House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Baroness Stowell of Beeston Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 9th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, I was sitting here with unusual patience, but the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, has encouraged me to intervene to make just one point. The Bill says it is to:

“Remove the remaining connection between hereditary peerage and membership of the House of Lords; to abolish the jurisdiction of the House of Lords in relation to claims to hereditary peerages; and for connected purposes”.


Whereas I agreed with almost everything that the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, said, it is nothing to do with this Bill, and I do not understand, with due respect to the clerks, how they agreed these amendments. I think it is a disgrace.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)]

My Lords, I was going to intervene briefly anyway, but, in response to the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, I do not think it is customary for any Member of this House to start to question the clerks, who do not have the ability to speak for themselves. As the noble Lords knows, if this amendment were not allowed, it would not have been possible to table it.

The only point I want to add was prompted by something my noble friend Lord Caine said. I do not think it has been reflected in this debate. Before we decide how to respond to my noble friend pushing his amendment, the noble Lord Caine made the point that, when a Member of this House becomes a Minister, even an unpaid Minister, they have to give up all their outside interests. There is another factor that it is worth us being aware of: the same Ministers are also subject to the ACOBA restrictions for two years after they stop being Ministers. So their employment prospects also have some constraints put on them, after they have not been paid for two years and they have had to give up any outside interests as well. That is something else we should take account of.

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

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord True, for raising this issue again, following the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson. It is one of those issues. He and I have discussed it many times, including when he was Leader of the House. I think the principle of paid Ministers is an absolutely sound one and I welcome the noble Lords, Lord True and Lord Forsyth, to the Ministers’ union, for which I am happy to supply application forms in due course. As much as the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, is an unlikely shop steward, I am sure he would be very welcome.

This comes to the heart of the issue. I have to disagree with my noble friend Lord Foulkes; the clerks did rule it in order as an amendment. There was some surprise about the range of amendments we have had on the Bill, but that is not to say they are not in scope. We have to accept they are in scope, however wide they go from the original title of the Bill.

I am glad the noble Lord, Lord True, tabled his Amendment 13A. I think he did so, recognising that the consequence of Amendment 13 would be that not only would we lose Ministers from the Government if it passed, but we would lose them from your Lordships’ House as well. They would have to go immediately, as Ministers, so I welcome his amendment.

First, it is right to say that the work of a Lords Minister is one of the most difficult jobs in government.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Erroll (CB)]

My Lords, I have seen two of these instances happen before. On legal advice given to a Minister not being revealed to this House, I can remember a huge row about it, and the House adjourned for 10 or 20 minutes while everyone recovered their composure because the row got so bad. It has been longstanding legal advice, and whether it is a good or a bad thing, this is probably not the place to break it, unfortunately. I do agree that it would have been very helpful to the House on the other occasion if the Minister had been able to say what that advice was. It is a good question whether we should do it, but I do not think this is necessarily the place or time, although there is long precedence for that.

On the question of powers of attorney or legal capacity, I have met this too to do with a will and things like that. The answer, very simply, is that you get advice on the question of legal capacity. If you want to push it far enough, it can end up in the courts or the Court of Protection; probably, the power of attorney would end up in front of the Court of Protection, if someone wants to push it that far, and it would be very unfortunate. If, in the George III case, the person recovered somewhat and two years’ later said, “No, I wish I had not been chucked out”, I am afraid he would not have been sitting for two years, so he would be disbarred from the House by reason of non-attendance. So that might just solve the problem.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to support my noble friend’s amendment. I want to make a slightly different point in addition to the legal arguments that have already been made. It is a shame to be speaking before hearing the Leader of the House set out her case, but, as my noble friend said, she was very clear in Committee that she takes this matter very seriously, as I know she does. As we discussed in Committee, all of us who have led our groups or been Chief Whips have had to deal with this issue, and I think we are united in knowing that it needs addressing.

The thing I find hard to understand is why we would not use the opportunity we have right now to put this matter beyond doubt. There are very few opportunities to do that, and one is presented to us right now, so I hope that the Leader of the House will take it. If she does not and my noble friend presses for a Division and is successful, I hope that, in the period between now and the Commons considering any amendments we pass, she will use the opportunity to make the case for this amendment to the Prime Minister and his Cabinet colleagues. As the Leader of the House sometimes reminded me when I was sat where she is, the Leader has a responsibility not just to bring the Government’s arguments to this House but to represent the arguments of this House back to government. This is one of those occasions when the House would look to her to take that lead.

I would simply add that, on this occasion, this is not political or partisan; it is about serving the public interest, not just the interests of us as individual Members. I hope that the Leader of the House will act in accordance with that if my noble friend divides the House and is successful in passing his amendment.

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

My Lords, the point raised by this amendment is very short, and I will therefore make only three short points on it. First, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said, it is unfortunate that we do not have sight of the relevant legal advice. Here, the Government are not relying on legal advice that is covered by the normal principles of confidentiality; this goes directly to how the House is going to vote on this matter, and it is unsatisfactory and unfortunate that we do not have sight of that legal advice.

Secondly, whatever view one takes on the underlying position, we now know that there are two contrary and conflicting legal opinions out there. That necessarily gives rise to ambiguity, which is something we should avoid if we possibly can. That brings me to the third point: we can avoid ambiguity here, because this amendment makes very clear what the position is going to be going forward, and we have the ability to put the matter beyond any doubt. Given that the Bill is already going back to the other place in respect of a number of points, I suggest that this amendment ought to be accepted. If the Leader of the House is unable to accept it, these Benches will support my noble friend in the Lobbies.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Baroness Stowell of Beeston Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 2nd July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Butler of Brockwell (CB)]

My Lords, I intervened in Committee to explain why I could not support Amendments 5 and 6. I will repeat my argument briefly now. These two amendments would put the committee, HOLAC, into a position where it overruled the Prime Minister. In one case, the Prime Minister could make appointments to the House of Lords only on the advice of HOLAC:

“No recommendation may be made to His Majesty to confer a life peerage except by the House of Lords Appointments Commission”.


So HOLAC would make the recommendation. In the other case, the Prime Minister could be prevented from conferring a peerage on the recommendation of the appointments commission. Both these cases would mean that the Prime Minister was entirely constrained by this advisory committee.

My argument is that the Prime Minister’s powers should not be constrained by a non-elected committee of people, however distinguished. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, referred to other committees that constrain the power of the Prime Minister, but they are crucially different because they are simply advisory. In this case, what is being proposed is committees that would enforce their decision on the Prime Minister. In the case of non-elected people, that is wrong. If Parliament were constraining the power of the Prime Minister, either to appoint or not to appoint, that would be acceptable. It is not acceptable that a non-elected committee, however distinguished, should do so.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)]

My Lords, it is a great privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Butler. Like him, I have a similar view that the House of Lords Appointments Commission should not be able to constrain the powers of the Prime Minister. Our system of appointment may not be perfect, but it does at least have some semblance of accountability, in that the person who is responsible ultimately is directly elected.

However, although I would therefore not support any amendment that gave greater powers to HOLAC, that does not mean that we should pay no attention to what a Prime Minister does, or that we should not seek clarification about what he intends. So I was intrigued by the Prime Minister’s Written Ministerial Statement of only last month—19 June—setting out the roles and responsibilities of all parties in making nominations to this House, and especially by what he had to say about his and HOLAC’s roles in relation to the Cross Benches.

In his Statement, the Prime Minister reminds us that HOLAC determines the suitability as well as the propriety of any Cross-Bench Peer it nominates to him for recommendation to the King. As I think other noble Lords have said, but I will add for clarification, I personally would not want HOLAC to have a role in considering the suitability of nominations from any political leader to the political ranks. The Prime Minister also says in his Statement:

“I will continue to recommend directly for appointment a limited number of candidates to sit as Crossbench peers … These nominations will … be vetted for propriety by the House of Lords Appointments Commission”.—[Official Report, Commons, 19/6/25; cols. 26-27WS.]


The Prime Minister is making it clear that, for any peerage that he nominates straight to the Cross Benches, HOLAC’s role is only to look at the propriety of such nominations, which I think is quite interesting.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Baroness Stowell of Beeston Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 25th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)]

My Lords, I simply want to make two points, one on procedure and the other on substance. On procedure and the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, he will know, as a long-standing Member of this House, that if my noble friend’s amendment were not in scope, it could not have been tabled. Also, as much as the noble Baroness the Leader of the House may pray in aid her manifesto and the promise of more legislation, we know that, despite the standard argument of Ministers that a particular piece of legislation is not an appropriate vehicle and another one will be along shortly, it very often does not happen.

That leads me to my point concerning substance, which I am sure the noble Baroness the Leader of the House will acknowledge. As my noble friend has already said, this sensitive issue is one that all of us who have had the privilege to serve as Leader or Chief Whip of our respective groups have faced, and we cannot leave it unanswered or unaddressed. I urge the noble Baroness please to take this seriously, and I hope that the Government’s desire not to amend the Bill will not be advanced as an excuse in response to this 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.

House of Lords Reform

Baroness Stowell of Beeston Excerpts

Tuesday 12th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)]

My Lords, any debate about Lords reform should start with identifying the problem that we are trying to fix, and there is none more serious than the rapid decline of public trust in the political class, in Parliament and in our democratic system. That signals the democratic deficit that this House has a duty to address. Keir Starmer promised to restore public trust during the general election campaign. I am not going to rehearse all that he has presided over since July to make matters worse, but I do want to highlight the Prime Minister’s misplaced belief that the Conservatives alone caused this widespread public disaffection.

We Conservatives certainly deserve our fair share of the blame but, if we are to address the cause of public distrust, the Labour Party must also acknowledge its role in creating this sorry state, as should all sides of this House. Trust nosedived in the years after 2016 because of our collective reaction to the public’s verdict on our collective failures as a political class. If campaigning for a second referendum and frustrating Brexit legislation was not bad enough, Labour, the Lib Dems, many Cross-Benchers, the Bishops and even some of my noble friends sought to frustrate and dilute legislation designed to control immigration and strengthen our borders, which flew in the face of what the majority had voted for.

In every one of the five Sessions of Parliament after the 2017 general election, this House defeated the Conservative Government in more than 60% of Divisions. In four out of five of those Sessions, the rate of government defeats almost topped 70%. That was unprecedented. I know that there were some improvements to Bills because of this House’s scrutiny and that it is not the role of the House of Lords to make life easier for the Government of the day, whichever party is in power. But it is the role of this House of Lords not to add to the public’s impression that they are being condescended to and looked down on by a bunch of unelected elites. As much as it pains me to say so, that is how we appeared to many of the people we exist to serve.

What is ironic, bearing in mind what we are discussing, is that in the Division Lobbies, the majority of hereditary Peers voted in step with the public on Brexit and immigration. Contrary to Labour’s description of them as indefensible, based on their actions—which is how I was brought up to judge people who were born different from me—the viscounts, earls and hereditary barons of this House were the only category of Peers that the majority of the British people could rely on for their support.

This brings me to the Government’s proposed interim reforms of this House while an elected second Chamber remains a promise on the never-never. I personally have little objection to a retirement age, and I am all for us doing more to remove any Peer who does not pull their weight. However, I have concerns about a participation requirement because it risks either being meaningless or creating perverse incentives. Giving the House of Lords Appointments Commission more powers over prime ministerial nominations worries me because anything in that direction would dilute yet further democratic accountability.

As to removing the remaining hereditary Peers, as a democrat I accept that the Government have a mandate to do that and, if they succeed, no future Government will reverse their removal. But not only will their departure not improve our democratic deficit, none of the Government’s proposed measures to reform the House of Lords will make any difference to what really matters in the eyes of the public. Indeed, they add up to displacement activity without meaningful change to how we go about some of our business.

The electorate deserve respect and for their legitimate demands to be taken seriously, especially when the majority of Peers disagree. They need to know that we will apply our best efforts to meeting their objectives, not our own. That is the real democratic deficit that exists between Parliament and the public we serve, and it is the problem they need us to fix. Addressing it is how this House can contribute to democracy and secure its own future for the long term.