House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Edward Leigh Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 15th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

No, because the monarchy is a completely different part of our constitution. First, no monarch since Queen Anne has refused Royal Assent to a law. Secondly, our constitutional monarchy enjoys popular support. I return the right hon. Gentleman’s respect, and the one thing he is is honest. He is actually setting out a defence of the hereditary principle, rather than hiding behind a smokescreen, which seems to be the position of Conservative Front Benchers, from whom we will hear in due course.

I want young people growing up in Blaenavon, Pontypool and Cwmbran in my constituency, and indeed in every part of the country, to feel that they have the same chance as anyone else to play a part in making the laws of the land. The continued presence of hereditary peers in our legislature is indefensible in a modern democracy.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

The trouble with this sort of partial reform is that it opens other issues. Why does the Church of England have a monopoly on places in the House of Lords? I am all in favour of the established Church, and of letting it have perhaps 12 bishops, but why can we not share the other places between this country’s other Christian denominations and non-Christian faiths? Do they not deserve a voice?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I am certainly in favour of the representation of different faiths in the upper House, but the Government set out a step-by-step process in our manifesto.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Committee of the whole House
Tuesday 12th November 2024 Commons Chamber

That lifetime guarantee appears now to have expired.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

I am a bit worried about what my hon. Friend is saying. Why do we need a comprehensive plan at all? Why not just leave it alone? As that great conservative, Lord Falkland, once said, “When it is not necessary to do something, it is necessary not to do it.”

[Alex Burghart]

As ever, my right hon. Friend is one step ahead of me. It is not that we seek a comprehensive reform of the House of Lords. It is that the Labour party promised that this would come. The Government promised that they would leave the remaining hereditary peers there until they had a plan for comprehensive reform, but that comprehensive plan is missing. Labour is throwing out the stone in the shoe of the accepted hereditary peers and dodging the hard, principled questions about how to ensure that the House of Lords functions most effectively.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Gavin Williamson]

My right hon. Friend is spot on. There has sometimes been that confusion, and new clause 4, or anything that the Government would look to bring forward—as backed up by their manifesto and popular support for such a move—would mean that we could get the upper House working much better.

The introduction of a mandatory retirement age is another thoughtful and, dare I say it, far-reaching policy that was in Labour’s manifesto. I pay tribute to the Paymaster General. We all know he is one of the finest authors in this House, and his publications are still available on Amazon, although they are not quite as sought after as those of the former right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip. I am sure that the volume on the Prime Minister that will no doubt be coming forward will be a real hot seller, but the Paymaster General is a great author and he came up with the mandatory retirement age, I imagine, and it is a good policy. It is certainly worth including in this legislation that he is bringing forward.

It is not onerous in adding too much to the Bill, and it would have a significant impact in reducing the size of the House of Lords. We know that the House of Lords is the largest legislative chamber outside of the People’s Republic of China. The simple act of introducing a mandatory retirement age, which was a key part of the Labour party’s manifesto, would considerably reduce the number of life peers. It would also have a significant impact on reducing the cost of the House of Lords.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I am sorry to declare an interest, but why is my right hon. Friend so ageist? Some people are wonderful at the age of 80, and others are useless at the age 50.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Edward Leigh]

It is an honour to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes), such a well-loved, distinguished and senior Member—even if he has only served 27 years in this House.

I have sat through the whole debate and I did not intend to speak, but I just want to reply to a few comments. By its very nature, the debate has been confrontational—that is what we do in this place. We tend to concentrate on what divides us rather than on what unites us, and I want to say something about what might unite us.

First of all, on the ideas that divide us, we are debating whether to abolish the hereditaries. The Labour party says that it is in its manifesto and therefore it can do what it wants. We say that that is gerrymandering, that the bulk of these people are hardworking and that by nature they are Conservatives, so this is an excuse to get rid of a large number of Conservative peers. The Government will carry on and do it anyway. That is clearly very controversial.

The next proposal, it seems, is to abolish the bishops. I heard what was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson), but there are all sorts of objections to doing that, not least because this is an established Church. Do we really want to attack a faith community? It is part of our history. Are the bishops really doing much harm in the House of Lords? Incidentally, because of our canon law, the Catholic bishops do not want to be Members of the House of Lords anyway, although they are apparently quite willing to support distinguished laymen to help the Catholic cause there—but we all know that. I do not think that we will ever reach an agreement on abolishing the bishops in the House of Lords.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Julian Lewis]

Does the Father of the House agree that inevitably, given the nature of the Bill, we have been talking more about the process by which people become Members of the House of Lords than about the activity that it carries out? In particular, although not everyone in the House of Lords is an expert, a large number of them are: people who have reached the top of their respective professions, whether those professions be academia, the law, the arts or the judiciary.

Can the Father of the House cast his mind back to 1984, when he and I, having both fought the 1983 general election—he stood in Gainsborough and Horncastle, which is why he was in the House; and I stood in Swansea West, which is why I was not—co-operated on trying to have postal ballots for trade union elections? Does he remember that he introduced a Bill that got nowhere in this House, because of the strong whipping system of elected Members, but when we took it to the House of Lords we were able to persuade people on the arguments because of the light whipping? The amendment went through, and when the Bill came back to the Commons the then Government brought in their own measures to meet the point. Does he agree that, apart from creating gridlock, an elected second Chamber would not have the possibility of introducing fresh ideas that, once introduced, may be accepted by a Government in this place, but which would never get off the starting blocks if they were introduced in this place initially?

[Sir Edward Leigh]

That is a very good point. I remember that rebellion very well—it was the start of my many rebellions. I suggest to Labour Members that they should not rebel if they want get on in this place. We had a rebellion and finally won on that issue, and my right hon. Friend makes a very good point about how we won the argument. That underlines how important it is to have a second Chamber that is not composed of elected politicians. I really do not see the point of electing politicians to a second Chamber, because it would just be like this place: full of people who want to become Ministers and who are completely subordinate to the Whips.

What is the point of having an elected second Chamber? The whole point of a second Chamber is that it should be independent-minded, and the Lords are independent-minded. They regularly defeat the Government, and they actually have better debates than we do. The House of Lords is full of people who have tremendous experience in the professions, business and charities. I just do not see the point of getting rid of them lock, stock and barrel, but there is a perfectly good consensual argument that the number should be reduced. There are some people in the Lords whom we should remove either because they have not been appointed in an entirely right way or because they do not turn up.

[Sir John Hayes]

Further to the point made by my right hon. Friend, Bagehot spoke about this issue. He said that the distinguishing feature of the House of Lords is that its Members’ views are emphatically their own views. In his terms, they are not subject to social bribe, by which he meant that they are not answerable to constituents in the way we are, so they can make judgments entirely free of that pressure. That is a virtue of the current arrangements and, frankly, a virtue of the hereditary peerage too.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I think we can all agree that the other place, for all that it is seemingly undemocratic, works quite well. The Lords actually listen to debates, and they vote according to their conscience. They regularly defeat the Government, and they improve Bills again and again. If it works, why change it?

Will the Paymaster General please think about the idea that I have suggested? We could get some sort of compromise by which all parties in the House of Lords are reduced by the same amount. We could reduce the Lords to around 600 Members, give more power to the House of Lords Appointments Commission and, in future, keep the number at about 600.

[Dr Murrison]

I am very much attracted to the argument laid out by the Father of the House. He is right to say that consensus in these sorts of matters is nigh on impossible, as poor Jack Straw found out in 2007. The Father of the House is also right to aim for a reductionist strategy in trying to decide what we can do to improve the situation. That will get a majority consensus in this House, difficult though census most certainly is in these matters.

This debate has been characterised by some levity, which is okay—it is positive. It probably reflects the fact that most of our constituents are not usually seized by constitutional matters, which is not to say that such matters are not important, because plainly they are. The attendance here today is not what one might expect for a matter of this importance. That probably reflects the fact that when we are all knocking on doors a few months ago, this kind of thing really was not No. 1 among people’s concerns, but it remains important nevertheless.

I confess that I have been on something of a journey since 2007, at which time I was persuaded that the upper House ought to be elected. I am not any more, because I have seen in the workings of this place how it is possible for this place ultimately to be challenged by a subordinate secondary Chamber that is itself elected. Try as I might, I cannot work out how it is possible to avoid that kind of situation. This is the primary part of our legislature, and that must remain the case. We must be unchallenged, but we need checks and balances, which is precisely what the upper House aims to provide.

Many have spoken today about who we might remove from the upper House. I have no objection in principle to the things that the Government are trying to do, but I am persuaded that matters of this sort should be part of a wider package, which is why I will be supporting the Opposition amendment today. However, my view is that we have probably got this round the wrong way, which is why I very much support the amendments being brought forward by my right hon. Friend the Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson) in relation to the bishops.

I remember when I was pontificating in another country—a majority Muslim country that was a nascent democracy—on democracy. At the end of my spiel, a lady put up her hand and, to her great credit, said, “I have listened very carefully to what you have said, but with the greatest of respect, who are you to come here and lecture us, given that you have within your legislature people who are there by dint of hereditary right and people who are there because they are part of a particular religious persuasion?”

We have heard some quotes today, including from G. K. Chesterton. I am not sure whether I can match that, but I think I probably can. Robert Burns said:

“O wad some Pow’r the giftie gie us

To see oursels as ithers see us!”

I like that. He is saying that it is important to note how we appear to other people, other countries and other legislatures, and it seems to me that that lady, all those years ago, had the measure of it. We may not think we are a theocracy in the same way as Iran is, or that we retain the hereditary principle in the same way as Lesotho or Swaziland do, but we are and we do. We need to remedy that, because appearances matter and that lady was absolutely right. That is why I support my right hon. Friend’s amendment, and I hope that the Government will reflect on that.

I also agree with the assertion of the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) that this is it, and that it is no good hoping for another Bill. That Bill is not going to come. If it does, there is no guarantee that it will not end up in the same place as poor Jack Straw’s measures ended up in 2007. Given the difficulty with consensus, I suspect that that is exactly where such a measure would land. So this is it.

I do not particularly want to see our legislature populated by people who are there because they are representative of one particular faith community in this country. I am an Anglican, just like my right hon. Friend the Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge. I am a practising Anglican and I value the views of bishops —of course I do—but it is simply not right to have them being politicians in dog collars generally propagating a left liberal world view. I would much rather that they were in their dioceses engaged in the cure of souls. That is where I, as an Anglican, want to see them.

I will certainly support my Front Bench’s measured amendments this evening. I very much hope that the Government have been listening carefully to what has been said. These grave, serious matters need to be debated in a careful and measured way. I see virtue not in ploughing ahead with the Bill as an emergency but in incorporating it into a wider set of proposals at a later stage, although hopefully not too late, so that we can consider these things in the round. I hope we will be able to see those proposals before too long. I live in hope.

The Labour party has had 14 years to consider all of this. My view is that this Bill will be it. That is disappointing and a missed opportunity.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Thursday 4th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

Absolutely not, because the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom is a Member of Parliament who enjoys the confidence of this House. That is entirely different from the situation of having places in the House of Lords on the basis of an accident of birth.

I should say, though, because I do not want to just criticise the Conservative party today, that I do appreciate that should the hereditary Lords finally be given leave, the title of “the most ancient and outdated relic” will then be awarded to the modern-day Conservative party, so I guess self-preservation is the Conservatives’ real motive. The hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes) spoke about our majority—we will not allow the Conservative party to block this change.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

If the hereditary principle is so wrong, where does that leave the principle of an hereditary monarchy, which has infinitely more influence than any hereditary peer?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

We have a modern constitutional monarchy that enjoys very wide popular support. It is a completely different matter. I do not think a monarch has blocked an Act of Parliament since Queen Anne in 1714, so I would say that the monarchy plays a very different role in our constitution from that of the hereditary peers in the House of Lords.

The Government are determined to deliver this reform to rectify this historic wrong and move us closer to a fairer, more equitable Parliament. I therefore urge the House to reject Lords amendments 1 and 8.

I do need to deal with other amendments now. Lords amendment 2 would prohibit future unpaid Ministers from being eligible for membership of the House of Lords. I understand the strength of feeling expressed in the debate on this amendment in the other place, and I should make it clear that I am proud of the work of all Ministers across Government—I know that ministerial colleagues in the other place work incredibly hard. In this House, both Ministers and shadow Ministers are able to focus on our departmental portfolio—with the honourable exception of the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who, as far as I can make out, seems to be about a third of the shadow Cabinet with his various roles. In fairness, he carries out his public duties, as ever, with great dedication. In fact, the situation that the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster finds himself in is quite regular in the House of Lords, where Front Benchers cover a number of different portfolios, which they do with skill and dedication.

However, I have to say that although I understand the motive behind this amendment, it would do little to address the problem it seeks to resolve. It would not result in all current Lords Ministers receiving a salary, and would instead mean that the number of Lords Ministers would in future be reduced. Ministerial salaries are determined by the Ministerial and Other Salaries Act 1975, which sets a maximum of 109 ministerial posts across both Houses, and the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975, which limits the number of Ministers in the House of Commons—paid or unpaid—to 95. The reality is that any meaningful change to the number of Ministers or ministerial salaries would have to amend that legislation.

It is for the Prime Minister of the day to advise the sovereign on the appointment, dismissal and acceptance of resignation of other Ministers in line with those legislative limits. The amendment would therefore have the effect of placing a further restriction on that prerogative power and reducing the ability of the Prime Minister to choose the best people to serve in their Government. The Bill should clearly not be used as a vehicle to address changes to those Acts, and I therefore urge the House to reject Lords amendment 2.

Lords amendment 3 would create a new form of statutory life peerage and seeks to create a two-tier peerage system that distinguishes between the honour of a peerage and membership of the House of Lords. Under this system, individuals could receive the title of a peerage but not be entitled to sit and vote in the House of Lords.

--- Later in debate ---

[Shaun Davies]

The Leader of the Opposition has a number of tough choices ahead of her, and those choices will no doubt be executed using her good political judgment.

To conclude, to right hon. and hon. Members from different sides of the Chamber who say that we need more reform of Parliament, the House of Lords, the constitution and the way in which the country works, I say—as a moderniser and the MP for an area for which the current system does not work—that I could not agree more. But this modest change—this slender Bill—has taken around 10 hours in this place and 40 in the other place, with more than 180 amendments tabled, so imagine how a larger and more far-reaching Bill would be treated. As the Minister has stated, many Members from across the political spectrum in the other place have called for a cross-party approach, and that is exactly what the Government are doing through the establishment of a Select Committee.

Let me close on this thought. We have heard for many decades the promise of future reforms. I support and will vote with the Government today on the basis that those future reforms will come through. I hope that the Government will be true to their word, and constituents like mine, who have seen themselves locked out of this place for far too long, will have the opportunity to serve it.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

Well, here we are again. The House of Commons and the House of Lords love debating reform of the Lords—we have been doing it for over 120 years. But we have made a bit of progress: at least, after all this time, we seem finally to have killed off the idea that the House of Lords should be elected. That is a great step forward, and I congratulate the Minister on his wisdom in realising that that would just replicate the sort of system that they have in Washington and make it virtually impossible to have coherent government. I say well done; I think that we should give credit where it is due. The poor old Liberals have been dreaming about reform with elections for 100 years, but I am afraid that it is not going to happen.

I will, though, take issue with the Minister for being a bit cruel about the Conservative party when he accused us of having been relentlessly negative for all these years. He seems to have forgotten that in the 1920s—we have heard about 1924—the Conservative party led the debate on making the House of Lords a genuine Parliament of the Commonwealth, and very innovative ideas were coming out of the Conservative party. He blames the Conservatives for endlessly blocking reform, but it was actually the unholy alliance of Michael Foot and Enoch Powell during the Wilson years that blocked the last real attempt at House of Lords reform.

[Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)]

The Father of the House mentions Conservative party policy in the 1920s and 1960s. Maybe he can recall better than me, but I do not believe there was any mention of House of Lords reform in the Conservative party general election manifesto last year. Will he illuminate the House on Conservative policy on reforming the other place?

[Sir Edward Leigh]

Our policy is very sensible: gradual evolution and reform. That is what the Conservative party is all about.

This is an historic day, and it is a rather sad one. After the Crown, the House of Lords is the most ancient part of Parliament, and the hereditary peers are the most ancient part of the House of Lords Chamber. One can laugh at history and say, “This is all old hat,” but history is important. This all evolved from the Magnum Concilium, or Great Council, of England. The coming together of England into a single realm was through the witans assembled by the King, comprising nobles and prelates. Bishops, abbots, ealdormen and thegns came from across the land. It was not just their privilege but their feudal duty—it was all about duty—to give the King counsel and consent.

It slowly evolved so that some peers sat in Parliament by their office, such as the Bishop of Lincoln, or by their hereditary title, such as the Earl of Arundel. I repeat this point: I cannot understand the contempt and hatred for people just because they have their office by virtue of heredity. The hereditary peers are the only people in the House of Lords who are actually elected by anybody.

[Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)]

This is not about individuals; it is about the principle. Does the Father of the House agree that it is the principle we should be talking about today, not the individuals, however good they may be at serving in the other place?

[Sir Edward Leigh]

Frankly, I do not agree with that principle. As I said in an intervention on the Minister, this will leave the monarchy wholly exposed as the only person who holds his office by reason of hereditary principle.

[Mark Ferguson]

Will the Father of the House give way?

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I will make a bit of progress.

I know the Minister will say that the monarchy is popular—which it is—and that it does not have political power, but it has infinitely more influence than any hereditary peer. I do not think we should accept that the hereditary principle is entirely wrong. Even if we accept that and say it is quite wrong that somebody should be called an hereditary peer, which I suspect is a lot of the problem, why do we not just make all the existing hereditary peers—who, as we have heard, are not stately home owners; they are dedicated public servants, with scores of them having worked in Parliament for years—life peers? Given that they are dedicated public servants, if we hate the fact that they are called hereditary peers, why not have an evolutionary form and call them life peers? But we are not doing that.

Lords amendment 1, tabled by my party in the other place, is entirely sensible. Rather than kicking people out in a flash, the hereditary peers—which we could now call life peers, if it is the name that makes people unhappy—could simply fade away. There is a lot of merit in old people gradually fading away rather than dying.

[Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)]

Declare an interest!

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I do not declare an interest.

In a sense, that is already the case, as the Lords have suspended hereditary peer by-elections by amending the Standing Orders of their Chamber. Evolution rather than revolution—bending instead of breaking—is the usual method of British constitutional change. It has worked very well in the past, and I do not see why it should not work now. It is far wiser than overnight change.

There is also the matter of optics and fairness. This, of course, is a partisan point by its very nature, but of the 86 remaining hereditary peers, 48 are members of Opposition parties—Conservative or Liberal—31 are independent Cross Benchers, and two are totally non-affiliated. Britons pride themselves on the spirit of fair play. It is not, frankly, cricket for a governing party to expel Opposition Members from the national legislature. As Lord Strathclyde pointed out, if any other country were doing this—expelling Members of Parliament primarily because they were from Opposition parties—we would be launching petitions against it.

[Mark Ferguson]

I thank the Father of the House for giving way. He makes a compelling point about other countries. Would he care to name some other countries that have people sitting in their legislature, able to introduce and vote on legislation, entirely by dint of their parentage? For the life of me, I cannot think of many examples.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

Of course, nothing in our constitution is perfect. We would not be starting here—we accept that. We are just saying that this is a group of dedicated public servants who have done nothing wrong, and we are simply asking that they should be allowed to carry on their work, rather than be kicked out primarily because they are from Opposition parties.

[Gareth Snell]

Will the Father of the House give way?

[Sir Edward Leigh]

No. The hon. Gentleman is a very good chap, but he has had a lot of turns.

We all know that the real reason behind all of this is that the Government want to make space for more of their donors and cronies to enter the House of Lords, and that is entirely understandable. By the way, I think that there are sensible reforms that could be made in the House of Lords and that there has been a lot of abuse. I think that too many people have been appointed to the House of Lords—this is where the SNP has a good point—who are donors and cronies.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

I commend the Father of the House for everything he is saying; he sums everything up perfectly. This is constitutional vandalism, and it is destroying the continuity that has made this place so effective and so special for so many centuries. This is clearly being done with a political motivation, which I think is thoroughly wrong. If we make a constitutional reform, at very least the British people should have a say in a referendum.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

Well, the Whip is looking at me. He wants me to sit down. My hon. Friend has made the point brilliantly, and I shall now sit down.