House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Earl of Devon Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 9th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Devon (CB)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson. I applaud his efforts to formalise the procedure regarding the determination of peerage claims, which I broadly support.

I shall speak to the two amendments in my name in this group, Amendments 25 and 27, which seek to ensure equality in that process. They would address gender parity in hereditary peerages once Clause 2 of this Bill for ever ends our jurisdiction to determine such claims. As I explained in Committee, equality of succession is an issue about which I care deeply, both for personal reasons and because it is a principle that Earls of Devon have championed since our inception.

Given the late hour, your Lordships will be pleased to hear that I am sparing the House my stories of the Empress Matilda and Queen Mary I, in the service of whom the earldom was first earned, then lost and recovered. We were addressing and fighting real Henry VIII powers in those days, not the fantasy ones we talk about today. Nearly 500 years later, there is still so much work to do on gender parity and I would be failing in my inherited duty if I did not pursue these amendments. I had hoped to change the law to remove the deeply embedded discrimination in the vast majority of hereditary titles, while I enjoyed the privilege of a seat in your Lordships’ House, but that is no longer possible with my pending abolition. The best that I can therefore offer is these two amendments.

Amendment 25 directs the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council to exercise the functions that this Bill transfers to it in a non-discriminatory manner. Amendment 27, which I am minded to push to a vote, requires the Secretary of State to consult on the challenges that the JCPC faces in doing that and to recommend legislative changes accordingly. When we debated similar amendments in Committee, the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General generously indicated that the Government approved the rationale of these amendments. He stated that the Government very much share my

“unease at the inequality baked in to so many hereditary peerages”.—[Official Report, 25/3/25; col. 1558.]

However, he raised a number of specific objections to the form of the amendments as originally drafted, not least the unconstitutional burdens that they placed upon the JCPC. I have taken those form objections on board and revised the proposed amendments, in the faint hope that the Government will accept them this time around. I fear that they may not, and that the Minister will probably revert to the Government’s oft-stated objections that this Bill is not the place to address the question of female succession, that they are not minded to amend the Bill in any form and that the issues raised are far too complex for us to address in this or any other legislation.

The Government are wrong, for a number of reasons. First, this is exactly the Bill in which to address the exercise of jurisdiction over hereditary succession, as it is the Bill that removes that power once and for all from your Lordships. If we do not legislate for gender parity in this Bill, Parliament is proactively passing to the JCPC a power and jurisdiction that all agree to be discriminatory, validating and therefore approving the ongoing exclusion of women from hereditary titles. This Bill bakes in gender discrimination.

Secondly, this is the very last chance for hereditary Members of your Lordships’ House to opine on this issue before their abolition, and thus for Parliament to benefit from the views of those directly impacted by this deep-rooted cultural misogyny. It is also therefore highly likely to be the last time that anyone will be sufficiently motivated to pursue this issue. If we do not address it now, it will be left to fester as a stain on our national culture.

As to the complexity of this issue, Amendment 27 seeks to require the Secretary of State to consult and to review how principles of gender equality should be applied when determining such claims, and to recommend legislative solutions. Any complexities will be consulted on and remedies proposed. Just because the matter is complex does not mean that it should not be addressed. As I stated before, patriarchy puts up many barriers to its dismantlement, but that should not deter us. Noble Lords may recall that the Crown once passed under the principle of male-preference primogeniture. Indeed, it did so for centuries, until the law was changed in 2013 with the Succession to the Crown Act, which altered the method of royal succession to gender-neutral primogeniture. If we can do it for the Crown, with all the complex traditions, conventions and rights inherent therein, surely we can do the same for our simple hereditary peerage. It simply cannot be that complicated.

However, this issue goes much wider than the gender of those who succeed to hereditary titles, as it is a point of general and important principle. Since the debate in Committee, in which a number of noble Lords spoke in support of my amendments, I have been contacted by an array of campaigners for equal rights, who have pointed out that our country will never have gender parity while we preserve privilege and property rights within the upper reaches of our society only for men. Those who campaign tirelessly to end violence against women and gender-based discrimination of all types note that, if we are unwilling to remove gender discrimination everywhere, we will never remove it anywhere.

By passing the Bill with Clause 2 unamended, this Government, who, allegedly, are committed to the principle of gender equality, are simply condoning gender-based discrimination at the top of our society, in effect, saying that it is okay to deny women the right to bear titles and the property rights, privileges and status inherent therein, solely on account of their gender. Is that really what the Government stand for?

As stated, I am minded therefore to test the opinion of the House on Amendment 27. It is a modest amendment that simply calls for a report into the application of gender equality. It may be that this is a quixotic campaign and that I am tilting at windmills to call a vote so late at night on the last day we debate the Bill, but if we do not seek to make a change now, it will never happen and the hereditary system will for ever remain biased. I will reflect on the debate before determining whether to move the amendment to a vote, and I particularly look forward to the Minister’s response. I once more challenge the Government to be brave, to channel Baldwin, the first Earl of Devon, who stood up for the rights of women to succeed and to lead. Please support these amendments. After 900 years, it is about time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

With Parliament. I am glad to be able to assist, even at this hour.

I turn to the points made by the noble Earl, Lord Devon. The noble Earl has raised an important point that was touched on in Committee by my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General. Noble Lords will not be surprised that the Government’s approach has not changed on this issue since Committee, and I will briefly reiterate the rationale for that. While I am sympathetic to the noble Earl’s concerns, as is the Lord Privy Seal, the Bill deals only with the membership of this House. The Leader of the House has written to him to explain some of the complexities of addressing that.

[The Earl of Devon (CB)]

The Bill addresses the determination of hereditary peerages and transfers that power to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, so it is not accurate to say that it addresses only membership of your Lordships’ House.

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

I am not sure that I completely agree with the noble Earl but, in order to continue at this point and to give him the answers that he seeks from the Government, I am going to move forward. As I was about to say, my personal view is that those complexities should not stop us addressing the issue, but it is not an issue for this Bill, which is about membership of your Lordships’ House.

I note that Amendment 25 has been refined by the noble Earl since Committee, but it still seeks to assert how the Judicial Committee should exercise its jurisdiction.

On Amendment 27, while the Government may consult on how the principles of gender equality should apply to determining hereditary peerage claims, without legislative changes the law as it stands distinguishes between sexes, as the noble Earl is clearly aware, in the case of succession to hereditary titles, and it is the duty of the courts to give effect to it. As I have said, that is something that many Members in both Houses, including me, are not comfortable with, but I do not believe that to be a matter for this Bill. The role of the courts is to apply the law, and in doing so they treat all litigants equally. However, the law itself distinguishes between sexes, as the noble Earl is clearly aware, and in the case of succession to regulatory titles it is the duty of the courts to give effect to it.

In summary, the amendment on peerage claims is unnecessary and the amendments on primogeniture are not for this Bill. I therefore respectfully request that the noble Lord withdraws his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Dundee (Con)]

My Lords, within this grouping, Amendment 26 would enable a review of the impact of this Act on the ability of the House of Lords to scrutinise legislation and hold the Government to account.

Your Lordships will agree that the membership composition of a reformed House must sustain and continue the high legislative scrutiny standard of the present House, and thus, conversely, that future membership composition should be designed to serve that priority aim.

If, within the temporal membership of a reformed House of 600, the political Members were to be 450, the non-political representation appointed either by HOLAC or by Parliament itself would then be 150 Cross-Bench Peers.

As a result, within that total of 600 temporal Members, respective proportions could then become: the government and opposition parties at 175 political members each; next, the independent, non-political Cross-Benchers at 150; and, next, all other political parties at 100.

These respective proportions would then provide a good balance for sustaining and carrying out our present high standard of legislative scrutiny in a reformed House.

Your Lordships may well additionally consider that, rather than direct public elections, indirect elections of 450 political Members would, in the first place, the better ensure continuity of high standards of legislative scrutiny.

That is because direct elections of 450 political Members would instead lead to conflict and jockeying for position between the House of Commons and a reformed House of Lords.

In Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, the Leader of the House, favoured parity of numbers between the government and opposition parties, such as perhaps 175 each; while the Leader of the Opposition, my noble friend Lord True, observed that each of the Government and Opposition should have more political Members than the Cross-Benchers would have non-political Members, such as maybe reflecting an appropriate respective ratio of 175 for each of the government and main opposition party to 150 for non-political Cross Bench membership.

Also in Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent, pointed out in particular that a reformed House must be properly representative of the regions and nations of the UK; and that, in general, the public ought to be consulted on different options for House of Lords reform.

Does the Minister therefore concur that a key option to be put forward for public approval or otherwise should be the implied prescriptions of Amendment 26?

These comprise, first, that the high standard of legislative scrutiny demonstrated by the present House should continue in a reformed House; if so, and secondly, that indirect elections would assist that purpose better than direct elections.

Thirdly, that also assisting this aim is parity of numbers between the government and main opposition parties at perhaps 175 each; fourthly, that equally sustaining legislative scrutiny quality as well is the inclusion of independent non-political Cross-Benchers at 150, thus at one-third of all temporal and political members at 450. I beg to move.

[The Earl of Devon (CB)]

My Lords, it is always a privilege to follow the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, and it is nice to see Devon and Dundee legislating until the end.

I will speak to Amendment 28 in my name. It once more considers whether the name “House of Lords” remains appropriate once we have removed the hereditary Lords from these red Benches.

Over recent months, during the passage of this Bill, we have heard from all sides of this House how indefensible is the hereditary principle within a modern parliamentary democracy. We have heard criticism of hereditary Peers, their predominantly male gender and their relatively privileged birth, and heard particular disparagement of their feudal roots. Mine has been one the few voices raised in defence of the indefensible, but, if we are to accept, as reluctantly I do, that the 1,000 years or so of hereditary presence within our legislature should draw to a close, should we not remove the gendered, privileged and feudal name of the House itself?

I am concerned that, in keeping the name “House of Lords”, along with its aristocratic nomenclature and the traditions and pretentions that go with it, we are removing the best bits—the hereditary Members of your Lordships’ House, who contribute so much—and keeping the worst bits: namely, the gendered, discriminatory name and intentions. As the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, stated in Committee,

“Words have power and names shape perceptions”.—[Official Report, 25/3/25; cols. 1554-55.]


The noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General criticised my citation of a dictionary reference for “Lord”, suggesting it could do with some updating. In preparation for this debate, I therefore consulted the Oxford English Dictionary, which confirms the definition of a Lord as a title of nobility or high rank often associated with land ownership and power, particularly in feudal contexts. It can also refer to a man who has achieved mastery or leadership in a particular field, or can be used as a term of respect. In Christianity, Lord is a title for God or Christ—in other words, a deity. Given that names shape perception, and the disparity that has been noted throughout Report between the excellent work that takes place in this House and the terrible public opinion we suffer, should we not be looking at the departure of the hereditary Peers—the Lords, as the Oxford English Dictionary defines them—as an opportunity for a rebrand? Surely it provides the perfect chance to step away from the negative associations of nobility and high rank with land and power; an opportunity to remove the rich aroma of feudal and patriarchal privilege that pervades many aspects of this venerable institution.

[Lord True (Con)]

I am enjoying listening to the noble Earl, although I find it hard to forgive the fact that his collateral ancestors participated in the deplorable and bogus Latin Empire of Constantinople. Some of us remember that, so he should be careful.

On a serious point, we heard earlier the great scale of confusion on the Benches opposite at the different uses of the word “Lord”. Has the noble Earl considered that a better argument for his amendment—which would appeal to the confused elements on the other side who we heard from earlier—is that it would help lift the confusion on the Labour Benches?

[The Earl of Devon (CB)]

I am very grateful to the noble Lord for his intervention, and I agree. There are many reasons why the nomenclature that we use is very significant. Perhaps, by way of concession, this issue of nomenclature could be considered by the special Select Committee that is being established to consider the constitution of your Lordships’ House. On that basis, and with that invitation to address the issue, I commend my amendment to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[The Earl of Devon]

27: After Clause 2, insert the following new Clause—
“Report: principles of gender equality(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the day on which this Act comes into force, undertake a consultation on how principles of gender equality should be applied when determining hereditary peerage claims which were formerly determined by the House of Lords.(2) The Secretary of State must publish a report following the conclusion of the consultation which must address—(a) the expectations of existing heirs;(b) heirs born to unmarried parents;(c) families with adopted children.”Member’s explanatory statement
In the light of the fact that hereditary peerages often pass to eldest sons, this amendment requires that the Secretary of State must, within six months of the commencement of this Act, consult on how principles of gender equality should be applied when determining hereditary peerage claims.

[The Earl of Devon (CB)]

My Lords, given that so many have remained until this stage of the evening, I would hate to disappoint, as well as given how many resounding words of support I heard for my Amendment 27 when we debated it, including I think from the Government Front Bench. On that basis, I would like to test the opinion of the House on Amendment 27.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Earl of Devon Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 2nd July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howard of Rising (Con)]

My Lords, what an honour to follow on from my noble friend Lord Roberts, to whose amendment I have added my name. There is little I could possibly add to the noble Lord’s excellent remarks, so I will not waste your Lordships’ time in repeating the same arguments in a rather less erudite fashion. However, I emphasise that the Earl Marshal and the Lord Great Chamberlain are two essential components of the framework within which this country is governed. It will be a bad day for our Government if the holders of these offices are no longer able to carry out their duties freely and without impediment.

[The Earl of Devon (CB)]

My Lords, I will briefly address Amendment 1 and will ask a couple of specific questions related to the Earl Marshal and the Lord Great Chamberlain.

First, in closing, can the noble Baroness the Leader of the House please confirm what discussions she might have had to confirm that their ceremonial roles will remain wholly unchanged following the passage of the Bill? As the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, stated, we owe them a huge debt of gratitude for their remarkable service during the recent succession of King Charles III.

Secondly, has anyone either proposing or opposing this amendment actually consulted with the present holders of these two high offices of state? I spoke this morning with the Earl Marshal; he was happy for me to confirm to the House that he insists upon his continued service in the role of Earl Marshal but does not think that a seat in this House should be reserved for his hereditary self. Perhaps it could be made available to someone of a more diverse background, he suggested. For hereditaries, our time, unfortunately, is up. We should perhaps accept that and go gracefully, albeit a bit reluctantly.

[Lord Moore of Etchingham (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I put my name to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, and I did so because although it seems like a small point, it is part of a bigger point.

I am afraid the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, is mistaken in thinking that the Lord Great Chamberlain is here because of his ceremonial duties; it is quite the other way around. The ceremonial duties have emerged over time from the fundamental duties of the Lord Great Chamberlain, who—this is a very practical point about this amendment—has a great many practical duties.

Those duties include: the organisation of great occasions within Westminster Hall; joint responsibility for the control of Westminster Hall and the crypt chapel; the organisation when important Heads of State visit, such as President Macron next week; the sole responsibility for the monarch’s Robing Room, staircase, anteroom and the Royal Gallery; the ballot for the State Opening, which requires a certain amount of tact in its management; and correspondence with individuals and organisations relating to the Palace of Westminster. Those are all practical things. We need to ask ourselves whether, if the Lord Great Chamberlain were to be removed from this place, they would be so well accomplished. If they would not be so well accomplished, what other possible advantage could there be in removing them?

It is true that the Earl Marshal’s role is much more purely ceremonial; I will come back to that in a moment.

It should be obvious that the performance of these tasks is best fulfilled by a full Member of your Lordships’ House. The Lord Great Chamberlain needs to know the people here: our hopes and fears, our conventions, rules and traditions, and, of course, our quirks. It is very nice and encouraging that the present Lord Great Chamberlain is often visible in this Chamber, observing the habits of the tribe of which he is a member. I do not see how it could be done better any other way. If he cannot sit here, it is inevitable that his personal knowledge of the place will decline and, of course, his successor will have no such personal knowledge.

I very much endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, said about the restoration and renewal project. It is a very complicated project, and it is important that the Lord Great Chamberlain is able to do his job in representing the interests of the monarch on these matters. In doing so, he needs to understand what we all think, so that he can say something which reflects reality. His fundamental role is to maintain the crucial and historic link between the monarchy and Parliament. I think we can trust him when he represents the monarch’s interests here, because he is one of us; we can feel, if you like, that we have a friend at court. So what good comes of fraying that link?

On the role of the Earl Marshal, most of the points made about our connection with the monarchy apply to him as well. But I just want to mention something else, because this is not the first time that the Earls Marshal has been removed from this House, and it is quite interesting what actually happened—it tells us something. As is well known, the Dukes of Norfolk are hereditarily almost always Roman Catholics, and as such, they continued to hold their place under tolerant monarchs in the past. But Parliament was not so tolerant, and from 1672 until 1824, the Dukes of Norfolk were excluded from this House but continued to be Earls Marshal. This created considerable inconvenience in which they had to create deputy Earls Marshal to do the necessary work here, and they got around it in the rather traditional way of the aristocracy, particularly in those days, by appointing their Protestant cousins to the post.

In 1824, a Bill was brought in to change that and allow the Catholic Norfolks to come back into this House. It was a rather important Bill in the history of this country, because it was the forerunner of the Catholic emancipation Act, which, thanks to the ancestor of the noble Duke who is sitting beside me—who rather surprisingly took a very modernising view and said he would resign if it did not get through—Catholic emancipation came in, and so did a whole series of emancipations in the 19th century, which changed the franchise, the qualifications for university and for all sorts of public roles, and so on. So it is rather important.

I was slightly sorry to hear the noble Earl, Lord Devon, quoting the current Earl Marshal saying that more diversity should be encouraged, because, actually, the Norfolks brought great diversity in the 19th century. They were the Catholic voice in this House at a time when it was virtually not allowed. Is it not rather strange that, in this 21st century, when we talk about the importance of diversity and inclusion, we are now trying to kick out the Roman Catholic Norfolks from this Parliament and narrow in some sense the work that we are doing?

--- Later in debate ---

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

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, for an erudite and entertaining speech. His amendment is similar to one that was tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, in Committee. I think the cries of “Front Bench”, which we do not hear too often, were made in eagerness to hear the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord True. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Rising. He came to see me about this matter, and I am grateful for that discussion, which was very helpful. Looking at the comments that have been made, I can satisfy noble Lords on some points, but there is one particular point on which I cannot, which I will come to.

This is something that has arisen many times during the passage of this Bill. I completely recognise the important roles played by noble Lords in those offices and the historic link between the monarch and the second Chamber. However, the point remains that in order to fulfil their functions and responsibilities they do not need to speak in the Chamber or to vote.

The noble Lord, Lord Roberts, is right that it would be appalling to suggest that they would have to queue up at the Pass Office or seek permission every time they come in. I can give him the categorical assurance that that will not happen, now or in the future. The commission has agreed that both office holders have access rights on the Parliamentary Estate. They will be able to perform their duties as they do now and engage with Members as they do now. That includes the ability to sit on the steps of the Throne, to listen to debates, to access catering and to access the Library. That level of access will ensure that they can engage with Members. In no way should their responsibilities or their abilities to do that be fettered in any way. I can discuss with the House authorities the possibility of office space—there is no office space at the moment—in the House, if required.

I know that some noble Lords have voiced doubts and questioned whether both postholders, now or in the future, would have to come back to the commission each and every time. I reassure the House that that will not be the case. The commission has confirmed the position for current and future postholders, so they would not have to come back. There should not be any impediment to their fulfilling their responsibilities. I assured the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Rising, that I would make that commitment from the Dispatch Box and, as he requested, I am happy to do that.

To correct something that was said, the postholders will not be excluded from the House. They will be excluded from participating in the proceedings of the House but they will not be excluded from coming into the House, so I do not think that this amendment is necessary. There is certainly no criticism of the roles they play.

The noble Earl, Lord Devon, raised three points. I can satisfy him on two of them, but on one, I cannot. He asked what discussions have taken place. I have had at least one discussion with both postholders and probably more than that. He asked whether they have been consulted. Yes, they have, and there has been wider consultation. The point I cannot satisfy him on is the one raised by the Earl Marshal about more diversity. These are both hereditary roles, and they will continue to be hereditary roles. The position of Lord Great Chamberlain rotates through three hereditary positions so, in terms of diversity and inclusion, they will always have to be men at the moment. I know the noble Earl has particular interests and perhaps one day we can make some progress on that, but at present I cannot satisfy him on the diversity role because, as hereditary Peers, they will always be male.

[The Earl of Devon (CB)]

The point that I think the Earl Marshal was making was that the seat in the House that he might occupy would perhaps be open to more diverse occupants, not his role as Earl Marshal.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

That is a valid point. The Earl Marshal has been very clear that he is perfectly content with this.

I do not think this amendment is necessary. I assure the House that those postholders are essential. We will not in any way hamper or impede their ability to carry out their functions or their roles. The noble Lord, Lord True, made the point that we are grateful to them for doing that. They engage with Members of the House as well. I hope that, having heard the explanation and the assurances that I have been able to give, the noble Lord will be prepared to withdraw his amendment.

I want to add a more general point about issues that will come up in later debates. It is not entirely relevant to this amendment but, because so many of these issues are interconnected, I think it will be helpful to set the context to assist the House. Noble Lords are aware that, prior to the commencement of the Bill and throughout its passage, I have had more than 50 meetings, some as one-to-ones, others with much larger groups. I listened very carefully in those engagements and throughout Committee. Much of our discussions and debates have been on issues, such as this one, that were in the manifesto but are not in the Bill. I think the House is seeking reassurance that the plans for the next stage of reforms will not flounder and that the Government are serious about their intention for further reforms.

I have been greatly encouraged by support for two specific issues that have been mentioned many times and on which we have amendments later: retirement and participation. It has been 25 years since the first stage of this reform, and I think the House would be somewhat intolerant if we took another 25 years to bring anything further forward. We all value that this House is self-governing and I am keen that we take some ownership as a House in moving forward on other issues. I am sure we will discuss this issue further on other amendments.

I feel, having reflected on discussions and advice, that we need a formal, recognised process that is supported by the House. I have considered the mechanisms that we could use, and I have concluded that the best way forward would be to establish a dedicated Select Committee to look at those specific matters on which noble Lords have indicated that they are keen to make progress. I am open to discussing other mechanisms, but that is the way forward that I think may work the best.

Obviously, I will discuss this further with the usual channels before putting any such proposal to the House, but I hope that the House could set up such a committee within three months of the Bill gaining Royal Assent, and by this time next year it would be able to consider the committee’s findings. I am keen to see how quickly we can move on other issues as well without legislation, or prior to legislation, with a committee that could make those recommendations to the House. I say that at this stage to be of assistance to the House so that, when we get to those issues, the House has had time to consider them. In the meantime, I thank the noble Lord—not least for raising Andrew Marvell, perhaps one of my favourite poets—and ask him to withdraw his amendment.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Earl of Devon Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 2nd July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

I think we are in agreement. What I am in favour of is putting this in a statutory frame. I do not doubt that it is done in a discretionary manner, but I would like it to be statutory. I think it is a very slight difference between us, and I hope we will not fall out on the matter.

My second point—I feel sure that I will not have the agreement of the Front Bench here—I make as a permanent, paid-up member of the awkward squad, and it relates to the oath. It has been a long time since I took the oath of a privy counsellor. I did not take away a copy and I am not quite sure what it said. But I have been on the internet to have a careful look. What it actually says is that, when members of the Privy Council have a clear and informed view, they should vote and speak accordingly. I actually believe that is the duty of your Lordships—all of us. It certainly seems to be the duty of members of the Privy Council.

There are many matters—I now speak personally—on which I do not have a formed or an informed opinion. I like to think that they are the same. In respect of those matters, I am quite happy to take the guidance of the Front Bench. But then I ask myself: what is one’s duty when one has a formed and informed view? I think it is quite plain; it is to vote in accordance with one’s conscience and opinion. We are not echo chambers. This is not an echo chamber. We are not part of a chorus line; we are here to express an unfettered view in accordance with our settled opinion. I would like Members of the House to take an oath to that effect before they sit in this place. So when a member of the Whips’ Office comes along and says, “We want you to vote”, you would simply say, “My dear, I simply don’t agree with you and, what is more, I have sworn an oath that I will speak in accordance with my conscience”. That would be conclusive of the matter.

[The Earl of Devon (CB)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 19, in my sole name, which proposes the replenishment of the Cross Benches following the departure of the hereditary Peers with 20 appointments over five years via HOLAC, the House of Lords Appointments Commission, which is chaired so ably by the noble Baroness, Lady Deech.

Currently, there are 32 hereditary Peers sitting on the Cross Benches of your Lordships’ House—an increase in the years since I joined, when I believe there were 28 hereditary Cross-Benchers. No group will be greater impacted by the impending removal of the hereditary presence. Unlike other groupings within the House, the Cross Benches do not speak with a single voice, despite being so ably convened by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and his illustrious predecessors, nor do we have any political or parliamentary machinery with which to lobby for replacements to ensure the relative proportion of the Cross Benches remains consistent after the passage of the Bill.

Contemporary political scientists and commentators —and, after this afternoon’s debate, I think the majority of your Lordships—consider that the expert, independent and ameliorating presence of the Cross Benches in this House is an essential element of its good legislative function. The Cross Benches provide considerable subject matter expertise not found on the more political Benches and tend to carry an apolitical casting vote that acts as a dampener to the political noise that emanates from the other place and is echoed here through the party-political Benches. We mess with that tempering role at our peril. I would ask the Minister to explain clearly in her closing speech how the Government propose to ensure that the Cross Benches of your Lordships’ House will not be diminished as a result of this legislation.

Your Lordships may recall that we debated this in Committee with Amendment 51, to which the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, and the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, added their names. The noble Lord, Lord Anderson, apologises that he cannot be here today, but he reiterated his support when we spoke this morning. He previously noted the importance of HOLAC and the people’s Peers process as a means of admitting distinguished and apolitical expertise to your Lordships’ House. The angels of HOLAC would not gain access by any other means. Think of the contributions of the noble Baronesses, Lady Grey-Thompson, Lady Lane- Fox, Lady Bull, Lady Watkins and the indefatigable Lady Kidron—the champion of our creative industries. Think of the tireless work of many noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Krebs, Lord Pannick, Lord Patel, Lord Currie and Lord Adebowale. None would have been here but for HOLAC.

Amendment 19 would ensure that your Lordships’ House continues to benefit from this HOLAC appointments process, which is particularly important given the dramatic decrease in the number of HOLAC appointments in recent years. To reiterate the numbers referenced in Committee, there were 57 appointments during HOLAC’s first 10 years between 2000 and 2010. Since then, there have been only a further 19 appointments, with six since 2018.

[Baroness Browning (Con)]

As a former member of HOLAC, I wonder if I might intervene briefly. In the term in which I served on HOLAC, we would have liked to have introduced two or three Cross-Bench Peers a year, which had normally been the case. I am afraid that we were prevented from doing so by the Prime Minister of the day.

[The Earl of Devon (CB)]

That is very helpful, because I was going to propose a possible number. As I was saying: in other words, from initially making nearly six HOLAC appointments a year, we now have only one such appointment annually.

Despite having a non-partisan, highly qualified appointments commission, we are simply not making use of it. Given that this Government are determined to honour the constitutional commitments of the Blair years with the Bill’s passage and the final abolition of the hereditary peerage, should they not also honour the Blair Government’s connected commitment to HOLAC and permit the replenishment of the Cross Benches in the way proposed by Amendment 19, which would ensure a modest appointment rate of perhaps four people’s Peers per annum?

As I have previously noted, I do not think that hereditary Peers should be converted into life Peers in any significant number. Amendment 9 should not pass. This is because our particular demographic will remain well overrepresented among the remaining Members of your Lordships’ House. I do not therefore see Amendment 19 as a route for abolished hereditaries to return to these seats, albeit that they would be welcome to apply with anybody else as common citizens. Rather, we should take advantage of the removal of the hereditary presence to increase the diversity of our membership and bring a broader array of expertise and opinion to bear upon your Lordships’ legislative efforts.

As I understood it—and as mentioned earlier—one of the main reasons for retaining a rump of hereditaries back in 1999 was that it would encourage the further reform of this House, leaving it better, not worse, as a legislative body. I am concerned that the Bill, as currently drafted, removes a group of largely independent-minded Members and increases the proportion of Members that are politically motivated. Amendment 19 would reverse that and replenish the House with a group of non-partisan and technically expert Members. It also has the benefit of diluting, if only a little, the relative increase in prime ministerial patronage that will result from the loss of hereditary Peers, which must surely be a good thing.

On that basis, I recommend it to your Lordships and look forward to hearing from the Minister why it cannot be adopted to support the continued and essential vibrancy of our Cross Benches.

[The Earl of Dundee (Con)]

My Lords, in this grouping I support Amendment 6, proposed by my noble friend Lord Hailsham.

Your Lordships will agree that the membership composition of a reformed House must sustain and continue the high legislative scrutiny standard of the present House—and thus, conversely, that future membership composition should be designed to serve this priority aim.

If, within the temporal membership of a reformed House of 600, the political numbers were to be 450, the non-political representation appointed by HOLAC would then be 150 Cross-Bench Peers.

As a result, within that total of 600, respective proportions could then become: the government and opposition parties at 175 political Members each; next, the independent non-political Cross-Benchers at 150; and, next, all other political parties at 100.

These respective proportions would then provide a good balance for sustaining and continuing our present high standard of legislative scrutiny.

However, regarding life peerages conferred on independent non-political Cross-Bench life Peers within a reformed House—and as my noble friend Lord Hailsham emphasises—in the first place it must be HOLAC and not the Prime Minister of the day who recommends these appointments to the King.

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

My Lords, in view of the lateness of the hour, I will be very brief. I will say out of an abundance of caution that I will not test the opinion of the House. However, I think there is a very strong case for introducing peerages for a limited period and a retirement period. There are two reasons for that.

First, membership of this House needs to be refreshed, otherwise you get inflationary numbers of an intolerable degree. My two proposals, of a retirement age and limited peerage duration, address that. If one is honest about this, one’s experience decays over a period of time. When I first came into the House, I knew rather a lot about criminal law. That was about 15 years ago, and I knew a great deal more when I went into the House of Commons in 1979. But one’s knowledge changes and, while I have an understanding of the general principles of criminal law, I do not pretend I have the expertise I previously did. So my first point is that one’s expertise declines.

Secondly, many of the issues one is wholly conversant with have changed. When I first came into Parliament, we knew nothing about transgender, artificial intelligence was wholly unknown and we did not have to worry about the internet. But now we have to regulate and debate the application of these matters to try to regulate AI, social media and debate transgender in a sensible way. It is much easier for those who are more conversant with these issues than my generation are to address them. That requires, in part, a refreshing of the membership of this House. For those reasons, I see merit in a retirement age and limiting the period for which peerages are created. So I beg to move but, as I said, I will not be testing the opinion of the House.

[The Earl of Devon (CB)]

My Lords, I too see the benefits of a retirement age and therefore will speak briefly to Amendment 20 in my name, which is a variation on that theme. Whereas the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, proposes a retirement age of 85 in Amendment 7, my Amendment 20 is somewhat simpler. It proposes the introduction, only for newly appointed life Peers, of a retirement age of 80 or of a date 10 years after the Member’s introduction to the House, whichever is later.

Amendment 20 would thereby give effect to the Labour Party’s manifesto commitment to introduce a mandatory retirement age of 80. However, it would also introduce an important allowance for those who join your Lordships’ House after the age of 70. This is an important distinction, as it would do away with an arbitrary 80 year-old age limit and ensure that those such as serving Supreme Court justices, whose period of public service has a retirement age of 75, will be able to enjoy at least a full decade of service in your Lordships’ House, irrespective of the age at which they are appointed.

Noble Lords may recall the probing amendments in Committee from the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, and his excellent speeches introducing them, along with the famous Blencathra Excel spreadsheets calculating the impacts of various retirement ages. He noted that a retirement age of 80, if implemented immediately, would have a draconian effect on numbers in your Lordships’ House, removing up to some 327 Members. My Amendment 20 avoids that guillotine, as well as the organisational shock that would result therefrom, by imposing the age limit only on the newly appointed life Peers appointed under the Life Peerages Act 1958.

This would ensure that we do not instantly lose the valuable institutional wisdom among our more experienced Members, and it would not impact any current life Peers. Amendment 20 would thus fulfil Labour’s manifesto while tempering the age-based guillotine—at least for our existing Members—and gently introducing a retirement age that certainly seemed to find favour with the majority of those present in Committee who expressed an opinion. On that basis, I recommend it to your Lordships and look forward to the response from the Leader of the House, particularly in light of the indication she gave earlier that there may be a Select Committee convened to consider just this topic.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to support Amendment 20, which was ably proposed by the noble Earl, Lord Devon. Let me remind the House again of the commitment in the Labour Party manifesto:

“Labour will … introduce a mandatory retirement age. At the end of the Parliament in which a member reaches 80 years of age, they will be required to retire from the House”.


The next sentence says that Labour

“will introduce a new participation requirement as well as strengthening the circumstances in which disgraced members can be removed”.

As the noble Earl, Lord Devon, so kindly pointed out, in Committee I attempted to help the Government by putting down a number of amendments on retirement ages, giving the House three options of retiring Peers at the age of 80, 85 or 90. A retirement age of 80 would have removed 327 Peers, which was far too draconian. I think that is why the Labour Party suddenly dropped the proposed retirement age of 80—it realised it would lose 95 of its own number. A retirement age of 90 would remove just 16 Peers and would not be worth it. A retirement age of 85 would remove about 185 Peers, and I think there was quite a bit of consensus in the House that that figure was about right. The noble Earl, Lord Devon, then made this refinement, which makes a lot of sense and is a vast improvement on my suggestions. I think he also had the support of the noble Lords, Lord Cromwell and Lord Burns, and the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull—I hope I am not doing them a disservice by misquoting them.

I have not tried the patience of the House by tabling those amendments again tonight, but I suggest that the solution to the objections we will hear from the Government at the end of this debate explaining why we cannot do this lies in my Amendment 14 in the next group, which I will elaborate on then. The Government will reject these amendments—and next week will probably reject Amendment 18 from the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, on non-attendance—on the grounds that they are too complicated for primary legislation, that there are a lot of loose ends still to be tied up, that there are unforeseen consequences, that we must consult goodness knows how many people and organisations before we legislate and, of course, that there must never be any amendments to this sacred Bill, no matter how meritorious.

Apart from the last two bogus points, there is merit in the Government’s arguments. We do not have the minutiae of how a retirement scheme at about 80, with amendments and tweaks, would work. Would it be on a Peer’s birthday or at the end of the Session or the Parliament? As for consultation, I submit that there is not any single person or organisation who knows the slightest thing about the retirement of Peers compared with all the current Peers in this House. We are the people to be consulted. I accept that we do not have the minutiae of retirement provisions ready to put in the Bill or any primary legislation.

--- Later in debate ---

The two amendments take slightly different approaches but seek to do the same thing. They have a term limit and a retirement age. The noble Earl suggests a term limit of 10 years and a retirement age of 80; my noble friend suggests a term limit of 15 years and a retirement age of 85.

[The Earl of Devon (CB)]

I should note that the term limit I propose is only for those who join the House after the age of 70.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

I thank the noble Earl for the clarification. On the difference in ages, neither outlined why they had selected the ages that they chose, but I note that the noble Earl remains, until August, a member of the under-50s club in your Lordships’ House and I congratulate my noble friend Lord Hailsham on his 80th birthday this February.

These are matters that the House or the Select Committee will have to consider carefully in the light of the very wise comments of the noble Lord, Lord Winston. We are an ageing society and hope that we will all live many years longer and be able to contribute to civic life, family life and many other things in different ways. It is inherently arbitrary. My noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern was mentioned and the noble Lord, Lord Winston, is a great example of somebody in his mid-80s still playing a very active part in your Lordships’ House. I responded to the debate on VE Day, when we were all moved to have among us the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, who is very active in your Lordships’ House in his 90s and a living reminder of some of the things this country and others have been through. It is very valuable to have people of all ages in your Lordships’ House.

The other significant difference between the two amendments is that the noble Earl’s would apply only to new entrants to your Lordships’ House. Following on from debates that we have had, can the noble Baroness the Leader of the House say something about her attitude to participation thresholds and retirement ages? Does she envisage those applying to current Members of the House or to new entrants? She was opposed to grandfather rights for people who are here as hereditary Peers, but would she afford grandfather rights to those here over the age of 80 presently who came to your Lordships’ House with a certain understanding and who have arranged their lives, houses and so forth on the expectation that they would play a full part until they choose to retire? If the hereditary Peers are to find their basis here changed at the end of the Session, should the same apply on the basis of age?

I note what the noble Baroness said in an earlier group about the Select Committee and we are grateful for that information. She said that she would discuss it in the usual channels and I appreciate that there are details to be ironed out, but can she say a bit more about her thinking on its composition? What would the party breakdown be? How many Cross-Benchers might there be? Would there be a mixture of hereditary and life colleagues? Obviously there would be no hereditaries if it is set up after Royal Assent, but might former hereditary Members be able to play a role in its work? Who should chair it? From which party or none would they come? Would Bishops sit on it?

The noble Baroness said a little about timeframes and hoped that the Select Committee could be set up within three months of this Bill achieving Royal Assent, although she was a little less ambitious on the conclusion of its work. She said:

“It has been 25 years since the first stage of this reform, and I think the House would be somewhat intolerant if we took another 25 years to bring anything further forward”.


I know that that is a figure of speech, but would the Select Committee report in this Session? If the work was not completed in this Parliament, could the Select Committee be carried over into future Parliaments?

I appreciate that this is flurry of questions, even by my standards. However, what the noble Baroness said earlier begs a number of questions about how this Select Committee is going to be constituted, how it will work, and how it can really deliver on the points that my noble friend Lord Hailsham, the noble Earl and others have touched on in this group. I look forward to her response.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Earl of Devon Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 25th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Inglewood (CB)]

My Lords, this is a probing amendment. What I am suggesting is a stalking horse, so the detail is not important other than to engender discussion and debate. It is the reasons which lie behind it that matter. Dr Johnson, that quintessential Englishman, was clear when he said:

“Depend upon it, sir, when a man knows he is to be hanged in a fortnight, it concentrates his mind wonderfully”.


And so I have been thinking.

Looking back to the last time the House considered the matters we are discussing now, some 25 years ago, I find that some things are similar but others are not. In particular, the wider political context is vastly changed. At that time, we were all basking in the glow of the collapse of the Berlin Wall and its political and emotional consequences. Now, sadly, it is all very different. Since those heady days, a great shadow has fallen across the globe. Democracy, freedom and the rule of law have lost at least some of their appeal and popularity, and with it some of their resonance and potency. They have been replaced all around the world by new personalities, new policies, and new political approaches and priorities which are greatly at variance with our national traditions and values. The concept of “good chaps” from the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, then generally accepted across the political spectrum here in this country, is at best questioned and at worst dismissed in some quarters.

As I thought about the implications of the Bill in a wider context against this background, it became apparent to me how potentially fragile some of our constitutional arrangements might be. Members of the Committee should forget about the Salisbury/Addison convention and rather focus on the Parliament Acts. In raw political terms, an unscrupulous and determined Government with a big majority of seats in the House of Commons—which we know does not necessarily require as huge a number of votes in the country as one might expect, under the rules of our existing electoral system— could, in pretty short order, completely alter the entire composition of the second Chamber or even abolish it entirely, as happened under the Commonwealth.

I know from my time on the Constitutional Affairs Committee in the European Parliament that many countries deal with this kind of possibility through differential systems of voting, referenda and/or super- majorities as forms of checks and balances. We know that we do not do things quite like that here, but we have a provision in the Parliament Acts which excludes from their scope proposals to extend the life of Parliament. For the future, once this Bill will have become law, it seems sensible to me to envisage an amendment which would extend this rule to proposals to change the composition of the second Chamber and/or to abolish it. Under this approach, the House of Lords itself would become the check and balance of last resort.

I tried to table such an amendment, but it was ruled out of scope by the clerks, and this is the best I was allowed to table, the wording of which, on my own admission, is inadequate and is merely a peg upon which this wider important topic can be discussed. I hasten to add that I have done this for exactly the same reason that I insure my house against fire. It is not that I am expecting my house to burn down—on the contrary—but were it to do so, the consequences would be dire and very difficult to deal with without having taken out an insurance policy previously.

Finally, let us remember that the phrase “It just couldn’t happen here” is weasel words and is frequently the first step on the road to political disaster. I may well be accused of setting a hare running. I hope I have, and I hope it will run and run.

[The Earl of Devon (CB)]

My Lords, I shall speak to three amendments in this group. Amendments 91 and 94, in my name, seek to address gender equality in hereditary peerages once Clause 2 of this Bill ends for ever your Lordships’ ancient jurisdiction to determine peerage claims. Amendment 97 considers whether the name “the House of Lords”, with its inherently gendered, privileged and feudal connotations, remains appropriate once the gendered, privileged and feudal hereditary Lords have left. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hannan of Kingsclere, and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Llanfaes, who have added their names to Amendment 97.

Equality of succession to hereditary peerages is an issue I care about deeply. I had hoped we might change the law to remove this discriminatory patriarchal anomaly while I was here, but that now appears unlikely, given this Bill. The best we can do is require the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, to which peerage claim jurisdiction now moves, to exercise its functions in a non-discriminatory manner and to consult on the challenges posed thereby.

Throughout the debate on the hereditary peerage, we have been assailed for our gender. Since the Countess of Mar departed, we have indeed all been male, and it is right that we should not reserve seats in Parliament for a predominately male cohort. However, the equitable solution is not to abolish us due to our gender but to change succession laws to alter our gender. It is discriminatory to critique us for a protected characteristic over which we have no control while refusing to allow us to change the law. These amendments are our last hope of dragging the hereditary peerage into modern times and establishing equality at the heart of British society. Once we leave your Lordships’ House, I think no one will care.

Here, I note my interest as the Earl of Devon. I am the 37th man to have held that title. There has been one woman, Countess Isabella, the last Queen of the Wight—an example of powerful feudal female leadership. The title was most recently restored in Tudor times, since when it passes exclusively to all heirs male. My grandfather, my father and I each grew up as the only brother among multiple sisters, poster boys for male primogeniture. The youngest of four, I was uncomfortable that my gender charted my life. That my mother “would have gone to any lengths” to have a son was a phrase that echoed somewhat awkwardly through my childhood, particularly given the prominence in our home of the portrait of the ninth Earl with his 13 sisters, painted in 1779. There are no male spares in the Courtenay family tree, which is so verdant with female branches. “Kind hearts and Coronets”, we are not.

It is not just the personal embarrassment of male preferment that motivates me but the earldom itself. It was granted to Baldwin in 1142 when he was the first Norman baron to raise his standard over Exeter Castle in support of the Empress Matilda’s claim to the Throne of England. She was usurped by her cousin Stephen on the death of her father, Henry I, because Stephen and others felt that Matilda, being female, could not rule. Baldwin disagreed. From inception, therefore, the earldom of Devon championed female leadership. Lost and recovered some five times during the Middle Ages, the earldom was most recently restored in 1553 by our second female sovereign, Queen Mary I, because once again the family championed her right as a woman to rule England upon the death of her father, Henry VIII. We had been beheaded for these radical views in 1538, but through Queen Mary’s good graces the family recovered and have since kept our heads sufficient for me to be here now to continue that fight—and perhaps risk a further beheading.

--- Later in debate ---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Finally, and most importantly—

[The Earl of Devon (CB)]

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

[Lord Hermer (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Earl of Devon Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 12th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Devon (CB)]

My Lords, I rise briefly to speak to Amendment 64 in my name, to which the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, has added his name. Like the other amendments in this group, it addresses the question of attendance.

By amending the House of Lords Reform Act 2014, which sets a minimum attendance of one sitting day every Session of Parliament, my amendment aims to ensure that Members attend a minimum of 10% of sitting days in each Session, which is similar to some of the amendments already mentioned. As I have said previously, I am of the view that the broad and largely amateur membership of your Lordships’ House is one of its enduring strengths. The fact that those who sit are, for the most part, not professional legislators is important to ensure that a diversity of experience and views are heard from a wide range of backgrounds. I believe that that was the consensus view of the House when we debated an elected House on Monday.

That said, a minimum attendance is entirely reasonable and this amendment puts that at 10% of the sitting days in any one Session. Such a modest attendance will ensure that Members are committed to service in the House and are able to keep suitably abreast of developments in Westminster. It will not, however, require Members to attend so often as to preclude them from continuing to maintain their outside interests, and will equally not require them to make unnecessary and numerous interventions, slowing down the business of the House as Members seek to pad their records of contribution. This is in nobody’s interests.

I note that the amendment is similar to Amendment 21, proposed so excellently and with so much Excel detail by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, but his amendment would require 10% of sitting days within any one Parliament, whereas Amendment 64 requires it in any one Session, which will ensure a greater regularity and spread of attendance. On that basis, I recommend it to the Committee.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, I have Amendment 37 in this group. I think we have Members of extreme expertise in here but, unlike my noble friend Lord Hailsham, that we do not want to hear from them only when that particular expertise is engaged. We want their broader contribution and wider understanding of life; we want them to bring that expertise into our wider debates. We should expect people who are part of this House to turn up for a reasonable percentage of time—certainly 10%. As I learned from my noble friend Lord Strathclyde, Peers whose habit is to blow in, blow off and blow out are really no use to this House whatever.

The other characteristics of my amendment, compared with others, are to leave a lot of flexibility to the House of Lords in saying what the level should be and how it should be determined. That is rather better expressed in Amendment 32, which we will come to in a while and which I thoroughly support.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Earl of Devon Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 10th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howard of Rising (Con)]

He can already get this information.

I regret having to say this, but on more than one occasion HOLAC has taken a decision, or made a recommendation, that has been biased by a political view and not as an arm’s-length appraisal, resulting in the rejection of candidates of the highest calibre. That is not what the commission should be doing. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, for whom I have the greatest respect and admiration, will stop HOLAC going beyond the bounds of what it should be doing.

At this very time, this Chamber is coming under increasing scrutiny. We need to welcome into our ranks individuals of talent, vision and extraordinary achievement. I strongly believe that HOLAC is a hindrance to this process and is damaging the future health and viability of the House of Lords. I beg to move.

[The Earl of Devon (CB)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to my Amendment 51, to which the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, and the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, have kindly added their names. I look forward to their contributions and appreciate their support.

This amendment, along with others in this group, focuses on the exemplary work of the House of Lords Appointments Commission, or HOLAC, whose appointees sit largely here on the Cross Benches. While I do not agree with ranking ourselves by method of entry to your Lordships’ House, I firmly believe that, once here, we are all equal. In my view, the angels of HOLAC have by far the worthiest routes to these red Benches. My amendment would increase the number of HOLAC appointments accordingly. Whereas the amendments from the noble Lords, Lord Newby and Lord Wallace, seek to ensure that the approval of HOLAC would be mandatory before any life peerages were conferred—a proposal I am minded to support given the excellent work of the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, and others and the importance of probity to appointments to this House—Amendment 51 is more limited. It aims to encourage the use of HOLAC as a means by which a further 20 Cross-Bench Members of Your Lordships’ House are appointed during the five years after the passage of this Bill.

Unlike the party-political Benches, which can organise themselves and lobby for their share of prime ministerial patronage to recharge their Benches following the removal of the hereditary Peers, the Cross Benches, as a determinedly independent body of individual Peers, are not in a position to push collectively for new membership. They will inevitably lose out due to this legislation and the House undoubtedly will be more political and thus less effective. This amendment has the benefit of diluting, if only a little, the relative increase in prime ministerial patronage that will result from the removal of the hereditary Peers. That must be a good thing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Finn (Con)]

I defer to my Front-Bench colleague, my noble and learned friend Lord Keen: because of the way the ouster clause would be interpreted in court.

Amendment 43 in the name of my noble friend Lord Dundee takes a step further by transferring the responsibility for proposing peerages to HOLAC and away from the Prime Minister. This amendment would strip the Prime Minister—the only person in this process with a democratic mandate—of the power to propose life peerages and hand it to an unelected body. That would be a well-intentioned mistake. The Prime Minister does not act alone. HOLAC already plays an important advisory role by scrutinising appointments and applying the propriety test; but, crucially, it is the Prime Minister who makes the final decision. That balance matters. If HOLAC gets it wrong, if it misjudges a candidate or applies the propriety test too narrowly or too loosely, the Prime Minister can correct it. If the Prime Minister gets it wrong, he or she faces scrutiny, challenge and, ultimately, the judgment of the electorate. This is a system that holds both in check. If the Prime Minister is stripped of that role, HOLAC’s decisions become final. There is no backstop, no political oversight, no democratic accountability.

More than that—this point was made eloquently by the noble Lord, Lord Butler—the amendment breaks a fundamental constitutional principle. The Prime Minister is the monarch’s chief adviser. It is not for an unelected commission to take on that role. Appointments to this House must be made by those who answer to the people, not by a body with no democratic mandate, no political accountability and no direct link to the people. We all want higher standards, but high standards must be upheld in a way that strengthens, not weakens, our democracy; in a way that builds trust, not erodes it; and in a way that reinforces the legitimacy of this House, not undermines it.

Amendment 44A from my noble friend Lord Hailsham seeks to add an additional test: that nominees must be fit and proper and independent-minded. While I entirely understand the intention behind this, I struggle to see how one could determine legally whether a potential appointee is independent-minded. It is, by its nature, a subjective judgment, and in a democracy such judgments should ultimately rest with those who are accountable to the people, rather than with those who are accountable to no one.

Amendment 12, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Newby, and Amendment 47, in the name of my noble friend Lord Hailsham seek to prevent life peerages being conferred if HOLAC has recommended against the appointment. Amendment 12 establishes this power as absolute, but Amendment 47 concedes that HOLAC must give an explanation and allow representations before a decision is final. Amendment 116 merely amends the Short Title of the Bill in relation to Amendment 12.

These amendments do not simply tweak the appointments process; they fundamentally recast the role of the House of Lords Appointments Commission. HOLAC was created as an advisory committee: to advise, not to command. To make its recommendations binding is to transform it from a source of counsel into the ultimate arbiter of membership of your Lordships’ House. It would no longer be a check, but a gatekeeper. This is not some dry technicality. It is a profound shift in constitutional authority. At present, the system balances expert scrutiny with democratic accountability. HOLAC advises; the Prime Minister decides. If a Prime Minister presses ahead against its recommendation, the commission ensures transparency by informing Parliament. The check is there, the scrutiny is real and, crucially, it is the Prime Minister, not an unelected committee, who must justify their judgment to the country.

We do not strengthen the system by stripping discretion from those whom the people can ultimately hold to account. The power to recommend appointments to His Majesty should rest where it always has: with a democratically accountable Prime Minister, not an unelected tribunal with the right of veto. That is the system we have; it works. These amendments would replace it with something far more rigid, less democratic and more dangerous.

This brings me to Amendment 12A in the name of my noble friend Lord Howard of Rising. This amendment proposes the opposite of the rest in this group, rendering HOLAC ineffective. While I am incredibly sympathetic to my noble friend’s position, especially on the untameable growth of committees and quangos, I accept that HOLAC has some role to fulfil, even if it should be limited. HOLAC plays an important role in safeguarding propriety and ensuring that this House retains, and is seen to retain, its reputation for expertise and integrity. I am sure that the Prime Minister, like his predecessors, will continue to place great weight on the commission’s careful and considered advice. The House of Lords Appointments Commission has an independent and important advisory role, but it is and must remain advisory. It also has a clear remit and that too must remain clear.

There was a suggestion while I was serving in government that HOLAC might seek to dictate the timing or publication of a peerage list. That is clearly not part of its remit and illustrates a potential tendency of the commission, even in its non-statutory form, to succumb to the temptations of overreach.

Finally, I turn to Amendment 51 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Devon, the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, and my noble friend Lord Dundee, which seeks to encourage HOLAC in its current form to confer life peerages on up to 20 Cross-Bench hereditary Peers. As my noble friend Lord True set out so eloquently last week, we firmly believe—

[The Earl of Devon (CB)]

The amendment does not seek to apply 20 life peerages to hereditary Peers; it merely suggests life peerages to refill the Cross Benches.

[Baroness Finn (Con)]

I apologise to the noble Lord. His amendment seeks to confer life peerages for up to 20 Cross-Bench Peers. As my noble friend Lord True set out eloquently last week, we firmly believe that all hereditary Peers serving in our House should be permitted to stay as they are, albeit without being replaced or granted life peerages.

No advisory body is truly neutral and objectivity is hard to achieve. HOLAC is no exception. It offers judgment, not infallibility, and expanding its powers risks creating a system neither accountable nor impartial. We must be wary of trading one form of discretion for another, especially when it moves further from democratic oversight. The balance we have is not perfect, but it preserves scrutiny and responsibility. To abandon that balance is not reform but retreat.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Earl of Devon Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 3rd March 2025 Lords Chamber

My noble friend Lord Forsyth made a plea, not just to the noble Baroness but to the whole House, that collectively there must be a better way forward. My noble friend Lord True has laid out a carefully thought-through plan for how that could be achieved. I hope that the noble Baroness the Leader of the House will take particular care to reply in a positive manner to the suggestions that have been made, so that we can move on in a constructive way and on a cross-party basis.

[The Earl of Devon (CB)]

My Lords, I rise somewhat reluctantly to speak as an elected hereditary who defends the hereditary principle—but we will debate that in response to my Amendment 3, not now. However, I also accept that, if our time is up and we are to leave this House, as I said at Second Reading, we should do so with our heads held high. We should not be horse trading or otherwise frustrating the Government’s legislative programme.

Those who want to continue to serve in your Lordships’ House can lobby for a seat or can apply to become an angel of HOLAC in the normal manner, just like everybody else who is not an hereditary Peer. The privilege of our hereditary positions should not be sullied in a party-political or petty political way. I believe we should accept our abolition, or our execution, with honour.

[Lord Mancroft (Con)]

My Lords, I must admit that the thought of the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, representing my noble friend Lord Strathclyde has slightly set me aside for a moment. I was wondering which particular bit he represented. Was it the bit from the neck up, from the waist down or everything in the middle? I am sure we will learn that over time.

The Government explain this Bill on the basis that it fulfils their manifesto commitment to end the right of Peers to sit and vote in this House by dint of an hereditary peerage. That commitment is apparently sacrosanct. In truth, that measure is already clearly set out in Section 1 of the 1999 Act. The principle was accepted then and is accepted now. This Bill neither affects nor improves on it—but is selective. The Labour Party manifesto also included a commitment to implement a retirement age of 80, but the Government have, at least temporarily, resiled from that part of their commitment, because they have quite rightly concluded that most turkeys, particularly those on their own Back Benches, will not vote for Christmas. It seems, therefore, that the manifesto is not sacrosanct after all.

The Bill breaches, as we have heard, the commitment made in honour that my noble friend Lord Howard talked about and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, made with Lord Cranborne in the 1999 Act. It is argued that, with the passage of time, this agreement has become obsolete and, furthermore, that no Parliament can bind its successors. But no agreement of this kind does fall away simply by the passage of time. I am afraid things just simply are as not as easy as that. Nor did it and nor does it bind a future Parliament. It was an agreement willingly entered into by both parties and it still stands, so, without the agreement of both parties, it cannot be changed—although, of course, one party can breach it and thus demonstrate its dishonour, as my noble friend Lord Howard suggested. That is the Government’s choice.

I accept that the obvious solution to the Government’s dilemma is not easy, but nor is it that complicated either. The condition of that agreement was that Labour would embark on a full second-stage reform of this House, as we have heard. But, despite 14 years in opposition and now seven months in government, Labour does not appear to be able to do that. Although in opposition Sir Keir Starmer seemed to favour an elected second Chamber, in government he has clearly moved in the opposite direction.

We will debate that in the next amendment, in the name of my noble friend Lord Caithness, and later after Clause 1 in the amendment in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Newby and Lord Wallace of Saltaire, and my noble friend Lord Strathclyde. I will be supporting that, although I am very much looking forward to the Liberal Democrats explaining exactly how supporting a Bill that establishes an appointed House is the best route to achieving an elected House.

If the Government wish to explain what plans they have for the future of this House and even to start to implement those plans, it would be difficult to object to this Bill. But they have not. An alternative, and the simplest way to achieve the Government’s objective, would be, as has been suggested, to enact the measure contained in the various Private Members’ Bills from the noble Lord, Grocott, which, again, the House will examine later in this Committee. Suffice to say that, regardless of the merits or otherwise of that proposal, for some obscure reason the Government believe that the proposal from the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, has passed its sell-by date and can no longer be enacted, although I have been unable to find anyone who can explain exactly why this is so. I rather think it merely suits the Government’s purpose to advance that theory, but it is clearly not the case.

It is also worth pointing out that, although the Bill from the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, may be familiar to some of us, it was last debated in this House some four years ago and only got beyond Second Reading six years ago. Subsequently, over 160 new Members have joined this House who will never have had the chance to debate, discuss or understand that Bill. Perhaps it might help the House if they were able to do so now.

This Bill seeks to achieve an object that has already been achieved. It is currently divisive, unpleasant and wholly unnecessary, but that could all be avoided. Like my noble friend Lord True, I hope that, rather than spending a long time arguing every point, the Lord Privy Seal and my noble friend might find a way upon which the whole House could agree.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[The Earl of Devon]

3: Clause 1, page 1, line 1, at end insert—
“(A1) In section 1 of the House of Lords Act 1999 (exclusion of hereditary peers), at end insert “, except for a child or grandchild of the Sovereign”.”Member's explanatory statement
This probing amendment invites the House to consider the role of the hereditary principle within Parliament and our constitution in the context of membership of the House of Lords.

[The Earl of Devon (CB)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to speak to Amendment 3 in my name. It is a probing amendment aimed at focusing upon the hereditary principle in general, and its ongoing role within our constitution and this Parliament in the context of the sovereign in particular.

The Labour Party manifesto asserted that the hereditary presence within Parliament is “indefensible”. The Government also state that in the 21st century, there should be no places in our Parliament reserved for those from certain families. Likewise, the Liberal Democrats state that there should be no space in a modern democracy for hereditary privilege. I respectfully disagree but, having listened to earlier contributions, I am aware that it is a rather lonely furrow that I plough.

For the purposes of this debate and for the entirety of this Committee, I should note my interest as an elected hereditary. I am the 38th Earl of Devon, albeit merely the 19th of the fifth creation. It is a feudal role that my family has had the privilege of undertaking for some nearly 900 years, barring various attainders, executions and abeyances. On the basis of tenure and length of service, the hereditary principle is entirely defensible. It is a key part of what got us here and a bright thread which colours our rich constitutional tapestry. Rather that replead ancient history on this point, I refer your Lordships to my contributions at Second Reading and my speech in defence of the indefensible when we debated Lords reform back in November.

However, the hereditary principle is particularly defensible on the basis that it is the principle by which we select our sovereign head of state, whose presence in this Parliament is symbolised by the Mace, to which we all bow, and around whose seat, the Throne, we are all arrayed. The concern that I wish to raise by proposing this amendment is that without an hereditary presence in your Lordships’ House, the sovereign, who was once a first among equals, will be isolated as the sole hereditary presence within our constitutional system and thus increasingly vulnerable to republican attack.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Brennan of Canton (Lab)]

I too come from a long line of parents. My parents were the ones who were actually ploughing the lonely furrows that he referred to—probably on his ancestors’ lands. If he asks who will stand up for the monarch, I will, and my colleagues will. We all swore an oath to do so in this House.

[The Earl of Devon (CB)]

I thank the noble Lord for his intervention. That is the point of this amendment, and I am very pleased to hear it. I look forward to the Front Benches from each of our parties repeating exactly the same point.

As I said, Sir Keir Starmer was bending his knee to the leader of the free world. In that rarefied context, he offered the President of the United States just about the only thing that Donald Trump and his billionaire acolytes cannot purchase: an invitation from His Majesty to a state visit at Windsor Castle. Whatever one may think of the complex geopolitics that surrounded that visit and the remarkable events that have followed, it is readily apparent that the hereditary principle, as embodied by our sovereign Head of State—it is exactly the same hereditary principle by which I find myself here in your Lordships’ House—is of considerable ongoing importance. We weaken and abandon that at our peril.

The observant among your Lordships may note that the language of my proposed Amendment 3 does not explicitly address the hereditary principle as applied to our sovereign himself. This is because such an amendment would fall foul of the scope and relevance principles. Therefore, I express my huge thanks to the team of the Public Bill Office, who worked so patiently with me to craft an amendment that is admissible, if slightly idiosyncratic; it at least provides a hook upon which to hang this important debate. I am sure that His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, the Duke of Sussex and their children would appreciate the opportunity to debate the minutiae of product safety and metrology until the wee small hours with your Lordships’ company.

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

I do trust that the noble Earl is not suggesting that members of the Royal Family should participate in debates. That would be wholly disastrous.

[The Earl of Devon (CB)]

If the noble Viscount listens to my next paragraph, I will clarify that point.

I should also note, for the record, that we have a recent precedent for a grandchild of a sovereign seeking to join your Lordships’ House as an elected hereditary. In 2018, when I stood for a Cross-Bench vacancy upon the retirement of Earl Baldwin, one of the other 19 hereditary Peers to stand against me was the second Earl of Snowdon, previously Viscount Linley, who is a grandson of His late Majesty King George VI. I believe he withdrew his candidacy before the voting took place—obviously cowed by the strength of the other candidates. The publicly proffered reasoning for his withdrawal was that, as a member of the Royal Family, he should not sit in Parliament by convention—a reason which may indeed render my amendment dead in the water.

This aside reminds us that the only Members of your Lordships’ House that have any democratic legitimacy whatsoever happen to be the hereditary Peers. While we may be tainted by our hereditary privilege, we have at least vanquished multiple highly qualified competitors in transparent elections to obtain our seats. Indeed, I think we fulfil the second sentence in Labour’s 1997 manifesto, highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, by increasing the democratic legitimacy of this House. It is, I submit, a pity that we cannot fill other seats in your Lordships’ House by equivalent means.

I look forward to the debate on this topic. I am particularly interested to hear the views of the Front Benches of each of the main political parties, including the Minister, as this offers an opportunity for them all to clarify for posterity exactly how they view the role of the hereditary principle in the context of our monarch and how they expect to protect and support His Majesty the King in this House once we hereditary Peers have left the building.

In parting, I note that in earlier debates on this Bill, both the Government and the Liberal Democrats have pointed to the King’s legitimacy being based not upon the hereditary principle but upon his popularity and how well he does his job. This is transparently not the case. The monarch is not a competitor in a reality television show; he is our sovereign Head of State. He is born to his position and anointed, for those with Anglican faith, by God by the Archbishop of Canterbury. We all watched the Coronation, and I hope that is a fact we can all agree to. I beg to move.

[Baroness Meyer (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak in support of the amendment from the noble Earl, Lord Devon. This Bill is about not just the future of hereditary Peers but the stability of our entire constitutional order. Hereditary Peers are not relics of feudal privilege, as the Government claim; they are a vital link between our past, present and future. Remove them and we take another step towards dismantling the traditions that have kept this country stable for centuries.

Make no mistakes: this Bill disregards our history, weakens the House of Lords and ultimately paves the way for abolishing the monarchy itself. If hereditary Peers are obsolete, how long before the same argument is made against the Crown? For generations, hereditary Peers have served the Crown, upholding duty, service and continuity. Strip them away and the Lords becomes a Chamber of political appointees. Once it loses its independence, the monarchy loses its natural defenders.

Britain has never been a nation of radical upheaval. We have adapted, not abolished; we have evolved, not revolted. That careful, deliberate reform has kept our constitutions intact. Contrast and compare this with Russia and France, the two nations of my heritage. Both believed that radical change would bring stability, but instead they have suffered instability and disorder. In Russia’s case, it led to a regime even more oppressive than the one it had overthrown, including my grandparents. Why would we throw the baby out with the bath-water?

This Bill is ill-judged: it overturns the 1999 constitutional settlement; it ignores consensus; and it disrupts the balance that has protected us from political chaos. The path from abolishing hereditary Peers to dismantling the monarchy may not happen overnight, but it will set a precedent. Let us be clear: those who cheer the removal of hereditary Peers today will be the same voices calling for the end of the monarchy tomorrow. This Government reassure us that they support the monarchy, but how can we trust them? If they can remove hereditary Peers today, what stops them targeting the monarchy tomorrow?

History teaches us that, once safeguards are eroded, they are rarely restored. The monarchy is not just a symbol of our national unity but a powerhouse of soft diplomacy and economic strength. It generates billions for the UK. What greater demonstration of its soft power than the Prime Minister presenting the King’s invitation to President Trump—a move that could actually place Britain apart from the European Union in negotiations over tariffs, despite Brexit.

This is not outdated tradition; it is a vital asset for our future. We must stand firm against this misguided attack on the traditions that define our nation. That is why this amendment is crucial. It will protect the delicate balance of our constitution and safeguard the stability, continuity and integrity of our institution. That is why I support this amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hermer (Lab)]

I thank the noble and learned Lord for the little bit of history—I am very grateful.

[The Earl of Devon (CB)]

I thank the Minister very much for his words and particularly for being so brief, because I did not mean for this amendment to try your Lordships’ patience. I am very grateful to all who contributed to the debate. It is an amendment that deserved to stand alone, and I hope that the Committee will agree that the opportunity to reaffirm our commitment to a hereditary monarchy is worthy of a stand-alone debate.

I had in fact degrouped this amendment from two other amendments. The only reason why I think they were grouped together was that they all happened to be in my name. The other two amendments pertained to the issue of female succession to hereditary peerages, which we will come back to—probably on day seven or eight of Committee.

Before I close, I should admit that there is some personal animus in noting the importance of our hereditary peerage in support of our sovereign, as it was novel that the peerage was excluded from His Majesty’s recent Coronation. The writing was maybe on the wall at that stage. With the peerage having attended almost every Coronation since that of Henry II in the 12th century, it felt like the monarch himself was severing the connection between the hereditary peerage and the Coronation and was perhaps losing touch with his core base.

I am heartened to hear across the Committee the resounding support for our hereditary monarchy. The noble Baroness, Lady Meyer, in particular noted a strong connection between the hereditary Peers and the monarch. The noble Lord, Lord Moore, similarly noted how, globally, people note the importance of our hereditary principle. I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, and the noble Lords, Lord Grocott and Lord Brennan, very much for all reaffirming the principle that I was hoping would be stated in this short debate.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Newby, for the history lesson. He will perhaps recall that at the end of that rather disastrous Stuart monarchy, we were able to welcome William of Orange in the Glorious Revolution. Of course, he came to dinner with Sir William Courtenay of Powderham on his first night on English soil, so the hereditary peerage was again somewhat responsible for that change in monarchy.

With the resounding support for the hereditary principle, as embodied within the hereditary peerage, the purpose of my probing amendment has been fulfilled. I do not think that we have heard a single republican voice from across the House. I gave the republicans an opportunity to speak; they did not. I therefore beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 3 withdrawn.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Earl of Devon Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 11th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Devon (CB)]

My Lords, given the late hour, your Lordships may appreciate that I will not reprise my previous history lessons offered in defence of the indefensible—Hansard has those—but I note to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, who is not in his seat, that the hereditary principle is defended. He might recall our discussion on Radio 4’s “Today” programme.

I remind the House of my interests as the Earl of Devon—a condemned hereditary. I accept that this Bill will likely pass. It was a manifesto commitment and mine remains one of the minority of voices supporting our continued presence here. I still consider us an important bulwark against the short-term tyranny of politics. Parliament will miss our indelible links to the past, our connections to the regions and our passion for the long-term sustainable future of this island. I will use my few minutes to pose five questions to the noble Baroness the Leader of the House.

First, why do this now? On what possible basis is it essential that this happens as a priority? Other than offering Sir Keir’s stuttering premiership a much-needed legislative rosette, this has the hallmarks of a cheap political coup aimed to even numbers. Where is the public demand? This is a time of tyrannous politics: elections in America see right-wing nativism returned to the White House; moderate Governments in France and Germany are assaulted from left and right; the Middle East is ablaze and Ukraine is on her knees; meanwhile, Reform’s popularity grows and extremist views are normalised. With mainland Europe so fragile, is it sensible to discard our real link to Waterloo and the post-Napoleonic settlement? With the eastern Mediterranean in tatters, do we not increase our collective amnesia by removing our link to the last emperors of Constantinople, the Frankish kings of Jerusalem and the crusading counts of Edessa, whence HTS heralds? By abolishing hereditaries, I worry that we will forget our historic responsibilities in the pursuit of modernisation.

I never received an answer to why Lords reform is an appropriate response to the ghastly riots of last summer. Are the Government aware of how many members of the public earnestly believe that Article 61 of the Magna Carta remains in force? They write to me. Under that provision, citizens exercise their ancient right to pledge allegiance to a committee of barons when their sovereign no longer represents their interests. Removal of hereditary barons from your Lordships’ House can only inflame their insecurities.

Secondly, as many others have commented, why not complete the wholesale reform of the Lords that Labour has so long desired? The Government have a clear mandate and a massive majority. If they really wanted to use their political capital to worthwhile effect, they should complete a proper reform of this House and honour the Weatherill deal that was struck 25 years ago. If we are to be abolished, I would rather leave this House in a better state, but I fear that, instead, it will be worse. No headlines critique the conduct of hereditary Peers; rather, recent column inches are devoted to the abuse of patronage in the appointment of life Peers and the conduct of the Lords spiritual in wrestling with the demons of historic child abuse. Are those not more urgent issues?

Thirdly, if the hereditary principle is indeed indefensible, then hereditary privilege, logically, can play no role within our constitution. The Government state:

“In the 21st century, there should not be places in our Parliament … reserved for those who were born into certain families”.—[Official Report, Commons, 15/10/24; col. 719.]


As we sit in this Chamber, there is a most notable and gilded place reserved solely for one person, born into one family—the Throne. The Liberal Democrats agree, asserting that there is no

“space in a modern democracy for hereditary privilege”.—[Official Report, Commons, 12/11/24; col. 691.]

Despite protestations to the contrary, the abolition of the hereditary peerage is a significant step towards the removal of our hereditary monarch. A republic is the inevitable intellectual conclusion, and a principled Government would admit this. Does the Minister agree? The Government state that the monarchy remains popular, so its removal is not on the agenda. The noble Lord, Lord Newby, claimed that the King’s rule is dependent upon not hereditary principle but how well he does his job. This is wrong: it conflates democratic legitimacy—which does indeed require popularity—with the hereditary principle of duty and public service. To claim something different might result in a reality television star becoming our Head of State.

Fourthly, the Government argue that there should not be seats effectively reserved only for men. I hoped I had done enough to expose the fallacy of this discriminatory argument. The fact that the hereditaries are all men is not our fault but that of successive Governments refusing to legislate for female succession. I am grateful to the Public Bill Office for considering my efforts to amend this legislation to permit female succession, but I understand that it falls outside the test of “relevance”.

However, noble Lords should note that the Bill not only removes hereditary Peers but strips from your Lordships the right to determine claims to hereditary peerages too. On removing such a power, it is surely appropriate to investigate how such claims will be determined in the future and to place some non-discriminatory guard-rails around the exercise of that power by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, which will inherit the jurisdiction. The Leader of the House has engaged positively with me on this, and I believe that this Parliament, given its sovereignty, can ensure that all future successions to hereditary peerages occur in a manner that is non-gender discriminatory.

Finally, many noble Lords have referenced the retention of certain hereditaries via life peerages, and I understand that such discussions may be taking place in the context of threats against the Government’s legislative programme. This is regrettable and should not happen. The privilege and honour of our hereditary seats in Parliament should not be sullied by horse-trading. If the democratic process requires our abolition, we must not frustrate that process. Parliament does not need to retain any more upper-class, middle-aged, white, male Old Etonians. We should accept that our time has come and should leave with grace. Those who covet a seat in this House can apply, like everyone else, to be an angel of HOLAC, or perhaps they might purchase the Prime Minister some suits.

Personally, I look forward to a return to the bosom of Devon, and I hope that any space afforded by my abolition might be filled by someone perhaps new to this country, preferably female, with expertise and an apolitical passion for public service. I fervently wish that we could leave this House a better place and better suited to its essential constitutional role, with our heads held high—not in an executioner’s basket—and with pride and gratitude for our 900 years of service.

House of Lords Reform

Earl of Devon Excerpts

Tuesday 12th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Devon (CB)]

My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Mann—he set me up quite well. I declare an interest as the Earl of Devon, one of the more hereditary of our hereditary peerages. The title dates from our tribal Saxon days: Ordwulf defended Devon from Viking invaders and served scones, cream and jam to the rebuilders of Tavistock Abbey. In modern times, the earldom was granted to Baldwin in 1142 for supporting our first female sovereign, Empress Matilda. I am the 38th Earl of Devon since then, a line broken only by a handful of attainders and beheadings, most recently by Thomas Cromwell and soon to be televised on the BBC—better to be in “Wolf Hall” than “Rivals”. The title I hold was restored for the fifth and final time by our second female sovereign, Mary I.

We sat in your Lordships’ House long before it had a home in this Palace; founding Knights of the Garter, we fought at Crécy, Poitiers, Agincourt and Bosworth; we tilted for Henry VIII at the Field of the Cloth of Gold, and we welcomed William of Orange to dinner on the first night of his Glorious Revolution. My grandfather was one of the last on the beaches at Dunkirk, before taking a bullet through his helmet in north Africa. I sit here, less violently, as champion of Devon in Westminster and of Westminster in Devon, a conduit between local and national, like Baldwin nearly 900 years ago.

Labour suggests that hereditaries are “indefensible”. That is ironic given how consistently we have defended this island nation. Not here for personal gain nor for anything we have done, we are here due to an antiquated sense of duty, which is not only defensible but a key characteristic of our constitutional fabric. We rend that fabric at our peril: Britain will be poorer without it.

Just because Labour says that it is “indefensible” does not make it so—that is Trump-speak. An hereditary thread runs through our society, from our sovereign Head of State to our basic freedom to inherit private property. Our national identity is inherited, particularly in the regions. Some sneer with colonialist prejudice that, outside Westminster, only Lesotho has hereditary seats in Parliament, as if Lesotho, being African, is somehow less. Lesotho reserves places for tribal chieftains in recognition of their cultural and regional leadership; the United States, Canada and others constitutionally recognise such leadership too. Why should we not?

The presence of hereditary Peers in the mother of all Parliaments is a distinction of which we should be proud. No other parliament can boast an unbroken link to its liberal feudal roots in Magna Carta and habeas corpus. Our presence is proof positive of the resilience of our parliamentary system.

The Government suggest that public opinion justifies their constitutional vandalism. Where is the evidence for this? The Government should put the hereditary presence to a referendum, alongside that of the Bishops and of the life Peers appointed by prime ministerial patronage. Given the furore over the institutional sheltering of child abusers, scandals over prime ministerial curtains, spectacles and suits, and the preferential procurement of pandemic PPE, hereditaries may do well in a Lordly beauty parade, second perhaps only to the angels of HOLAC.

We see no demonstrations over our hereditary presence. Indeed, our most serious public unrest was motivated by those preying on a deep-rooted dislocation among those who consider themselves traditionally English. The riots of last summer were ghastly, but they were not a call for constitutional reform and the removal of a moderating and hard-working hereditary presence in Parliament.

Further, our hereditary Members are disparaged for our gender—that is a protected characteristic. While we are all male, this is not our choice but the choice of successive Governments, happy to alter the succession to the Crown and to offer parliamentary time to promote female Bishops but reluctant to accommodate female succession to hereditary peerages. As the youngest of four, whose father and grandfather were the only sons among many sisters, I have long felt shame in male primogeniture and have sought to change this, with no success. This is discrimination—refuse to permit female succession and then deride our lack of diversity. If I were offered one final wish for a condemned Peer, it would be to amend this legislation to allow any gender to succeed to hereditary peerages. I know the Labour Party has yet to come around to the merits of female leadership—some 880 years after Baldwin—but I am sure it can be convinced, and I thank the noble Baroness the Leader of the House for her encouraging letter to me on this issue. I trust that she will join me to overcome the patriarchal barriers she identified.

Many commentators agree that this House is the most effective body of our politics, recently tempering the extremes of the other place over Brexit and Rwanda. Removing hereditary Peers will not improve that function: it will politicise and patronise this House and make your Lordships no more defensible, and I worry particularly that it will leave our sovereign with no hereditary partner—who will go toe-to-toe with the Crown over feudal rights to the Isle of Wight? His Majesty will be isolated and vulnerable to republican attack.

In conclusion, I note the wise words of Robin Cook on a similarly tepid reform proposed in 2005:

“This would limit modernisation to moving from the 15th-century principle of heredity to the 18th-century principle of patronage. The result would not be a chamber bursting with the independent, colourful figures necessary if we are to restore public interest in parliament, but a chamber stuffed with that bane of modern political life, the loyal, safe pair of hands”.


The Earls of Devon’s previous executions have been in noble cause. This short-term, partisan political mugging is, regrettably, not that.

Lords Spiritual (Women) Act 2015 (Extension) Bill [HL]

Earl of Devon Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 10th September 2024 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Devon (CB)]

My Lords, it is an honour to speak on this short Bill, which seeks to extend by five years the period in which vacancies among our Lords spiritual are filled predominantly by female Bishops. I support the effort to increase the gender diversity of Lords spiritual and agree that we should seek to increase the diversity of this House more generally so that it better reflects the nation and allows a breadth of opinion to be brought to our legislative efforts.

I should note my own interests. I was a one-time Cambridge theologian, I am patron of a number of Anglican parishes in Devon, I am an irregular churchgoer and I am a member of a family with long clerical connections. We count many churchmen—and indeed, I can tell the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, that my research suggests a couple of churchwomen, including Adelicia, the foundress of Forde Abbey—in the family tree: there are Bishops of Norwich, London, Exeter and Winchester, and even an Archbishop of Canterbury, whose coat of arms as Richard II’s Chancellor appear just to the left of the Throne.

I thank the Convenor of the Lords Spiritual, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans, for his letter, which was received last night; the detail and background were instructive. Along with him, I wish to put on record my appreciation for the contributions of those female Lords spiritual who have made it into the House as a result of the provisions of the Lords Spiritual (Women) Act 2015, which we are extending with this Bill. The right reverend Prelate’s letter also provided helpful statistics, including the fact that 33% of ordained ministers were female in 2020—a number that I hope has increased since. I wonder whether the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby could confirm that.

I also agree with the right reverend Prelate’s sentiments when it comes to the number of female bishops as a whole. He states:

“it is my view that the overall number of women appointed as diocesan bishops since 2014 remains too low, and there is continuing work to do to rectify the longstanding historic imbalance”.

In considering this Bill, we should be provided with a better understanding of why the Church has not done more to promote female bishops since 2014. For example, it is notable that, of the five episcopal sees with automatic seats in this House—namely, Canterbury, York, London, Durham and Winchester—only one is currently held by a woman. It would be helpful to know what particular efforts the Church of England is making to ensure gender equality amongst its own leadership and what the barriers that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans references actually are.

I would be pleased if the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby could provide us with an update on that issue when she speaks. It should not be for Parliament to spare the Church of England’s blushes if it is not able to promote female leadership within its own ranks and of its own accord.

Secondly, while I support the efforts to increase gender equality within the Lords spiritual, this Bill does nothing necessarily to increase the diversity of thought or belief within our House. All bishops, be they male or female, as we have heard, will still be Anglican bishops and the voices of other religious faiths will be no louder as a result of this Bill. Do the Government, given their passion for Lords reform, have any plans to broaden the creed of those sitting in the spiritual seats of your Lordships’ House, or do they otherwise intend to increase the presence of non-Anglican Church leaders upon our red Benches?

On equality and diversity through Lords reform, it is obviously appropriate to increase female presence amongst the Lords spiritual. At the same time, the Government are undertaking other elements of reform that will result in better gender parity in this House. I refer to the Government’s ambition to abolish the remaining 92 hereditary Peers, all of whom, since the retirement of the great and noble Countess of Mar, are now male. Therefore, there is a hereditary Bench occupied only by men, which is unfortunate. This is a valid and very real criticism of the hereditary peerage, but it is the fault not of the hereditary Peers themselves but of the arcane rules of succession to which we are subject. Here I note my interests as an Earl of Devon.

For a number of years, I, along with honourable Members in the other place, have been seeking to introduce by way of a Private Member’s Bill a Bill to permit female succession to hereditary peerages, but we have been unsuccessful in our efforts to date. I am the youngest of four children, as was my father before me, and my grandfather was the only boy among six siblings. The law of succession to the Crown was changed without incident over a decade ago and, as we have heard, female bishops have been allowed since 2014. So at least two of the three feudal mainstays of our constitution, the Crown and the Church, have been permitted to embrace gender equality. It is therefore shocking that, in 2024, the heirs to hereditary titles remain subject to such explicit gender discrimination, both the eldest daughters, who might wish to inherit a title, and younger sons, who might have had something better to do with their lives.

It would appear to be grossly discriminatory of Parliament not to act upon this, leaving us to wallow unwillingly in patriarchy. Noble Lords may suggest that such a move would be a waste of time, given hereditary Peers’ impending abolition, but I am mindful that hereditary titles will retain some presence and status within Britain even after we are no longer active legislators, particularly in those parts of the country, often rural, which have retained a traditional social fabric—our much-loved rural parishes, for example, where the local baronet retains social and economic significance. I expect also that hereditary titles will long remain a fascination for popular culture, as a focus of fashion and social magazines, popular film and literature. If the Government can find legislative time to promote gender equality among the Lords spiritual, could it not also find time to change the rules for hereditary succession so that within a generation, half those titles would be held by females in their own right? It would be a lasting legacy upon which to depart your Lordships’ House.

I end by reiterating the importance of diversity to this Chamber and to our work, and regret that the abolition of a hereditary presence in Parliament will remove some notable diversity that is not found amongst Lords spiritual, nor among many of the appointed life Peers, who tend to be people of excellence either in politics or society more widely.

Recent hereditary additions to the Cross Benches have included a veterinary practice manager, an inner-city state schoolteacher, a nuclear engineer and even a modest American IP litigator, none of whom are necessarily leaders in their fields nor the most ambitious. They are here to serve, in the way their forebears have done for centuries, with neither fear nor favour. The irony of removing the purportedly elitist hereditary peerage is that we will lose some of the more normal and perhaps modest Members of your Lordships’ House. I hope the Government will reflect upon that.