House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Lord Wolfson of Tredegar Excerpts

Tuesday 1st April 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar]

93: Clause 2, page 1, line 8, at end insert—
“(3) Any peerage claim is to be made to His Majesty in Council.(4) A claim under this section must be made in accordance with such rules as His Majesty may by Order in Council prescribe. (5) Section 3 of the Judicial Committee Act 1833 (reference to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council of appeals to His Majesty in Council) applies to a claim under this section as it applies to an appeal to His Majesty in Council from a court.(6) The Judicial Committee may require an applicant to give such security for the costs of the proceedings as the Judicial Committee may direct.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to clarify the future of claims to a hereditary peerage as originally drafted by the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel for the House of Lords Reform Bill 2012.

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

My Lords, my Amendment 93 would put the process for dealing with peerage claims into the hands of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. When the Bill was published, many people noted that Clause 2 abolishes the role of the House of Lords in peerage claims, expressly including claims to peerages that are in abeyance. However, it does not replace that system; in other words, the clause abolishes but does not also replace.

I appreciate that, three weeks ago in this Committee, the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General, whom I am delighted to see here, appeared somewhat surprised to find that there are many Peers who do not sit in your Lordships’ House but are Peers none the less. That is a fact. We must have an effective system in place to determine peerage claims.

The Explanatory Notes to the Bill set out how this process is to work in future. I will quote them, because this is short and clear:

“As well as removing the final link between hereditary peerage and membership of the House of Lords, the Bill also abolishes the jurisdiction of the House of Lords in hereditary peerage claims. The intention is that: a. any complex or disputed peerage claims that would have otherwise been considered by the House of Lords will instead be referred to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council by way of section 4 of the Judicial Committee Act 1833; and b. claimants to a peerage of Ireland will no longer petition the House of Lords to confirm their succession”.

--- Later in debate ---

Amendment 93A (to Amendment 93) withdrawn.

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

My Lords, I will of course withdraw the amendment. Before I do, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General for answering the question about the Irish peerages. I will look very carefully at what he said in response to the rest.

I had a wry smile when the noble and learned Lord said that it is unnecessary to duplicate legislation. I started off with that aim as well and I ended up with the Pet Abduction Act 2024. It is all very well when you are faced with a lawyer across the Dispatch Box here, but when you are faced with a group from the House of Commons with the wind in their sails, it may be more difficult to hold to that. I used to tell people that the statute book was not a form of semaphore to send signals, but that often fell on deaf ears.

I am grateful for the support I had en passant from my noble friend Lord Northbrook. Respectfully, I fundamentally disagree with my noble friend Lord Hailsham. There is an interesting—by which commercial lawyers normally mean expensive—legal question raised by the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, as to whether a peerage is a matter of property or not. Quite beyond that, we do not want these cases starting in the county court and going all the way up. We need somewhere to resolve them, and the Privy Council is the obvious place. It resolves other sorts of disputes to do with universities and things like that. It would be a bit of fun for it, in between all the other difficult jurisdictional work that it does. My noble friend Lord Moynihan gave a good example of a disputed peerage.

My answer to the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher—who was obviously satisfied with the Attorney-General’s answer, because she has now gone—was going to be slightly different. I was going to encourage the noble Baroness to stay for groups 5 and 7, when the questions of commencement and when we will have the last hereditary Peer will be before the Committee. I was not going to give an answer now, so that she would stay and listen to the debates on those groups. I hope that she comes back.

On a more serious note, if there are discussions, as we have heard, through the usual channels on the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Mobarik, the answer given might be that it will be when one of the current hereditary Peers in the House reaches the ripe old age of 120. Subject to that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 93 withdrawn.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Lord Wolfson of Tredegar Excerpts

Tuesday 1st April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

My Leader says two and a half days, and I always bow to her suggestions. And let us put some perspective into this. The image we present through the discussions that we have been, and are still, having—that this is the single most important issue facing this House this Session, and that we need to debate it at huge length, which we do not give to every other subject that comes along—is not the best of public relations as far as this House is concerned. I shall not be tempted to get up again, but I did want to inject a bit of realism into our debate.

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

My Lords, the nature of this amendment has been clearly set out by my noble friends Lord Forsyth and Lady Seccombe. My noble friend Lord Forsyth explained what the amendment actually does, and he made us confront the reality of what the amendment purports to do. I heard my noble friend Lady Seccombe say that she was ashamed to have to speak to the amendment, because it is so brutal—and brutal it is.

Therefore, one wonders why this amendment has been brought forward by the noble Baroness. The reason she gave was an odd one. The reason she gave was that, when the House adjourned at 10 pm, as it customarily does, light descended on her and she just had to put down this amendment.

I have not been here as long as the noble Baroness, but my understanding is that the House generally adjourns at 10 pm unless there is an arrangement between the usual channels for a later sitting. I understand that there was no such arrangement and that was why the House came to an end and adjourned at 10 pm. In any event, the idea that that is a reason to go further than the Government’s own Bill in respect of the date by which the hereditaries leave this place is, as a reason, not a reason at all. It is a fig leaf. There must be else something behind it. One wonders, what is that something else? I look forward, as I always do, to the words of the Leader, but especially on this, because this amendment contravenes, in terms, the Bill. It goes well beyond the Bill.

We have been hearing this evening that, when the Front Bench responds to amendments, the Minister should respond to the amendment and not to the debate. Therefore, I look forward to the Leader saying in unequivocal terms that she is opposed to this amendment. Otherwise, there will be a concern that—in a series of groups where very few people have spoken, and very few amendments have been put forward, from the government Benches—this amendment and this speech have been singled out above all else to be made and to be said.

We of course oppose this amendment, for the reasons already set out. However, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, who spoke in this House on one of the various Private Members’ Bills put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Grocott. I see that he got in early with the Government’s excuse as to why they cannot do second-stage reform: because it will be so amended and will take up so much time. That was very useful. I do that when I am in court. If I think that point is going to come up in six months’ time, I just put down a “sleeper”, as I call it. That was a good, old-fashioned sleeper as an excuse for no second-stage reform. But I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, who said in your Lordships’ House on 3 December 2021:

“We are not seeking to say farewell to any hereditary already here; indeed, we look forward to their contributions for many more years”.—[Official Report, 3/12/21; col. 1569.]


What has changed to make the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, not content with her own Government’s Bill but seek to accelerate the expulsion of the hereditaries? There seems to be no reason for it at all. I do hope that the Leader of the House will join me in our forthright opposition to this amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

My Lords, given the hour, I can also be brief, because the essential points have been made by the Convenor and by my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham. In essence, what lies behind all these proposed amendments is the question of effectiveness and the importance of putting in place some transitional arrangements to make sure that we do not face the cliff edge, to pick up that phrase from the Convenor, which would be to the detriment of all of us in this House and, indeed, to Parliament generally. We have, as my noble friend Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay reminded us, a bicameral Parliament and we have to make sure that both Houses work well together. So, the critical point here is that of effectiveness.

This group shows again why analogies are dangerous in this area. The noble Lord, Lord Grocott, spoke in the last group and we had, yet again, the analogy with MPs. It is not a good analogy. The problem with analogies, as a Court of Appeal judge once put it to me, is that they are different, and we are dealing with a vastly different circumstance here: hereditary Peers leaving this House as against MPs leaving the House of Commons in a general election.

The central issue here is one of effectiveness and proper transitional arrangements. Therefore, I look forward to the response of the noble Baroness the Lord Privy Seal to these various options as to how we might best proceed here.

[Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)]

I am afraid I start by disappointing the noble Lord.

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

Forgive me—I apologise.

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

As long as it is not a disappointment, my Lord. It would have been a disappointing end to Committee—although we have one more group to go—if we had got to the final groupings without reference to the now famous spreadsheets of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra. So, I thank him for that.

With regard to some of the comments, before I move on to the substance, I just want to correct for the record a couple of things. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, underestimates the interest of our colleagues at the other end of the building: not least, I believe that my fiancé is watching on television, so I am pretty sure that some Members of the other the other place are interested.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Lord Wolfson of Tredegar Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 25th March 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar]

56: After Clause 1, insert the following new Clause—
“President and Deputy President of the Supreme Court(1) Omit subsection (3) of section 137 of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 (parliamentary disqualification for holders of disqualifying judicial offices).(2) On the day on which this Act is passed, the Prime Minister must recommend to His Majesty the King that the President and Deputy President of the Supreme Court be granted a life peerage under section 1 of the Life Peerages Act 1958 (power to confer life peerages).(3) When a person is appointed as President or Deputy President of the Supreme Court, the Prime Minister must recommend to His Majesty the King that the person be granted a life peerage under section 1 of the Life Peerages Act 1958.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would ensure the President and Deputy President of the Supreme Court are granted life peerages.

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 56, I will speak also to Amendment 57. Both seek to ensure that senior members of the judiciary are appointed as life Peers with the right to sit and vote in your Lordships’ House. I will declare an interest— and a non-interest.

First, the non-interest: I have no intention of becoming a judge. Indeed, when I became a Minister, I received advice from the propriety and ethics committee of the Cabinet Office that, having been a Minister, I had probably rendered myself unable to accept an appointment as a judge. I thought that was a little odd. I am not sure whether the noble Baroness, Lady Gray of Tottenham, was involved in that decision or warning; we all know that the Cabinet Office at that time kept a very close eye on the impropriety of people moving from non-political posts into others in our constitution. The interest I have is as a lawyer; I want to make this House work as well as it possibly can.

The historical position is this: for over 600 years, from 1399 to October 2009, the House of Lords was the highest appeal court in the land. This House had a vital judicial function. Between 1876 and 2009, that function was served by the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary. From 2009, the Supreme Court of the UK assumed that jurisdiction; the then 12 Lords of Appeal in Ordinary —the Law Lords, as they were colloquially called—were the first Justices of the 12-member Supreme Court, and they were disqualified from sitting or voting in your Lordships’ House.

When they retired from the Supreme Court, they could return to the House of Lords as full Members, which they were, but—and this is the point—newly appointed Justices of the Supreme Court do not have seats in your Lordships’ House. From that point on, apart from the grandfather rights—if, in light of the debate on the previous group of amendments, I can use a sexist term—given to existing Lords of Appeal in Ordinary created under the 1876 Act, the long link between this House and the judiciary was severed. Indeed, the last Law Lord was created in 2009.

It is important to appreciate that the old system preserved a clear distinction between the Law Lords’ role as judges and as legislators. I will give a simple example of that. When Lord Lyndhurst, as Lord High Chancellor, considered himself bound in his judicial capacity to decide the famous Lady Hewley’s charity appeal—Attorney-General v Wilson 1848—it turned on the difference between trinitarianism and unitarianism for the purposes of charity law, a topic into which I fear to venture. While he held himself responsible to decide that point in accordance with legal orthodoxy, which he did, he then introduced, as Leader of the House of Lords, a Bill—which became the Nonconformists’ Chapels Act 1844—to remedy, and indeed to overturn, the perceived injustice consequential on his own judicial decision.

Why are we in this position? The great absence today is that of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton. His Constitutional Reform Act—I will have more to say about that Act in the next group—is, frankly, responsible for quite a lot of the constitutional mess that we now find ourselves in.

The basis for my amendment is this: your Lordships’ House has been deprived of the experience of many Supreme Court Justices who could and would contribute a great deal to the work of this House in the way—if I may say this without nominating myself for Private Eye’s “Order Of The Brown Nose”—that the current former judicial Members of this House play such an important part and lend their expertise.

When I sat on the Government Benches as a Minister, I was not worried about the barrage that I might receive from the Opposition Benches, and I certainly was not concerned about the occasional small-arms fire from the Liberal Democrat Benches; I was worried about the incoming missile from my right—from the judicial Members of the Cross Benches. Without this amendment, it will be unclear on what basis peerages will be awarded to those who reach those lofty judicial heights. What we must avoid at all costs is any impression that peerages are given or withheld by the Prime Minister of the day to senior judges, depending on how particular cases have been decided. The only way to avoid that is to have clear rules as to when a peerage will be awarded. That is why I have sought, in my amendments, to highlight the highest judicial offices and to attach a peerage to those offices.

I see that the impressive legal twin strike force of my noble friends Lord Banner and Lord Murray of Blidworth has taken my amendment and added “all Supreme Court Justices”. I will listen carefully to what they have to say, but the principle underlying our amendments is the same.

Finally, the amendment also disapplies Section 137(3) of the Constitutional Reform Act, which disqualifies a holder of relevant judicial offices from sitting or voting in your Lordships’ House. We do not need that provision; we managed perfectly well under the old system. The problem we have now is that, although we have a wealth of judicial experience, it is not as current as it used to be when we had the Law Lords here. I know this may be shocking to many Members of your Lordships’ House, but even the law moves on and changes. The way law is done—and what the law is—is simply not the same now as it was five, 10 or 20 years ago. That is especially the case in areas such as family law.

I remember taking the Domestic Abuse Bill through this House—I pick a topic which was taken on a total cross-party basis. Family law in 2025 is radically different from family law in 2000, and certainly family law in 1980. So I suggest that this House would benefit from the presence of judges who either are sitting or who have very recently sat. My submission to this Committee is that these amendments will improve our debates and our membership, and I therefore beg to move.

[Lord Banner (Con)]

My Lords, I speak in support of Amendment 68, which, as my noble friend Lord Wolfson indicated, takes the premise of his Amendment 56 and rolls it out to all Supreme Court justices. I declare an interest as a practising King’s Counsel who fairly frequently appears before the Supreme Court, including in one appeal where judgment is still pending.

I supported the replacement of the Appellate Committee with the new UK Supreme Court, and I still believe that was the right decision. In a modern democracy, all courts, and in particular the final court of appeal, must not just be but be seen to be separate and independent from the other branches of the state.

However, a collateral and I think probably unintended effect of this, as my noble friend Lord Wolfson outlined, has been significantly to reduce the pool of Cross-Bench legal expertise in this House. By convention, certainly by the turn of the millennium, sitting Members on the Appellate Committee did not speak in debates and did not otherwise participate in relation to controversial matters, although they did sit in committees to some degree. However, upon their retirement they invariably would—and those who remain still do—make an invaluable contribution to the work of this House.

It is also the case that, prior to retirement and while in office as judges, by virtue of being Members of this House, those on the Appellate Committee would have a fuller and further first-hand understanding of the procedures of Parliament, which, as my noble friend Lord Wolfson indicated in his excellent lecture at Policy Exchange earlier this afternoon, may have assisted the judges in their consideration of the Prorogation issue in the second Miller litigation.

Now that the final court is outside this House, its members no longer need to receive a peerage upon being appointed and, contrary to what had been advocated in some quarters, no convention to that effect has been established. In recent years, among full-time Supreme Court justices, only the President has been by convention awarded a peerage—albeit that the Lord Chief Justice, who occasionally sits in that court, has also by convention been awarded a peerage.

The result of all this has been significantly to reduce the pipeline of top-tier judges able to contribute to the work of this House. Amendment 68 would rectify that by requiring all current and future Supreme Court justices to be awarded a peerage. I myself would envisage that, during their tenure on the court, they would follow the Appellate Committee’s former convention that sitting judges do not speak in debates and do not otherwise participate in controversial matters, but, upon retirement, they would be able fully to engage and thus continue the long-established and invaluable tradition of our most senior judges contributing to the work of this House on their retirement from the Bench.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Garnier (Con)]

My noble friend was obviously a keener member of APPGs than I was, but I am sure he is entirely right.

None the less, I think it important that we in this House, and the Supreme Court, for its part, should mutually benefit from each other’s membership. I hope the Government will accede to my noble friend Lord Banner’s amendment, even if it does not go as far as my noble friend Lord Wolfson asked for in his.

I heard two particularly hurtful and outrageous suggestions this afternoon. One was from my noble friend Lord Wolfson: that he was not in the least bit bothered by the submissions from Members of his own Back Benches when he was a Minister.

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

When I said, “the Opposition”, I meant the Opposition as then constituted; anything that came from our own side was obviously of the highest quality.

[Lord Garnier (Con)]

I was fishing for that compliment —and it does take a lot of effort. Anyhow, the other outrageous thing was my noble friend Lord Parkinson claiming that exceptionalism from lawyers was something to be criticised; I find that very distressing.

I will finish on this point. I cannot compete with my noble friends Lord Wolfson and Lord Banner, or indeed the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, on the number of times I have appeared in the Supreme Court, and I am certainly not awaiting a judgment now, but the last time I appeared there was in 2019, when I had the joy and honour of being against my noble and learned friend Lord Keen of Elie. He was acting for the Government and I was not. I had the advantage of being able to describe his client, the Prime Minister, very frequently as “the defendant”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)]

My Lords, on behalf of the Government, I thank the noble Lord for his question. Obviously, it is not appropriate for the Government Benches to respond. The clerks have been clear, and we are discussing all amendments as laid out. We are on the second group of 12 today, so I beg we move forward.

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

My Lords, I am going to move forward by thanking everybody who contributed to that very interesting and informative debate. I did not declare an interest as a practising barrister—although of course I am—because I do not have any outstanding cases from the Supreme Court. The reason for that is that I received judgment in my last case in the Supreme Court only last week. Full disclosure—I lost. I knew things were bad when I saw in the draft judgment that the court had been very kind about how well I had argued it. That is always fatal; when the court is nice about the way you argue a case, it is going to decide against you. It is an immutable rule of English jurisprudence.

I am grateful for all the support I received on these points from various parts of the House, particularly from the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, who brought his experience to bear. I listened extremely carefully to what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, said about participation; that is a real issue. However, I was somewhat alarmed to hear that the first the Law Lords heard of the demise of that venerable institution was on the TV and that they had not been told in advance. I would have thought that a Labour Government would have wanted to tell people about any change in their—so to speak—employment status. Again, it is such a shame that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, is not among us.

As far as the noble Lord, Lord Newby, is concerned, the answer to the point he gave about individuals was precisely the point that was made by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, and that was made thereafter by my noble friend Lord Murray. I confess that whenever it comes to a bust-up between Gladstone and Disraeli, I will invariably be on the side of Disraeli.

I am grateful for the support from my noble and learned friend Lord Keen of Elie, both by way of him adding his name to my amendments and from his position on the Front Bench. I wonder whether the reason I received the advice that I would be effectively barred from becoming a judge—although the prospect of Wolfson J was always somewhat theoretical—was because I was becoming a Minister and not a law officer. I was a little surprised, but there we are.

I am extremely grateful to the Attorney-General for his response. He is right that there appears to be a consensus across the Committee that we need to find a way to have more judicial Members here, at the right time. I therefore look forward to continuing the conversation. I would make only one final point: my understanding is that so far as unamended Bills are concerned, in the previous Session only four Bills went through entirely without amendment. Two were money Bills, one was an emergency Bill and one was a Bill on animal welfare that had cross-party support. It is a somewhat worrying approach for a Government to say, ab initio, and before listening to the debate, that they will brook no amendments at all, even if they have cross-party support in principle, as this one has. With that caveat, I will withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 56 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar]

60: After Clause 1, insert the following new Clause—
“Lord ChancellorIn the case of any person who holds the office of Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain who is not currently a member of the House of Lords, the Prime Minister must recommend to His Majesty the King that the person be granted a life peerage under section 1 of the Life Peerages Act 1958 (power to confer life peerages).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would ensure that the Lord Chancellor is a member of the House of Lords, as was the case for over two centuries leading up to the passage of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005.

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 60 seeks to ensure that,

“any person who holds the office of Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain who is not currently a member”

of your Lordships’ House must be recommended by the Prime Minister for a life peerage under the 1958 Act.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hermer (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, and other noble Lords for their contributions to this debate. We do not accept Amendment 60 for three reasons, beyond the fact that it falls outside the intended scope of this single-issue Bill.

First, the amendment seeks to fetter the power of a Prime Minister to shape the Cabinet according to his or her own choosing. Under this amendment, if the Prime Minister wished to choose a sitting MP to be Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, as has been the case for every Lord Chancellor since 2007, that person would have to vacate their seat and trigger a by-election; or, if this amendment were to be accepted, the Prime Minister would be required to separate the roles of Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice. In the Government’s view, that would be a constitutionally inappropriate fettering of the Prime Minister’s discretion to pick a Cabinet of his or her own choosing.

Secondly, there is no constitutional or public policy rationale to justify taking us back to the position that we were in before 2005. One cannot, for the reasons set out by the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, simply pick and choose without going wholesale back to the 2005 position—putting the Lord Chancellor back on the Woolsack and as the senior judge—because what else is left of the Lord Chancellor’s role? It cannot simply be a rationale driven by nothing more than to have a member of the Cabinet committed to upholding the rule of law. That should be a commitment consistent with the ministerial code for all members of the Cabinet but, if I may say so, I also see it quite properly as a role for an Attorney-General. As the House will be aware, with the Prime Minister’s and the monarch’s grateful permission, the oath of the Attorney-General was changed when I took it to include an express commitment—although it would always have been implicit—to the rule of law.

Thirdly, the amendments fail to address what we would respectfully say are the most important attributes for a Lord Chancellor in the post-2005 age. Those attributes were identified by the Constitution Committee, which considered the Lord Chancellor’s role in a report two years ago—and I acknowledge the committee’s current chair, who is not in his place, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. In its final analysis, the report said that

“character, intellect and a commitment to the rule of law are the most important attributes for a Lord Chancellor to possess”.

We agree, and we do not consider that the acid test of those attributes is the House in which a Lord Chancellor should sit.

My right honourable friend the Lord Chancellor exemplifies the qualities of a great officeholder committed to the rule of law. More widely, as she has made clear, this entire Government see the rule of law as our lodestar. I have no doubt that the Prime Minister has appointed my right honourable friend in the confidence that the House in which she sits is no hindrance to her in discharging her vital constitutional responsibilities. For those three reasons, I respectfully request that the noble Lord withdraws his amendment.

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful for the contributions in this short but important debate. I make the point, although it really ought to go without saying—but I say it for the avoidance of doubt—that none of this is any reflection on the current occupant of the role, for whom I have the greatest personal respect. What we have to do when we consider constitutional matters is to move away from the personal and to the principled, and that is what my amendment is directed at.

The noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General has identified three reasons why this amendment cannot be accepted by the Government. First, he said, it would fetter the PM’s choice of who to have in the Cabinet, but it does not; the PM can still appoint anybody to the role of Lord Chancellor. In fact, the Prime Minister is able to appoint anybody and is not limited to Members of the House of Commons, because somebody could be parachuted in, as has happened on previous occasions. There is no fetter at all—that is a good red herring.

The second point is about what the Lord Chancellor would do. That was the point made by my noble friend Lord Hailsham—and the noble Lord, Lord Murray, gave the short answer. The Lord Chancellor would be there to oversee the really important parts of our constitution: constitutional affairs, devolution, human rights and international treaties. We should therefore go back to the Lord Chancellor being in charge of a Department for Constitutional Affairs.

As to the last point, that the current Attorney-General is the first one to add into the oath a commitment to the rule of law, of course I share that commitment to the rule of law with him—although I think that our interpretation of what it contains may sometimes differ, but that is not a matter for now. With regard to statute, the Lord Chancellor is in a sui generis position. I continue to think that we have lost something important in the 2005 Act, and I hope that this conversation may continue, but of course I beg leave to withdraw the amendment this evening.

Amendment 60 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak in support of my noble friend Lady Laing’s amendment.

I begin by pointing out two problems with her proposal before I give her my unwavering support. I call the first the “Wolfson problem”, or perhaps the “Timpson problem”, whereby we appoint extremely experienced and able people to fill a ministerial role and then discover, when they leave that ministerial role, that they will be extremely distinguished and able Members of our House for the rest of their lives.

I gave three cheers when my noble friend Lord Wolfson came into this House, and I gave three cheers for the three excellent Ministers appointed by the new Government to the Front Bench, each with huge expertise in their areas. I invidiously agree with my noble friend Lord Attlee that one of them is the noble Lord, Lord Timpson. I have absolutely no doubt that they will continue to make extremely distinguished contributions to the House long after they have left their ministerial posts. The “Wolfson problem” is easily solved by converting those temporary Ministers into full-time life Peers at the discretion of the Prime Minister of the day.

The second issue is the element of—

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

The only problem with that is that I left my ministerial office because I resigned from it. The prospect of the Prime Minister of the day thereafter appointing me as a life Peer might be regarded as somewhat remote.

[Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)]

As somebody who left the Whip because of the capriciousness of the then Prime Minister, and then managed to get the Whip restored and to be put into this House, I know that there are ways around the problem, particularly with extremely clever arguments put forward on one’s own behalf. But I digress.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Laing of Elderslie (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his assessment of the amendment that I have put before the Committee. It had not been my intention to have any argument ad hominem. I was not looking backwards in my tabling of this amendment in order to eject from the House any particular former Minister—and certainly not any sitting here.

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

I just make it clear, as far as I am concerned, that a copy of today’s Hansard is going directly to my mother, and I am very grateful for what my noble friend said.

[Baroness Laing of Elderslie (Con)]

In consideration of the feelings of the noble Lord’s mother, let me make it absolutely clear that I share the Minister’s admiration for recent Ministers on both sides of the House, and, indeed, those who are now shadow Ministers and those who were previously shadow Ministers. The quality of the personnel who take charge of this House is exemplary and magnificent. Does the noble Lord think that that will be enough for his mother?

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

My Lords, all these amendments are unnecessary as, in my opinion, there will be no next stage of reform at any time soon—certainly not in this Parliament. The drivers for this Bill are class-based and a need to reduce overall numbers, thanks—wait for it—to the mismanagement of various Conservative Prime Ministers. The only one of them who seemed to grasp the need for restraint was my noble friend Lady May.

The evidence for my statement is that Sir Tony Blair had two successive, clear election victories after the 1999 Act, as well as the benefit of the very carefully thought-out royal commission report chaired by my noble friend Lord Wakeham. He did nothing; I suspect that was because he could not be sure that any further reform would result in a better arrangement than what we already have. My question for the Minister is: why not just implement the Wakeham reforms?

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

My Lords, I will respond from these Benches to these three amendments, which all seek to hold the Government to their manifesto commitment to deliver “immediate”—that was the word used—reform of the House of Lords. I mentioned that commitment in my Second Reading speech on this Bill.

I can be brief this evening as the essential points have been made by, in particular, the three noble Lords who tabled these amendments. We have heard much of the Government’s plans, and there has been much talk in these debates of the importance of punctuation in the Government’s manifesto, but the central point on these amendments is this: the Government ought to give the Committee reassurance that the wider reform will come and, importantly, that it will come soon.

When the House of Lords Reform Act 1999 was passed, the Government claimed that the compromise as to some hereditary Peers remaining in your Lordships’ House would act as an encouragement to the Government to complete their reform of the House. However, we are now more than two decades on and still the Government have not brought forward to this House—as opposed to a few sentences in a manifesto—anything approaching proper reform. The obvious question is: why?

The Government often say that, if we seek to change everything, we run the risk of changing nothing, but the truth is, as we all know, that legislative time is precious. In SW1, the most valuable commodity is parliamentary time on the Floor of a House. We have seen Governments fail to deliver second-stage reform before, so why would it be different this time? As the noble Lord, Lord Newby, rightly pointed out, the noises off—if we can call them that—are not encouraging at all.

Therefore, I completely understand the concerns of the noble Baroness and noble Lords who have brought these amendments. We should reasonably expect the Government to give the Committee a much clearer sense of when, in their already busy legislative timetable, they intend to bring forward the next stage of reform. This House, on this issue, is very much once bitten, twice shy. I look forward to hearing from the Leader of the House on this important issue. I hope that she can be more definite than saying, “At some time in this Parliament”.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I smiled at the point where the noble Lord said that “the party opposite” had done nothing for two decades. I just have to remind him that, for 14 years of those two decades, he was in government and we were not, which did hamper our ability to take action.

I want to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Llanfaes, the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, and the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, for their amendments. What seems clear—and I welcome this—is that there is a bit of momentum about change, which has been lacking for a very long time. I seem to remember that the only proposal the party opposite came forward with about the House of Lords in its time in government was to move this House to York while the rest of Parliament stayed in London, which was not a particularly helpful or constructive suggestion. We seem to be moving now towards a much more collegiate way of doing things and seeing some way forward. I am grateful for that; it is very helpful.

Several times in the debate, noble Lords have raised the question: why this particular proposal first? I have explained that this is the first stage, and the reason that this is the first stage of reform is that it is the one described as “immediate” in the manifesto, but it also completes the start of something that started 25 years ago. The principle of removing the hereditary Peers was established 25 years ago. It seemed very straight- forward, even though we have had very long debates about other issues around it. I am not criticising that; it is just a matter of fact. That principle was established, and this completes that principle.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Lord Wolfson of Tredegar Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 3rd March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

My Lords, the difficulty with the noble Lord’s suggestion, in my case, is that I would be relying upon knowing the leader of my party. I do not properly know any of the party leaders, and they do not know me either, so I would have as much chance as a snowflake in a blast furnace of getting a life peerage.

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

My Lords, I am sorry to disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Newby, but I am responding on Amendment 5, moved by my noble friend Lord Soames of Fletching from these Benches. In speaking to this amendment, I take the opportunity to recognise the significant and invaluable contribution that hereditary Peers have made to your Lordships’ House. With respect to the noble Lord, Lord Newby, this amendment is a different point conceptually from Amendment 9, tabled by my noble friend Lord True, which is essentially, if I may put it without any disrespect, the Grocott approach.

As my noble friend Lord True said earlier this evening, if we are to exclude anyone from the House, it should be those who do not contribute rather than those who have contributed and do contribute. To introduce a personal perspective, I say that as someone who makes every effort to play a proper part in the business of your Lordships’ House while maintaining a full practice at the Bar. That sometimes means that I miss the odd vote—may I record in Hansard for posterity my entirely sycophantic and appallingly oleaginous thanks to my Whip for his constant understanding? More seriously, that cuts into my downtime. I do not really have any downtime because of my work at the Bar and my obligations here. If I can use this rather demotic phrase, it does hack me off when some people do not contribute at all.

I therefore share the concern of my noble friend Lord Soames that we are removing people who contribute while leaving people who play very little, if any, part in the House. The key to a sensible approach, I suggest, while recognising that the hereditary principle has come to an end—like the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, I also enjoyed “Tomorrow’s World” in its day, and what was innovative then is commonplace now—is to retain those who have demonstrated over many years their commitment to public service and duty to the House. She is no longer in her place, but I respect fully agree with what the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, said in an earlier group. She expressly invited the Government to just look, to use what I think was her phrase, at those whom the Government are removing. She said that the approach in this Bill, which removes the fully involved and the truly indolent alike, was “profoundly wrong”. She is right about that.

Turning to the text of this amendment, I know that there are many ways in which noble Lords can contribute to the business of the House, but those who currently serve or have previously served as Ministers and Whips, Deputy Speakers, chairs of committees or as Convenor of the Cross Benches have made a determined and determinable contribution. Their institutional knowledge and dedication to public service has made them indispensable, I suggest, to the functioning of the House and thus to the functioning of Parliament. The positions which they have undertaken in the House have been earned through merit and service. To remove these noble Lords would be to discard a wealth of experience that simply cannot be replaced. I therefore agree with the points made by my noble friend Lady Finn in that regard.

We have had some stats thrown at us; let me try to identify what the position actually is. During the 2019-24 Parliament, 168 Members had official roles. This includes government and Opposition ministerial posts and parliamentary positions such as the Lord Speaker and Deputy Speakers. Life Peers filled 143 of these roles, 23 were filled by hereditary Peers and two by Bishops. About 18% of life Peers served in an official role compared with 26% of hereditary Peers. Despite making up only 12% of the total membership of the House, in the last Session hereditary Peers made up 20% of government posts and 26% of Deputy Speakers. My noble friend Lord Hamilton of Epsom rightly made the point that hereditary Peers as a group have contributed very significantly.

I will not read out my Excel spreadsheet, but do we really want, I ask rhetorically, to lose people such as my noble friends Lord Courtown and Lord Howe—who, as your Lordships have heard, has provided simply incredible service to the House? My noble friend Lord Strathclyde serves as chair of our Constitution Committee is a former Leader of the House and a former Chief Whip. He has served as a Minister over four departments. The noble Lord, Lord Ashton of Hyde, is a serving Deputy Speaker and Deputy Chair of Committees. His CV in the House reads for several pages.

I am not sufficiently brave to stand for much longer between your Lordships and your Lordships’ dinners, so I will not refer to every hereditary Peer, but I trust that noble Lords recognise the expertise, experience and dedication that those individuals have brought to our parliamentary system.

I make one final point. Some years ago, the House removed a number of Peers. The noble Lord, Lord Grocott, gave us the correct figure, which I think was 667. Yes, I was listening. I always do to the noble Lord, indeed to all noble Lords but especially the noble Lord, Lord Grocott on this topic. Does removing the final 88, or however many are left now, make any difference? Of course, the difference goes to the heart of this amendment. Those who remained some years ago were chosen wholly, or in the vast majority of cases, because they were contributing. That is why they remained. That is what this amendment seeks to do.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

They were actually elected; they were not chosen.

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

Sorry, I was using “chosen” as a short form for “elected”. They were elected. My noble friend was here, and I was not, but when the elections took place, the electorate was keen to ensure that experience was not lost. That is exactly the point of this amendment—to retain those who have contributed, are contributing and will undoubtedly contribute more in the future.

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Collins of Highbury) (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful for this debate and to the noble Lord, Lord Soames of Fletching, for raising these issues. One thing that concerns me is that, although I do not think that anyone in this Chamber would deny the valuable work of individuals, particularly of the hereditary Peers, the problem with this debate is that it is about selecting people for congratulations on their hard work. That diminishes the work of some of the others. The noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, talked about the period from 2019 to 2024, when 143 of the officeholders that the noble Lord, Lord Soames, talked about were life Peers and 23 were hereditaries, so a huge amount of the work that kept this House going was undertaken by life Peers.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Lord Wolfson of Tredegar Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 11th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

My Lords, as we come to the end of a debate with many fine speeches—I mention in particular the contributions of my noble friend Lord Brady of Altrincham, whom I welcome, and the noble Baroness, Lady Quin, whom I wish a long, happy and healthy retirement—I begin with a declaration of non-interest and a declaration of interest.

First, I declare the non-interest. Unlike my noble friend who it is a pleasure to follow, I am not a hereditary Peer. Although I am the fourth Lord Wolfson in this House, I do not think I am related to any of the other three, despite sharing a forename with the late Lord Wolfson of Sunningdale and having enjoyed a long and close friendship with his son, my noble friend Lord Simon Wolfson of Aspley Guise, the CEO of Next—and they both arrived here as life Peers. “Wolfson” followed by an “S” and “Wolfson” followed by a “D” are next to each other on the keyboard, so when it comes to parliamentary emails, he often receives emails asking for advice on points of law and I get emails complaining that trousers do not fit.

Secondly, I declare the interest. Even a few years back, I do not think I would have believed that I would be uttering these words, but I now confess that some of my best friends are hereditary Peers. But that is not why I am opposing this short, focused and very partisan Bill. The fact that I—I think this goes for everybody in this House—have friends who are hereditary Peers is not a good enough reason to oppose the Bill; nor is the fact that the hereditary Peers, as a group, comprise many of the most talented and hard-working Peers, or that the House would miss both them and their contribution. All of that is true—as we have heard today, the evidence supporting those propositions is unanswerable—but that is not why I am opposing the Bill.

I oppose the Bill for a simple reason. To explain why, I quote the Labour manifesto on which the Government fought and won the election:

“Although Labour recognises the good work of many peers who scrutinise the government and improve the quality of legislation passed in Parliament, reform is long over-due and essential. Too many peers do not play a proper role in our democracy. Hereditary peers remain indefensible. And because appointments are for life, the second chamber of Parliament has become too big”.


So here we have three points: too many play no part; hereditary Peers are indefensible; and there are too many Peers, which is what led to the age limit of 80. There are three points, but we do not have a three-clause Bill; we have a one-clause Bill, for material purposes. Indeed, if you take out the explanatory parentheses, you have a 10-word Bill—removed if not quite in one stroke of the pen then certainly with one flourish on the word processor.

My question, and the reason I oppose this Bill, is: why? Let me explain. On Monday, my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition asked the noble Baroness the Leader of the House when the Government would be bringing forward the other two parts of their manifesto commitment: the participation requirement and the age limit. The answer he got—I have paraphrased, but not, I hope, unfairly—was that it is a matter for the Government to decide when to bring forward their manifesto promises. I respectfully agree with the Leader about that. That is absolutely right. I am not asking when, I am asking her to deal with why. That is the point that has been unanswered throughout this debate. What is the answer to the question of why? Why are the Government bringing forward only this slice of their triple-decker package of reform, leaving to some indefinite, unplanned, unscheduled future moment of parliamentary time the other two parts?

The only answer we have had so far from the Leader of the House is that it all rests on the full stop, and you have to read the manifesto in a particular way. She warned this morning of,

“a wilful misinterpretation of the manifesto”,

which is why I read out what it actually says.

The Lords spiritual, who have been sadly mute today, I have noticed, might be the experts here as to how many angels can dance on the head of a pin; but it seems that the Lords temporal on the Government Benches are now experts on how many manifesto commitments can dangle on the head of a full stop. I respectfully suggest to the Leader of the House—for whom, as she knows, I have deep personal respect—that, just as in the law courts, if the best answer one has is to seek refuge in punctuation, it is because the case has been punctured.

There is not, and there cannot possibly be, any answer to the question of why the Bill does not also deal with the age point, which would fulfil an express manifesto commitment, or the participation point, which plainly commands wide support across the House. If the Government were to bring forward a Bill that truly encompassed their manifesto commitments, they would have an argument that deserved the conventional respect—and also the respect for conventions—which this House gives to such Bills. This is not such a Bill, and for that reason, I will be opposing it.

Iran and Israel

Lord Wolfson of Tredegar Excerpts

Monday 15th April 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord True (Con)]

I thank the noble and gallant Lord for his remarks and I repeat what I said about the role of the Royal Air Force. The defence of the realm remains, obviously, one of the prime duties and responsibilities of His Majesty’s Government. Defence spending has been increased substantially in the various reviews since 2020, and I can certainly assure the noble and gallant Lord that the most careful consideration has been given to the continuing air defence, of all types, of our United Kingdom.

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

My Lords, on Saturday night, I experienced three emotions: fear, pride and hope—fear, because I have close family in Israel and I was worried for them and about them; pride, when I heard that our planes, with their brave pilots, had taken part in protecting Israel from Iranian attacks; and hope, when I heard that the royal air force of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan had also participated. Does my noble friend agree with me that that last point is absolutely key? If we want to see peace in the Middle East, which we all pray for and work for, we should be supporting those bilateral alliances between Israel and Jordan and Israel and Egypt, and multilateral groupings such as the Abraham accords, because that is the way, in the long run, to bring peace to this region. -

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I certainly sympathise with my noble friend. I do not have the direct engagement that he does, but it so happens that, because of family reasons—some Members of the House will know that I have connections in Egypt—a number of members of my family are in the Middle East at the moment, so I do understand those personal feelings.

The fundamental point that my noble friend makes is absolutely right: ultimately, this great region of the world, the cradle of human culture and so much of our spiritual and historic strength, needs peace. It needs people who wish for peace, and the vast majority in that part of the world crave peace. The evil people who wish to unleash violence are in a minority—and, unfortunately, in powerful positions in some places. But I wholly agree with him that the evidence of growing understanding and friendship between Israel and partner nations in the Middle East is a great sign of hope in these times.

Israel and Gaza

Lord Wolfson of Tredegar Excerpts

Monday 23rd October 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, the position that the Prime Minister expressed was that the United Kingdom would of course wish to see humanitarian aid flowing. I think the phrase that the Prime Minister used was “a stream of trucks”. But I repeat that the difficult and delicate situation arises from the activities of the people who have power in Gaza, who started this terrible war. The United Kingdom will support every effort to get supplies of humanitarian aid flowing for the people who are suffering—not from Israel but, ultimately, from Hamas.

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

My Lords, we have heard a lot about moral clarity and we have also heard some references to the United Nations. I suggest that the United Nations finds a little moral clarity. On the Monday afternoon—and I mean the Monday afternoon after the massacre, so 48 hours later, while the bodies were still warm—the United Nations Human Rights Council observed a minute’s silence. It observed that minute’s silence, to quote the council itself, for the

“loss of innocent lives in the occupied Palestinian territory and elsewhere”.

For 2,000 years, the Jewish people had nowhere. Now it would appear, according to the United Nations Human Rights Council, that they have an “elsewhere”. Does my noble friend the Leader of the House think that some moral clarity is also needed on the part of the United Nations?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I had not seen those particular remarks. To say that they were disappointing would be a bit of an understatement. However, I repeat that there are many working with United Nations aid agencies who are doing outstanding and brave work for people in all parts of this crisis.

Counsellors of State Bill [HL]

Lord Wolfson of Tredegar Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 23rd November 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, it is of course right, and what the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, said is entirely justified: Parliament has a role. But, in this particular case, we can rely upon the good judgment and discretion of the King, and we can recognise that he is a father and a brother as well as a king.

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

My Lords, I will make a more lawyerly point. I heard the wise intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, on what is regular and the powers of the Lord Chancellor. I will not comment on either of those points. But I heard the noble Lord say, in moving the amendment, that his wish was to provide some clarity. I respectfully suggest that its wording actually does the precise opposite, because he has used the verb “excluded”—although, when he moved it, he used the word “removed”. In the context of this legislation, verbs are important. A Counsellor of State can be excepted if they are overseas, for example, which means that they cannot act but they do not lose their place in the pecking order. If they are disqualified, they lose their place in the pecking order, and the next person in line takes that place. It is not immediately clear to me whether “excluded” is “excepted” or “disqualified”. With the greatest respect, I suggest that it is this amendment that ought to be excluded.

[Lord Sentamu (CB)]

My Lords, I also apologise for not being here on Monday; I had to handle some serious matters in Berwick. Yes, the constitutional monarch has consulted, and this House considered this at Second Reading and agreed the terms as in the legislation. So there is no question of the supremacy of Parliament not being recognised. The suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, is almost like rubbing it in—it is just one of those words we would not want to use. We should restrict the Bill to what was asked of us. This was considered, and therefore the wording is there.

Another thing is that we can never predict anyone’s future. I could be ill tomorrow, or I could be dead, and that would be the end of me. Anticipating what may or may not happen in legislation is always pretty difficult, so leave it well alone.