House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Viscount Trenchard Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 25th March 2025 Lords Chamber

The noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General might perhaps like to think about these things; it is a matter for consideration. Certainly, as far as Northern Ireland and Scotland are concerned, I doubt the value of their being nominated as life Peers on appointment. As far as the Justices concerned, I think participation is a big issue that cannot be considered alone. That is why the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, is quite right in saying that this debate is not very suited to this Bill.

[Viscount Trenchard (Con)]

My Lords—

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Laing of Elderslie (Con)]

I thank my noble friend for that very pertinent question. I think the answer is yes. A title is an honour—we have discussed this in various aspects of the Bill and in the changes that we are considering. There is no harm in a title. It is the presence of being in this House and having the ability to vote, et cetera, that is really the point at question. So, indeed, a title, once conferred, would be kept for ever. It is a great honour to be appointed to this House, but I ask noble Lords to consider that an appointment for life means something rather different to a person aged 30 and a person aged 60. None of us can predict what “for life” will mean, but if one is planning one’s career, it looks rather different from the point of view of having accomplished most of the things you are going to do, rather than from the point of view of having accomplished not very much yet.

There might be bright young things out there who could serve a few years as very effective members of a Government but who do not wish to undertake the duty of being a Member of this illustrious House for the rest of their lives. All recent Prime Ministers have vowed that they want to reduce the size of your Lordships’ House. Let us try to help the current Prime Minister to do that, by giving him the option to appoint Ministers on a temporary basis. It would be a modest step towards a 21st-century House if the Government were to consider adopting Amendment 67. I beg to move.

[Viscount Trenchard (Con)]

My Lords, my noble friend Lady Laing of Elderslie proposes the creation of a new class of Members of your Lordships’ House, as ministerial members. It is not clear from her very eloquent speech whether such persons would be created Peers or not. She did suggest that they would be accorded titles, not only for the duration of their tenure in office but for life. This amendment does not address the problem of unpaid Ministers in your Lordships’ House. I am not so sure there would be many volunteers for such posts in the absence of a salary and a peerage. I hope my noble friend will clarify whether, on reflection, these temporary Ministers would be given a peerage or the right to sit after retirement from ministerial responsibilities.

[Baroness Laing of Elderslie (Con)]

I thank my noble friend for his question. Just to clarify, it is set out in Amendment 67 that such a person would be created a Peer, but not a Peer for life. Although the title might continue, the right to sit in your Lordships’ House would not, once the ministerial appointment had ended.

[Viscount Trenchard (Con)]

I thank my noble friend for her clarification, but I wonder about the creation of yet another type of Peer. I wonder how many people would be happy to be created that kind of Peer, if others appointed as Ministers were created proper Peers for life. It might be a bit difficult.

I will comment on Amendment 90C, which my noble friend Lord Brady is going to move. He seeks to abolish the Lords Ministers altogether. Who would speak for the Government in your Lordships’ House? My noble friend clearly has in mind a very different role for the House, and I look forward to his elucidation of that.

[Lord Brady of Altrincham (Con)]

I am grateful to my noble friend for introducing my remarks so capably. I hate to disappoint him, but my intention is to speak briefly in support of my noble friend Lady Laing’s Amendment 67, not to move Amendment 90C in my name. I tabled it intending for it to sit with the earlier amendment that I proposed, which we debated at an earlier stage. My intention was to draw out a broader debate about the importance of a separation of powers. We heard earlier about the separation between the judiciary and the legislature, but we do not speak very often about the possible separation between the Executive and the legislature. That is the debate I was wishing to have, but it does not sit comfortably at this point in our proceedings.

I do, however, very strongly support my noble friend Lady Laing’s amendment, which serves quite an important purpose—and sits naturally with the avowed intention of the Bill. Most of us across the House recognise that the odd process of exempted hereditary Peers being chosen by by-election has become very difficult to justify. It has been widely said at previous stages that it had already really fallen into disuse and most people have been happy to see that there would not be future by-elections.

In dealing with what appeared to be an anomalous route for appointment to your Lordships’ House, it is very hard to see how the appointment of a Peer for life simply because they are being appointed to do a specific job for a specific period of time is not at least as anomalous.

I strongly support my noble friend in her intention. As she has said, it would increase the freedom of Prime Ministers to bring in people to act as Ministers from a much broader field or a much wider spectrum of life experience—and it would not have the unintended consequence of constantly swelling the ranks of your Lordships’ House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Trenchard (Con)]

My Lords, all the amendments in this group seek to bind the Government to undertake some further reform of your Lordships’ House. They variously cover some of the other manifesto commitments the Labour Party made before the general election. As one of those who sit here as

“the sand in the shoe”,—[Official Report, 22/6/1999; col. 791.]

as we were described, to ensure that the House does indeed move in the direction of accepting more democracy at the expense of prime ministerial power, I welcome all three amendments.

The Bill without any such amendment seeks to achieve the reverse. None of these three amendments by itself guarantees real democratic reform. Amendment 71 is non-specific as to what changes to the composition would be proposed, although Amendment 70, proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Llanfaes, and the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, on 10 March, did contain proposals for an entirely elected House on a proportional representation model. During that debate, the noble Baroness stated that among bicameral legislatures, the only entirely appointed upper chambers are your Lordships’ House and the Parliament of Lesotho. She forgot to mention Canada.

The noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, allows the Government a full two years to lay a Bill before Parliament, and his Amendment 81 would not bind them to enact any substantive changes, such as were envisaged in 1999. The noble Lord, Lord Fowler, allows the Government 18 months to produce proposals covering three areas: size of the House, retirement age and the election of a proportion of Members. All these areas were referred to in the Labour Party manifesto, including the retirement age provision, which was included in the first paragraph containing matters that the Government would address first.

I am not sure that the models proposed in any of these amendments contain the best way forward, but I am certain that it is a mistake to change the composition of the House before deciding the direction in which we should move. It is also arguable that the public should be invited to endorse the final recommendations in a referendum.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Viscount Trenchard Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 25th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Strathclyde (Con)]

My Lords, the night is young and there is still plenty of time, so it is a real delight to move Amendment 90A in front of an audience of the Labour Party on its Benches. I have to tell noble Lords opposite that their own Front Bench has been working valiantly during the days we have spent on this Bill with near-deserted Back Benches. It has been rather depressing, in just the last few minutes, to see the Government Chief Whip going around tapping the odd folk on the shoulder and sending them home just as I was about to get to my feet and get into my stride. But that will not put me off.

This amendment is not a probing amendment; it is a helpful amendment, designed at a problem that has been haunting the House of Lords for many years. My noble friend Lord Fowler, and the noble Lords, Lord Burns and Lord Butler, have referred to it this evening in looking for imaginative ways of dealing with the issue of the numbers in the House.

At a stroke, this amendment finds the solution to that, and it does so in several ways. This is an amendment that is already in statute law in the House of Lords Act 1999. It is therefore extremely well precedented; we have demonstrated that it can work. Perhaps noble Lords who were around 25 years ago will remember that the then Convenor of the Cross Benches, Lord Weatherill, moved an amendment—which became known as the Weatherill amendment—to reduce the number of hereditary Peers to the 92 that exist at the moment. This amendment seeks to reduce the size of the whole House to some 600-odd people—the Bishops, incidentally, are supernumerary to that. It would do so by election—a well-tested method of reducing the size of the House that worked extremely well in 1999.

Tonight, I offer it up to the Committee, not just as one amendment but as three in one. It is a solution to a problem, it is already in law, and it is already well precedented. I know that the noble Baroness the Leader of the House will find the amendment very difficult to accept, but perhaps she will indicate that she finds real attraction in finding an electoral way of reducing the size of the House without relying on the kinds of formula that so many noble Lords tried to introduce in the past. I offer it to the Committee, and I very much hope that it might be brought forward in a future Bill in due course. I beg to move.

[Viscount Trenchard (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Strathclyde on tabling his very sensible Amendment 90A. It should find favour on all Benches because, as my noble friend said, it ticks so many boxes. It would ensure that the hereditary Peers who have sat in your Lordships’ House these 25 years have not sat in vain. We were allowed to continue to sit on the basis that stage 2 would provide some substantive reform and move the House’s composition in the direction of a popular basis, as stated in the Parliament Act 1911.

The amendment would introduce some democratic legitimacy by allocating seats according to party blocs based on the average of the number of votes cast in the last three general elections. That provision would ensure that the composition of the House provides a balance to major shifts in public opinion that result in wide disparity of seats in the House of Commons, which is elected on a first past the post basis. It would give a nod to PR, since the voting strengths are determined on the basis of the number of votes cast, ensure that your Lordships’ House provides stability, and help to avoid dramatic shifts in policy supported by the public only ephemerally.

The amendment should be supported by those of your Lordships who agree with the view of the noble Lord, Lord Burns, that the House should be reduced to 600 people. It should also be supported by those noble Lords who believe that the Bill as drafted is discriminatory, in that it treats some members of the body of Lords temporal differently from others although, for all practical purposes, there is no difference between life and hereditary Peers in terms of rights and privileges in this House. We are appointed to serve on committees or on the Front Bench without any consideration of the route by which we entered your Lordships’ House.

The amendment treats all holders of a Writ of Summons to this Parliament equally. It would result in the House enjoying greater democratic legitimacy but retain the service of those noble Lords who are more independent, and election by party groups would give preference to those who work harder and make a greater contribution. It is an excellent amendment, and I ask the noble Baroness the Leader of the House to consider it seriously.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, for this ingenious proposal. The aim of getting down to 600 Members would be achieved by having a retirement age and sensible participation limits. That would probably get us well below 600. But I really rise just to ask the noble Lord whether, when he replies to this debate, he could confirm that his support for this amendment has not undermined the principled stance he took on my amendment, which calls for a wholly elected House.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Viscount Trenchard Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 12th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Strathclyde (Con)]

We should thank my noble friend Lord Blencathra for introducing this amendment. It is a subject worth discussing. Since this Bill is designed to fling out a cohort of your Lordships’ House who on the whole do turn up and play a part and some of whom hold very senior and important roles in the House, it is worth discussing for a few minutes those who hardly come at all and finding out whether there should be some kind of attendance threshold.

The amendment that we are discussing deals with attendance. My noble friend Lord Hailsham mentioned participation—but I think that participation, which is very important, is a very different issue from attendance, and we will come to it in the course of today’s deliberations. What the noble Earls, Lord Kinnoull and Lord Devon, said about the Cross Benches is very important. We do not want to discourage or reduce the ability of those Peers who have something to say but for a whole variety of reasons come less often than most of us; that is why the threshold should be realistic but relatively low.

I think that what my noble friend Lord Blencathra was saying was that, if it had been set at 10%, we would lose about 100 Peers, from past records. I entirely agree with my noble friend Lord Hailsham that we should not do anything that is retrospective. I do not think there is a problem and that suddenly a whole bunch of Peers would turn up because they wanted to be above the threshold—because the Peers who come hardly at all have already decided that they do not want to play a part in your Lordships’ House, but do not want to retire or take leave of absence. So this is a useful amendment and a useful debate and discussion—and setting the threshold at 10% I do not think will put anybody off.

[Viscount Trenchard (Con)]

My Lords, I, too, support my noble friend Lord Blencathra in bringing forward this topic, and I very much agree with what my noble friend Lord Strathclyde has just said.

When I looked at my noble friend’s three amendments, I was inclined to think that Amendment 20 struck the right balance. It is important to retain the concept of the House of Lords as a part-time House, but I also believe that, to remain sufficiently involved in what is going on so as to be able to make a contribution to debates on matters in which noble Lords possess expertise and knowledge, a participation level of 10% may be on the low side. But, as long as your Lordships’ House retains its present sitting hours, 15% is a reasonable minimum participation level—although it would be difficult to maintain a full-time job outside the House and a 15% participation level if the House were to adopt similar sitting hours to the House of Commons.

However, my noble friend Lord Hailsham is right to provide in his Amendment 25 for the possibility that the House may resolve to exempt a noble Lord from compulsory retirement if it concludes that there was a good cause for that noble Lord’s non-attendance. I entirely agree with the point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, about low-attendance, high-impact Members.

I also support Amendment 37, in the name of my noble friend Lord Lucas. This amendment would allow the House to provide exceptions to compulsory retirement, but, interestingly, allows the possibility of first fixing and later changing the minimum participation rate through Standing Orders, which would provide for more flexibility. My noble friend Lord Blencathra is absolutely right to ask your Lordships to consider this matter, because the Labour Party manifesto also committed to introduce a new participation requirement, at the same time as excluding the excepted hereditary Peers. Those who believe that the House is too large may also support the introduction of a minimum participation level. I would expect that the retirement of a number of inactive Peers would make it easier for the Government to find a better way forward that would cause less disruption to the ability of the House to discharge its functions in a way that serves the country well.

[Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)]

My Lords, I find myself questioning the premise on which this amendment rests, and indeed on which the Bill it is amending rests—namely, that there are too many of us here. It is repeated very often, but it is rarely interrogated or properly analysed. The case against the amendment from my noble friend Lord Blencathra has been eloquently made by others, and I am not going to repeat the points that they have made. My noble friend Lord Astor made an extremely good point about the perverse incentives that it would bring in, my noble friend Lord Hailsham made a very good point about its retrospective nature, and who can disagree with the compelling case made by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, about the low-frequency but high-impact Members?

But we would not be having this debate at all if it were not for this general assumption that we need to free up space. Before I came here, I took that as axiomatic. We are always told that this is the second-biggest legislative chamber after the National People’s Congress in Peking. But too many Peers for what? Do we have difficulty finding a seat in the Chamber? I do not think so; if we look around, we see that there is plenty of space. Do we have difficulty booking a table in the Peers’ Dining Room? Do we not have our Written Questions accepted? Are we pullulating in such numbers that the ushers are unable to cope with us? I do not think so. If we are, the one lot of people we do not have a problem with are those who do not turn up very often. They, by definition, are the ones who are contributing least to the problem and, indeed, claiming least from it.

This Chamber has existed in one form or another since Magna Carta—at least if we count the conciliar form of government that took shape under King John and Henry III as the progenitor and ancestor of this Chamber—and at no stage has anyone felt the need to insert a minimum attendance requirement. It was assumed that it could be left to the patriotism and judgment of the bishops and barons to decide when something was sufficiently important to merit turning up. Have we completely junked that idea of trusting people’s own discretion and judgment?

If it really were a question of numbers and we really did feel that we were massively overloaded, why is it that almost every day we keep on admitting more Members here? If Ministers think that the problem is that this is too large a legislature, why do we seem to be gaining half a dozen people a week? I sometimes feel we are in one of those Gilbert and Sullivan operettas where everyone gets a peerage. I sometimes wonder whether that is the end game—that this country will end up becoming an oligarchy, where the real power is vested in the hands of the last remaining 500 people who still have the right to vote for the other place, and everyone else will have the right to sit here. But, you know, as long as they do not turn up, it is still not a problem—so I come back to saying that I dispute the premise.

I know that Ministers share my view, because they are not proposing a cut-off based on attendance, or indeed a cut-off based on age. They have looked beyond their manifesto and have decided to do the right thing, rather than be bound by the dots and commas of what their manifesto says. I hope they will extend that logic to the only democratically elected element of your Lordships’ Chamber, namely our hereditary colleagues.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Dundee (Con)]

My Lords, as has been said by practically everybody, participation statistics—such as simply the numbers of annual interventions by any Peer, without enough reference to the contents, let alone to the parliamentary usefulness and quality of those interventions—are thoroughly misleading.

At the same time, adjudications should obviously take into account how a Peer may have contributed in the usual ways through speeches, Written Questions, committee work, voting and so on.

Your Lordships may agree with what I think has emerged very clearly from this debate: rather than going only by participation numbers, a far clearer picture would emerge from assessments made by a cross-party commission set up for this purpose, as proposed in Amendment 63, and just now so eloquently explained and spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell.

[Viscount Trenchard (Con)]

My Lords, I support the adoption of a participation requirement as provided for in Amendment 26. Standing Orders should be drawn up to set a minimum participation level but should take account of the fact that some noble Lords who seldom speak exert a considerable degree of influence, whereas other noble Lords who speak often and at length may exert rather less influence. Perhaps my noble friend Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay had this in mind when he tabled his Amendment 28, which I look forward to hearing him speak to. It is important that the committee appointed to consider and approve provisions should consider this fact.

I also support Amendment 40 in the name of my noble friend Lord Lucas, which seeks to do the same thing and provides for the House to provide an exemption from compulsory retirement in cases where there are good reasons why a noble Lord may have failed to live up to the declaration of intent that he or she signed at the start of each Session of Parliament. Perhaps the declaration of intent could be combined with the Code of Conduct so as not to lengthen the time required for oath-taking, which is already rather time consuming.

Amendment 63 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, is just another way of ensuring that noble Lords must achieve a minimum participation level to justify retaining their seats in your Lordships’ House. It seeks to establish a cross-party commission to make recommendations and ultimately, after 18 months, would require the Secretary of State to introduce a Bill to put the minimum participation level on a statutory footing. This has both advantages and disadvantages; it would be difficult and would require further legislation to make any changes to participation levels. The amendment is also silent on any provision for exceptions to compulsory retirement being possible in cases where the House considers that a noble Lord should be spared eviction.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Viscount Trenchard Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 10th March 2025 Lords Chamber

I fear that in this matter, with the assumption—always unchallenged—that the other House should have primacy, we are falling into Tom Paine’s trap.

[Viscount Trenchard (Con)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 11 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Newby, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, my noble friend Lord Strathclyde and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb.

As I have said in earlier debates, the 1999 agreement always envisaged that the House would, as stage 2 of that agreement, adopt proposals for introducing elected Members to the House of Lords. However, I am not sure that all were firmly agreed that the elected Members should be directly elected. I believe that some kind of indirect election system—perhaps one representing the new estates of the realm, such as the CBI, the TUC, the BMA, the Bar Association, et cetera—should also be considered as an alternative way to introduce a more democratic and representative element of the House’s composition. The difficulty would be in agreeing which organisations should be entitled to select or elect representatives, but the possibility should certainly be explored. An alternative way to select indirectly elected Members of your Lordships’ House might be by granting election or selection powers to devolved legislatures and principal councils.

After the Second World War, and under pressure from the American occupation forces, the Japanese Government introduced constitutional changes that replaced the House of Peers with the directly elected House of Councillors, to which elections from large multimember constituencies are held. This introduced an element of proportional representation. Japan has two elected houses and, while they sometimes clash, the new upper house’s powers are restricted in a similar fashion to those of its predecessor House of Peers, and so it more or less works most of the time. I am not supporting moving directly to an all-elected, alternative second Chamber, but the Japanese example should be closely looked at.

Although I support the outcome that could flow from this amendment, it is wrong to make changes to the membership of the House before shaking the sand out of the shoe. To let the Bill go through with this amendment alone will not guarantee that it would definitely lead to any enactment of a Bill laid before your Lordships’ House and another place.

It is clear that the 1999 agreement was that the 92 hereditary Peers would remain until the enactment of proposals incorporating a democratic element. Nevertheless, I will support this amendment, but I believe the House should also adopt something similar to Amendment 6, as previously debated. I will support my noble friend Lord Lucas if he brings back on Report an amendment that would retain an elected and independent element within your Lordships’ House, which would keep the sand in the shoe. A combination of Amendment 6 and this amendment could well be developed to a level where a programme of change would enjoy a broad level of support across your Lordships’ House.

I also support Amendments 11A and 11B in the name of my noble friend Lord Blencathra, both of which seek to ensure that referenda will be held to make certain that proposals for an elected House really would be enacted with popular support. As my noble friend Lord Strathclyde said, some sort of popular support should be sought in making a constitutional change of this nature.

I cannot support Amendment 70 in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Llanfaes, and the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, because a review would most probably conclude that a House composed of only appointed Peers and Bishops would lack appropriateness—that is an understatement. Such a review would just be kicked into the long grass.

I like Amendment 72, but I think that the 92—or 88—should remain until the end of the Session prior to the new House being convened, following an election under a new electoral model.

I am not sure about Amendment 90D in the name of my noble friend Lord Brady, although I agree with much of what he said in his most thought-provoking speech. Clearly, a House comprising only 200 Members would have no room for people retaining activities outside the House and would lack the capacity to scrutinise legislation as it does at present, or to operate the number of Select Committees it does today. It would be a very different kind of House. However, I am certainly attracted by my noble friend’s proposal that elections should be held one year later than general elections. That should be considered as a part of any move to a partly elected House.

Lastly, Amendment 115 makes sense. The Bill should not be enacted without the adoption of at least a partial democratic mandate at the same time.

[The Earl of Erroll (CB)]

My Lords, I thoroughly support Amendment 11. People have tried picking holes in it, but it does not say that all have to be elected. It says:

“introducing directly elected members in the House of Lords”.

The proposals, which would be thought through and brought with a Bill within 18 months, could contain all sorts of different proposals, which I know everyone wants to debate in a moment. I will leave that to everybody else because there are some very good ideas in there.

The whole point about Amendment 11 is that it gives voice to that promise of Privy Council oath, given from the two Front Benches, that there would be further democratic reform of the House of Lords. That is what Amendment 11 states, and it puts a time limit on it. Therefore, the Secretary of State has to do something about it, not just kick it into the long grass. We will not be here, but those who follow us will be here to see proper further reform of the Lords, introducing a democratic bit to it. As I said before, without that democratic element, it will eventually have all its powers removed because it will have no democratic legitimacy.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Viscount Trenchard Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 3rd March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Trenchard (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Lucas on introducing his Amendment 6. Today of all days it is an immense privilege to be able to speak in your Lordships’ Committee. Like other noble Lords have said, I feel a little bit diffident about talking about ourselves when so many more important international affairs demand our attention. But this is the way the business has been tabled and so I am following that.

I remind noble Lords that the acceptance of the Weatherill amendment to allow 92 hereditary Peers to remain was described by Viscount Cranborne, as he was at the time, as the “sand in the shoe” to ensure that the Government really would move to stage 2, which would involve a move to a wholly or partially elected House. Indeed, the Parliament Act 1911 envisaged the eventual replacement of the House of Lords, as then constituted, with a House elected on a popular instead of a hereditary basis. I stress that, although I fully accept that many life Peers are extremely popular, the Act clearly meant the introduction of at least a significant elected element.

I would remind the Lord Privy Seal that not only the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irving of Lairg, but many other Ministers at the time made clear their commitment that stage 2 really would happen. I understand that the by-elections which have been held for 26 years cannot in any sense be regarded as democratic, but they have certainly been competitive. I was evicted from this place in 1999 and had to contest a by-election against 36 candidates in 2004, which was certainly competitive.

The Weatherill amendment was successful in avoiding what many noble Lords on all sides of the House thought at the time would be a most undesirable outcome—the establishment of a wholly appointed House. However much noble Lords on other Benches have ridiculed the system for replacing hereditary Peers through by-elections, the existence of any kind of elected part of your Lordships’ House has been valuable because it has maintained 92 independent Peers who do not owe their membership to appointment almost entirely by a Prime Minister.

My noble friend Lord Lucas has demonstrated a stroke of genius by tabling Amendment 6, which seeks to retain this valuable independent element but removes the connection to hereditary peerages. The valuable independent element would be made much more open. The Lord Privy Seal should welcome his amendment because it would end the remaining connection between hereditary peerage and membership of the House of Lords but retains an independent section of Peers who would be elected by Members of your Lordships’ House.

Many might say that the Lucas Peers, if I may call them that, would be no more democratic than the Weatherill Peers. However, we recognise that in 2025 there are many who believe that possession of a hereditary peerage should no longer have a connection with becoming a Member of the House of Lords, as acknowledged by my noble friend Lord True in his Amendment 1, which I also strongly support.

However, the Lucas Peers would be equally independent of the Government of the day, and under Amendment 6 any member of the public may stand. There is a possibility that a very large number of members of the public would stand for election, and it is unlikely that the electorate—the current Members of your Lordships’ House—would have any reliable criteria on which to make a judgment. Therefore, it would be sensible to incorporate a bar to restrict the number who would stand as candidates to a manageable number.

My noble friend Lord Lucas, in his Amendment 7, suggests that this restriction should depend on procedures proposed

“by a member of the Council of the Nations and the Regions”.

I am not as confident as my noble friend that the council will become an appropriate body to determine such procedures. As of today, the House of Commons website states:

“It’s not yet clear how the Council of the Nations and Regions will fit into the existing system of intergovernmental relations, which was established in 2022”.


As an alternative and perhaps a better way to restrict the number of would-be Lucas Peers to a manageable number, my Amendment 8 restricts applicants to those who have three years’ or more experience of serving as a

“member of either House of Parliament, or as a member of any of the devolved legislatures, or of a Principal Council”.

This would provide an opportunity for those threatened with exclusion by the Bill but who wish to continue the work they do in this place to seek all noble Lords’ endorsements to enable some of them to do so. The eligibility of members of the devolved legislatures and councils would also encourage the continuation of a less metropolitan section of the membership of your Lordships’ House, but in a more democratic way than the present hereditary Peers alone provide.

As drafted, Amendment 6 provides that the Weatherill Peers are gradually replaced by the Lucas Peers. It is also possible to replace them all in on big bag, perhaps at the end of the parliamentary Session. In either case, suitable Standing Orders could be drawn up which could ensure that the proportion of the Lucas Peers representing each party would eventually be determined by the average of the number of votes cast in the last three general elections, while retaining 20% for the Cross Benches—in a similar manner as proposed by my noble friend Lord Strathclyde in his Amendment 90A, which will be debated later.

The existence of the Lucas Peers should continue until and unless real constitutional reform takes place, as envisaged in the Parliament Act 1911 and in the House of Lords Act 1999. This is stage 1a of the House of Lords Act 1999. It does not qualify as stage 2, but it satisfies those who wish the heredity principle to end while retaining an independent section of Peers to continue to act as the sand in the shoe to ensure that, one day, the House will change into one with at least a significant directly or indirectly elected element.

[Lord Strathcarron (Con)]

My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Lucas’s Amendment 6, which seeks to open up the by-elections to registered voters—and, in fact, take it even further than that—to correct the wrong impression of by-elections held by many noble Lords who have never had first-hand experience of them.

The concept of by-elections to your Lordships’ House has been dismissed because of the singular nature of the candidates, but if the candidature is broadened, as envisaged by this amendment, the idea suddenly becomes much more attractive. To succeed in a by-election is no easy task; to have succeeded proves the candidate worthy to the selectorate involved in choosing him or, in the future, her.

The candidates must first a show real determination to sit in your Lordships’ House. Library research shows that, on average, an hereditary stands for election four times before being successful. As elections are held on average once a year, on the death or retirement of an existing Member, this typically means committing to a four-year election campaign to succeed. On average, there are 14 candidates for each vacancy and only one successful candidate each time—so one a year. There is no reason to suggest that the by-election process for registered voters, as imagined in my noble friend Lord Lucas’s Amendment 6, would be any less rigorous than the hereditary by-election process that has existed until very recently. First, there are hustings, where candidates hone their skills in political public speaking, followed by some very pointed and topical questions by members of the selectorate, who want only the brightest and the best to join them. Then, the voting process itself could hardly be more democratic, being a secret ballot conducted under proportional representation.

There is a lot to be said for scaling this up, not just for vacancies filled by registered voters, as in this amendment, but as a form of appointment to the whole House. Many amendments have called for a democratically elected House, but the reality is that this would mean the House of Commons agreeing to lose primacy, something to which it will never agree. I contend that that is simply never going to happen. On the other hand, we could have a democratically elected House if new Peers were elected by Members of this House. This is, after all, how political parties elect their leaders in the other place—at least partially. As ever, there is some devil in the detail, but it cannot be beyond the wit of sitting Peers to devise an election process based on the one that has worked so well, selecting only the very best hereditaries standing for election.

UK Strategy Towards the Arctic (International Relations and Defence Committee Report)

Viscount Trenchard Excerpts

Thursday 9th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Trenchard (Con)]

My Lords, it is a privilege to speak in this debate and a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Stevens of Birmingham. I congratulate my noble friend Lord Ashton of Hyde and the International Relations and Defence Committee on their fascinating report on the UK’s strategy towards the Arctic. I congratulate my noble friend on his excellent introductory speech.

I admit that I was not very well informed on this matter before I read the report, and I found it very illuminating. I have always had a fascination with the Arctic because, when I first lived in Japan in the 1980s, we flew over it and refuelled at Anchorage. From the mid-1990s we would fly over Russia, but in recent years we have reverted to flying over the North Pole.

It is always a little surprising to see just how close eastern Siberia is to Alaska. We are so used to looking at a Mercator projection view of the planet, but a globe gives a much better perspective of proximity and shows the significance of the Arctic. It also shows that, of the eight members of the Arctic Council, Russia possesses almost half of the shoreline of the Arctic Ocean. Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine has paralysed the work of the Arctic Council. Given the close alliance between Russia and China, the remaining members of the “Arctic seven” are increasingly cautious about Chinese strategic investments in the region.

It may be true that China has, so far, sought to work within the Arctic’s existing governance framework; however, it is clear that China is now intent on challenging the existing world order so that is very likely to change. As the report finds:

“Concerns regarding Chinese strategic investment in the Arctic and its long-term intentions in the region are legitimate”.


It suggests:

“One region where the deepening partnership”


between Russia and China

“may manifest itself is the Arctic”.

This presents a particular problem for India, which continues to sit on the fence. The committee’s witness, Captain Bisen, acknowledged that India has

“an interest in preventing a strong Sino-Russian partnership”.

The report welcomes the FCDO’s decision to resume working group level projects of the Arctic Council, including Russia, whereas it remains committed to excluding Russia from co-operation at a ministerial level. I wonder whether such an ambiguous policy will be viable for long. The report rightly states:

“Russia must not be allowed to take advantage of its participation in working group activities to undermine the steps taken by the UK and others to isolate Russia diplomatically in response to the war in Ukraine”.


I cannot see that there is any possibility of Russia not seeking to take advantage. Does the Minister think that our ambivalent position can be maintained?

The report strikes the right tone in suggesting that

“the UK’s influence in the Arctic depends on strong diplomacy and coalition-building”.

Those with whom we should work in coalition include Japan and South Korea. I am a little puzzled that the report identified a significant difference between the positions of those two countries. I believe that the Japanese general trading companies, to speak only of one sector, are just as interested in the development of Arctic maritime routes as the South Korean private sector. It is essential that Japan and Korea, which face similar security risks in the western Pacific Ocean, should work more closely together in the defence and security sphere and in collaboration with other Arctic observer nations. The United Kingdom, which enjoys closer defence and security relations with both nations, can play a key role here.

The committee’s report identified that the UK, as the nearest neighbour to the Arctic Council states, co-operates actively with them on search and rescue missions in the High North. As noble Lords are aware, the scrapping of the RAF’s Nimrod fleet in 2011 before it was commissioned was a very controversial decision that left the RAF without any maritime reconnaissance capacity for some years, until the commissioning of the Poseidon P8 aircraft based at Lossiemouth. It is no surprise to read that questions are being raised as to whether the current fleet of nine aircraft is enough to meet our commitments, especially given the deteriorating geopolitical situation in the north Atlantic and in the Indo-Pacific region.

Last week, newspaper reports covered recent statements by the noble Lord, Lord West of Spithead, that defence spending should go up to 3% immediately and that the Government’s current strategy of waiting until after the strategic defence review and then doing it in the June financial statement is ludicrous. The noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, have both said that we need to spend 3.5% to maintain our existing military capabilities and commitments to NATO. Does the Minister agree with his noble friend, the noble Lord, Lord West, that the Government’s approach to defence spending is ludicrous?

As honorary air commodore of 600 (City of London) Squadron in the Royal Auxiliary Air Force, I entirely endorse what my noble friend Lord De Mauley said about the contribution of the Reserve Forces to the resilience of the defence of the United Kingdom. Again, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Ashton and other noble Lords on an excellent report and excellent speeches, but regret that the report is already a year old. Debates on recently published work tend to be livelier and receive more media interest.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Viscount Trenchard Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 11th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Trenchard (Con)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Murray, with whose excellent speech I find myself in complete agreement. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, for her introduction of the Bill. I ask, however, whether she agrees that the Bill appears to lead to an undemocratic result that Parliament never contemplated when the Parliament Act 1911 was enacted?

The preamble to the Parliament Act 1911 is interesting. Its second sentence reads as follows:

“And whereas it is intended to substitute for the House of Lords as it at present exists a Second Chamber constituted on a popular instead of hereditary basis, but such substitution cannot be immediately brought into operation”.


Parliament’s intention, as expressed in that preamble was to move a democratic direction. There was to be, first, a future second Chamber based on a popular rather than hereditary basis and, secondly, future legislation to limit and define the powers of the new second Chamber.

Over 100 years later, neither of these events has come to pass. The current Bill will result in an entirely appointed body—the opposite of a body constituted on a popular basis as contemplated in 1911. The idea that an Act of Parliament in 2025 can result in a less democratic body than was contemplated by Parliament in 1911 will strike many as odd. Some may regard it as a matter that would profit from further reflection, perhaps under the aegis of an all-party constitutional conference, as was attempted in 1910 and 1948 in the run-up to the Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949.

In the debate held in your Lordships’ House on 22 July 1999 on the Standing Orders to be introduced to fill vacancies among the excepted hereditary Peers, the late Lord Bledisloe proposed an amendment which would have allowed the political party groups to enfranchise their life Peers as well as their hereditary Peers in hereditary Peers’ by-elections. I was struck by Lord Bledisloe’s observation:

“One of the unfortunate consequences of the debates on the House of Lords Bill is that, for the first time, Members of the House have been distinguished from each other by virtue of the fact that they are hereditary or life Peers. That division is a great pity and every effort should be made to ensure that it disappears as quickly as possible after the Bill is passed. The process would be greatly assisted if the House recognised that all its Members are of equal value and have a right to an equal say in the election”.—[Official Report, 22/7/1999; col. 1144.]


That division has unfortunately again reared its ugly head as a result of this Bill. Noble Lords are allocated to serve on their Front Benches, to serve on Select Committees, or to stand as candidates for positions as officers of all-party groups, irrespective of the route by which they entered your Lordships’ House.

The Leader of the House has said that this Bill represents a manifesto commitment. That is a little disingenuous. Labour’s manifesto commitment was to do four things now, and then later to consult on proposals to fulfil its commitment to replacing the House of Lords with an alternative second Chamber that is more representative of the nations and regions. Can the noble Baroness explain why she thinks that the Bill before your Lordships today does not in this regard do the precise opposite of what the manifesto argued for?

I believe the former Lord Chancellor, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, was being honest when he declared that the 1999 compromise

“would guarantee that stage two would take place”,

as my noble friend Lord Northbrook and others have said.

“So it is a guarantee that it will take place”,—[Official Report, 30/3/1999; col. 207.]

he said. The binding agreement envisaged that stage two would involve a move to an elected House, or at least the adoption of a significant directly or indirectly elected segment within a reformed House. If such a reform were now to be brought about, as was promised, I would be keen to stand for election in order to continue my work in this place, which I have always regarded as the most enormous privilege.

The Lord Privy Seal rued that the change commenced 25 years ago has still not been completed. So she should withdraw this Bill and replace it with one which would actually lead towards the completion of that process. This would add to the limited legitimacy your Lordships’ House enjoys, which derives in part from history—that we have had a House of Lords for many centuries—and from the effectiveness with which we perform our work of scrutinising and improving legislation.

Human Rights Violations: Consular Assistance

Viscount Trenchard Excerpts

Wednesday 30th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I can reassure the noble and learned Baroness that, yes, that is the case. We are determined to continue to offer the best possible service to all our citizens who are affected by this. I have been involved in some individual cases myself, so she can rest assured about that.

[Viscount Trenchard (Con)]

My Lords, for the Government to provide consular assistance to British nationals abroad, it is obviously essential that they know who they are. Some years ago, when I lived in Japan, British nationals were required to register their names and addresses with the embassy. I was surprised to hear that that has long since ceased to be the case. Does the Minister agree that it makes sense to reinstitute such a requirement?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I was just looking at the eligibility criteria and it is quite clear that we offer this service to British nationals overseas. They establish their rights through establishing evidence of their citizenship. I am not sure what further steps we might need to take. The important thing is that people who are resident abroad can rest assured that our consular services will be available to them.