House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

(Limited Text - Ministerial Extracts only)

Committee stage
Monday 3rd March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howard of Lympne (Con)]

My Lords, in considering the purposes of this Bill, it is necessary to remind ourselves of the circumstances in which our hereditary colleagues continue to sit in your Lordships’ House. They are here because of an agreement which was reached in 1999 that they would continue to sit in your Lordships’ House until stage 2 of the projected reform had taken place. The late Lord Irvine said that that agreement was binding in honour; he said it was a guarantee. He gave those undertakings as—

[The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Smith of Basildon) (Lab)]

I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but I think he said “the late Lord Irvine”; I remind him that the noble and learned Lord is not late.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Mancroft (Con)]

My Lords, I must admit that the thought of the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, representing my noble friend Lord Strathclyde has slightly set me aside for a moment. I was wondering which particular bit he represented. Was it the bit from the neck up, from the waist down or everything in the middle? I am sure we will learn that over time.

The Government explain this Bill on the basis that it fulfils their manifesto commitment to end the right of Peers to sit and vote in this House by dint of an hereditary peerage. That commitment is apparently sacrosanct. In truth, that measure is already clearly set out in Section 1 of the 1999 Act. The principle was accepted then and is accepted now. This Bill neither affects nor improves on it—but is selective. The Labour Party manifesto also included a commitment to implement a retirement age of 80, but the Government have, at least temporarily, resiled from that part of their commitment, because they have quite rightly concluded that most turkeys, particularly those on their own Back Benches, will not vote for Christmas. It seems, therefore, that the manifesto is not sacrosanct after all.

The Bill breaches, as we have heard, the commitment made in honour that my noble friend Lord Howard talked about and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, made with Lord Cranborne in the 1999 Act. It is argued that, with the passage of time, this agreement has become obsolete and, furthermore, that no Parliament can bind its successors. But no agreement of this kind does fall away simply by the passage of time. I am afraid things just simply are as not as easy as that. Nor did it and nor does it bind a future Parliament. It was an agreement willingly entered into by both parties and it still stands, so, without the agreement of both parties, it cannot be changed—although, of course, one party can breach it and thus demonstrate its dishonour, as my noble friend Lord Howard suggested. That is the Government’s choice.

I accept that the obvious solution to the Government’s dilemma is not easy, but nor is it that complicated either. The condition of that agreement was that Labour would embark on a full second-stage reform of this House, as we have heard. But, despite 14 years in opposition and now seven months in government, Labour does not appear to be able to do that. Although in opposition Sir Keir Starmer seemed to favour an elected second Chamber, in government he has clearly moved in the opposite direction.

We will debate that in the next amendment, in the name of my noble friend Lord Caithness, and later after Clause 1 in the amendment in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Newby and Lord Wallace of Saltaire, and my noble friend Lord Strathclyde. I will be supporting that, although I am very much looking forward to the Liberal Democrats explaining exactly how supporting a Bill that establishes an appointed House is the best route to achieving an elected House.

If the Government wish to explain what plans they have for the future of this House and even to start to implement those plans, it would be difficult to object to this Bill. But they have not. An alternative, and the simplest way to achieve the Government’s objective, would be, as has been suggested, to enact the measure contained in the various Private Members’ Bills from the noble Lord, Grocott, which, again, the House will examine later in this Committee. Suffice to say that, regardless of the merits or otherwise of that proposal, for some obscure reason the Government believe that the proposal from the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, has passed its sell-by date and can no longer be enacted, although I have been unable to find anyone who can explain exactly why this is so. I rather think it merely suits the Government’s purpose to advance that theory, but it is clearly not the case.

It is also worth pointing out that, although the Bill from the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, may be familiar to some of us, it was last debated in this House some four years ago and only got beyond Second Reading six years ago. Subsequently, over 160 new Members have joined this House who will never have had the chance to debate, discuss or understand that Bill. Perhaps it might help the House if they were able to do so now.

This Bill seeks to achieve an object that has already been achieved. It is currently divisive, unpleasant and wholly unnecessary, but that could all be avoided. Like my noble friend Lord True, I hope that, rather than spending a long time arguing every point, the Lord Privy Seal and my noble friend might find a way upon which the whole House could agree.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful for the comments that have been made and for the different tone from the noble Lord, Lord True, which I welcome. I will just say one thing. The noble Lord spoke about a passing political Executive. He will know, as I do, that that is actually known as the Government, in all cases. I think it was beneath him to make a comment such as that and I am sorry he did. His other comments were welcome, and I am grateful to him for making them.

The noble Lord’s amendment, as he said, seeks to provide a description of the purpose of the Bill. He will know, as I know, that a similar amendment was debated in the other place. It was rejected by a majority of 277 because it is an unnecessary amendment, as we have seen.

We have heard a couple of repeats of Second Reading speeches. The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, repeated some of his comments from Second Reading, as did the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. I am not going to go into another Second Reading speech, but I will comment on what they have said. I will, of course, clarify the purpose of this legislation, which I think will be helpful.

I spoke at Second Reading—and we have heard from noble Lords opposite—about the agreements put in place by the House of Lords Act 1999, which were then expected to be temporary arrangements for 90 remaining hereditary Peers, with a system of by-elections. There would be 92 in total but by-elections for the 90, with the exceptions being the Earl Marshal and Lord Great Chamberlain. Those arrangements were never expected to still be here a quarter of a century later, but they are.

I looked at the amendments and listened to the comments made by noble Lords. I expect my noble friend Lord Grocott will be possibly delighted but also somewhat dismayed by the sudden conversion of so many noble Lords to a Bill he tried so many times to bring forward. There were numerous debates on those Bills and noble Lords who sat through them will recall them well. In those Bills, my noble friend said that he wanted to bring an end to the system of by-elections but would allow those hereditary Peers among us, particularly those who have contributed to this House, to remain in the House for life as life Peers.

For some reason that I do not understand, those who now say that that was a good Bill and ask why we cannot go back to it put so much effort into destroying that Bill that it never got on to the statute book. Had that Bill been agreed then, we would not be here now. What we would be doing is having the discussions the noble Lord and I have had on other occasions about the other issues in our manifesto and finding a way forward that would benefit the House. However, there was a small number of noble Lords who frustrated the passage of that Bill and got us to this point, and I regret that.

The principle that we should not do anything until we do everything—and, in effect, do nothing—is not an acceptable position to hold. That time has gone. I remind noble Lords that this was a manifesto commitment, but I also say, as noble Lords have heard me say time and again, there is nothing at all that is a barrier to those in your Lordships’ House who are here as hereditary Peers to having life peerages. I have said that time and again. I appreciate that the route for that is different for the Cross-Benchers from how it is for the political parties. I am sorry that has come up again, but I have to make the point that there is no barrier to them returning as life Peers. Therefore, the purpose in the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord True, is not necessary in the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord—I always enjoy listening to his entertaining contributions—but we are discussing a specific amendment at the moment. He is making comments on things we will come to later in considering other amendments. This seems to be a Second Reading speech. I do not want to be discourteous, but I see that he has a lot of notes and I wonder whether he wants to address the amendment, rather than giving a wider speech.

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

I am doing precisely that by talking about the hereditary principle and the removal of the hereditaries. Both are central to what I am speaking about. I gave my experience from the point of view of a hereditary, and I am now addressing the key point about the Bill being very narrow with regard to the future of the hereditaries. My argument is simple and clear: it should be wider. My view is that by narrowing it as much as we have, it becomes a political numbers game Bill. I am much more in favour of looking at how best this House can fully scrutinise, shape and improve legislation for the Government of the day, and challenge them to think again when necessary.

The point has been made already that this House operates best through consensus, yet the much-heralded usual channels have regrettably become frayed and fractious of late. There must be a way for the leaders of the four main groupings in your Lordships’ House—the Government, the Opposition, the Liberal Democrats and, critically, the Cross-Benchers—to consider how the Government’s objective of numerical majority, for example, over His Majesty’s Opposition, with which I largely agree, can be achieved. For there is a better way to achieve the outcome that is sought in this Bill. There are many Peers, as has been mentioned, who have announced either their intention or willingness to retire, or who would do so if approached on the basis that if they remained, they would henceforth be required to participate actively in this House. The latter could be judged by criteria in a Bill which addressed minimum levels of attendance and contribution. This would also remove the sitting rights of those many life Peers who, at the time of their elevation, promised their respective leaders that they would be active in this Chamber and these Committee Rooms, but who all too soon became notable only by their absence.

So, it is possible to achieve the outcome by combining the end of the sitting rights of the hereditary peerage with the implementation of a decision to reduce the size of this House and still leave the Government with a majority over the Opposition. This solution, based on the principle of self-determination, is surely better than one which vests in the Prime Minister of the day the authority to approve each and every Member of this House, creating the worst of all worlds: a second Chamber without democratic legitimacy, built on short-term, present-day political patronage but shorn of the independence, the reputation and the authority that it currently enjoys. That is why I support this amendment.

[Lord Strathclyde (Con)]

My Lords, I think it is a little bit much for the noble Baroness to give my noble friend Lord Moynihan a hard time for making what she said was a Second Reading speech. The fact is that we had Second Reading nearly three months ago—there is no reason for the delay. Why were we not dealing with this Bill in January and February? Why has it taken so much time? I began to think that the Government had forgotten about this Bill or had changed their minds and were not taking it forward.

The noble Baroness in her reply—also a reply to a Second Reading speech—did not really look at the merits of the amendment itself, which concerns the

“connection between the possession of a hereditary peerage and obtaining membership of the House of Lords”.

When the noble Baroness said that she is happy for discussions to take place, she said discussions with conditions, and that this Bill has to be passed and agreed to in all aspects before there can be a discussion. That is not a sensible or equitable way to have a discussion—

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I hate to intervene on noble Lords, but I do so because I do not like to be misrepresented by the noble Lord, or any other noble Lord in this House. I did not say that noble Lords have to pass the Bill before any discussions take place. I said that I was happy to have ongoing discussions, but that I did not want to see any procedural shenanigans. I need to see some good faith on the part of the Opposition, as well. I say to the noble Lords, Lord Strathclyde and Lord True, that I did answer the amendment. I said that it was unnecessary—it is actually pretty much contained in the Long Title anyway—but if he is going to describe what I have said, he should at least get it right.

[Lord Strathclyde (Con)]

I am more than happy to agree with the noble Baroness on procedural shenanigans, which I must say I do not recognise at all over the course of the last few months. I am not doing any procedural shenanigans; I am actually replying to the noble Baroness, but I have made the point I wish to make. Are there no procedural shenanigans from anybody in the Labour Party actually engaging in the debate just started by my noble friend Lord True? I certainly give way to the noble Lord, Lord Grocott.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

Order! I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, was giving way; he had sat down. The time had already been exceeded under the rules of the Companion. In terms of the Companion, is it not time that the noble Lord, Lord True, indicated whether he was pressing his amendment.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I just want to make a comment. At the moment, the Prime Minister is on his feet at the other end, as the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, pointed out, talking about issues of national security and the defence of the nation. Our debate does not hold up terribly well against that. The noble Lord opened it in a moderate and helpful way. If noble Lords wish to continue debating the amendment, they are at liberty to do so; I just ask them to reflect on how the world outside sees the debate.

[Lord Swire (Con)]

Hear, hear to that—I could not agree more with the Leader of the House. We should not be debating this at this time at all, and we are in risk of rendering ourselves irrelevant and foolish by debating these matters when things of far greater importance are going on. But I just say to the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, that he must accept that the composition of this House is very different from that of the time when he first introduced his Bill. Many of those who are now in this House would have supported it at that time. Surely it is only right that we have the ability to debate these matters, for the first time in many cases, now.

--- Later in debate ---

The noble Baroness always worries that someone is misinterpreting, but I am not. If I have misspoken, I apologise. I think what the noble Baroness said was, “Well, the House of Commons has voted on this, so there is no point in sending it back to them”.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

It may be pedantic to point out that it was rejected in the other place by 277. I never said that it was not in the ability of this House to send back an amendment if it chose to do so. I pointed out what happened in the House of Commons. The only Front-Bencher whom I have heard say that the House of Lords should not pass an amendment to a Bill from the House of Commons was the noble Lord during the Elections Bill.

[Lord True (Con)]

If I may borrow a phrase from a more prominent person than I, did I really say that? The joys of social media and smartphones are very wonderful. I stand corrected by the noble Baroness, but the point remains that there resides great wisdom in this House and there remains the opportunity to reach an agreement which serves all parties and none, but the House collectively.

If such an approach were agreed, it would be easy for someone as formidable and dedicated as the Lord Privy Seal to persuade her colleagues in Cabinet that a generous and thoughtful approach, which offers advantage to all parties, should be followed. I sincerely hope that is what may happen in the days and weeks ahead. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

I respectfully disagree with the noble Lord. I think this is about more than numbers; it is about a constitutional principle. It is right, as my noble friend Lord Caithness has done, to point out the powers that the Bill will give to the Prime Minister in the interim, and for those of us who remember how long the interim was after the 1999 reforms to caution the House about accepting a promise that ends with a full stop and says no more. However, what the noble Lord says about the spirit of consensus is important and, in that spirit, I shall conclude my remarks there and allow the noble Baroness to respond to the debate.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for proposing his amendment. I will come back to the comments made in the debate, but basically the noble Earl seeks to put an overview of the Bill in the Bill. I make the same comment that I made to the noble Lord, Lord True: I am happy to provide that overview.

There will probably be some repetition in what I say about this amendment and the previous one, a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace. Yes, the Bill seeks to remove the right of hereditary Peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords. That is why we feel that the amendment is unnecessary, because that is quite clear.

I dispute the noble Earl’s overview, which does not fairly reflect the situation; nor do I accept the comments made on this by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson. The noble Earl and the noble Lord are right that for the Lords temporal, appointed under the Life Peerages Act 1958, it is for the Prime Minister, as the King’s principal adviser, to make recommendations to the sovereign on life Peers. However, by convention, the Prime Minister invites those nominations from other parties—although perhaps we saw fewer from some Prime Ministers on the other side than we had done in previous years—and it is party leaders who consider who is best placed to represent their party in the House of Lords, and choose who to nominate.

If we are looking at Prime Ministers’ appointments, my noble friend Lord Collins and I were both appointed by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, because he happened to be Prime Minister at the time. My noble friend Lady Anderson was appointed by Liz Truss, who was a fairly short-lived Prime Minister but still had time to appoint my noble friend. So I do not accept the idea that the Prime Minister of the day has this absolute power that they channel by funnelling hundreds of their own appointments into the House.

In terms of numbers, I remind noble Lords that when the Labour Party left office in 2010, we had, I think, 12 more Peers than the party opposite. When the party opposite left office in 2024, there were over 100 more Conservative Peers than Labour ones. In that respect, the point made by the noble Earl has some merit: although most Prime Ministers have behaved and treated the system with the dignity and honour that it deserves, that cannot be said for all of them.

The Prime Minister also invites the House of Lords Appointments Commission to make nominations to the Cross Benches. The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, made the point that just over 20% are Cross-Benchers, and she is right; I think it is slightly more at the moment, 23% or so. I have always said I think that is a fair figure, and that would not change. The commission then accepts those applications from across the UK and nominates individuals that it believes bring depth and merit to the House of Lords.

I take issue with some of the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, I think, about the background of Members and who should come into the House. It is not just about what people have done in the past; it is what they are prepared to do when they are here that really matters. We all want those noble Lords who are appointed to this place to play a full and proper role.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

Does the noble Baroness the Leader of the House accept the arguments from the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, that if his Bill had been passed we would now be left with 25 hereditaries? That would be a decent number and you would not need to get rid of them. Can I get it from there that the noble Baroness would actually agree to 25 life peerages?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I do not always admire the noble Lord’s ingenuity, but I do on this occasion. I think the point the noble Lord was making was that had that been accepted at the time, we would not have any hereditary Peers, in effect, because all would be here as life Peers. I do not know whether the numbers that would have remained was an accurate figure; it was a sort of a guesstimate.

That was the first stage. On the second part, I am grateful to noble Lords around the House who have engaged with me on this issue already. I have a number of thoughts on how it might be achieved, going forward, and there are some helpful amendments in the course of the Bill. It would be nice, would it not, to find a way that gained some kind of consensus around the issues that others mentioned, such as participation and the retirement age? If there was consensus around the House prior to legislation, it would be a helpful way forward, so I am grateful to those who have engaged with that and come forward with suggestions already.

Then there is a longer-term proposal, which is also in the manifesto. It says that in the longer term to look for a way to have a “more representative”—and I think it says an alternative—second Chamber. It was quite clear that there are those three stages.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

Is that “longer term” during this Parliament?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I do not know. It has to be when the policy is determined but I would certainly have thought that the second part of it, around participation and retirement, is something that we can look at quickly. If the House came to an agreement, it could be done quickly as well.

I turn to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, about the grouping of amendments, as the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, raised this. The normal process is that the Government suggest groupings, as we did. In this case, the Opposition said they had their own groupings. They cannot speak for anyone else around the House but had their own groupings. I think there were originally around 18 government groups. The Official Opposition did not accept that and wanted—I think, the latest is—about 46 groups of amendments. The Government have accepted that, because we accept it if Members wish to degroup and have more groups.

My point was—as I think the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, has understood correctly—that a number of themes run through this legislation and if it is possible to debate those in groups, it is easier. At the moment, we have six groups of amendments on the commencement of the Bill. If it is what the House wishes, I would not deny it the opportunity to have those debates, but that seems to be quite a lot. I think three of those groups are single amendments but if that is how the House wishes to debate it, it is open to the House to do so. The Government did not deny the Official Opposition the right to have as many groups they wanted. I have to admit to being a bit surprised at how many there were, given the themes that run through the Bill, but we will see if that was helpful or not going forward.

The noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, wants to lock me in a room with the noble Lord, Lord True—

[Lord True (Con)]

That is not fair to the Leader.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

The noble Lord is resisting that temptation but I say to him, as I say to all noble Lords, that I have always been open to discussions. But I need assurances, so when we see degroupings, filibustering and threats on different things, that does not give the confidence that allows me to have those kinds of discussions. To have them, I need some confidence that the Opposition want to do this in a proper way.

[The Earl of Caithness (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness the Leader of the House for her reply. We have some useful additional information from her. However, I would take issue with her, just as she took issue with anybody who tried to misrepresent her in the debate. I did not in any way imply that the hereditaries were better than the life Peers or the life Peers better than the hereditaries. The purport of my amendment was solely that once you get rid of the hereditaries, there is increased power to the Prime Minister on appointments and nominations to this House, because the element of the hereditaries has gone.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I do not accept that at all. There is no change whatever in the powers of the Prime Minister at that point. I have explained the process. I think the noble Earl is saying that it is not everybody in the House. Currently 88 Members are here because of their ancestors being here, on the hereditary basis. The Prime Minister cannot appoint those now and there will not be those places in the future, but it does not increase his actual power at all.

[The Earl of Caithness (Con)]

As a result of this Bill, there will be a greater percentage of the House appointed by the Prime Minister than now.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords—

[The Earl of Caithness (Con)]

Can I just finish? My point was that this could be abused. If I recall rightly the noble Baroness said, and I agree with her, that most Prime Ministers have behaved very responsibly, but on some occasions it has not been quite as we would have hoped. I am grateful for her support on that.

I am grateful for what the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, did. As she will have noted, the amendment is carefully drafted to say nominations—nominated by the Prime Minister—rather than appointments. I focused on appointments rather than nominations, but I think I covered the point that she raised.

The memory of the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, seems to have failed him a little, I fear. He said in response to my noble friend Lord Strathclyde that he had wanted to get on with his Bill and was in a hurry to proceed. That is slightly contradicted by the fact that a few minutes earlier he had taken the House to a Division and appointed Tellers for both the Contents and Not Contents, after the amendment had been withdrawn, and wasted a considerable amount of the House’s time. I think his memory is not quite as good as it used to be.

I am grateful to all those who took part in this debate and beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

When attacking the hereditary principle, I do not conceive that anybody is directly attacking the monarchy. We must never forget the incomparable role that our monarchy fills for our nation, and it is precisely because it is hereditary that it is able to perform the role that it does.

[The Attorney-General (Lord Hermer) (Lab)]

I am very sorry to disappoint the noble Lord, Lord True, because I am standing to speak to Amendment 3 rather than my noble friend the Leader of the House. I thank the noble Earl for his amendment and also for his transparency in explaining that this is indeed a probing amendment to test the Government’s position on the hereditary principle more generally within our constitution. I hope that the noble Earl will not take it as a discourtesy if my response is brief, not because the constitutional points raised are not of importance, but because we say with respect that the position is quite straightforward.

In explaining why we do not accept the noble Earl’s amendment, it is important, with respect, to disarticulate two principles. The first is that, since 1999, we have recognised that it is no longer appropriate in a modern democracy for direct participation in Parliament to be premised on a generational family entitlement. This Bill seeks to complete that process in line with our manifesto commitment and, by doing so, will end an anomaly that is replicated in only one other country around the globe. The second principle is that we are, and shall remain, a constitutional monarchy. Constitutional monarchy, in contrast to hereditary entitlement in Parliaments, is not a global anomaly but represents a system of governance replicated in very many countries, few—if any—of which require participation of the children or grandchildren of the monarch in their parliamentary process.

I therefore respectfully disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Moore, that there is any form of tension, constitutional or otherwise, in considering it inappropriate for hereditary entitlement to apply to being able to vote on the laws of our land in Parliament on one hand, while being fully supportive of the role of the Royal Family in our constitutional framework on the other. Our constitutional monarchy has time and again proved to be the anchor of stability in this country. The Royal Family are able to galvanise our nation and provide the consistency required for our democratic values to be protected and for this nation to flourish.

The noble Earl asked: without the hereditaries, who is there in this House to stand up for the monarchy? That point was echoed by the noble Baroness, Lady Meyer. My noble friend Lord Brennan answered that he is; so am I, and so, I anticipate, is every one of your Lordships who swore their oath in this House.

As noble Lords will be aware, all hereditary Peers, including those in the Royal Family, lost their automatic right to sit and vote in the House as a result of the 1999 Act. That did not and has not proved to undermine our model of constitutional monarchy and nor does this Bill. The purpose of this Bill, no more, no less, is about delivering the principle settled by the 1999 Act to remove the rights of all hereditary Peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords, and there are no exclusions in this. As my noble friend Lord Grocott pointed out, it does not affect hereditary titles and lands, which will continue to be passed down in the normal way.

This reform does not relate to the sovereign nor the Royal Family. As I have said, there is a fundamental difference between the position of hereditary Peers in the legislature being able to vote on laws by virtue of their families, and a constitutional monarch who acts as the head of our state, providing, as His Majesty does, stability and continuity.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. The noble Lord, Lord Grocott, made the point that the monarchy had certainly survived the departure of 600-plus hereditary Peers in 1998-99, but does the Minister accept that we are now breaking the link between hereditary Peers in Parliament in its entirety if we get rid of the hereditary Peers now?

[Lord Hermer (Lab)]

Yes, I do—that is the intention of the Bill. My point is that it does not impact at all the principle of our constitutional monarchy. It has no bearing on it whatever, and it is for those reasons that I respectfully ask the noble Earl to consider withdrawing his amendment.

[Lord Hardie (CB)]

Before the noble and learned Lord sits down, my recollection of 1999 was that the royal Princes specifically indicated that they would not wish to sit in this House. My further recollection is that, in the cloakroom, there were very grand coat hooks for the Prince of Wales and other Royal Princes which were then removed.

[Lord Hermer (Lab)]

I thank the noble and learned Lord for the little bit of history—I am very grateful.

[The Earl of Devon (CB)]

I thank the Minister very much for his words and particularly for being so brief, because I did not mean for this amendment to try your Lordships’ patience. I am very grateful to all who contributed to the debate. It is an amendment that deserved to stand alone, and I hope that the Committee will agree that the opportunity to reaffirm our commitment to a hereditary monarchy is worthy of a stand-alone debate.

I had in fact degrouped this amendment from two other amendments. The only reason why I think they were grouped together was that they all happened to be in my name. The other two amendments pertained to the issue of female succession to hereditary peerages, which we will come back to—probably on day seven or eight of Committee.

Before I close, I should admit that there is some personal animus in noting the importance of our hereditary peerage in support of our sovereign, as it was novel that the peerage was excluded from His Majesty’s recent Coronation. The writing was maybe on the wall at that stage. With the peerage having attended almost every Coronation since that of Henry II in the 12th century, it felt like the monarch himself was severing the connection between the hereditary peerage and the Coronation and was perhaps losing touch with his core base.

I am heartened to hear across the Committee the resounding support for our hereditary monarchy. The noble Baroness, Lady Meyer, in particular noted a strong connection between the hereditary Peers and the monarch. The noble Lord, Lord Moore, similarly noted how, globally, people note the importance of our hereditary principle. I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, and the noble Lords, Lord Grocott and Lord Brennan, very much for all reaffirming the principle that I was hoping would be stated in this short debate.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Newby, for the history lesson. He will perhaps recall that at the end of that rather disastrous Stuart monarchy, we were able to welcome William of Orange in the Glorious Revolution. Of course, he came to dinner with Sir William Courtenay of Powderham on his first night on English soil, so the hereditary peerage was again somewhat responsible for that change in monarchy.

With the resounding support for the hereditary principle, as embodied within the hereditary peerage, the purpose of my probing amendment has been fulfilled. I do not think that we have heard a single republican voice from across the House. I gave the republicans an opportunity to speak; they did not. I therefore beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Finn (Con)]

My Lords, it is with reverence for our traditions and institutions that I support the amendment in the names of my noble friend Lord Strathclyde and others, and to defend the continued membership of this House of the Earl Marshal and the Lord Great Chamberlain. This is not merely to defend two historic offices but to uphold the enduring wisdom of our constitutional framework, as my noble friend Lord Howard just pointed out.

The ancient offices of the Earl Marshal and the Lord Great Chamberlain are not relics of a bygone age; they are pillars of our constitutional order, deeply woven into the fabric of our United Kingdom. Their removal from this Chamber would be an act not of modernisation but of heedless vandalism. From the solemnity of a monarch’s funeral to the grandeur of a Coronation, the Earl Marshal is responsible for orchestrating the great state occasions that define our nation’s story. The funeral of Her late Majesty the Queen was not only a moment of national mourning but a masterclass in dignity and order. This was in no small part due to the office of the Earl Marshal and his own tireless efforts to ensure that it was so. Indeed, as my noble friend Lord Strathclyde reminded us, the Earl Marshal also oversees the State Opening of Parliament in this place.

There has been an unbroken line of Lords Great Chamberlain from 1138 to the present. The office has changed over time, but for hundreds of years they have attended this House with the right to sit and vote. The Lord Great Chamberlain ensures that this very Palace functions with the decorum and tradition that befit the mother of Parliaments. Together, they are not merely witnesses to history but actors within it. Together, they ensure that the solemnity and dignity of our state endure beyond the politics of the moment. Together, they have active responsibilities that demand knowledge, experience and deep engagement with the institutions of the state. As my noble friend Lord Northbrook said, they are a vital link between the monarch and Parliament.

To exile these officers from this Chamber is to diminish their ability to discharge their duties effectively. Yet this Bill would remove them from this Chamber, as if their roles could be executed in absentia and as if their knowledge and service could be distilled into a parliamentary pass and a seat in the Public Gallery. The Lord Privy Seal has assured us that this Bill will not affect their ability to carry out their functions, stating that

“there is no legal or procedural requirement for either officeholder to be a Member of this House in order to be able to carry out their functions”.—[Official Report, 11/12/24; col. 1723.]

However, there is a profound difference between what is legally permissible and what is constitutionally sound. While statute may not require their presence here, precedent, wisdom and good governance do.

These offices are not purely symbolic; they require ongoing engagement with the legislative process to ensure the seamless operation of state functions. Without a seat in this House, they will be unable to contribute their unique expertise to debates on matters directly affecting their responsibilities, the Crown and Parliament. This was reinforced by my noble friend Lord Hailsham. Would we insist that the Lord Chief Justice never enter a courtroom, the Archbishop of Canterbury conduct his duties from a lay pew and the Speaker of the Commons be heard only from the corridors?

The holders of these offices have a range of functions. I will not detain the House by setting these out in full, but I will set out just two examples to demonstrate why their presence in your Lordships’ House is both useful and important. The Lord Great Chamberlain is entrusted with custody of the Palace of Westminster, and he is one of the three keyholders of Westminster Hall, who decide who may address both Houses of Parliament in Westminster Hall—the others being the Speaker of the Commons and the Lord Speaker. These decisions have been high profile, with international significance in the past. Would it not be odd for decisions about who may address Parliament be made by a Peer who is not a Member of either House?

Turning to the Earl Marshal, in addition to his duties at funerals and coronations, he oversees the College of Arms. The college is the organisation responsible for heraldry in England, Wales, Northern Ireland and across the Commonwealth. Occasionally, issues pertaining to heraldry come up in your Lordships’ House, most recently during Committee on the Football Governance Bill, during which my noble friend Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay expertly argued that the Government had made an error in their drafting. The noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk, was following the debate closely, as was the college itself. There is something to be said for retaining the person responsible for overseeing our heraldry in the House, so we can draw on their knowledge and experience in the future.

This artificial separation risks creating a situation where those responsible for key constitutional duties are sidelined from the very discussions that shape them, diminishing the effectiveness of both their roles and this Chamber. The argument for reform is often cloaked in the language of modernisation, but modernisation must not be pursued at the cost of effective governance. These hereditary offices play a crucial role in the functioning of our state, and their direct experience, knowledge and responsibilities make their presence in this House a matter of practical good sense. The Earl Marshal and the Lord Great Chamberlain do not just inherit their positions; they assume great responsibilities that require them to be familiar with the traditions and mechanisms of governance. The offices are defined by responsibility, not mere title. That responsibility is sharpened, not diluted, by a seat in this House.

Let us not ignore the precedent this sets. Reform, when done without care, rarely stops at a single step. What is dismissed as a minor adjustment today becomes the justification for wholesale destruction tomorrow. We must be wary of any proposal that makes our institutions less effective, less informed and less rooted in the traditions that give them strength.

Beyond our domestic affairs, there is also Britain’s international standing. Our constitutional system is admired worldwide, precisely because it blends continuity with progress. Our state occasions—the Coronation, royal weddings and funerals of heads of state—are watched by billions across the globe. They are not just moments of ceremony, they are demonstrations of national unity and the continuity of the state. The Earl Marshal is responsible for ensuring these moments are executed flawlessly, reinforcing Britain’s soft power and global influence. Denying him a seat in this House would not just be a symbolic loss; it would strip him of the access, authority and insight that enable him to perform his role at the highest level, weakening the very institution he is tasked with upholding on the world stage.

The Earl Marshal and Lord Great Chamberlain must retain their places in this House, not as anachronisms but as a vital component of our constitutional heritage. Let us not mistake removal for reform and let us not diminish this House. Let us say with conviction that those who have served this nation’s highest traditions shall not be dismissed, but upheld, valued and entrusted to continue their vital work. In preserving their place, we preserve the dignity, continuity and wisdom that have long guided both this House and this nation.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for their amendments and for the comments that have been made. I think I can offer some of the reassurance that is sought. Certainly, in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, I can say that we respect and regard the work that they do. We do not wish to hamper that all.

At Second Reading, I addressed some of the concerns raised. There is no contradiction with what I said at the time. I spoke to the Lord Speaker—it is a courtesy to do so, given the role that he plays—and I have spoken to the commission as well. I should clarify that the Bill will not affect the offices themselves and neither does it affect the ability of the officeholders to fulfil their important functions. I have gained the agreement of the commission and I have written to both the noble Earl and the noble Lord to confirm that they will have access. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Rising, that it certainly will not be a case of seeking permission from the commission. That permission has been granted. They will have full access to the Palace to carry out their functions. There will not be an issue there. I wrote to them both today.

[Lord Howard of Rising (Con)]

I think they should have it by right, not by permission.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

If agreed by the House, it will be a right. There has been some misunderstanding that the only way they can fulfil their functions is by being a Member of this House and having the right to speak and vote in the Chamber. That is not the case. If we go back in time, there have been cases where neither officeholder was a Member of your Lordships’ House. Peter Burrell was the Lord Great Chamberlain from 1781 to 1820. He was not a Peer until 1796. More recently, William Legge was the Lord Great Chamberlain from 1928 to 1936, but only inherited his title at the end of his time as Lord Great Chamberlain in 1936. Hugh Cholmondeley performed the office of Lord Great Chamberlain from 1966 due to his father’s ill-health. He succeeded to his father’s peerage in 1968. The current Earl Marshal took leave of absence from your Lordships’ House from 18 January 2021 for the remainder of that parliamentary Session—and we know that was a very important parliamentary Session in terms of the monarchy.

So I am confident that both noble Lords will be treated with the respect they deserve—and have earned— and they and their officeholders will be granted access to your Lordships’ House. It will not, in any way, impinge on their responsibilities and duties. I respectfully ask noble Lords to withdraw their amendment.

[Lord Strathclyde (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Finn, who spoke with great authority and skill. The more she spoke, the more convinced I was that I was right to move the amendment in the first place. Her knowledge of history and precedent in this matter is exemplary.

I am also very grateful to the noble Viscount and the noble Lord who signed the amendment—the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, and my noble friend Lord Northbrook—and for what they raised, and the question that my noble friend Lord Howard of Rising raised. It does seem absurd that these great officers of state, who have a role in Parliament, will be able to come into the House only when they go to the pass office and ask for their pass, which is no doubt countersigned.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

They will have access to the House, however that is arranged. They are not going to have to troll up to the pass office and get a daily pass that they stick on them. They will have the access that is required for this House. All Members of the House would want to show that respect. The only loss will be that they will not be in your Lordships’ House to take part in debates and to vote. They will not be in the Chamber to participate in the proceedings of the House.

[Lord Strathclyde (Con)]

My Lords, I am reminded of the debates that took place many years ago on the future of the Lord Chancellor, when he was removed from your Lordships’ House. It was the law of unintended consequences. There was much work undertaken to try to keep all of that and I predict that the same will happen again. But I think the noble Baroness has heard what we have had to say. She will no doubt consider, with the Clerk of the Parliaments, what needs to be put in place in order for these two great officeholders to continue to do the work that they are required to do in Parliament. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

Sorry, I was using “chosen” as a short form for “elected”. They were elected. My noble friend was here, and I was not, but when the elections took place, the electorate was keen to ensure that experience was not lost. That is exactly the point of this amendment—to retain those who have contributed, are contributing and will undoubtedly contribute more in the future.

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Collins of Highbury) (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful for this debate and to the noble Lord, Lord Soames of Fletching, for raising these issues. One thing that concerns me is that, although I do not think that anyone in this Chamber would deny the valuable work of individuals, particularly of the hereditary Peers, the problem with this debate is that it is about selecting people for congratulations on their hard work. That diminishes the work of some of the others. The noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, talked about the period from 2019 to 2024, when 143 of the officeholders that the noble Lord, Lord Soames, talked about were life Peers and 23 were hereditaries, so a huge amount of the work that kept this House going was undertaken by life Peers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Mancroft (Con)]

The manifesto commitment, as the noble Lord has just quoted, is to “remove the right” of hereditary Peers to sit and vote in this House. That right was removed in 1999. We are discussing removing not the right but hereditary Peers from this House. The noble Lord quite rightly said that there is not a lot of difference in working between one hereditary Peer and another, or one hereditary Peer and a life Peer, but there is one crucial difference: life Peers cannot just be thrown out. We are just about to be thrown out.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

Of course, the principle was established in 1999, and we are now dealing with that remaining temporary arrangement that has gone on for 25 years or longer. That is the reality. No one can deny that that remaining element—that temporary arrangement—is specifically addressed in the Labour manifesto for the last general election. It specifically addressed it in the way that this Bill seeks to implement it, so there can be no doubt about that.

[Lord Strathclyde (Con)]

I am sorry to intervene on the noble Lord, but he is making much store about the manifesto, which also says that Peers who are over the age of 80 by the end of this Parliament should also be slung out. Does the noble Lord think that is really going to happen?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

As my noble friend the Leader of the House has reminded me, she will be consulting on that and looking at ways for it to be implemented—she is already doing so, as she reminds me. The fact of the matter is that we have a clear commitment. The Government have a right to determine when and how they implement their commitments. The noble Lord knows that. I have heard speeches from him telling me that we should not push amendments because the democratic House has laid something down in the manifesto. He has made those points to me over the past 12 years, so this does not really wash with me.

The simple fact is that we established in 1999 that the hereditary principle would no longer apply. We put in temporary arrangements and we have now addressed that in our manifesto. Solutions were put forward in 1999. I say to the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, that his contribution is well known. Leaders know it. I certainly assume that the leader of his party knows the contribution that he has made, both outside and inside Parliament. Why would he not be considered worthy of a life peerage? I do not see why not. It is really important that we can establish a principle—

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

I am grateful for the kind things the noble Lord said to me, but the fact of the matter is that I do not know any of the leaders of my party. I do not know David Cameron—my noble friend Lord Cameron—or any of his successors. I simply will not be able to get a life peerage. They do not know me. I am not known. None of the special advisers know me. I am nowhere.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I do not accept that for one moment. The noble Earl is well known. His contributions are well known and valued—he must not undersell himself. The important thing is that there was an opportunity in 1999, when people left this House because they were hereditary Peers, for some to be made life Peers. That certainly is the case in relation to this last act, contained in our manifesto, to ensure that the temporary arrangements agreed 25 years ago no longer continue. I do not think that people would understand this amendment breaching that commitment in the outside world, but it is wrong to—

[Lord Howard of Rising (Con)]

The noble Lord keeps mentioning the manifesto. Would he agree that, if I had a pound for every promise that had been in a manifesto from the Labour Party and the Conservative Party, I would be a billionaire?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

The noble Lord must be happy that at least one manifesto commitment is being kept, and it is this one. We will deliver on it.

I conclude by saying that it is wrong to single out Peers for their contribution. All Peers have made a tremendous contribution to the work of this House, and no one is undermining that. However, this is a commitment that we have made to the electorate, and it is one that we will keep and deliver on.

[Lord Soames of Fletching (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Wolfson and the noble Lord, Lord Collins, for their contributions. I particularly express my thanks for another wonderful speech from my noble friend Lady Finn, who, to my mind, absolutely nailed it. I thank my noble friend Lord Blencathra in particular for his encyclopaedic knowledge of the committees and the very important points that he made. I am delighted to be party to the support for my noble friend Lord Astor’s job application and will do what I can to help. I say to my noble friend Lord Attlee to make himself known to my noble friend Lord Hamilton, who acts as a marriage agency in these matters, and would be delighted to introduce him to all the former leaders of my party—it may take some time.

This is an important matter and there is no point in pretending that, manifesto or no manifesto, we are not cutting out a great reservoir of expertise, knowledge, steadiness and experience, and the guardians of the traditions and principles of this House. There is no question about the argument, which is dead and buried—it is gone; it is going to happen—but there is a way to make it happen in a less aggressive and disagreeable manner. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.