House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Lord Hogan-Howe Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 10th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

My Lords, I support the principle behind terms, but I cannot support and would not vote for any of these amendments. The idea behind terms is a great one because it limits our contributions to while we are fresh. I do not agree with prejudice as expressed by age, which I think is irrelevant and hard to justify. Even murderers do not get life any longer, so I think “life” is an inappropriate term.

Finally, as with many of the speeches on the amendments we have heard today, this is not the time nor the Bill to be debating these issues. They need to be referred to and considered in the round, but that is for another day. There are many issues about our constitution that deserve attention. Should we have an established Church? In what relation is the Supreme Court held to Parliament? Many things have yet to be remedied, but not in this Bill. For that reason, I would not vote for these amendments. These are worthy issues that should be debated in another place when we have the time, but not in the time we are taking to debate this Bill.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, this and the next three groups are about related issues, and we cannot avoid moving from one on to the other. They are about limiting the conditions under which one becomes a Member of this House.

When I was appointed to this House 29 years ago, the majority of Members clearly saw this as a part-time job. It was explained to me that it was a part-time job. I managed to go on being a full-time professor at the LSE for another nine years. Now we have a more professional House. We are expected to commit ourselves to working hard while we are here. Life expectancy has risen and more of us have some expectation of living well into our 90s. I am told that my life expectancy, given my parents and my elder sisters, is around 98, so I can perhaps look for many years to come. Clearly, we need to take this on board and the Government need to give us some indication of how they are going to moderate the lifetime rights to sit in this House.

As we have become a professional second Chamber, do we think that retirement, life terms, participation or attendance is the most useful way to do it? I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, that term limits are the easiest way. The 2012 Bill proposed for the elected Members a single term of 15 years, elected in thirds, and a 15-year term for those who were appointed. That, at the time, commanded widespread support. I suggest that the Government look back to this; we have been around this circuit before.

I will also say briefly that we have to remember the context in which we are discussing this. Popular disillusionment with politics in Britain is high; respect for both the Commons and the Lords is low. We have, outside Britain, much that we dislike in populist politics, anti-democratic tendencies, the belief that strong men make politics easier, and we see the problems of systems where checks and balances built into their constitutions are being ignored. We cannot entirely ignore that, as limited outside opinion looks at the way that we as a second Chamber behave. If the Government are going to push this limited Bill through, they must also respond to that for the longer term. The sort of second Chamber to which we might slowly shuffle is one in which term limits are perhaps one of the ways in which one limits the life cycle of Members.

Syria

Lord Hogan-Howe Excerpts

Thursday 19th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I thank the right reverend Prelate for that question. I give him that reassurance: we are urging all sides to refrain from activity that will lead to further loss of civilian life or damage, and to avoid further destabilisation and damage in the region. Certainly, the Foreign Secretary has been talking to Turkey on this issue.

On the camps and detention centres in the area, raised by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, we continue to monitor conditions in those camps and will continue to promote security and stability and ensure that Daesh’s territorial defeat continues and that it can never resurge. As the present situation unfolds, we are working closely with partners to monitor the threat, including through our work with the global coalition against Daesh. As the Border Security Minister has said, the intelligence services are looking closely at the risk posed by terrorism and we will take all necessary action to protect the UK’s national security.

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

My Lords, I pick up on that point about terrorism. I cannot profess to have the same expertise as many people around the Middle East, but in 2011 to 2013, when the Syrian civil war started, we saw two immediate impacts. One was that around 1 million people left; they walked, sailed and swam across Europe. The second was that we saw a lot of those refugees based in the countries around Syria. We also saw an extremely large number of awful terrorist attacks. We particularly remember the Bataclan theatre attack. Many were instigated by ISIS within Syria and as it expanded its remit across Iraq.

Visiting Jordan at the time, we were all struck by the generosity of Jordan in looking after about 6 million refugees. It needs our support. I was told recently that about a third of the MPs in Jordan have now declared for the Muslim Brotherhood, which has a worrying and destabilising impact. What efforts are we making directly with Jordan? The Minister mentioned UN efforts, but what can we do with our friends in Jordan to help them stabilise and make sure that the children and young people who are growing up in these refugee camps have hope? Otherwise, other people will get their hope and direct them in a way that has an impact on our streets, as well as on the rest of Europe.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

The noble Lord is absolutely right. We have known for a very long time the huge impact that the situation in Syria was having on neighbouring countries, particularly the influx of refugees. We have been focused on giving financial and humanitarian support, not least to ensure that that support is not simply limited to the refugees but that the local population can accommodate and support them. One of the areas we were looking at previously was education and other facilities, and ensuring that people could work and contribute to the local economy. Even the recent further £50 million was also focused on giving support to those refugees in Lebanon and Jordan, and we will continue to do that. The real focus has to be on the causes of this refugee migration crisis, and one of the biggest causes has been the situation in Syria.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Lord Hogan-Howe Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 11th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

My Lords, we need to consider the context in which this Bill comes forward. I am sorry to say that this House is not well liked or well respected in this country. There are various criticisms; we have heard some of them today. The principal one is that some people are here only because of their family connections. People regard that as indefensible, and so do I. The noble Lord, Lord Bethell, found that word offensive. It is about not the people but the principle and whether it can be intellectually defended. Most people who have spoken today have said that they are not sure that they can defend it and that the only justification really is of distant history. The noble Baroness, Lady Symons, made the point that the indirect consequence is that those who are here by that method are all white males—not their fault but it is the consequence, and therefore very unrepresentative of this country.

As we are talking about hereditary principles, I mention my own background. I was born into the slums of Sheffield, the illegitimate son of a steelworker, to an incredible woman who was unmarried at the time. I mention it because it speaks to my pride at being here. I guess that hereditary Peers will feel exactly the same. They will be proud, quite rightly, of their own families. However, it says nothing about whether I should be here. We should all take that very seriously because people from the outside look and consider these issues very carefully. Earlier, someone mentioned that surveys have shown that only 2% of our population generally support the present constitution of this House. The same survey said that the most supported option was to have an elected House. That is not the direct proposal at the moment, but it shows that any Government will have to consider radical changes to improve the trust in this House.

It is said that expelling hereditary Peers is unfair and rushed, given the contribution of some of them. It is not rushed from 1999. It was considered in the election, and it is hardly unfair given that hereditary Peers have been able to speak in this debate today and can, if they choose, vote on the amendments and any Bill. Many people affected directly by this sort of legislation would not have had that opportunity or would choose not to take that right. Therefore, it cannot be said to be an unfair process that does not take some account of what they believe.

We have heard other criticisms today, such as that the House is too large—behind China the second largest. France has a second Chamber of about 375 but the rest have around 100. Even America, with 350 million people, has a second House of about 100. Some people have said that we need over 400 just to service the committees. That is an argument for fewer committees, not to have more people here. We probably could be a little more efficient in how we organise those things.

My view is that the Bill should pass unamended, but there are some serious issues that have been raised today that need to be considered, including whether people contribute when they are here, and whether they continue to contribute over the term of their being here. I would aim not to have an age discriminator but a term discriminator that reflects the amount of time people spend here, because outside this place age discrimination is illegal. In fact, this place passed that Act, but apparently age discrimination would be okay in here. I do not know if that is fair. Judges may be subject to that, but I do not think age should be a discriminator; it should be about the contribution someone can make and their ability to make it.

One of the things I could say against myself is that I could become a roaring dinosaur about policing—in fact, I often am—but, to be fair, after 15 years would I have as much to contribute, or could newer colleagues come along and talk better and with more power and relevance? We all need to consider that. We all believe we have that wisdom that only our experience can bring, but it fails us at times and we need new people to challenge us and bring new ideas and new ways of thinking about things. For everybody here who is excellent and fantastic, there is always somebody behind us who will be better; we just have not met them yet. There is always someone who will come along and put us to shame and make us realise just how little we have delivered as opposed to how much.

My final point is directed at His Majesty’s Opposition. I understand why these things happen, but I honestly think that filibustering appears to the outside to be a childish mechanism. All parties have done it—nobody can sit here and say they have never done it—but I wonder how people react to that sort of operating, even from people of their own side. I talked to someone who used to be a Minister and he was tired out earlier this week. It is not a nice process. It does not add much to the wisdom of the process either, and I would charge that it is probably better avoided.

I support this government Bill. It should pass unamended, and if there are any other issues, a commission can consider them over a timetabled period in the future.