House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

2nd reading
Wednesday 11th December 2024 Lords Chamber

Second Reading

11:06

Moved by

[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.

11:18

[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?

11:33

[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.

11:42

[The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)]

My Lords—

[Noble Lords]

Hear, hear.

[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.

11:50

[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.

11:55

[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.

[Noble Lords]

He is both.

[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.

12:01

[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.

12:06

[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.

12:09

[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.

12:15

[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.

12:21

[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.

12:26

[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.

12:30

[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.

12:33

[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.

12:40

[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.

12:45

[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—

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[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.

12:52

[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.

12:58

[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—

[Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (PC)]

Llanfaes.

[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.

13:05

Sitting suspended. House to resume at 3pm.