King’s Speech

Lord Keen of Elie Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd July 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Keen of Elie (Con)]

My Lords, it is a privilege to respond to the maiden speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hermer. I am quite sure that, in his role as Attorney-General, he will continue to display the same skill and outstanding judgment that he has exhibited in his distinguished practice at the Bar by holding the Government to their constitutional obligations, ensuring that they adhere to the rule of law and that they respect the rights of all. I also hope that his Welsh background and heritage may bring some further diversity to the proceedings of this House, and I express the hope that his regular attendance at the Millennium Stadium will eventually be rewarded, at least against four of the Six Nations. I am pleased to be able to extend my welcome to the noble and learned Lord.

I will speak only briefly about the rule of law, because I harbour no doubts about this Government’s commitment to the rule of law—as with all Governments of this United Kingdom. I will speak shortly of devolution, which is often the triumph of hope over experience, and something that will work only if we devolve not only power but the means of exercising it. As we approach further devolution, we should bear in mind that there are some aspects of government in this country that do not actually wish to be a part of the governance of the United Kingdom. That has to be taken into account.

What I want to address is the Government’s proposal for the reform of this House. Our most immediate constitutional issue is not, as it was in 1911, the balance of power between the House of Commons and the House of Lords. It is the imbalance of power between Parliament and a mighty Executive. The present House of Lords has a significant role to play in that context, particularly when the Executive is in a position to exercise powerful control over the House of Commons by virtue of their party’s large majority in that House. The adoption of alleged interim measures—such as the proposed removal of 92 Peers from this House—fails to take account of the functioning of our constitutional system as a whole. Such a step is driven by short-term political considerations rather than long-term constitutional imperatives.

There is a very real risk that if this measure is taken then nothing else will happen, with the Executive, in the form of the Prime Minister, falling back on the oft-repeated preference for an appointed House of Lords, as indicated by the then Labour Prime Minister Tony Blair in 2003. What is required in the matter of constitutional reform is fully considered and robust proposals and the proper development of a process to give effect to them. In 2012 the then Labour leader suggested that such a process was required and indicated that it might require a referendum. I pause—perhaps not a referendum, but clearly any material change to this House requires proper consultation.

When there were calls for the removal of the remaining hereditary Peers in 2003, the Labour Ministers responded in the following terms:

“We cannot accept the removal of the remaining hereditary Peers on its own, but only as part of much wider measures of reform to create a democratic and accountable Second Chamber”.


So why the reversion to piecemeal tinkering rather than robust constitutional reform? The answer may lie in the document that is the genesis of the Labour manifesto on the constitution: the report that the present Prime Minister commissioned just over a year ago from the previous Labour Prime Minister, Gordon Brown. Paragraph 36 demands a second Chamber

“to safeguard the … constitutional basis”

of what is explicitly described as “New Britain”. For the benefit of noble Lords from Northern Ireland, when they read the report I think they are supposed to infer that Northern Ireland is part of “New Britain”.

Paragraph 39 makes clear that such a second Chamber can be legitimate only if elected. At page 135, the report refers to the 92 hereditary Peers as “representing the landowning classes”. I happen to know a considerable number of hereditary Peers, many of whom would be delighted to discover that they are members of the landowning classes. Unfortunately for them, such a circumstance never arose, or circumstances conspired against them. It might have been the depredations of Great Uncle Rupert at Monte Carlo or, more seriously, the impact of death duties after two world wars, but what if this statement was accurate? Is there any reason why the so-called landowning class should not have had a role in the making of law for their land?

To be fair to the authors of the report, they go on to observe that the House of Lords discharges “an important constitutional function”. They observe that:

“The work of its committees is … of a very high quality … because of the experience and expertise of their members”.


I quote what follows:

“We wish to record our gratitude to the … Labour Peers who consistently work to improve legislation”.


For the benefit of the authors of the report, and for those newly arrived on the Government Benches, I point out that many Peers on the Liberal Democrat Benches consistently work to improve legislation, as do many Peers on the Cross Benches. There are even some Conservative Peers who consistently work to improve legislation. Among them all are many hereditary Peers.

The very term “hereditary Peers” is now quite misleading. As Lord Steel pointed out when he published his own Bill in 2007, they are now “de facto life Peers”. Why, when the expressed intention is supposed to be the fundamental reform of the upper House, are de facto life Peers to be treated as the exceptional Members of this House? Are they the exceptional Members of this House? What of the Lords spiritual, our Lords of Parliament, once some of the great landowners of England?

The Lords spiritual were removed from this House in 1642 but returned following the Restoration in 1660. Even then their place was precarious, as exemplified by the trial of the seven bishops before the King’s Bench Division in June 1688, on charges of seditious libel because of the petition they presented to the sovereign. Why are they now secure? Today the diocese of Durham is guaranteed a seat in the House of Lords but Scotland is not, despite article 21 of the treaty of union purporting to guarantee Scotland 16 seats. Today the diocese of York is guaranteed a seat in the House of Lords but Northern Ireland is not—not since the disestablishment of the Church of Ireland in 1871. Today the diocese of Winchester is guaranteed a seat in the House of Lords but Wales is not—not since the independence of the Church in Wales in 1920. How does this come about?

Upon appointment to the see of Durham, the bishop inherits a seat in this House from his or her predecessor, without any further requirement. Upon retirement, the seat in this House is automatically passed on to his or her successor, without any further requirement. You might contrast that with the position of the 92 Peers referred to in the Government’s Bill as “hereditary Peers”. They cannot inherit a seat from a predecessor in title and, when they leave, ambulant or otherwise, their successor in title does not inherit their seat.

The situation for the Lords spiritual appears more anomalous, and perhaps more in need of reform, than the situation for de facto life Peers, many of whom have occupied the highest offices of state and served as Ministers of the Crown. [Interruption.] I am not sure whether that was approbation or otherwise, but many have occupied the highest offices of state, served as Ministers of the Crown and generally contributed mightily to the work of this House.

If we are to set out a meaningful constitutional reform of the upper House, so be it, but there is no logic in piecemeal change. To chop away at one small branch of the constitutional oak that is the House of Lords is little more than political vandalism, apparently fuelled by a totally misconceived perception of what the landowning class of this country is. Constitutional reform of any magnitude should be logical and consistent. Piecemeal reform is liable to encourage an overmighty Executive to stop short of major reform when it suits their interests. This has happened in the past and we should not allow it to happen again.

What is presently proposed by this Government is not an exercise in democratic reform, no matter how it may be dressed up. It is what some could regard as a simple interference with the composition of the upper Chamber of Parliament. The Government will seek to secure the removal of 92 Peers from Parliament, and then what will it do? Engage in some democratic process? Let us not be naive. The Prime Minister will send us his chosen appointments. Should we then tolerate a so-called constitutional change that involves the removal of one cohort from this House and simply replaces it with another cohort of the Executive’s choosing? That is not democracy in action. That is simply a further incursion by a powerful Executive on the balance of power with Parliament.

If this Government have a genuine desire to address major constitutional change then so be it, but if they intend to flirt with politically inspired meddling then we should challenge it. Of course we are expected to accept that the Labour Government have further major reforms of the House of Lords coming; Labour’s further major reforms of the House of Lords are always “just coming”.

When the Liberal Government introduced what became the 1911 Act, they did so as a prelude to real reform. The statement was that

“it is intended to substitute for the House of Lords”

an elected Second Chamber. The Bill proposed in the King’s Speech is not even a step in that direction. It is a political cul-de-sac.

I conclude by expressly adopting the statement made by Labour Ministers in 2003:

“We cannot accept the removal of the remaining hereditary peers on its own, but only as part of much wider measures of reform”.