House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

John Hayes Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Thursday 4th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mark Sewards]

All I would say is, “Long live the King.” What we do with our hereditary peers today does not affect what we do with our monarchy. As I was saying, no one should serve in the other place and make our laws simply because of the family that they were born into. No one should—not them, not me, not my children and not theirs. That is a basic principle that I hope we can all get behind.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman’s case, in essence, is that the only form of legitimacy in the exercise of power is democratic legitimacy, but that does not square with the exercise of power in all kinds of other ways, does it? We do not elect our judges—some countries do, but we do not. We do not elect all kinds of people who exercise fundamental powers. Many kinds of legitimacy are not democratic legitimacy. Surely he acknowledges that, had the Government come forward with a proposal that allowed the hereditary peerage to wither on the vine, it would be hard for anyone in the House to disagree, given that the Government had a manifesto commitment.

[Mark Sewards]

The principle I am talking about applies specifically to the two Chambers that make and scrutinise our laws, submit amendments and so on. The idea that some people should be allowed a say in that process because of the family they were born into is alien to me. The House of Lords should have been abolished years ago. I am glad that the Government are finally taking the steps to remove that principle.

I am certain that decent arguments can be made for the contributions of hereditary peers being good ones, often with the nuance and expertise that comes with dedicated service in the other place. I have no doubt that we will hear such arguments today, but the same is true of those who are appointed as life peers—at least when political parties fulfil their responsibilities and choose appropriate people for the roles. Life peers, too, will go on to make excellent contributions and scrutinise our laws carefully using their relevant expertise and knowledge—given that they are often selected because of their expertise and knowledge, and not in the cynical way that the shadow Front Bench and others were suggesting earlier. Even if they do not, it is a life appointment, not one based on blood that they can pass down to the next generation, so I think that the system of life peerages is the better way to go. If Opposition Members genuinely believe that the hereditary peers who will lose their places because of this legislation should still be in the other place, they can ensure that the Leader of the Opposition, whoever that is, submits their names to make them a life peer.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir John Hayes]

The hon. Gentleman is being generous with his time. I am inclined to agree with him about the appointment of life peers who do not sit. I do not know the view of Members on the Government Front Bench on that, but the hon. Gentleman makes a good and valid argument. If people do not attend, it is sensible that they should not retain their right to do so. If people are appointed to the House of Lords and then never turn up, there is a good argument that there should be a point at which they should be told that they no longer have that title. However, on the matter of retirement on the grounds of age, this is a very dicey business, given that we have legislation that prohibits discrimination on the basis of age.

[Mark Sewards]

The right hon. Gentleman’s point is well made and I will be following the work of the Select Committee closely. We have already heard names mentioned of people who are over the age of 80 and still making great contributions, so I will follow the Committee’s work closely before making a final judgment on the issue.

More broadly than the work that the Committee will undertake, once this Bill has become law, I will continue to advocate for a second Chamber that is more representative of our nations and regions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)]

I find this to be quite a curious debate thus far. There is not any great energy among Members on the Conservative Benches; I fully expected and anticipated that they would be down here in great numbers to defend their noble colleagues. I think there is only one Conservative speaker left—I look forward to the remarks of the hon. Member for Windsor (Jack Rankin). There was not the usual energy in the speech of the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart); I just do not know what was missing. There is a sense that they cannot be bothered defending this issue any more, which is a good thing. I am also beginning to detect a little bit of a drift between noble Lords in the Conservative party in the House of Lords and Conservative Members here.

[Sir John Hayes]

I want to inject some energy. Let me tell the hon. Gentleman why I am energetic about this matter. It is preposterous to abolish the hereditary peers in the House of Lords, on the basis that they give good service that, as I have already described, legitimately can be derived from a variety of sources. Many of them are disproportionately active in that Chamber. I accept that there is a manifesto commitment, but this could be done in a much more measured, sensible and moderate way. Is that enough energy for him?

[Pete Wishart]

That is the way to do it. I hope the rest of the Members on the Conservative Benches are paying close attention, because that is how they defend the indefensible Conservative peers.

I have detected one other thing in this debate. There seems to be a concession that there will not be a democratic second Chamber—I have not heard that properly yet, so perhaps the Minister can clarify in his summing up. That was implied and suggested, and I have not heard anything thus far that contradicts it. Perhaps we could hear the Minister say that that idea is now gone, because I do not think that there will be any more reform than this. I think this is it; I said in the earlier stages of the Bill that this is as far as Lords reform goes in this Parliament. The great, Gordon Brownian vision of a senate of the nations and regions is totally for the birds. It is some sort of fever dream; it is not going to happen. This Bill is all that this House will do about Lords reform.

I find the amendments to be a snivelling, contemptuous bunch of amendments. They demonstrate the Lords’ contempt for parliamentary democracy and for the democratic will of this House—us, the Members of Parliament who are democratically elected to represent the people of this country. This House passed the Bill with a large majority, and for all its faults, this Government said that they would pass it. It was a manifesto commitment, so they should be allowed to get on with it, but since then, the Lords have done everything possible to thwart the Bill. Barely had we finished voting before the Conservatives in the House of Lords commenced their “save the aristocrat” campaign. For them, the principle of democracy through birthright was something that had to be defended and protected.

Since the Bill went down the corridor, those peers have tried to delay it through filibustering, keeping the Lords up half the night and stacking the Bill full of amendments. It only has two pages, but they spent 52 hours and 10 minutes debating it; it only has four clauses, but 154 amendments were tabled to it. Defending the hereditaries was much more important to the House of Lords than addressing things like poverty, growing the economy or global conflict. I paid real attention to its Hansard, and some of the contributions were truly bizarre. The oozing sense of entitlement from our upper and ruling classes was simply extraordinary.

The thing that got me was when those contributions started to get a little threatening—I think the Minister implied this. The noble Lord True warned that if the purge went ahead, we would face very aggressive procedural action, which could involve filibustering, wrecking amendments and, even worse, the parliamentary nuclear option of more ping-pong. He said that this toff rebellion would only be stood down if a goodly number of the hereditaries were to remain. I do not know about you, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I am positively quaking in my oiky boots. The prospect of a be-ermined banshee charging me with a vintage claret jug and snuff box practically terrifies me half to death.

The thing is, these peers really do believe that they were born to rule—that their role in our legislature through birthright is a gift that we should be eternally grateful for. They have now returned the Bill with these amendments, with the main one being to keep the aristocrats in place until death or retirement by rewarding them with a life peerage. That is not getting rid of the hereditaries; it is giving them a retirement plan. After seeing these amendments, I just wish that we could introduce even more amendments ourselves. I would table an amendment that would get them out tomorrow. I would also be thinking about stripping them of their lands and titles. [Interruption.] I have got more—maybe a little bit of re-education, such as a couple of shifts in Aldi or Lidl, living on the living wage for a week or, even worse, having them speak in regional accents just for a day. Given that these peers have made this about public contribution—given that that is so important to them—how about handing over some of their mansions and castles for social housing? There is a suggestion for how they could be publicly useful.

I know that I am being a little bit comical, Madam Deputy Speaker, but what this does is endorse the view that the House of Lords is the most embarrassing, bizarre legislature anywhere in the world. This weird assortment of aristocrats, be-cassocked bishops, party donors, cronies and placemen feel that they can continue with impunity, and they are probably right in that assumption. The aristocrats will soon be gone—I do not think there is any real desire to defend them any more—but the other members of that circus will continue unabashed. They will continue to develop, grow and thrive. The House of Lords is increasingly going to become a House of patronage—a plaything for Prime Ministers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Phil Brickell]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point; indeed, he talks of one of my all-time favourite comedies. It speaks to the need for drastic reform of the other place, which is long overdue.

In a Tory by-election in the other place, another peer asserted that fellow Members should vote for him because he

“races on the Solent and gardens enthusiastically”.

The electorate for that vote were a grand total of 43. These are not truly democratic contests. They do not seek to promote those with the very best talent and expertise to serve this country. Such by-elections lack the fundamentals of what should be at the heart of this mother of Parliaments: transparency, accountability and scrutiny.

Since 1999, there have been over 30 of these bizarre contests, all with vanishingly small electorates—a process that is, frankly, long overdue reform. They have all produced lawmakers by accident of birth, and that is the principle to which I and many Members on the Labour Benches object. That is why I will be voting against the Lords amendments today.

[Sir John Hayes]

Just to refresh my memory, which Government instituted the arrangement whereby a certain number of hereditaries stayed and the kind of election that the hon. Gentleman describes was introduced? Was it a Tory Government, or was it a Labour Government?

[Phil Brickell]

The right hon. Member will have heard me mention previously that previous Governments do not bind the hands of future Governments, and that this Bill was a manifesto commitment last year.

That leads me on to the amendments that have come back from the other place. Lords amendments 1 and 8, tabled by the noble Lord Parkinson, propose ending the by-elections for hereditaries but retaining the current cohort. The amendments would hollow out the Bill and perpetuate the very problem that we are trying to fix. I urge colleagues in the other House to respect the Salisbury convention, which has already been mentioned today: this House has primacy on election-winning manifesto pledges. Conservative colleagues have ample opportunity this afternoon to confirm that they respect that constitutional convention, and I wait with bated breath to hear them speak to that, but we cannot scrap only the by-election process. As I say, it is the principle of hereditary peers that is so objectionable, which is why I will be voting to make sure that this Bill gets on to the statute book.

Many hereditary peers have made valuable contributions —I have worked alongside some already in the short amount of time I have spent in this place—but those who want to continue serving can and should do so on merit. They can stand for elected office, they can be nominated for life peerages, and HOLAC can continue to recommend strong Cross-Bench candidates. This Bill is not an attack on individuals; it is an attack on the medieval principle of privilege by birth. No one should sit in our Parliament because of the deeds of their ancestors centuries ago. Lords amendments 1 and 8 are not about accountability and they are not about democracy. They are patronage dressed up as Parliament, and the Conservatives, in 14 years in office, did absolutely nothing to change the hereditary principle.

Lords amendment 3, from the noble Lord True, is about so-called non-sitting peerages. Let us be clear: peerages should not be sinecures. If the idea is simply to allow hereditary peers to retain their titles without sitting, what social value does this amendment provide? If we want to honour people’s contributions, we already have a system for that—the honours process, with knighthoods, CBEs and MBEs—as the Paymaster General stressed. This amendment looks less like reform, and more like a way of preserving influence. We have already seen the pattern with titles handed out as bargaining chips or rewards for party donations. This debate has been quite good-humoured, but I do have to flag the Conservative party’s tradition of ennobling its treasurers. I take no pleasure in quoting this, but as one former Conservative party chairman admitted in 2021:

“Once you pay your £3 million, you get your peerage.”

That is not public service; it is politics for sale, and it is exactly what the public are fed up with.

In summary—

--- Later in debate ---

[Jack Rankin]

I rise to speak to Lords amendments 1 and 8, and therefore against the motion, in two minds. I say in two minds because I find the unilateral removal of the hereditary peers without seeking consensus, which is what a rejection of Lords amendment 1 would mean, both regrettable and exciting. I would like to take each of these two polarising mindsets in turn.

My first emotion is regret. Britain has something of a Schrödinger’s cat constitution. We are simultaneously a modern, plural and open democracy, and a kind of autocratic theocracy. Our national motto, “Dieu and mon droit”—God and my right—points to the hereditary monarch being appointed by and accountable only to God. We have a state religion in England and Scotland, and in England the divinely appointed monarch is the Supreme Governor of the Church. The bishops, whom the King appoints, sit in our legislature, as do hereditary peers, who are the focus of the amendment. The King appoints the judiciary and is the commander of the armed forces. On paper, as Labour Members have pointed out, the country with which we have most in common is the demonic Islamic Republic, but unlike Iran we have simultaneously free and fair elections, broad debate in a free press, and freedom of religious and belief, and we are an open member of the international order.

The point is that we would never design our tapestry of a constitution. In many ways it is absurd, but it is organic. It is rooted in the millennia of history. In two years’ time, we will celebrate the 1100th birthday of England, the most remarkable nation on earth, which a majority of us in this place are fortunate to have won the lottery of life to be born in. We should be respectful of that evolution, because that evolving constitutional order has empirically served us well. It is how it works in practice that matters, not how it looks on the ideological grand planner’s piece of paper.

[Sir John Hayes]

I am not surprised that my hon. Friend is making the speech that he is, because he understands that, essentially, our system is an organic one. Constitutions are not written from a blueprint—they can be, but they are not in this country—and what he is describing is a blend of democratic legitimacy and the other forms of the exercise of power. What the Government are proposing is not a democratic House of Lords, but an appointed House. That in itself contradicts some of the speeches made by Labour Members.

[Jack Rankin]

My right hon. Friend is right. Our national story has brought us to a place where this House is rightfully dominant among the three parts of Parliament in exercising the sovereignty of the King in Parliament, but we should be careful of the wholesale execution of one of those arms. Let us be clear: that is what the unilateral removal of the hereditary peers would do. The other place without them is no more a House of Lords than my terraced house in Sunninghill is. A Cromwellian purge, it would leave that place the preserve of political cronies and failed advisers. Is that what we want? Is that progress?

The House of Lords today is difficult to justify, but it works. This place has the attention span of a TikTok-addled teenager, as we jump to half-hourly news cycles driven by Twitter and rolling news.

--- Later in debate ---

The retention of hereditary peers after 1999 was meant to be a temporary compromise; a quarter of a century later, it is time to finish the job. Today we are nearly there but for some amendments from the other place, which I want to address—in particular Lords amendments 1 and 3.

[Sir John Hayes]

Just to get Cromwell right: it was Cromwell, rather like Boris Johnson, who ended the Long Parliament by walking into this Chamber, so the parallel is probably closer than the hon. Gentleman would like to suggest.

Cromwell was a tyrant, really, in all kinds of other ways, who wanted his son to succeed him, so he believed in the hereditary principle.

On the point of substance, the point about the House of Lords is that it is a check on the power of this place, and that is a helpful thing for Governments, actually, as sometimes Governments benefit from having to think again. The continuity that is being argued for from the Conservative Benches is part of a healthy constitutional settlement. If we sacrifice that settlement, I think we will get less good, rather than better, government.

[Kevin Bonavia]

I agree wholeheartedly with the principle of a check on this place. However, that check must come with due wisdom and expertise. We have heard from the Conservative Benches about those centuries of wisdom, but wisdom cannot simply be passed down genetically to people in the other place today. Surely we need people in the other place who have expertise and are there on merit, not because of who their ancestors were.

Lords amendment 1 seeks to amend the 1999 compromise of by-elections to replace vacant hereditary peers by allowing the cohort of hereditary seats to gradually reduce by natural departure. As my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General has said, that amendment would effectively delay our manifesto commitment to end the hereditary element in the other place for many years to come.

As I said earlier, this is about not individuals or personalities but ensuring that our institutions reflect the values of our modern democracy. I have seen at first hand the important role of the second Chamber in scrutinising legislation and improving the quality of lawmaking, but that role must be based on merit and public service, not on birthright. If anyone watching today’s debate is a hereditary peer—I see none up in the Gallery—and is dismayed at the prospect of no longer being able to contribute to the work of the other place, I say to them: do not be downhearted. Anyone in principle, including ex-hereditary peers, should have the ability to serve as a parliamentarian if they are willing and able to do the necessary work—and work is the point here.

Doing the necessary work brings me to Lords amendment 3, which would effectively bring about a new tradition of creating life peerages as honours in name only, with no work involved. What on earth is the use of that? There are plenty of other honours, as we have heard, that His Majesty can bestow that would show due public recognition for services rendered to this country. The other place is not and should not be used as an honours board. It should be a working and effective part of our legislature—our Parliament.

I believe that any parliamentarian comes to this building to do the work, to hold or be held to account, to raise issues that matter to the wider country and to pass good and workable laws. When I was elected on that expectation by my constituents in Stevenage, that was the pledge I promised to uphold. Although Members of the other place do not have expectations from constituents, I believe there is an expectation from the public as a whole that they are there to do the work of good parliamentarians. An empty life peerage title would only take away from that public expectation.

These amendments complicate what is and should be a simple task before us: to deliver—finally—on ending the principle of hereditary peerages and ensure that the other place is a working place in a Parliament that works for all the people.

[Mark Ferguson]

This has been a suitably fascinating debate. I do not plan to speak for too long, because the points have already been well made. We have had 10 hours here and 52 flippin’ hours in the House of Lords on this concise, four-clause Bill, and now we have a number of amendments. I will address Lords amendments 1 and 2.

Lords amendment 1 is fairly straightforward up and down. We know what it is. It is a wrecking amendment, pure and simple. It is nothing more than an amendment designed to preserve the hereditary principle in the House of Lords—a principle that is an outdated anachronism that has no place in 2025 or any modern democracy. The only other comparable democracy is Lesotho. I do not know much about Lesotho, but I would quite like not to share this unenviable record with the good people of Lesotho for any longer.

The point has been made that if we do not want the hereditary principle in the House of Lords, perhaps that means that we no longer want the monarchy. Nothing could be further from the truth. As all Members in this place did, I swore an oath of allegiance to the King. I have not always been ardent monarchist, but I support a constitutional monarchy, and one of the many reasons I do is because the monarch has absolutely no role in introducing laws, in amending laws or in voting on laws. The monarch’s role is quite clear and simple: Royal Assent. They do not obstruct the work of this place—rightly so—and yet we have heard so many times today about the guerilla warfare that is being led in the other place against numerous pieces of legislation in retribution against this simple removal of an anachronism.

That is not what the King does. Frankly, it is when monarchs have sought to obstruct this House that references to Cromwell are relevant. That is not what the Bill does; it is about removing the hereditary principle from the legislature that develops, scrutinises and delivers legislation. The King may sign it—that is his role.

[Sir John Hayes]

The point has been repeatedly made from the Government Benches that this is a matter of principle and that hereditary power is unacceptable. Now, the hon. Member is right that the King has no role in introducing legislation, and so on and so forth, but the King does have immense political influence. Which Labour Back Bencher meets the Prime Minister weekly to discuss the affairs of state?

[Gareth Snell]

rose—

[Sir John Hayes]

Madam Deputy Speaker, the king of Stoke!

Which Labour Back Bencher receives a regular report from the Whips on the proceedings of this House? That is what the King has. The King rightly has powers, and he derives his power by birth.

[Mark Ferguson]

I delighted to inform the right hon. Member about the parliamentary Labour party’s Back-Bench committee, which meets the Prime Minister weekly when Parliament is sitting. I see at least one of my hon. Friends from the committee here—[Interruption.] In fact, there are two here. Staffordshire is well represented at the moment on the committee, and that is quite right—oatcakes all round for them, and of course for the Prime Minister.