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.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Earl of Devon Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 13th September 2023 Lords Chamber

I obviously completely support Amendment 240 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock. However, of all the amendments we have debated, it is Amendment 232 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh—which would safeguard high-risk flood zones from development and people who may inadvertently purchase a house built in a high-risk flood zone—that would provide clarity. Let us get that clarity because although the Environment Agency and local flood management groups will be clear, the Government are not as clear. This amendment would give that clarity of purpose: do not build in flood zones 3a and 3b for domestic purposes. If the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, wishes to test the opinion of the House on this critical issue, we on these Benches will support her.

[The Earl of Devon (CB)]

My Lords, I had not expected to speak but this interesting debate has raised a couple of questions which maybe the Minister or the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, may address, particularly concerning Amendment 232.

I note that I am a member of the Wetlands APPG, so wetlands and flood plains are very close to my heart. I am also a member of the Devon Housing Commission so the cost and availability of housing in rural areas is very close to my heart too. There is a conflict here and I wonder whether Amendment 232 would have too big an impact on the availability and affordability of housing in areas near these floodplains.

I wonder whether the Minister or the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, if she sums up, can assist me on that point. I also wonder, given that we have just discussed the biodiversity net gain principle, whether we can apply that principle to building housing on these sensitive areas, such that if flood plains are being used up to create residential housing in essential areas, we look to invest in creating further areas for flood relief and landscaping to offset and ameliorate the problems created by building in these important areas where housing is required because it tends to be accessible and somewhat more affordable.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, as we have heard, this group of amendments addresses a range of issues relating to water management and flood risk and I think it appropriate for me to begin by responding to Amendment 231, the first amendment in this group. I am grateful to my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering for this amendment because it gives me the opportunity to tell the House that following publication of the review for implementation of Schedule 3 to the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 earlier this year, the Government are actively working on how best to implement Schedule 3.

An ambitious timeline has been set to deliver this quickly and that is why we have already committed to implementation in 2024 following statutory consultation later this year. I am sure my noble friend will understand how essential it is that we allow sufficient time to engage with stakeholders to help shape the details of implementation. Schedule 3 provides for a public consultation which must take place on the national standards. We have also committed to consult on the impact assessment and will need stakeholder views to inform decisions on scope, threshold and process in order to draft the secondary legislation required to implement Schedule 3. I hope that reassures my noble friend regarding her Amendment 231 and that, on that basis, she will not feel the need to press it.

Amendments 232 and 237 in my noble friend’s name would prevent planning permission for residential development in functional flood plains and high-risk flood areas and create a new duty for the Secretary of State to make building regulations within six months for property flood resilience, mitigation and waste management in connection with flooding. I listened carefully to what my noble friend and the noble Baronesses, Lady Pinnock and Lady Hayman, had to say. Let me explain where the Government are on this. Planning policy directs development away from areas at the highest risk of flooding. Building regulations set drainage system requirements for individual buildings and the main sewerage system is governed by the sewerage undertaker for the area.

As I said, I listened carefully to the arguments put forward but contend that the Government have well-established means of making sure that new developments are not approved where there is an unacceptable flood risk. I would argue that the Environment Agency and local authorities are the right bodies to oversee the maintenance of existing flood mitigation measures and, for these reasons, in our view introducing new requirements into the building regulations is not necessary.

New housebuilding—I hope I can reassure the noble Earl, Lord Devon, on this—and most other forms of development should not be permitted in the functional flood plain where flood-water has to flow or be stored. But it is important that local councils follow the sequential risk-based policy in the framework, steering new development away from areas known to be at risk of flooding—now or in the future—wherever possible. However, sometimes it is necessary to consider development in such areas. Banning development entirely in flood risk areas would mean that land that could safely be built on could no longer provide the economic opportunities our coastal and riverside settlements depend on. That is why I say to the House that we should trust our local authorities to make sensible decisions about what development is appropriate in their area. Having said that, we will of course keep national planning policy on flood risk and coastal change under review, as noble Lords would expect.

Amendment 236 would place a duty on the Government and local authorities to make data about flood prevention and risk available for the purpose of assisting insurers and property owners. Data about flood prevention and risk, including for planning purposes, is already publicly available, provided primarily by local authorities and the Environment Agency. Creating new duties on government and local authorities to publish this data is therefore unnecessary. Insurers can already access information, and to require government or local authorities to facilitate their use of the information would create unnecessary burdens on our public services. Within both the Environment Agency and the insurance industry, the modelling of UK flood risk continues to improve, resulting in models and maps than can assess flood risk at more detailed geographical levels, taking into account all the drivers of risk.

Amendment 238 would require the Financial Conduct Authority to make rules requiring insurance companies to participate in the currently voluntary build back better scheme, which was launched by Flood Re in April 2022. Amendment 239 extends the flood reinsurance scheme to premises built since 2009 that have property flood resilience measures that meet minimum standards and buildings insurance for small and medium-sized enterprise premises.

The build back better scheme is still in its early days and has not yet been fully embedded or tested. This is therefore not the right time to consider making changes. Properties built since 2009 should be insurable at affordable prices because of the changes to planning policy in 2006. If Flood Re were applied to homes built after 2009, that would be inconsistent with current planning policy.

Restoration and Renewal

Earl of Devon Excerpts

Wednesday 13th July 2022 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Devon (CB)]

My Lords, I take note of the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Mann, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, on the history and traditions of this place. I just add that, when the Earl of Devon was first in Parliament, we were in Shrewsbury, and then we sat for a number of centuries in St Stephen’s Chapel, which explains why we sit opposite each other in the manner of a medieval chapel.

I note my entry in the register of interests and my role as a custodian of a medieval building, which has a number of crumbling Victorian and Edwardian extensions, utilities and services. Like this one, that building operates as the home of a working business, housing staff, tourists and visitors and hosting functions and events. We consistently balance the challenges of health and safety compliance, equality of access and the need to preserve and explain important local heritage, with a wholly inadequate budget. I am therefore very sympathetic to the issues here.

The one big difference is that, as a private individual, I am obliged to comply with the rules and regulations of heritage listing, alongside health and safety and public access requirements. I understand that, as Parliament, we are not strictly required to comply with such things, and I would be grateful if the Lord Privy Seal could confirm that fact. I would also like to know the extent to which the Palace of Westminster, in its current condition, complies with such obligations of heritage conservation, access, and health and safety, as I do not believe it does. Just because the soon to be former Administration do not care to comply with the rules, that does not mean that we, as Parliament, should ignore them. We need to set a good example, and we do not.

I think we are all agreed that the condition of this building, and the conditions in which we expect our visitors and parliamentary staff to operate, are a disgrace. We were agreed on that back in 2019 when we passed the legislation to establish the sponsor body, which the joint commission now recommends we get rid of. In the three years since, and despite the hard work of many dedicated people, it appears that we are no further forward with the big decisions that are necessary to see restoration and renewal complete. I reviewed the joint report of the Lords and Commons commissions, and nowhere do I see a thorough analysis of exactly why the sponsor body is due to be disbanded, or how it has failed in the task it was set in the 2019 Act.

I note that much reliance is placed on the findings of the independent advice and assurance panel. Its members are indeed an eminent group, but their review lasted only three days, during which they interviewed some 25 people. This amounts to considerably less than one hour with each person and gives the sense of a review conducted in a considerable rush. Given the huge amount of work that has gone into R&R over recent years, I am not clear that such a brief review provides a sufficient basis on which to take the drastic action currently proposed.

As far as I can tell, the issue that the sponsor body has faced since its formation—something confirmed by my noble friends Lord Vaux and Lord Best—is the complete overpoliticisation of the decision-making process. Issues of whether or where to decant, what adjacencies and proximities to the Chambers should be adopted, and how parliamentary business should be conducted during the works have all become political questions. They should not be so: they are practical, procedural and administrative issues.

I understand many Members, including those of the other place, are concerned that the works programme envisaged by the sponsor body would be too disruptive of the rhythms and traditions of Parliament, but if we have learned anything in the last few years it is surely quite how flexible Parliament can be in the face of adversity. I may be new here, and I may be naive, but I am worried that we are far too precious about our procedures and processes, to the detriment of this building, our staff and the future of Parliament.

I am also particularly concerned that the proposed solution, far from fixing things, will only make them worse. The new mandate under which we revisit the key questions of the extent of the works and the process by which they are achieved will be overseen now by a new in-house sponsor function, overseen by the clerks of the two Houses. This will bring these issues directly into the political sphere and make them only more subject to the vagaries of the relations between the Lords and Commons commissions. They appear to be somewhat like the warring couple, Michael Douglas and Kathleen Turner, in “The War Of The Roses,” sitting at either ends of a grand and crumbling house that finally burns down. I cannot therefore endorse the mandate for this reason, though I do understand it is a fait accompli, and so cannot seriously object.

As to the new approach outlined in the joint commission’s report, while I salute the important focus on health and safety, I am concerned that the coming years will see yet more sticking plasters and no long-term solutions. The joint commission is going right back to the drawing board, seeking a wider range of options for decant, a broader range of options for delivering the works and different levels of ambition for the programme’s scope. It appears that we are starting all over again.

We have done this. We have agreed to decant and to move to the QEII building, so please can we not just get on and do it? The longer we wait, the greater the risk to ourselves, our staff and our visitors, and to our beloved building.

House of Lords: Remote Participation and Hybrid Sittings

Earl of Devon Excerpts

Thursday 20th May 2021 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Devon (CB) [V]]

My Lords, I add my voice to the choir lauding the achievements of the House in turning our procedures first virtual and then hybrid in such challenging circumstances. I thank all the staff and contractors who contributed, particularly the tireless broadcast team and the procedural gurus directing them. In 15 months, I have had barely a glitch. My thanks go also to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and the IT user group that he has championed. It has been an incredibly helpful forum for providing real-time feedback to the digital team and is one that I recommended to my own employer.

I also applaud your Lordships’ own achievements. As we have heard, many were unfamiliar with digital conferencing before last March. The speed and enthusiasm with which we have adapted belies this House’s popular reputation. I disagree with those who suggest that we are backward-looking and am proud that we have embraced change with more enthusiasm than the other place.

Many have spoken of the importance of parley in Parliament, of speaking and listening to each other across the Chamber. I agree that nothing can match the cut, thrust and spontaneity of real-time, live debate but if the voices speaking are not truly diverse and representative of the views of the nation we serve, we are not doing our duty. Requiring presence in the Chamber as a precondition of being heard limits the breadth of debate. Those with young families, those with day jobs, those with sick relatives and those who live and work in the further-flung regions of the British Isles—or even overseas at times—were discriminated against by the status quo ante. I note my interest in all those categories, speaking as I am from a garage in California.

As a champion of Devon, I am particularly keen that regional voices be heard. The south-east and those able easily to access Westminster are overrepresented in live debates and we need to do all we can to ensure a broader representation from across the United Kingdom, particularly at this time of such strain on our union. Holding a seat first gained by attending the King in Shrewsbury before St Stephen’s Chapel was even built, I am well aware that our practices and procedures can move with the times. We must not be precious about tradition. Just as our nation’s administration centralised to Westminster some 700 years ago, so we should use the technological advances engendered by this pandemic to move Parliament back to the regions and those we serve. Remote participation is key to that.

I agree that pure legislative scrutiny should take place in person. The Agriculture Bill was hard work without the ability to see the whites of the Ministers’ eyes and the sweat on their brows; I look forward to long hours on the Environment Bill in person. However, remote participation for set-piece debates, such as this and those on the gracious Speech, seems entirely appropriate, particularly if limits keep speeches short and to the point.

PeerHub is excellent. Remote voting must remain and Select Committees are perfectly suited to a hybrid structure, allowing witnesses to attend from far and wide. A properly hybrid House would also make the cost of decamp for restoration and renewal considerably less and for that reason alone should be seriously considered.

Finally, in this year of the environment, we need to consider our impact on the climate, a matter on which surprisingly little has been said, save the notable words of the noble Lords, Lord Shipley and Lord Lucas. The Constitution Committee report makes no mention of the environment, our carbon footprint or the pollution caused by our attendance. It makes only oblique references to hot air. It strikes me as a mistake to make any decision on our future without fully understanding the environmental impact of the various options. I am sure that it is relatively easy to calculate the carbon footprint of an in-person versus a hybrid House and ask that we are provided with that information promptly and before any final decision is taken.

Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Bill

Earl of Devon Excerpts

2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 8th July 2019 Lords Chamber

[Earl of Devon (CB)]

My Lords, this is my first opportunity to consider the restoration and renewal programme. I must thank those who have worked so hard to get this important legislation to its Second Reading.

As with all of us, I have an interest in the impact of R&R on our ability to exercise our legislative duties. As a relatively young Member, I may have more interest than others in the building that the R&R programme delivers. Like many of the working-age population whom Parliament expects soon to be funding this project, I have not closely followed the previous debates, so excuse me if I raise concerns that have been covered elsewhere. I am keen that we use this process to educate both the public and ourselves.

I agree with the decision to renew the infrastructure of this Palace, and I agree wholly with decanting both Houses to do so. If a way could be devised to tour Parliament affordably around the regions, I would embrace it as a means of taking this institution closer to the populations we serve. I note that my family first served in the Lords in the 1280s, when your Lordships sat in Shrewsbury. If we could do it then, I am sure we can do it now. We would bend over backwards to welcome Parliament to Devon, and I will strongly support the more that can be done throughout this programme to benefit the regions and not just London—whether that be a regional decant or, as is more likely, the use of the best regional suppliers and craftsmen, of which so many reside in the south-west of England.

I must declare a further interest. I am the owner and operator of a heritage enterprise with similarities to this one. Along with AJ, my wife, I own a family-owned heritage SME which, like Westminster, began life as a medieval family home, a centre of hospitality and regional administration. It, too, has been much assaulted, altered and expanded since, but its mediaeval core remains. Like Powderham Castle, Westminster is a listed heritage asset but is still a working institution doing the same job now as it did when it was built. Like Westminster, Powderham also received its last comprehensive modernisation in the mid-1800s, with the addition of a vast quantity of Victorian heraldic decoration, which tells a particularly British history through pseudo-Gothic armorial devices. Also like the Parliamentary Estate, we constantly manage disrepair. Our predecessors did not postpone essential works for as long as your Lordships’ predecessors, but we ask restoration and renewal questions daily, while also interpreting for visitors a complex social and architectural history.

I was surprised to learn just how little we know about medieval Westminster and how much there is to find out. If we are decanting and the site becomes available for research, surely we are under a cultural obligation to investigate. This will be the archaeological opportunity of our generation and, as we are all aware, archaeology allows us to retell the stories we have learnt about ourselves. As to medieval English history, it permits us to challenge the dogma of the great Elizabethan propagandist, Shakespeare. For example, in 2015 I attended the reinterment of Richard III. The remarkable discovery of our last Plantagenet king under a car park in Leicester captured the world’s imagination and redefined that King who, far from being an evil hunchback, was revealed as a liberal administrator who enshrined the right to jury trial and had but slight scoliosis of the spine.

Similarly, archaeology teaches us that, far from being the heroic, blood-soaked champion of Agincourt, Henry V was a sensitive Renaissance prince who chose to be buried alongside his childhood best friend, a bishop called Richard. During Pride month, archaeological discoveries such as these are crucial to making our nation’s history more accessible and much more relevant. Imagine what archaeology could unearth here. I have only scratched the surface—to use an archaeological pun—but the marble King’s Table in Westminster Hall, the cloisters containing tombs of early Plantagenet royalty and Edward III’s Garter Chapel of St Stephen are all here to be explored.

The Commons amended the Bill at Clause 2(4)(g) specifically to include that the sponsor body have regard to “educational and other facilities”. What is a more important educational facility than the complete archaeological history of the mother of all parliaments? It would be culturally negligent to pass up this opportunity, particularly as this country’s research capacity in medieval archaeology and history is second to none.

MPs also pressed for the inclusion of heritage as a matter to which the sponsor body must have regard, and I understand that Historic England supports the amendment. I agree that the issue should be considered afresh by your Lordships and I look forward to debating the amendment, but what heritage is to be the focus? Is it Barry and Pugin’s very Victorian heritage, or that of earlier, equally transformative ages—the Anglo-Saxon origins, the Norman conquest, the Plantagenet empire or the Tudor revolution in government? I note that the Victorians are no longer on the national curriculum, but the Anglo-Saxons are.

I would encourage a more expansive understanding of the heritage we are restoring. It should not be just a like-for-like restoration of, to coin a phrase used in the other place, Pugin and Barry’s,

“mock-Gothic Victorian tourist attraction”.—[Official Report, Commons, 21/5/19; col. 659.]

We would miss a trick if we returned to this Chamber in 10, 15, 20 or possibly 25 years’ time and, having spent billions of pounds, noticed no difference, as has been suggested by some.

We have all been warned how dysfunctional was the process by which the Palace, in its current form, came to be and the 50-plus committees that designed it. Why would we want to preserve so slavishly a building designed by 50-plus committees of misogynistic, Empire-building Victorian gentlemen telling exclusively their interpretation of British history? This is an ancient medieval building that needs to stay alive. No previous generation, presented with the need to overhaul the Palace, would do so with the aim of restoring everything so that you notice no difference, at the lowest possible price, with minimal interference and having it completed as soon as possible.

I am also enthusiastic about making the Palace accessible to all. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, about the need to improve disabled access and speed up access for all. However, in considering accessibility, can we also please consider the accessibility of the stories we tell? Rows upon rows of Christian white men’s heraldic devices are not necessarily accessible to the United Kingdom’s diverse population. I personally may know and care about what the coats of arms mean—my family arms appear much more than most—but do others really care as much?

I note the pertinent timing of this R&R programme. We are busy asserting Parliament’s sovereignty in exiting Europe and celebrating the supremacy of Westminster, yet we appear to be ignoring a prime opportunity to renew this Palace for the 21st century. Indeed, I am surprised that this is not a key issue in the leadership debates between Messrs Johnson and Hunt.

Finally, I need to speak to some details. A full cost benefit analysis is required. Those unfamiliar with R&R will be shocked by the £5 billion to £10 billion figure being bandied about. If we are to spend that much money, we need not only a lasting and contemporary legacy but to justify the cost explicitly. I encourage the sponsor body to work with the local council on planning and not to incorporate planning provision solely in the Bill. The expertise of the excellent local conservation officers is not to be ignored; local authorities can also provide an experienced local presence in the design and consent phase of the works.

I hope that these issues will be considered so that we have not only a complete and consistent programme of restoration and renewal but a full financial and cultural justification for the works being undertaken.