House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 3rd March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howard of Lympne (Con)]

I apologise, both to the Committee and to the noble and learned Lord. I am delighted to hear that he is still with us. I am most grateful to the Leader.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine, gave those undertakings as Lord Chancellor—an office which then occupied a rather higher position in our firmament of distinction than it has since. “Binding in honour”: those were the words he used. Honour is not, to our collective regret, a characteristic much associated these days with politicians, or even with legislators who do not regard themselves as politicians, so it behoves those of us who regret this lamentable state of affairs to do what we can to remedy it. That means honouring commitments, such as those given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine. This Bill dishonours those solemn assurances, so the conclusion is inescapable, as my noble friend Lord Hannan said at Second Reading, that this is a dishonourable Bill.

Some of your Lordships may argue that those assurances were given more than a quarter of a century ago and we cannot therefore continue to be bound by them. But honour is not time limited. Indeed, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine, could have said, had that been his intention, that his assurances were not intended to last for more than a quarter of a century. He could have said it, but he did not. Some of your Lordships may argue that those assurances are trumped—I use the word advisedly—by commitments in an election manifesto. If that had been his intention then the noble and learned Lord could have said so, but he did not.

There is, as I have said, no escaping the fact that this is a dishonourable Bill, and any votes cast for it are dishonourable votes. I suggest that your Lordships bear these facts in mind when assessing the purposes of the Bill.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

My Lords, I do not know if I am alone in having a sense of fear and anxiety about the state of the world at the present time. The fact that we are debating ourselves when, at the other end of the Corridor, they are considering the issues of security that are so central to our country’s future and the future of our alliances, makes me wonder whether perhaps we have got our priorities wrong in this place that we should be talking about ourselves and that we should be so divided when we can easily be united, as my noble friend Lord True has so clearly set out. He has offered us an opportunity to avoid any further conflict and dislocation of the great work that this House does.

In recent days, the conduct by the Prime Minister of our affairs as a nation has been exemplary. He has shown great courage in dealing with very difficult circumstances. He has said that he wants to be a bridge between our closest ally, the United States, and Europe. I ask him and the Leader of the House: could they not be a bridge between us and the House of Commons? The Commons is filled with a large number of Labour MPs who won the election fair and square on a clear manifesto commitment to end the process by which hereditary Peers could come to this House and take part in legislation. That is accepted, as my noble friend said in moving this amendment.

I mean no disrespect to any of my colleagues, but I look at these not quite hundreds but dozens of amendments, some of which are a little on the absurd side, and I ask whether this the way in which this House should carry out constitutional reform, in this kind of manner. Constitutional reform should be done, as my noble friend has said, on the basis of consensus. It should be carefully considered, and the consequences and the unintended consequences of one thing relative to another should be taken account of. This is no way to deal with this proud and important House, which plays an increasingly crucial part as the Commons has increasingly used timetable Motions to avoid doing the work carried out in this place.

I ask the Leader of the House, whom I have always held in the highest regard, is there not a better way? Can we not accept that the hereditary principle is dead? Can we not recognise that among the hereditaries in this House are some of the most talented and able people? That may sound like a partisan comment because quite a lot of them are, of course, Tories, but are we really going to say goodbye to the Convener of the Cross Benches? Forgive me for naming individuals. Are we going to say goodbye to the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, who serves on my Financial Services Regulation Committee, has great expertise and knowledge, and has done great work on the equally intractable problem of the restoration and renewal of these buildings? Are we going to throw out my noble friend Lord Moynihan, an Olympian, with his great experience and knowledge of sport? Are we really going to dispense of the services of my noble friend Lord Howe, who can take any issue, no matter how controversial and divided, and make us all think, “Why did we not think of that in the first place?” Are we going to throw out people like my noble friend Lord Strathclyde, who led this House with such distinction?

As he demonstrated earlier today, sometimes the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, gets a bit carried away with himself. We have a duty to try to work together. There has been some criticism of some of the appointments that have been made by the Prime Minister. I understand why the Prime Minister wants to have a reasonable number of Labour Peers in this House. There have been some people who have said, “Why are we getting all these trade unionists? Why are we getting all these Labour MPs?” Some people have even put down amendments suggesting that there should be a quota on the number of MPs in this House. Speaking as a former MP, I think that is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. The response to that is that they are being rewarded for their duty in public service—and quite right too.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

One person asked me to answer for Viscount Cranborne and I am now expected to answer for Alastair Campbell. The noble Lord needs to ask my good friend Alastair Campbell about that, but I know the facts are precisely as I described. Please do not take my word for it; take it from Viscount Cranborne. We are going to have a long debate, and I know that I have gone on far too long, but I hope that no one will again use that tired, dishonourable excuse that somehow a crucial agreement was reached which was binding to all subsequent Governments, when it was reached under duress.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

I totally understand why the noble Lord cannot be expected to answer for the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine, or anyone else, but perhaps he could answer for himself. He is quite right—magnanimity in victory—that he has got what he was asking for. If he thought that it was in the interests of this House when he introduced his Bill—well known as the Grocott Bill—to end the hereditary principle but to allow the Peers to remain in this House, what has changed? Why has he changed his view?

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

What has changed is that there was a general election, and this was a manifesto commitment. Broadly speaking, it is a good idea to obey manifesto commitments. The longer answer to the noble Lord’s question is that I was not the first to introduce such a Bill; Eric Lubbock was the first Member of this House to propose that there should be no more by-elections. Had it been agreed at the time that the Lubbock Bill, which I will call it, was introduced, there would be only about 25 hereditary Peers left. Due to the constant refusal of people to accept the end of the by-elections, a whole new generation of hereditary Peers has arrived, so that, for the objective of ending the hereditary principle in this House to be concluded, it would take another 40 or 50 years. It is spilt milk. I respect noble Lord, Lord Forsyth: he occasionally made the odd favourable comment towards my Bill, for which I am very grateful; it was an all-party Bill supported by all parties and in huge numbers. But times have changed. It is the time for apologies from Messrs True, Mancroft and Strathclyde to their colleagues for blocking the Bill in the way that they did. Along with the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, who we will have the pleasure of hearing from in the next amendment, they are the ones who have the explaining to do, not me.