House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Debate between Lord Newby and Lord Pannick

Report stage
Wednesday 9th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, we undermine respect for this House if we continue to have people who do not turn up more than once in each Session. The answer to the point from the noble Lord, Lord Gove, about previous Prime Ministers is that the rule is not absolute, because Section 2(3)(b) of the legislation being amended provides that the House may resolve that the period of attendance should not apply to the particular Peer

“by reason of special circumstances”,

so there is already a statutory provision that allows for exceptions.

My other point in answer to the noble Lord is that we have already accepted the principle. Section 2(1) requires that each Peer must attend at least once during a Session, so we have accepted that people who do not comply with the timing position must go. The only question is whether that is a realistic limit. I entirely agree with the convenor that a once-in-a-Session provision is not an appropriate rule. A much more appropriate rule is to require people to be here 10% of the time.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I strongly support the principle behind this amendment. We have debated the concept at some length and, in my view, it is essential that we now move to a position where there is a rule that means that people who play no part after a period cease to be Members of your Lordships’ House. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, talked about persuading non-attendees to retire, and I too have done that. One case is seared in my memory: I went to see a member of the Liberal Democrat group with my Chief Whip to try and explain to him that he had done absolutely nothing for a considerable number of years and it might be appropriate for him to retire. He was extremely sweet; he smiled and said, “I never thought of that. Could you give me a bit of time to think about it?”. Years later, he still had not thought about it. So I am absolutely certain that we need to move.

As for the objections of the noble Lord, Lord Gove, the people we are talking about are not the stone in the shoe; they are never in the shoe. When they are in the shoe, they are normally sand at best, because they do not do anything. The idea that we would lose voices of any consequence by saying that people had to be here rather more than they are at the moment is just wrong, I am afraid, as far as legislation is concerned. In my experience, the number of people who normally are not here and suddenly turn up to play a full part in a Bill is immeasurably small.

My only problem with the amendment, as the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, knows and as I have said before, is that this issue should be considered first by a Select Committee, for a number of reasons that have been given—10% may be the right answer, but it is worth thinking about that. The other thing that has been put to me—it will be contentious, but at least we ought to think about it—is whether the requirement applies retrospectively. Some people have said that, unless it applies retrospectively, we will get flooded with people who have never been here before. There are arguments for and against it, but we need to discuss that; we have not done so at all.

So, for those reasons, while I absolutely support the principle, if the noble Earl were to press this amendment to a Division, I do not think we would be able to support him in the Lobby.