House of Lords Reform

Lord Reay Excerpts

Tuesday 12th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Reay (Con)]

My Lords, democracy is a strange animal: an animal of which no perfect specimen exists anywhere, nor ever has or ever could. It is an animal that is different from one country to the next, because countries have different histories, social and cultural characteristics, strengths and weaknesses, peoples and peculiarities. It is an animal that is different, too, from one moment to the next. Who would have thought that one-third of the popular vote in a British general election, on a turnout of 60% of the electorate, could generate, for the party concerned, nearly two-thirds of the seats in the other place and a majority of 174? Not I—yet that is what happened in July of this year.

As I say, democracy is a strange animal and at some moments, it is stranger than at others. Of course, politicians are strange and imperfect animals too. On the whole, whatever they themselves may fondly believe, they are very much stranger than most of those they represent. One might think that a truly freak election result, such as that of 2024, would necessarily lend a certain humility to the MPs, the party, the Government concerned, and therefore a certain openness and flexibility of mind, and a certain caution, not least on constitutional matters, such as the composition of this House. One might think that, and think it only normal, which it would be—but strange as it may seem, if one did, one would be disappointed.

That brings me to the topic before us today. I have three questions. We are, all of us—however we come to be here, by whatever strange route—Members of a revising Chamber. My first question is therefore this: would the loss of its hereditary Members make this place a better or a worse revising Chamber, or would it make no difference at all? I believe that it would make it a worse one, and that a majority of your Lordships, on all sides, know this full well and know why. Forgive me if that sounds vainglorious, but this is too important a moment for false collective modesty. We box, in this place, above our weight, and everyone knows it.

My second question is, would the loss of its hereditaries make this a more democratic and thus a more representative Chamber? At first glance, perhaps it would. After all, what could be less democratic than a hereditary legislator? Or, to speak of my own case, what could be less democratic than to owe your membership of this House to a title created, as the Daily Mirror put it, because your

“great-grandad’s cousin’s dad’s fourth cousin’s dad’s cousin’s great-great-great-grandad was made a Lord in 1628”?

Who could be less representative of the general population than the bearer of such a title?

Yet it is not quite that simple, is it? Not when one considers the underlying political, constitutional, cultural and human realities. To begin with, we have—all of us hereditaries—been elected, and some of us by the whole House. King Charles might be the King, and most of his subjects British, by virtue of an accident of birth, but it is not by accident of birth alone that we sit here. By contrast, the vast majority of Peers, all but the Lords Spiritual and ourselves, owe their place on these Benches to patronage. I have looked hard at this system of patronage—looked, so to speak, in its mouth, under its bonnet, in its nooks and crannies—and for the life of me, I can find nothing very democratic about it.

There is then the little matter of those cultural and human, flesh, blood and temperamental realities: the kind of people we are, individually and collectively; or more to the point, the kind we are not. We are not politicians or political players—or not of a conventional sort. We are of a conventionally strange sort, perhaps. Of course, this is something we have in common with most members of the public we seek to represent. I believe it to be something rather important.

My third and last question has to do with timing. Is this the right moment for such reform? There were negotiations. There was clear agreement to postpone our removal, if removal there must sadly be, until wider and deeper reform of this House. Present proposals seem premature, peremptory and unworthy of Parliament. So to my three questions: would the loss of its hereditary Members make this place a better revising Chamber? It would make it worse. Would our removal make this a more democratic and representative Chamber? No, it would not. Is this the right moment? If agreements mean anything, it is not.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) (Abolition of By-Elections) Bill [HL]

Lord Reay Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading (Hansard) & 2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Friday 13th March 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Reay (Con)]

My Lords, I am delighted to participate in today’s debate and mention my interest as a hereditary Peer, elevated by way of an election of the whole House a little over 12 months ago. It will not be much of a surprise that I do not support the Bill from the noble Lord, Lord Grocott. I am very pleased that my noble friend Lord Howe will preside over this debate. I hope he does not find the experience as torturous as that of my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham. The Deputy Leader has served for almost 30 years continuously on the Front Benches—an admirable record. He too happens to be a hereditary Peer.

As we know, the House of Lords Act 1999, which introduced the hereditary by-elections, was always intended to be a short-term measure prior to the adoption of an elected or partially elected House. The system of by-elections for the 92 Peers would remain in situ pending overall reform. One unfortunate consequence of this Bill is that the act of eliminating the by-elections would remove the incentive for the overall substantive reform that was the Act’s primary intention.

The House of Lords represents a laudable amalgam of society, albeit at the highest level: representatives from industry, the professions, the Church, the financial and legal sectors and the arts—the best that this country has to offer. The hereditary Peers bring something different to the party—among other things, the maintenance of heritage and the upholding of duty and historical responsibilities not necessarily of their choosing.

Across the House, hereditaries punch above their weight—a point illustrated by my noble friend Lord Taylor and by their significant representation on the Government Front Bench. I believe their presence adds a dimension to the House that is invaluable and unique to this country.

By approving this Bill, we would head down the road towards a House that is all appointed, and by stealth. Such a Chamber runs the risk of overflowing with former politicians, ex-political staff, party donors and cronies. The public arguably have more issues with such political patronage than with the continuation of these by-elections. The noble Lord, Lord Adonis, who I notice is not in the Chamber today but often has pertinent things to say about this, made a convincing point in Committee on a similar Bill last year, when he said that appointed Peers and hereditaries are all “equally illegitimate”. The validity of this comment has recently been emphasised by the lengthy time currently being taken by the Appointments Commission to confirm the suitability of the new batch of appointed Peers. This does little to improve the legitimacy of the House.

I believe that this proposal by the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, is playing to the wrong gallery. The public at large do not support Peers spending considerable time and money debating this. They are looking for more fundamental measures: legislation that would implement the intentions of the 1999 Act and increase the legitimacy and reduce the size of the House. I certainly support comprehensive reform, whereby we move towards a fully elected House. I do not accept a fully appointed House. This Bill is not an appropriate vehicle for reform and does not have my support.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Grocott]

My Lords, the people who have been damaging their case are all the hereditary Peers—with the exception of the noble Earl, Lord Howe—who made contributions today. They have been particularly depressing in their unanimity, but they are also unrepresentative of the rest of the hereditary Peers, who are not here, because, as I said, there are many who wished this Bill well for the future.

We heard from nine hereditaries: Messrs Strathclyde, Trefgarne, Caithness, Trenchard, Reay, Mancroft, Glenarthur, Astor and Northbrook. I mention their names because they failed to do what the Companion requires, which is to declare an express, clear interest. Time is short, but I am being persuaded that I really ought to read out the extract from the document itself, the text to which we all adhere. The section headed “Rules of Conduct” on page 65 states:

“In order to assist in openness and accountability, Members shall … declare when speaking in the House or communicating with ministers or public servants any interest which is a relevant interest in the context of the debate or the matter under discussion.”


That is game, set, match and tournament. According to the rules of this House, they should have declared their interest.

[Lord Reay]

The noble Lord, Lord Grocott, clearly was not listening to the first line of my speech, in which I specifically declared that I had participated in a by-election. Perhaps he would like to check the record.

[Lord Grocott]

I know perfectly well that the noble Lord, Lord Reay, declared an interest in having fought a by-election. I readily concede that that is precisely what he said. He went on to say one or two other things which I do not think I have the time to deal with.

What is especially depressing about this is that, if this House cannot even agree to the Bill, please do not give us any nonsense about it being committed to any form of reform of this Chamber. This is the most understated, simple, obvious, straightforward, incremental reform—all the ticks that any constitutional conservative might wish to adhere to. They are all there, but this reform is being rejected by—I have to say—the hereditaries and one or two riders alongside them. I find that very depressing indeed. I also find it—and I do not say this lightly—without total honesty. I do not think the arguments of noble Lords opposing this Bill carry any weight. They say that this has to be a government Bill. I see no evidence in any of their histories that they have campaigned for a full government Bill on comprehensive reform of the second Chamber at any stage in their political careers—many of them very long indeed—except for occasionally referring to it as a kind of fig leaf for opposing my incremental reform. None of them addressed the blatant unacceptability of the “white men only” category. Perhaps they can explain to me why they were right not to mention it. I did not think they would; it is very wise to keep your head down when in doubt. That has been the character of the opposition to the Bill.

The contributions from across the board were very heartening. There were contributions from the noble Lords, Lord Tyler and Lord Rennard, and others on the Liberal Democrats Benches; from the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, to whom I am very grateful; and from many colleagues on this side whom I could easily mention. I thought the contribution from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, was very good. I shall mention just two or three significant contributions. One was made by the noble Lord, Lord Burns. I am most grateful to him. His committee was set up by the House when we decided that we must reduce our numbers and that his committee was the right one to look into it on behalf of the Lord Speaker. It is a well-respected committee. I understand why it cannot recommend proposals that would require legislation, as mine would—all very simple—but for him to say that he could personally see the case for it was heartening.

I must also thank the noble Lord, Lord Young, who made a brave speech. He never conceded his personal opinion to me while he was the Minister responding, but you did not need to be Sherlock Holmes to work out what it was. His contribution was very telling. I was going to say that I look forward to the day when the noble Earl, Lord Howe, has the freedom of the Back Benches, but I do not really look forward to that. I am sure that when he does, he will modify the position he has adopted. He would not be the first person who had to express views from the Dispatch Box that differed from those they held in private; even Chief Whips are occasionally involved in things that mean they would rather not look in the mirror. I would be interested to hear the noble Earl, as and when that day comes. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Holbeach, for his contribution; although he did not come out in support of the Bill directly, he gave his usual measured performance, with the skill that is customary for former Chief Whips.

I have found that sometimes, the only way to deal with this is with satire. This system is so ridiculous that I find it amazing that so many people can defend it with a straight face. Sadly, there are a number here who do so.

That brings me, finally, to the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Howe. He said that we cannot proceed—I hope I am not traducing him—because there is no agreement across the Chamber on this issue. If that were a principle of Parliament, we would never do anything. We would certainly have never had the 1911 or 1949 Parliament Acts, or the 1999 House of Lords Act. There is never a consensus for these kinds of things. All we have in this House is a view that is some 15 to one in favour of the Bill. That is not consensus, I agree—I am working on the remaining two or three—but it is an overwhelming majority. This House has spoken on three occasions now; it really is time that the phoney, self-serving arguments against the Bill are seen for what they are, and that we give this Bill a Second Reading, Committee stage, Report and get it on the statute book.