House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Strathclyde

Committee stage
Monday 10th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Strathclyde (Con)]

My Lords, I have signed the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Newby, but I really enjoyed listening to my noble friend Lord Blencathra, who raised many sensible points. The noble Lord, Lord Newby, did not quite give the case for a democratic House as much justice as it deserved. I am sorry to see that most of his Benches seem to be relatively deserted. On the whole, his party has not turned out to support him as ably as I will now try to do.

It is interesting that today we very much turn to a new phase of discussion of the Bill. Last week, we discussed the issue of heredity and whether to fling out certain Peers. I think the Committee broadly agreed, overwhelmingly, that heredity was no longer an acceptable way of choosing a House of Parliament, but there was substantial disagreement about transitionary arrangements, grandfather rights and creating life Peers. No doubt we will return to those at length when we meet again and discuss those amendments on Report.

When discussing a democratic mandate for this House, it is always worth having a look at history—what my noble friend called the institutional memory. I do not think that any of us can go back to 1911, which may not have been the first time that democracy was discussed for this House, but it is a key point because it led to a statute of Parliament which fundamentally reassessed the relationship between the two Houses.

What is important about the 1911 Act is its preamble. I will not quote it exactly, but it said that we should substitute the House of Lords for a Chamber constituted on a popular, instead of a hereditary, basis. That was in 1911 and here we are in 2025, and we are no further to getting that. In the 1920s, after the First World War and the devastation it produced, several commissions looked at the case for an elected House, which came to nothing. In the 1930s, there were other matters. In the 1940s, there was of course the Second World War.

The extraordinary Parliament in 1945, with all those radical Labour policies under Attlee, did so much. Of course, with only a few handfuls of Labour Peers, that Labour Government managed to pass everything they wanted to through this House, which goes to the nub of my noble friend Lord Blencathra’s argument that convention plays an important part in the relationship between these two Houses of Parliament. However, I am not entirely sure that my noble friend was quite so keen on those kinds of conventions existing. They were very powerful in the 1940s, and they are still powerful now.

In the 1950s, there was the introduction of the Life Peerages Act which, at a stroke, fundamentally changed how this House was viewed and injected a good deal of new blood into it. That is what has kept us going ever since. But the dream of democracy did not quite die. Lord Longford introduced a Bill in 1968. That Bill was talked out in the House of Commons by two MPs: Enoch Powell and Michael Foot. They decided that the reason there could not be a democratic mandate for the House of Lords is that it would compete with the House of Lords, and that level of competition was completely unacceptable. The noble Baroness is trying to intervene.

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

I only wanted to correct the noble Lord. He said that they could not have an elected second Chamber as it would compete with the House of Lords; I think he meant the House of Commons. He just misspoke—that was all.

[Lord Strathclyde (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness for putting me right.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I just proved I was listening.

[Lord Strathclyde (Con)]

Anyway, that took us to 1998-99 and the promise in the 1997 Blairite manifesto that there would be a democratic reform. Here we are, 28 years after that, and there is no further movement at all. At the beginning of the century, there were various royal commissions and White Papers, which came up in favour of a more democratic House, but none was pushed forward. I think Prime Minister Gordon Brown had an attempt in 2009-10 at a democratic House. But it was not until the Government of my noble friend Lord Cameron that we saw the introduction into Parliament of a Bill for real democratic mandate—an 80:20 elected House—and the noble Lord, Lord Newby, explained very well what happened to that.

It is worth pointing out in this debate about the democratic mandate that the amendment I have signed is not for an 80:20 elected House; it is for a 100% elected House. That would mean that the House would lose the benefit of the Cross Benches. I think having 20% unelected is extremely important. The Cross-Benchers bring something to this House which no democratic mandate would be able to do. You just have to look at the Cross Benches for an example: former judges, trade unionists, businesspeople, churchmen, archbishops, and so on. They would never dream of standing for an election, but they bring their knowledge and experience to bear to the workings of this House and legislation, which is extremely effective. I am in favour of an 80% elected House, not a 100% elected House.

Secondly, the noble Lord, Lord Newby, made the case for a directly elected House. I wonder whether it is worth considering, and whether the noble Lord has considered, that, given the enormous changes in devolution over the last 25 years in our major cities and, of course, in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, there may be a case for looking at the capacity of this House to accept some form of indirectly elected Members, which would perhaps go to stopping what my noble friend Lord Blencathra regarded as too strong a democratic mandate that would challenge the House of Commons.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Strathclyde (Con)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

No, I will not take an intervention. I have listened to everybody with great courtesy throughout the whole debate. Would the noble Lord mind letting me answer the questions?

[Lord Strathclyde (Con)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I shall take one short intervention. I am sure the noble Lord would not want to detain the Committee any longer than necessary.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Strathclyde (Con)]

My Lords, I intervene simply to say that I have long been a supporter of an elected House, as many noble Lords are aware—certainly since 1997. I am on the public record. I supported the Bill in 2012.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I am happy to be corrected on that, and I am sure noble Lords will welcome his support.

I found Amendments 11A and 11B from the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, really interesting. Amendment 11A seeks to impose a requirement on the Government to include in its consultation

“the implications of securing a democratic mandate for the House of Lords for its powers and conventions”.

The interesting thing about his amendments is that he was the first in the debate to talk about the functions of a second Chamber rather than the form. Other noble Lords then commented on that, but he was the first and he did so in some detail. My starting point on a second Chamber has always been: what does it do, how does it do it, why does it do it, and how do we best fulfil the role? I was pleased that some noble Lords mentioned the role of the Cross-Benchers, because we all welcome that role, and I think the public would too if they were asked. However, the noble Lord would also require a referendum on the principle of an elected second Chamber. If I understood him correctly, if that principle was endorsed it would have to be followed by a further referendum on the methods of election.

The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, spoke significantly more widely than her amendment, which seeks to place a duty on the Government to lay before Parliament a review of the implications of Act for the appropriateness of an unelected Chamber. She complained that she could not get the functions into her amendment, but the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, expressed surprise at how wide amendments could go on membership when the terms of the Bill are so narrow. But that is the ruling we have: anything to do with membership of the House is seen to be in order, which leads to quite a broad approach.

Underlying all those amendments is the argument that further reform of this House is required. I welcome that, because although this Bill is narrow and noble Lords have commented on the next steps, the Labour Party’s manifesto was clear. I am surprised that noble Lords seem so surprised. The manifesto talks about the steps. It says—I think the noble Lord, Lord True, read this out—that we are committed to replacing the Chamber we have now with

“an alternative second Chamber that is more representative of the nations and regions”,

and that we

“will consult on proposals seeking the input of the … public”.

The noble Lord, Lord True, seems to expect me to have a ready-made proposal to bring forward. I do not; this is a longer-term proposal, and I would have thought noble Lords would welcome the opportunity to have an input into it, which, obviously, they will have. There is a range of proposals. We have already heard today that even those who support an elected second Chamber have a range of ways they would do it, so there is no ready-made blueprint: there are lots of thoughts and suggestions, and we have put forward suggestions in the past, but we want to consult more widely. That is a manifesto commitment.

However, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Newby, said himself, this Bill is not the right vehicle for delivering that proposal and we would not accept those amendments. This is a focused Bill that seeks to deliver the manifesto commitment by removing the right of the remaining hereditary Peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords. I remind noble Lords that that principle was established 25 years ago. This is the final part of that principle. My noble friend Lord Grocott seemed surprised this has taken so long and asked why people had made interventions on a range of other issues. This is a focused Bill on immediate reform, following the principle established 25 years ago.

We heard quite a lot about the history of different parts of legislation. The proposals that matter at the moment are those in our manifesto that we are delivering with this Bill, but the Government are committed to more fundamental reform, as I have said. More geographical representation is clearly part of that.

I come back to the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra. I also thought that the noble Lord, Lord Brady, made a thoughtful speech. I know the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, was not proposing an elected second Chamber, but the primacy of the first Chamber is about its elected status. It is accountable to the electorate. If I understood the noble Lord, Lord True, correctly, he thought this Chamber should have a more enhanced role because we have been here longer and have more expertise. You could also argue that an elected Chamber is more in touch with the electorate who have more recently elected them. That is a very important principle.

The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, raised a number of points to be considered during a consultation on the form an alternative second Chamber should take. One point, of course, is primacy. I am intrigued by the idea that we could have a Prime Minister in a second Chamber; I will not apply for any such role. The noble Lord made an important point about the conventions that apply to an unelected second Chamber. Those conventions have stood the test of time through many changes, and they remain. They serve this House, the primary Chamber and democracy well. I anticipate no change to those conventions; it would be a different kind of Chamber if we did not abide by them. The hereditary Peers leaving in 1999 did not alter the conventions, and it will not alter the conventions now either. It is those conventions that protect the primacy of the Commons, which is extremely important.

These issues are not for your Lordships’ House today in this Bill. The Government are making an immediate start to reform this House with this Bill. Part of the reason why there has been no progress over the past 25 years is this argument that nothing can be done until everything is done. But nobody can agree, even in the debate we have had today, on what “everything” is and the result is that we do nothing. Completing this part of the reform shows good faith and good intentions.

The noble Lord, Lord True, tempted me on a number of points, and I want to challenge him on one. He referred to the exit of some Peers—that is, losing our hereditary colleagues—as being some kind of political attack because it affects the numbers. I ask him: did he feel the same when his party racked up appointment after appointment, creating a much larger disparity between the two main parties than we have ever seen before or than would happen under this Bill? What he suggested is not our intention. I have been very clear in Committee, as well as in Select Committee and in the other place, that this House works well with roughly equal numbers between government and opposition parties—and that is not a party-political point at all. Because of the work we do, we should be a more deliberative and engaged Chamber. The noble Lord is laughing at me, and I am not quite sure why; I am making a serious point about how this House works best. It is important that we do our best work and that we figure out how we can do that.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Strathclyde

Committee stage
Monday 3rd March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

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

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

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

[Lord Strathclyde (Con)]

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

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

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

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

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

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

[Lord Strathclyde (Con)]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

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

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

[Lord Strathclyde (Con)]

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

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

[Lord Strathclyde (Con)]

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

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Strathclyde

Committee stage
Monday 3rd March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

The noble Lord is very sensitive. It was not a rebuke; it was more of an observation that his comments went wider. I think he would agree that he wanted very much to know what comes next. I also think he accused me of being silent—I made some notes of his comments. It may not have been the term “silent”, but it was something about my having nothing to say or bringing the shutters down on what he said.

I will talk to the amendment, but I have been clear from the beginning of the many debates we already had on this issue that there is a process, with this as the first stage. It is not surprising that talks and discussions about Lords reform have so many times, as the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, said, been driven into the ground and gone nowhere. Focusing on what is in front of us and what can be achieved by a single Bill is very important, but we seem to want to talk about what comes next and after that. Amendments later on will address some of these issues, but I say to noble Lords: there is a Bill before us with specific amendments and I will mainly address my comments mainly to them.

That does not mean what comes next does not matter, but I can think of no other area of policy or manifesto commitment where the Minister proposing it is constantly demanded to say what comes next and in what order we will do things. I have been quite clear from the very beginning that this is the first stage. It was in the manifesto and there are two stages following that. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, cannot help himself; I am beginning to love the sound of his voice. I look forward to hearing from him again.

[Lord Strathclyde (Con)]

My Lords, I hope the noble Baroness does not feel that I have spoken at length. I have not. I have spoken many times to make short points; perhaps I can take up another now that I have mentioned before. I do not think any of us would be putting forward amendments on “What next?” if the Government had not themselves mentioned ideas for what is next in their manifesto. If they had published a White Paper, or even a Green Paper, it would make life so much easier and would allow the noble Baroness not to answer these questions.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I think the noble Lord labours the point a bit. I will address the amendments before us today and, in due course, as we move on, there will be other issues to discuss as well. I am not shying away in any way from our manifesto commitments; they remain and stand. The noble Lord is not one of those noble Lords who have discussed details of them, but others have, and I have been grateful for their suggestions and ideas for moving forward.

Let us look at these specific amendments. I think I said that they were quite an ingenious way of looking at things. I must admit that I interpreted one of the amendments differently to the way the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, did. That might have caused some confusion. Basically, the noble Lord’s amendment seeks to continue with by-elections but, instead of replacing hereditary Peers with others, any member of the public on the register in the United Kingdom—I assume that means overseas voters who are on the register in the UK as well—could stand to be a Member of the House and the electorate would be Members of your Lordships’ House. The by-elections would continue and anybody who won one of those elections, if I have understood him correctly, must then be recommended for a peerage by the Prime Minister. The noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, then looked to amend the criteria for potential candidates, and to have process and procedures on that.

These are creative amendments that raise an interesting and useful point about how we can get some of the best and most able people into your Lordships’ House if they wish to contribute to its work. I sometimes think that we look too much at what people have done in the past and not to what they will do in the future, when they are here.

I took some issue with his comment that the hereditary Peers are, by virtue of being hereditary, always more independent-minded. There are other amendments on the Order Paper, some of which we have heard already, about how Members on the Front Bench or who hold official positions should be able to continue in your Lordships’ House. Being a hereditary Peer does not guarantee the independence of any Member, and Members across the House who are hereditary are affiliated to political parties, which does not render them to be called independent. It may be only the Cross-Bench hereditaries who can claim to have that independence.

The noble Lord will understand why I cannot accept his amendment. It removes Clause 1 of the Bill, which is one of the crucial parts of it, and therefore retains the right of the current excepted hereditary Peers to continue to sit in your Lordships’ House. It is a bit like the Grocott amendment: there would be a by-election, but it would be for any member of the public.

I have some sympathy on how we get the best people to represent the House. The noble Lord, Lord Murray, commented that, in not having hereditary Peer by-elections, an avenue is closed, and this would open up another avenue for bringing Members into your Lordships’ House. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, made the point that, with such an exclusive electorate, this does not really open it up in a way that the members of the public who could put themselves forward would be happy with.

The commitments in our manifesto are quite clear. One of those was to reform the appointments process. Part of that is to look at the quality of candidates coming forward and the national and regional balance of the second Chamber. Members may have noticed in the last list of Peers that was announced by the Prime Minister—not all appointed by the Prime Minister—that all had a citation of why they had been appointed to the House. That was the first time it had happened. I remember saying to your Lordships’ House at Second Reading and even in the debate on the King’s Speech that that was something I was very keen to see. Previously, the only information given about somebody appointed to your Lordships’ House or a hereditary Peer who was elected, was just a line, which did not say anything about them at all. Now there is at least some information being made public—a small change, but an important one.

We are looking at other ways on the appointments process. We have already had discussions about moving forward on the other issues: the second part, looking at retirements and participation. Both will move ahead, but those are not the issues before us today. On this particular amendment, which I think is quite ingenious, while I understand the noble Lord’s reasons for bringing it forward, I am sure he will understand why I am not able to accept it. I urge him to withdraw.

House of Lords: Composition

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Strathclyde

Thursday 5th September 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Strathclyde (Con)]

My Lords, I beg leave to ask a Question of which I have given private notice, and I declare my interest. The question is as follows: to ask His Majesty’s Government, first, what plans they have for the removal of excepted Peers from the House of Lords and, secondly, whether they plan to keep the House informed on any proposed changes to its composition before the publication of relevant legislation.

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

My Lords, I think the noble Lord’s Question referred to excepted hereditary Peers. Today, probably as we speak, the Government are introducing a Bill in the other place to deliver on our clear manifesto commitment to bring about immediate reform by removing the right of the remaining hereditary Peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords. The Bill was included in the King’s Speech, which was debated at length in your Lordships’ House. It will complete the process started a quarter of a century ago to remove hereditary Peers from Parliament. The Government are keen to maintain an ongoing dialogue with your Lordships about this legislation and our other manifesto commitments on reforming this House.

[Lord Strathclyde (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness the Leader of the House for that Answer, but is it not a bit shoddy that she was prepared to speak to the press yesterday and had to be summoned to the Dispatch Box today rather than make a Statement to the House about one of the most important issues facing this House—namely, its composition? This is a high-handed, shoddy political act, removing some of our most senior and experienced Peers, such as the Convenor of the Cross Benches, the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and many others who have held some of the most senior positions in government and commerce.

Why have the Government and the noble Baroness not sought any discussions or consultation among the parties? Twenty-five years ago, countless debates and questions took place in the House and, ultimately, we finished up with a consensual way forward agreed among the parties. Why are there no proposals to remove those Peers from the House who very rarely come, rather than those who have shown an active commitment over many years? I hope that the noble Baroness will now engage with the usual channels to find a suitable day for a debate on the Floor of the House to discuss proper reform of the House of Lords.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I have always admired the noble Lord’s ingenuity, and never more so than today. It is a bit of a reach to say that a Statement should have been made to this House first. This was first debated around the hereditary Peers by-elections, it was debated following the Labour Party’s manifesto commitment, and I have had numerous conversations since the election and will continue to do so. A Bill has been introduced in the other place today; it will come to your Lordships’ House and we will have our discussions in the normal way. The noble Lord says that there was agreement previously. It was because there was no agreement during the passage of that Bill that further discussions took place and temporary arrangements were made on a transitional basis to exempt some hereditary Peers from the legislation. This will complete that process. I remind the noble Lord that my comment to the press about the Bill’s introduction—made in the normal way—started by recognising the valuable contributions that many hereditary Peers have made to Parliament.