House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Lord Hamilton of Epsom Excerpts

Tuesday 1st April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak to my Amendment 101, which calls for a constitutional conference. We have spent much time debating what the composition of your Lordships’ House should be in the future, but I am afraid that we have the cart before the horse: before you decide on how you would like to reconstitute the membership of your Lordships’ House, you have to decide what they are going to do.

This is the problem that we have at the moment: the Bill does not address the question of the powers of your Lordships’ House. However, until you have decided on the powers of your Lordships’ House, you cannot really decide how you are going to change the membership. At that point, you will get completely bogged down, because you will not then be able to tell people who are elected to your Lordships’ House that they cannot vote at Second Reading, that there is a limit on the amount of ping-pong you can play with the elected House, and so forth.

I sincerely hope that the Government will institute a constitutional conference on the relative powers, because that will be a vexed and difficult issue. I am sure that the other place rather revels in the fact that this House is so illegitimate. Since it can claim that it is legitimate and has a democratic mandate, it can basically overrule what happens in your Lordships’ House, which is reduced to the role of a revising Chamber. On the other hand, the Government have to decide what this House really does. I suggest that it would be very sensible to set up a constitutional conference to work on the relative powers, which could be introduced to your Lordships’ House as it stands today. The Government could then see the results of the decisions made by a constitutional conference on what should and should not happen in this House with the existing membership before they perhaps decide to change the membership overall.

The composition of your Lordships’ House is an extremely complicated issue as well, because there are many different facets to your Lordships’ House, not least the Cross Benches, which play a very valuable role in the deliberations of your Lordships’ House in revising legislation. On the other hand, it is very difficult to see how you can combine the Cross Benches with an elected House; I do not see how you elect independent Members. The political parties would have something to say about elections. It is complicated. Perhaps you could appoint Members of the Cross Benches and have other Members elected, but this is all quite difficult. What happens to the Lords spiritual? Are we to continue to have them in this House if it becomes elected?

Many different issues are raised on the whole question of the composition of your Lordships’ House, not least the issue of elections. Are you going to have elections on the same day as you have a general election for the other place, or at a different time? Do you want the composition of this House politically to be different from that of the House of Commons, or do you want it to be the same?

There are many different issues that come up on this, and it needs a lot of deliberation and cross-party discussions, and we have to give serious thought to how this will all work out in the future. Unless we do think through all this, we will get ourselves into a terrible muddle. It is no good people just getting up saying, “I believe in an elected House”, as the Prime Minister did the other day. You have to think through the ramifications of having an elected House. Would an elected House challenge the House of Commons? I suspect it would. Therefore, you come back to the relative powers of each House.

We are in grave danger of getting into a complete muddle over all this. If we want clear thinking into the future, we will have to work these things out with cross-party consensus, and through constitutional conferences, to arrive at some form of system for the future. This is nothing other than very complicated; we should be giving serious thought to it now.

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly on Amendments 95 and 96 to which I have put my name. In doing so, I have basically three concerns. First, I have a strong suspicion that the Government will bring no further proposal for the reform of the House of Lords during the lifetime of this Parliament. Secondly, related to that, a review would act as a spur, so there is just a chance that a review might encourage them to do so. Thirdly, I think the public should know that many of us in this House favour a much more radical solution to the composition and powers of this House. I am one of those: I believe in an elected Chamber.

That takes me to the point made by my noble friend Lord Hamilton. I entirely agree with him that fundamental to any debate should be the powers of this House, because from a decision on the powers stems the decision as to composition. If you are content with being but a revising Chamber, then a process very similar to what we now have is perfectly appropriate. But if, as I believe, you need to have a Chamber which has powers commensurate with the House of Commons and can face the House of Commons down in appropriate cases, then it has got to be elected. I have always believed that, to stand against the elective dictatorship of which my father wrote and spoke, we need an elected House with powers similar to those in the House of Commons.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Lord Hamilton of Epsom Excerpts

Tuesday 1st April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, this group and the next group of amendments all seek to either defer the implementation of the Bill or to set conditions on its implementation. The reason for that second point has to do with various other changes that noble Lords wish to make in how the House is constituted and behaves, which it believes that it is most likely to achieve by setting those conditions. I disagree with that; I think that the simplest and most sensible thing is to pass this Bill as it is and proceed to look at the other things, as I will now suggest.

Early in these debates, lost in the mists of history, the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, said that he thought that it was unfortunate that the powers that be had allowed amendments on such a wide range of things, and I said that I agreed with him. To a limited extent at least, I have changed my mind, because the earlier debates around retirement, participation and attendance demonstrated that there was a very considerable degree of agreement in your Lordships’ House. Hopefully, that gives us a basis for going forward that did not exist before—and that was a good thing.

The question is how we go forward. An assumption has been that the only way to make those significant further changes is by further legislation. As I said earlier in these debates, I am very wary of that, because the House would cease to be a self-regulating House and would become a Commons-regulated House. The House of Commons would determine what it said about when we should retire, how often we should come and how we should behave when we are here.

Knowing some of my new colleagues, I can quite well imagine that a lot of them think that 80 is far too old for anybody to be in your Lordships’ House. They will think, “Well, I’ll make a bit of a name for myself by putting down 65”. I can see a lot of people thinking, “That’s a jolly good idea—we’ll show ’em”. The arguments that we have heard ad infinitum here about how wonderful we are cut zero ice at the other end of this Palace. I can well imagine that we would find ourselves with a different retirement age to the one that is currently likely to form the nearest thing to consensus in your Lordships’ House.

I equally think that colleagues at the other end, who know very little or nothing about the way we work, would be appalled that we think the kind of attendance level we have been discussing—10%, 15% or 20%—is even vaguely reasonable. They think that we are here to do a job and you cannot do a job on one day a fortnight. I am therefore strongly of the view—and I hope the Leader will take a lead on this—that we should look at ways, which I believe exist, under which we can introduce retirement, participation and attendance norms that would satisfy your Lordships’ House and continue the principle that we are a self-regulating House. I hope she might take a lead by convening a group herself or establishing another group to do the task, within a set timescale, of reaching consensus—or rather, something that nearly everybody can live with—on those areas, so that we can deal with them ourselves.

Apart from anything else, beyond thinking that no further legislation is possible in this Parliament, anybody who has been in government will find it difficult to believe that any Government would introduce a House of Lords reform Bill in two successive Sessions. That is very unlikely for any Government. When I was the Government Deputy Chief Whip, I was on the future legislation committee with Members of the Commons—I think the noble Lord, Lord Young, chaired it at one point. I pity the poor Minister who came to argue before that committee that they wanted a second House of Lords reform Bill within 18 months. I just do not think it is doable.

There is a way forward for all those second-stage reforms. Then there is the third stage: the possibility of the House of Lords being elected. There is a very easy way of dealing with that within the context of this Bill. It is simply for everybody to vote for a resubmitted Amendment 11, in my name, which I shall put down before Report, calling on the Government to start drafting a Bill which looks at electing your Lordships’ House.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

Does the noble Lord accept that, if you are going to elect your Lordships’ House, you have to decide what it will do beforehand?

[Lord Newby (LD)]

No.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Lord Hamilton of Epsom Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 25th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bethell (Con)]

My Lords, public service in the old days used to be quite a different thing. My forebear, Admiral Robert Barlow, used to be the superintendent of the Chatham Shipyards. He ran the shipyards through his personal account and took quite a lot of the Government’s money to build large houses for himself and his family. But we are now in the 21st century, and we should be doing things in a different way. We should not be relying on public servants to pocket cash. We should have a modern, meritocratic form of government. It is therefore completely and utterly wrong that we expect Ministers to work hard for no pay at all.

I pay tribute to the noble Lords, Lord Hanson of Flint, Lord Timpson, Lord Ponsonby, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, and Lord Hendy, and the noble Baroness, Lady Gustafsson, all of whom are on the ministerial list with the word “unpaid” underneath their names. I was one of those Ministers. I had my name on the ministerial list with the word “unpaid” underneath it, and it was a complete humiliation. I found it completely undermining that it was thought in government that I was someone who was not worth the salary that others were paid. I was not worth the £81,000 that a Minister of State got; I was not worth the £71,000 that a PUS got. It hit me that I was not taken seriously in my department in that respect.

This is an old-fashioned system that we need to end. The 1975 Act was well-intentioned, but it is out of date. We should be supporting a meritocracy. I have seen in my own Government some of our finest people walk out of government because they could not afford to hold down the job. Instead, the people who could afford the job got the place. In this day and age, this is quite wrong. I know that the Leader is very keen not to amend the Bill, but this is such a ripe opportunity to undo a serious injustice in the way we do government. I beg the Leader to take this opportunity and accept this amendment.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I declare a personal interest, in that my son-in-law, my noble friend Lord Johnson of Lainston, acted as an unpaid Minister of State in the previous Government. I am grateful that he did not look to his father-in-law to subsidise him, and that he managed to survive without doing so. But the fact is that it is all to do with the number of paid jobs there are in any Government and the reluctance of government to extend that number of jobs. It is a hard decision, I accept, but one that I have always been assured government is prepared to take.

The sooner the Government get on with it, the better. As has been pointed out by my noble friends, it is a complete iniquity that people should be asked to serve for nothing. As has been pointed out by my noble friend Lord Bethell, people often give up the job that they are very good at doing, and somebody less adequate takes over because they are prepared to do it for nothing. This is all completely wrong, and we should change it as soon as possible.

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Parkinson, in his ever-ingenious way, has found a route to raise the question of ministerial salaries in the House of Lords. Having heard the strong feelings expressed, I think it is a matter that needs to be dealt with. There are a number of issues involved—as some touched on, there are matters in relation to pension and severance pay as well—but my noble friend’s amendment relates to salaries.

This is one of a number of issues—power of attorney, which we discussed earlier, being another—that the existence of the Bill has brought to the surface, and which go beyond the vexed and divisive issues of composition that are raised in the Bill and indeed in the Government’s manifesto. Surely if we can address any of these issues, for the good of the House, the Government or the country, we should find a way to do so.

Of course, Government Ministers in the House of Lords, whatever party is in office, should be paid. I give particular thought, although he is not here in his place, to people such as my noble friend Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon, a truly outstanding servant of this House and of his country who, because he was not able to attend the House in the conduct of his normal duties, lost out doubly as being unpaid and unable to claim an allowance.

Frankly, when I had the honour to be Leader of this House, I was deeply troubled by the fact that I had colleagues who were asked to work without pay. No one in any workplace would tolerate that as a decent way to carry on. The problem, as we have been told, arises from the interrelation between two 50 year-old statutes—we are often told that old law should be re-examined. Those are the Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975, which limits the total number of paid Ministers to 109, and the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975, which limits the number of Ministers in the House of Commons to 95. If the Commons takes up its allocation of 95 then the effective limit for paid Ministers in your Lordships’ House under the limit of 109 is just 14. That is clearly not enough. Between 1979 and 2019 the total number of Lords Ministers and Whips fluctuated between 21 and 27. There are further complications arising from overall limits on the numbers of Ministers of State.

The system needs review. When I was Leader of this House, I had discussions in the usual channels with other parties on this, and it was clear then that there was broad agreement that the injustice should be attended to—that it surely could not be right in the 21st century that you should need private means in order to serve as a Minister of the Crown. In saying that, I take nothing away from the high sense of public duty that led many noble Lords under successive Governments—including, I thought, some under this one—to undertake public service without reward.

When a number was given, the noble Baroness indicated that it was not true, but I had thought that there were some in this Government who were unpaid. Whether or not that is true, under any Government the self-sacrifice and public sense of duty of those people should be honoured, respected and remembered. However, it need not be for ever replicated, Government after Government. In the context of a reasonable settlement for the future of this House, as we go forward from this Bill, this matter might again be usefully discussed across party lines.

In March 2024, towards the end of the last Government, there were 14 Ministers and Whips in your Lordships’ House who were working unpaid. They included all six Ministers of State in this House, as the House of Commons wanted all paid posts then as Ministers of State for MPs. If that is not happening today under this Government, it will happen in due course as the demands on patronage grow. The unpaid Ministers included my noble friends Lord Howe, Lord Minto, Lord Camrose and Lord Roborough, whose public service now is to be requited by the current Bill as drafted by being expelled from Parliament. As we have heard, others had previously performed for nothing.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Lord Hamilton of Epsom Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 3rd March 2025 Lords Chamber

The noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, challenged me on a number of issues about appointments and what happens next. I have been really clear on this, as is the manifesto. There are three stages in the manifesto—I do not know how many times I am going to have to say this during the passage of the Bill—and the first is the immediate reform, which I would have thought was the non-controversial part. A quarter of a century ago, the principle was established that hereditary Peers would leave the House. A deal was done at the time for some to remain in perpetuity for by-elections, but the principle was established, and the Bill completes that part of the reform. That is why there are no Green Papers, White Papers or further consultation on this; it has been debated for many years.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

Does the noble Baroness the Leader of the House accept the arguments from the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, that if his Bill had been passed we would now be left with 25 hereditaries? That would be a decent number and you would not need to get rid of them. Can I get it from there that the noble Baroness would actually agree to 25 life peerages?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I do not always admire the noble Lord’s ingenuity, but I do on this occasion. I think the point the noble Lord was making was that had that been accepted at the time, we would not have any hereditary Peers, in effect, because all would be here as life Peers. I do not know whether the numbers that would have remained was an accurate figure; it was a sort of a guesstimate.

That was the first stage. On the second part, I am grateful to noble Lords around the House who have engaged with me on this issue already. I have a number of thoughts on how it might be achieved, going forward, and there are some helpful amendments in the course of the Bill. It would be nice, would it not, to find a way that gained some kind of consensus around the issues that others mentioned, such as participation and the retirement age? If there was consensus around the House prior to legislation, it would be a helpful way forward, so I am grateful to those who have engaged with that and come forward with suggestions already.

Then there is a longer-term proposal, which is also in the manifesto. It says that in the longer term to look for a way to have a “more representative”—and I think it says an alternative—second Chamber. It was quite clear that there are those three stages.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I am very sorry to disappoint the noble Lord, Lord True, because I am standing to speak to Amendment 3 rather than my noble friend the Leader of the House. I thank the noble Earl for his amendment and also for his transparency in explaining that this is indeed a probing amendment to test the Government’s position on the hereditary principle more generally within our constitution. I hope that the noble Earl will not take it as a discourtesy if my response is brief, not because the constitutional points raised are not of importance, but because we say with respect that the position is quite straightforward.

In explaining why we do not accept the noble Earl’s amendment, it is important, with respect, to disarticulate two principles. The first is that, since 1999, we have recognised that it is no longer appropriate in a modern democracy for direct participation in Parliament to be premised on a generational family entitlement. This Bill seeks to complete that process in line with our manifesto commitment and, by doing so, will end an anomaly that is replicated in only one other country around the globe. The second principle is that we are, and shall remain, a constitutional monarchy. Constitutional monarchy, in contrast to hereditary entitlement in Parliaments, is not a global anomaly but represents a system of governance replicated in very many countries, few—if any—of which require participation of the children or grandchildren of the monarch in their parliamentary process.

I therefore respectfully disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Moore, that there is any form of tension, constitutional or otherwise, in considering it inappropriate for hereditary entitlement to apply to being able to vote on the laws of our land in Parliament on one hand, while being fully supportive of the role of the Royal Family in our constitutional framework on the other. Our constitutional monarchy has time and again proved to be the anchor of stability in this country. The Royal Family are able to galvanise our nation and provide the consistency required for our democratic values to be protected and for this nation to flourish.

The noble Earl asked: without the hereditaries, who is there in this House to stand up for the monarchy? That point was echoed by the noble Baroness, Lady Meyer. My noble friend Lord Brennan answered that he is; so am I, and so, I anticipate, is every one of your Lordships who swore their oath in this House.

As noble Lords will be aware, all hereditary Peers, including those in the Royal Family, lost their automatic right to sit and vote in the House as a result of the 1999 Act. That did not and has not proved to undermine our model of constitutional monarchy and nor does this Bill. The purpose of this Bill, no more, no less, is about delivering the principle settled by the 1999 Act to remove the rights of all hereditary Peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords, and there are no exclusions in this. As my noble friend Lord Grocott pointed out, it does not affect hereditary titles and lands, which will continue to be passed down in the normal way.

This reform does not relate to the sovereign nor the Royal Family. As I have said, there is a fundamental difference between the position of hereditary Peers in the legislature being able to vote on laws by virtue of their families, and a constitutional monarch who acts as the head of our state, providing, as His Majesty does, stability and continuity.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. The noble Lord, Lord Grocott, made the point that the monarchy had certainly survived the departure of 600-plus hereditary Peers in 1998-99, but does the Minister accept that we are now breaking the link between hereditary Peers in Parliament in its entirety if we get rid of the hereditary Peers now?

[Lord Hermer (Lab)]

Yes, I do—that is the intention of the Bill. My point is that it does not impact at all the principle of our constitutional monarchy. It has no bearing on it whatever, and it is for those reasons that I respectfully ask the noble Earl to consider withdrawing his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Finn (Con)]

My Lords, Walter Bagehot once observed that the British constitution derives its strength not from rigid design but from its adaptability. Its value lies in its ability to preserve what is valuable while reforming what is necessary. It is in that spirit, and not in defiance of reform but in defence of wisdom, that I support Amendment 5 in this group, in the name of my noble friend Lord Soames.

We are debating the fate of those who have committed themselves to the service of this House, as my noble friend Lord Blencathra has pointed out so brilliantly, and who have earned their place not by entitlement but by endeavour. The amendment before us seeks not to enshrine privilege but to preserve expertise. It does not defend hereditary peerage as principle; it defends the experience of those who, having risen above the circumstances of their birth, have dedicated their careers to the betterment of our legislative process.

Some would have us believe that the mere fact of a hereditary Peer holding office is an anachronism, but I ask this: what is more outdated, a Chamber that recognises merit in all its forms or one that would dismiss its most dedicated servants on the basis of an ideological formula? The numbers tell their own story. Despite comprising only 12% of this House in the last Parliament, hereditary Peers held 20% of government roles and 26% of Deputy Speakerships. This is not a symbol of idleness; it is a testament to diligence.

To those who believe that experience and institutional memory can simply be swept away and replaced at will, I say look at history. When institutions strip themselves of wisdom, when they discard those who have mastered their craft, they do not modernise but wither. There is a reason we do not empty the judiciary of its most seasoned jurists, nor the military of its most battle-hardened commanders. Why, then, should we purge this House of those who have proved their worth in government, scrutiny and debate? We do not strengthen Parliament by weakening its collective intelligence.

Those who propose the indiscriminate removal of hereditary Peers do so in the name of reform, but reform must be guided by the principle that what works should be preserved and what fails should be improved. The amendment before us today embodies that principle. It seeks not to halt the tide of change but to channel it wisely. It recognises that Ministers, Deputy Speakers, convenors and Chairs of Committees are not relics of the past but pillars of the present. To discard those who have upheld the dignity and function of your Lordships’ House is not reform; it is amputation.

Let us keep the best of what we have rather than discard it blindly. Let us not mistake destruction for progress. This amendment supports the very principles that have kept this House a vital force in British public life.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, at the risk of repeating what I said at Second Reading, I have always been totally confused as to why, for some reason, we who are appointed Peers are somehow superior to hereditary Peers—who, let us face it, as the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, has never failed to point out, may be elected by a very small electorate, if they happen to be Labour or Liberal Democrat Peers, but are at least elected. That is not something any of us who are appointed can say about ourselves at all. We are put here because the leader of our party or the Prime Minister of the day put our names forward. Does that make us superior to hereditary Peers, who have, let us face it, been elected by their own number and chosen to be the best people who they can choose at the time? That must give them an edge, I should have thought, over we who are appointed to this House, because at least they have gone through the process of election.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

My Lords, I am sorry to disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Newby, but I am responding on Amendment 5, moved by my noble friend Lord Soames of Fletching from these Benches. In speaking to this amendment, I take the opportunity to recognise the significant and invaluable contribution that hereditary Peers have made to your Lordships’ House. With respect to the noble Lord, Lord Newby, this amendment is a different point conceptually from Amendment 9, tabled by my noble friend Lord True, which is essentially, if I may put it without any disrespect, the Grocott approach.

As my noble friend Lord True said earlier this evening, if we are to exclude anyone from the House, it should be those who do not contribute rather than those who have contributed and do contribute. To introduce a personal perspective, I say that as someone who makes every effort to play a proper part in the business of your Lordships’ House while maintaining a full practice at the Bar. That sometimes means that I miss the odd vote—may I record in Hansard for posterity my entirely sycophantic and appallingly oleaginous thanks to my Whip for his constant understanding? More seriously, that cuts into my downtime. I do not really have any downtime because of my work at the Bar and my obligations here. If I can use this rather demotic phrase, it does hack me off when some people do not contribute at all.

I therefore share the concern of my noble friend Lord Soames that we are removing people who contribute while leaving people who play very little, if any, part in the House. The key to a sensible approach, I suggest, while recognising that the hereditary principle has come to an end—like the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, I also enjoyed “Tomorrow’s World” in its day, and what was innovative then is commonplace now—is to retain those who have demonstrated over many years their commitment to public service and duty to the House. She is no longer in her place, but I respect fully agree with what the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, said in an earlier group. She expressly invited the Government to just look, to use what I think was her phrase, at those whom the Government are removing. She said that the approach in this Bill, which removes the fully involved and the truly indolent alike, was “profoundly wrong”. She is right about that.

Turning to the text of this amendment, I know that there are many ways in which noble Lords can contribute to the business of the House, but those who currently serve or have previously served as Ministers and Whips, Deputy Speakers, chairs of committees or as Convenor of the Cross Benches have made a determined and determinable contribution. Their institutional knowledge and dedication to public service has made them indispensable, I suggest, to the functioning of the House and thus to the functioning of Parliament. The positions which they have undertaken in the House have been earned through merit and service. To remove these noble Lords would be to discard a wealth of experience that simply cannot be replaced. I therefore agree with the points made by my noble friend Lady Finn in that regard.

We have had some stats thrown at us; let me try to identify what the position actually is. During the 2019-24 Parliament, 168 Members had official roles. This includes government and Opposition ministerial posts and parliamentary positions such as the Lord Speaker and Deputy Speakers. Life Peers filled 143 of these roles, 23 were filled by hereditary Peers and two by Bishops. About 18% of life Peers served in an official role compared with 26% of hereditary Peers. Despite making up only 12% of the total membership of the House, in the last Session hereditary Peers made up 20% of government posts and 26% of Deputy Speakers. My noble friend Lord Hamilton of Epsom rightly made the point that hereditary Peers as a group have contributed very significantly.

I will not read out my Excel spreadsheet, but do we really want, I ask rhetorically, to lose people such as my noble friends Lord Courtown and Lord Howe—who, as your Lordships have heard, has provided simply incredible service to the House? My noble friend Lord Strathclyde serves as chair of our Constitution Committee is a former Leader of the House and a former Chief Whip. He has served as a Minister over four departments. The noble Lord, Lord Ashton of Hyde, is a serving Deputy Speaker and Deputy Chair of Committees. His CV in the House reads for several pages.

I am not sufficiently brave to stand for much longer between your Lordships and your Lordships’ dinners, so I will not refer to every hereditary Peer, but I trust that noble Lords recognise the expertise, experience and dedication that those individuals have brought to our parliamentary system.

I make one final point. Some years ago, the House removed a number of Peers. The noble Lord, Lord Grocott, gave us the correct figure, which I think was 667. Yes, I was listening. I always do to the noble Lord, indeed to all noble Lords but especially the noble Lord, Lord Grocott on this topic. Does removing the final 88, or however many are left now, make any difference? Of course, the difference goes to the heart of this amendment. Those who remained some years ago were chosen wholly, or in the vast majority of cases, because they were contributing. That is why they remained. That is what this amendment seeks to do.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

They were actually elected; they were not chosen.

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

Sorry, I was using “chosen” as a short form for “elected”. They were elected. My noble friend was here, and I was not, but when the elections took place, the electorate was keen to ensure that experience was not lost. That is exactly the point of this amendment—to retain those who have contributed, are contributing and will undoubtedly contribute more in the future.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Lord Hamilton of Epsom Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 3rd March 2025 Lords Chamber

As for the practical barriers which a number of noble Lords have set out, including my noble friends who set out these inventive amendments, more work would be needed on those. However, I am grateful to my noble friends and to all noble Lords who have spoken, and I look forward to seeing what the Lord Privy Seal has to say about them.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

Does my noble friend not feel that there is a problem in that if these people are elected by a separate mandate, they will feel they have greater legitimacy than other appointed Members of this House and not adhere to the conventions of the House?

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

Certainly, the question of conflicting mandates will be uppermost in our minds when we debate the later group about a wholly elected House. If we introduce an element of election, particularly a proportional election, there will certainly be those who favour different voting systems that say one method of election is greater than another, but that is a debate for a later group.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

My Lords, as soon as I knew that Labour had won the general election and was preparing its legislative programme, I knew that it would include the removal of the 92 hereditary Peers, and I knew with stone cold certainty that the noble Lord, Lord True, would introduce an amendment to, in effect, put into law the Bill that he had so consistently and passionately opposed over a long period of time.

One welcomes a sinner who repenteth but, of course, circumstances have changed since I last introduced my Bill. I should perhaps explain to Members who have recently arrived that it was then simply a Bill to end the ridiculous, ludicrous, absurd and indefensible by-elections. I first introduced a Bill to do that nine years ago, although I had raised it in the Commons 31 years ago—so I am at least not a Johnny-come-lately on this issue.

What has changed since I first introduced the Bill in the Lords? Since then, 27 Peers of a new generation have arrived. Had there been no by-elections, there would have been just 34 Peers, who were first elected in 1999. They were not a particularly representative group, I have to say. We have heard quite a bit about the variety of people who come in via the by-elections. What has not been mentioned yet but will be many times, I am sure, in the days to come is that they did not include any women. It has gone backwards. In the first cohort of 1992 there were five women; but, according to the electorates that would, by various mechanisms, bring new people in, that was five too many.

Now, 100% are men, and they have particular characteristics. I mention this only as a matter of observation. Something like half went to Eton; I know some 20 of our Prime Ministers went to Eton, but there is at least the argument that they are not entirely a good cross-section of the electorate.

We have heard a lot about the “cruelty” of removing people from Parliament. I have some experience of this. I was removed from Parliament; as I recall, it was around 3 am. There was no debate or discussion about it. In fact, people were very excited about it; many were cheering in the hall as I was dismissed. To those who expect a tearful farewell, I say: this is what happens. It is called democracy.

I know this place is not democratically elected but neither, in my view, should it be a place where people, irrespective of how much they do or the contribution they make, can expect to be here for ever. I say that particularly—

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

Is the noble Lord going to put forward an argument for an elected House then?

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

The noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, knows well enough that I am not always in tune with my party. No, I am opposed to a directly elected House. The House that I was most proud to be a Member of—it may offend some people here—was the House of Commons. The one thing I did not want—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I was not really intending to address this amendment but I find that the speech from the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, rather provoked me. He is slightly suggesting to everybody that if we had passed his Bill and taken up his suggestion, we would now be left with 35 hereditaries who would be here as life Peers until they eventually retired. What he rather overlooks—and I suspect he knows it—is that they would be the oldest hereditaries that we now have and, by their very nature, the least active. In this debate the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, the Convenor of the Cross Benches, has said that a number of his older hereditaries are prepared to retire and my noble friend Lord True made the same point about the Conservative Benches. They are the ones who will go anyway.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Lord Hamilton of Epsom Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 11th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I think the Bill, which is a bit odd, must have been drafted by somebody who had just read Animal Farm. For some reason your Lordship’s House has been divided between life Peers, who are good, and hereditary Peers, who are bad. This whole concept was elaborated on by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, who seemed to think that it is better that we lifers are appointed by the Prime Minister than that the hereditaries are elected.

The noble Lord, Lord Grocott, whenever he pushed his Bills—which he constantly did—tried to persuade us that it was derisory that in some cases there were so few hereditary Peers electing other hereditaries. The product of that is the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, who, let us face it, was elected by probably three Labour hereditary Peers. The noble Lord, Lord Grocott, thought that that was ridiculous, but I say to him that at least the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, was elected. The noble Lord, Lord Grocott, was not elected, I was not elected, and neither was the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer. We were all appointed. Is there something superior about appointed Peers over elected hereditary Peers? I think not; I think the reverse is true.

I will take your Lordships back to one or two people who have been life Peers. Life Peers were first brought into this House in 1958 and there was a bunch of them. Probably the most memorable name among the life Peers brought into the House at that stage was Lord Boothby. Lord Boothby’s claim to fame was that he had slept with the Prime Minister’s wife. That completely kiboshed the advice I used to give to people who wanted to be life Peers in this place. I would say to them, “Whatever else you do, make sure you don’t sleep with the Prime Minister’s wife”.

Lord Boothby was rather more exotic than just that. He was photographed enjoying a drink in a Soho club with the Kray twins. Most of your Lordships are too young to remember anything about the Kray twins, but they were a very sinister couple of mobsters who were the nearest thing we had to the mafia in this country. They ran a protection racket that was absolutely ruthless. They tortured large numbers of people, and one of them was so psychotic that he rather enjoyed doing it. It took some time for the legal authorities to catch up with the Kray twins, but they eventually ended up in prison, and I think both of them died there.

Lord Boothby was lucky because he did not end up in prison, but on the other hand Lord Kagan did. Lord Kagan, if you remember, was Harold Wilson’s favourite businessman; he set up a business to produce Gannex macintoshes and actually gave one to the Prime Minister. The noble Lord, Lord Alli, should take note of that, because he follows in the great tradition of stocking the wardrobes of Labour Prime Ministers. Lord Kagan eventually was released from prison. He used to come to your Lordships’ House to lecture people on prison reform, on which he regarded himself by that stage as something of an expert. We then have our colleague Lord Archer of Weston-super-Mare, who spent time in prison as well.

I point this out because, quite clearly, it is wrong to say that all life Peers are criminal convicts, as only a very small number are, but the damage that one or two do to your Lordships’ House is very great. People outside find it extremely difficult to understand why people who are supposed to be writing the laws cannot uphold them themselves and are actually outside the law. So when we say that hereditary Peers are bad and life Peers are good, that does not apply in every case of life Peers by a very long way.

A lot of the expertise that has been gained by some of the younger Members, particularly on the Conservative Front Bench while in government, is very valuable when it comes to holding the Government to account in forthcoming years. If we want to get rid of all that expertise, as would happen with this Bill, so be it, but that seems to be an extremely negative way of planning the future of this House and holding the Government to account. We will be looking at this Bill with very great intensity. I have a number of amendments that I would like to put down, because I think that this is a very facile Bill that needs exploring in great depth.

Business of the House

Lord Hamilton of Epsom Excerpts

Thursday 25th July 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

My Lords, I never quite thought this day would come. We have had endless Private Members’ Bills and numerous discussions on the Floor of the House, and now we have recognition, which I am delighted about, from the usual channels that to hold two further hereditary Peers’ by-elections at a time when Parliament was considering ending such elections would make us even more of a laughing stock than these by-elections do in any case.

I have to say it slowly: this almost certainly means the end of hereditary Peers’ by-elections. That is wonderful as far as I am concerned. It means an end to the clerk having to moonlight as a returning officer; it means an end to me having to give observations on the political significance of a particular by-election as and when it is declared; and of course it means that I shall not fulfil my ambition, which was to become the House’s equivalent of Professor Sir John Curtice in relation to by-elections. I should say as well, just as a general observation, that it means an end to elections that are men-only elections and an end to elections such as one where there was an electorate of three and six candidates—unknown in the western, eastern, northern or southern world, as far as I know.

So the time has come at last, in a puff of smoke on a damp Thursday morning, when these wretched by-elections will come to a conclusion. I simply say to the noble Lord, Lord Moylan: know when it is over.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, that hereditary by-elections are probably now coming to an end. That does not stop this move being illegal; it is against the set-down rules, which is rather strange from a party whose leader was Director of Public Prosecutions and was dedicated to obeying the rule of law. The problem, of course, is that none of us in this House is legitimate; we are all appointed by one body or individual or another, and the only people who are elected by anybody are the hereditaries—so, in many ways, they have a superior right to be here than we do.

[Lord Strathclyde (Con)]

My Lords, this is obviously a very notable victory for the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, for the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and for the Labour Party. I pay tribute to all those who have been elected in the by-elections over the past few years. There are an excellent number on our party Benches, on the Cross Benches and right across the House, and I think these by-elections will be much missed. But I support my noble friend Lord Howe and I think he has done the right thing. It will be for history to decide in the future on the contribution of these by-elections—but I think history will note that perhaps it was better to have the Peers voting for one of their own rather than just being ticked in the box by the Prime Minister.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, sometimes all that is at stake is to do the right thing by your Lordships’ House. Many noble Lords approached me, the Leader of the Opposition and indeed the Convenor to say that they did not feel that this was the right time to hold such by-elections. If that is the will of the House, that is what the House should seek to do.

On a point about the rule of law, can I just correct noble Lords? I am not a lawyer and I do not know whether the noble Lords, Lord Moylan or Lord Hamilton, are, but my understanding of the law is that the House of Lords Act 1999 and the House of Lords Reform Act 2014 both stipulated that by-elections should take place. They did not say how they would take place; that was a matter for the Standing Orders of your Lordships’ House. So in no way does the proposal before your Lordships’ House on the Standing Orders breach legislation. Previously, under Covid, we suspended the Standing Orders; in this case we are seeking merely to amend them for a limited time period to allow the House to debate the legislation that it has before us.

Other comments will be made as we go forward on the legislation itself. I do not think that any Member of this House has anything other than respect for all Members of the House, by whichever method they arrived here—but what we are seeking today is to have a common-sense approach within the law to deal with the by-elections. The one regret I have is that I will not get to listen to my noble friend Lord Grocott quite so often.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

Could the noble Baroness tell me whether life peerages have been offered through the usual channels to oil this deal?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I have to say, my Lords, that I have found it quite extraordinary that throughout the King’s Speech debate Members of the party opposite, often from the Front Bench, have thought that this issue was the most important issue for them. Could I suggest to the noble Lord that he waits and has a little bit of patience, because we will have a Bill and we can debate all the issues then?