House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Thursday 4th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Nick Thomas-Symonds)]

I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss:

Lords amendment 2, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 3, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 8, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendments 4 to 7 and 9.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

This House sent the second Chamber a Bill that had a simple and direct objective outlined in this Government’s manifesto, but I have to report to the House that something very strange has happened since then. People said that the Conservatives were in some sort of hibernation since the general election, but it would appear they have found an issue that has awakened them from their slumber. On the order of their Whips, some hundreds of Conservative politicians, finally mustering the strength to make their mark in Parliament and ready to take action for what the 2025 Conservative party believes in, have found their crusade. What is it? Keeping hereditary Lords in the jobs they accessed by accident of birth. I have to say that it is a tale as old as time—the Tories blocking progress. Who knew it?

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

[Alex Burghart]

It is a pleasure to debate this historic piece of legislation on an historic day; my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Jack Rankin) reminds me that it is the 1,100th anniversary of Athelstan being crowned King at Kingston, and I know there are a great many celebrations going on there today. The monarchy lives on—even if His Majesty’s Government are making changes to our ancient Parliament.

The Paymaster General accused the Conservatives of having been in hibernation, but it must be the Paymaster General who has been in hibernation, for he seems to have forgotten the fact that we are fighting a desperate rearguard action against the disastrous decisions that his Government have made—against the enormous damage that his party has done to our country in the short months it has been in power, and the worst Budget that we have seen in a very long time, which has caused 30-year borrowing to be at a higher rate than it ever was under the previous Government, or indeed the Government before. It is a truly terrible state of affairs, and economic experts say that we are heading towards an economic crash. It is already costing jobs in the constituencies of all the hon. Gentlemen across the Chamber every month. It is a serious issue—one that this Opposition called out at the Budget and will continue to call out. I hope that the Government see sense before disaster strikes.

Before I move on to the specifics of the Bill, I want to pay tribute to the quality of debate, first in this Chamber at the outset of the legislation and then the sheer quality of debate in the Lords. It reflects just how significant our upper House is to our constitution in its ability to strengthen legislation through scrutiny. I particularly want to pay tribute to my noble Friend Lord True, who has done so much to hold the Government to account as they have pushed these measures through. The Paymaster General has talked about the Conservatives seeking to block legislation in the Lords. I am absolutely delighted that we have been trying to block their terrible legislation, and I am very pleased that the Lords have sent the Bill back with a number of improving amendments that speak of the decent scrutiny that is being done in the other place.

I agree with the Paymaster General at the outset that we accept the Government’s concession on powers of attorney. It is a sensible change, and I am glad that there is at least one issue on which we can find agreement. We are pleased that during the course of the debate the Labour party has made a number of significant and historic clarifications to its positions. It seems finally that the Labour party has agreed that an elected upper House would be a bad idea. I personally welcome that; I think an elected upper Chamber would totally disrupt the balance of our constitution. It would take away from the primacy of this House and often lead to constitutional deadlock. It has taken the Labour party about 100 years to reach that conclusion, but I welcome it joining the side of right.

I am also very pleased that Gordon Brown’s disastrous plans for constitutional reform, which were published during the last Parliament, have been done away with. They would have caused utter mayhem had they been pushed through by this Government, so I commend those on the Front Bench for kicking Gordon Brown’s terrible ideas into touch.

I was pleased to see that the Government have reneged on their manifesto commitment to kick out peers who are over 80. It was a terrible idea, and I am very pleased that they have seen good sense. There are a lot of excellent peers who are over 80, such as Lord Dubs and, by the end of this Parliament, Lord Blunkett, Lord Clarke, and Lord Heseltine—people who have added to the richness of the House, who bring their experience and who should not be barred on the grounds of age. I congratulate the Labour Government on having admitted their terrible mistake.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Burghart]

I am not sure whether his voters would be that impressed by the Ministers in the Commons at the moment, to be honest. The point of principle still stands: if somebody is a Minister of the Crown, it is perfectly reasonable that they should be paid for doing that job. I would be interested to know what the Government’s plans are to right that wrong.

Finally, on Lords amendment 3, which covers a new status of peers, it was unfortunate to hear some hon. Members belittle the idea, including the sleepy, dreamy hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mr Reynolds) from the Liberal Democrats. [Hon. Members: “Dreamy?”] I appreciate how that came out, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I do not wish—[Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

If the shadow Minister wishes to correct the record, please, feel free. [Laughter.]

[Alex Burghart]

Well, I don’t know—he looks like he has made an effort today, and he is looking at me in a particular sort of way.

There is a suggestion that everyone is busting a gut to create a new status of peerage when it is unnecessary. Let us put it this way. I think a lot of people in our country recognise that getting a peerage is one of the highest recognitions for service to the country, but there are also a good many people whom I came across when I was a Minister dealing with the honours process who are either late in age—in their 80s or 90s—or infirm and would not want to commit to serving on the red Benches because of that. It seems a bit silly that such a small change should deny them the opportunity of recognition, which costs no one anything but enables us to reward good people who have done the right things by their country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jonathan Davies]

Lords amendment 1 seeks to gradually reduce to zero the number of excepted hereditary peers in the other place by ending the elections by which they are replaced. Our rich constitutional democracy has benefited from centuries of gradual evolution, and our democracy has thrived because power is not concentrated in the hands of too few people, which has mitigated the risk of overreach. Even though frustrations are frequently expressed, our parliamentary system is rightly admired around the world.

Several current excepted hereditary peers reside in my constituency. Along with other excepted hereditary peers, they make a valuable contribution and are motivated by public service. When I stood for election to this place and promised I would campaign for local jobs, I was not thinking about the hereditary peers of Mid Derbyshire necessarily, but here we are today.

Reform of the House of Lords has been on the agenda for a very long time and there is broad consensus that it should happen. Indeed, it is telling that the last Conservative Government did not seek to undo the reforms made by the previous Labour Government in 1999. From its origins in the 11th century, the House of Lords has undergone numerous changes, including a period when the Lords Spiritual were removed between 1642 and 1661 and the 11 years during which the other place was abolished altogether, from 1649 until the restoration of the monarchy in 1660. More changes followed, including when legislation was passed in 1958 to create life peerages for people with specific skills and expertise to enhance our democratic processes, and that included admitting women for the first time. That spirit of reform was furthered by the last Labour Government in 1999 when the number of hereditary peers was limited to 92, freeing seats for people with a range of different experiences and expertise, regardless of their lineage.

The principle of the reforms the Government are pushing through today is not necessarily controversial, and Lords amendment 1 does not seek to block the principle of ending the involvement of excepted hereditary peers. Instead, it asks for the conclusion of their participation to be undertaken more gradually, and I believe there is some small merit in what that amendment seeks to do.

I have been lucky to work with some exceptional excepted hereditary peers on joint Committees and all-party parliamentary groups. To end their involvement at the end of the Session, rather than perhaps at the end of the Parliament, risks destabilising some of the good work that is ongoing through some of those parliamentary vehicles. Will the Minister therefore explain in his summing up whether he has considered different ways of managing that transition? For instance, we could seek to end the involvement of the excepted hereditary peers at the end of this Parliament, rather than just ahead of the next King’s speech. That might ensure that the professional relationships we have fostered with our colleagues in the other place, and the pieces of work we conduct together with them, continue to be fruitful, concluding with a natural cadence at the end of the Parliament.

Although I know the Bill has been tightly drafted to deal with the role of excepted hereditary peers only, the Government have plans for wider constitutional reform of the House of Lords, which may come before us at a later stage. I warmly welcome the Government’s commitment to introducing a participation requirement. It is not right that people should use the other place as a social club or a facility that they can use. It is a working Chamber, and people should be in there doing the job to which they have been appointed.

The Government have also said that they seek to replace the House of Lords with an alternative second Chamber that is more representative of the regions and nations. Even though it is key that the other place represents the rich social and geographical diversity of the United Kingdom, it is also essential that the House of Commons remains the principal forum where issues are considered through the lens of locality. The House of Lords, certainly since the introduction of life peerages in the 1950s, has been a vehicle to include the voices and perspectives of experts across a wide range of fields, rather than a focus on locality. I encourage my colleagues to reflect before introducing such a fundamental change to that relationship.

The manifesto that the Government and I were elected on includes a commitment to introducing mandatory retirement from the House of Lords at the age of 80. I would welcome clarification from the Dispatch Box as to whether that remains the case. Although it is necessary to get more younger voices into the House of Lords to enhance its ability to represent and serve the nation, the proposal that peers should retire at 80 would mean we would lose the contributions of Lord Kinnock, who is 83, Lord Dubs, who is 92, and Baroness Beckett, who was given a peerage by this Government aged 81.

A peer may reach their 80th birthday while working on a piece of essential legislation or leading a Committee. The House could therefore benefit from further clarity, if we are to pursue this, about how a mandatory retirement age could affect disruption to business and risk losing essential knowledge and expertise. Will the Minister also share any information, either in his summing up or in the very near future, about how the Government’s plans for constitutional reform sees the future of the Lords Spiritual, one of whom is also my constituent, in any further shake up of the other place?

My advice to the Government, as they rightly seek to make the House of Lords more representative and effective, is that they should tread carefully to avoid unintended consequences. Our precious democracy deserves no less.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

The Liberal Democrats welcome the Bill as a first step to giving the House of Lords a greater democratic mandate and entrenching its valuable role within the constitution and legislature of the United Kingdom. Our democracy relies on a Parliament that equally represents all citizens of the United Kingdom, and that is why the abolition of hereditary privilege in our second Chamber is a long-standing policy of the Liberal Democrats. We have called for this reform for decades and are pleased that the Government are taking steps to address this issue.

For too long, Parliament’s second Chamber has lacked the democratic mandate that would give it real impact within our legislature. Inherited membership of the Lords only weakens our democratic institutions and decreases public trust in our system. Furthermore, it reinforces the gender imbalance in the second Chamber. As I noted in previous debates on this bill, not a single one of the hereditary peers currently sitting in the Lords are women. Actually, I am taking a quick look around and I think I am the only woman here, so it falls to me—[Interruption.] That is apart from Madam Deputy Speaker; I beg your pardon. It falls to me to underline how important the democratic role of women in both our Houses of Parliament is.

I also note that this reform is not about invalidating our traditions, nor discrediting the contributions of many hereditary peers over previous decades. It is about improving democracy and restoring public trust in politics by making Parliament more representative. Many hereditary peers have expertise and skills that they have given to our political system and to our legislative process.

As I turn to today’s Lords amendments, it is disappointing yet perhaps unsurprising that after years of delays and resistance from successive Conservative Governments, they continue to resist meaningful electoral reform. Their proposed amendments would only water down the Bill or waste further time prolonging the existence of a flawed system.

I therefore wish to speak against Lords amendment 1, which would dilute the Bill and continue the system of hereditary peers. Instead of meaningful reform, it opts for an underwhelming ban on by-elections for hereditary peerages. In practice, that would have the effect of leaving all current hereditary peers in place indefinitely, thus continuing this antique system for many years to come. For years, cross-party efforts have attempted to end the by-election system for hereditary peers, despite successive Conservative Governments resisting this vital reform. Now there is an opportunity to end the entire system of hereditary peerages, and the Conservatives once again continue to resist change.

The Bill and the amendments being considered today highlight that the will of Parliament is to end the hereditary system in the Lords. There has been enough delay; it is time to be decisive and to end hereditary peerages in entirety, here and now. We have the will, the power and the means to end this anomaly before us today. There is no need for the amendment.

I also wish to speak against Lords amendment 2. As outlined by Lord True, 14 Conservative Government-appointed unsalaried Ministers and Whips were in the Lords at the end of the previous Parliament, and Commons Library research confirms that since 2015 there have been at least 30 unsalaried Ministers and Whips in the Lords. Today, the very same party that appointed them seeks to champion the end of such appointments, as if they had not had the power to effect this change themselves on many occasions over the past decade.

I draw Members’ attention to the points eloquently raised by my excellent colleague the Lord Wallace of Saltaire in the other place regarding potential anomalies that the amendment could allow. I want to focus on Lord True, who, in introducing the amendment in the other place, said that it would not apply to any existing Member but only to future ministerial appointments in the Lords. Given that all hereditary peers are current Members of the Lords, I fail to understand what relevance the amendment has to the legislation in front of us. Unusually, I happen to agree with Lord True that all Ministers should be properly remunerated, but I struggle to understand why a piece of legislation that aims to scrap the principle of hereditary peers is the appropriate vehicle to enshrine that point. The Lord True spoke movingly of his shame and anger at being unable to provide remuneration to his fellow Conservatives during the last Parliament—I am not sure I completely sympathise. Remuneration of Lords Ministers is an issue for another occasion.

Liberal Democrats believe that the solution to the issue of democratic accountability and proper remuneration of our Ministers does not lie in this poorly drafted amendment. Instead, we must push for wholesale reform of the House of Lords and our democratic system more widely, including devolving powers so that the decisions that affect people’s lives are made closer to the places where they are put into effect. We therefore urge Members to reject the amendment and instead work with the Liberal Democrats to introduce proper reform of the House of Lords and give it the democratic mandate it needs.

I also wish to speak against Lords amendment 3. When the Bill came to the House, it represented an opportunity for a first step towards meaningful reform of the second Chamber. That is why I originally tabled new clause 7, which would have committed the Government to future legislation on reforming the second Chamber, and new clause 8, which would have increased transparency in the second Chamber by strengthening the powers of the House of Lords Appointments Commission. However, the Conservatives have demonstrated no interest in strengthening or improving our democratic and legislative institutions. Instead, their amendment creates yet another type of peerage. It is an unnecessary amendment that does nothing to strengthen democracy or transparency.

Since Lords amendment 3 before us specifically calls for a new type of peerage, it follows that it is not relevant to legislation that specifically and exclusively deals with the legacy of hereditary peers. If the Conservatives have proposals that could meaningfully improve our second Chamber, they should support Liberal Democrat calls for further reform of the House of Lords. I look forward to their support for our calls to change the opaque appointment process for peers and to reduce the inflated size of our second Chamber. If the Government could update us today on their proposals for legislation for further reform of the House of Lords, then the Conservatives could put forward their proposals for new categories of peerages. This House should look to be ambitious on political reform of the second Chamber. They should not look to expand a democratically flawed system with time-wasting amendments. The Liberal Democrats will therefore be voting to reject this amendment.

We welcome Lords amendments 4, 5, 6, 7 and 9, which are modest but important changes that will improve how the House of Lords functions. The amendments aim to support those peers who may lack capacity to fulfil their duties. Lasting power of attorney has been effective in supporting individuals’ freedoms and dignity, and it is only right that peers are not excluded from those freedoms. We welcome those amendments and will support their introduction into this legislation.

Returning to the Bill as a whole, Liberal Democrats welcome its aims. However, we are concerned that by passing this Bill, the Government will believe that their efforts can end here. Let me be clear: this Bill is a welcome step towards a better democracy, but it should not be the final step. The 2017 Burns report recommended a decrease in the size of our second Chamber, which the Liberal Democrats support. The process of prime ministerial appointments entrenches patronage and elitism within our politics, and the Liberal Democrats support moving away from that system. Labour’s own manifesto committed to a retirement age for peers—another change that we would support.

There continue to be so many opportunities to improve the functioning of our democratic institutions. The Government should now look into those further measures, including what is the most overdue and important change when it comes to the Lords: finally giving it a proper democratic mandate.

I urge hon. and right hon. Members to oppose Lords amendments 1, 2 and 3, which would water down the Bill. The Liberal Democrats will support this once-in-a-generation opportunity to fix part of our broken political system and use it to strengthen democracy in our Parliament and begin rebuilding trust in our politics.