House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Lord Hamilton of Epsom Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 2nd July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

I am just pointing it out.

They are apparently independent, but not that independent. There is a group of us who are sort of maverick; we are called non-affiliated—God knows what it means. It is very important that we defend the right to be political, to be partisan and to say, “I’m not an expert, but I absolutely believe in this”. If we are to exist in here at all, can we at least have some purpose beyond saying how many PhDs we have or how many charities we run?

The great and the good are great and good, but the writing of laws in this country—being legislators and being political—is not just about that. I am as frustrated as anyone about the way that party politics—the whipping process and so on—can damage political independence and courage on all sides of this House. We have witnessed it tonight and we have witnessed it in the other place over the last few days. That annoys me, because I want people to believe in something. On the other hand, the danger of saying that we are a House of experts, and that we will now have an expert HOLAC group that will decide on how many more experts it will bring in, is that we are kicking politics out of what should be an absolutely political place.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I will not delay the House long. Many years ago, under a Conservative Government, I advocated that Nigel Farage should become a Member of your Lordships’ House. If we had recognised the role that he played in taking Britain out of the EU, people would have said that he does represent the majority in this country.

At the time, he was polling quite significantly—which is more than one could say for most Cross-Benchers in this House—and he was a very significant political player, whether you agreed with him or not. Neither of the political parties was going to nominate him, so it would have taken the Cross-Benchers to make him an offer to join them. At that time he might well have done so, because he thought he had finished his political career by taking us out of the EU, and he would have had a very valuable role to play in your Lordships’ House.

Think how different things would be today. It does not follow that he could not have led Reform from your Lordships’ House, but I suspect that it would have been rather more difficult. We would have been in a very different position today if he were a Member of your Lordships’ House. When we think about how representative our House is of British public opinion, we have to bear in mind that there are serious players out there who are not represented here, and I believe that they should be.

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

My Lords, while we are all pondering what might have been, I will just say that I agree, to an extent, with the noble Lords, Lord Jackson and Lord Hannan. Something that worries me about HOLAC, or any kind of body like it, is that the establishment appoints itself, which risks losing diversity.

On the other hand, I think we are trying to let perfect be the enemy of good. Surely we need a body to look at the propriety of the people proposed to this Chamber. The one point that I think is essential—and on which I completely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Butler—is that HOLAC should not have a veto on what the Prime Minister can do. We have to accept that we are dealing with human beings, and sometimes we may have a Prime Minister who makes erratic choices. The key thing is that they have to justify those choices, not that they are prevented from making them.

The noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, described pretty much what is like to be a Cross-Bencher: without having to take an additional oath, you just speak your mind and vote with your conscience. I will let him ponder that one.

Finally, I am not quite sure how any of this relates to the Bill, but perhaps I am being too narrow in my thinking.

--- Later in debate ---

The noble Earl, Lord Devon, correctly identifies that the Cross-Bench group is in a very different position here as well. The Prime Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, asked about numbers. The Prime Minister will continue to invite nominations to the Cross Benches from HOLAC. It is an open application assessment process to identify and select new Cross-Bench Peers from all walks of life. Those nominations are, by convention, passed on to the sovereign.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

Is the Leader of the House comfortable with the fact that Reform commands 36% of popular support in the polls and has no representation whatever in this House?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, there is a whole issue around this because the SNP has no representation in your Lordships’ House either. The noble Lord has spoken about Nigel Farage being offered a role. Given that Mr Farage’s policy is now to abolish the House of Lords, he may not have been willing to accept that role. The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, made this point well. There should be a diversity of opinion. The noble Baroness, Lady Bull, made the same point. There are a range of diversity issues that we should look at, including diversity of opinion. We make better decisions because of that. However, as my noble friend Lord Rooker said earlier—I have used this line, having heard him use it in debates here—in many ways we are a sub-committee of the House of Commons. We can only recommend suggestions and changes to the House of Commons. We bring our judgment to those decisions.

To finish the point that I was making beforehand, we do not believe that the amendment for 20 new life Peers is necessary. The number of nominations is a matter for the Prime Minister, but he will take into account the political balance of the House when making those decisions. It is essential for the House. The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, was a little cross with the Cross-Benchers, perhaps because they have not invited her to join, although they may reconsider that now. A Private Member’s Bill tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Norton, proposed the Cross Benches being roughly 20% of the House. That is a fair figure for the House. The noble Lord has heard me say time and again that the House works best with those kinds of figures, with roughly equal numbers of both political parties of government and when we abide by the conventions of the House. That is when we do our best work.

In some ways, I appreciated the honesty of the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, in his amendment about removing the Prime Minister from the process and having HOLAC deal with this, but he also spoke about participation and the role that we expect Members to play. He is absolutely right that we should expect all Peers to participate in support of the core functions of this House. That means not just turning up to vote occasionally but taking the role as a Member of your Lordships’ House seriously. That is one of the qualities mentioned in the Prime Minister’s Statement—willingness to contribute and play an active role in the House. It matters how Peers get here, but it matters more what Peers do when they are here and how seriously they take that role. Although participation is not a matter for this Bill, I have set out—we will discuss this later—a proposal that may allow us to take that forward.

The noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, talked about the independence of the Cross-Benchers. I think there is a role both for independents and for party politics in your Lordships’ House. I do not think any of us would say that we slavishly follow our party. I think sometimes we wish more did, and I am sure the Opposition Front Bench may say the same, but we do bring judgment. I just keep coming back to that point. Our judgment and integrity are important on these issues.

My final point is on the suggestion from the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, of a new oath for all appointments. I think I understand why he has raised that, and it is a thoughtful approach, but we do not consider it necessary. When a Peer takes the oath in this House and they sign as a Member of this House, that includes a commitment to uphold the Nolan principles of public life so, in a sense, that oath is already there. The Nolan principles are important, and I trust noble Lords to take that commitment to the Nolan principles as seriously as they would take any extra oath, so I do not think it is necessary.

I understand why the proposals have been put forward. The noble Lords, Lord Newby and Lord Wallace, have been sincere in this, but I wonder whether it is a stretch too far. There has been only one case where a Prime Minister has overridden the propriety advice of HOLAC. I think it is wrong to do that. It is hard to envisage circumstances where it would be appropriate, but I think that ensuring absolute transparency, if it were to happen, is the appropriate way forward. I see the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, is about to leap to his feet, so I will give way before he asks.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)]

My Lords, I observed in Committee that everything in life tends to have a retirement age, so I feel that it is vital to bring in Amendment 20, or something like it, as part of the modernisation of the House.

I will make only two points. The first is in respect of the cliff edge. In organisations that I have worked in, we have often done mergers and acquisitions and had cliff-edge problems with people. It is generally the case that an organisation that expels the seasoned and the good—expelling the human capital that it has bought—without replacements right away, is an organisation that weakens itself. In our House we have people aged beyond 80 —we now know that there is a large number, thanks to the spreadsheets of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra—and, were we to show them the door, that would be very weakening.

This has an elegance in it, because it does not expel anybody but sets down the premise for the future. It is the route that is peculiarly British, in that it was chosen, as we have heard, by the senior judiciary when they did the same thing many years ago, and indeed by the bishops when they brought in a retirement age. In both of those circumstances—I have spoken to people who were around at the time—the people, in any event, chose an earlier retirement age. So we would smooth out the great problem of the cliff edge.

My second and final point is about the wrinkle that the noble Earl, Lord Devon, has cleverly introduced about the 10-year minimum alternative. From the Cross-Bench perspective—and indeed, through us, from the House’s perspective—this is a very good wrinkle. The Cross Bench has to provide quite a lot of judges. We need to provide judges for Special Public Bill Committees, the Ecclesiastical Committee and other purposes, for which we are lucky to have members of the senior judiciary on the Cross Benches—I am looking at at least one here—who are very valuable to the House. The trouble is that the Supreme Court has a retirement age of 75 so, if they can get trained up only by the time they are 77, say, we will have them for a very short period of time. So it is extremely helpful for us if the senior judiciary gets at least 10 years at bat. That is helpful for the Cross Benches and the House.

When I was at the Bar school, I was told that the judge only ever hears the point the third time you make it. I have now made this point four times. The Leader was pointing out that we are all judges and that we are here for judgment. I hope that noble Lords will ponder, for the fourth time, that this might be a good point.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I recognise that this country rather likes retirement ages, but I am afraid I do not share that view. I think of my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern, who recently retired when he was, I think, 93—someone says he was 97; even better. He was absolutely as sharp as a tack until the time that he stood down. His contributions to this House were memorable. He was a very serious man in every way and people listened to him in this House. To think that we would put in place a system that would have got rid of Lord Mackay fills me with absolute horror.

If we want to reduce the numbers, I have never understood why a committee of this House turned down the idea of internal elections. We all know who are the people in our parties who do not come, who do not contribute and who play very little role in this House. Why not allow us to elect them out and reduce numbers that way? Then we would not have this arbitrary business of saying that, because someone has reached a retirement age of X, that is the reason why they should go.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, had summed up the situation at the end of Committee very well when he said that there was a broad agreement across the House that we needed to act on attendance, participation and retirement. I reckoned without the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, but, having sat through those earlier debates, I suspect that he is in a relatively small minority in your Lordships’ House. If we think that we need to move on those issues, the key question is how we can do it expeditiously and with the best likelihood of getting an outcome that your Lordships’ House wishes to see. In my view, one way that will not achieve that is to expect to do it all via primary legislation, for two reasons.

First, no Government will want to put before your Lordships’ House a Bill with a raft of provisions for further relatively minor changes, because they have seen what has happened this time. I would not fancy being the Leader of the House who went to the Cabinet committee to explain why another Bill dealing with all these things was a priority for the Government. The other argument, which I have made on a number of occasions, and for which I apologise to noble Lords, is that I do not want the House of Commons deciding what constitutes proper attendance and participation by Members of your Lordships’ House.

To take up some of the proposals that we have just heard, if you were to say to MPs that 85 was to be the par for retirement, you would be more likely to get them to pass something saying that it should be 70, because 85 is so far beyond any retirement age for anything of which I am aware that it appears almost ridiculous to people outside your Lordships’ House. This is not to say that we do not have, and have not had, many Members over the age of 85 who have been extremely impressive well beyond that age, but there are reasons for a retirement age that go way beyond competence. Retirement ages are very often introduced in order to see a throughput of people, get new experience in and prevent an organisation living off its past. That is why retirement ages are very often introduced, and is one reason why we need a retirement age here.

If I am right in thinking that we should not be looking to the Government to produce a Bill covering all these things, how else do we do it? My view is that we can do quite a lot of it via our own Standing Orders. The way to get to the point where we can change the Standing Orders is, in my view, the one that the Leader of the House has proposed.

If we have a Select Committee of your Lordships’ House with strict terms of reference and strict timetables, and which produces proposals, we can implement them very quickly on our own. We should decide what we consider a proper level of participation and what, in our view, constitutes an adequate level of attendance, and we should decide and recommend what we think is a sensible retirement age.

I understand why noble Lords are rather cynical about any proposal by any Government to set up a committee to do something that has no statutory powers to implement its recommendations, but there is such a swell of opinion on this issue about the need for change and a willingness on the part of the Government to accommodate it that I believe we should grasp that proposal. We should put forward good people from our groups to serve on it and task them with coming forward with agreed proposals in the quickest possible time. That is the way we should deal with all these issues. Therefore, I believe that we should not be looking to put amendments in this Bill that deal with one or all of them.