House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Lord Hamilton of Epsom Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 3rd March 2025 Lords Chamber

The noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, challenged me on a number of issues about appointments and what happens next. I have been really clear on this, as is the manifesto. There are three stages in the manifesto—I do not know how many times I am going to have to say this during the passage of the Bill—and the first is the immediate reform, which I would have thought was the non-controversial part. A quarter of a century ago, the principle was established that hereditary Peers would leave the House. A deal was done at the time for some to remain in perpetuity for by-elections, but the principle was established, and the Bill completes that part of the reform. That is why there are no Green Papers, White Papers or further consultation on this; it has been debated for many years.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

Does the noble Baroness the Leader of the House accept the arguments from the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, that if his Bill had been passed we would now be left with 25 hereditaries? That would be a decent number and you would not need to get rid of them. Can I get it from there that the noble Baroness would actually agree to 25 life peerages?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I do not always admire the noble Lord’s ingenuity, but I do on this occasion. I think the point the noble Lord was making was that had that been accepted at the time, we would not have any hereditary Peers, in effect, because all would be here as life Peers. I do not know whether the numbers that would have remained was an accurate figure; it was a sort of a guesstimate.

That was the first stage. On the second part, I am grateful to noble Lords around the House who have engaged with me on this issue already. I have a number of thoughts on how it might be achieved, going forward, and there are some helpful amendments in the course of the Bill. It would be nice, would it not, to find a way that gained some kind of consensus around the issues that others mentioned, such as participation and the retirement age? If there was consensus around the House prior to legislation, it would be a helpful way forward, so I am grateful to those who have engaged with that and come forward with suggestions already.

Then there is a longer-term proposal, which is also in the manifesto. It says that in the longer term to look for a way to have a “more representative”—and I think it says an alternative—second Chamber. It was quite clear that there are those three stages.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Attorney-General (Lord Hermer) (Lab)]

I am very sorry to disappoint the noble Lord, Lord True, because I am standing to speak to Amendment 3 rather than my noble friend the Leader of the House. I thank the noble Earl for his amendment and also for his transparency in explaining that this is indeed a probing amendment to test the Government’s position on the hereditary principle more generally within our constitution. I hope that the noble Earl will not take it as a discourtesy if my response is brief, not because the constitutional points raised are not of importance, but because we say with respect that the position is quite straightforward.

In explaining why we do not accept the noble Earl’s amendment, it is important, with respect, to disarticulate two principles. The first is that, since 1999, we have recognised that it is no longer appropriate in a modern democracy for direct participation in Parliament to be premised on a generational family entitlement. This Bill seeks to complete that process in line with our manifesto commitment and, by doing so, will end an anomaly that is replicated in only one other country around the globe. The second principle is that we are, and shall remain, a constitutional monarchy. Constitutional monarchy, in contrast to hereditary entitlement in Parliaments, is not a global anomaly but represents a system of governance replicated in very many countries, few—if any—of which require participation of the children or grandchildren of the monarch in their parliamentary process.

I therefore respectfully disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Moore, that there is any form of tension, constitutional or otherwise, in considering it inappropriate for hereditary entitlement to apply to being able to vote on the laws of our land in Parliament on one hand, while being fully supportive of the role of the Royal Family in our constitutional framework on the other. Our constitutional monarchy has time and again proved to be the anchor of stability in this country. The Royal Family are able to galvanise our nation and provide the consistency required for our democratic values to be protected and for this nation to flourish.

The noble Earl asked: without the hereditaries, who is there in this House to stand up for the monarchy? That point was echoed by the noble Baroness, Lady Meyer. My noble friend Lord Brennan answered that he is; so am I, and so, I anticipate, is every one of your Lordships who swore their oath in this House.

As noble Lords will be aware, all hereditary Peers, including those in the Royal Family, lost their automatic right to sit and vote in the House as a result of the 1999 Act. That did not and has not proved to undermine our model of constitutional monarchy and nor does this Bill. The purpose of this Bill, no more, no less, is about delivering the principle settled by the 1999 Act to remove the rights of all hereditary Peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords, and there are no exclusions in this. As my noble friend Lord Grocott pointed out, it does not affect hereditary titles and lands, which will continue to be passed down in the normal way.

This reform does not relate to the sovereign nor the Royal Family. As I have said, there is a fundamental difference between the position of hereditary Peers in the legislature being able to vote on laws by virtue of their families, and a constitutional monarch who acts as the head of our state, providing, as His Majesty does, stability and continuity.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. The noble Lord, Lord Grocott, made the point that the monarchy had certainly survived the departure of 600-plus hereditary Peers in 1998-99, but does the Minister accept that we are now breaking the link between hereditary Peers in Parliament in its entirety if we get rid of the hereditary Peers now?

[Lord Hermer (Lab)]

Yes, I do—that is the intention of the Bill. My point is that it does not impact at all the principle of our constitutional monarchy. It has no bearing on it whatever, and it is for those reasons that I respectfully ask the noble Earl to consider withdrawing his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Finn (Con)]

My Lords, Walter Bagehot once observed that the British constitution derives its strength not from rigid design but from its adaptability. Its value lies in its ability to preserve what is valuable while reforming what is necessary. It is in that spirit, and not in defiance of reform but in defence of wisdom, that I support Amendment 5 in this group, in the name of my noble friend Lord Soames.

We are debating the fate of those who have committed themselves to the service of this House, as my noble friend Lord Blencathra has pointed out so brilliantly, and who have earned their place not by entitlement but by endeavour. The amendment before us seeks not to enshrine privilege but to preserve expertise. It does not defend hereditary peerage as principle; it defends the experience of those who, having risen above the circumstances of their birth, have dedicated their careers to the betterment of our legislative process.

Some would have us believe that the mere fact of a hereditary Peer holding office is an anachronism, but I ask this: what is more outdated, a Chamber that recognises merit in all its forms or one that would dismiss its most dedicated servants on the basis of an ideological formula? The numbers tell their own story. Despite comprising only 12% of this House in the last Parliament, hereditary Peers held 20% of government roles and 26% of Deputy Speakerships. This is not a symbol of idleness; it is a testament to diligence.

To those who believe that experience and institutional memory can simply be swept away and replaced at will, I say look at history. When institutions strip themselves of wisdom, when they discard those who have mastered their craft, they do not modernise but wither. There is a reason we do not empty the judiciary of its most seasoned jurists, nor the military of its most battle-hardened commanders. Why, then, should we purge this House of those who have proved their worth in government, scrutiny and debate? We do not strengthen Parliament by weakening its collective intelligence.

Those who propose the indiscriminate removal of hereditary Peers do so in the name of reform, but reform must be guided by the principle that what works should be preserved and what fails should be improved. The amendment before us today embodies that principle. It seeks not to halt the tide of change but to channel it wisely. It recognises that Ministers, Deputy Speakers, convenors and Chairs of Committees are not relics of the past but pillars of the present. To discard those who have upheld the dignity and function of your Lordships’ House is not reform; it is amputation.

Let us keep the best of what we have rather than discard it blindly. Let us not mistake destruction for progress. This amendment supports the very principles that have kept this House a vital force in British public life.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, at the risk of repeating what I said at Second Reading, I have always been totally confused as to why, for some reason, we who are appointed Peers are somehow superior to hereditary Peers—who, let us face it, as the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, has never failed to point out, may be elected by a very small electorate, if they happen to be Labour or Liberal Democrat Peers, but are at least elected. That is not something any of us who are appointed can say about ourselves at all. We are put here because the leader of our party or the Prime Minister of the day put our names forward. Does that make us superior to hereditary Peers, who have, let us face it, been elected by their own number and chosen to be the best people who they can choose at the time? That must give them an edge, I should have thought, over we who are appointed to this House, because at least they have gone through the process of election.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

My Lords, I am sorry to disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Newby, but I am responding on Amendment 5, moved by my noble friend Lord Soames of Fletching from these Benches. In speaking to this amendment, I take the opportunity to recognise the significant and invaluable contribution that hereditary Peers have made to your Lordships’ House. With respect to the noble Lord, Lord Newby, this amendment is a different point conceptually from Amendment 9, tabled by my noble friend Lord True, which is essentially, if I may put it without any disrespect, the Grocott approach.

As my noble friend Lord True said earlier this evening, if we are to exclude anyone from the House, it should be those who do not contribute rather than those who have contributed and do contribute. To introduce a personal perspective, I say that as someone who makes every effort to play a proper part in the business of your Lordships’ House while maintaining a full practice at the Bar. That sometimes means that I miss the odd vote—may I record in Hansard for posterity my entirely sycophantic and appallingly oleaginous thanks to my Whip for his constant understanding? More seriously, that cuts into my downtime. I do not really have any downtime because of my work at the Bar and my obligations here. If I can use this rather demotic phrase, it does hack me off when some people do not contribute at all.

I therefore share the concern of my noble friend Lord Soames that we are removing people who contribute while leaving people who play very little, if any, part in the House. The key to a sensible approach, I suggest, while recognising that the hereditary principle has come to an end—like the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, I also enjoyed “Tomorrow’s World” in its day, and what was innovative then is commonplace now—is to retain those who have demonstrated over many years their commitment to public service and duty to the House. She is no longer in her place, but I respect fully agree with what the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, said in an earlier group. She expressly invited the Government to just look, to use what I think was her phrase, at those whom the Government are removing. She said that the approach in this Bill, which removes the fully involved and the truly indolent alike, was “profoundly wrong”. She is right about that.

Turning to the text of this amendment, I know that there are many ways in which noble Lords can contribute to the business of the House, but those who currently serve or have previously served as Ministers and Whips, Deputy Speakers, chairs of committees or as Convenor of the Cross Benches have made a determined and determinable contribution. Their institutional knowledge and dedication to public service has made them indispensable, I suggest, to the functioning of the House and thus to the functioning of Parliament. The positions which they have undertaken in the House have been earned through merit and service. To remove these noble Lords would be to discard a wealth of experience that simply cannot be replaced. I therefore agree with the points made by my noble friend Lady Finn in that regard.

We have had some stats thrown at us; let me try to identify what the position actually is. During the 2019-24 Parliament, 168 Members had official roles. This includes government and Opposition ministerial posts and parliamentary positions such as the Lord Speaker and Deputy Speakers. Life Peers filled 143 of these roles, 23 were filled by hereditary Peers and two by Bishops. About 18% of life Peers served in an official role compared with 26% of hereditary Peers. Despite making up only 12% of the total membership of the House, in the last Session hereditary Peers made up 20% of government posts and 26% of Deputy Speakers. My noble friend Lord Hamilton of Epsom rightly made the point that hereditary Peers as a group have contributed very significantly.

I will not read out my Excel spreadsheet, but do we really want, I ask rhetorically, to lose people such as my noble friends Lord Courtown and Lord Howe—who, as your Lordships have heard, has provided simply incredible service to the House? My noble friend Lord Strathclyde serves as chair of our Constitution Committee is a former Leader of the House and a former Chief Whip. He has served as a Minister over four departments. The noble Lord, Lord Ashton of Hyde, is a serving Deputy Speaker and Deputy Chair of Committees. His CV in the House reads for several pages.

I am not sufficiently brave to stand for much longer between your Lordships and your Lordships’ dinners, so I will not refer to every hereditary Peer, but I trust that noble Lords recognise the expertise, experience and dedication that those individuals have brought to our parliamentary system.

I make one final point. Some years ago, the House removed a number of Peers. The noble Lord, Lord Grocott, gave us the correct figure, which I think was 667. Yes, I was listening. I always do to the noble Lord, indeed to all noble Lords but especially the noble Lord, Lord Grocott on this topic. Does removing the final 88, or however many are left now, make any difference? Of course, the difference goes to the heart of this amendment. Those who remained some years ago were chosen wholly, or in the vast majority of cases, because they were contributing. That is why they remained. That is what this amendment seeks to do.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

They were actually elected; they were not chosen.

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

Sorry, I was using “chosen” as a short form for “elected”. They were elected. My noble friend was here, and I was not, but when the elections took place, the electorate was keen to ensure that experience was not lost. That is exactly the point of this amendment—to retain those who have contributed, are contributing and will undoubtedly contribute more in the future.