House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Lord Howard of Lympne Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 3rd March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord True (Con)]

If I may: this is Committee. The noble Lord can come in. I am concluding my remarks, but I will answer him later. We have seen in recent days the nature of negotiation with a big stick. That is not the House of Lords way, nor is it the way in which the noble Baroness leads us. I urge her not to reject these proposals or any part of them when she responds, but to agree to take them away. Let the Government block entry of new hereditary Peers, as my amendment accepts and as the House should accept, but otherwise let us together pursue the path of peace with expedition, and with honour and justice. I beg to move.

[Lord Howard of Lympne (Con)]

My Lords, in considering the purposes of this Bill, it is necessary to remind ourselves of the circumstances in which our hereditary colleagues continue to sit in your Lordships’ House. They are here because of an agreement which was reached in 1999 that they would continue to sit in your Lordships’ House until stage 2 of the projected reform had taken place. The late Lord Irvine said that that agreement was binding in honour; he said it was a guarantee. He gave those undertakings as—

[The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Smith of Basildon) (Lab)]

I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but I think he said “the late Lord Irvine”; I remind him that the noble and learned Lord is not late.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Howard of Lympne (Con)]

I apologise, both to the Committee and to the noble and learned Lord. I am delighted to hear that he is still with us. I am most grateful to the Leader.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine, gave those undertakings as Lord Chancellor—an office which then occupied a rather higher position in our firmament of distinction than it has since. “Binding in honour”: those were the words he used. Honour is not, to our collective regret, a characteristic much associated these days with politicians, or even with legislators who do not regard themselves as politicians, so it behoves those of us who regret this lamentable state of affairs to do what we can to remedy it. That means honouring commitments, such as those given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine. This Bill dishonours those solemn assurances, so the conclusion is inescapable, as my noble friend Lord Hannan said at Second Reading, that this is a dishonourable Bill.

Some of your Lordships may argue that those assurances were given more than a quarter of a century ago and we cannot therefore continue to be bound by them. But honour is not time limited. Indeed, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine, could have said, had that been his intention, that his assurances were not intended to last for more than a quarter of a century. He could have said it, but he did not. Some of your Lordships may argue that those assurances are trumped—I use the word advisedly—by commitments in an election manifesto. If that had been his intention then the noble and learned Lord could have said so, but he did not.

There is, as I have said, no escaping the fact that this is a dishonourable Bill, and any votes cast for it are dishonourable votes. I suggest that your Lordships bear these facts in mind when assessing the purposes of the Bill.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

My Lords, I do not know if I am alone in having a sense of fear and anxiety about the state of the world at the present time. The fact that we are debating ourselves when, at the other end of the Corridor, they are considering the issues of security that are so central to our country’s future and the future of our alliances, makes me wonder whether perhaps we have got our priorities wrong in this place that we should be talking about ourselves and that we should be so divided when we can easily be united, as my noble friend Lord True has so clearly set out. He has offered us an opportunity to avoid any further conflict and dislocation of the great work that this House does.

In recent days, the conduct by the Prime Minister of our affairs as a nation has been exemplary. He has shown great courage in dealing with very difficult circumstances. He has said that he wants to be a bridge between our closest ally, the United States, and Europe. I ask him and the Leader of the House: could they not be a bridge between us and the House of Commons? The Commons is filled with a large number of Labour MPs who won the election fair and square on a clear manifesto commitment to end the process by which hereditary Peers could come to this House and take part in legislation. That is accepted, as my noble friend said in moving this amendment.

I mean no disrespect to any of my colleagues, but I look at these not quite hundreds but dozens of amendments, some of which are a little on the absurd side, and I ask whether this the way in which this House should carry out constitutional reform, in this kind of manner. Constitutional reform should be done, as my noble friend has said, on the basis of consensus. It should be carefully considered, and the consequences and the unintended consequences of one thing relative to another should be taken account of. This is no way to deal with this proud and important House, which plays an increasingly crucial part as the Commons has increasingly used timetable Motions to avoid doing the work carried out in this place.

I ask the Leader of the House, whom I have always held in the highest regard, is there not a better way? Can we not accept that the hereditary principle is dead? Can we not recognise that among the hereditaries in this House are some of the most talented and able people? That may sound like a partisan comment because quite a lot of them are, of course, Tories, but are we really going to say goodbye to the Convener of the Cross Benches? Forgive me for naming individuals. Are we going to say goodbye to the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, who serves on my Financial Services Regulation Committee, has great expertise and knowledge, and has done great work on the equally intractable problem of the restoration and renewal of these buildings? Are we going to throw out my noble friend Lord Moynihan, an Olympian, with his great experience and knowledge of sport? Are we really going to dispense of the services of my noble friend Lord Howe, who can take any issue, no matter how controversial and divided, and make us all think, “Why did we not think of that in the first place?” Are we going to throw out people like my noble friend Lord Strathclyde, who led this House with such distinction?

As he demonstrated earlier today, sometimes the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, gets a bit carried away with himself. We have a duty to try to work together. There has been some criticism of some of the appointments that have been made by the Prime Minister. I understand why the Prime Minister wants to have a reasonable number of Labour Peers in this House. There have been some people who have said, “Why are we getting all these trade unionists? Why are we getting all these Labour MPs?” Some people have even put down amendments suggesting that there should be a quota on the number of MPs in this House. Speaking as a former MP, I think that is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. The response to that is that they are being rewarded for their duty in public service—and quite right too.

--- Later in debate ---

I do not regard that as a particularly tasteful way of describing it, but he was illustrating how he planned to wreck the whole of the Labour Government’s legislative programme—his words, not mine—a Government who had the same huge majority as we have now, which was of no consequence to him. There are many lawyers here. Is an agreement on the basis of which huge threats were being made to one party to it an honourable one? Would that be an agreement in law? I do not know the answer to those questions, but I can pretty well guess them, because it is true—

[Lord Howard of Lympne (Con)]

If the noble Lord is correct, why did the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine, use the words “binding in honour”?

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

I cannot possibly interpret at this juncture the views of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine—I know that the noble Lord, Lord Howard, has resurrected him during this debate. I really do not know precisely why he used the wording, but I know the context in which that “agreement” took place. I was working in No. 10 at the time. We were told by the then Chief Whip, my predecessor, that he feared for the whole legislative programme if we did not concede to the 92 hereditary Peers remaining. I do not feel in any way guilty or dishonourable by regarding that as an agreement that is not valid.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Lord Howard of Lympne Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 10th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)]

HOLAC is 25 years old in May and, looking at its report card, one would say that it has been a success. Of its two jobs, the production of the 76 Members that the noble Earl, Lord Devon, referred to into the Cross Bench has been a great success. I can say, as I am not one of them, that they really are among our most regular attenders and most valuable contributors. On the other side, its vetting business has also been a success, otherwise we would have noticed standards slipping in the House all round. But HOLAC is a delicate child; it was born of a White Paper and it lacks the permanence that it deserves. It is now a non-departmental government body and an advisory body only.

I suppose there are three things that one could do to HOLAC from here: first, give it the permanence that I think it deserves; secondly, broaden the scope of what it looks at; and thirdly, increase its powers—or, rather, give it powers, because it does not have any at all at the moment. In permanence terms, as I have already suggested, I feel that the time has come, after 25 years of success, to try to find a way to make HOLAC more permanent somewhere in statute, and not just have it as something which appeared in a White Paper.

On broadening HOLAC’s scope, it is clear that the exercise it undertakes when it looks at new Members includes enough data, information and deliberation for it to make a determination on not just propriety but suitability. Given that it is an advisory body, this would be interesting to me, were I Prime Minister, and it should be asked to provide that guidance to the Prime Minister. I would have that element of broadening its scope.

Where I do have a difficulty, though, is on increasing HOLAC’s powers. It would be hugely complex. We would have to sort out who is going to be a member. Today, it is quite a relaxed process—it is going on at the moment to fill two slots—but it would be extremely interesting to all sorts of people to become a member, or indeed a chair, of HOLAC. Its scrutiny, if it had real power, would be something we would have to sort out as well. That would take some time, and the timetable for this Bill would not allow that. I do not feel that this Bill could possibly be a vehicle for increasing HOLAC’s powers, but it could be a vehicle for making it permanent and giving it some breadth.

[Lord Howard of Lympne (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly to Amendment 45 and the other amendments in this group that would make HOLAC a statutory body. I was a member of the commission for a number of years and, despite the fact that I hold the proposers of these amendments in very high regard, it would be a great mistake to put it on a statutory basis. I say so for the same reason as that given by the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, a distinguished former chairman of the commission, to your Lordships on 18 November 2022.

In a nutshell, making HOLAC a statutory body would make it subject to judicial review. This would mean that someone who was unsuccessful in their application to become a Member of your Lordships’ House could challenge that decision in the courts. It would mean that an appointment that had been announced and, indeed, confirmed could be challenged in the courts. The courts would be drawn into deciding who should and should not be a Member of your Lordships’ House—a Member of this Chamber of Parliament—which is a flagrant breach of what we have always understood by the separation of powers.

It may be suggested that the legislation contemplated by these amendments to make HOLAC statutory could in some way circumscribe the power of the courts to intervene. I am afraid that history demonstrates that in a contest of that kind between the parliamentary draftsman and the courts, the courts usually win.

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

My Lords, my noble friend is making a very serious point. Would he perhaps consider that the power of judicial review would be reduced if HOLAC was obliged, before making a public statement, to give the person affected the opportunity to respond?

[Lord Howard of Lympne (Con)]

On the contrary, if reasons were given, those reasons could be the basis of a challenge in the courts. I fear I entirely disagree with the last point my noble friend made in his speech, when he suggested that reasons should be given. If reasons are given, they can form a stronger or a particular basis for a challenge in the courts.

I shall content myself with one example of the attitude of the courts to attempts to circumscribe their powers to intervene. When I was Home Secretary, a decision was made, though not by me, to refuse British nationality to someone whom I will not name. The relevant statute says that in such cases the Home Office is not obliged to give reasons for its decision. The High Court decided that these words meant what most people would think they meant, which was that the Home Office did not have to give any reasons. The Court of Appeal, however, decided that because the statute gave the Home Office discretion as to whether it could give reasons, it was wrong not to give the reasons. Your Lordship will see what I mean when I say that it is extremely difficult to circumscribe the determination of the courts to intervene.

I do not think that the courts should have a role in determining the membership of your Lordships’ House. That would be a consequence of these amendments. I urge your Lordships to reject them.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Lord Howard of Lympne Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 2nd July 2025 Lords Chamber

I come to Amendment 6. I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Dundee. Here we are dealing with a fundamental question. HOLAC should carry out a fit and proper person test and should assess the propriety of appointing somebody. Furthermore, it should carry out a test as to that person’s likelihood of attending and participating. That is the first part of the amendment to which we have both put our name. I commend it to your Lordships’ House.

[Lord Howard of Lympne (Con)]

Is my noble friend not aware—I speak as a former member of HOLAC—that it does indeed subject any applicant for membership of your Lordships’ House to quite stringent questioning on the extent of the commitment they are likely to make to the House and the attendance they are likely to give to the considerations which take place within the House, and that that represents one of the key factors in HOLAC’s decision-making process?

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

I think we are in agreement. What I am in favour of is putting this in a statutory frame. I do not doubt that it is done in a discretionary manner, but I would like it to be statutory. I think it is a very slight difference between us, and I hope we will not fall out on the matter.

My second point—I feel sure that I will not have the agreement of the Front Bench here—I make as a permanent, paid-up member of the awkward squad, and it relates to the oath. It has been a long time since I took the oath of a privy counsellor. I did not take away a copy and I am not quite sure what it said. But I have been on the internet to have a careful look. What it actually says is that, when members of the Privy Council have a clear and informed view, they should vote and speak accordingly. I actually believe that is the duty of your Lordships—all of us. It certainly seems to be the duty of members of the Privy Council.

There are many matters—I now speak personally—on which I do not have a formed or an informed opinion. I like to think that they are the same. In respect of those matters, I am quite happy to take the guidance of the Front Bench. But then I ask myself: what is one’s duty when one has a formed and informed view? I think it is quite plain; it is to vote in accordance with one’s conscience and opinion. We are not echo chambers. This is not an echo chamber. We are not part of a chorus line; we are here to express an unfettered view in accordance with our settled opinion. I would like Members of the House to take an oath to that effect before they sit in this place. So when a member of the Whips’ Office comes along and says, “We want you to vote”, you would simply say, “My dear, I simply don’t agree with you and, what is more, I have sworn an oath that I will speak in accordance with my conscience”. That would be conclusive of the matter.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)]

My Lords, again I feel that I am slightly swimming against the tide in opposing this amendment, which seems to me rooted in the outlook that I think of as “good chappery”— I am borrowing the nomenclature of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, in introducing it. It is the idea that when you are appointed to a public body, in some presumably painful operation, your opinion glands are cauterised and you suddenly become a wise, disinterested, neutral person who is uniquely capable of raising your eyes above the partisan scrum and descrying the true national interest.

The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, asked, “What if the Prime Minister isn’t a good chap or a good chapess?”, the implication being that, if you are appointed to HOLAC, you must by definition have these virtues. But who appoints you to HOLAC? How is it that you suddenly, by virtue of getting there, drop all your assumptions and prejudices and become this kind of idealised platonic guardian? I have to say that it is a doctrine that has debilitated and delegitimised successive Governments, because it has widened the gap between government and governed.

I called it “good chappery”, but actually a more accurate word would be oligarchy: it is a way of taking a group of people and putting them in a privileged position. It is an oligarchy based now not on birth so much as on outlook. How many HOLAC nominees, for example, would have voted with the majority in the 2016 referendum, just to take the one thing where we actually have an exact measure of how the country at large felt about one specific issue?

The idea that we can, in making these changes to the composition of this House, in effect narrow the way of coming here, put in another filter, strain the nomination through some sort of handkerchief of good chappery, strikes me as utterly inconsistent with the times and almost certainly unacceptable to public opinion. It is also, by the way, very much at odds with the previous amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Newby. I was one of the small number who supported it. It is one of those funny things where everyone spoke in favour of it and then everyone voted against it. It was rather like the Holocaust education centre thing: all the speeches were one way; all the votes were the other way.

[Lord Howard of Lympne (Con)]

Not all the speeches.

[Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)]

Not all the speeches, no: my noble friend Lord Howard was indeed one who spoke in favour of the education centre.

It seems to me that, once we start making these changes, the pressure is going to be for widening rather than narrowing the route by which people come here. In other words, there will be more pressure for some kind of direct representation, some democratic element.

I put it to those noble Lords—I suspect the majority on both Benches—who do not want a democratic Chamber that their best tactic was just to lie low and do absolutely nothing and allow this House, in the words of the Gilbert and Sullivan song, to do nothing in particular and do it very well. Once you open the issue of the composition and function of this Chamber, you invite the public into a conversation which I can guarantee will not end with a consensus around putting more power in the hands of some appointed committee rather than an elected Government.

To go back to something that my noble friend Lord Strathclyde said in a previous group, there is a very strong case—now that we have decided to open the issue and change our composition by removing our remaining hereditary colleagues, in my view mistakenly—for having a royal commission and looking in a measured and judicious way at how this Chamber can be made more democratically accountable. If we do not do so in a timely and temperate spirit, it is very likely that a future Government will make changes that the majority of noble Lords gathered here would not like and they would do so in a spirit of frustration, having been defeated on some measure. They would lash out in anger and legislate in haste.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Howard of Lympne (Con)]

My Lords, I support the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Hailsham and the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington.

Earlier today, my noble friend Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay reminded your Lordships’ House about the assurance given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, when he introduced the legislation that removed the majority of hereditary Peers from your Lordships’ House. He gave an assurance from that Dispatch Box that the remaining hereditaries would not be removed until stage 2 of reform of your Lordships’ House was in place. He was asked what weight could be given to that assurance—what credence could be placed on it—and he told your Lordships’ House that it was a “matter of honour”. He could have said that the assurance would last only for 25 years, but he did not. He could have said that it would last only until a Government were elected on a manifesto pledge to remove the remaining hereditaries from your Lordships’ House, but he did not. He said neither of those things. He said it was a matter of honour.

Earlier today, in our very first debate, the Leader, for whom I have a great deal of respect, gave your Lordships assurances about the future from that same Dispatch Box. I have no doubt that she gave your Lordships those assurances in good faith. But if any noble Lords were just a tiny bit sceptical about the durability of those assurances, they might perhaps be forgiven in the light of what happened to the assurances given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

If it helps the noble Lord, I think he is talking about some 25 years ago. I am talking about a rather shorter period of time —a matter of months—to set up a Select Committee. He might be reassured by that, because I am not likely to forget that in a matter of three months.

[Lord Howard of Lympne (Con)]

I was not talking about those assurances; I was talking about the assurances the noble Baroness gave in our first debate about the durability of the status of the Earl Marshal and the Lord Great Chamberlain.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

That is not my assurance; it is the assurance from the House of Lords Commission, from Members of all parties across the House.

[Lord Howard of Lympne (Con)]

I dare say, but the noble Baroness repeated those assurances from the Government, from that Dispatch Box, and that carries as much or as little weight as the assurances given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, when he introduced the original legislation.

--- Later in debate ---

I apologise if, in responding to the lengthy debates in Committee, I did not respond specifically to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Lympne. I think the point he was asking me to come back on was why a commitment to retaining hereditary Peers that was made 25 years ago is not being kept today. One Parliament does not bind another, and that decision was taken then. It would have been better had decisions and actions been taken more quickly, but that did not happen. One of the reasons I am proposing the Select Committee route—which could be prior to, or with, legislation, or we could do something ourselves—is that, when a long period of time elapses and new people come in, new commitments are made and new Parliaments are elected, it is very easy for these things to happen. We need to move more quickly and avoid the very problems that have caused him concern.

[Lord Howard of Lympne (Con)]

I am grateful to the Leader of the House for giving way. Does the caveat that she has just entered about future Parliaments apply to the assurances she gave on behalf of the Government from that Dispatch Box earlier this afternoon on the future status of the Earl Marshal and the Lord Great Chamberlain?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

It does not, because that is not the legislation we are talking about. That is a decision of this House, and I find it very difficult to understand why anybody would want to change that position in this House. I have faith in your Lordships’ House, so it does not apply, and I think the commission has said that in relation to those officeholders and future officeholders as well. If, at some point in the future, this House took a different decision, I would oppose it very strongly—I think it would be totally the wrong decision, and I find it impossible to consider that it would happen. But when it comes to legislation, it is the case that one Parliament does not bind another. Indeed, I think his party has changed its mind on the Grocott Bill from the last Parliament to this one, so we do see changes as we move forward.

My impression is that, as the noble Duke has said, the House wants to make progress as a matter of urgency. None of us knows our longevity in any position or any place, but we are talking about a very short space of time. The noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, raised this issue with me. I would have thought that a Select Committee could be up and running very soon after Royal Assent. The normal Select Committee rules would apply. I think the terms of reference are quite clear: there are two specific issues. I understand what other Members have said about the need to broaden this out, but the danger there is that we do not get anywhere —which has happened time and again. The House has to make a decision: does it wish to make further progress or not? I think and hope it does. I want to, and I hope noble Lords will not press their amendments.