House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Lord Northbrook Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 11th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Northbrook (Con)]

My Lords, the Bill to remove the remaining hereditary Peers from the House eliminates many centuries of tradition, a golden thread going back to the 13th century. In considering the legislation, I believe there should be further reform included, as promised in the previous hereditary Peers abolition Bill by the then Lord Chancellor. On 30 March 1999, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, stood at the Dispatch Box and said the 1999 Bill to abolish the majority of the hereditary Peers,

“reflects a compromise negotiated between Privy Counsellors on Privy Council terms and binding in honour on all those who have come to give it their assent”.

The noble and learned Lord continued his most carefully worded statement. He said that the “10 per cent”—that is the 92—

“will go only when stage two has taken place. So it is a guarantee that it will take place”.—[Official Report, 30/3/1999; col. 207.]

The words could not have more unequivocal, and 650 Peers left quietly on the basis of that promise. Will the Leader say whether this overrides the convention that no Parliament can bind its successors? That Privy Council promise has now been broken, so why in consequence should we honour the Salisbury convention on this Bill, particularly as there is legal opinion that it should not apply to constitutional changes? I believe that it is the responsibility of the remaining 92 and those colleagues who believe that the former Lord Chancellor’s promise should be adhered to in order to make sure that the proposed legislation includes provision to move to the stage two promised.

I will highlight areas that need to be discussed in greater detail in the proposed Bill. First, because this is a major constitutional issue, there should be a referendum to ask the public what sort of second Chamber they would prefer. Secondly, there should be measures to restrict the size of the House. It cannot be right that the number of Peers keeps increasing so that only the National People’s Congress of China has more members. The right size of the House should reflect the political balance of the parties at each general election. Measures proposed by the Burns commission on retirement and new Peer creations should be included in legislation.

Next, there should be an attendance and contribution minimum, and I note the comments of my noble friend Lord Astor that 50 noble Lords have not spoken in the past five years. There should also be a debate on the retirement age of 80 that was proposed in the Government’s manifesto. The current retirement procedure works well, but unfortunately its effect is totally negated by the more than compensating appointment of new Peers. Slightly confusingly, the Prime Minister has already authorised the appointment of two Peers over the age of 80. I believe that new Peers should not be appointed over the age of 80 and that 85 should be considered the retirement age. The only Prime Minister to limit appointments was Theresa May, and more should follow her example. Next, the Appointments Commission should be put on a statutory basis and be firmly applied to all new appointments, political appointments included, thus controlling the quality of prime ministerial patronage.

In addition, amendments should be considered on the structure of the membership of the House. First, whether the Chamber should be elected should be debated and genuine attention should be paid to the Liberal Democrats’ views on this. As the noble Baroness, Lady Jay of Paddington, opined in the interesting TV programme “The Lady and the Lords”, this is what the general public would expect, as is reflected by public opinion polls. We should also consider rebalancing the 25 Bishops to include representatives of all faiths. Next, I propose that the name of the House should change to the Senate, as it will not allow hereditary Peers to be Members or claims to hereditary peerages to be considered by the House of Lords.

Another issue that should be looked at, which is probably outside the scope of this Bill, is the powers of the House. We should be able to amend the reams of secondary legislation that come before us rather than just having the stark choice of agreeing it or throwing it out. Also, I believe that we should have the power to amend badly drafted Finance Bills, particularly where, due to the guillotine procedure, clauses are not even discussed in the other place.

Finally, will the Leader say how some business mechanics are going to work when the hereditaries are gone? Can there be life peerages for shadow Ministers and Whips on the Front Bench? Will there be enough noble Lords to sit on the Woolsack?

I understand that a key reason for the proposed Bill is to remove a number of Conservative Peers from the House, which means that the Government will not have to create the equivalent number of new Labour Peers. However, I feel that the Cross Bench hereditaries have been caught in the crossfire unnecessarily. Very often under the previous Administration they supported Labour and Lib Dem amendments, so they are no major threat to the Government getting their business through. In particular, the convenor should be spared abolition.

What will happen to the Earl Marshal and the Lord Great Chamberlain? I note that they are also to be excluded from the House. Why can the Government not make an amendment to the Bill to make clear that they can still carry out their ceremonial duties at State Opening?

In conclusion, I am sure that without negotiation the proposed legislation will need the most thorough scrutiny so that it honours the promise made by the then Lord Chancellor in 1999 and includes the additional issues I have mentioned.

House of Lords Reform

Lord Northbrook Excerpts

Tuesday 12th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Northbrook (Con)]

My Lords, I will focus on one aspect of House of Lords reform: the Bill to remove the remaining 92 hereditary Peers from the House, thus eliminating many centuries of tradition and a golden thread back to the 13th century. I will also suggest further reform that should be included in the Bill.

In March 1999, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, stood at the Dispatch Box and said that the 1999 Bill to abolish the majority of the hereditary Peers

“reflects a compromise negotiated between Privy Councillors on Privy Council terms and binding in honour on all those who have come to give it their assent”.

He continued by saying, in the most carefully worded statement, that the 10%—that is, the 92—

“will go only when stage two has taken place. So it is a guarantee that it will take place”.—[Official Report, 30/3/1999; col. 207.]

The words could not have been more unequivocal. Some 650 Peers left quietly on the basis of that promise. It has now been broken so why, in consequence, should we honour the Salisbury convention on this Bill?

Also, in 1998, the Opposition Front Bench spokesman, Lord Kingsland, said:

“As I understand it, we shall be faced with a Bill which seeks to replace a House based on a mixture of nominated Peers and hereditary Peers by a purely nominated House. That proposal does not go as far as the preamble of the Parliament Act 1911: it is a proposal that looks backwards rather than forwards and one which reduces the independence of this House without adding to its legitimacy. It is a solution to a problem that I do not recognise. Therefore, in my submission, the Opposition would be entitled to think most carefully about whether or not the Salisbury Convention applied to the Bill.


Perhaps I may put it in another way. We are talking about a constitutional Bill. It is not a Bill which seeks to change the law; it is a Bill which seeks to change the way in which we change the law. It goes to the composition of the sovereign Parliament, of the Queen in Parliament. The Salisbury Convention applies to a settled set of relationships between Commons and Lords, but this Bill seeks to change the nature of one of the two component parts of that relationship. In those circumstances, does the Salisbury Convention apply?”—[Official Report, 15/10/1998; cols. 1053-54.]


I believe that it is the responsibility of the remaining 92, as well as those colleagues who believe that the former Lord Chancellor’s promise should be adhered to, to make sure that the proposed legislation includes provision to move to stage two, as promised. I will highlight areas that need to be discussed in more detail in the Bill.

There should be a referendum to ask the public what sort of second Chamber they would prefer. There should be measures to restrict the size of the House. It cannot be right that the number of Peers keeps increasing so that only the National People’s Congress of of China has more members. The right size of the House should reflect the political balance of the parties at each general election. Measures proposed by the Burns commission on retirement and new Peer creations should be included in the Bill.

There should be an attendance and contribution minimum. There should also be a retirement age of 80, which is already proposed. However, this should not be mandatory; it would be fairer to have a secret ballot of the whole House once a year to decide whether a Peer over the age of 80 should continue. The current retirement procedure works well, but unfortunately its effect is totally negated by the more-than-compensating appointments of new Peers. Slightly confusingly, the Prime Minister has already appointed three Peers over the age of 80. The only Prime Minister to limit appointments was Theresa May. More should follow her example.

Next, the Appointments Commission should be put on a statutory basis and be firmly applied to all new appointments, political included, thus controlling the quality of prime ministerial patronage. Amendments should be considered to the structure of the membership of the House. It should be debated whether the Chamber should be elected. As the noble Baroness, Lady Jay of Paddington, opined in the interesting TV programme “The Lady and the Lords”, this is what the public would expect. I would like to consider the rebalance of the 25 Bishops to include representatives of all faiths. We should consider changing the name of the House to “the Senate”, as it would not allow hereditary Peers to be Members.

Another issue that should be looked at is the powers of the House. We should be able to amend the realms of secondary legislation. Also, on Finance Bills, we should have the power to amend badly drafted legislation, particularly where, due to the guillotine procedure, the clauses are not even discussed in the other place. Finally, how will certain business mechanics work when the hereditary Peers have gone? Can there be exemptions for shadow Ministers and Whips on the Front Bench? Will there be enough noble Lords to sit on the Woolsack?

I understand that a key reason for the proposed Bill is removing a number of Conservative Peers from the House, meaning that the Government will not have to create the equivalent number of new Labour Peers. However, Cross-Bench hereditary Peers have been caught in the crossfire, necessarily. Very often in the last Administration they supported Labour and Lib Dem amendments and so are no major threat to the Government getting their business through. The convenor in particular should be spared abolition. What will happen to the Earl Marshal and the Lord Great Chamberlain? Can the Government make an amendment to the Bill to make it clear that they can still carry on their ceremonial duties at the State Opening of Parliament?

In conclusion, I am sure that the proposed legislation will need the most thorough scrutiny so that it honours the promise made by the then Lord Chancellor in 1999 and includes the additional issues that I have mentioned.