House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Baroness Smith of Llanfaes Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 25th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

My Lords, I support Amendments 55 and 62 as the first modest steps to build in safeguards as to the future composition of this House. The speech by the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, reminded me of the circumstances in which and the speed with which the Weimar Republic was replaced by a bullying minority Government. I say that not—and I really mean this—to cast aspersions on the party opposite or the present Government, but because we can take nothing for granted in constitutional matters. Who knows who will be in office in five or 10 years’ time, when there may be difficult economic circumstances and big residual problems from the waves of immigration we have had, and when the mood in the country may be much worse than it is now? Without safeguards, a populist Government—supported by, say, 34% of the electorate—in such difficult economic times and under such pressures might seek to pack this House and drive through dangerous legislation if there are no proper safeguards over its constitution and who is put here. Beware a House of nodding donkeys.

I commend these two amendments as a first step to securing our parliamentary democracy and the constitution that we love. Those who believe in a constitutional democracy and the rule of law must take nothing for granted.

[Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (PC)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 97, which I have signed, in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Devon. The amendment invites consideration of the suitability of the name “House of Lords” after the removal of the hereditary Peers from Parliament. “Lords” is a word associated with aristocracy and a class-based society that stems from our feudal system. The name of this House and the use of titles bridges a further gap between citizens and Parliament.

If we are removing the rights of hereditary Peers to sit in the House—this Bill does that, and I support doing so—the name of the second Chamber should reflect that. When further reform takes place, the name of the second Chamber should also reflect the make-up and composition of that Chamber. As of March 2025, the Inter-Parliamentary Union database contained details of 187 active parliaments worldwide, 81 of them being bicameral. Names of second Chambers worldwide include “Senate”, “National Council”, “House of Councillors”, “National Council of Regions and Districts”—and then us, the “House of Lords”. “Senate” is the most popular, with 54 countries choosing that name for their second Chamber. The Labour Party’s own work in the past favoured the name “The Council of Regions and Nations”.

The name “House of Lords” is also discriminatory with regard to gender. Although the name does not reflect the make-up of the Chamber, with women being allowed to be Peers, it feeds into a narrative that places of power are reserved for men—specifically, men of important social status. This comes back to my other argument about achieving further reform that would give people from every kind of background and walk of life the opportunity to be seated in a second Chamber. While renaming alone would not address deeper concerns about democratic legitimacy and accountability, it could serve as a symbolic and meaningful step towards broader constitutional reform. That is why I urge the House to support Amendment 97.

[Lord Wrottesley (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 62 in the name of my noble friend Lord Lucas. I shall make a few comments in support of his amendment, and I am grateful to him for tabling it. I declare an interest: I am an excepted—or, as the noble Earl, Lord Devon, calls us, elected—hereditary.

I shall build on the analysis that my noble friend Lord Blencathra presented earlier in Committee. As I mentioned at Second Reading, I feel that the issue of the composition of this House needs serious consideration. Few, I expect, would disagree, but what has always troubled me in our discussions is that far too often, measures in the Bill may have been drafted and defended based on partisan grounds, not principle.

I believe that this House deserves better. That is why I wholeheartedly support a review of the composition of the House of Lords. My understanding, based on what the Leader of the House has said during the passage of the Bill thus far, is that the Labour Party believes that, currently, it is not represented fairly in this House. I would like to look at the numbers to see whether the Labour Party’s claim about the House being weighted against it stands up to scrutiny. At Second Reading, I suggested that the House’s composition should be based on a weighted average of the composition of the parties in the other place over 25 years, which is the period I suggested as a term limit and is also in line with what is widely recognised as a generation. Perhaps a review, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, suggests, could consider this as a metric.

Some simple maths: since the Life Peerages Act 1958, the Conservatives have been in government for 42 years, and Labour for 24 years, which breaks down as 64% and 36% respectively. Over the same period, the parties appointed 924 and 745 Peers respectively—incidentally, 374 were appointed by Sir Tony Blair, after the hereditary principle was done away with—which breaks down as 55% and 45%. So in fact, Labour Governments have appointed far more Peers, proportionately, in their years in power.

Even if we use the current composition of the House, the Conservatives hold 34% of the seats, and when the hereditaries are expelled this will drop to 31%. Meanwhile, the proportion of seats held by Labour will rise from 25% to 28%. Some noble Lords opposite may consider many of the Cross-Benchers to be conservative with a small “c”, but the reality is that they are very much of an independent mind. You just have to ask the last Government, who rarely won votes when, more often than not, the Cross-Benchers were massed against them. Under these proposals the proportion of Cross-Benchers will also drop slightly, from 22% to 20%.

Through this analysis, which is pretty simple maths, really, under current plans the Labour Party is with one hand demanding balance and with the other tipping the scales. By expelling the hereditaries, this Labour Government will be redressing the balance—in their favour. But this does not seem like rebalancing; it seems more like gerrymandering, as we have heard before in Committee. By getting rid of 85 Peers who are in opposition to them—all the non-Labour hereditary Peers—they will once again skew the numbers even further in their direction, and who is to say they will not take other measures to achieve more? Far from modernising and improving our institution, this would seem little more than a way to consolidate power. It is the constitutional equivalent of bulldozing down one of the walls in our great Chamber and insisting that the roof will stay up. What wall, what group of Peers, will be demolished next under this Labour Government’s plans? That is the main issue here: no one really knows what is coming next. No one will tell us.

My noble friend Lord Lucas’s amendment is a sound one: let us please carefully review who is here, who will remain here and whom they represent. We must be sure that this evolution—maybe the revolution the Labour Government speak of—in our House and our democracy does not descend, as I fear it might, into an erosion of our great House. We must protect this place from plans which I believe are designed deliberately to diminish this place, a place that has supported our democracy for centuries.

With all that is going on in the world today, we must not let any Government, now or in future, use the guise of constitutional reform or modernisation to remove dissenting voices. We know it is too late for all, or the majority, of us hereditary Peers—to paraphrase Lord Byron, I am not long for this House. But I believe that a proper review by those who understand this place could offer some protection against what seems to be the Labour Party’s modus operandi, which is— I hate to say this, having just paraphrased one of our greatest poets, but, to quote a Taylor Swift song—“Death By A Thousand Cuts”.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Llanfaes]

71: After Clause 1, insert the following new Clause—
“Timeline for the next stage of reform of the House of LordsThe Secretary of State must, within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, set out a timetable outlining additional reforms to the composition of the House of Lords during the Parliament in which this Act is passed.”Member's explanatory statement
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to promptly publish the next stages of reform to the House of Lords.

[Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (PC)]

My Lords, although I welcomed during Second Reading His Majesty’s Government starting efforts to reform the composition of this House, I am still perplexed as to why they have still not seized this opportunity to go much further. My Amendment 71, supported by my noble friend Lord Wigley, aims to address that.

Most of your Lordships will be aware of Plaid Cymru’s long-held position that this place should be abolished and replaced with a democratic alternative—a view that I thought the Prime Minister shared. It was certainly the position of his party prior to the 2024 general election. This Government can and should go so much further, but we remain with a very thin Bill and no firm commitment to further reform in this term. This thin Bill is utilising so much parliamentary time for not that much change, and I am not alone in this view; even some on the Labour Benches have expressed it.

The noble Lord, Lord Hain, was reported in the Guardian on 3 March as saying that

“time was of the essence for any possible further changes”.

He said:

“I think if you don’t do it in your first term then are you ever going to do it?”


We have far to go.

Amendment 71 seeks to ensure that momentum is not lost and that there is a firm continuance in reforming this place and ensuring that that mission is not dropped. My amendment is very simple: it requires the Secretary of State to publish the next stages of reform for this place within six months of the day on which the Act is passed. What is there to disagree with?

It is imperative that we see commitment from His Majesty’s Government for further reforms in the future. We need certainty and action. Further reform must stem from consultation with citizens—those whose lives are shaped by the decisions that we make in this place. How can we possibly know what serves them best without asking them? Citizens’ assemblies could be a way of doing this.

Following the 2024 general election, a Modernisation Committee was established in the other place, driven by a new generation of MPs determined to bring their working practices into the modern age. Its purpose is to review procedures, standards and working practices. In the implementation of Amendment 71, perhaps there is a strong case to be made for the establishment of a similar committee in this place. However, that has not been defined in the amendment and would be up to the Government. It would be a modest but very meaningful step towards a second Chamber that would be more accessible for a broader range of people in our society.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

Amendment 71 withdrawn.