House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Basildon
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 1, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 1A.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Smith of Basildon) (Lab)
My Lords, I will also speak to Motions B, C and D.
Before starting on the debate on each Motion before the House, I thought it would be helpful to set the debate in context and provide an update on discussions and progress since we last debated the Bill. During our 41 hours of debate in Committee and on Report, it was clear that, when dealing with this first immediate step of Lords reform, the House was keen to make progress more quickly on the issues of retirement and participation. Indeed, I think I am correct in saying that there were more amendments and more hours of debate on these issues that were not in the Bill than the issues that were in the Bill.
As Leader of the House, I listened carefully and committed to establishing a cross-party Select Committee to establish these issues and report back to government. That Retirement and Participation Committee is now firmly established and is actively considering how to implement our manifesto commitments on a retirement age and a participation requirement. I understand that the committee has received a considerable amount of interest and input from noble Lords across the House, as was intended.
If noble Lords are worried about progress on this issue, then fear not. As I have discovered, the House has been able to take steps on this issue in the past. In 1669, Members who failed to attend were fined £40 a day. That is just over £7,500 in today’s money. In 1820, a fine of £100 a day—nearly £8,500 in today’s money—was levied for non-attendance at Queen Caroline’s trial. In 1679, the Sergeant-at-Arms was ordered to take non- attending Peers into custody and bring them to Westminster.
Noble Lords
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
Despite such support from around the House, I did not recommend those precedents to the committee. In all seriousness, this is an opportunity for the House itself to bring forward proposals, take action and show that we can lead reforms rather than resist them. We look forward to receiving the committee’s findings in the coming months.
Turning to the Bill, there were four substantive amendments passed by this House and reviewed by the other place. I was pleased that they agreed with the amendments on the powers of attorney to allow for dignified retirement in certain specific circumstances. I welcome the work that took place across the House to deliver this small but important reform. These amendments demonstrate how we as a House can come together to bring about change. The Procedure and Privileges Committee has already considered and agreed the draft Standing Orders, which will be presented to the House for approval so that they can take effect as soon as possible after Royal Assent.
A further amendment stated that all Lords Ministers should be paid a ministerial salary and prohibited future unpaid Ministers from being eligible for membership of this House. The Government rejected this amendment as it was not relevant to the Bill. Although it raised an important principle, it did not deliver the change needed. The Government nevertheless believe that it is right that Ministers be paid for the job they are doing. For some years, the practice of appointing Ministers without a salary, particularly to the Lords, has grown, reaching a peak in 2023 of 13 unpaid Lords Ministers out of 30. Being a Lords Minister is a tough job, as well as being an absolute privilege. Lords Ministers have the responsibility of their individual portfolios, but they also fulfil their duty to this House by answering questions, managing legislation and speaking in debates on any and all issues affecting their department.
Lords Ministers’ work is impressive. I know that past Leaders of the House have also raised the issue of unpaid Ministers when they have been in government. I am pleased to report to the House that this Government introduced the Ministerial Salaries (Amendment) Bill last week in the House of Commons to increase the number of ministerial salaries that can be paid under law from 109 to 120, reflecting the average size of government since 2010. The cap on the number of Commons Ministers will not be changed and remains at 95, thus ensuring a minimum of 25 paid Ministers in this House. Of course, the allocation of ministerial salaries is ultimately at the discretion of the Prime Minister. This is a significantly better position for this House, recognising the important work of our Ministers. Given the support for that amendment on Report, I hope that that Bill will be welcomed by your Lordships’ House. As a result, I ask that tonight we reject this amendment as being unnecessary.
Further amendments from this House provided for all the existing hereditary Peers to remain, as a matter of right, and to continue to sit in this House as hereditary Peers. Those amendments would allow existing hereditary Peers to remain for decades to come. The amendment on this issue, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, was extensively debated in the other place. However, the level of support for these amendments, including from the Official Opposition, was notably limited in both debates and in the vote. Only 77 MPs voted to keep these amendments in the Bill, and this was decisively rejected by a margin of 259.
The Government are, and always have been, committed to removing the right of hereditary Peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords, as was stated in our manifesto. This has never been about the contribution of individuals; it is about the underlying principle, agreed by Parliament over 25 years ago, that no one should sit in our Parliament by way of an inherited title. Over a quarter of a century later, hereditary Peers remain while meaningful reform has stagnated. We have a duty to find a way forward.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Leader of the House for setting out the Government’s position with such courtesy and clarity. Our position on this side has been clear from the very outset, and that is that we accepted and accept the Government’s mandate to end the entry of people into this place by virtue of the hereditary principle. That is why I and the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, proposed the immediate suspension of elections in respect for that mandate. In reality, no one has come here by virtue of the hereditary principle in this Parliament.
I also said that we believed there was a better way forward, now and in the future, for this House to be found by agreement and constructive co-operation, and that we thought that shared principles of how things should be done in this place, building on the Salisbury doctrine, should be agreed and restated. In my submission, those are endeavours that must continue and we on this side are committed to that constructive work.
We did argue, and frankly we still believe, that expulsion of sitting Members from a sitting Parliament was unreasonable and would provide a dangerous precedent for the future. A Prime Minister should not choose his or her opponents in Parliament. It does not happen in other democracies, and it should not happen here. Yet after this example, I fear that it may happen again. I beg to be proved wrong.
Mindful of this, your Lordships’ House did, as the noble Baroness has reminded us, vote for so-called grandfather rights. The majority of your Lordships asked that those who sat here among us and had served this House faithfully should be allowed to stay on the same basis as other Peers. But the Government used their mighty majority in another place to overturn that request. Now, of course, I regret that; but, as I said in my first speech from this Dispatch Box as Leader of the Opposition in this Parliament, I believe we must dial down on eternal ping-pong. So, I have advised my noble friends on this side to accept what for many is, I know, a bitter pill. We will not seek to divide the House today.
I recognise the positive arrangement approved by the Prime Minister to avoid an absolute cliff edge that would otherwise result in this place by a total cull of some of the most hard-working Members of this House. That builds on a statesmanlike decision to enable the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and others to stay. Who here truly objects to that?
This will mean many difficult decisions for those on this side and on the Cross Benches. For dozens of our fellows on this side and on the Cross Benches, April will be a cruel month of cold going; but that is how it will be. For others, the passage of this Bill will be a matter of high satisfaction; and that too is how it will be. But let us treat each other’s feelings with respect. That is the way of this House.
I remember as if it were yesterday sitting in the Box, hearing the wise words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, in this Chamber on 30 March 1999. He said that a “compromise” had been reached,
“binding in honour on all those who have come to give it their assent”.—[Official Report, 30/3/1999; col. 207.]
Like all compromises, it does not give complete satisfaction to anyone. That is the nature of compromise, and so let it be today with this arrangement.
I welcome what the noble Baroness said about responding to your Lordships’ wishes on power of attorney as a way to retirement. That was a proposal from the noble Lord, Lord Ashton of Hyde—not the least of his many services to this House, and I trust not the last.
I welcome the action being taken in another place, which the noble Baroness told us about, to enable all Lords Ministers to be paid. As the House well knows, I, as Leader of the House, believed that the practice of restricting many opportunities of service on the Government Front Bench to those who have private means had no place in the 20th century, let alone the 21st. I tried to secure pay for all Lords Ministers when I was Leader of the House, but sadly I was blocked—first by my own party and then by the party opposite. So I welcome the new Bill that the noble Baroness has told us about and assure her that we will support it.
I am disappointed that the Government see no place for life peerages outside your Lordships’ House. I continue to believe that that would be a useful reform. Frankly, we do not need people who come here for a title and then do precious little; on that, I agree with the noble Baroness. I think the time for that reform may come, but that is for another day.
So here we are, at the end of well over seven centuries of service by hereditary Peers in this Parliament. They helped to create our Parliament and they brought it back to life in 1660. In this House, 250 years ago, the elder Pitt called for a “just settlement” for the American colonies. Well, that did not work out very well, did it? Here, in 1807, Grenville secured the slave trade abolition Act. In 1832, Grey moved the first reform Act. Here too the illustrious ancestor of the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, passed Catholic emancipation.
Many thousands of Peers served their nation here and thousands of improvements to law were made. It was not all a stereotypical history of reaction in ermine. Many of those people no doubt were flawed, but, for the most part, they served their nation faithfully and well. This Bill draws a line under all that, and it is drawn, but we remember them and we thank them, just as we thank and will always remember those of our comrades in this House, on all Benches, who are being removed under this Bill today. Many of us on all sides will miss you—if I may use the “you”.
Chapter 1 of Labour’s manifesto plans for removals is now over. As the noble Baroness reminded us, chapter 2—debates on the promised removal of all Peers over 80 within three years, as the manifesto said—is now opened. The shadow that hung over the 92 for the last two years now rather lours over hundreds more among us. We welcome the Select Committee being set up by the noble Baroness and we await the outcome of its deliberations and all that will follow. There will be difficult waters, but the Labour manifesto mandate is clear and stark. This side will address whatever comes in a constructive spirit.
The House of the Life Peerages Act 1958 now goes forward alone. There will be no more so-called indefensible others to blame. We will be judged in the years and perhaps decades ahead on how we each acquit ourselves. For my part, I hope and believe that we will do so with the dignity, courtesy and high sense of duty that our departing hereditary colleagues sought to display. As we go forward, we on this side will always join hands across the Chamber in a positive manner to contribute to that and ensure the effective operation of this great House.
The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)
My Lords, I will be brief. Finding the balance between, first, the Government’s 2024 manifesto, secondly, the maintenance of the separation of powers among the three legs of our constitutional stool—the Executive, Parliament and the judiciary—and, thirdly, the proper staffing and working of our House has taken a considerable amount of time. That is not surprising, given the large number of people involved in thinking about these matters.
In the lead of this thinking have been the Leader of our House and the shadow Leader. I pay tribute to them both for having found that balance and thank them and the many involved. This means that I strongly support the Leader of the House in her four Motions, in particular—taking only a brief loop—Motion B. As mentioned, surfacing only last week, the Ministerial Salaries (Amendment) Bill is something that I warmly welcome. From the perspective of our Chamber, it is overdue.
I note as well that the progress of this Bill has given rise to that important committee, the Retirement and Participation Committee, which will bring further reform into focus when it reports in the summer. I wish it well in its endeavours.
On behalf of the many hereditaries, as I am a hybrid function these days, I thank the Leader of the House and the shadow Leader for their very warm words about the hereditaries. I feel that every hereditary arrives here really trying to do the right thing and to work hard on behalf of the House. I feel that they will hold their heads high in future years, whatever happens to them personally.
In closing, I note only that the mechanics of tidying things up will take a period of time. I know that those involved in this are moving with as much speed as possible. Accordingly, I hope that people will be patient. I hope also that the House can now move on from this difficult period back to our normal diet of scrutinising the Government and their legislation.
Lord Strathclyde (Con)
My Lords, on Second Reading of this Bill, many, many months ago now—indeed, more than a year ago—I said that this was a nasty little Bill. I thought that, over the next few months, it would be improved. Sadly, it is still a nasty little Bill. History will relate that this was a wasted opportunity. There is no substantial reform and no clear thought about the role of your Lordships’ House. It has all been for no purpose—no real reform and no promise of even a nod towards a democratic House, which many of us have wanted to see over many years. In fact, the Bill offers no improvement whatever in the governance of our country. It does, though, suit those, particularly on the other side of the House and in another place, who simply wanted to see a purge.
Like my noble friend, Lord True, I wholly accept the mandate given at the last election to end the ability of hereditary Peers to sit in this House, but that did not give the Government an excuse simply to remove people who have served this House over many years simply by the whim and the shake of a manifesto. Expelling the hereditary Peers, who could not be replaced by a by-election, is vicious and unnecessary.
I very much welcome the appointment of the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and that of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, on the Liberal Benches. We have heard nothing about the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate. Many of us who hold him in very high regard hope soon to do so. I welcome the compromise that has been done so that Members from the Conservative Party and the Cross Benches will still be able to serve, although I understand that some of the finer details of that still need to be done. I very much welcome, therefore, what the noble Baroness the Leader of the House said on that, but I hope, like many others have done tonight, that we will pause for a moment at this extraordinary moment when, after nearly 800 years in which hereditary Peers have served in this House, that process today comes to an end, if we pass this law, which assuredly we will do. They came here purely by chance—an accident of birth—to choose to serve and to do that duty. I regret that they have had little thanks for that tonight.
In 1999, at the last Blairite purge, I called the then Bill a scar on the face of history. I am afraid to say that that scar has not healed, and I fear that, as a result of this Bill, it never will.
Lord Rooker (Lab)
My Lords, I think our language should be quite moderate tonight. There is no crowing from this side of the House and no attack on the hereditaries. I wholly agree with everything that has been said. I have worked with the hereditaries, having been here 24 years now, after 27 years in the other place.
One of our Members is missing—someone who really should be here tonight—and that is my noble friend Lord Grocott. He is indisposed at the moment; he is probably watching this from his hospital bed. He hopes to be home soon. He sends his regards, and one or two people have spoken to him. I have been told that I cannot read another Member’s notes into the record, but I want to use a few points issued by my noble friend, including on what he did after he ceased to be Chief Whip.
My noble friend is sorry that he cannot be here today to see the completion of this process. He says that the Bill will mean a fine farewell to our wondrous system of hereditary Peer by-elections—something that, of course, many of my new colleagues have not experienced. The process in place over the last quarter of a century gave amusement to many, employment to my noble friend Lord Grocott and complete bewilderment to the public. He told me that, for him, the standout moment came during the 2016 by-election, when there were seven candidates and an electorate of three—twice as many candidates as voters. The winning candidate received all three votes on a 100% turnout.
After that, my noble friend Lord Grocott thought— I shared a room with him, so I have lived a bit of this; your Lordships should see his files—that a Private Member’s Bill might be the solution to the whole system. He thought it would be a doddle. He thought that no one in the House would want to defend hereditary Peers by-elections but, as he admits, he got that wrong. After five attempts, his simple two-clause Bill never got further than Committee, because there were a few people here on a Friday who knew how to speak—without filibustering. At last, he says, the end is in sight. He told me this morning that he will be able to hand over his files to some unsuspecting PhD student, who will have the unenviable task of trying to work out what on earth it was all about.
Finally, my noble friend has a message for anyone who is thinking of introducing a Bill to reform any part of this House: keep it short, keep it simple, keep it focused and, above all, be patient. “Who knows”, he said: “One day, you might end up as a footnote in Erskine May”. It is very sad that he is not here. Of course, he will get to see Hansard pretty quickly, if he is not watching us from his hospital bed, but I thought that we should at least recognise the perseverance he showed and how he entertained us.
I will make one final point. When the clerk read out the results of the ballots for hereditary Peer by-elections, they never gave us any figures. They just said that so-and-so has been elected. We got no information. I would go round the corner to get some figures because we were interested in them. Occasionally, in some of those elections, all of us could participate. I join with my noble friend. I will be sad to see noble Lords leaving. It is hanging over me now. I was born in 1941, so I am with the group that is next in line. With that, I will sit down.
The Earl of Devon (CB)
My Lords, given that this is the final time we will consider this Bill, I offer some concluding words as a departing hereditary—as a defender of the indefensible who has long championed our presence in this House and has sought to shine a light on the value of our long period of public service. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, that that is approaching 900 years for some of us.
The passage of this Bill is regrettable. I believe that this House, Parliament and the country more widely will miss us, not as individuals but as an essential, ancient thread in the complex and fragile constitutional fabric that supports our nation. It is ironic that a Government who pride themselves on improving employee rights and enhancing the security of those who work should choose to offer the longer-serving Members of our constitutional workforce a mere seven weeks’ formal notice of termination—notably less than the statutory minimum. His Majesty’s Government will argue that we have been on notice for 27—or, perhaps, over 100 —years. Yet, as every employment lawyer knows, it is one thing to work under threat of redundancy but quite another for that threat to be formalised, as when this Bill receives its Royal Assent.
However, this is not a matter of employment law. If it were, there would be discriminatory concerns, given the regrettable commonality of protected characteristics among our hereditary Peers. Instead, we serve at His Majesty’s pleasure, summoned pursuant to a writ by which we are commanded to attend this Parliament in Westminster and provide counsel. I am concerned that His Majesty, in losing his longest-serving constitutional counsellors, will be left considerably exposed at a vulnerable time for our hereditary monarchy. I repeat my very real worry that his institution may be next, given the treatment meted out to us, his hereditary partners.
I do not wish to be negative. His Majesty’s Government are to be congratulated on the satisfaction of their manifesto commitment. I was never a fan of the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, that was sent back to the other place, which would have converted all hereditary Peers into life Peers, so I am glad we are not seeking to urge that again. I believe we should be proud to sit here as embodiments of the hereditary principle that has served our nation for over a millennium. I also believe we should not use that hereditary privilege to secure for ourselves as individuals life peerages that could and should go to people of a more diverse background who may serve the nation somewhat better.
I do not begrudge the many devoted public servants among us who honourably wish to continue to serve in your Lordships’ House after our hereditary right is abolished. The expertise among many hereditary Members will be sorely missed, but there should have been a better way to determine who remains and who goes than the political arm-wrestling that has taken place behind closed doors, and through the Orwellian usual channels, over the past 18 months. Indeed, is it not yet a further irony that the most transparently selected cohort amongst your Lordships, the elected excepted hereditaries, each of whom has been through a publicly scrutinised albeit idiosyncratic by-election process, will be subsumed into the ever-spreading stain of political patronage that, regrettably, characterises the vast majority of appointments to your Lordships’ House? At a time when the composition of this venerable institution is under scrutiny like never before—as a member of the Conduct Committee, I can vouch for the intensity of the brickbats being deployed—are we right to add yet more opacity to our operations?
As many hereditaries have said throughout the passage of the Bill, we hoped that the promise of the 1999 Weatherill amendment would be fulfilled and that the remaining hereditary Peers would depart this House leaving it better constituted than we found it. Unfortunately, that is not the case. We are being removed out of political expedience, with only the loose promise of a modest further reform through the Retirement and Participation Committee in exchange. I fear that will not be enough to satisfy the critics, but I wish the House well in this vital process.
In closing, I thank the noble Baroness the Leader of the House for her courtesy and patience in dealing with a matter that I know she has found challenging. However, in the week of International Women’s Day, I put in one final plea: that female succession to our hereditary peerages remains on her agenda when we are gone. I note that, when His Majesty’s Government are doing such important work fighting the scourge of violence against women and girls, it is anathema that we reserve roles anywhere within our society solely to men, particularly roles with some cultural prominence. I am sorry to have failed in ridding us of this misogyny, but I hope your Lordships will be willing to take the matter forward once we are gone.
I will miss this place and would of course love to return, but only on merit, not by dint of my hereditary privilege. Your Lordships might think you have heard quite enough of that, and of Devon.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
I echo the sentiments of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, about the noble Lord, Lord Grocott. I did not realise he was ill. It is very sad that he is not with us today, and I know we will all wish him the very best recovery from the problems that he has at the moment. I was a great admirer of the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, because he was one of the few people on the Labour Benches who wanted to leave the EU when almost all his party wanted to remain in it. I thought that was an act of enormous courage.
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, as a relatively new Member of your Lordships’ House, I was the Liberal Democrat Bill Whip on the House of Lords Bill in 1999. I therefore had my apprenticeship in how legislation goes through under the tutelage of the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer. I am, therefore—along with the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, I think—one of only two people who have sat through not only all the debates on that Bill but every debate on this second Bill dealing with the hereditary Peers.
My principal emotion this evening, therefore, is one of relief. I believe this Bill is long overdue; it is not, of course, the wholesale reform which members of my party and I wish to see, but is, in our view, a welcome and necessary change. I am also pleased that the proceedings are to end with a whimper rather than a bang. When we voted on whether all hereditaries should be given a life peerage, the majority was 37. The number of Conservative hereditaries who voted was 41. They made the difference. It was, to put it mildly and diplomatically, not a good look. I am relieved that there is no possibility of the same thing happening again this evening.
I am pleased that some hard-working Conservative and Cross-Bench hereditary Peers are to get life peerages. Noble Lords will have seen that, as far as these Benches are concerned, we decided to use some of our regular intake of new Peers to give life peerages to my noble friends Lord Addington and Lord Russell, who have made such valuable contributions to our work over some time. That is out of a mere six new Lib Dem Peers since the election. The Conservatives have had 24 and some of those places could have been for hereditary Peers; only the noble Lord, Lord True, and his leader in another place know why this course was not followed. It seems to me that that was an opportunity missed.
I greatly welcome the Government’s decision to ensure that all Ministers in your Lordships’ House are salaried. I associate this change particularly with my late colleague Baroness Randerson. When she was Wales Minister and Northern Ireland spokesman in the coalition Government, not only did she not receive a salary, but on days on which she visited Wales or Northern Ireland, she did not receive an attendance allowance either. This was scandalous, and I am pleased that this injustice will not be visited on any future Lords Ministers.
Finally, I wish to thank outgoing hereditary Peers for their contributions to the work of your Lordships’ House. They have been valued Members and, in some cases, have worked tirelessly on behalf of the House for many years. It is, however, now time for a change. As I said at the start, I am relieved that, with today’s debate, we are able to bring this particular chapter in our parliamentary history to an end. We now look forward to the results of the committee looking at retirement age and participation. That is the next stage in making our House a better functioning and more credible institution, which I am sure everybody wants to see.
Lord Moore of Etchingham (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I much admired the speech by the noble Earl, Lord Devon, but I must say that I did not agree with him. He spoke with his wonderful customary elegance and idiosyncrasy, but I did not agree with him when he criticised the nature of the deal that has been done. This House should thank the Leader of the House and the Leader of the Opposition for bringing this together and getting on with it. Nevertheless, it is a sad moment, and anyone with a sense of history would have to feel that.
Before we gathered for this debate, I walked down the Royal Gallery and looked at the plaques for noble Lords and their heirs who were killed in the two World Wars. I noticed that I was reading names all of which are represented in this House and very shortly will not be: Ponsonby, on both sides of this House; Stonor—this is the family name, not the title; Vane; Wellington; Berry; Colville; Goschen; Trenchard; and, of course, Wedgwood Benn. That is a small reminder of something which is very valuable about this House, which is continuity, and from continuity comes a certain sort of wisdom.
I have a little theory about your Lordships’ House. Once you feel you lack legitimacy, or your legitimacy is in question, you behave a bit better because you are a little doubtful about whether you should be there and so are on your best behaviour. I think the House of Lords has been better since 1911, and better since 1958, than when it really was powerful, because it feels that it needs to be careful. Over those years since 1958, a very good balance was struck between the hereditaries and the life Peers. That meant that ill feeling against the House of Lords was incredibly rare in the second half of the 20th century—it was hardly an issue at all. It is rather noticeable that, since the Blair reforms of 1999, the reputation of this House has become more and more contested, and people have got crosser and crosser.
This presents a challenge to us. The danger is that, rather than recovering legitimacy in the public mind by what is happening, we are actually hollowed out in people’s minds—we have some trappings but are not the real thing and are not something else. I was walking down into the Peers’ entrance the other day and noticed no fewer than 10 of those red boxes containing Letters Patent, which seemed quite a lot. I am sure they are all most welcome additions to your Lordships’ House, but it reminded me of the responsibility. People are going to go on saying, “Why are you here? What right have you to be here?” I hope that we will have an answer.
We can learn from the hereditary Peers at least two important things. One is that we must maintain courtesy in our dealings, and the other is that concern for the public good is the big motivator. The prevailing tendency after this will be that the spirit of party becomes stronger and the public spirit becomes weaker. It is very much our duty to make sure that does not happen.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords for their comments and particularly to the noble Lord, Lord True, and the noble Earl, Lord Kinoull, for their warm reception for the way forward. I am also grateful to the noble Lord from the Liberal Democrat Benches—
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I know; I was just thinking that he is no longer their leader. The noble Lord, Lord Newby, and I—and all of us—have sat through many hours of debate. Somebody in my office at one point calculated that Apollo 11 got to the moon and back quicker than we conducted our deliberations on this issue. But it has been worth it, and it is good that we had those debates.
I will pick up on a few things. I think we all would want to send our best wishes to my noble friend Lord Grocott. He was tenacious in pursuing a particular course for the House to go down: the ending of the by-elections, which caused considerable amusement when he would explain them. I think that very few, other than noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, think that an election with an electorate of three is very democratic. My noble friend Lord Grocott pursued that with charm and intelligence, and it was a shame he was not successful with the Bills he took forward. We send him our best wishes.
I cannot agree with comments of the noble Earl, Lord Devon, about the hereditary principle in this House, but his comments and his campaign on the right of succession are important; that has to be maintained. I was struck by how complicated this is when I looked at it at his behest. But I say to him that it is not seven weeks’ notice; it is actually probably 25 years’ notice. The principle of the hereditary place in this House was debated and agreed 25 years ago, but interim measures were in place and they have now come to an end.
I am grateful for the wise comments of the noble Lord, Lord Moore. We are here to be useful to the country and to government in how we debate, but wisdom is very important in this House, and I have to say to him that wisdom is not hereditary. How we conduct ourselves, though, is something we should be aware of at all times, and I totally agree that the only reason for our being here is the public good. I have confidence in life Peers also conducting themselves in that way.
Comments were made about the Select Committee. I am a great believer in incremental change: we make a step, another step and another step forward, and we make progress in that way. But there is an opportunity for this House to decide how it wants to take change and reform forward. We can embrace that and show that we can lead on change, or we can decide that we always want to resist change. For this House to lead is a better way forward, and I hope that that committee will establish that principle.
This is historic legislation—I accept the comments made by noble Lords—and we should feel the moment of that. But we should also recognise that, with any change, there is not just a principle: Members of this House are departing. Many of them have given great service to this House and have been dedicated to their work—I would not want that to go unsaid today. They should be thanked for their work and their service, and they go with our thanks and appreciation. Whatever differences we have had over the passage of this legislation, I think the whole House can come together and agree on that.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 2, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 2A.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 3, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 3A.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 8, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 8A.