House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Baroness Lawlor Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 3rd March 2025 Lords Chamber

It is extraordinary that we have picked out this group of people who, in my view, have more legitimacy in your Lordships’ House than appointed Peers, and decided to get rid of them. It is quite clear that they have given much more of their time and effort and skills to the effectiveness of your Lordships’ House than the great majority of us who have been appointed to it have managed to do.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, I support my noble friend’s amendment. The exceptions to whom his amendment would apply are people who contain and are characterised by many qualities, but I mention only four here: experience, knowledge, constancy and loyalty to this Chamber, and a non-political aspect. This may seem strange coming from the Conservative Bench, but for many of us who have not been part of a party-political machine, it is very important to see how a non-political Front Bench can work to reach out across the Chamber to all sides of this House. It is these qualities of experience, knowledge, constancy and a type of non-politicalness which allows this House to do the work it does, and which brings it respect right across the world, as has been mentioned today. I commend my noble friend for tabling this amendment, and I hope it will be listened to with sympathy.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I think this amendment shows the problem that we were discussing earlier with the groupings, because we have actually been discussing, along with this amendment, Amendment 9 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord True, and they both deal with the question of the future of those hereditaries who play a major part in your Lordships’ House.

The noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, told us what he finds extraordinary. I think the vast majority of the country would find it extraordinary, if they realised it, that 10% of the legislature derives from fewer than 800 families in the country. Most people do not really realise that; if they did, they would be very surprised and most of them, frankly, would be appalled.

I looked at the hereditaries as a group one wet, sad afternoon. I divided them not into sheep and goats but into three: those who were active, those who were partially active, and those who were inactive. In response to the list of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, of those who are very active, I could, but will not, read out to the Committee a list of equal length, if not longer, of hereditaries who are virtually inactive. This is not a criticism of them more than it is of any other group. However, it is the case that some Members in the hereditary group are very active and well respected, but, like in all other groups, there are others who, frankly, are not.

Therefore, if we are looking to what should happen next and whether we should seek to retain some of the expertise that the hereditaries have, surely the way to do it is not as proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Soames, nor by the noble Lord, Lord True, but to encourage the parties to appoint those hereditaries who are very active and eminent in their groups to life peerages as those numbers come up. I hope very much that we will do so in respect of the Liberal Democrats—we have fewer hereditaries than some of the other groups—but that seems to me to be the logical way of doing it. It is what we did, to a certain extent, in our party after the vast bulk of hereditaries left in 1999. That is the precedent that we should seek to follow now, rather than having a broader category of exemptions, as the noble Lord suggests, or a complete continuation along the lines previously proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, which the noble Lord, Lord True, is about to suggest.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Baroness Lawlor Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 12th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bethell (Con)]

My Lords, it is a great privilege to speak after my noble friend Lord Bellingham, who makes very clear points very persuasively. Attendance in Parliament has been a long-standing issue throughout British history, and my noble friend Lord Hannan spoke extremely well about the motivations of parliamentarians. Previous monarchs have looked at this issue very closely, and both King James and Queen Elizabeth brought in roll-calls and fines because they struggled so much to get parliamentarians to attend.

Many parliaments around the world have attendance criteria. In Belgium, salaries are docked if you do not attend enough. In Oregon, you get only 10 spare days and if you miss your 10 days you are not allowed to stand for re-election. This is an issue that many parliaments face.

The first three Lord Bethells never spoke in Parliament at all. They regarded it simply as an honour. That is a shame and not at all tolerated in modern times. The British public expect parliamentarians to play an active role, and they are absolutely right. I will say two things on that. First, the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, made the point about “deep and infrequent”. I think that is right and I have enormously valued the participation of some Peers with enormous expertise but other commitments. Secondly, there is a collaboration element to being part of what is a collective House. Scrutinising legislation, our principal endeavour, requires an enormous amount of co-operation between Peers, and that requires a relationship that needs a little familiarity. If people do not turn up at all, you cannot build those bonds of trust and collaboration and cannot do your job properly.

For that reason, I strongly support the spirit of the amendments from my noble friends Lord Blencathra and Lord Lucas, and endorse the comments of the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, we are all here to bring different things, and I am not sure that participation rates are the best way of going about reform. Peers contribute differently. They bring their counsel, as we were reminded from the Cross Benches. Some bring their expertise or knowledge of a particular subject, and most bring their judgment on all subjects.

The options being proposed as we debate this short Bill are very different. Because there really is no agreement on the best way to proceed, I urge the Leader of the House to consider trying to find a consensus across the House to get some agreement, given the extraordinary differences we hear about how best we should proceed.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, I am glad that we are debating this question of attendance separately from the question of participation, because they are materially different. I share the scepticism of the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu, about the Government’s willingness to accept amendments to this Bill and, indeed, his salutary warning about being careful of what we say now and remembering that it is taken down in the official record. These other issues are being raised because we all care very deeply about the future of this House, and one of the great tragedies of this Bill is that some of the people who care most deeply will not be here to give their opinions on the further stages of reform or the Government’s adherence to the rest of their manifesto once the Bill is passed. I know he will understand why they are getting their arguments in early.

As the Convenor of the Cross Benches reminded us, our presence here is not thanks to a democratic mandate of our own or any of our achievements but in answer to a call. We sit here in response to a Writ of Summons from our sovereign, who has commanded us, waiving all excuses, to be at the Parliament holden here at Westminster, to treat and give our counsel on certain arduous and urgent affairs. I agree with the noble Lords who have said that we are invited and treated to give our opinions on arduous affairs, even if they are outwith our own areas of expertise.

It is up to each of us to decide how we answer that call, and it is clear that noble Lords across the House do so in different ways. But we have some insights into how they do so thanks to the spreadsheets of my noble friend Lord Blencathra and to the data dashboard provided by the House of Lords Library. That shows that during the last Parliament your Lordships’ House sat for 701 days. On average, noble Lords attended on just under half—46%—of the days that they were eligible to attend. Of the 966 people who were eligible to attend at least some of the last Parliament in your Lordships’ House, 28 Members did not attend at all. More than 100 Members—116—attended on less than 10% of the days that they were eligible to be here, which is the threshold that many noble Lords have mentioned.

Further interrogation of these data by the Library reveals some interesting points. During our last day in Committee, we debated the ideal age of Peers. The data from the last Parliament show that the younger Peers are more likely to attend than older ones. Noble Lords aged 59 and under attended on more than half of our sitting days in the last Parliament. Noble Lords aged 60 or above were absent for most. While noble Lords in their 80s were with us on 45% of sitting days and those in their 90s managed 31%, those in their 30s were here on 55% of sitting days and the sole noble Lord in her 20s—the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Llanfaes—was here 78% of the time, despite travelling from much further afield than most.

Perhaps most pertinently for this Bill, average attendance rates were highest for our hereditary colleagues, at 49%. For life Peers it was 47%. For the Lords spiritual it was 14%, although we know that the right reverend Prelates have many other duties in tending to their flocks. Our remaining Law Lords were here on just 12% of sitting days that they could have been. These statistics, interesting though they may be, should not be taken at face value. Some may very well think it is better to have 12% of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hale of Richmond, than it is to have half of a thirtysomething.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Baroness Lawlor Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 1st April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I understand why noble Lords opposite would like to terminate debate, but I think there is a case for going a little bit further. Since noble Lords have allowed themselves some personal reflections, perhaps I can first add one of my own, which is that, when I was introduced to this House, one of my supporters was a Cross-Bench hereditary Peer. I will not mention his name, because I have not told him in advance that I am going to make these remarks. It all went back to the fact that, more than 40 years ago, I used to play bridge with his mother, and when he made his maiden speech shortly after his 21st birthday, I sat with his mother in the Peeresses’ Gallery and listened to him. We remained in touch and so, when I was being introduced, I thought that it was time for some payback. He willingly agreed, adding that he had never in the whole of his time in the House been asked to sponsor anybody at their introduction, so he was very happy to do so.

He has served throughout that time because he survived the Blair cull. He has been committed to the House and he has worked hard. What so many people find unfair—as I said, I have not discussed these remarks with him at all—is that he is to be expelled not because of lack of merit, not because of lack of commitment, not because of lack of expertise, but simply because of the way in which he entered the House. As the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, said, there seems to be an inherent unfairness in that.

I turn to the amendment, which I support. I emphasise that this amendment is not about the hereditary principle. It is about the principle of expulsion. We seem to be taking it for granted that an act of expulsion is sort of okay, whereas, in fact, it is almost entirely without precedent. There is the baleful precedent of Pride’s Purge, and since then the only example of the expulsion of people as a class from Parliament was what happened in 1999. To take that as a precedent so that it becomes, if you like, a normal thing for groups to be expelled from one House of Parliament or another, but more likely from this House, according to—I will not say the whims, but perhaps the vagaries of what might appear in manifestos is a very bad principle indeed. It does not affect only the hereditary Peers; it affects all of us because one can divide and one can create those criteria for expulsion according to, really, anything that fits, and can achieve political and other objectives in doing so.

When we say, “A whole group of us is to be expelled”, we appear to have a precedent for it in 1999, I grant you that, but it is not a good precedent. It is not a precedent that should be repeated. The proposal made by my noble friend Lady Mobarik avoids that and puts that danger at some distance from us. So I think that there are broader reasons for accepting it than simply our admiration of and friendship with the individuals involved in this case. There are broader reasons of principle for accepting it and I urge the Front Bench to consider them on constitutional grounds.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, I support my noble friend Lady Mobarik’s amendment. It is consistent with the Government’s manifesto pledge, in that it accepts the principle of removing the hereditary Peers. I am not sympathetic to that change and I do not go along with the assumptions on which it is proposed. None the less, I accept that the Government have given their manifesto pledge and they have the right to make this change.

That, however, does not preclude the arrangement proposed by my noble friend. If anything, it should open the way for it. Such a major change in the legislature of this country is a matter of constitutional importance, as is the separation of powers and how we are governed. In these matters, an evolutionary approach is best. This amendment opens the way for retaining the expertise of some of the most experienced, knowledgeable and dedicated Peers.

British political history may have been dramatic during its other periods of constitutional change. None the less, the arrangements—whether extending the franchise in the 19th century, Catholic emancipation, or Irish home rule and then the treaty with Ireland—were evolutionary. They incorporated something of what went before by allowing for a gradual evolution, not a violent upheaval.

Similarly, reform of this House has been gradual and saved something of what went before. This brought Britain political stability, and brought stability to our democracy, unlike in the cases of other friends and neighbours, such as France, which is a unitary power like Britain but did not necessarily follow the evolutionary approach. We see reports that this continues, even to the present day.

This Bill is a Labour Party measure. I have nothing but admiration for the party opposite, which emerged as a main party of government in the early 20th century. It accepted the constitutional conventions and it helped democracy in this country to evolve. It was also helped by the restraint of the Conservative leadership, which refused, as one interwar Prime Minister put it, to “fire the first shot”. This was not because of a desire to appease politically but as the means of enabling Britain’s democracy to evolve gradually—and evolve it did.

Labour won power, first in 1924, again in 1929 and then, dramatically, in 1945. It was given a fair crack of the whip to get on with the manifesto pledge and be judged at the end of the Parliament on the whole package of how well it did in power. Similarly, with this House, there has been an evolutionary, not political, change. There is a settled constitutional way of proceeding, consistent with the manifesto pledge. I hope that the Government will accept this amendment—that they will accept the established and successful way of incorporating something that has gone before. I hope that they will, in this way, signify their respect for the consensual approach to constitutional change, and that they will not fire the first shot.

[Lord Porter of Spalding (Con)]

My Lords—

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Baroness Lawlor Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 9th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, as probably the most recently retired unpaid Minister, I acknowledge the shop stewarding role of the noble Lords, Lord True and Lord Forsyth. Clearly, they raise an issue of principle. As they have set out, the issue is around a Prime Minister’s management of MPs in the Commons and both Acts of 1975. Although I do not think this amendment is really appropriate in this Bill, it is a substantive issue and it is clearly unacceptable that Ministers of the Crown are unpaid. It reduces the talent pool from which to choose, and it has a flavour of cricket 50 years ago and gentlefolk amateurs. That is quite unfair, but it gives a flavour of those compared with professional politicians.

How can this be solved? Of course, Prime Ministers could exercise rather more restraint over the number of Commons Ministers who are appointed—good luck with that. As the noble Lord, Lord True, said, we could also bring forward a little Bill to increase the number of paid Ministers allowed. I cannot believe—and the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, put his finger on it—that a Government would ever increase the number of paid Ministers in the febrile atmosphere in which we currently operate.

It is worth acknowledging that the inflation has gone down a bit. Research from the Library shows that in 2010, the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, had 118 Ministers, which, by my reckoning, means at least nine were unpaid. The noble Baroness, Lady May, had a similar figure in 2015. Mr Johnson had nine unpaid in December 2019, according to a Parliamentary Answer. My figures show that Mr Sunak increased it to 17 unpaid Ministers, 15 of whom were in your Lordships’ House.

Frankly, I am very dubious that we will see any improvement until we come back to the fundamental issue of substantive reform of your Lordships’ House. The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, may shake his head, but the reality is that the Lords is treated in the way that it is because we are not legitimate at the moment. I am afraid that the sorts of amendments from the Lib Dems on an elected House, and even tinkering around in terms of the numbers, is not going to cut the cake until we decide what the role of the second Chamber should be, its powers, how its membership is arrived at and whether Ministers would be appropriate to serve in such a reformed second Chamber.

Finally, the question which noble Lords and all other commentators will never answer is: what are the respective powers and relationships between the Lords and Commons, and how do you resolve differences? Let us get down to the real business and not go ahead with this proposal, which, I am afraid, is for the birds.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, I support these amendments because arrangements in a free economy involve an exchange of labour in return for payment. Since time immemorial, we have accepted that the labourer is worthy of his hire. Not only does payment represent a benefit to him for work done, but it reflects the obligations on the employer to meet certain conditions and take certain responsibilities, as it does on him.

In the case of ministerial salaries, as my noble friends have pointed out, this has long been recognised in law, with limits put on the number of Ministers, of course. The Ministers of the Crown Act 1937 regulated the salaries payable to Ministers. As we have heard today, the 1975 Act expanded on that and on the limits on numbers.

Unpaid Ministers in the House of Lords should indeed be entitled to claim parliamentary allowances under the prevailing rules of Parliament, but they are not. As we have heard, many lose out even on the attendance allowance if they are on business abroad. There is good reason to pay people for work expected of them and done. In my view, it is thrice blessed. It blesses he or she who gives their labour, he or she who takes the money and he or she who benefits from the labour.

I am in no doubt that without payment—I speak as a former director of a think tank and an employer—we cannot expect clear responsibilities to be fulfilled without Lords Ministers and the public being clear about the obligations on all Ministers, including those in the Lords. Parliament and the Executive will not be seen to be responsible to their paymasters.

We need to be clear about what the duties are in this Chamber. We know what they are, but the public are not aware of them. We have heard today about the long hours and the serious grind that is put in by Ministers of the Crown. Therefore, it is in my view very important that this work and this contract of employment—for that is what it is, even if it is not stated—should be set out. People should freely see what is expected of Ministers and that they fulfil their duties. It is very good for democracy, for our constitution and for accountability, so I support the amendments. I also echo what was said by my noble friend Lord True, that they can denounce the payment—I add that they could give it to charity—but the principle should be implemented.

[Lord Markham (Con)]

I was very happy to add my name to this amendment as someone also with personal experience. My noble friend Lord True set out three principles which I think we would all agree with. I think there is a fourth: meritocracy. The best person selected for a position should be selected regardless of race, gender, religion, sexuality or wealth. We all believe in the principle of equality in this House, so why should it not apply in the case of Ministers?

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Baroness Lawlor Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 9th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Lord will not be surprised to know I do not agree with him. We discussed this before and my view, oft repeated, is that we should, wherever we can, proceed without legislation. We can do that with a number of the issues we are debating. As the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, pointed out, the minimum age at which a person can be a Peer was never legislated on—admittedly, it was a bit ago that that was introduced. We need to look at whether it might be possible to introduce a retirement age without fresh legislation. Either way, I do not want to commit to giving the House of Commons the whip hand over what we do about our own rules when we can change those rules ourselves.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, I am intrigued by my noble friend’s amendment. Yes, it would make good some of the failings of the Government, who have not honoured their 1998 pledge to bring forward their proposals for reform before they remove the hereditary Peers. Nor have they delivered on their promise in the manifesto of 2024 to bring forward proposals for reform on composition, in terms of retirement age, participation obligations and so on. It would perhaps be a good way of making good the problem we face, which is the removal of over 80 of the Peers who are most effective in scrutinising the Government and holding them to account. One cannot help but agree with those who see this Bill as vindictive for that reason, and a partisan attack on the ability of this House to fulfil its constitutional function.

However, dare I part company with my noble friend Lord Blencathra? I feel it is a very bad move to have government by committee—even a Select Committee of this House. By their very nature, committees do not have a sense of the feeling of the whole House, or indeed of the country, which is more important. For this reason, I would worry about such powers for a Select Committee.

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I am always very touched when people call for the Front Bench. I am very happy, if I am so popular, to go over to the other side, if that is what the other side would like.

This has been an important debate, although brief, on the next stage of reform. It is really a coda to the very interesting debate provoked by the noble Lord, Lord Burns. All this flows from the firm promise in the Labour manifesto that another Bill would be enacted in this Parliament to exclude Peers who reach the age of 80 before the end of this Parliament, and other promises in the manifesto to address issues of participation and conduct.

In Committee, my noble friend Lord Blencathra was tirelessly ingenious in the proposals for improvement that he put before the House. He spoke from his great creative experience as Chief Whip in another place, his knowledge, which he alluded to again today, of the often unintended, unbankability of government promises, and also his profound love of Parliament. So, I was surprised—but actually, on reflection, I was not—when the noble Lord’s carefully thought out and clever amendment suddenly appeared on our Order Paper following our debates last week.

Many noble Lords who heard the statement of the Leader of the House last week wanted to hear more detail of the scope of what is planned, and also to have more security in what will be the role of this House in determining what happens next. We have had a few advances on that, but no conclusion. My noble friend’s amendment actually offers the House a route to do that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, it has been an interesting debate. I will start with the basis of why I first suggested the Select Committee, as it may help your Lordships. The noble Lord is right that it is always difficult to get extra time for legislation, but it is important that this House has an opportunity to consider how we as a House might want to implement the two proposals—I have always referred to three stages; this was the second—on a retirement age and participation.

I will not repeat things that I have said in the past, but if there is an opportunity for the House to come forward with a view, and a Select Committee to bring forward proposals to your Lordships’ House for consideration, that does not make those proposals easier. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, helpfully interjected earlier and asked me whether there were things we could do more quickly by standing orders, as indicated by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull. That would be something for the committee to look at.

There is an opportunity for a Select Committee to look at those issues, to come forward with proposals for your Lordships’ House, and for us to consider those proposals and decide whether some could be taken forward more quickly. Where it requires legislation, if the House has a view on something on which all noble Lords agree, it would be much easier to persuade the Government by saying, “There’s agreement on this and we want to bring forward a focused Bill to deliver something that the House of Lords broadly agrees with”. That is why it was proposed in the first place.

The noble Lord opposite said that we may not co-operate because there are lots of other things around the issue. I am not quite sure what he means; perhaps we will debate that later. I was clear to the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, that it is implicit that, if we are looking to reduce the size of the House—if we are looking at exits—considerations need to be made about size. That was clear.

The noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, implied that this is being done for political reasons, to make it more difficult for the party opposite to hold the Government to account when hereditary Peers have left your Lordships’ House. Even after the hereditary Peers depart, there will still be 243 Members of her party in this House. My party before the election had 171 Members here, and my colleagues held the Government to account very effectively with that number. I am disappointed if the noble Baroness thinks that—

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

May I finish my point? Do not get too excited—I will give way soon. I am surprised that the noble Baroness thinks that with those additional Members—some 70 more Members than we had when we were in opposition—her party would find it very difficult to hold my Government to account.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness for letting me put my point again. I was referring to all the contributions of the hereditaries on all Benches. I am talking about effective contributions that will now be silenced. I fear that will affect the House.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

That is actually not the point that the noble Baroness made at the time. Many Members of your Lordships’ House make effective contributions, and she should recognise those as well.

I enjoyed the speech from the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra; he is always inventive and engages well on these issues. However, I say to him that I do not recognise the veto that the noble Lord, Lord True, referred to. My reading of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, is that if a Select Committee makes recommendations:

“The Secretary of State must, by regulations made by statutory instrument, amend the following Acts, as appropriate … to give effect to the recommendations in statute”.


The Government must then lay those regulations. In practical terms, if a Select Committee were to charge the House with something—if it said, “We would like the House to consider the following options”—how on earth do a Government legislate for all the options a Select Committee may recommend? That is what he would have in his—