House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

(Limited Text - Ministerial Extracts only)

Committee stage
Tuesday 25th March 2025 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this debate. Amendments 55, 62 and 97, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Inglewood and Lord Lucas, and the noble Earl, Lord Devon, all seek, in different ways, to place a duty on the Government to review and report on the impact of legislation after it receives Royal Assent.

As a matter of principle, and when they are applied in the right case for the right reasons, obligations to review and assess the impact of legislation can serve a very valuable public function. For example, the scope or size of the subject matter of a Bill might give rise not just to a range of predictable outcomes but to a material risk of adverse impacts in the real world that cannot be adequately assessed at the time of the Bill’s passage. Those impacts could be wide-ranging: for example, they could be financial or environmental or could entrench any manner of inequality. While Parliament can always review the impact of legislation at any time of its choosing without an explicit statutory authority, on occasion, as I have said, a mandatory obligation can serve a proper and indeed important function. However, the Government’s view is that there is no adequate rationale for a review and reporting requirement here.

This Bill is very simple. The primary purpose it seeks to achieve is singular: to remove the right of the remaining hereditary Peers to sit and vote in your Lordships’ House. We also know well what the impact will be: the loss of those Peers. I mean no disrespect to the great public service of those Peers to say that their loss will not give rise to unforeseen, significant adverse consequences that come anywhere close to the sort of justification we would want for the measures sought by these amendments.

We know from experience what the impact will be, because your Lordships’ House has already experienced a far more significant reduction of hereditary Peers following the 1999 Act—which, I note, itself had no post-legislative reporting requirements to scrutinise impact. There has been little suggestion that those reforms produced any profoundly detrimental impacts, let alone ones that would justify the steps proposed in these amendments. The House continued to function effectively then, and, as I say, while we truly value the work of hereditary Peers to date, the House will continue to function when this reform is completed. As the Leader of the House said at Second Reading, the Bill does not alter any core functions of your Lordships’ House.

I hope those points address the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood. I thank him for clarifying that his is a probing amendment, and for his thoughtful contribution and the important points he made about our constitutional framework. However, the noble Lord’s amendment is not confined simply to a review-and-report requirement: if agreed, it would continue in perpetuity to impact any subsequent legislation that alters the composition of your Lordships’ House. In other words, there would be a requirement to undertake reviews indefinitely after every general election until the end of time. With the greatest respect, I suggest that would be a disproportionate measure—but I hope the brevity of my response will not be mistaken for a lack of gratitude for his thoughtful contribution to the debate.

The noble Lord asked what insurance policy is in place. I hope that there are several, not least the Government making plain that this reform—completing the work, as we put it—is the beginning of steps for a further reform of your Lordships’ House, the next being close consultation across the House on the shape of further reform. I agree with very many of the sentiments expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Finn. As we go forward, it is important to ensure that we capture and protect the important role of the second Chamber in revising and reviewing legislation, ensuring that it has a degree of independence from the other place. The reassurance I give is that it is our intention to consult widely and collegiately on the steps ahead.

I turn briefly to the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, whom I have known for a long time prior to coming into this House. As he knows, I greatly respect him and our friendship, but I am afraid I consider his remarks, drawing a comparison between the Bill and the risks faced in the Weimar Republic, quite misplaced. All of us in this House are no doubt acutely aware that this is a delicate moment for liberal democracies and your Lordships’ House no doubt has an important role to play at this delicate and important time, but the power of our contribution will be diluted if we reach too quickly for overstatement or—the more so—inappropriate overstatement. This is a manifesto commitment that is limited in scope, and we serve ourselves well to remember that and not to rhetorically overreach.

I turn to Amendment 97, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Devon. The House of Lords will continue to be called the House of Lords following the passage of the Bill. The removal of the right of hereditary Peers to sit and vote in this place does not change the fact that Members of this House, save for the Lords spiritual, will continue to consist of Peers of the realm. The answer to the eloquent speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, as to why is simply a literal one. In answer to the point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Devon, about the dictionary definition of the “House of Lords”, I respectfully suggest that that version of the dictionary, like this House, requires some subtle updating.

Amendments 91 and 94 have joined this group to accommodate the noble Earl, who is, sadly, not available for the final day of Committee. I hope I accurately capture the amendments in saying that they address a narrow point about the power to refer disputes to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, but also a wider point that seeks to address gender inequality in the succession to peerages. I will first address the narrow point about referrals to the Judicial Committee, which I will come to again substantively when we discuss the amendments to Clause 2 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, next week.

As your Lordships know, this House currently has a role in handling complex and disputed peerage claims under Standing Order 77. The aim of Clause 2 is to remove that role. The intention is that that role will be fulfilled by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, whose jurisdiction to do so is already established by virtue of Section 4 of the Judicial Committee Act 1833. The effect of the noble Earl’s amendment would be to place the issues arising out of inheritance and title, irrespective of complexity, on the Judicial Committee. The Government, and indeed the Privy Council, would perceive this to be an unacceptable burden on an already exceptionally busy body. It would, in short, amount to an unnecessary and disproportionate use of its resources and expertise. For those reasons, and given the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, we cannot accept the amendments.

Finally, and most importantly—

[The Earl of Devon (CB)]

The Minister may have misunderstood the purport of my amendment, which is merely to ensure that when the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council exercises the functions that it will exercise following the passage of this Bill, it does so in a way that does not discriminate against claimants due to their gender. It is nothing more than that—I am not adding any work. I just wish that women could inherit hereditary titles.

[Lord Hermer (Lab)]

I am very grateful for that, and I shall turn to that point now, but the actual wording of the noble Earl’s amendment would have the effect that all disputes, not just complicated and contentious disputes, would be referred to the Judicial Committee, so there is a very practical objection to it.

I turn to the wider point, which I know is the one of most interest to the noble Earl. I shall deal with both amendments in turn, starting with Amendment 91. In the Government’s view, the amendment unacceptably seeks to force on the Judicial Committee how it should exercise its jurisdiction with regard to gender equality and to impose an obligation on it to report on how that obligation has been discharged. With the greatest of respect, that misunderstands the appropriate constitutional role of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, which is to apply the law. If the law distinguishes between the sexes, as the noble Earl is aware that it does currently in succession to hereditary titles, the Judicial Committee must apply it accordingly.

As I leave that aspect of Amendment 91 and turn to Amendment 94, I of course recognise the importance of the issue that the noble Earl seeks to raise through his good faith amendments. The Government very much share his unease at the inequality baked in to so many hereditary peerages. The fact that fewer than 90 hereditary peerages allow women to inherit titles is something that I know Members in both Houses and across this House are not comfortable with. The Government are committed to the principle of greater equality.

On careful reflection, not least through the engagement that the noble Earl has had with my noble friend the Leader of the House, we do not consider that the amendments have a place in this Bill. The law around succession is complex and the inequities are not confined to gender. The law around succession to hereditary titles also affects adopted children, those born to unmarried parents and children born via assisted conception, using donors. That is before we enter into the issue of whether any future reform should protect the expectation of living heirs or managed property rights. We consider that those are issues that should be considered, but they need to be carefully considered holistically and do not properly form part of this legislation, however aligned we are with the noble Earl on the rationale behind his amendments.

There is also an additional objection of a constitutional nature to Amendment 94, because it seeks to impose on the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council an obligation to consult. Such a requirement to consult on how the law should be applied in the area of peerage claims very significantly cuts across the judicial independence of the Judicial Committee. I appreciate, of course, that that is not the noble Earl’s intention, but I fear that his amendment would critically undermine the independence of the committee. Either the committee independently and impartially applies the law or it takes views on social policy. It cannot do both. However, as I have said, nothing in my response to the amendments from the noble Earl should be taken as a suggestion that he is not raising very important points—he is—but they are not part of the policy aims outlined in our manifesto commitments or in this Bill.

I turn briefly to the issue raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Deech. As the contrasting contribution from the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, demonstrated, there is no consensus on this point, and it underlined— I say with the greatest respect—that this Bill is not the place to determine that question. For those reasons, I respectfully request that noble Lords do not press their amendments.

[Lord Inglewood (CB)]

My Lords, I begin by thanking the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General for his remarks about my amendment. He got the message I was trying to convey. All I would say, to use his phrase, is that we are living in delicate political times. It is incumbent on us to think about the worst possible eventualities that might emerge long after the passage of this Bill.

I, as a hereditary Peer, was trying to do something that lawyers say you cannot do: issue commands from beyond the grave. We should bear in mind extreme eventualities, because the one thing that is certain is that this reform is not the last reform. This is not a dialectical process, ending up in some nirvana. We must be alert.

As far as the wider debate is concerned, I thank those who participated. It seemed to me that it struck a divide between those thinking along the lines I described and those thinking rather more differently. I think the noble Earl, Lord Devon, got it right. He said in the future people will be concerned about titles and sex, because that was what a great deal of the discussion earlier this afternoon was in fact about.

Finally, the noble Earl, Lord Devon, on the Cross Bench, who is a personal friend, made me feel very inadequate. I may be a hereditary Peer, but my hereditary peerage did not exist at the time I was born. This is in very great contrast to the noble Earl. All I would say—I hope this gives pleasure to the noble Lords, Lord Foulkes and Lord Grocott—is that I came into the world as citizen Vane, and I am quite happy to leave it under that epithet. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords—

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

It is appropriate that we hear from the Lib Dem Benches, as we have not heard from them yet.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Keen of Elie (Con)]

My Lords, the first life peerages were conferred under the Appellate Jurisdiction Act 1876, which remained in force until the impact of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005. It is perhaps notable that the first three appointments as Lords of Appeal in Ordinary were Scottish lawyers. It is also notable that the next three appointments as Lords of Appeal in Ordinary were Irish lawyers. However, 15 years later, a suitable English lawyer was identified and appointed.

Against that background, I turn first to Amendments 56 and 57, in the name of my noble friend Lord Wolfson, to which I have added my name. I must note two points. First, I express a degree of surprise about the advice he received from the Cabinet Office upon his appointment to the Government. There is a long and perhaps dishonourable tradition of Attorneys-General, Solicitors-General and Lord Advocates assuming high judicial office after their service in government. Indeed, in the case of the Lord Advocate, it was invariably the practice into the 1960s that he would appoint himself to the most senior judicial office available, there being no conflict of interest. However, there are very good reasons why it is of benefit to this House, as a political House, to have the benefit of those who have served in high judicial office, whether they do so following their retirement or at an earlier stage.

It was a point made by my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier and touched on by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, that, while Lords of Appeal in Ordinary sat in this House, they would do so with a self-denying ordinance. They would not engage in matters that were potentially controversial from the perspective of their judicial office; for example, you would not have seen them engage in debates with regard to the Human Rights Act and other similar matters. However, as my noble and learned friend pointed out, it gave those in high judicial office some impression of the political mood so far as legislation was concerned, and that would have an impact on them when they came, in due course, to address what were potentially politically controversial issues that were raised to a point of law. I suggest that there was always a significant benefit in having such qualified persons in this House, albeit that it may be appropriate that they should be here after the judicial retirement age of 75 and up to the Government’s intended retirement age of 80—I see some of the government Back-Benchers wincing at that, but I understand that that is the intention.

I support the points made by my noble friend Lord Wolfson. I do not go so far as the amendment proposed by my noble friends Lord Banner and Lord Murray, and I do not take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, that we are dealing here with protected places. We are dealing here with those who are not executive appointments to this House, of which a greater proportion are going to emerge as a result of this legislation.

In these circumstances, it appears to me that there are two elements. There is the element of an honour conferred on those who are granted high judicial office, and that is already reflected in the fact that the present President of the United Kingdom Supreme Court had a peerage conferred on him upon his appointment and the fact that the Lord Chief Justice, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Burnett of Maldon, had such an honour bestowed upon him as well. Frankly, I would be confident that those who have held high judicial office and have been public servants for so long a part of their career will, as a matter of course, become engaged in the proceedings of this House if that opportunity is presented to them.

I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Newby, that there should be no link between the peerage and a distinguished office which has been held. I do not believe we have to go down a slippery slope. However, I acknowledge that the separation of powers has to be noted and acknowledged, albeit Montesquieu was talking about the United States’ system and not our own—and even there, there are changes afoot.

I invite the Government to consider very seriously Amendments 56 and 57, and to comment on the other attendant amendments which would bring those who have held high public office and been distinguished public servants into this House, almost invariably on to the Cross Benches.

[Lord Hermer (Lab)]

I am grateful to all noble Lords for their contributions, which in this group concern the appointment of specific public servants to your Lordships’ House. I will start, if I may, with the amendments that concern the conferral of peerages on serving members of the senior judiciary, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Wolfson and Lord Banner, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness.

I start from a happy place of consensus, set out so eloquently by the noble Lords, Lord Wolfson, Lord Banner and Lord Anderson, and the noble and learned Lords, Lord Garnier and Lord Keen. There can be no doubt as to the enormous benefit that your Lordships’ House gains from the presence and participation of former members of the senior judiciary. That benefit is not limited to the contribution of judges. As all the noble Lords I have just listed demonstrate, the contribution of eminent practitioners in the law adds to your Lordships’ House. If I may say so, there was no finer reflection of the contribution made to your Lordships’ House and its importance than the contribution made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead.

Before it is thought that I am in competition with the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, and others for a Private Eye award, there are three reasons why we cannot agree to these amendments. The first is that the Government’s intention is that this is and will remain a single-purpose Bill, to give effect to our manifesto commitment to remove hereditary Peers from participation in your Lordships’ House. I am not going to labour that point because it has been made in respect of so many amendments and was reiterated by the contribution from my noble friend Lord Grocott. We do not consider it appropriate or desirable to seek to piggyback quite separate proposals for reform on to the Bill.

That merges into my second reason. The future composition of your Lordships’ House beyond the proposal in this Bill is a matter best considered in the round. The Government have committed to consult on an alternative second Chamber—and before that, on further reforms—in due course. One can anticipate that it is highly likely that Prime Ministers of all parties will wish to continue to appoint retired senior judges to your Lordships’ House, but, before more comprehensive reform, we consider it appropriate that appointments remain for now at the discretion of the Prime Minister. Of course, if there are to be changes, we entirely accept the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, that logic dictates that, in respect of judges, it should be extended to Northern Ireland if it is extended to Scotland, England and Wales.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for giving way. The answer he proposes is that the Prime Minister retains the discretion to appoint retired members of the Supreme Court to this House. How does that answer the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, that this appears to place a slightly invidious choice on the Prime Minister where he is conferring a favour on a judge? If it were automatically all judges, there could be no suggestion that decisions are made that might favour them in the list of peerages.

[Lord Hermer (Lab)]

I am grateful for the noble Lord’s intervention. I can well anticipate that, if this is an issue that arises on consultation, there may be a distinction—to my mind, it is potentially a constitutionally important distinction—between the appropriateness or otherwise of the appointment of senior judges on their appointment to judicial office, which gives rise to the constitutional tensions that I alluded to a moment ago, and appointment upon retirement. I hope that that answers his question, at least in part.

[Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)]

The noble and learned Lord draws a distinction between appointment to the Lords on taking office and appointment at the end of office being served, but we have heard already that the current President of the Supreme Court was appointed to this House on assuming the office—of course, on the understanding that he would not participate in the debates of the House. Is the noble and learned Lord saying that that is unconstitutional?

[Lord Hermer (Lab)]

The constitutional tension is between judges who sit on cases that may often concern government legislation also sitting in the legislature. The distinction I seek to draw simply seeks to exemplify the merits and demerits of a debate that may well take place during consultation. It is not meant to reflect any firm view of the Government as to where that may ultimately land.

I make one final point on the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, drawing on the wider point that I made a moment ago about the merits of looking at this in the round. It is worth reflecting that, if this were to come into effect today, it would create a significant number of new Members of your Lordships’ House. Putting aside judicial Members, of that large number, only five would be women. It is also right to remind ourselves that, in the long history of the Appellate Committee of your Lordships’ House and then the creation of the Supreme Court in 2010, there have been only four women judges or members of that committee.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

The point I was making with my amendment was not necessarily to make the case for all—I take the arguments that the Minister and others have made about a slippery slope—but to tease out the distinction between the constitutional point that the Minister identified, on the necessity of appointing judges on appointment, and maintaining the independence of action of senior public servants who might want to curry favour with Prime Ministers who have the power to put them in the House of Lords after they complete their jobs.

[Lord Hermer (Lab)]

The noble Lord’s intervention exemplifies the important conversations that lie ahead as we try to unpick those tensions.

As I have just alluded to, there are wider questions around the future composition of this House. The Government are committed to other reforms, not least the alternative second Chamber set out in our manifesto. There is no doubt that this House will continue to be blessed with legal expertise. There is also no doubt that, with any appointment to your Lordships’ House now or in future, the expertise offered by former members of the senior judiciary will be a blessing to your Lordships’ House. Although noble Lords have pressed an important point and this has been an important conversation, I respectfully ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Northbrook (Con)]

Before the Minister sits down, may I kindly ask him to comment on the claim by the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, that the amendments to the Bill in this group are too wide-ranging in scope? The clerks have been clear that amendments on the composition of your Lordships’ House are in scope on the basis that the removal of one group of Members is closely connected to, and has repercussive effects on, the wider membership. I believe it is against the practice of the House implicitly to criticise the clerks on the Floor of the House, which the noble and learned Lord appeared to do. Apparently, on 12 March the Government tabled amendments to change the scope and long title of the Employment Rights Bill. The Government have therefore done it on another Bill, so there is no need for the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, on this Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hermer (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, and other noble Lords for their contributions to this debate. We do not accept Amendment 60 for three reasons, beyond the fact that it falls outside the intended scope of this single-issue Bill.

First, the amendment seeks to fetter the power of a Prime Minister to shape the Cabinet according to his or her own choosing. Under this amendment, if the Prime Minister wished to choose a sitting MP to be Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, as has been the case for every Lord Chancellor since 2007, that person would have to vacate their seat and trigger a by-election; or, if this amendment were to be accepted, the Prime Minister would be required to separate the roles of Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice. In the Government’s view, that would be a constitutionally inappropriate fettering of the Prime Minister’s discretion to pick a Cabinet of his or her own choosing.

Secondly, there is no constitutional or public policy rationale to justify taking us back to the position that we were in before 2005. One cannot, for the reasons set out by the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, simply pick and choose without going wholesale back to the 2005 position—putting the Lord Chancellor back on the Woolsack and as the senior judge—because what else is left of the Lord Chancellor’s role? It cannot simply be a rationale driven by nothing more than to have a member of the Cabinet committed to upholding the rule of law. That should be a commitment consistent with the ministerial code for all members of the Cabinet but, if I may say so, I also see it quite properly as a role for an Attorney-General. As the House will be aware, with the Prime Minister’s and the monarch’s grateful permission, the oath of the Attorney-General was changed when I took it to include an express commitment—although it would always have been implicit—to the rule of law.

Thirdly, the amendments fail to address what we would respectfully say are the most important attributes for a Lord Chancellor in the post-2005 age. Those attributes were identified by the Constitution Committee, which considered the Lord Chancellor’s role in a report two years ago—and I acknowledge the committee’s current chair, who is not in his place, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. In its final analysis, the report said that

“character, intellect and a commitment to the rule of law are the most important attributes for a Lord Chancellor to possess”.

We agree, and we do not consider that the acid test of those attributes is the House in which a Lord Chancellor should sit.

My right honourable friend the Lord Chancellor exemplifies the qualities of a great officeholder committed to the rule of law. More widely, as she has made clear, this entire Government see the rule of law as our lodestar. I have no doubt that the Prime Minister has appointed my right honourable friend in the confidence that the House in which she sits is no hindrance to her in discharging her vital constitutional responsibilities. For those three reasons, I respectfully request that the noble Lord withdraws his amendment.

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful for the contributions in this short but important debate. I make the point, although it really ought to go without saying—but I say it for the avoidance of doubt—that none of this is any reflection on the current occupant of the role, for whom I have the greatest personal respect. What we have to do when we consider constitutional matters is to move away from the personal and to the principled, and that is what my amendment is directed at.

The noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General has identified three reasons why this amendment cannot be accepted by the Government. First, he said, it would fetter the PM’s choice of who to have in the Cabinet, but it does not; the PM can still appoint anybody to the role of Lord Chancellor. In fact, the Prime Minister is able to appoint anybody and is not limited to Members of the House of Commons, because somebody could be parachuted in, as has happened on previous occasions. There is no fetter at all—that is a good red herring.

The second point is about what the Lord Chancellor would do. That was the point made by my noble friend Lord Hailsham—and the noble Lord, Lord Murray, gave the short answer. The Lord Chancellor would be there to oversee the really important parts of our constitution: constitutional affairs, devolution, human rights and international treaties. We should therefore go back to the Lord Chancellor being in charge of a Department for Constitutional Affairs.

As to the last point, that the current Attorney-General is the first one to add into the oath a commitment to the rule of law, of course I share that commitment to the rule of law with him—although I think that our interpretation of what it contains may sometimes differ, but that is not a matter for now. With regard to statute, the Lord Chancellor is in a sui generis position. I continue to think that we have lost something important in the 2005 Act, and I hope that this conversation may continue, but of course I beg leave to withdraw the amendment this evening.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friends Lady Laing of Elderslie and Lord Brady of Altrincham for their amendments. My noble friend Lord Brady seems to have pulled off the ingenious feat of engineering a debate on an amendment he did not want to move or speak about himself. So I will not say very much about his Amendment 90C, other than to note that the answers that noble Lords get to their questions would be far less satisfactory if the people responding had less authority to seek or determine the answers, and that our scrutiny of legislation would be diminished if the Ministers responding did not have the authority to make changes and compromises based on the arguments they have heard. We live in hope that we might be able to persuade Ministers of the need for some changes to and compromises on the Bill before the Committee.

I will focus on my noble friend Lady Laing’s Amendment 67, which has far more going for it. It is certainly valuable to be able to bring people into government who might not have had the inclination or the opportunity to stand for election. The present Government have made good use of that. Mention has already been made, rightly, of the noble Lord, Lord Timpson, who had a distinguished career in business but also helped those who had been in the penal system. More pertinent examples are people such as the noble Lords, Lord Vallance of Balham and Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill, who were distinguished public servants in their fields before they dipped their toes into more political waters. Similarly, the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General stepped away from a successful career at the Bar to provide counsel and public service in government. Governments of all colours have been able to persuade distinguished people from all sorts of walks of life to pause or sometimes abandon their careers in order to serve the country. What my noble friend says is right: they could perhaps persuade more if it were not accompanied by a life sentence in the legislature.

Although some noble Lords who have given service in government remain active members of your Lordships’ House, drawing on the expertise they have added in office, others do not. I was struck by the figures that the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, quoted on the rate of continuing participation of former Ministers. Indeed, when I look down the list of those who served in the Conservative-led Governments of the previous 14 years, I am struck by the number who have chosen no longer to sit on these Benches. I remember one difficult conversation with a noble Lord, who will remain nameless, who was anxious to step down as a Minister, having already served for longer than the late Lord Heywood of Whitehall had promised them they would have to in return for their life peerage.

So, although I am firmly of the view that Ministers of the Crown should be represented in both Houses of our bicameral system, my noble friend Lady Laing’s suggestion that temporary service in government should be separated from perpetual service here in the legislature is worthy of consideration. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.

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

This has been a really interesting debate. I will not address the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Brady, because he has not moved it, which makes life a bit easier. However, he supported Amendment 67, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Laing, which seeks to allow individuals to be appointed as temporary Peers so that they can serve as Ministers, after which they would depart this House.

Although the Government see the reasoning behind this amendment, we do not think it is the best way of achieving our objective of a smaller, more active Chamber. Ministers are appointed to the Government because of the experience and expertise they bring to this House, and the House benefits hugely from that. Some Ministers appointed to this House who were Members of Parliament bring both an intrinsic understanding of the other place and valuable experience of particular government departments. I have said before that in my view, both Houses work most effectively when we understand each other’s day-to-day workings. That is a really important point.

Others have been appointed as Ministers in recognition of the value of their experience outside of government, in the private sector and in other areas of public service. As noble Lords have said, we are lucky enough to have a number of such experts on the Benches with us. My noble and learned friend Lord Hermer and my noble friend Lord Timpson were recently appointed to this House to serve as Ministers, as was the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, in the last Parliament.

Whatever the precise reasons for their appointment, I think noble Lords would agree that these individuals proved valuable to the House long after they ceased to be Ministers. This amendment risks depriving the House of often considerable experience.

I understand the sentiment of this amendment. New Peers, whether appointed as Ministers or not, increase the size of this House, because appointments are for life, and the House has become too big. What the House has found frustrating is that, often, when Ministers are appointed and come into this House, they leave their ministerial posts quite quickly and make no further contribution. That is not the case for the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, and certainly not for the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, and the noble Lord, Lord Agnew. All three of them resigned from government on a matter of principle, but they have continued to participate.

We would not have had the benefit of the noble Lord in the debate today if he had been subject to the noble Baroness’s amendment. This is an important point to make. The noble Lord, Lord Agnew, has continued to contribute. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, has been contributing to today’s debate. I hear what the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, says, but I suspect that they do not have his unique skills in persuading the Prime Minister to keep them in.

The noble Baroness’s amendment is not the way to address the problem of the size of our House. Our objective is to create a smaller, more active Chamber that represents the country it serves. As we have said throughout Committee, the Government believe that a mandatory retirement age is the most effective way to do this. It is right that we take time, as a House, to continue the dialogue on how best we can implement these manifesto commitments, and this amendment would pre-empt that dialogue.

I have heard what the noble Baroness has to say, but the evidence is here before us. It is not for the first time that I have congratulated the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, on his participation, and it would be terrible if we did not have him here in today’s debate. I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

[Lord Rennard (LD)]

My Lords, would the Minister consider raising with the Prime Minister the suggestion that I made of a statement along the lines I indicated in my speech, which would enable a Prime Minister to make Ministers by way of creating a peerage, but for such Peers to continue in the role only if they undertook regular participation in the House in future, and, if they did not, that they should therefore resign their membership of the House?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

As the noble Lord knows, we are going to look at participation generally. That means that we have to engage in proper dialogue and consultation, so I do not accept the noble Lord’s point. I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Laing of Elderslie (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his assessment of the amendment that I have put before the Committee. It had not been my intention to have any argument ad hominem. I was not looking backwards in my tabling of this amendment in order to eject from the House any particular former Minister—and certainly not any sitting here.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I have put my name to my noble friend’s amendment. My noble friend, as a former Chief Whip; my noble friend Lord Taylor of Holbeach, as a former Chief Whip; my noble friend, who is a former Leader; and I as a former Leader: we all know that there is a serious issue of law and principle that needs to be addressed here. I agree with the very wise words and advice to the House from the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire.

The noble Lord, Lord Harris, took exception to a speech I made at the outset of these debates. In part of that speech, I said that there are several parties to this legislation. One is the Government’s desire, which we accept, to stop the inflow of hereditary Peers; the other is the views of other parties in the House; but there is an overriding interest of the House. This is a House of Parliament, and there is a Bill before us which directly affects your Lordships’ House. It is absolutely reasonable, as the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, submitted, that this House of Lords should put forward propositions for sensible and limited amendments to legislation that will improve, potentially, the reputation of the House. I believe that this proposal fits squarely into that. I assert the simple principle that those who cannot conduct their own affairs should not conduct the affairs of Parliament. If this is not addressed, it risks one day bringing disrepute on this House.

The clear intention of the House at the time of the 2014 Act that brought in retirement was exactly that those life Peers who no longer wished to take part in the House, or who perhaps felt that their powers to do so effectively were declining, might retire permanently from the House. That was a sensible and useful reform, but, as has been described in the debate, a potential problem has arisen. In the 2014 Act, it is clear that a Peer must personally sign a witness document stating that he or she is wanting to retire. That was the clear advice I received from the House authorities when I was Leader: that where a Peer has ceded control of his or her affairs by means of a lasting power of attorney, as explained to us by my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier, doubts have been expressed as to whether the Clerk of the Parliaments could accept the letter of a duly appointed attorney as conclusive in relation to retirement. Thus, as my noble and learned friend said, in extremis an attorney might be able to sell the property of an individual, move their bank account contents anywhere or put them into a retirement home, but they could not effect a request for that Peer to retire from the House. That is a quite extraordinary position.

In the worst imaginable case, an attorney might know that a Peer is wholly incapable of managing his or her own affairs but could not prevent that Peer coming to the House to take part in directing the nation’s affairs because no valid document of retirement could be presented to the Clerk of the Parliaments. Such circumstances should never arise, and they would never be accepted in any House of Parliament in most other countries of the world. I simply disagree with the view expressed that an amendment cannot be considered or accepted because it was not part of the original intention of the Government in presenting a piece of legislation. I have presented many pieces of legislation to your Lordships’ House on behalf of the Government and found that the House did not agree with the purpose I had in mind for the Bill, but that it thought that the Bill might be a useful vehicle for making changes to the betterment of the public weal.

If there is before us a vehicle that could enable us to do something swiftly and easily that would be useful for this House and for Parliament, I believe we should take that opportunity. This is not a question of prevarication or wanting to cause difficulties. It is the easiest and simplest thing to do and would involve a 15-minute debate on Report if we get agreement on a way forward, if that is necessary. This Bill provides an obvious opportunity to put the law beyond doubt. It is under doubt and it is conflicting advice, and we have a vehicle through which we could make it clear. The issue has no relevance to politics or to the other contentious issues in the Bill. In my submission, it is simply common sense. Frankly, it is an amendment to the law that no one in the other place could conceivably take any exception to.

I trust very much that your Lordships will support my noble friend and take advantage of this opportunity to set this small but important matter beyond doubt, if it is indeed necessary to do so. I know that the noble Baroness the Leader of the House takes this matter very seriously—we have had the opportunity to discuss it and other matters in our normal conversations—and that she will give full consideration to the arguments of my noble friend. But it is my submission that the Bill should not leave this House without this difficult and sensitive matter having been solved swiftly, clearly and permanently, and with the utmost, crystalline clarity.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ashton of Hyde, for raising this issue, as he knows from the brief conversation we had about it. We have heard from two former Chief Whips and two former Leaders of the House how serious an issue this is. For me, it is a matter of the dignity of the Member. Where Members are not able to participate in the role of this House, particularly Members who have—I hesitate to say “career”—given distinguished service to your Lordships’ House, they should be able to leave with dignity.

I am slightly ahead of noble Lords. One of the first things I did as Leader of the House, knowing there had been problems in the past, was to seek further legal advice on this matter. I am still seeking advice, and I think there is a way forward, but there is not much more I can say at this stage. It is an issue that needs careful consideration.

I am sorry that the debate has been a little “It must be in the Bill”; I think that the best way forward is to give effect to it quickly, and I do not really care what the vehicle is. We may be able do it more quickly or we may have to wait to pass legislation, but what I can say is that it is more legally complex. It may be that a change in the law is not the best way and is not what is required; it may be that we can do it from the House itself. Those are issues that I am looking at at the moment. I am happy to talk to the noble Lord about it, but I am looking at ways to give effect to this.

I ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment and give him the assurance that we will return to this issue. As the noble Lord, Lord True, said about our conversations, it is one of the first things that I raised with him very early on, soon after I became Leader, as I feel that it has been around for far too long and it needs resolution as quickly as possible. This engages a number of issues, but I assure your Lordships that I will take this away and bring something back to your Lordships’ House in one form or another. I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment, but I give him my assurance that this is not something I will let drop: I have already been working to get a resolution as quickly as possible.

[Lord Ashton of Hyde (Non-Afl)]

I thank all noble Lords who have spoken, including the noble Lord, Lord True, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, who added their names to this amendment. I particularly thank the Leader of the House for her encouraging words.

I was a bit disappointed by the point from the noble Lord, Lord Harris, which was, to a certain extent, a political point—that there should be no amendments to the Bill and that, even if we have a perfect vehicle to achieve the solution to a problem, we should not use it. The Leader of the House has said that there may be other ways and that the most important thing is to address the problem, which we all agree exists. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, who explained better than I can why the noble Lord, Lord Harris, was in error, but he may not agree.

On the basis of what the noble Baroness said, for which I am grateful, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. I think we can address this before Report and deal with it then.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

My Lords, I will respond from these Benches to these three amendments, which all seek to hold the Government to their manifesto commitment to deliver “immediate”—that was the word used—reform of the House of Lords. I mentioned that commitment in my Second Reading speech on this Bill.

I can be brief this evening as the essential points have been made by, in particular, the three noble Lords who tabled these amendments. We have heard much of the Government’s plans, and there has been much talk in these debates of the importance of punctuation in the Government’s manifesto, but the central point on these amendments is this: the Government ought to give the Committee reassurance that the wider reform will come and, importantly, that it will come soon.

When the House of Lords Reform Act 1999 was passed, the Government claimed that the compromise as to some hereditary Peers remaining in your Lordships’ House would act as an encouragement to the Government to complete their reform of the House. However, we are now more than two decades on and still the Government have not brought forward to this House—as opposed to a few sentences in a manifesto—anything approaching proper reform. The obvious question is: why?

The Government often say that, if we seek to change everything, we run the risk of changing nothing, but the truth is, as we all know, that legislative time is precious. In SW1, the most valuable commodity is parliamentary time on the Floor of a House. We have seen Governments fail to deliver second-stage reform before, so why would it be different this time? As the noble Lord, Lord Newby, rightly pointed out, the noises off—if we can call them that—are not encouraging at all.

Therefore, I completely understand the concerns of the noble Baroness and noble Lords who have brought these amendments. We should reasonably expect the Government to give the Committee a much clearer sense of when, in their already busy legislative timetable, they intend to bring forward the next stage of reform. This House, on this issue, is very much once bitten, twice shy. I look forward to hearing from the Leader of the House on this important issue. I hope that she can be more definite than saying, “At some time in this Parliament”.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I smiled at the point where the noble Lord said that “the party opposite” had done nothing for two decades. I just have to remind him that, for 14 years of those two decades, he was in government and we were not, which did hamper our ability to take action.

I want to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Llanfaes, the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, and the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, for their amendments. What seems clear—and I welcome this—is that there is a bit of momentum about change, which has been lacking for a very long time. I seem to remember that the only proposal the party opposite came forward with about the House of Lords in its time in government was to move this House to York while the rest of Parliament stayed in London, which was not a particularly helpful or constructive suggestion. We seem to be moving now towards a much more collegiate way of doing things and seeing some way forward. I am grateful for that; it is very helpful.

Several times in the debate, noble Lords have raised the question: why this particular proposal first? I have explained that this is the first stage, and the reason that this is the first stage of reform is that it is the one described as “immediate” in the manifesto, but it also completes the start of something that started 25 years ago. The principle of removing the hereditary Peers was established 25 years ago. It seemed very straight- forward, even though we have had very long debates about other issues around it. I am not criticising that; it is just a matter of fact. That principle was established, and this completes that principle.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Strathclyde (Con)]

Ain’t going to happen.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, has not spoken during this debate, apart from in a sedentary position. He sits and mutters, “Ain’t going to happen”. My, such cynicism in one so young.

[Lord Strathclyde (Con)]

My Lords, I feel deeply flattered by the noble Baroness. I always thought she was younger than me, but there we are.

In her introductory remarks, she accused the Conservative Government of the last 14 years of not having done any reform. She has forgotten the 2012 Bill that was introduced in the House of Commons and passed its Second Reading with flying colours but then, because of the lack of support from the Labour Party on a timetable Motion, did not go any further at all. Surely the noble Baroness should show some humility. The Labour Party, which promised further reform in 1997 and again on the passage of the 1999 Act, has done no thinking whatever since then.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

The noble Lord’s memory may need a bit of jogging. We are talking about a time when there was a majority; had the Conservative Government wanted to push that through, they would have been able to do so.

The proposal from Michael Gove to move the House of Lords to York—which was really a nonsense and did not help the reputation of this House or of the Government—fundamentally misunderstood how this House operates. We are trying to look at how the House operates. We are fulfilling a manifesto commitment but we are also fulfilling what started 25 years ago. The noble Lord is critical that we did not do it sooner, but it is here now, and I have made clear that further proposals for the next stages will come forward, so he can park his cynicism for now. We will come back to this and see who gets it right.

I thank the noble Baroness and both noble Lords for tabling these helpful amendments. I am grateful to them, and I respectfully ask that the noble Baroness withdraws her amendment.

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

My Lords, I am at one with the noble Baroness the Leader about Mr Gove and York, but can she explain why she cannot blow the dust off the royal commission report—the Wakeham report—and just implement that?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

The Wakeham report was some time ago, but I am always happy to look at it as we go forward to further our considerations. But the House today should come to the view on what the House today would like to do.

The noble Earl gave a list of his Government’s failures on the House of Lords. I suggest that another of them was not accepting the Grocott Bill.

[Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (PC)]

My Lords, I thank everyone who has spoken in this debate, and I am grateful to all noble Lords who have supported the proposal that was brought forward. I will not be able to refer to each point made, but I will try to respond briefly.

The noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, noted that there is a consensus around the House for further reform inside and outside the House. That is an important point to note and something that we should push forward. Although the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, may disagree with my reasoning, at least we agree on the outcome: we cannot stop here.

The noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, rightly pointed out that my Amendment 71 does not provide a specific model. My Amendment 70, previously debated on another day, does so, but this was on purpose and Amendment 71 was more of a probing amendment. I hope the Government bring forward a clear timetable on the next stage before Report. The noble Lord, Lord Newby, pointed out that if the Government published a plan, there would be far fewer amendments on Report, so I hope we see a plan.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, for his support for the group of amendments. He noted that some reform is wanted outside the House. There was a good consensus from around the House. The Leader of the House welcomes the momentum for change, and I hope she will join and lead that momentum.

While I welcome the Government’s commitment to removing hereditary Peers, this reform cannot and must not be the end of the journey. We must push for a fully democratic second Chamber, one that is chosen by the people it serves and not by birthright or privilege. The momentum for change must continue, and we cannot afford to let it falter.

Amendment 71 would ensure that the Government were held accountable on their long-held calls for abolishing the Lords and would require them to outline the next steps for reform within six months. I hope that the Government further consider publishing the next steps for reform before the Bill completes its stages in the House. I welcome the Leader of the House’s words today, particularly looking at how we engage with the public on what the second Chamber looks like. For those around the Committee who agree that this is a sensible ask, I would welcome them getting in touch with me.

I will withdraw my amendment today, but I retain my right to reintroduce it on Report if a plan is not published. Not only do I hope that His Majesty’s Government reflect on this debate today but I encourage them to be bold in delivering further reform and to follow through on the Prime Minister’s own desire to see this place replaced with an alternative second Chamber. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.