parliament has access to evidence-based assessments that support effective scrutiny.
I hope that I have been able to provide reassurance on all these matters and assure the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, that the Government have carefully considered the importance of parliamentary scrutiny and sought to strike a careful balance in relation to emergencies. I am happy, as always, to meet the noble Lord or, for that matter, any other noble Lords to discuss with them further our approach in this area. On that basis, I ask for the amendment to be withdrawn and for the other amendments in this group not to be moved.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, for his question because it reminded me that when all the primary and secondary legislation on Covid was going through, most of the references to “emergency” were the definition in the Civil Contingencies Act. That Act is not defined in this Bill, and “emergency” is used loosely on its own. I wonder whether there is a bear trap there. If the department means to use “emergency” in the sense of the Civil Contingencies Act, it may be better and more helpful to name it. If not, will the Minister explain why the use of the definitions in the Civil Contingencies Act are inappropriate?
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, I really do not know the answer to that. Obviously I will find out and write to the noble Baroness.
Lord Leong (Lab)
I am told that we were advised by counsel that this word is more flexible to use. I do not know whether that is sufficient but perhaps we can explore that further.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I again thank the noble Lord, Lord Leong, for his detailed explanation. However, the fact is that that explanation and the recent comment about flexibility rather illustrate again, I am afraid, the point about the Bill. Let us go back to the DPRRC report, Democracy Denied. It states:
“Skeleton legislation signifies an exceptional shift in power from Parliament to the executive and entails the Government, in effect, asking Parliament to pass primary legislation which is so insubstantial that it leaves the real operation of the legislation to be decided by ministers”.
I am afraid that in spite of the noble Lord’s reassurances, that is still very much where we are.
I accept that emergencies are unpredictable. Of course they are, by their very nature: they are rare and emerging situations. But I do not accept the three months argument made by the noble Lord, which strikes me as inconsistent. Surely three months is enough to define and decide on the relative importance, scale or urgency of an emergency. I can see no reason at all why any emergency cannot be defined over the course of 12 weeks, and that would have gone for Covid as much as anything else.
There is some inconsistent logic in the Minister’s replies. I am partially reassured, and obviously some considerable thinking has gone into his replies, which I appreciate, but we will reserve the right to revisit this situation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
“(2A) The Secretary of State may not use any powers under this Act to remove or disapply the use of the pint as a unit of measurement for alcoholic beverages sold or marketed in the United Kingdom.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that the pint remains an accepted unit of measurement for alcoholic beverages.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, Clause (5)(1) states the following:
“The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about the units of measurement that are used to express quantities (whether of goods or other things), including provision about … (a) how units of measurement must or may be calculated or determined … (b) how units of measurement must or may be referred to”.
Subsection (2) goes on to state:
“The Secretary of State may also by regulations make provision about … (a) the quantities in which goods must or may be marketed in the United Kingdom, and (b) the units of measurement that must or may be used to express such quantities”.
Subsection (4) states:
“‘unit of measurement’ means any unit of measurement, including measurement of length, area, volume, capacity, mass, weight, time, temperature or electrical current ... ‘goods’ means tangible items”,
and
“‘quantity’ means quantity expressed by number or a unit of measurement”.
Yet again we have a set of provisions that, while seemingly innocuous, give a relevant Secretary of State incredibly wide powers to do pretty much anything they like about pretty much anything they like.
Both the noble Lords opposite will shortly argue that the Government have no plans to replace the British pint as a standard measure for beer. They are both honourable and sincere, and I believe them, but this careless drafting confers the power on a Secretary of State to do exactly that. It is not difficult to imagine some point in the future when the office of the Secretary of State is held by a metric maniac or, perhaps worse, an interfering busybody who decides that they know what is better for the health of the nation than those who make up the population of the nation. Perhaps that does not entail a metric replacement for our pint, but something even worse—for example, an Aussie schooner. With apologies to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, this is an abomination of a vessel that is marginally too large for a sensible sherry, but far too small for a sensible beer.
My Amendment 81 seeks to make sure that this can never happen. It will make the pint safe. It will defend a beleaguered and endangered pub industry from more punishment, and it will guarantee a fundamental tenet of our history. A pint of beer is not a bloodless “tangible item”. It is a tangible institution. It is a link to our history and a part of our heritage. It was formally adopted as a measure for beer in 1824, but was probably used well before then—who knows, maybe even by Anglo-Saxon thanes, when they were on a session in their village hall, drinking what they then called beor and no doubt wondering what to do about the dastardly Vikings. I am reliably informed that they may even have had a word used to describe this community and that is—the spelling is tricky and the pronunciation is trickier—ge beorscipe.
I encourage the Government to accept this amendment on the pint’s formal 200th anniversary. It is straightforward and simple. If they do not, we will return to the subject on Report.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I will be brief. The main point I wish to make initially is that the next time someone complains about your Lordships’ House not giving enough time to pass important legislation, I will reference this debate. However, given the attack that we have just had on the Australian schooner, I have to point out to the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, that it evolved organically from the community in 1930s Australia as an unofficial measure. It was a measure of change and of the grass roots making decisions for themselves.
The noble Lord may think that his amendment will save pubs in the UK. I point out to him that, in the first quarter of this year, about 80 pubs closed in England each month. That was a 56% increase on 2023. One of the things that has been suggested might be a saviour of pubs—the noble Lord might choke on his pint at this point—is that we live in a world of change, and sales of low or no alcohol beer have exploded in the past few years. It is very hard to take this amendment seriously.
Despite that, I agree with the noble Lord that there are problems with the Henry VIII nature of the Bill and the way that it allows the Government to do virtually anything. However, picking out one particular small point is not the best way to illustrate that.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, it falls to me to respond to this amendment. Unlike the noble Baroness, I think this is a very serious matter. Of course, the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, has a track record in this area. I think the final order he laid as a Minister in the Home Office was to extend the licensing hours during the summer’s Euro 2024 tournament for football fans. I cannot believe it, but I think he said it was to
“get properly on the lash”.—[Official Report, 24/05/24; col. 1281.]
The Government are glad that his devotion to the pint continues in Opposition, despite his seeming about-turn on the appropriate use of executive powers. He may like to know that I prepared myself for this debate by sampling pints of beer in a number of hostelries and restaurants over the past few days. I am happy to confirm that I had no difficulty in ordering a pint of bitter—or, indeed, more than one pint of bitter.
The Government rejoice in the use of pints as a measurement. I am less worried about the loss of the pint than I am about the worrying news of a shortage of Guinness. Noble Lords may have seen reports in the media in the past few days that Guinness is being rationed to make sure there is enough available over the Christmas period.
I have made it quite clear that we value the pint; there will be no change. There is no question of using the Bill’s powers to do anything other than preserve the pint. The specific drafting is to allow for changes to legislation on units of measurement, but the reason is primarily to provide powers to fulfil our international obligations and keep pace with updates to the globally used international system of units.
The argument running through the whole debate is that we want flexibility in order to keep up to date with the sorts of situations that the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, outlined earlier, or with changes happening globally. We are not using this—I do not believe any Government would use this—as a draconian effort to get rid of imperial measurements in the way the noble Lord fears. I hope he will take it from me, as the spokes- person for the Government, that the British pint is safe with us.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, rejoices in the pint, as do I. Of course I understand where he is coming from, but there is a serious underlying point, as pointed out by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett: the Bill is drafted so loosely that it could be interpreted in any number of ways. I make no apology for my previous form of being on the side of the British drinker; I shall continue to maintain that. I have to say that the more I read this Bill, the more pints I need, but that is a separate issue—it is my problem, and I am dealing with it carefully.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for her contribution. It seems that our brief meeting of minds a few groups ago is already over. I am not quite sure how the schooner evolved but I am not sure it was a community thing. For now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Brinton
“(3A) Regulations under this section must have regard for the impact of metrology regulations on small and medium sized enterprises.”Member’s explanatory statement
The amendment ensures that new metrology regulations under the act have regard for impacts on small and medium sized enterprises.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Fox, is unable to be in his place at this stage of the day because today’s Committee date was confirmed only after he had made an appointment that cannot be changed. On his behalf, I will speak to Amendment 82, which would ensure that new metrology regulations under the Bill have regard for impacts on small and medium-sized enterprises.
It is self-evident that the capacity of small and medium-sized businesses to process and understand regulation is many orders of magnitude different from that of large companies. That is why the Bill should explicitly consider this difference in capacity every single time a new regulation is to be tabled. How will a two-person organisation cope? What is the appropriate level of regulation? This Government say that they are about growth. SMEs are largely the engine of growth, and misplaced overregulation is a key brake on those size of companies. I hope the Minister can answer these questions. In the light of these concerns, this simple amendment calls on regulators to keep this at the front of their minds.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 103, 104 and 104B standing in my name. I want to take a moment to emphasise the current environment in which the Bill is being debated. The timing of this amendment is critical. Consumer confidence in the UK is at a particularly low point, especially during the festive season, when retailers are hoping for a boost in their sales. As we know, this is a critical time of year for retailers. Business confidence has also hit a two-year low. That is significant, as it indicates that the very businesses that we are depending on to drive growth—the engine, in the word of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, driving innovation and consumer choice—are also facing significant headwinds.
More troubling is the fact that consumer confidence has dipped sharply. According to a recent survey, consumer confidence in the health of the economy fell in November. The British Retail Consortium’s sentiment monitor showed a concerning dip in consumer confidence, with the index dropping to -19, down two points from October. Consumer confidence is obviously a key driver of spending, and when confidence falls, people tighten their purses, avoid spending and delay purchases. The festive season, which should be a time of consumer optimism, is instead a time of deep uncertainty. This is a problem not just for the retail sector but for the economy as a whole, as it reflects the broader issue of economic pessimism.
At a time when confidence is fragile, we must ensure that we are not inadvertently creating barriers to consumer access, increasing costs or limiting choice. The impact of regulation on consumer choice should not be underestimated. While the intent behind product regulation is to ensure safety, fairness and transparency, we must balance this with the potential burden that such regulations may place on business and, by extension, on consumers. For example, if regulations lead to higher costs for businesses, those costs are often passed down to consumers in the form of higher prices. If businesses face a reduction in profitability, it may lead to a decrease in variety or availability of goods in the market.
Sensible product and metrology regulations are essential to protecting consumers and ensuring fairness in the market. These regulations help create a framework in which businesses can operate with transparency, consumers can have confidence in the safety and reliability of products and the economy can continue to thrive—there is no dispute about all that. However, to illustrate the importance of these regulations, I draw attention to a study from the consumer advocacy group Which? This research found that half of consumers feel that consumer protection regulations enhance their confidence in the safety of goods and services they buy. This confidence is critical in ensuring consumers feel comfortable purchasing products, but it does not just benefit consumers—it also incentivises business. When consumers trust that products are safe, businesses are encouraged to innovate and compete, creating a dynamic, thriving marketplace and, in turn, that increases the production of high-quality goods, stimulates demand and further incentivises businesses to improve products that they already produce. Business and consumer interests are not at odds; in fact, they are complementary. Overly complex regulations or regulations that unintentionally increase the cost of compliance for business could lead to a reduction in the range of products available to consumers. We must avoid creating an environment where smaller businesses cannot afford to comply with the regulations and larger companies dominate the market, reducing choice and competition.
This amendment ensures that the Government will take a careful and considered approach in monitoring the impact of the legislation on consumer choice, and the report will provide important evidence to guide future policymaking and help us to avoid any unintended negative consequences for consumers and businesses alike.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, for signing my Amendment 104B. The Government have to recognise that SMEs are the backbone of our economy—I know the noble Lords opposite would agree with that. SMEs face unique challenges in comparison to larger corporations, particularly when it comes to compliance with regulations. This amendment seeks to ensure that the impact of these regulations on SMEs is properly assessed, understood and investigated and, if necessary, mitigated.
Innovation is essential to the growth of our economy, and SMEs are often at the forefront of this innovation. Complex or overbearing regulations can stifle creativity and innovation. This amendment seeks to assess whether the regulations in the Bill will help or hinder SMEs in their ability to compete in the marketplace and develop new ideas. The success of any regulatory framework depends on meaningful consultation with those it affects the most, so this amendment ensures that SMEs have a voice in the process. By engaging with representatives from the SME sector, the Government will gain valuable insights into practical challenges that SMEs face and will be able to tailor policies to better support them. I urge noble Lords to support this amendment, which will help guarantee that the regulations in the Bill are not only effective but fair, ensuring that SMEs are not unduly burdened and can continue to thrive, compete and innovate.
On page 3, paragraph 4 of the Government’s Explanatory Notes, it states:
“The Bill aims to support economic growth”.
Hence, I thought it was perfectly appropriate to introduce an amendment that requires the Secretary of State to conduct a review of the impact of this Bill on the economy, and I hope that the Ministers opposite will agree. For small and medium-sized enterprises often most affected by regulatory changes, these reviews can identify disproportionate impacts early and prompt remedial actions to mitigate harm. A structured review process provides empirical data to inform future legislative and regulatory decisions, ensuring that measures remain fit for purpose and aligned with market dynamics.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
My Lords, I support the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Sharpe, to which the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, and I have added our names. They would ensure that in the Bill we have a statutory procedure for assessing the impact on the economy in general on consumers and the choices they have to make, and on the producers.
The Bill poses potential costs for producers, which are likely to have an impact on the economy of which they form part. Even though the general scope, as set out in Clause 1, seems sensible and reasonable and appears to reflect consumer protection arrangements which have proven their worth over decades, there is in this very slim Bill less clarity as to what the precise requirement may be, or where precisely liability for transgression lies. It is something of a leap in the dark. Lawyers will be needed to work out who exactly may be covered by the provisions, sanctions and punishments, given that the Bill will touch on many features of production and marketing, and many sorts of person will be involved in the process.
The question really is, if I am an entrepreneur or a small business innovator, do I risk my small pot of savings and those chipped in by my family to get the idea from the drawing board—possibly in the garage—off the ground, into the retail outlet and into use? Sir Hermann Hauser, the technologist and entrepreneur who set up Acorn in Cambridge, did that in the 1970s. He once told me that when you start a business like his—and most start in the garage—they do not have any money, and with what they have, they want reasonable certainty that the law will stay the same, that it will do what it says on the tin, that they can buy the stock they need for the component parts, they can use their judgment within reason about whether a product is safe, and they can take a risk. They have good arrangements for risk assessment, and our law also has pretty good arrangements, as well as for consumer protection. But if—and this is the danger of the Bill—there are open-ended powers, and there is the possibility for a regulation-mad Government to make constant changes, and if, as I have spoken about before, so I will not come back to it, EU law, which is based on the precautionary principle, is mirrored or otherwise imposed, we will be causing greater uncertainty and there will be a greater possibility of costs and of lost stock, because it goes out of date. Such people will also not have time to develop their product properly, bring it to market and make a profit. They may go bankrupt, thanks to a raft of new provisions and new uncertainties.
These three amendments—Amendment 103, on consumer choice and an impact assessment; Amendment 104, on an impact assessment on the whole economy; and Amendment 104B, on an impact assessment on SMEs to be laid before both Houses of Parliament within six months—will help us find out exactly what the impact of these rules are, even if we do not know what they will be when we set out on this road. Successful businesses—small, medium and big—and the consumers who buy their products and services, both in this country and overseas, are the beating heart of our economic life. If businesses are to flourish, the rules need to be clear from the start. Compliance needs to be affordable and the rules must encourage innovation, entrepreneurship and risk-taking.
Most businesses in this country are small—there are 5.51 million of them, as we have heard—with zero to 49 employees. There are only 40,000 businesses that count as medium-sized, with 50 to 250 employees. These small and medium-sized businesses provide most of the employment of people, but the vast majority of them—3.1 million—are sole traders. November’s House of Commons analysis, which is the most up-to-date analysis that I have found, gives the figures, with SMEs accounting for 99% of the business population, providing 60% of UK employment and 48% of business turnover. As the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, pointed out, they are far less able to bear the costs of the regulatory steamroller that may face us. This is one of the big problems that we hear about all the time from small producers and entrepreneurs: the costs of compliance and of dealing with the uncertainties this brings in. Even the bigger businesses, which provide 40% of the jobs and almost half the turnover, also have to pay—I was told by an NHS trust—almost 18% of their overheads.
Whether or not this Bill directly affects the product market—it does—or the service market, we are a service economy. This is a product regulation Bill, but most services use products. Let us take the hospitality trade: it needs to buy products to ply its trade and make money. Cabbies need to buy cars. Every single service—except financial services, perhaps, which is indirectly affected—will be affected by this Bill. It will have a very big impact on the whole economy. If we price risk-taking and innovation out of the product market, on top of the costs of employment—including through higher tax and higher employees’ NICs—UK small businesses will shrink or close. Jobs will be lost. We shall go the way the French went, with their high- tax protectionist model and a centralised structure in which the small challenger is driven out of the game—and with it, the hope of keeping a competitive economy open to new entrants. That is what has happened in France in the post-war years and is now cast in stone by the EU model, with ever bigger national, transnational or multinational corporations having a monopoly and driving up prices for the consumer while driving choices down.
I fear that this is an alien model to our market economy of competitive small businesses that can have a go without fear or favour under the protection of good law. We cannot afford to lose jobs or businesses and raise prices. Our productivity in GDP per hour is already lower than that of our most similar G7 neighbours, France and Germany. I am sorry that this figure is in dollars, although I am sure that noble Lords are very dollar literate: they earn $92 and $95 respectively per hour, while we earn only $79 per hour. If the Government want higher productivity and higher growth, they need simpler and clearer rule books; I must add that that will not happen by mimicking Brussels’ notorious system, whether it is an imported version or a home-based mirror image of what goes on over there.
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords and noble Baronesses for their contributions in the debate on this grouping of amendments; in particular, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Fox and Lord Sharpe, for their amendments. This Government are committed to supporting businesses as we get the UK economy growing.
I begin with Amendment 82 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Fox, which was moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. He specifies that regulations made under Clause 5 of the Bill
“must have regard for the impact of metrology regulations on small and medium sized enterprises”.
The noble Lord has also proposed the publishing of impact assessments of affirmative regulations, to be laid every six months after the Bill’s implementation.
Similarly, Amendments 103 and 104 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, propose publishing a report assessing the Bill’s impact on consumer choice 12 months after the Bill is passed, as well as another report every two years on the economic impacts of the Bill. The noble Lord’s Amendment 104B would further require the Secretary of State to present a report to Parliament detailing the impact of regulations made under the Bill’s powers on SMEs.
I am happy to confirm that the impact of any new regulations will be fully considered through the development of proportionate impact analysis. As I said before, the Better Regulation Framework is the system that government uses to manage the flow of regulation and understand its impacts, including on SMEs and micro-businesses. On 7 December, the Government launched their new Business Growth Service to ensure that it is easier for SMEs to find government advice and support, giving them more time and money.
In line with the Better Regulation Framework, for regulations where significant impacts—above £10 million per year—are anticipated, full impact assessments will be published. For regulations with lower anticipated impacts, a proportionate assessment impact analysis will be completed. These assessments will, as a matter of course, consider the impacts of regulations on SMEs. Furthermore, officials currently routinely engage with SMEs and stakeholders to shape policy, including in the light of emerging technological and industry developments, and to identify and address any disproportionate burdens. The OPSS regularly engages with a small business panel as part of policy development.
I hope that this confirmation provides reassurance to the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, on this important area, and I am grateful to them for raising it today. The Government remain committed to supporting SMEs and recognise the vital role they play in the UK economy. As such, the Bill will allow the Government to update product and metrology regulation to avoid extra cost to business and provide continued regulatory stability. It will also allow the Government to end recognition of EU requirements where this is in the interests of businesses and consumers. The Bill will enable the Government to introduce proportionate product safety requirements that protect consumers and create a fairer playing field for law-abiding businesses.
As some noble Lords will know, before I came to this place I was a serial entrepreneur all my working life. I understand how micro-businesses and SMEs work. SMEs spend most of their time creating and growing the business. They do not want additional costs or regulations impacting their business. Having said that, all that businesses want is a level playing field where they know the rules of the game and what regulations are in place. Imposing additional regulation is not the intention of this Government. We are constantly consulting SMEs to ensure that, whatever regulation is in place, it does not impact SMEs and micro-businesses.
As I said, growth is the Government’s number one priority. On 14 October, we published a Green Paper, Invest 2035, setting out a credible 10-year plan to deliver the certainty and stability that businesses need to invest in the high-growth sectors that will drive our growth mission. This industrial strategy will create a pro-business environment and support high-potential sectors and clusters across the country. By giving the UK the flexibility to adapt its own regulatory framework to keep pace with international regulatory developments and respond to global trends, the Bill supports economic growth and innovation.
This flexibility ensures that the Bill supports economic growth—as I mentioned—reduces unnecessary regulatory burdens and ultimately benefits businesses, including micro-businesses and SMEs. However, introducing a statutory reporting obligation would risk duplicating existing processes, diverting resources and delaying the implementation of timely and effective regulations that provide businesses and consumers with the certainty they need.
I am sure that many noble Lords know that the EU’s general product safety regulation comes into force this Friday 13 December. Under the terms of the Windsor Framework between the UK and the EU, we have to apply it in Northern Ireland, so we will publish on the Government’s website clear guidance to SMEs that want to export to Northern Ireland and the EU. We will prepare a statutory instrument to implement a new enforcement regime in Northern Ireland to allow this GPSR to be enforced. This is a requirement of the Windsor Framework.
I mention this to show that there are regulations that SMEs have to abide by—this is one of them—that will impose a certain amount of burden on SMEs, especially in the run-up to Christmas. Many small businesses will now find it very difficult to export to Northern Ireland and Europe if they do not have a legal representative in the country to verify their goods.
As I have outlined, I believe that the very laudable sentiment behind these amendments is already covered by existing practice, so I ask noble Lords not to press them.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
I am grateful to the speakers in this debate and to the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, for his Amendments 103, 104 and 104B. They aim, I think, to achieve the same objective as Amendment 82 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Fox, but in more detail.
I am with the Minister—I thank him for his response —in saying that more paperwork and more regulation is not what we on these Benches wanted to achieve in Amendment 82, which is why it says that any regulations “must have regard for”. I hope that the Minister will take that on board. I want to ask him something; perhaps he might write to me, if he intends to write anyway. He kindly talked about the different types of impact assessment, including whether they would be full or proportionate. We completely understand that those would happen, but will those impact assessments specifically highlight SMEs? In other words, will an untutored eye flicking through see “effect on SMEs” in bold, and then something underneath it? I am seeing nods from the Minister, and I look forward to his letter.
I am glad that the Minister raised the extra burdens on firms either selling into Northern Ireland or the reverse. It is not just about that: over the last few years, we have seen very small businesses having sometimes to double the number of their administrative staff to cope with, for example, things such as music groups touring across Europe. The objective has to be keep that paperwork down as much as possible. Obviously, I will confer with my noble friend Lord Fox, and I look forward to the Minister’s letter. We may return with this later.
Lord Leong (Lab)
Before the noble Baroness withdraws, I can confirm that, when we do the impact assessment, we take SMEs into consideration as well.
Lord Foster of Bath
“(d) coroners, medical examiners or procurators fiscal investigating the causes of deaths in England, Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland,(e) the Office for National Statistics, National Records of Scotland or the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency,(f) bodies designated to make super-complaints on behalf of consumers pursuant to section 11 of the Enterprise Act 2002 (super-complaints to OFT),(g) NHS England,(h) the Royal College of Emergency Medicine,(i) other bodies specified by the Secretary of State which play a role in representing the public interest in relation to reducing the risks presented by products,(j) persons conducting academic research into the extent, causes or reduction of harm arising from or potentially associated with the use of products, or(k) bodies or persons performing roles comparable to those in paragraphs (a) to (h) in this subsection in the European Union, OECD or individual member states of either of those organisations.”Member’s explanatory statement
The amendment ensures that the information sharing provisions of the Act apply to more bodies responsible for investigating harms and deaths caused by products.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, I am extremely conscious that I will not excite your Lordships as much as our earlier debate on pints did. Nevertheless, I rise to move Amendment 106 on my noble friend Lord Fox’s behalf, and I will also speak to my Amendment 108. Both relate to issues arising out of Clause 7, which is about information sharing. Clause 7(1) enables the making of product regulations or metrology regulations permitting the sharing of information between persons who are specified later on in Clause 7(2). Those persons who can share information are described in, frankly, incredibly general terms:
“another relevant authority … the emergency services, or … a person specified, or of a description specified, in product regulations or metrology regulations”.
My noble friend’s amendment provides a list of additional persons and bodies that should be specified in relevant subsequent regulations, not least those persons or bodies responsible for investigating harms and deaths caused by products. The list of proposed additions is not, of course, exhaustive. After all, the Bill permits others to be added—but by adding the basic cadre of persons or organisations, we can ensure a healthy flow of information between relevant bodies to help develop future regulations.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Foster, for introducing these two amendments. Amendment 106 is in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Fox. It is vital to ensure that, as the noble Lord, Lord Foster, explained, a broader range of organisations, such as coroners, NHS bodies, statistical agencies and researchers, can access and share information to investigate and reduce harms caused by products. By involving expert groups and their international counterparts, we would strengthen our ability to identify risks, protect public health and ensure evidence-based action. It is a forward-thinking addition that ensures we leave no stone unturned in safeguarding public welfare.
Amendment 108 is an important and well-balanced safeguard for preserving essential legal protections. It provides clarity and fairness by ensuring that information requirements under the product and metrology regulations are not overly burdensome or unjustly intrusive. The careful limitations on when information can be disclosed and used as evidence reflect a thoughtful approach to balancing the need for enforcement with respect for due process. That contributes to a more trustworthy and transparent regulatory system, where both the public and those under investigation can have confidence in the fairness and integrity of the process. I look forward to hearing the Government’s answers, but these Benches give a guarded welcome to both amendments.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Foster, for introducing the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Fox, which seeks, as he said, to introduce a list of bodies that can be subject to information-sharing obligations. I also thank the noble Lord for his comprehensive and detailed Amendment 108 and his consideration of the Bill.
I take both these amendments very seriously; these are clearly important and interesting points on the limits and scope of information sharing. I assure the noble Lord that I will reflect very carefully on what he said. Over the past few years, your Lordships’ House has debated information sharing and risks to personal information, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, has taken part in those debates. There is a difficult balance to be drawn between the benefits you can get and the risks, and we are trying to test that all the time in order to get the balance right.
The noble Lord argued that we need to include a wider range of organisations in the Bill. He was very careful not to be exclusive, because he anticipated that I would come in with the list defence. I need to look into the Enterprise Act further, if the noble Lord will let me write to him on that issue.
I certainly agree with the sentiment behind the amendments. With this Bill we are clearly trying to ensure that consumers are protected from any harm caused by unsafe or non-compliant products. In a consumer world that is always evolving—it seems to be evolving faster and faster—and where new products are being traded increasingly easily, regulatory authorities need to be able to marshal relevant data and information that may provide crucial evidence of certain product-related issues. Where such issues come within the terms of the Bill, we want to encourage the sharing of appropriate information.
On the other hand, there must be appropriate safeguards about sharing information. The noble Lord mentioned the word “guard-rails”. He was not running two horses; he was reflecting the tension there is and trying to find a way through, for which I applaud him very much. He mentioned the coroner. One of the coroner’s duties is to issue a prevention of future deaths report to related relevant persons, which may well include government bodies. We know that this data sharing can lead to important interventions.
We think that regulations proposed under the Bill will allow public health agencies such as the NHS to share data recorded in the course of their activities that relates to injuries caused by products. I have taken part in previous debates on the importance of this and of the NHS having the information and the registries that enable it to happen. There is a contrast between, say, supermarkets, which, when a product is found to be defective seem able to identify it very easily, and a service such as the NHS, where sometimes, as we have seen in the past, there are real issues around the ability to trace patients and the product. Clearly, this is a vital area in terms of safety. I refer to the report of the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, First Do No Harm, in relation to pelvic mesh, for instance. She clearly identified the need to grip this issue.
It is very important that health bodies do the right thing here, but we think the Bill enables greater sharing of relevant data between public authorities, including emergency service authorities. That will bring more public agencies, including emergency services, within the scope of data-sharing agreements and schemes. We think that regulators need to take a co-ordinated approach to incidents to prevent future harm. However, we are wary of mandating reporting requirements. Going back to the previous debate—I see the noble Baroness there—clearly, more onerous reporting requirements can increase cost and resource burdens for those submitting information, so we need a targeted and efficient approach in this area.
In the normal course of creating such information-sharing obligations, and in relation to the noble Lord’s proposed new subsections (1) to (5), the regulations will state the general power “to share information between ‘x’ and ‘y’ for ‘z’ purpose”, for example. Clause 7(5)—here is the guard-rail—already provides that it will not override the UK general data protection regulations, and Article 9 of the Bill of Rights will apply to prevent a court from compelling information provided to Parliament.
The regulations will also set out any further safeguards that will apply to the information-sharing provisions, tailored to the circumstances envisaged in the regulations. In the context of a discretionary power to share information, for instance, there would be no need to exclude self-incriminating evidence.
Clearly, the UK GDPR provides stringent data-sharing safeguards that require individual consent to share personal data with third parties—as I have already mentioned, that is in Clause 7(5)—but the GDPR allows data sharing where there is a legal basis to do so. The Bill will not contravene that important legislation. We want data to be shared where it will enhance the intentions in the Bill, but we do not want to undermine the necessary protections in the GDPR legislation for information held about individuals.
We hope that we have the balance right, but we will take away the noble Lord’s comments, because this needs careful consideration. It has been very helpful to have this debate and try to tease these issues out.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, I am enormously grateful that the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, rather surprised me in seeming more excited by these amendments, in view of my earlier comments about beer, than I had expected. I am grateful for that, but I am particularly grateful for the very thoughtful response of the Minister. I am pleased that he thought I had made important and interesting points and by his promise to reflect on them. Just like the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, it looks like I may be getting a letter or a Christmas card—
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
I am not sure which it was: the letter or the Christmas card.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
Time is not on our side—but it would be very helpful if, in his response, he could look at the issue of the definition of, for example, emergency services, and pick up my point about others. Could he also look very carefully at what he said, when he chose the example of coroners? Because of the work I do in relation to gambling, I am conscious that I very often say in speeches about it that there is well over one gambling-related suicide every day. The latest estimate is that over 400 a year take place. Our difficulty is that, unless we have information from coroners about causes of death, it is very difficult to build up the pattern. That is why coroners were included. Finally, he talked about GDPR, and the Bill itself refers to data protection legislation, as it puts it, but he did not make any specific comments about my concern about Part 9 of the Enterprise Act 2002.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
I think I did say that we wanted to have a look at that and will come to him on it.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
I am grateful for that, and hope that, too, will therefore be included in the letter. With those remarks, particularly to say thank you to the Minister for his very thoughtful response, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment prevents the repeal of provisions made by Parts 2, 4 and 5 of the Consumer Protection Act 1987.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 110, 111 and 112, standing in my name. Clause 9 is a skeleton clause, as has been pointed out by the DPRRC, which recommended its removal—a point that may have been made a few times over the course of this Committee, often by me. In giving this degree of power to repeal existing legislation around consumer protection and metrology regulations by negative procedure, the Government have argued that aspects of the regulatory regime may need to be updated swiftly and frequently. However, they have failed to explain why they should be done with little scrutiny. In their response to the DPRRC, they suggested that it is because existing legislation has proven ineffective at times. The most recent consultation on the Bill suggested that 87% of respondents supported reviewing inspection powers, but it is one thing to review powers and another to have the power to completely repeal existing legislation and replace it with whatever an undefined—that word again—relevant authority feels is necessary.
I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Lansley for his thoughts on Amendment 110. He is not in his place but I wish him a happy birthday, as I am sure most Members of the Committee do too. I am very grateful for his opinions, some of which I am incorporating in my next remarks. On Amendment 110, he pointed out that the Government are proposing to take the power to repeal Part 2 of the Consumer Protection Act 1987. If they were to do so, we would lose Section 2, which sets out primarily that the Secretary of State may make regulations for the purpose of securing goods that are safe. We would also lose Section 19, which defines “safe”. Section 19(1)(c) includes that “safe” means,
“there is no risk, or no risk apart from one reduced to a minimum, that … the keeping, use or consumption of the goods”
will
“cause the death of, or any personal injury to, any person”,
and that “unsafe” should be “construed accordingly”. The Bill does not make the equivalent provision: “reducing or mitigating risks” in Clause 1 is lesser than “safe” as defined, and the 1987 legislation has a long history of implementation, interpretation and enforcement.
At this late stage of the Bill, the question is: is it His Majesty’s Government’s intention to repeal Sections 2 and 19 of the Consumer Protection Act 1987? If it is not, we can assess the overall legislative framework which will result. If it is, we will need to revisit this issue when looking again at the purpose of the Bill. If His Majesty’s Government say they will decide later and seek to avoid overlap, we should again look at how this Bill and how the Consumer Protection Act 1987 may overlap, and consider whether the continuation of a defined requirement for safe products should be included in the Bill.
The other two amendments follow a very similar vein. I think I have said enough, and I beg to move.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
My Lords, briefly, I support this. It is important that we do not give the Minister powers to repeal one of the best-known Acts, which many consumers in this country have had experience of. We all know it is a flagship Act, and it has been proven in the decades since 1987.
I strongly support my noble friend’s proposals to remove the concern about giving the Government the power to do away with these protections which are in those sections of the Act. The meaning of “safety” is particularly relevant and needs to be very clear for businesses and consumers alike. Were we to go along this route, heaven knows what a Government could do. It is wrong for this House to allow that to happen; it is constitutionally out of order that such a well-known piece of legislation—which is so important to our economy and those who make our economy—can be done away with using sleight of hand and without any proper scrutiny or discussion.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord and the noble Baroness, but I disagree with her. From the debates we have already had, there is a recognition that what businesses need is certainty and for government to move quickly when it is clear that action needs to be taken to protect the consumer and the other aims of the Bill.
I accept that there has been criticism by your Lordships’ Select Committees and by noble Lords here about the skeletal nature of the Bill, but the point is that we need flexibility to keep pace with fast movement in this consumer area. That is the reason why the Bill is constructed the way it is. I will come on to the Consumer Protection Act, but I hope I can reassure noble Lords on that.
The Government are of course looking very carefully at the reports of both the Delegated Powers Committee and the Constitution Committee and we are reflecting on them. Clearly, as I have said, we are trying to get the right balance between proper parliamentary accountability and the need for flexibility and clarity for all the people affected by the legislation. For instance, in Clause 9 itself, subsection (4) enables us to make minor technical adjustments to ensure coherence across the legislative framework without the need to introduce separate primary legislation for every amendment. I have to say that a general consequential power is typical and required to keep the law functional. If you remove that power, it would mean new primary legislation for adjustments that are primarily procedural or corrective in nature.
Also, the Bill includes safeguards to ensure that the use of the Clause 9 powers is proportionate and justified, with changes to primary legislation subject to the affirmative procedure. Of course, this means debates in both Houses.
As far as the Consumer Protection Act 1987 is concerned, I of course accept the importance of that legislation. As noble Lords will know, Part II of that Act grants powers to the Secretary of State to make regulations to ensure the safety of products, but the powers in Clauses 1 and 2 are intended to replace those powers. So, when product regulations are made under this Bill, it may be appropriate to repeal any or all of Part II of that Act in order to avoid duplication.
Likewise, Part IV of that Act sets out provision for the enforcement of regulations made under Part II. So, because the Bill includes provision in Clause 3 relating to the enforcement of product regulations made under this Bill, it may be appropriate to repeal any or all of Part IV of that Act when new product regulations are made. Included here are the powers for enforcement authorities to investigate and seize goods that have not yet reached the market and the power for customs officers to detain goods.
Part V of the Consumer Protection Act contains miscellaneous and supplemental provisions that may also require amendment when new regulations are introduced. There is no attempt here, nor any desire on the part of the Government, to undermine the Act fundamentally. We simply have to make adjustments in the light of this legislation.
I have listened to the noble Lord and the noble Baroness. As I say, we are considering very carefully the reports of those two Select Committees; clearly, we will reflect on them between now and Report.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I am, obviously, grateful to the Minister for that reassurance because, as he acknowledged, the committees’ reports are incredibly powerful and make some extremely good points.
With regard to the specifics, I thank the Minister. We agree on much. Businesses want certainty but they have certainty under the existing legislation, of course, which is the point of the amendments I have laid. I agree on flexibility as well but, unfortunately, “flexibility” is a word that allows a reasonably flexible definition. That is the point we seek to make here: we need to clarify this in a way that affords businesses a much more rigorously defined definition of “flexibility”.
As the Minister pointed out, businesses crave a degree of certainty, but the existing legislation is perfectly functional and has been for a long time. They have that certainty now, so I think that the Government need to justify why, in our view, they seeking to weaken that certainty.
For now, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. I very much look forward to hearing what the Government have to say when they have considered the reports and, perhaps, to having further conversations ahead of Report.
Lord Liddle
“7A Products and equipment for use in civil aviation.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is intended to probe the Government’s position regarding the use of the powers in the Bill to regulate products used in civil aviation.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
My Lords, it is not my intention to delay the conclusion of this very exhaustive and thorough Committee for very long. I will only take a minute. Some noble Lords will be aware that before the election I covered transport from the Opposition Front Bench. One of the issues that has come up is how the regulation here proposed by the Department for Business and Trade relates to the existing regulatory framework for aircraft, which comes under the Department for Transport.
I am sure that this matter can be sorted out without too much problem through extensive departmental conversations. We are glad that aircraft, which are regulated very strictly and with heavy international content—it is basically an international issue—are excluded by the Schedule. However, it is possible there may be some confusion created unless the definition of aircraft is more broadly defined.
My proposal, which is purely a test—I am not saying that it is perfect by any means—is that the Government take a look at the question of products and equipment for use in civil aviation, which is broader than aircraft themselves, think about this and come back on Report with a view. With that, I move my amendment.
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Liddle for his amendment in this final group in the Committee on this Bill. He raises a very interesting point. I will start by briefly explaining the operation of the Schedule of the Bill. Noble Lords will appreciate that the Bill’s definitions have been drafted to capture the range of products covered by existing regulations. This means that the Bill needs to cover products as diverse as toys, cosmetics, fireworks, lifts and pieces of heavy engineering. The Bill therefore defines a product as
“a tangible item that results from a method of production”.
To place some limitation on this scope, the Schedule lists some exclusions. These refer to certain products that do not require coverage by this Bill because, for example, they are regulated by separate legislation. The Schedule includes an exclusion for aircraft. The noble Lord’s amendment would widen this exclusion to include all products and equipment intended for use in civil aviation.
As my noble friend has said, product regulation is not always as clear-cut as that. Many sectors have products feeding into them that span other sectors. Aviation is an important and complicated field when it comes to safety. It is right that there is an extensive suite of existing legislation, overseen by the Department for Transport, that covers that. It is not the Government’s intention to create any confusing parallel structure of regulation.
However, we need to ensure that, by excluding a wider range of products that can be used in aviation, we do not accidentally exclude dual-use products that might also need to be captured by this Bill. It cannot be the case that a manufacturer or other supplier can evade regulation on the grounds that, as well as supplying consumers, they also supply the aviation industry. My noble friend has raised an important and nuanced issue. Aviation safety is a serious matter. The Government will definitely reflect on this matter, and I am happy to have discussions with my noble friend before Report.
As this is the last group in our consideration of the Bill in Committee, I would like to express my thanks to all noble Lords for their thoughtful and constructive contribution during this stage of the scrutiny of the Bill. I would also like to thank my officials and all the staff here in the House, including the clerks, Hansard and the doorkeepers, for ensuring that the Committee has run as seamlessly as possible.
As I have said many times during today’s debate, the Government have valued the debates we have had, and the issues raised by all noble Lords. We have heard, clearly and loudly, the mood of the Committee on a number of areas. I can assure noble Lords that the Government will carefully reflect on all concerns. I give an undertaking that I will come back to noble Lords on these issues.
I look forward to continuing my constructive conversations with noble Lords as we approach Report to ensure that this important Bill is suitable to deliver the policy objectives that many in the debates have outlined their support of. With that said—and to ensure that noble Lords are not totally surprised—I would like to end on a familiar note and ask that Amendment 134 be withdrawn.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
My Lords, I am happy for Amendment 134 to be withdrawn. I am very grateful for the assurances the Minister has given me that this will be a matter subject to further consideration.
House of Lords
House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill
Wednesday 11th December 2024
(1 day, 19 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill 2024-26 View all House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill 2024-26 Debates 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.
Anti-depressants: Cost, Risks and Ramifications
(1 day, 19 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Alton of Liverpool
To ask His Majesty’s Government how many individuals have been prescribed anti-depressants by the NHS in England in the past 10 years, at what cost, and what assessment they have made of the risks and ramifications.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, we are still waiting for the Minister, my noble friend Lady Merron, to arrive to answer the first Question, which I am very sorry about. I did tell people that we were not starting this afternoon with Prayers, so I am somewhat embarrassed to be standing here to tell the House that we shall have to wait a few moments for my noble friend to arrive. [Interruption.] Thankfully, I have no information, so I shall keep talking on the basis that at some point my noble friend Lady Merron will arrive and answer the Question before us.
Lord Kamall (Con)
May I express my gratitude to the Chief Whip for reminding me that there were no Prayers?
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My noble friend Lady Merron is now here.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)
I apologise to your Lordships’ House and am grateful to my noble friend the Chief Whip, as ever.
In 2023-24, 8.7 million identified patients were prescribed anti-depressants at a cost of £220 million, compared with 2015-16, when the cost was £270 million for prescriptions to 6.88 million people. The NHS Business Services Authority reports patient prescribing data on an annual basis rather than a running total. All licensed anti-depressants meet robust standards of safety, quality and efficacy, constantly reviewed by the MHRA.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, for her reply and for facilitating and attending our meeting with the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency. Has she had the chance to read the correspondence I shared with her from the bereaved family of Thomas Kingston, who, like Olivia Russell, committed suicide while using anti-depressants? Has she noted that the coroner intends to issue a prevention of future death report to the MHRA? In the light of this tragedy, what can the Minister do to create a more rigorous approval regime, including greater definition of risk? Given that hundreds of millions of these drugs are issued, at a cost of hundreds of millions of pounds, will the Government establish a longer-term inquiry to ask searching questions about root causes—what is leading to endless repeat prescriptions and driving such widespread reliance on anti-depressants?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I extend my deepest sympathies to the family of Thomas Kingston after his very tragic death earlier this year. We await the findings of the inquest and will act on any recommendations by the coroner as appropriate. While there has been an increase in prescribing, as the noble Lord observes, anti-depressants, for example, are often prescribed for a wide range of reasons—not just for the treatment of depression but for migraine, chronic pain, and ME, among other conditions. The other possible reason for the increase is because of the stigma associated with seeking mental health treatment, but prescribing anti-depressants is never the first port of call—it is just one of the tools in the box to assist people. There are no current plans to conduct a review.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Alton, did not mention whether we were discussing specific anti-depressants, but the case he mentioned does refer to a group of anti-depressants called selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors. They treat the patient by increasing serotonin levels, but they run the risk of patients having suicidal ideation—the feeling of wanting to commit suicide. In a meta-analysis carried out using 29 research reports, it was found that they are beneficial in the early phase of the treatment of depression, but in later phases the data is less reliable. Are the MHRA and the NIHR working together to look at the evidence available and to produce the appropriate guidance? To avoid a high risk of suicide in people using this group of drugs, it is important to have proper monitoring, which means controlled visits to appropriate health specialists.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I assure the noble Lord that NICE keeps all its clinical guidance under active surveillance to ensure that it can respond to any new evidence that is relevant, including relevant clinically related literature, that could possibly impact on its recommendations. More broadly, guidance recommends that suicidal ideation should be monitored in people with depression who are receiving treatment, particularly in the early weeks of treatment. That includes specific recommendations on medication for people at risk of suicide.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, a study in 2019 found that a third of women were prescribed anti-depressants by their GP to combat symptoms of the menopause. What are the Government’s current assessment of this situation and of adherence to NICE guidance in this area? If the Minister does not have full details to hand, perhaps she can write to me.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I would be very pleased to write further to the noble Baroness. This is a very important point about support for women during the menopause. However, a prescription is made only after discussion with the patient about it and other alternatives, and the clinician has to follow and comply with the guidelines. Patient choice is absolutely key here. Every individual is an individual, and only what is appropriate should be prescribed—if needed.
Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford (Con)
My Lords, as the Minister pointed out, SSRIs can be the right choice for some patients, but for there to be patient choice, there has to be the capacity for those therapeutic options. In April 2024, around 1 million people were recorded as waiting for mental health services, 340,000 of whom were children, and over 100,000 had waited for more than a year. The Government have pledged to provide an additional 8,500 mental health staff. Can the Minister say what she will do to increase patient choice and build that capacity?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
We have already made a number of commitments, but the noble Baroness is quite right to observe the excessive numbers on the waiting list. We are deeply aware of the distress and continuing difficulty that this causes for many. The noble Lord, Lord Darzi, in his independent investigation, confirmed that about 1 million people are waiting for mental health support as of April 2024. Moving to the 10-year plan will be an opportunity to put mental health services in a different place. In addition to the commitments that the noble Baroness has mentioned, we are providing access to a specialist mental health professional in every school and providing open-access Young Futures hubs.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for organising a recent meeting with the Minister, the MHRA and some psychiatrists, who raised the issue of SSRIs and their side-effects. One concern was that patients need to be aware that one side-effect of SSRIs is to have suicidal thoughts. Therefore, I was surprised to see on the NHS website’s page on the side-effects of anti-depressants that you have to scroll down four or five pages before seeing the warning signs about suicidal thoughts. While we await the review from the MHRA which it discussed with us, will the Government and the NHS look at the advice on the website so that those who are prescribed SSRIs are clearer about the risk of suicidal thoughts?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I would be happy to look at that. However, there have been warnings on the leaflets accompanying medication for some 20 years. It is always a cause to review to ensure that it is most effective. There are at least two sides to this. One is the clinician doing their job to discuss side-effects, including on withdrawal from the medication, but it is important that patients understand it as well.
Lord Hacking (Lab)
Is my noble friend the Minister aware of the work of the Charlie Waller Trust, whose directive is to apply awareness among teachers, tutors and so forth of the danger of suicide in the work that they perform?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I am not specifically aware, but I will be glad to look into this.
Lord Crisp (CB)
My Lords, I want to raise the issue of dependency on anti-depressants. As the Minister will know, a lot of people have great difficulty coming off these anti-depressants. It is striking that for those using drugs illegally or with substance abuse, there are many services, but there are no services in the NHS for those seeking to withdraw from anti-depressants. This is a major problem. With that in mind, I ask two questions. First, will the Government consider the delivery of a helpline, which has been called for in a number of reviews, so that people can have some access to help? Secondly, will they support an NHS project designed to introduce withdrawal services within the NHS?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
The noble Lord makes an important point about the effects of withdrawal from any medication. I am not sure that this is an exact answer but there is the 111 helpline, which has been expanded to refer to mental health services, so people can ring and ask those questions. However, I take his point about withdrawal. We may wish to consider this as we go towards the 10-year plan.
State-funded Schools: Special Educational Needs
(1 day, 19 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Addington
To ask His Majesty’s Government how they will ensure state-funded schools are better able to identify those with special educational needs and better able to meet those needs.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, and I remind the House of my declared interests.
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
My Lords, the majority of children and young people with special educational needs have their needs met in mainstream schools. We are committed to ensuring that schools have the resources and expertise to identify needs earlier and support all pupils to succeed. We are working with experts, parents and carers to strengthen accountability and ensure inclusivity, through reforms to Ofsted inspection frameworks, increasing workforce expertise, evidence-based training and encouraging schools to set up resourced provision, or SEN units, to increase capacity to better support children and young people in mainstream settings.
Lord Addington (LD)
I thank the Minister for that Answer, but I remind her that it is estimated that 70% of dyslexics are not identified at school, and the figure is also very high for those with things such as high-functioning autism. Will the Government ensure that there is a coherent pattern of training so that ordinary teachers refer to those with expertise to identify? If you do not identify, you stand no chance of providing the different learning patterns that are required.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The noble Lord is absolutely right about the need to identify early. We have measures in place to help teachers with early identification and support, particularly for the teaching of reading, including the phonics screening check and statutory assessments in key stages 1 and 2, the English hubs programme, the reading framework, an updated list of high-quality phonics programmes for schools, training for up to 7,000 early years special educational needs co-ordinators, and the Partnerships for Inclusion of Neurodiversity in Schools programme which upskills primary schools to support neurodiverse children.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
My Lords, I am the great-aunt of Ollie, who is my great-nephew. He went to Liberty, a brilliant state school in Merton that I cannot speak highly enough of. It had no trouble identifying that he had a problem; the problem was the length of time waiting for the assessment. In the end, I coughed up and paid for it, and he is now in a state school with a Treetops special unit and he is cooking—he is thriving. This year, I received the first birthday card from him that I could read every word of. How many children are waiting for assessments? What is the reason for the long waits, and what are we going to do about it?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
Ollie is very lucky to have the noble Baroness as his great-aunt. But she raises an important point about the speed with which it is possible to carry out assessments. It is for that reason that we are supporting local authority educational psychology services by investing over £20 million to train 400 more educational psychologists, because they play a particularly important role in supporting those services and contributing to statutory assessments. As the noble Baroness said, we must ensure that more children are able to succeed in our mainstream schools, as I am sure Ollie will.
Baroness Bull (CB)
My Lords, one in 20 people in the UK are estimated to have dyscalculia, yet it frequently goes undiagnosed and therefore without the support that would enable these young people to overcome the challenges in processing and dealing with numbers. Currently, there is no requirement for maths teachers to learn about dyscalculia, and even special needs teachers are not always trained to recognise and deal with it. Will the Government consider introducing a statutory requirement for maths teachers to learn about dyscalculia in initial teacher training? Can the Minister confirm that these specific challenges will be addressed through the curriculum and assessment review?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The noble Baroness makes an important point about the responsibility of all teachers to be able to identify special educational needs. All teachers are special educational needs teachers and that is why, although I cannot be completely clear on her point about dyscalculia, I can assure her that we are supporting improved teacher training throughout teachers’ careers, starting with changes to initial teacher training coming in from September 2025, and continuing through their careers from early career teachers into leadership roles. I will follow up the particular point the noble Baroness made in her question.
Lord Clark of Windermere (Lab)
As my noble friend the Minister knows, there are hundreds of thousands of children who simply do not go to school. How do we measure the limitations they are facing in the educational sphere?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My noble friend is right. It is important that we tackle absenteeism in the way that this Government have outlined and that I have talked about at this Dispatch Box on previous occasions, whether that is persistent absenteeism, where we see a higher proportion of students with special educational needs, or those who have been completely removed from schools and are no longer on school registers. It is also important that we introduce, as we intend to do through legislation, the registers for children who are not in school, so that we can ensure, first, that our schools are appropriately inclusive, so that parents do not feel the need to remove their children and children do not absent themselves from schools because of their inability to be able to learn, but also so that we can track children when they are not in school.
The Lord Bishop of Sheffield
My Lords, despite significant progress in the identification of pupils with SEND in recent years, some groups remain significantly underrepresented in accessing a formal diagnosis and acquiring an EHCP. Looked-after children as well as those experiencing the most severe poverty and those who belong to Romany, Gypsy, Traveller and Roma communities face particularly serious barriers. What steps will the Government take to ensure that the most vulnerable children with SEND are better served?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The right reverend Prelate is exactly right that, where you see an assessment of special educational needs alongside other areas of disadvantage, there is, if you like, an additional concern and an additional difficulty for those children to succeed. That is why we need to make our schools more inclusive, we need to make sure that we have the specialist workforce in place—some of which I have talked about today—and we need to make sure that investment is available in local authorities for those higher needs, and we need to make sure that we are intervening earlier. For example, as more children are able to get early years education alongside the trained support that we are providing in early years education, I hope that we will be able to identify those children earlier and start them off, at least, on a better chance of succeeding in our schools.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, last week Ministers and the Department for Education rightly noted on social media the very poor results for children with special educational needs in the recent SATs tests at the end of primary school. However, in the same week, there was a spooky silence from the department and its Ministers when the analysis of the 2023 Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study was published. Our year 9 students are now fifth in the world in maths and sixth in science and are beaten only by the East Asian countries. I could find no word of acknowledgement to celebrate the success of English students from a single Minister in the department on social media. Can I invite the Minister to take this opportunity to congratulate our students, thank our teachers and acknowledge that the Conservative educational reforms had a massive impact?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I was around in 1999 when the focus of the previous Labour Government was on literacy and numeracy in a way that has undoubtedly led to continued improvements in our children’s literacy and numeracy, and I am more than happy to thank and give credit to the teachers and the students who have performed so well in English and maths international assessments. However, there is a level of complacency—which I am sure I cannot accuse the noble Baroness of—and it is not right to feel that our job is done when we have a special educational needs and disability system that has been widely described, by the NAO and others including members of the noble Baroness’s party, as a lose-lose situation for our children and a failure to enable all children to benefit from the excellent teaching, which I am more than happy to praise.
Bread and Flour Regulations 1998
(1 day, 19 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Rooker
To ask His Majesty’s Government, further to the answer by Baroness Merron on 11 September (HL Deb col 1562), whether it remains their intention to lay regulations before Parliament to amend the Bread and Flour Regulations 1998 in 2024.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)
My Lords, I am delighted to be able to say that, a month ago, this Government laid the legislation to introduce the mandatory fortification of non-wholemeal wheat flour with folic acid. We are the first European country to do so, providing pregnant women with protection for their unborn babies from neural tube defects and the devastating impact on families. I pay great tribute to my noble friend and many others in this House who have championed this momentous intervention over a number of years.
Lord Rooker (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Will she formally thank the Opposition, who spent six years saying no and five years organising the consultations that have led to this decision—just a few minutes ago, I was looking at four Ministers who had answered Questions on this? I do not want to be too negative but, in the department’s extensive press release on the day it published the regulations, why was there not a single reference, even in footnotes, to the Medical Research Council’s work of 1991, which over 80 countries have already followed? Has the Secretary of State picked up the phone to talk to Nicholas Wald, the research scientist who led that work in 1991, which has been followed by so many countries and now, belatedly but welcomely, by his own country, the United Kingdom?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I am glad my noble friend welcomes the announcement that I am making today. With respect to any phone calls made by the Secretary of State, I will gladly find out; I certainly cannot comment at this Dispatch Box. I thank previous Ministers and officials who, over the years, have contributed to where we are. In respect of the delay, all I can say is that I am very glad to be the Minister announcing it today.
Baroness Manzoor (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the announcement; I think it is very good news. I also welcome the tenacity of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker. He has done an amazing job, so well done to him. For me, it is important to have a widespread strategy to include folic acid in flour and to look at previous programmes to, say, reduce rickets, to ensure that we do not increase inequalities by not thinking about the outcomes—for instance, ensuring that folic acid is included in chapatti flour.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
The addition of folic acid is to non-wholemeal products. Flour is not just used in baking but is in all sorts of other products. That is part of the reason for it being a 24-month transition, and of course industry can act quicker than that. The reason that it is in non-wholemeal flour is that wholemeal is already a higher source of folate. In respect of chapattis, all products will be considered. I should add that some of the transition time is due to the labelling changes that will be required. We are not stopping industry acting quicker, but we are being realistic about how long it will take.
Lord Krebs (CB)
My Lords, I congratulate the Government on introducing this legislation and the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, on his tenacity. However, I would like to ask about another vitamin. We know that between one in five and one in six people in the country have low vitamin D levels; the previous Government had a consultation on this back in 2022. Will the Minister update us on what the Government’s policies will be to try to address the issue of low vitamin D levels?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I will be glad to look into that and to update the noble Lord and your Lordships’ House on the matter.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, on his persistence; these Benches have always supported him. I welcome that more NTDs will be prevented. However, given that we have to wait yet another two years and that the Government’s guidance for women who wish to become pregnant or who are pregnant is to continue taking folic acid supplements, are the Government looking at creative ways of making it easier for them to do that —for example, having them available for free in antenatal clinics or at family hubs?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
As I mentioned earlier, while 24 months is a realistic transition, not everything will wait that long. It is the case, as the noble Baroness says, that there is still advice to women who could become pregnant to take folic acid supplements, and it is important that we keep that message going. However, 50% of pregnancies are not planned, so it is not possible to prepare by taking supplements. We are looking at all ways of effectively getting the message across.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the Government on publishing the regulation. I pay my own tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Rooker—although he may not welcome it—for his tenacity on this particular issue. One of my frustrations when I was a Minister on this was how long the processes and consultations took. For future reference, if other supplements are to be introduced into our food, I wonder whether the department has looked at ways in which it could possibly shorten the process without compromising patient safety.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
Patient safety is at the forefront of this. I do not want to look backwards, but I gently suggest that there are all sorts of reasons for delays. Still, we are where we are now, and what is important is moving ahead. We are working closely with the Chief Medical Officers across the UK. We are very much in lockstep with the devolved Governments, and I think that will also assist.
Lord Winston (Lab)
Given the Government’s excellent initiative to reduce the serious risk of neural tube defects, which cause such despair to so many people, will they tell us where we have got to with fluoride addition to the water supply to prevent dental disease?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My noble friend is right, and we anticipate that this policy will reduce the number of neural tube defects in pregnancy by around 200 a year. Those are life-changing brain and spinal defects, such as spina bifida. The question about fluoridation goes a little wider than I had anticipated.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
Please do not apologise. We are seeing through all the measures that are possible to reduce dental decay as part of our prevention policies, and that includes introducing supervised toothbrushing for young children. I know that a number of noble Lords are interested in the matter of fluoridation—they have raised it with me in discussions about dentistry—and I will be pleased to write to my noble friend.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, is right to mention Nick Wald; he pioneered the study that I was part of when I was on the steering committee of the MRC. The important point I want to make is that it is before pregnancy starts and in its early phases that folic acid is most important; it is not about prescribing it once the pregnancy is established. I speak as someone who had to look after many mothers who had neural tube defects, such as anencephaly.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
The noble Lord’s observation is, obviously, right. Folic acid contributes, for example, to tissue growth during pregnancy, as well as to the normal function of the immune system and to reducing tiredness and fatigue. As for the point I made earlier, one of the strong reasons for this policy is that 50% of pregnancies are not planned. Therefore, it is about ensuring that folic acid is available in a diet before pregnancy, whether or not that pregnancy is planned. That is vital.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, we will hear from the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, next.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
I warmly welcome what the Minister has said. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, for his work on this, as well as those who worked with me when I had the honour to co-chair the all-party group on this in the other place. On working in partnership with the devolved Governments, can the Minister commit to continue that work of implementation and enforcement through to 2026, so that families will be spared the pain of having babies born with neural tube defects, which is a particular issue in Northern Ireland?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I am grateful for the comments of the noble Lord, who himself has brought much to this campaign. I am glad that, in Northern Ireland, the legislation was laid a few days later, on 20 November. I assure him that we will continue to work with the devolved Governments on this matter; it is crucial that we do. I finish by thanking again all noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Rooker, who has led from the front on this to ensure that we could announce it today.
New Homes
(1 day, 19 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Sikka
To ask His Majesty’s Government what logistical and supply chain barriers they have identified to the possibility of building 1.5 million new homes by 2029.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
To deliver 1.5 million homes over this Parliament the housebuilding sector will need skilled and competent workers, efficient planning and a reliable materials supply chain, as well as certainty for the construction industry. We started on planning immediately, and we will publish the revised national framework tomorrow. We are working with industry to provide high-quality training opportunities and create a more diverse work force to build the homes that the country needs. The industry also needs access to sufficient quality safe materials. We have set a clear direction of growth for the housing sector, so suppliers can be confident in increasing their capacity to meet the demand.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
I thank the Minister for her reply. A target of 1.5 million homes is commendable, but Governments do not actually build houses, local councils are disempowered, and the private sector simply does not have the capacity. The UK is the world’s largest importer of bricks—about 500 million a year—30% to 40% of cement is imported, and the construction industry says it needs another 251,000 workers to get anywhere near the housebuilding target. In addition to the publication tomorrow, can the Minister also publish a detailed report showing how each of the constraints on housebuilding is to be alleviated?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I thank my noble friend. He is right, to the extent that we recognise the constraints. We spent a lot of time early in government identifying what they were, working with the sector. We expect housebuilding activity to double in four years, but the supply of construction materials would need to increase by only about 20% to meet the demand, because housebuilding makes up only about 20% of the construction sector. We expect demand for construction products primarily used in housing, such as bricks, and green tech, such as PV panels and heat pumps, to increase at a high rate, and we see that as an opportunity for great British innovators to get going and improve the supply chains with us.
The Earl of Devon (CB)
My Lords, during the passage of the Environment Act we introduced the excellent principle of biodiversity net gain. In Committee we voiced concerns over the lack of qualified BNG assessors both in the private sector and, more importantly, in local government. The Minister—the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park—assured me that the markets would provide. I was sceptical then, and I am sceptical now, given local government finances. What update can the Minister provide us on the availability of those qualified to assess biodiversity net gain?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
We are increasing the support for the planning system, but the specific point about biodiversity net gain assessors is, I appreciate, a different issue. We expect that planning officers will take a role in this, but we need a specific increase in BNG assessors, so if I may I will reply to the noble Earl in writing on that matter.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, mentioned a shortage of 251,000 skilled construction workers if the Government are to hit their target. Modern methods of construction have the potential to help meet that shortage and drive up productivity, but have had a mixed reception in this country because of a lack of sustained demand. As many of the 1.5 million houses will come from the public sector, can the Government use their purchasing power to relaunch modern methods of construction with a sustainable level of demand, to meet the productivity requirement and give the country the homes it needs?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving me the opportunity to say that I went to visit British Offsite with Weston Homes in Braintree earlier this week. What a fantastic example of British innovation, using recycled steel to build MMC products. MMC is an important opportunity to improve productivity in the construction sector, to deliver quickly the very high-quality energy-efficient homes we need, and to create new and diverse jobs. We are working to address the strategic barriers to the further uptake of MMC, including improved supply chain confidence, clarity for warranty and insurance markets, and planning reform. We will say more about that in the long-term housing strategy next year.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, there are currently tens of thousands of Section 106 affordable homes with detailed planning permission waiting to be built out on active sites, but stuck because the registered providers will not take them on due to the current financial capacity in that sector. Will the Government as a short-term emergency measure consider the use of Homes England grant funding specifically, so that registered providers can afford to take up these much-needed affordable homes on these stuck sites?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The noble Baroness is quite right about the stuck sites but, in spite of the very difficult Budget round this year, the Government have put £500 million more into affordable housing. That takes the total for affordable housing up to about £3 billion. Homes England is working through its programme of how it is going to support the delivery of those affordable homes. I am sure that support for registered providers will form part of that.
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that it would be very unwise to rely on the oligopoly of volume housebuilders to produce all the homes that we need? Has the time come and are the Government now ready to promote the model of the development corporation? It is an arm’s-length body controlled by local authorities which buys the land. It then has a master plan and parcels out the sites—yes, to the volume housebuilders, but also to housing associations and those building for students and older people and the SME builders. Is not that model now really necessary rather than reliance on those major volume housebuilders?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I am sure the noble Lord is aware of my great passion for development corporations and the way that they work. It is true that we are encouraging Homes England to break down the great big contracts it had been issuing more, so that there is more opportunity for smaller developers to take those on. As well as that, we recognise the very challenging conditions that SME housebuilders have faced to deliver homes in recent times. They are essential to our housebuilding targets, build out quickly, train the workforce and are embedded in local communities. We will announce further support for SMEs next year, but this breaking down of the great big development organisations is key to delivering the homes we need in the places that people want them.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, we all agree that more homes need to be built but, with the introduction of the higher local authority housebuilding targets, which will be mandatory, including on “ugly” parts of the green belt, can the noble Baroness define what ugly means? Is this not entirely subjective, where “ugly” is not just a grey-belt issue but a completely grey area? Are those living in such areas not going to be left wringing their hands in despair as the bulldozers roll in without genuine protections in place?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
There is no intention for bulldozers to bowl in without any local say in this. By strengthening the housing targets and allowing development on that poor-quality grey-belt land, we will get Britain building again. We will set out tomorrow in the National Planning Policy Framework the definitions of “grey belt” and how we intend to move things forward. Making those housing targets mandatory will reverse the decline we saw when the targets were cancelled last year.
Lord Krebs (CB)
My Lords, can the Minister reassure us that these 1.5 million new homes will be resilient in the face of future climate change? I am thinking particularly of the risks of flooding and overheating.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I am working daily on that task at the moment. We are looking at the future homes standard with the future homes hub, which involves the whole construction industry, to make sure that we make homes as resilient to climate change as we possibly can. Of course, there is a balance to be struck in delivery of homes but we want to make sure that we do not end up with a whole generation of homes that need retrofitting in the future. We will do our best, working with the industry, to make sure that they are as fit for the future as we can possibly make them.
Baroness Bryan of Partick (Lab)
My Lords, I return to the issue of the impact on the environment of importing building materials. I understand that the use of 500 million bricks—whatever they are used for —has resulted in nearly 300,000 tons of carbon emissions. Will the Government consider what roll they will play in ensuring that we develop alternatives to building materials, to be produced in the UK?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
It is important that the Government support the development of the supply chain that we need in this country in order to enable the building that we want. There are, of course, many areas of the supply chain which we need to develop. That is why the Government have supported the development of an electric arc furnace at Port Talbot so that we can continue to produce steel. We need to think about the solar panels, the ground-source heat pumps and the battery storage: these are huge opportunities in our economy that will contribute to the growth that the country needs.
House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill
Wednesday 11th December 2024
(1 day, 19 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill 2024-26 View all House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill 2024-26 Debates 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.