House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Debate between Lord Strathclyde and Lord Dobbs

3rd reading
Monday 21st July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Strathclyde (Con)]

My Lords, at Second Reading I called the Bill a “nasty little Bill” because it failed to seek any kind of consensus on a serious reform of the House and failed to advance an important constitutional matter with cross-party agreement. But the bricks with which to build that consensus still exist. The Bill leaves your Lordships’ House today amended—fairly, moderately and sensibly—so I wish it well. I hope the mood of friendly consensus continues, and that the other place will give our proposals the consideration they deserve, although I must admit that it is not easy to accept that my time here is nearly over.

We all accept the mandate that the Government have to end the involvement of the hereditary principle as a route of entry to our House, but I join my colleagues on all Benches who are still wondering why those of us already serving here are due to be flung out. I look at the noble Earl the Convenor of the Cross Benches, my noble friends Lord Howe and Lord Courtown, and the myriad Members who still give so much service to the House. Even on the Liberal Democrat Benches, the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, who is not here, sadly, and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, who has kept those Benches quorate on so many late nights, deserve better. As for Peers who sit behind the Government, such as the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, who has made such a good impact on the House in the few years he has been here, will the Government really be better off without him?

Of course, the Leader of the House has listened carefully to the arguments, but she has never answered the essential question: what have these sitting parliamentarians done to deserve being shown the door in such a way? Your Lordships’ House, I am glad to say, sees things rather differently, and an amendment to the Bill has been passed which insists that arrangements should be made for Peers who wish to stay. It would be a sign of strength if the Government indicated that they will now seek an accommodation with my noble friend Lord True and the convenor on a realistic number of Peers being offered the opportunity to continue their parliamentary lives. We all know that many Peers are planning to retire in any case.

The Bill now returns to the Commons. It is an opportunity over the Summer Recess for the Government to reconsider how they wish to move forward on the Bill. It is never too late to appear gracious, magnanimous—and even kind. Labour’s victory in abolishing heredity here is real. Need we have such a ruthless and unnecessary purge as well?

[Lord Dobbs (Con)]

My Lords, perhaps I might impose for just a few moments on this matter. I think it is relevant to remark on a very significant anniversary for the Labour Party this month. I am not talking about the first anniversary of this Government; I am talking about the 80th anniversary of that remarkable Labour Government of 1945, led by Clement Attlee. Captain Clement Attlee, South Lancashire Regiment, fought nobly and gallantly at Gallipoli, that tragic military adventure—disaster. He was the last but one man to withdraw from the beach at Suvla Bay—a tragic adventure which nearly cost Winston Churchill his entire political career. The clock moved on; the names of the beaches changed. In the Second World War, they were Dunkirk, Omaha and Gold. Yet, throughout the Second World War, Clement Attlee formed a very special relationship with Winston Churchill. Of course, they hated each other, they loathed each other’s politics and they fought hard about it, but it was a relationship based on personal respect and tolerance. That relationship changed history. It changed the history of our country and of the entire world.

That relationship has something to tell us about today. It is an example of tolerance that drives democracy. Democracy is not simply about the heavy hand of numbers, votes, and the clenched fists of manifestos and mandates. It is about getting things done. Tolerance and respect are the lifeblood of democracy, which enables those great tectonic plates of politics, when they meet, to slide past each other and to survive, rather than meet head on and create chaos around us.

One thing we can say about our noble hereditaries, whom we are just about to say goodbye to, is that they did not come here for a title—most of them have several. They came here for public service. They came here to do their duty, as so many generations of their families before them had done. I wish to pay my respect and offer my gratitude to them and, indeed, to express my deep personal affection for so many of them who have served. They are an example to the rest of us in that, and I hope that the Government will take the example of that great Labour leader, Clement Attlee, and, in the way that they implement this Bill, show the respect and the tolerance for which he set an example. Our hereditary Peers deserve it. They should go with our good will, our blessing and, indeed, our friendship.

House of Lords Reform

Debate between Lord Strathclyde and Lord Dobbs

Tuesday 15th September 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Dobbs (Con)]

My Lords, I have listened to every speech and after such a fascinating debate I am not sure that I have much new to offer, but I will try.

These last few months have been cruel for the reputation of our House. Much of the criticism is unfair, yet we live in a world that takes great delight in toppling gilded towers. Our gilded tower is one of the most spectacular. It is also the easiest of targets. A lot of repair work can be done, and surprisingly quickly, if we are able to engage in information and rebuttal, to explain the work we do and to correct some of the more grotesque distortions that have taken hold. An information and rebuttal post could be set up now, within weeks. We could move very quickly.

The public deserve to know the facts, not just the fiction. Take our dining habits. It is widely believed that we dine on lobster and caviar; I am not sure what I will dine on this evening but it certainly will not be that. Most of us, I suspect, have not even eaten lobster here. Being a good working-class lad, the closest I got to caviar is a taramosalata salad in the River canteen. I must confess to buying a little champagne, but like so many noble Lords, almost every drop of it has been to raise money for charity. The delusions and distortions that we suffer are appalling. They may pass, but I rather doubt it. Some of us, a few, have played into their hands.

So how can we fix the damage? First, by re-emphasising that we are a House of duties, not privileges. We Peers are here to serve this House and the country beyond; we must never make it seem as though this House is here to serve us. Secondly, none of us deserves a job for life by right; there comes a point where enough is enough—move on.

In the mean time, we must focus remorselessly on the quality of the work that we do. That work is vital. I like to think of this House as a great parliamentary composting machine, improving and making more fragrant whatever—I was about to say “rubbish”—is thrown at us from the other place. My Lords, we should take pride in being parliamentary worms or rather glow-worms.

How do we translate all this into specific proposals? With fixed terms, age limits, enforced retirements? They have the merit of simplicity, but suffer the tragic weakness of not finding the pleasure of my noble friend Lord Strathclyde. Perhaps we should go back to finding the more traditional methods of finding constitutional compromise: Strathclyde and Steel in a locked room—winner takes all. It is a thought.

[Lord Strathclyde]

I would win.

[Lord Dobbs]

What is fundamental is that the size of this House should be restrained. It may not be a silver bullet, to use the phrase of my noble friend the Leader, but through restraint so much more would follow. We cannot carry on growing like a pig’s bladder. A House without limits is a House of confused qualities, with too many dusty corners for those who should not be here at all. So, numbers reduced by internal selection following the precedent set by hereditaries and others—as set out so ably by my noble friend Lord Cormack—a House no larger than the Commons would have the huge benefit of focusing public attention both on the job we do and who is best to do it.

None of this is easy. Sometimes in politics you have to do rather a lot to achieve just a little, and that is where we find ourselves today. Perhaps I am wrong about all this—I am often accused of turning everything into a drama—but this House is a House of service or it is nothing. If we cannot move forward with some urgency, we may find ourselves being dragged behind a crowd of flat-earthers, who do not understand public duty and who want to sweep this House away lock, stock and biscuit barrel. In that we will have lost a thing not only of great—