House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Lord Blencathra Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 12th March 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Blencathra]

19: After Clause 1, insert the following new Clause—
“Attendance requirement of 20%A member of the House of Lords who attended fewer than 20% of possible sittings in the 2019–2024 Parliament must retire from the House of Lords within two months of the day on which this Act is passed.”Member's explanatory statement
Alongside other amendments in the name of Lord Blencathra, this amendment has been tabled to permit the House to vote on three options for requiring peers who have made little recent contribution to the work of the House to retire. According to analysis of Library figures, requiring a minimum attendance of 20% of sittings between 2019 and 2024 could remove 154 peers.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, the Labour manifesto said that

“we will introduce a new participation requirement”.

My Amendment 26, in the next group, deals specifically with the very small number of Peers who turn up and then do nothing.

The Government keep complaining that many amendments to this Bill have nothing to do with the removal of hereditary Peers, saying that the Bill is narrowly focused. That is true, but it was a political decision by the Government to make it so narrow and not include the other priority issues from their manifesto. The Government are seeking to give the impression that dealing only with hereditary Peers is somehow sacrosanct or ordained from on high. If we were in the Moses Room right now, I would be looking at the tablets that he brought down from Sinai to see if there was an 11th commandment saying, “Thou shalt have no other provisions in thy Bill except the removal of hereditary Peers”. Governments often widen the scope of Bills and adjust the Long Title. Indeed, today in the other place the Government have tabled Amendments 262 and 263, which will amend the Long Title to the Employment Rights Bill. They could do so for this one also if they were so minded.

With these amendments, I am seeking to explore the possibility of retiring Peers who have attended few of our sittings. Let me make it crystal clear that I reject the idea of a full-time House of political professionals. The great strength of this revising Chamber is that, with a very wide range of expertise to call on, most noble Lords do not sit here all the time intervening on issues that are not their speciality, but participate in our debates and Select Committees on issues on which they are expert.

I recall a debate on an amendment to the precision breeding Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, was debating a point with the noble Lord, Lord Winston, concerning recombinant DNA—whatever that is. The rest of us sat there watching a very civilised ping-pong match, and they were the only two in the whole Chamber who knew what they were talking about. Indeed, when my noble friend the Minister wound up, he said that neither he nor his officials in the Box knew anything about the subject, either, and would both noble Lords come to the department and explain it to them? That is one tiny example of the superb strengths of this House—that is the House of Lords in action. For the record, both noble Lords had attendances in the last Parliament well above 30% and 40%.

I turn once again to the Excel spreadsheets produced by the Library, which have the attendance record for all Peers in the last Parliament. There may be some names missing and there are other little technical errors; however, these figures are not the full picture, since the attendance data is based on contributions made in the Chamber and Grand Committee and does not include participation in other committee meetings. The Library tells me:

“This is because of the way in which different types of data are stored in the House of Lords’ internal systems and the challenges in extracting it to provide a dataset which we can be confident is accurate for all members and across the full duration of the Parliament, unlike chamber contributions which we can be sure is robust. We are actively looking at ways of incorporating committee attendance into this analysis and hope to resolve this in future releases, conscious that we want to present as comprehensive a picture as possible.”


Nor do the attendance figures count all the days that Ministers are working away from the Lords in their departments, or abroad. Nor do they include the 25 days per annum when 23 Members of this House are away serving at the Council of Europe, the NATO Parliamentary Assembly and the OSCE.

With those caveats, the figures are nevertheless accurate enough for us to debate the concept of retiring Peers below certain attendance thresholds, and they give us a fairly good picture of attendance. If we retired Peers who attended fewer than 20% of possible sitting days in the previous Parliament, that would be 154 Peers. What does 20% mean in actual sitting days? Over the past 10 years—I have done the number-crunching myself —the number of sitting days has averaged 148.1 per annum. That ranged from just 15 days in 2019 to 350 during the 2017-19 Session; thus, an annual average is more accurate than a sessional average. Peers who attended 20% of the time therefore attended for just 30 days out of 148. Peers who attended 15% of the time attended 22 days out of 148, and those who attended just 10% of the time were present here for just 15 days.

If noble Lords access the spreadsheet, they can come to their own conclusions on whether the occasions on which some of those 154 Peers spoke or participated merit continuance in this House. I have seen a few names who made worthwhile speeches, but my recollection is that the vast majority of the 154 Peers in this category have not contributed much to the work of this House. Those who attended fewer than 15% of possible sittings number 118 Peers. When I look at the 10% and below—the 70 Peers who turned up for a maximum of 15 days per annum—I cannot see, in my opinion, any whose contribution was so essential or vital that we should retain their presence in this House for their very rare words of wisdom. Indeed, I can recall only three of them making any speech, and none has served on any of our committees.

This is not one of my amendments, but if we opted for removing those who have attended 5% or less of the time, that would be just 39 Peers. My noble friend Lord Hailsham has suggested a 1% threshold, but that is 12 Peers and, in my opinion, it would make us look a bit silly if we went that low. However, I agree with his other amendments: of course we must exempt those on leave of absence—but not for too long—or those with royal duties, such as the noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk, or the new Lord Chamberlain, the noble Lord, Lord Benyon.

These figures are out by about eight because of judicial appointments and some deaths since the Library compiled them last year, but noble Lords can see the ballpark figure—if that American term is still acceptable. Noble Lords may say, “What does it matter if they don’t turn up? They are not getting any allowance and not costing anything”. I agree with that view, but we are here today because the Government say that there are too many Peers, and the Government’s solution is to get rid of 88 hereditaries, many of whom are assiduous attenders. Indeed, there are only 14 hereditaries who have attended less than 20% of sittings.

I do not have a firm view on my options, but I think that noble Lords would consider the 20% or 15% thresholds to be on the high side and a bridge too far to begin with. When noble Lords look at the names of the 70 who would be retired for an attendance figure of fewer than 15 days per annum, I think we might have some consensus around that, with the necessary exemptions suggested by my noble friend Lord Hailsham.

Now, where this gets really interesting is if one combines an age cut-off and an attendance cut-off. The Excel spreadsheet gives some interesting figures. I will not waste time by running through the extremes: at one end, a retirement age of 90 and an attendance of just 1% would retire 89 Peers; at the other, retirement at 80 and a 20% attendance cut-off would retire 420 Peers, which I think would be a tad excessive. 

The more sensible criteria might be a retirement age of 85 and an attendance of 10%; that would retire 304 Peers by 2029. A retirement age of 85 and an attendance of 5% would retire 213 Peers. I suggest that that figure is on the edge of a possible solution, reducing our numbers to those who turn up, take part and are not perceived from outside as too old to do the job.

I have a couple of final points on attendance. I think that it has to be retrospective and based on attendance in the previous Parliament. That is highly contentious, but if we introduced, say, a 10% threshold for about 15 days in future, we would have some colleagues counting their attendance and rushing in to attend for a few days at the end of the year just to get over the threshold. We would also need some special appeal mechanism—a committee to which Peers could appeal if they felt that they were being wrongly excluded. I will say more about that when we debate Amendment 26. 

I appreciate that this is contentious and goes against the precedents we have had for centuries. But I come back to my starting point that retirement of those who turn up infrequently and say little is infinitely preferable to throwing out all hereditaries, over 70 of whom who turn up regularly and participate fully in the work of this House. 

Of course, if we were to go down this route in future, we would need complete and accurate figures for attendance in the Chamber, the Grand Committee and all our committees, as well as on Ministers and shadow Cabinet Ministers working away from the precincts of this building and those Peers on foreign delegations. 

In conclusion, I look forward to the unanimous support of my noble friends, and I beg to move.

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

I rise very briefly to speak to the four amendments in my name, Amendments 22 to 25. The first three would amend the lead amendment, Amendment 19, moved by my noble friend. For reasons that I shall come to shortly, I very strongly disagree with it.

First, I express some cautious agreement with my noble friend as regards future participation. My noble friend Lord Blencathra has urged the case for requiring a future minimum degree of engagement as a condition of membership of this House, and there is clearly a case for that. My own Amendment 25 suggests a participation record of 10%. However, I would be a bit cautious about setting too high a requirement; first, because occasional interventions from those who are not regular attenders can be very valuable, sometimes on esoteric subjects, although not exclusively so.

Moreover, and more generally, there is a danger that too demanding a requirement could encourage interventions for the purpose of meeting the criteria from those who are not currently great participators. We all know that speeches in major debates are time-limited, and very often the time available is very short. The question that arises is: do we want to make a more restrictive timetable? I think not, but that could well be a consequence of an increased participation requirement. As my noble friend touched on, there needs to be a degree of flexibility with regard to minimum requirements. Members may very well have good reasons for not participating: illness, leave of absence, overseas commitments, family problems and so forth. My suggestions in Amendments 22, 24 and 25 are designed to address these problems.

Where I actively and positively disagree with my noble friend is in his Amendment 19 and his related Amendments 20 and 21. Your Lordships will have noticed that those amendments relate to the 2019-24 Session. That is retrospective in character, and my noble friend is suggesting that if a Member fails to satisfy the stated participation level in the past Parliament, he must retire.

I am against retrospective requirements or sanctions. My noble friend’s proposal is just that. It imposes a penalty which is entirely retrospective in character, in respect of a failure to meet a requirement which did not exist at the relevant time. I regard that as a thoroughly objectionable proposition and I very much hope that this Committee will not go down that road.

--- Later in debate ---

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

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord. I fear I have been set a challenge by my Leader to try to get Andrew Lloyd Webber’s lyrics into my speech, but with very little notice, so no one is going to cry for me today.

Before I start, I wish the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, a very happy birthday. I am sure he could think of no better way to spend his birthday than to be in a debate with your Lordships.

Since I joined in 2022, one of my favourite parts of being a Member of your Lordships’ House is the fact that every week I learn something. The calibre of debate in your Lordships’ Chamber is exceptional. When I am asked about it by my friends—who do not necessarily follow our debates as much as they should, although I believe my mother now watches every one—I suggest that, at least once a month, I have the privilege of listening to my own version of a Reith lecture. That is the quality of the debate that we have in this House, from those who the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, highlighted as high impact, and from noble Lords across your Lordships’ House. It is a privilege to be part of it, and I welcomed very much that part of the debate.

I thank all noble Lords who have contributed. The debate on this topic has been valuable and insightful. I am aware that the next group of amendments looks at different ways of devising a framework for the changes that have been discussed, so I will try to keep my remarks brief and confined to the attendance requirements outlined.

From debates that we have had in the past, as well as the one we have had today, it is clear that there is broad agreement that Members should attend and participate in the core functions of this House. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Newby, highlighted, that looks very different internally and externally when it comes to quality and the demands that we may make on each other.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, for sharing his data with the Committee and the Government, particularly my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal. It has provided a structure for the conversations that we are having.

As noble Lords will be aware, there are existing measures to remove Peers who fail to attend the House once during a Session, and this Government have indicated their intention to go further in relation to requiring participation. Although this Bill is not the right vehicle to make such a change, this debate has been very helpful in examining the ways in which it might be achieved.

There is rightly a public expectation—and, having listened to the debate today, an expectation among your Lordships—about how Members should contribute. That is why we are developing a new participation requirement, a process which could include looking at the attendance of Peers. It is my hope that we can work together across your Lordships’ House to define what this new participation requirement should look like and how often Members should attend. There are genuine arguments about the quality of attendance and participation, as the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, highlighted. The range of amendments tabled on this topic and those in the next group, which considers other forms of participation, demonstrates that, although we are not at that point yet, we are focused on finding some agreement. As the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, stated in his opening remarks, not even he has a firm view.

The amendments that we are debating in this group all identify attendance as the metric through which to judge a Member’s contributions to this place. As we will see when we come to debate the group of amendments concerned with participation, attendance is not the only way in which contributions could be measured. Is a simple requirement to attend the House for a certain amount of time, as proposed in the amendments tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Blencathra and Lord Lucas, the noble Earl, Lord Devon, and the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, a reasonable measure of participation, or should we be more specific about the type of activities that need to be undertaken? I will refrain from pre-empting the later debate on this point, but this will be an important matter to consider when we look to clarify what is expected of Members of this House.

Before we consider the means by which we introduce a new participation requirement, I suggest that we should think not about the previous attendance records of the current membership, as the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, has suggested in his amendments, but about a long-term solution that is fair to Members. A priority is to ensure clarity on what the right and expected level of participation is, whether it be attendance or some more specific contribution, and to ensure that this is adhered to in the future.

Briefly, I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, for the series of amendments that he has tabled to further shape the proposals for an enhanced attendance requirement. He has made a number of sensible suggestions that should be considered when addressing the matter of participation, such as whether a Member is on an agreed leave of absence. Any work on this area will need to include reasonable exceptions, such as those identified by the noble Viscount. There is a question about the implementation of any enhanced attendance requirement: should the requirement be comprehensively set out in legislation, or should the detail be left to this House to decide and subsequently set out in our Standing Orders, as proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas?

I will briefly address the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, on the commencement of the Bill—Amendments 101E to 101G. I addressed these amendments during Monday’s debate. They would bring forward removal of the hereditary Peers to Royal Assent of this Bill, and make the noble Lord’s other amendments subject to a further resolution of the House, potentially delaying the measures indefinitely should both amendments be successful. The Government cannot support this change to the commencement of the Bill. The arrangements currently set out seek to balance the timely delivery of a manifesto commitment that promised an immediate reform, while not undermining the business of the House. As I have previously noted, they follow the approach set in the 1999 Act.

It is clear that the Committee wants to discuss this issue, and we welcome the suggestions that have been brought forward as part of that. There is positive momentum behind ensuring that there are clear expectations of Members, but this Bill is not the right vehicle to introduce this change. I therefore respectfully request that noble Lords do not press their amendments.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to every noble Lord who has taken part in this debate. Again, as with retirement ages on Monday, we might be seeing some consensus on the proposals from the noble Earl, Lord Devon, supported by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull. I will very briefly rocket through the comments of some of those who have spoken.

I take the point made by my noble friend Lord Hailsham on retrospectivity. Others made that point as well and I think it would be possibly better. Well, the House would never approve that in any case—any changes would be for the future. He also made the point that there is a danger that a threshold would cause Peers to come in to speak just to get past the threshold.

The noble Earl, Lord Devon, with his idea of 10% of sitting days in the future, may be on to a winner. Of course, the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, again supported that. It was a very good point about the Writ of Summons. It is not something that occurred to me—that the Writ of Summons would suggest that we should attend more frequently than some noble Lords do. I think my noble friend Lord Dundee also said no retrospectivity, and he also supported the 10% agreement in future.

My noble friend Lord Astor said there is a danger that it would encourage people just to turn up. And what about those brilliant young men and women, the executives, who could not afford to do 15 days per annum? I say to my noble friend that a threshold of 15 days per annum is not too high for brilliant whizz-kid young executives. If they boast about doing 18 hours a day in the City, I am sure they could manage to turn up here for 15 days per annum.

Oh—I am sorry. I should say, first and most importantly, a happy birthday to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire.

The noble Lord, Lord Newby, was highly supportive of a minimum threshold level, but I suspect that his strong support from the Lib Dems will not enamour him to my noble friends behind and around me. Nevertheless, he did say that we would need future legislation on this. I say to the noble Lord and other noble Lords: look at my Amendment 32, coming up later, because there I see that, in order to avoid future legislation, we can take a special delegated power, a regulation, to make any amendments the House decides in future without further Acts.

My noble friend Lord Strathclyde also said no retrospectivity, and I think he supported 10% as well. My noble friend Lord Trenchard suggested about 15%, so long as the House does not change its sitting hours, and that is a valid point. My noble friend Lord Hannan made a brilliant speech as usual—tremendous rhetoric—and I agree entirely with him. Having 850 Peers on the books is not a real problem, and it is not a problem if only 450 turn up regularly and the others do not come. They are not claiming any money and there is no cost to the system. But the reason we are here, I say again, is that the Government say it is a problem. The Government say there are far too many Peers. The Government want rid of Peers and their solution is to get rid of 88 hereditaries, 70 of whom do turn up. I suggest it is better, if we want to reduce the numbers, to do it through the measure I propose here.

My noble friend Lord Dobbs supports the noble Earl, Lord Devon, and says that the Government should reach out across the House to try to reach agreement. The noble Lord, Lord Sentamu, criticised having these amendments to the Bill—but, as I said at the start, it is perfectly legitimate to amend any Bill. The Government have drafted it very narrowly. They do not have to draft it narrowly; it is legitimate to amend it.

My noble friend Lord Bellingham again supported the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull. He liked the idea of excluding those who do not turn up for six months at a time, following the Local Government Bill. It is an idea to be explored. My noble friend Lord Bethell said that parliamentarians need to appreciate—he thanked me kindly for raising this concept—that it is right that Peers do turn up.

My noble friend Lady Lawlor said that the Government should seek consensus across the House. I am grateful that my noble friend Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay said he found the Excel spreadsheets useful. He made a brilliant and witty speech. But I am not quite sure what percentage he would recommend to the House. If I missed that, I am sure I will be corrected later on. He played a very careful sitting-on-the-fence game, which is an important political skill.

As for the Minister, I like her generally warm welcome for the concept of a threshold, and I think she was being very honest and sensible in saying that. Of course, she says it is not for this Bill. Again, I refer her and noble Lords to my Amendment 32, which may solve that problem.

So I am pleased to have tabled these amendments and I take credit for two things. I think my amendments have provoked and prompted better amendments from some other noble Peers, and of course the Excel spreadsheets have given us all something of substance to talk and argue about. Without those spreadsheets, we would be talking in vague generalities.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Blencathra]

26: After Clause 1, insert the following new Clause—
“House of Lords participation requirement(1) Standing Orders may make provision for a member to cease to be a member of the House of Lords if they have not met a reasonable level of participation based on requirements other than attendance.(2) A peer who does not meet the level of participation required may be notified and given six months to do so before the provision set out in subsection (1) takes effect.(3) For the purposes of subsection (1), “participation” includes—(a) speaking in the Chamber and Grand Committee;(b) serving on committees of the House;(c) asking oral questions;(d) tabling written questions;(e) participating as an official delegate in international organisations;(f) any other activity which the Committee considers to be participation in the work of the House.(4) The House of Lords may appoint a committee to consider and approve revisions to the Standing Orders to give effect to subsection (1).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is intended to ensure that members who attend but then say or do little or nothing are removed from the House.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, if one thought that my last amendment was slightly controversial, it is nothing in comparison to this one. I and the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, can again say to the Leader of the House, “Neither of us is from the Government but, again, we are here to help you”. We will help to implement the Labour Party manifesto that

“we will introduce a new participation requirement”.

Part of what I propose here is simple and straightforward, but another part would be difficult and highly contentious.

The first question is: why is this necessary? We all know that there is a tiny number of Peers who, shall we say, clock in and then disappear without any participation. Even if it is only one Member or up to 10, that brings the House into disrepute. There is more than enough abuse in the media about hard-working Peers getting the £361 per day tax-free allowance, so we must root out the small number who turn up and do nothing.

The easy bit is collecting the statistics, as per the list in the amendment’s proposed new subsection (3). Thus we know exactly who has spoken in the Chamber or in Grand Committee and how often. As the Library said, statistics are also being collected for our Select Committees. We know who has asked Oral and Written Questions, and how many. We may not record those who attend and work in other committees at the moment, as they do not count for attendance. That work is also vital to the functioning of this House. It can be very time consuming, but we can easily collect the names and statistics there also.

We know who serves on international delegations such as the Council of Europe, NATO and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, and that is 23 Peers in this House. As an aside, if noble Lords will permit me, the half-allowance that we get for that work is nonsensical. The hours and threats that the noble Lords, Lord Dodds and Lord Lancaster, and I faced when we observed the elections in Georgia last November were far longer and tougher than anything we do in this place. I can also say, with all certainty, that those of us who serve in those three organisations are going to some very long and hard days in our next few meetings as we wrestle with the new security threats in Europe. All our meetings start at 08:30 and end at 20:00 and we get £15 per hour for our attendance.

That was a personal aside—now, back to my amendment. My concluding item is to include any other work that a committee would consider to be participation in the work of the House. The only area in which I differ from the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, is that I would not let any Secretary of State get his or her fingers on this. We can set this up ourselves without government help, and either call on the Procedure Committee to do it or create a new committee specifically to decide on the metrics for adequate participation. A new committee would probably be best—one that would keep this under constant review and act as an appeal body for those Peers who objected to retirement on the grounds of attendance below any threshold, and participation below any new threshold also.

That is where the contentious parts will be. It is easy to collect the statistics, but how will we decide what minimum level of participation should entitle one to continued membership of this House? This is where I am looking forward to hearing from the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, particularly on his proposed new subsection (3) on a minimum participation level and the metrics to set it. Neither of us can say today what that should be, but I can pose some of the questions that the committee would have to adjudicate on.

If a Peer did nothing save put down a few Written Questions, would that suffice? If so, how many? Would one speech per annum in the Chamber or two in the Grand Committee qualify? Would we treat participation in all committees as equal, or would we say that some were more important than others and one would have to attend two or three lesser committees to equal one attendance at a more important one, however one defined “important”?

Then there is the vexed question of effectiveness. As soon as I was elected in Penrith and The Border to succeed the great Willie Whitelaw, he said: “David, you must distinguish between activity and achievement. Many MPs run around being active but achieve very little”. Suppose that we have a Peer who has asked only one Written Question in the whole year, but it revealed some terrible scandal or made the Government change policy; or a Peer who came high up in the Private Members’ Bill ballot and his or her Bill became law and changed the lives of thousands—for the better, one hopes and assumes.

I appreciate that, the more I talk about the difficulties of a minimum participation level, the more your Lordships will conclude that it is too difficult and we should leave well alone. But that is not our normal modus operandi in this House. The Lords tackles issues which Governments and departments shy away from. Just look at our Select Committee reports. I cannot believe that a committee of all sides of this House will be unable to draw up the metrics which the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, proposes. If it says after serious deliberation that it cannot be done, that is the end of the matter. If the great and the good of this House cannot find a solution to set a minimum participation level, no one can. Of course, we need to incorporate the exceptions proposed by my noble friend Lord Hailsham. I also look forward to my noble friend Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay naming names, if he has anyone in mind.

I conclude as I began. We have a very small number of Peers failing to participate at all, or participating very infrequently, and that is bringing the House into disrepute. Fixing it is not beyond the capabilities of noble Lords. I beg to move.

Amendment 27 (to Amendment 26)

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

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

I thank all noble Lords for their amendments and for the thoughtful and good-faith contributions that have marked this debate. The amendments in this group share a great deal of commonality with those in the last group: all of them, in their essence, seek to expand the purpose of the Bill to introduce a participation requirement, attendance being just one aspect of participation.

This debate demonstrates that there is a very considerable measure of agreement that there should be an obligation on Members of your Lordships’ House to participate in our proceedings; that we should arrive at settled metrics to assess the adequacy of participation; and that, absent very good and legitimate reason, a failure to meet the recognised standards should be deemed incompatible with continued membership of the House. There, however, the considerable agreement, if not consensus, ends.

As the amendments and the debate have demonstrated, there is as yet no measure of agreement on what the requisite participation levels—the metrics—should be. As all noble Lords know, participation in this House can take many different forms, but specifying which metrics should be applied to requisite participation is a complicated and nuanced matter. Participation, and specifying responsibilities so as to capture genuine and active work in the House in a way that can be measured in practice, will require further discussion and thought.

For instance, is a simple requirement to attend the House for a certain amount of time, as suggested in the amendments that we considered in the previous group, a reasonable measure of participation, or should we be more specific about the types of activity that need to be undertaken, as suggested in the amendments that we are now considering? If more specificity is desired, is it spoken contributions that should count, or votes in Divisions? Likewise, tabling amendments is a fundamental part of the work of this House, as is the valuable contribution made through Select Committees. Whether any one vote counts as participation, or a single Written Question should have the same weight as an afternoon chairing a Select Committee, are all nuanced questions and issues that will need to be considered.

On top of the identification of the metrics, there is an additional important question about how we implement those metrics. Should the requirements be set out comprehensively in legislation, or should the details be left to this House to decide and set out in Standing Orders, as suggested by the amendments tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Blencathra and Lord Lucas. This throws up numerous problems. On the previous group, the noble Lord, Lord Newby, touched on why legislation might be thought on the one hand to be preferable vehicle for the certainty and solidity that it gives, but may create all sorts of unintended consequences that the noble Lord set out.

In the Government’s view, these questions serve to underline the utility in our intent for the current Bill to remain focused on the single issue of hereditary peerages, leaving the important—I stress “important”—issue of participation levels to be the subject of further consultation and discussion with all your Lordships, not least to see whether a general consensus can be found. It is the Government’s hope that we can work together across this House to define what this new participation requirement would look like. As I have said, although we are grateful for this discussion and for your Lordships’ focus on this issue in this group of amendments, the very range of the amendments and scope of the debate that we have had demonstrate that we are not at a point where consensus has been reached and that further work and discussion are required.

Turning to the particular amendments, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, for his amendment, which seeks to impose a maximum participation threshold. In listening to the noble Lord’s contribution, I assume that the amendment seeks to ensure that minimum participation levels do not have an adverse impact on the operation of this House or incentivise participation for participation’s sake. The Government agree that care will need to be taken when we come to discuss what participation levels look like. It is one factor that will go into the pot as we try to calibrate what requisite participation will look like through discussion—or, indeed, potentially through the algorithm suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Desai.

The amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, seeks to impose an obligation on the Government to establish the cross-party Lords commission which, within six months, would set out recommendations requiring the Government, within a further six months, to adopt those recommendations in a draft Bill. I thank the noble Lord for his engagement on this matter, the thought that he has given to it and the spirit in which it is adopted. In his speech, he said that the purpose of his amendment was to get the Government to show a little ankle as to where we were. I am anticipating that that was metaphorical, not literal and I hope that I can reassure him and this House that the Government are committed, once this Bill has passed, to moving forward, hopefully through consensus, to push to the next level of reform, at which participation will be key.

However, I hope the noble Lord will also understand that we cannot support his amendment, even as we work together collegiately on that issue, for two reasons. First, the Government do not believe that it is necessary or helpful to prescribe on a statutory basis the mechanism by which a proposal for participation requirement is identified. Secondly, the final aspect of the amendment would oblige the Government to publish a draft Bill implementing the recommendations of the commission. We fully intend to work with your Lordships across the House and are committed to finding solutions that have the support of this House, but binding the Government to the recommendations of a commission that is not yet established is not an appropriate way to proceed.

Amendment 26, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, seeks to create the participation requirement that is now based on metrics other than attendance and allow for removal of Members who have not met a reasonable level of participation. The amendment seeks to appoint a committee to approve the relevant standing changes. I thank the noble Lord for his amendment. As I said in response to the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, the Government are committed to working collaboratively on the issue. I also thank the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, for the series of amendments that he has tabled to further shape the proposals for the participation requirement. He has made a number of very sensible suggestions that must form part of any further discussions on participation. They will need to take account of the sensible points raised by the noble Lord.

These are all significant and nuanced questions across the range of amendments, to which thought will need to be given carefully and collaboratively. The Government will welcome that discussion. As many noble Lords will know, my noble friend the Leader of the House has already engaged in over 60 discussions with your Lordships, trying to fashion and develop how we move forward after this Bill. Channelling the spirit of the debate, I respectfully request that noble Lords do not press their amendments.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, once again we have had a fascinating debate. The Government may not have wished us to discuss this and to take an hour to do so, but noble Lords on all sides of the House have welcomed the chance to raise this important point. As I said at the beginning, like it or not, a tiny number of Peers come into this place for only a few minutes each day—then they disappear. That is quite a different matter from those who come here and participate at some level in discussion, including on a committee.

I do like Amendment 63, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell. He made the point that, if we do not tackle this now, we never will. Both our amendments call for this special committee to be set up, which will come up with metrics and decide on a level of participation. My noble friend Lord Strathclyde was right to say that this is an important constitutional matter and that it is right to discuss it now.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

The Opposition side!

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

—we would never dream of kicking her out of this place. She was absolutely right to say that all hereditary Peers should be given a life peerage. That would kill this nonsense stone dead.

My noble friend Lord Lucas has proposed an excellent amendment. As he said, we are all engaged here in trying to improve the effectiveness of the House. Asking new Peers to make a commitment for the future has merit, but we still have the genuine problem of the handful of Peers who come here, clock in and do nothing. I say again to my noble friend Lord Swire that I am not suggesting measuring the quality of speeches. If Peers are making speeches, then they are participating in the work of the House. The quality of their speeches is not something to be measured by this committee. My noble friend Lord Trenchard also supports participation level, but I would say to him that legislation is not necessary if we accept Amendment 32 when we come to it later.

As I am leading on all six groups of amendments today, I fear I have fallen foul of my noble friend Lord Parkinson’s exhortation not to speak too much. He quoted an incident that occurred years ago in the Commons, when I was a junior Whip and the marvellous Harold Walker was Speaker in the Chair. We were in government, and we had an agreement with the Opposition on a two-minute time limit for speeches on Commons consideration of Lords amendments. We were rocketing through our consideration of Lords amendments to yet another criminal justice Bill. We were getting on fine until our friend Sir Ivan Lawrence QC —I am not naming names, this is in Hansard—got up and said, “Everything that could possibly have been said on this Bill has been said, but not by those of us qualified to do so”. He spoke for 20 minutes, and the Labour Chief Whip said, “That’s it—the deal’s off!” We spent another two hours in Committee.

The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, whom I congratulate on his birthday, showed support for the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, and a minimum level of participation. He also criticised those who, as he said, turn up for 20 minutes and then leave. I think those were my exact words, too, and we did not collaborate on that.

My noble friend Lord True, speaking from the Opposition Front Bench, said that it is legitimate to discuss these issues, which were in the manifesto. He said that there is a widespread view in the House that we have to do something about the problem of those who do not participate. Peers contribute in myriad ways. The committee that the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, and I are suggesting setting up would take those myriad ways into account before establishing a minimum.

The noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General said that agreement on doing something, having a metric and removing those who fall short of that level is important and that we should do something about it, but we are not setting it up here. All we are asking for is a committee to decide on the detail. The noble and learned Lord was justifying not doing anything because, he said, there were too many nuances. Of course there are nuances, dozens of them—there are hundreds of things to be taken into account—and that is the purpose of the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell. If we pass his amendment and set up the committee, it will do the consultation on all sides and spend a year or two figuring out the details.

I say to the noble and learned Lord that he reminded me of that wonderful “Yes Minister” attitude, where Sir Humphrey says, “Yes, Minister, that is a very good idea. We will set up an interdepartmental working group and consult the Cabinet committees and this, that and the other. Then we will publish a Green Paper first and then a White Paper. I am sure that we will be able to deliver on your promise—eventually”.

In conclusion, there is a mood in the House to take this participation problem seriously. Most noble Lords favour the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell. He stressed that some noble Lords were fussing about the details. He suggests that could be done by the committee.

Amendment 27 (to Amendment 26) withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Blencathra]

29: After Clause 1, insert the following new Clause—
“Removal of peers with a criminal convictionAny peer convicted of a criminal offence on indictment ceases to be a member of the House of Lords within seven days of the conviction, or the loss of appeal if the peer appeals the conviction.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment intends to ensure that peers who have committed a serious offence are removed from the House, using an indictable offence to provide a clear threshold.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I am sure noble Lords will be relieved to hear that my speech will be much shorter on this occasion. I leave it to my noble and learned friends and other noble Lords to suggest improvements to my amendment.

Again, my starting point is the Labour Party manifesto. It said:

“Labour will ensure all Peers meet the high standards that the public expect of them, and we will introduce a new participation requirement as well as strengthening the circumstances in which disgraced members can be removed”.


The term “disgraced” is a bit vague. If we get into the business of removing Peers who have disgraced themselves, there will be quite a few, depending on how we judge the subjective word “disgraced”. It is safer to stick with those who have brought the House into disrepute and have committed a crime which has resulted in a prison sentence. My suggestion is that the prison sentence which triggers expulsion should be reduced from 12 months to six. My noble friend Lord Hailsham is right that his amendment would rectify my sloppy and imprecise legal wording. I hope noble Lords will agree that, however it is properly and legally phrased, the term should be reduced to six months from 12.

There are a number of related issues that the Committee needs to tackle. Suppose a Peer is convicted of drunk-driving and gets a three-month prison sentence and a 12-month driving ban—any drunk driver is a potential killer—should we not suspend him or her from the House for the same period as the driving ban, for example? We have a problem—some Peers, two I believe, who have served time in prison are still here because we did not have the expulsion power when they were convicted. Another defrauded the House of over £120,000 —the largest ever expenses scandal—but was never charged with a crime. We need to use the legislative power to retrospectively deal with those disgraced Peers.

No matter how heinous the crime might be, right up to the level you get when applying for a visa for the United States—“Have you ever waged thermonuclear war against the United States?”—if a Peer was instantly expelled and could never enter the House again, their title, Lord, still remains. In those rare cases, I suggest the title must be removed.

A peerage can be removed only by an Act of Parliament. The most recent Act that did that was the Titles Deprivation Act 1917, which I am sure is on the tip of your Lordships’ tongues. It was used to remove peerages from enemies of the UK during the First World War. Specifically, Section 1 introduced powers to remove a peerage from anyone who had

“during the present war, borne arms against His Majesty or His Allies, or who have adhered to His Majesty’s enemies”.

The Act meant that any Peers suspected of assisting the enemy could be investigated by a committee of the Privy Council, which would then lay a report to both Houses of Parliament for 40 days. If this period elapsed without either House tabling a Motion disapproving the report, the report would be taken as final and presented to the monarch. The Peer would then be struck off the peerage roll and would have all rights to receive a Writ of Summons and sit in the House of Lords removed. The Act took away four titles. Three of them—the Dukes of Cumberland, Albany and Brunswick —were high-ranking German noblemen and their peerages came from Victoria. The fourth, Viscount Taaffe, an Irish title, was serving in the Austrian army.

It would be a simple matter to have a new Act of Parliament replicating that, called the “Titles Deprivation Act”, for serious criminal offences, implementing exactly the same procedure of a committee of Privy Counsellors of both Houses deciding whether or not a title should be removed because of the severity of the crime committed by the Peer. Of course these issues are not in the Bill, and I am not asking that they should be, but I cannot think of any other opportunity I would have, this year or in the next few years, to raise that little issue, which I believe should be addressed by Parliament in the future to remove disgraced Peers. I beg to move.

Amendment 30 (to Amendment 29)

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, this has been a short but interesting and thoughtful debate on the amendments trying to probe these issues. The comments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, on how the House can deal with this matter were very helpful.

Currently, as the noble and learned Lord said, under the House of Lords Reform Act 2014, a Member of this House automatically ceases to be a Member if they are convicted of a serious offence—that is, if they are given a non-suspended prison sentence of more than a year. We have already heard about the House of Lords (Expulsion and Suspension) Act 2015; the Standing Orders of this House and the Code of Conduct deal with that very clearly. If a Member receives a prison sentence—of any length and regardless of what the sentence is—that is deemed to be a breach of the code.

There has been a general view across the House about having some strengthening of their roles but, as the noble and learned Lord has said, a number of factors have to be considered in the round. For example, would it be right automatically to expel a Member if the Crown Court considers that the offence is not sufficiently serious to warrant a custodial sentence? Are there particular offences that the House may consider should be treated more seriously, or as being incompatible with membership of your Lordships’ House and warrant automatic expulsion?

Noble Lords also raised the question of somebody being prosecuted overseas. As well as what we might determine malicious or political prosecutions, somebody could be prosecuted overseas for something that is not an offence in this country. Further debate is needed on how we can strengthen the rules. Another factor that I will take into account is the rules across both Houses. It was interesting that the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, set the threshold in his amendment lower than the recall conditions for Members of Parliament, but the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, set it higher. Some consistency across Parliament would be helpful.

The noble Lord also raised a very interesting point about the removal of peerage. I am sure I am not the only noble Lord to have heard this point—the noble Lord, Lord True, may have had similar correspondence: if somebody has been stripped of another honour, why do they remain a Peer? In fact, that has nothing to do with the membership of the House of Lords. Someone can retain a peerage. That is not a matter for this House, but I think that those comments should be taken on board as well.

That indicates that we would be willing and happy to maintain an ongoing dialogue on this particular matter—

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

The manifesto mentioned “disgraced” Peers. I know that the noble Baroness may be consulting on this, but can she indicate what she means by “disgraced” Peers? Is it only those who have committed serious criminal offences?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

It is hard to look at this without looking at criminal offences, but if noble Lords have other examples they would wish us to consider, we would be happy to do so. Ultimately, these are matters for the Code of Conduct and further dialogue, so I respectfully request that noble Lords do not press their amendments.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, we have spent 15 minutes on this, so I hope we will not be accused of filibustering in this small but rather important debate. I take on board the complexities that my noble and learned friend Lord Keen of Elie and the Minister have described. Nevertheless, it has been a worthwhile debate.

There has been a surprising amount of consensus over the deprivation of titles. If one can take away a knighthood, it should be possible, in very controlled circumstances, to take away the title of Peer. It is a matter for this House in conjunction with the Commons, because the Titles Deprivation Act 1917 said that a Joint Committee of privy counsellors from both Houses should look at peerages and decide who had aided the enemy. If we had removal for serious offences, however we determine “serious”, again, it would be determined by a committee of privy counsellors from both Houses. And it would not be automatic; we would not be looking back at someone like Lord Montague and automatically doing it. The committee would determine whether the seriousness of the offence, whether in the last few years or further back, was worth taking forward. It would not be an automatic removal of title.

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 31 (to Amendment 29) not moved.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 29 withdrawn.

Moved by

[Lord Blencathra]

32: After Clause 1, insert the following new Clause—
“Legislating for changes to the composition of the House of Lords(1) Where a resolution of the House of Lords establishes or changes—(a) the age at which peers must retire,(b) a minimum attendance requirement,(c) a participation requirement, or(d) a type of criminal conviction which results in expulsion from the House,a relevant Minister must, within 12 months, take the action set out in subsection (2).(2) Where a resolution is passed by the House of Lords in accordance with subsection (1) (a “relevant resolution”), a relevant Minister must, by regulations made by statutory instrument, amend this Act in order to translate the relevant resolution into statute.(3) The regulations must use the wording of the relevant resolution, without any alteration.(4) The relevant Ministers are the Leader of the House of Lords and the Leader of the House of Commons, by whatever titles they are then known.(5) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to establish changes regarding the composition of the House in law, while allowing the House flexibility to change them.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I consider this amendment quite important and a solution to many of the problems that have been posed by noble Lords on Monday and today; that is, that we may want to change things in the future, but we need to wait for an Act of Parliament to do it—an Act which may never materialise.

Let us suppose for a moment—and it is not beyond the bounds of possibility—that we make an amendment to this Bill which succeeds, so that the Act of Parliament may contain provisions that set out a retirement age, a minimum participation requirement or an attendance requirement, or sets up the committee that the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, described in his amendment. After 12 months or two years or longer, when that committee reports, if this House decided that we needed to tweak it and that the retirement age or attendance criteria were not right, we would need primary legislation to change it.

The justification for my Amendment 32 was in fact made, I believe, by noble Lords on Monday night. Noble Lords may recall the debate we had on retirement ages and the amendment on transitional arrangements proposed by the noble Earl, Lord Devon. It was supported by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, who said that it

“proposes a simple set of transitional arrangements with two legs that would reduce that organisational shock enormously and allow the House to transition to an age limit of 80 without pain or any loss of our capability and effectiveness … The second leg would give everyone who comes in a minimum of 10 years”.—[Official Report, 10/3/25; cols. 560-61.]

The noble Lord, Lord Burns, said

“if we are going to have an age limit, we do not have to choose between 80, 85 or 90 for ever. We could begin with an age limit of 85 and then, for the following Parliament, have an age limit of 80: we would get two bites at the process of bringing down the numbers. I support what my noble friend Lord Kinnoull says. I think the transition arrangements for this are just as important as they have been in the whole debate about hereditary Peers”.—[Official Report, 10/3/25; col. 563.]

Winding up that debate, my noble and learned friend Lord Keen of Elie had a similar argument—to bring the age down to 85 by the end of this Parliament and to 80 by the end of the next Parliament.

What those four speeches have in common is that, at some future point, a further Act of Parliament would be required on House of Lords reform. It is highly unlikely that we will get any new legislation on changes to the House of Lords, even little ones, and it would probably be outside the scope of even the usual Home Office “Christmas tree” Bill—a criminal justice Bill. The Government have had their fingers burnt with this Bill and will not want a rerun of it, even if they worked out ideas on improving

“national and regional balance of the second chamber”,

as they said in their manifesto. Thus, my solution is to have a special regulation-making power in the Act to enable any of the suggestions on retirement ages, term limits or anything else.

As your Lordships will know, all Governments over the last 40 years have ruthlessly extended the delegated powers in Bills to include more inappropriate delegations. I submit that no Government can be trusted with an open-ended regulatory power to change the four Lords rules that I have suggested in my amendment. I was interested in what the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, said about delegated powers: that, in the past few years, they have expanded dramatically, which is not acceptable. The report from our Delegated Powers Committee, when I chaired it, suggested that every Government over the last 40 years had increased their delegated powers.

Therefore, we need a tightly constrained delegated power that the Government could not change or delay. That is why I state in my amendment that the regulation must copy verbatim the wording of the resolution of the House of Lords, and it must be made within 12 months of our House passing such a Motion. We would need to look at it first, just to ensure that there was no accidental wrong wording in the government regulations.

The Committee may think that I am being a bit cynical, but after four years as chairman of the Delegated Powers Committee, I can show noble Lords real cynicism in some of the appalling delegated powers that government departments have inserted into Bills. We revealed that in our report, Democracy Denied? The Urgent Need to Rebalance Power between Parliament and the Executive, and I can slip noble Lords a few copies at very little cost.

Let us build in now the power to make changes in the future. It would not commit us to making any of those changes, but it would ensure that, if this House of Lords decided on a retirement age or term limits or participation—or to implement anything that the committee described by the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, agreed on—we would not have to wait many years for a new Act of Parliament and for the Government to find time in their legislative programme. Looking at the myriad problems that always affect the country every month and year, I cannot see any Government in the next two or three years finding time for another Bill on House of Lords changes. The regulation-making power that I suggest should be tightly drawn, unlike a Bill, which would be fair game for another 116 amendments as per this Bill.

Before concluding, I must say that I was impressed by the transitional arrangements propositions. If those four noble Lords—the noble Earls, Lord Devon and Lord Kinnoull, the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and my noble and learned friend Lord Keen of Elie—can agree some consensus amendment for Report, I will happily not push ahead with the more blunt instrument of retirement at the ages of 80, 85 or 90. In the meantime, I commend my Amendment 32 to the Committee and beg to move.

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for moving his amendment. However, I am not convinced that it is a very good idea, not least because it would alter the constitution and enable this House to exclude Members of another place from coming here at some point, without affording them the opportunity to say no or to express their concerns.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

In our Standing Orders we are already able to exclude Peers for non-attendance. That right exists at the moment. The discussion we have had is about whether it is at the right level, but we could do that through our own Standing Orders.

I am not sure that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, is right in the first point he made, because the amendment says:

“Where a resolution is passed by the House of Lords in accordance with subsection (1) … a relevant Minister must, by regulations made by statutory instrument, amend this Act”.


So there are instructions for the Minister to amend the Act—there would have to be a vote, I am sure, but it is an instruction.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for making that clear. It would be an instruction for the Minister to lay it as a statutory instrument but, of course, there would be a vote on it in the House of Commons at any rate.

My noble friend Lord Northbrook asked about the mechanics of the resolution. We write Standing Orders and they are perfect, so we would draft a new Standing Order on whatever it may be; the resolution of the House would then ask for that Standing Order to be a statutory instrument, which the Government would implement.

My noble friend Lady Finn was worried that we would impose on the Government the wording of this statutory instrument but get it wrong. If I may say so, there is a better chance that the House of Lords will get the wording of a statutory instrument right than any government lawyers; that has been my experience in the past. I welcome my noble friend Lord Lucas’s support.

I am sorry to disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Newby, but I believe that we are capable of drafting sufficient regulations on some of the issues in my amendment and that we do not need an Act of Parliament. I regret that I put the criminal convictions in—that was a step too far—but, hypothetically, surely we should have the power to do as I have suggested as far as the retirement age and a participation rate are concerned. Those things do not need massive outside consultation or an Act of Parliament. As the House of Lords, it should be within our power, if the committee of the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, comes up with metrics on participation—or if the suggestions from the noble Earls, Lord Devon and Lord Kinnoull, on retirement ages and transitional rules come up—to say, “These are the rules that we want”. In the current circumstances, we would say that to the Government. If the Leader of the House, on whatever side, said, “Jolly good idea”, he or she would then go to the Government and say, “This is what the House of Lords wants to change. Can we please have an Act of Parliament sometime to make these amendments to our rules?”.

I am suggesting that we would not need to go through that palaver if we built in a tightly constrained regulatory power. It may have to be tweaked—I am not suggesting that my wording here is perfect; clearly, it is not—but, if we gave ourselves the power to change our rules on retirement ages and participation rates, say, and that regulation power could go to the Government, as I suggest, the Government could then put it in an SI the way we have worded it. The House of Commons could then vote on it. I suggest that this would be a simple solution but, as I think I am the only one here with an amendment, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 32 withdrawn.