House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Lord Newby Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 11th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I am looking forward to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Brady, and the valedictory speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Quin.

The Bill before us is limited in scope and, in our view, long overdue and we support it. When we debated the future of the House of Lords on 12 November, I set out why we on these Benches believe that fundamental reform is required, involving the election of Members of your Lordships’ House. I also set out why we believe the time has come to remove the remaining hereditary Members. Noble Lords will be pleased to know that I do not intend to repeat those arguments today. Instead, I shall examine the arguments made on 12 November against the Bill. I carefully reread the November debate and listed no fewer than 30 arguments deployed against it. The noble Lord, Lord True, has helpfully repeated some today—although in many years in your Lordships’ House, where I have been called many things, I have never before been called a cuckoo.

The arguments fell into two broad categories. First, there were arguments about procedure—basically, that it was the wrong Bill at the wrong time. Then there were arguments of substance: that the qualities that hereditary Peers brought to the House were unique and substantial, and therefore their removal would weaken the House and the constitution more generally.

I shall address the procedural issues first. It was repeatedly asserted that the Labour Party was effectively stopped from removing the remaining hereditaries because in 1999 Ministers had said they would not do so before more fundamental reform. That is a curious argument because we have a convention in this country that no Parliament can bind its successor. The acceptance that Parliament and parties can change their minds is particularly relevant on the issue of Lords reform, because there has been no consistency from the largest parties on what they propose to do on the matter from Parliament to Parliament. The Conservatives, for example, were in favour of an elected House in 2012 and voted at Second Reading for the Clegg Bill, but are not in favour of it now. They are allowed to change their minds, so it is no constitutional outrage when Labour does the same.

It is then argued that this reform should not be pursued except, as we have heard, as part of the simultaneous implementation of all the other proposals for Lords reform set out in the Labour Party manifesto, and that to do so in isolation is somehow improper. Surely it is for a Government to decide in which order and at what pace to implement their manifesto. They will be judged at the next election on how far they have done so, not after five months in office—something that the Government at the moment will be very relieved about. Anyone with an understanding of the history of Lords reform will understand why they have chosen to do so in an incremental manner.

We were told that the proposal was ill thought-out and hasty, and that a constitutional convention or conference should be held before moving forward. Over the years there have been umpteen reports on the size and composition of your Lordships’ House. Not a single argument now is even vaguely new. The doctrine of unripe time is typically a cover for basic opposition to the proposal under debate, and this is what is happening with this Bill.

It was further, and lyrically, suggested that the constitution was a priceless piece of porcelain that the Government planned to break with the Bill, never to be put back together again. The truth is that no other components of the constitution will be affected, for good or ill, by the Bill. It is far too modest for that.

Those were the procedural arguments. The substantive arguments related to what were seen as the hereditary Peers’ unique contributions to our lawmaking and the deleterious consequences of their departure. Central to that line of argument were what were described as the unique qualities that the hereditaries brought to your Lordships’ House. It was variously claimed that the hereditaries worked harder, had a higher sense of public duty, were able to follow their conscience and be independent, had more in common with the country than the remainder of the House because they supported Brexit, have unique knowledge and insight, were not self-assertive and represented the whole of the UK.

Like everyone else, I have huge respect for the hereditary Peers currently in your Lordships’ House. They are often model public servants: hard-working, thoughtful and diligent. However, those qualities are not unique to them, and frankly it is unfair and inaccurate to the rest of the House to claim that mere life Peers do not show the same qualities in equal measure.

I particularly smiled at the suggestion that hereditaries had a unique independence of spirit as I contemplated the number of extremely loyal hereditary Front-Benchers who, over many years, have never broken the whip. I thought how I, when I was Chief Whip, would have treated an outburst of independence amongst Liberal Democrat hereditaries purely on the basis of their hereditary nature. Cross-Bench hereditaries are indeed independent, but so are their lifer colleagues.

In terms of representing the country as a whole, I merely point out that all hereditaries are male, all are white and virtually all come from similar backgrounds. Diversity is not among their strengths.

On the back of the unique qualities that hereditaries were said to possess, several constitutional consequences were said to flow. It was argued that they formed a link with Magna Carta, that they maintained a strand of legitimacy without which Parliament would become “a toothless farce”, like the Chinese national congress, and that the country as a whole, if given the choice, would back them. However, the link with Magna Carta is formed by Parliament and the courts, and an ongoing commitment to the rule of law and basic freedoms that Parliament and the courts uphold. The lack of legitimacy of your Lordships’ House flows from the lack of elections, not from the absence, or presence, of a small minority of hereditary Peers.

As for public opinion, recent polling by YouGov showed that, of those who had a view at all, some 79% thought that hereditaries should not continue to have places in your Lordships’ House. Incidentally, the same poll showed that 71% of those who had a view thought that the House should be wholly elected.

A final constitutional argument advanced in our last debate was that the exclusion of the hereditaries would leave the King without an hereditary partner, isolated and vulnerable to republican attack. I have no doubt that His Majesty takes daily comfort from the presence of hereditary Peers, but his fate depends on the way he does his job, not on the knowledge that he has the support of the Captain of the King’s Bodyguard of the Yeoman of the Guard and his hereditary colleagues if things get tricky. So I do not believe that the arguments advanced against the Bill undermine it—quite the opposite.

Nor do I think that that the House should seek to use this Bill as a Christmas tree on which to dangle every other possible reform to the composition of your Lordships’ House. There are a small number of amendments —for example, those relating to the independence of the House of Lords Appointments Commission—which could usefully be made, and the Bill should, of course, be properly debated. But it should then be passed, as a small but necessary contribution to the broader reforms we need to make this Chamber fit for the future.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Lord Newby Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 3rd March 2025 Lords Chamber

I plead with the House. I think this is probably the only amendment that I will speak on. The amendment by my noble friend Lord True, the shadow Leader of the House, and his speech offer a way forward that could end this wrangle and enable us to apply our minds to the important issues facing our country, and my goodness me, in all of our lifetimes—well, perhaps not all of our lifetimes, but certainly in my lifetime—I cannot remember greater challenges on the economy, our security and our future as a nation. So let us get down to business, reach an agreement on this and move forward with due speed.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, because I agree with his starting point, which is that we find ourselves as a nation in a more perilous position, arguably, than we have been in in my lifetime and, in those circumstances, the prospect of your Lordships’ House spending days and days discussing ourselves is immensely unappealing in every possible way.

However, I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, about the extent to which any measure of House of Lords reform can be dealt with by consensus. I sat through all the debates on the original proposals that led to the removal of the majority of hereditaries and have sat through most debates in your Lordships’ House in the intervening period dealing with proposals for reform. Consensus there has been none. There will not be consensus, and the sooner we accept that, the better.

The noble Lord, Lord True, said that this Bill is of the greatest constitutional significance. I beg to differ. I do not believe this Bill is of the greatest constitutional significance. I think that it deals with an issue that should have been dealt with originally. It is a freestanding Bill. It is a simple Bill, and it should proceed.

There is, as the noble Lord, Lord True, alluded to, a whole range of issues that need addressing as well. We need to deal with the retirement age, we need to deal with participation levels, and there will be consequences for the Bishops. There is a whole raft of other things relating to the way in which your Lordships’ House is constituted and operates which need to change. However, we will not change anything if we seek to change everything at once. That is one of the lessons of reform in your Lordships’ House. My view is that to change something at this point is better than running the risk of changing nothing.

Where I agree with the noble Lord, Lord True, is that the Government have manifesto commitments that go beyond this Bill, not least around the retirement age and participation levels. It would be to the benefit of the Committee to know how the Government intend to proceed on those things. The Government say that they are very clear in wanting these thing to happen, but, as we are about to discover as we debate them, there are lot of wrinkles and complications. The sooner we get round to the consultation on those other things—which will lead to a definitive proposal—the better. I cannot see why the Government cannot just tell us what is in their mind; that would be extremely helpful.

Beyond that, at this stage in the nation’s affairs, I think we should deal with this Bill expeditiously. Frankly, having 46 groups of amendments to this Bill is ridiculous. Having spent nine days on the football regulator Bill, the prospect of a repeat of that sort of pettifogging argument, going on for days and days, at this point in the nation’s fortunes, seems to me completely unacceptable. I hope that all noble Lords will adopt that position as they approach these debates. Certainly, let us hear from the Government on what they want to do next, but, as far as this Bill is concerned, let us simply get on with it.

[The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord. As ever, he spoke with a lot of logic, and I agree with so much of what he said—not quite everything—as I have with so many other people.

I want to comment on only one or two issues that arose from the speech of the noble Lord, Lord True. Clearly, the genesis of this Bill goes to the very heart of the noble Lord’s amendment, but I would not want the amendment itself, which is quite narrowly drafted, to prevent the House from discussing the Bill in the round. I said at Second Reading that I thought it was important for the House to have this opportunity; House of Lords reform Bills come so rarely—as I pointed out, it is 10 years since the last one—and we need to discuss all the issues in the round. I am aware of the external pressures on the use of our time, and I would certainly like us to handle this expeditiously as we go through Committee. I will not detain noble Lords now or elsewhere in Committee.

I think the other discussions referred to by the noble Lord, Lord True, are incredibly important. It is important for the House to be able to settle its own reform package, with due regard to the Executive and to the most important document: the Government’s manifesto. I would very much like these discussions to come forward rapidly. I have been describing this as the thorn in the paw, because it is causing difficulties in all our work at the moment, and in the spirit in which we go about that work. I think everyone here would like that thorn to be drawn rapidly from the paw.

Before I move on from that topic to two final ones, I want to go on the record as citing just how open the Leader’s door has been. I have been watching it and I know how many people—over 40 at the last count—the Leader has engaged with, and the courtesy that there has been during this process. I value that a lot; it has been very helpful. Drawing the thorn from the paw is important.

The first of my two final topics relates to the propensity for Cross-Bench colleagues to retire. I thought that I should think about that, and I have had many conversations over the last two years with many Cross-Benchers. I feel it would be possible for a package of reform to set up an environment where quite a number of Cross-Benchers might want to retire. I say that knowing that our average age is 73, which is rather older than that of the House, and therefore we have quite a lot of people who are over 80 and who would, I believe, consider retiring.

The second relates to the Cross-Bench view—remember that we are sole traders—on reinforcing the conventions and dealing with the trend in ping-pong where more balls and longer rallies are being played. I have not yet met a Cross-Bencher who does not believe that reaffirming these conventions is in the interest of the Cross Bench and of the House. I think it goes to dealing with the ping-pong issue as well.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Swire (Con)]

With that in mind, I invite the noble Lord to have a word with those who drafted the Labour manifesto, which says, as a standalone sentence: “Hereditary peers remain indefensible”.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I associate myself with the comments of both the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, and my noble friend Lord Thurso. There is not, and never has been, the sort of link between the hereditary Peers and the monarch that I suspect the noble Earl, Lord Devon, was suggesting. We have one period of worked examples of this, and I am afraid it was a little while ago. In 1649, when Charles I was condemned, he was condemned not just by Members of the House of Commons but by hereditary Members of the House of Lords.

A decade later, there was a House of Lords, but it was not called the House of Lords. It was called the Other Place—capital “O”, capital “P”—because the Parliamentarians, led by Oliver Cromwell, recognised the need for a revising chamber but did not like the concept of heredity. Therefore, Oliver Cromwell appointed a House of Lords. That House of Lords did not last very long, and the hereditary principle came back with Charles II. So it was not the case that a hereditary House of Lords meant that we were done with monarchy for ever. The two were just different things, and different considerations applied.

The lesson of Charles I—which is still relevant—is that, at the end of the day, Kings and Queens in this country rule by the consent of the people. If they go outwith the conventions, they will find themselves in difficulties again. With the current King and Prince of Wales, this seems an impossibly unlikely scenario, but it is still a theoretical possibility.

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Newby, that I seem to remember that in the House of Lords which, to its shame, agreed to the execution of the King, there were only about six Peers who still sat, because of the exigencies of the Civil War and purges afterward, only two of whom, to their lasting shame, actually watched the execution of their King. A few days later, the House of Lords was abolished by the House of Commons as a “useless” place. The other irony was that, when Cromwell produced his own equivalent of the House of Lords, there were only about 30 people in it, of which a high percentage were relatives either of Cromwell or of his leading marshals. These things can take you down many funny roads. It was in fact the House of Lords that reassembled in 1660 that recalled the House of Commons into being—a very significant constitutional moment.

Before I go on, I will respond to the comments made about groupings. Of course we should proceed in an orderly fashion; the difficulty, as the noble Lord, Lord Moore of Etchingham, said, is that so much is left out of the Bill which is germane to the future that we have to discuss a range of subjects, and I defend our right to do so. I would not personally have put down this amendment on the Royal Family, but since it is down it is clearly a subject that has to be addressed and should be addressed separately.

The noble Baroness referred to a group of amendments on commencement, but the amendments are very different: one proposes a referendum, which I would not support; one wants to move the date earlier and get rid of hereditary Peers very swiftly; another is a delaying amendment; one calls for a review before the thing is taken forward; and another says that there should be no enactment until after stage 2 proposals have been produced. These may lock around commencement, because of the short nature of the Bill, but the idea of having a referendum on the removal of 90 hereditary Peers, is, frankly, with all due respect to my noble friend, nonsensical. To spend tens of millions of pounds on a referendum on whether hereditary Peers should leave the House of Lords is not a case I would argue on “Newsnight”, to put it that way.

These are very different subjects, so we should be careful not to run away. Peers have great freedom in this House to group and degroup. I accept that I asked for my first amendment to be stand-alone; that was because, as Leader of the Opposition and former Leader of the House, I wanted to say something that I hoped the Committee would listen to, heed and reflect upon, and I did not want that to be complicated with other discussions. I apologise if that tried the patience of the Committee, but I did ask for that amendment to be taken separately.

On the amendment, I appreciate the concerns raised by many noble Lords, starting with the noble Earl. I do not think his concerns needed to be laughed at—they are concerns that some people legitimately have. Equally, I totally agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, said. The great Labour Party has always been a patriotic party and the overwhelming number of members of the Labour Party, like the overwhelming number of members of my party, are strong supporters of the monarchy, although there are republican Conservatives and republican Labour Party members. The only thing I would wish to see happen, which I fear is not that likely—I hope it could still be accomplished, and I have great hope that we will be able to carry it forward—is that, in the years to come, the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, and the noble Earl are still here, arguing the case together, for the retention of the monarchy.

The last thing I would want is for the monarchy ever to be brought into the situation that your Lordships’ House is now in, where the hereditary principle is overtly rejected, but the reasons and reasoning, as the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, said, are very different. I do not intend to argue that the removal of hereditary Peers from your Lordships’ House would have that effect on the monarchy. With all due respect to my noble friend Lady Meyer, I understand absolutely what she said about the appalling consequences for the people of France and of Russia when they thought that removing the monarchy would lead somewhere, but we are not there. I do not believe that there is a connection between the hereditary principle in this place and the hereditary principle of the monarchy.

However, as the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Devon, shows, debate around his concern about the decision to expel hereditary Peers from the House of Lords, and what that might say about the hereditary principle, is one of several things that will always prompt debate and reflection about the importance of inheritance in wider society.

The noble Lord, Lord Moore of Etchingham, said that every family is inheritance. The instinct that families should be able to pass on what they have to the next generation is deeply imbued in our society—it is one of its absolutes, the root and the bedrock. One has to look only at the sympathy of so many people for the plight of family farms and family businesses: many people are responding to that, not because of particular views about farmers but because they feel it is unfair that a family cannot pass on its farm to the next generation because of levies on inheritance.

Noble Lords may think that I never have any leisure time, but occasionally I watch that charming BBC programme, “The Repair Shop”. I do not know whether anybody ever looks at that, but you can imagine me sitting sometimes watching it over my Marmite sandwich. Week after week, that programme throws up example after moving example of the natural instinct of ordinary people to preserve what their forebears left them and pass that on to their children and grandchildren, often amid tears and the deepest emotions. The hereditary principle is one of the most basic and honourable instincts of mankind and we should cherish it.

This is the instinct that I recognise gives birth to the sense of duty and responsibility displayed by the noble Earl in his speech, as it does for members of the Royal Family. I think everyone in the Committee agrees with those who have spoken that it is vital that we keep our Head of State hereditary and outside politics. Our monarchy provides a sense of continuity and stability that is unparalleled in any other form of governance. The English monarchy has endured for well over 1,100 years, long before Parliament, and the Scottish monarchy for close to 1,200 years, weathering countless political storms and societal changes as it evolved into our constitutional monarchy. In times of upheaval, the monarchy is there as a stay—a constant, unchanging presence that transcends transient party politics.

Further, the hereditary nature of the monarchy insulates the Head of State from the partisan struggles of politics that characterise a democratic system. It allows our monarch to represent our whole nation, or set of nations, serving as a unifying figure and bridging the divides that often stress our society, and indeed our counsels in your Lordships’ House. It plays a crucial role in preserving our cultural heritage and national identity, steeped in tradition. We here play our own part in the pomp and ceremony around monarchy. The noble Baroness opposite and I have both held the Cap of Maintenance—which is heavier than you might think—at the State Opening. Through this sense of ceremony and by maintaining these traditions, the monarchy helps to preserve Britain’s unique character, ensuring that our cultural heritage is passed down the generations.

I can say to the noble Earl that we absolutely believe in a hereditary monarchy. I know that the noble Baroness, when she speaks, will say the same thing from the point of view of the Labour Party. It serves as a powerful symbol of continuity and resilience on the global stage.

I was amused when the noble Lord, Lord Moore of Etchingham, referred to the maiden speech of His Majesty the King, then the Prince of Wales. I cannot claim to have been here, but there was a kerfuffle about it at the time and a great deal of excitement. Over 50 years ago, he made a delightful maiden speech on the subject of recreation and the importance of sport. I point out to noble Lords that his maiden speech lasted about 14 minutes. Whether that would go down well these days, I do not know.

One thing that he referred to in making his maiden speech was an occasion nearly 150 years earlier, I think it was in 1829, when three Royal Dukes—Clarence, Sussex and Cumberland—who were brothers, had, as His Majesty then put it in his speech,

“got up one after the other and attacked each other so vehemently and used such bad language that the House was shocked into silence”.

You could never imagine such a thing happening these days.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, I support my noble friend’s amendment. The exceptions to whom his amendment would apply are people who contain and are characterised by many qualities, but I mention only four here: experience, knowledge, constancy and loyalty to this Chamber, and a non-political aspect. This may seem strange coming from the Conservative Bench, but for many of us who have not been part of a party-political machine, it is very important to see how a non-political Front Bench can work to reach out across the Chamber to all sides of this House. It is these qualities of experience, knowledge, constancy and a type of non-politicalness which allows this House to do the work it does, and which brings it respect right across the world, as has been mentioned today. I commend my noble friend for tabling this amendment, and I hope it will be listened to with sympathy.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I think this amendment shows the problem that we were discussing earlier with the groupings, because we have actually been discussing, along with this amendment, Amendment 9 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord True, and they both deal with the question of the future of those hereditaries who play a major part in your Lordships’ House.

The noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, told us what he finds extraordinary. I think the vast majority of the country would find it extraordinary, if they realised it, that 10% of the legislature derives from fewer than 800 families in the country. Most people do not really realise that; if they did, they would be very surprised and most of them, frankly, would be appalled.

I looked at the hereditaries as a group one wet, sad afternoon. I divided them not into sheep and goats but into three: those who were active, those who were partially active, and those who were inactive. In response to the list of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, of those who are very active, I could, but will not, read out to the Committee a list of equal length, if not longer, of hereditaries who are virtually inactive. This is not a criticism of them more than it is of any other group. However, it is the case that some Members in the hereditary group are very active and well respected, but, like in all other groups, there are others who, frankly, are not.

Therefore, if we are looking to what should happen next and whether we should seek to retain some of the expertise that the hereditaries have, surely the way to do it is not as proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Soames, nor by the noble Lord, Lord True, but to encourage the parties to appoint those hereditaries who are very active and eminent in their groups to life peerages as those numbers come up. I hope very much that we will do so in respect of the Liberal Democrats—we have fewer hereditaries than some of the other groups—but that seems to me to be the logical way of doing it. It is what we did, to a certain extent, in our party after the vast bulk of hereditaries left in 1999. That is the precedent that we should seek to follow now, rather than having a broader category of exemptions, as the noble Lord suggests, or a complete continuation along the lines previously proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, which the noble Lord, Lord True, is about to suggest.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

Can I correct the noble Lord on one factual error that he has made—quite inadvertently, I am sure. According to the Library list, leaving aside the one mistake in the case of my noble friend Lord Astor, there are fewer than 20 hereditaries who do not participate in the work of the House or who are, as he said, doing nothing. The vast majority have served the House, are working in the House on committees or have been Ministers.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

If the noble Lord looks down the list, he will see that there may be some people who come twice a year and vote three times a year, but I did not include those in the list of people whom I consider to be active. I am happy to go down the list with him; I did not do it with the intention of proving anything but wanted to satisfy myself as to the true position.

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

My Lords, the difficulty with the noble Lord’s suggestion, in my case, is that I would be relying upon knowing the leader of my party. I do not properly know any of the party leaders, and they do not know me either, so I would have as much chance as a snowflake in a blast furnace of getting a life peerage.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Lord Newby Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 3rd March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Shinkwin (Con)]

My Lords, I support this amendment and do so scarcely able to believe either the damage that we are doing to ourselves as a House through this divisive, hurtful Bill, or the attitudes underpinning it.

On my way to the House in my chair, I brace myself for sneers, smirks, laughter and even derogatory comments on account of my disability. Sticks and stones may break my bones—and they do—but words will always hurt more. They hurt because they are informed by discrimination against difference—how I look and how I sound, in my case, because of my disability. I am not saying that I experience discrimination in your Lordships’ House, at least not directly, but that I am a reluctant expert on discrimination. My life experience tells me. I know what discrimination looks like and what it feels like to be invalidated and devalued.

I see discrimination in this Bill. I support this amendment because it would go some way to mitigating it. Without this amendment, hereditary Members are effectively being told, contrary to what the noble Lord, Lord Collins of Highbury, has said, that their contributions are invalid and valueless by virtue of their being the wrong type of Peer. If their contributions are valid and valuable today, why not tomorrow? Why not, as this amendment implies, for the rest of their lives, which is the basis on which the vast majority of us were appointed? This amendment provides a middle way, as we have already heard, whereby the Government can honour part of their manifesto while we acknowledge, respect and honour what are in many cases huge, selfless contributions from noble Lords who happen to be hereditary Peers.

That is not to detract from the equally important service, as the noble Lord, Lord Collins of Highbury, has reminded us, of non-hereditary Members of your Lordships’ House. But it is to state a fact that the contribution of hereditary Peers adds value, rather than undermines your Lordships’ House, as the Bill implies.

One of the principles of this House, which made a really big impression on me from day one of my joining it almost 10 years ago, was the sense of equality among its Members. I come from a modest background. I was not born with a silver spoon in my mouth. I was born with a broken leg and spent much of my childhood in hospital. I say this not for sympathy but to demonstrate that there is no innate reason why I should support this amendment. However, I do so in terms of privilege versus prejudice. I see prejudice at work in the Bill, to the detriment of your Lordships’ House and its crucial ability to carry out its heavy responsibility of holding the Government of the day to account.

By contrast, what unites rather than divides us is that sense of privilege. I doubt any of us can recall a single maiden speech that did not refer to the sense of privilege that all of us feel when we first speak in this Chamber. The overwhelming feeling is common to us all: hereditary and non-hereditary. Speaking for myself, it has been one of the greatest privileges of my life to serve with our amazing hereditary Peers of all parties.

This amendment would go some way to recognising the extraordinary debt that we owe to our hereditary Members and the enduring values that I think we all associate with this unique place: courtesy, decency and, crucially, mutual respect and equality. As a self-regulated House, surely we have a duty to defend those timeless values. I hope that we can come together as one House, united in those values, and give this amendment the support that it deserves, if and when the option arises.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, when I spoke to Amendment 5, I dealt with a number of issues which I thought were common to that amendment and this amendment, and I will not repeat them.

I begin by saying how much I enjoyed the speech of the noble Lord, Lord True. For years, we have listened to him with great passion denouncing the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, and everything in his Bill. Tonight, with equal passion, we have heard him advocating it. It was truly a bravura performance.

I have two questions for the noble Lord and one for the Government. The first question is: could the noble Lord explain how he believes that, if we end by-elections, there will be another point at which groups in your Lordships’ House will be excluded en bloc? It is a rather chilling suggestion that this will happen. Is he suggesting that the Conservatives might do it, and who does he have in mind? I feel slightly worried as a Liberal Democrat; he has not always been my greatest supporter. Is he suggesting that the Labour Party will somehow cut a huge swathe at random through other parties? If not, just what does he have in mind? This is a legitimate process via a Bill, and it is very difficult for me to imagine the circumstances that he was putting forward. I am sorry if my understanding is lacking.

Secondly, I suggested when I spoke earlier that the logical way of dealing with Peers who are hereditary but who have an outstanding record of service is that they should return to your Lordships’ House as life Peers. I mentioned that this had happened in 1999 with people like my noble friend Lord Redesdale on my Benches, who came back as a life Peer. The noble Lord, Lord True, said that he rejected the idea of bringing people back as life Peers. That seems strange to me. If the Minister were to suggest to him, in the negotiations which everybody seems keen to have, that additional places might be brought forward for the Conservatives—

[Lord True (Con)]

The time is late, and the noble Lord is going down a trail that does not exist. I did not say that I rejected that; I said that we should keep all routes to a destination open. What I did say is that, practically and constitutionally, it is easier to keep the people here who are here than to shove a whole lot out and then bring them back. It is a presentational issue and something we can discuss, but please do not impute to me that I have rejected that.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I look forward to reading Hansard, because I wrote down the word “reject”. If the noble Lord did not use it, I apologise profusely, but that is what I heard.

My question for the Government relates to the Cross Benches. What I am suggesting might happen can easily happen in respect of my party and the Conservative Party. If a number of additional life peerages are made available, we can decide, as parties, how we want to allocate them, but this does not apply to the Cross Benches. If the Government said that they were going to give, say, 10 or 15 life peerages to the Cross Benches, they would have to decide who they are, would they not? Or are they going to suggest another process, by which the Cross-Benchers decide who they are?

I have sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord True, to the extent that we do need to tease out some of these next stages. This is one area where, during the passage of the Bill, it would be helpful if the Government could be a bit clearer about the mechanism they might adopt if we retain some of the most outstanding hereditary Peers who are Cross-Benchers.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, this has been an interesting discussion, but for me, it feels like a lesson in failure. It was a failure of the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, who was not able to get his Bill through the House previously. It was a failure on my part that, having persuaded my party to support the Grocott Bill in its stages through this House and ensure that it got on to the statute book as best we could, I was unable to persuade the party opposite that they should accept the Bill. It was a failure of those Members of the House who are hereditaries, who, having said to me and my colleagues that they wanted that Bill to go through, were not able to persuade their own party that it should. For all those reasons, for all those failures, we are here today discussing this amendment now.

I take the noble Lord’s point that he could not go against his party’s policy, which is now against the Grocott Bill—and he is now trying to get me to go against my party’s policy. I understand that, but it is a shame, because otherwise we would not be here today having this discussion. Our colleagues who were hereditary Peers at that point, or at any point in the last nine years, could be here now as, in effect, life peers, had the by-elections ended, and we would not be in this place.

I wrote an article for the House magazine probably around five years ago in which I said that if the Conservative Party, the then Government, continued with the by-elections, continued bringing in a significant number of new Peers to be Ministers, and continued making appointments in a greater proportion for their own party than for my party—which is why, as I mentioned, we had a numerical disparity of over 100 when we took office—the only recommendation to a Prime Minister would be that they had to end the right of hereditary Peers to sit in the House of Lords. All those warnings were there. We tried to avoid that, but the party opposite refused to accept it, and that is why we are here now.

I must say that in some ways it is a shame, because I recognise the value and the contribution that hereditary Peers have made to this House. The noble Lord shakes his head at me, but I say that genuinely. Otherwise, we would not even have bothered trying to support, and getting my party to support, the Grocott Bill and to help it through both Houses. We offered to do that. What a shame that that offer was not taken. I appreciate the way the noble Lord has brought this amendment forward today, but we could have done this a number of years ago.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Lord Newby Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 10th March 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Newby]

11: After Clause 1, insert the following new Clause—
“Duty to take forward proposals for democratic mandate for House of Lords(1) It is the duty of the Secretary of State to take forward proposals to secure a democratic mandate for the House of Lords.(2) In pursuance of the duty under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must carry out the steps set out in subsections (3), (4), (5) and (6).(3) Within 12 months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must lay before each House of Parliament a consultation paper on methods for introducing directly elected members in the House of Lords.(4) After laying the consultation paper under subsection (3), the Secretary of State must seek the views on the matters covered by that paper of—(a) each party and group in the House of Lords,(b) each political party represented in the House of Commons,(c) the Scottish Government,(d) the Welsh Government,(e) the Northern Ireland Executive,(f) local authorities in the United Kingdom,(g) representative organisations for local authorities in the United Kingdom, and(h) such other persons and bodies as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.(5) Within 16 months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must lay before each House of Parliament a report on responses to the consultation. (6) Within 18 months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must lay before each House of Parliament a draft Bill containing legislative proposals on the matter mentioned in subsection (3).”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause imposes a duty on Ministers to take forward proposals to secure a democratic mandate for the House of Lords through introduction of directly elected members.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, Amendment 11, standing in my name and those of other noble Lords, seeks to take forward proposals for a democratic mandate for the House of Lords.

When we debated Lords reform last November, I set out the reasons why I thought the Lords should be elected. I said then that it should be elected on the basis that in a democracy, laws should be passed by people chosen by the people to act on their behalf. It should be elected because the unelected Lords leads to a geographical imbalance in membership in which London and the south-east are greatly overrepresented and the north, Scotland and Wales are underrepresented. It should be elected because it would almost certainly be more representative of the ethnic diversity of the United Kingdom, and it should be elected because it would be more politically representative. It would contain members of the SNP and almost certainly more members of the smaller parties. By doing all these things, it would help restore the trust that the people have of Parliament—currently at a low level.

We realise that this Bill is not the place to introduce detailed proposals for an elected second Chamber. Instead, the amendment requires the Government to start a process that would lead to the House having a democratic mandate. It requires the Government to produce a consultation paper on methods for electing the Lords. It suggests who should be consulted—including the nations and regions of the United Kingdom—and it sets out a timetable for undertaking the consultation and then for the production of a draft Bill containing legislative proposals for reform.

I do not intend to dwell on the imperfections of the current system of appointing people to your Lordships’ House. Suffice it to say that if we had elections, we would not be worrying about many of the issues that will concern us later today and on further consideration of the Bill. We would not be worrying about the Prime Minister overriding the Appointments Commission to appoint cronies. We would not be worrying about whether Peers did their jobs properly or about the balance between different groups or types of people. In short, it would cut through the Gordian knot of problems that bedevil the current system.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for supporting this amendment. I remind the Committee that in 2012 the proposals for an elected House of Lords were approved in the Commons by a majority of 338 at Second Reading, with the support of both the Conservative and Labour Front Benches and with only 46 Labour opponents and 89 Tories.

On the other amendments in this group, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, that consideration would need to be given to the powers and conventions of a reformed House of Lords, but we have to be rather careful that this exercise does not become a pretext for delaying the whole process. I do not see the necessity for the noble Lord’s proposal of a referendum. No referendum was envisaged in 2012, and public opinion has for a very long time been strongly in favour of this House being elected. Again, such a move could be a pretext for delay.

We obviously agree with the sentiments behind the amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, but we wanted to put a timetable in our amendment to ensure that, if it is passed, momentum towards reform will not be unnecessarily delayed.

The noble Lord, Lord Brady, would reduce the size of the Lords to 200 and elect people using the first past the post system. I do not believe that the Lords could do its job of detailed scrutiny and a comprehensive range of Select Committees with such a small number of people. The Clegg reforms envisaged a House of 450 and, to do the work we expect of it, that is probably about right. Noble Lords will not be surprised to know that we also prefer a system of proportional representation for the Lords, as for the Commons, for reasons with which the House will be only too familiar.

In sum, we see Amendment 11 and the consequential Amendment 115 as helping the Government to fulfil their manifesto and bring about the long-term future of the Lords on a largely elected, or elected, basis. I commend it to the Committee.

Amendment 11A (to Amendment 11)

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a party-political point. I was trying to make the very non-party-political point that the House operates best with roughly equal numbers. It has taken 25 years to get here. The principle was established when the hereditary Peers left in 1999—I have to say that any trade union would have snapped up Viscount Cranborne in a moment—and, in effect, 92 of their number remained in perpetuity. Those were the arrangements then. This Bill will end those arrangements, so that the House can move forward.

The noble Lord talked about a term limit, an issue on which some noble Lords have put down amendments later. That would have to be discussed and debated by this House. That is not one of the proposals we are putting forward, but if someone wants to propose that during the consultation we will have on an alternative second Chamber, they are at liberty to do so. I think there would probably be quite lengthy arguments about the duration of a term limit, but that is not included the proposals before us today. Although 25 years is perhaps quite a long time to take to move forward, it is right that we take time to consider these issues.

I am grateful to noble Lords for the points they have made. Certainly, some useful points for the future have been made on how an alternative second Chamber may be constituted. That is not before us today, but in due course, when we are able to come forward with proposals, we will consult quite widely. At this stage, I respectfully ask that noble Lords and Baronesses take their amendments back and reconsider them, and I beg leave to ask that they not press them.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I thank everyone who has spoken, and I slightly apologise for initiating such a long debate. I am grateful to noble Lords who have supported our proposal, and doubly grateful to those who have supported me today who have never supported me before—I thank them very much. I obviously cannot deal with all the points made, and I will try to be brief.

The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, made the classic argument for not having an elected House of Lords, the nub of which relates to the primacy of the Commons. The only thing I would say is that, in 2012, the House of Commons voted by a majority of 338 to have an elected House of Lords, so presumably, it did not think its position was being fatally undermined at that point. The noble Lord was the first person to raise the possibility of Cross-Benchers being included under our proposals, and they absolutely would be. There was a provision for Cross-Benchers in the 2012 proposals, and having them would be perfectly possible under my amendment.

On the question of looking at functions, as I said in my introductory remarks, there is no bar to that happening during the consultation period. However, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, that, at worst, wherever one ends up, one is likely to get a crunching of gears rather than a car crash.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Laing of Elderslie (Con)]

I think I just proved the point there. I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. My point was not that I am not a politician, but that I am a lesser person for being a politician. The great thing about this Chamber is that it has a very large number, if not a majority, of Members who are not politicians, and that is what gives it its value.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I am happy to debate the numbers, but I disagree that the majority of people who take a party Whip can legitimately not call themselves politicians. The Cross-Benchers are not politicians, although they are very political in many cases. Under my proposal, they are not being abolished anyway.

On the noble Lord, Lord True, I was intrigued by his reference to Lloyd George. Lloyd George does not come with a totally unblemished record when it comes to matters relating to the House of Lords.

As I said at the start, this amendment is to set up a process. It is not a blueprint. We on these Benches believe that this process should now be commenced. We believe that it is very long overdue, and we will return to this amendment on Report with that in view.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Geddes) (Con)]

To the best of my knowledge, we are presently debating Amendment 11A, an amendment to Amendment 11.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Newby]

12: After Clause 1, insert the following new Clause—
“Life peerages not to be conferred against recommendation of the House of Lords Appointments Commission(1) The Life Peerages Act 1958 is amended as follows.(2) In section 1 (power to confer life peerages), after subsection (1) insert—“(1A) The power under subsection (1) may not be exercised in relation to a person if the House of Lords Appointments Commission has written to the Prime Minister to recommend that a peerage should not be conferred on that person.””Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause would prevent a life peerage being conferred on a person if the House of Lords Appointments Commission has recommended against the appointment.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I hope and trust that this debate will be at least marginally shorter than the last.

Amendment 12 and its consequential Amendment 116, in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, relate to the powers of the House of Lords Appointments Commission, HOLAC. Our amendment is very modest. It simply says that the Prime Minister should not be able to override a recommendation of HOLAC not to award a peerage to an individual on the basis that they were not a proper person to hold a peerage. One would have thought that this amendment would be unnecessary; surely no Prime Minister would ever wish to overrule HOLAC on a matter of propriety. Sadly, that is exactly what has happened in recent times. This amendment would prevent it happening again. I understand that, not least from the evidence she gave to the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee in another place, the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, as the chair of HOLAC, supports this amendment.

The amendment in the names of the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, and the noble Lord, Lord Colgrain, would prevent the Prime Minister overriding HOLAC by giving the commission sole power to make recommendations for peerages to the King. In reality, the difference between this and our amendment is one not of substance but of form. However, it would be odd, to put it mildly, if HOLAC had such a power without being already constituted on a statutory basis.

It is a valid criticism of our amendment that it does not go far enough. The position of HOLAC should be placed on a statutory basis and it should be able to assess candidates for a peerage in terms of suitability as well as propriety. Other amendments in this group by the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, and the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, make provisions in these areas. We support these amendments in principle but believe that this limited Bill is not an appropriate vehicle for a more fundamental reform of HOLAC.

The amendment by the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, for example, raises detailed issues of the composition of a statutory appointments commission, which clearly need more detailed discussion than is possible in the context of this Bill. Fortunately, the Government committed in their manifesto to move further on these issues. Our amendment is a stand-alone provision that can be done easily now, and I hope that between now and Report the Government will give further consideration to bringing forward the very limited and uncontentious change covered by this amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment 12A (to Amendment 12)

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

My Lords, what is so unfortunate is that I was about to welcome and celebrate the tone of the debate that we had just had. So I am going to move on with the tone of the debate and celebrate the contributions that noble Lords have made, which have been—in overwhelming number— thoughtful and considered. I am grateful for that. I think all noble Lords—as the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, highlighted—want the same thing for this House: colleagues who meet the highest standards of public service, who are dedicated to our country and who want to ensure that our legislation is fit for purpose.

The amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Newby, and the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, allow HOLAC to veto the Prime Minister’s and party leaders’ nominations to the House of Lords. The amendment from the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, also specifies HOLAC’s composition and purpose in statute. The Government are grateful for the discussion on these amendments today. We committed in our manifesto to reform the appointments process, but we cannot, unfortunately, accept these amendments, which fundamentally alter the roles and responsibilities in the appointments system.

Constitutionally, it is on the advice of the Prime Minister that the sovereign appoints new Peers, but it is not just the Prime Minister who makes these nominations. The Prime Minister, by convention, invites nominations from other political parties. After all, as was pointed out earlier in Committee, I was appointed by the former Prime Minister Truss. It is the responsibility of party leaders to consider who is best placed to represent their party in the House of Lords. This is an important principle. The Prime Minister and other party leaders are democratically elected and accountable to Parliament, and ultimately to the electorate, for the political nominations they make to the House of Lords.

The House of Lords Appointments Commission vets all nominations for life peerages to ensure the highest standards of propriety in this House. The amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Rising, would seek to make HOLAC’s advice defunct. If HOLAC recommended a nominee, the Prime Minister would be unable to proceed with their appointment. I hope it is obvious to your Lordships’ House why we cannot accept this, not least given the conversation we had earlier about People’s Peers. HOLAC’s proprietary advice is important to the Prime Minister as he discharges his duty to advise the sovereign on life peerages, and he of course considers it carefully. The Government are very grateful for the work that HOLAC, led by the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, does to provide this advice.

This advice, however, forms part of a process that also ensures democratic accountability in the appointment process. Party leaders must accept responsibility for their appointment. We cannot and should not expect HOLAC to take on that responsibility. Handing HOLAC, an unelected body, the role of recommending new life peerages directly to the sovereign, or giving them the power to veto the Prime Minister’s recommendations, as in the amendment put forward today, would undermine that accountability.

The Government believe that nominating parties should be properly held to account for their nominations to the House of Lords. As my noble friend the Leader of the House set out on the first day of Committee, we have already taken a straightforward but important step to introduce a requirement on all nominating parties to provide public citations that clearly set out why individuals were nominated. I was pleased to see the first set of citations published on GOV.UK following the recent peerage list in December of last year.

The amendment from the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, seeks to introduce a new oath for new Peers and requires HOLAC to be satisfied that new Peers will participate. This is a thoughtful suggestion, but, as a reminder, new Peers already sign our Code of Conduct when they take their seat. As we have said during the passage of the Bill, we are working on developing a participation requirement to ensure that we become a more active Chamber. It matters less what Peers say they will do than what they actually do when they come here. I am, however, grateful to noble Lords for their suggestions on how this could work and ways to take it forward.

More widely, the Prime Minister has made clear that he is committed to restoring trust in Parliament and takes the advice of all ethics bodies seriously. The Government are committed to keeping our ethics bodies under review and, where necessary, delivering reforms to ensure the highest standards in public life. Indeed, the Government have already demonstrated their willingness to strengthen the independent protections provided by the standards landscape. The Prime Minister has, for example, significantly strengthened the remit of the Independent Adviser on Ministerial Standards, ensuring they have the ability to initiate investigations into ministerial standards without requiring the Prime Minister’s consent. However, as I have made clear, the amendments proposed today would undermine the manifesto commitment to look at the current system and the democratic lines of accountability that currently exist in the appointments process.

I now turn to the amendment from the noble Earl, Lord Devon, which would give HOLAC the power to recommend 20 individuals to the sovereign for non-party political life peerages over the next five years. The Cross-Benchers bring expertise and diverse perspectives to the House, which I welcome, and I thoroughly enjoy working with many of them. They make valuable contributions. Retirements and other departures mean that new Peers will always need to be appointed to ensure that the Lords has appropriate expertise, and I acknowledge that the Bill will have a particular impact on the number of Cross-Benchers. As my noble friend the Leader of the House said to the Committee last week, she has committed to discuss this with the relevant parties.

As it stands, new Peers can be appointed to the Cross Benches through nominations by the House of Lords Appointments Commission. HOLAC runs an open-application assessment process to identify and select new Cross-Bench Peers, and the Prime Minister passes HOLAC’s nominations to the sovereign. Many excellent Peers have come to your Lordships’ House this way. The number of Peers that HOLAC is able to nominate is decided by the Prime Minister, and in doing so he of course takes into account the political balance of your Lordships’ House. Prime Ministers can also recommend a limited number of additional Cross-Bench appointments over the course of the Parliament for those with a record of public service. As with all new Peers, they are subject to propriety vetting by HOLAC.

I note that the noble Lord’s amendment allows HOLAC, rather than the Prime Minister, the role of recommending 20 life Peers to the sovereign. As I addressed earlier, constitutionally it is for the Prime Minister, as principal adviser to the sovereign, to recommend new life Peers. I appreciate that the purpose of this amendment is to ensure that the Cross-Benchers remain a significant presence in your Lordships’ House. To give HOLAC, an unelected body, the role of providing advice to the sovereign, even in this limited way, would, however, be a clear break from our constitutional arrangements—one that would require careful thought, as today’s debate has demonstrated, and one that the Government do not support or think necessary.

As we have repeatedly stated, the Government committed in their manifesto to reform the process of appointments to this place, to ensure the quality of new appointments and to improve the representative balance of the second Chamber so that it better reflects the country that it serves. We have heard—and I am sure we will continue to hear—interesting proposals from across the House, and we welcome the discussion on appointments. However, it is right that we take time to properly consider how to take forward our manifesto commitment to reform in this area, as part of the wider standards landscape, in a way that reflects the importance of those lines of democratic accountability. It is also not a debate for this Bill. As has been stated, this is a focused Bill that delivers the Government’s manifesto commitment to bring about an immediate reform by removing the right of the remaining hereditary Peers to sit and vote in your Lordships’ House. It is not the vehicle to consider all reforms to the House of Lords. I therefore respectfully ask noble Lords not to press their amendments.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for a typically interesting debate. As I said at the outset, we were not seeking a fundamental reform of the way that HOLAC operates; we were seeking to do something uncontroversial that I thought nobody could possibly disagree with. I have been in your Lordships’ House for only 27 years, so what do I know?

I say to the noble Lord, Lord Butler, that our amendment does not break the link between the Prime Minister and the monarch. The Prime Minister would still make the recommendations. I am sure there are many other areas in which the Prime Minister gives advice to the monarch where that advice is constrained by various outside bodies, so I am not persuaded by the noble Lord’s argument.

In a way, the problem was set out by the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, who said that the Prime Minister does not act alone. The truth is that he did act alone in this case. That is why we have the amendment. There was no constraint on the Prime Minister in making some proposals. HOLAC could not then do anything about it. I am not saying that it was a whim of the Prime Minister, or done without thought, but it was certainly his decision and his alone.

[Lord Butler of Brockwell (CB)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. As I read his amendment, the Prime Minister could not recommend somebody if HOLAC had said that he should not. Would that not give HOLAC a veto and constrain the Prime Minister’s powers?

[Lord Newby (LD)]

Yes, it would constrain the Prime Minister’s powers; that is what I want to do. In my view, the Prime Minister has, on rare occasions in the past, acted in a manner that has allowed people who HOLAC thought improper to become Members of your Lordships’ House. That is what I want to stop.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, does it not strike the noble Lord as interesting that, in this amendment, he recommends the power of appointed people over elected people whereas in previous amendments he recommended the exact opposite?

[Lord Newby (LD)]

It may be interesting to the noble Lord; I think it is totally irrelevant to this case. We are obviously done with this issue today. I will withdraw my amendment but I will come back to it on Report.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Morris of Bolton) (Con)]

Before I deal with Amendment 12, the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Rising, moved his Amendment 12A; does he wish to withdraw it?

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Lord Newby Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 10th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I should begin by saying that the reason I am speaking to this group rather than my noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire is not simply that he has a conflict of interest, which he would have to declare. My noble friend has his 84th birthday this coming Wednesday. He intends to spend it as he has spent today, which shows that he has a great sense of fun.

This group of amendments, the previous group and the next two groups are all about how to reduce numbers and make sure that people who are in the House of Lords play a full and proper part. To state the blindingly obvious, there is one way to deal with this, which is to make sure that the House of Lords is elected—but I think we may have discussed that previously.

As for a retirement age, I think I am right in saying that every profession has a retirement age. In your Lordships’ House, we see the Bishops retiring at 70.

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

My Lords, that is actually not right. The self-employed, for example members of the Bar, do not have a retirement age, and nor indeed do solicitors.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

It is always very dangerous to make a general comment in your Lordships’ House. But judges have a retirement age of 75.

We know that bishops aged more than 70, and indeed judges aged more than 75, in many cases have undiminished mental powers and are able to play a very considerable part in whatever it is they continue to do. But there is a reason for retirement ages, which is that exceptions do not prove a rule. We know here that many Members of your Lordships’ House stay on well beyond a point at which it would be in their best interests to retire. We, the usual channels, have no levers in order to help them leave at a point when, objectively, it would be in their and the House’s best interest. My Chief Whip and I had a signal success last week in persuading someone in their mid-90s to retire, but it was slightly touch and go—and that, frankly, is not acceptable in my view.

If we are to have a retirement age, the question is: what should it be? The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, said that 80 was clearly too young. He prefers 85; the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, prefers 90. We often talk about the dissonance between the ways in which the House of Lords and the outside world view things. I can think of no case where there is a greater dissonance than in the view of a reasonable retirement age.

I am afraid that I find it very difficult to accept the idea that 80 is far too young. The noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, made a suggestion about how we might persuade Peers to retire without having a set retirement age: by having a retirement age that applies only to new Peers, in the expectation that many existing Peers who are over that age, whatever it is, would retire on the basis that that is what the judges did. In my experience, the problem is that people who most should retire are often the ones who are most reluctant to retire. I am afraid to say to the noble Earl, because it is a very attractive proposition in other ways, that I do not think that it would work, and I certainly do not think it would work to the extent that we would want it to.

This debate has shown that there is absolutely no consensus in your Lordships’ House about what a retirement age should be. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, who said on a previous group that this subject should not be part of the consideration of the Bill. The Government say that they will bring forward a consultation and proposals on it and I believe that it is very important that the impetus for this change, particularly the exact retirement age, should not come from your Lordships’ House. If ever there was a case of turkeys and Christmas, it is Members of the House of Lords determining when they should retire. Therefore, it is incumbent on the Government to come forward with their own proposals—I would be very happy if they were in line with their manifesto commitment—but I do not think an amendment passed by your Lordships on a Bill that is, in essence, about the hereditaries is a sensible way to deal with it.

[Lord Keen of Elie (Con)]

My Lords, first, I apologise if my voice fails—although many noble Lords may appreciate that eventuality.

I begin by addressing the amendments moved by my noble friends Lord Blencathra, Lord Hailsham, Lord Dundee, Lord Parkinson and Lord Dobbs and the noble Earl, Lord Devon. However, I divide them into two categories: the issue of a retirement age and the issue of term limits. I will not address the latter in the context of this debate, but I will address the former, because it is one of the Government’s manifesto commitments. They expressly said that.

Here we are, almost at 10 pm, debating whether it is appropriate for us to have a retirement age of 90 years, 85 years or perhaps even younger. The general public would regard such a debate as quite surreal. The question posed by my noble friend Lord Goschen is very much on point. It is incumbent on the Government now to step up and explain why they put the issue of a retirement age into their recent manifesto. It was not done on the spur of the moment; these things are thought out, debated and considered. Yet we struggle to identify the raison d’être for that manifesto commitment; it simply floats in the air.

Comments have already been made about other professions and pursuits and the issue of retirement, but, clearly, no one has ever contemplated an official retirement age of 90. That is why I wonder about the terms of this debate at all. In banking and finance, one would generally expect retirement at 55. Why? Because those organisations want to refresh themselves. In the judiciary, until recently the retirement age was 70; it is now 75. That is not because of the belief that judges who reach the age of 75 are no longer capable of interpreting and applying the law—many are, some are not and some never were.

Be that as it may, there is a further, more important issue. It is the issue of public confidence. If you walk into a court to have a serious issue determined in a court of law and discover that the judge is 92 years of age, you would rightly have reservations about his ability to determine a complex issue. It is no different for those who do not interpret and apply the law but purport to make it. The issue is not whether Lord Mackay of Clashfern was able to contribute to the proceedings of this House into his 90s, or whether the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, is still able to do so—I do not doubt that for a moment. But there is a very real issue of public confidence. That is also married to an issue about the numbers in this House, and how we deal with that issue.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Lord Newby Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 12th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, this group and the next deal with the vexed question of how we ensure that Peers do the job for which they have been summoned by the monarch, when we know—the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, has given us the statistics—that not everybody does. Equally, we are all of the view that everybody should.

This is an area where there is a dissonance, just as there is on retirement age, between what people outside think and what people inside think. All the discussion so far has been on how it affects us rather than how we are seen. If you say to most people, “I am an active Member of the House of Lords”, they might ask, “How often do you go?” If you reply, “Well, it’s very onerous you know; I’ve got to go 10% of the time”, then they would ask, “Well, what does that mean?” You would say, “It means that when the House is sitting I have to go—well, not once a fortnight, but roughly that”. They would then ask, “What time do you start?” “I probably go in at about 3.30 pm, 4 pm”, you would say. They would ask, “What time would you finish?” You would reply, “If it was a busy day, I might stay until the dinner hour”. This is not an onerous requirement. Suppose that it is 20%. That is once a fortnight, roughly speaking, possibly for a couple of hours. That, to most people outside, would not be seen as a hugely onerous requirement.

I also think that, following our Writ of Summons and as Members of a deliberative assembly, it is frankly not good enough to turn up just once or twice a year to discuss an issue on which you are an expert. In politics, many of the issues that we have to debate are ones that we would rather not debate, because we are not experts, but they are the most important. Some of them we would rather not debate because they are really difficult, and we are not experts. Take assisted dying: I am sure that many of us, in an ideal world, would at one level rather that other people took a decision on it, because it is so difficult. However, we are summoned by the monarch to give counsel on a range of things. If there is any suggestion, particularly in legislation, that a minimum level is acceptable, then that really would not be acceptable, even though that has been the pattern in the past.

I also have a question about whether legislation is the right place to put such an amendment, in terms of the amendments in both this group and the next. Apart from anything else, it goes in here and then it goes to the other place. Let us suppose that our colleagues in the Commons say, “Hang on a second, those people at the other end seem to think that 10% is enough—that’s ridiculous. Let’s change it and put in 50%. That sounds a bit more reasonable”. Are we then going to have ping-pong on what is the reasonable level of attendance here?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I am afraid I cannot agree with this amendment, because it requires all these changes to be implemented via a legislative route. As I said in my earlier speech, I do not believe that minimum attendance or participation requirements should be dealt with through legislation—they should be dealt with directly by a resolution of your Lordships’ House. As we have just heard, the Conduct Committee is perfectly capable of dealing with criminal convictions and recommending the expulsion of a Member of your Lordships’ House when it believes that he has behaved in a criminal manner.

[Baroness Finn (Con)]

My Lords, this is an interesting amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Blencathra. To continue the Lloyd Webber theme, he has certainly been a diamond in our dull grey lives today.

As my noble friend described, this amendment seeks to provide a mechanism by which resolutions passed by this House on matters such as retirement age, attendance, participation or criminal convictions could be translated into statute through regulations. I know that my noble friend, as a former and long-serving chair of our Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, makes this suggestion with a great deal of knowledge and consideration for the workings of our House.

This amendment also reflects an important principle that we have discussed throughout our debates: that constitutional reform should be done with consensus and that your Lordships should have a say in any reforms that affect your Lordships’ House. However, we must also acknowledge that the House of Lords is an unelected body, and allowing it to self-regulate its membership with legal force would raise democratic concerns and risk undermining trust in our institutions. Traditionally, and rightly so, significant changes to the composition of the Lords have been matters decided by Parliament as a whole, not merely by your Lordships’ House.

While I understand the spirit of the amendment, I have some practical concerns—for example, about the proposal to require that resolutions be translated into statute without any alteration. Some House resolutions, though well meaning, can contain ambiguities or practical challenges that would need refining before they could be translated into statute. By requiring strict adherence to the wording of resolutions, there is a risk of making ineffective or impractical law and creating unintended complications.

To conclude, there is much to commend in the principle of this amendment, namely that your Lordships’ House should have a meaningful role in shaping its own composition and standards for the future. However, allowing the House to self-regulate its membership in this way would raise democratic concerns that have not been satisfactorily addressed today. That said, my noble friend’s proposal rightly challenges us to consider how we can translate our internal deliberations into actionable reforms, should there be consensus to do so.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Lord Newby Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 12th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Goschen (Con)]

My Lords, my noble friend does the Committee a significant service by putting forward this amendment. It encapsulates the arguments around a fully appointed House and this extraordinary situation that we find ourselves heading towards—a fully appointed House, with all appointments made by the Prime Minister, and a ratchet, in effect, in numbers, going upwards and upwards, when there is a change of Government. I think my noble friend’s amendment, which sounds so simple and straightforward, throws up any number of difficulties, and we could spend the next two or three days of Committee, if such things existed, talking about how this mechanism might work.

My noble friend Lord Lucas is absolutely right to raise the question of the balance between the parties and the Prime Minister’s ability to introduce, unchecked, large numbers of Peers into the House. I was very taken —on Monday, I think it was—when we were talking about the question of elections, when a hushed silence went through the Committee and there were some shocked faces. I felt like I was in a Bateman cartoon: the man who dared to mention elections in the House of Lords—shock, horror. But here we are, discussing one version of an archaic situation versus another.

It is quite clear that there is no rational defence of the Prime Minister being able to appoint, without any check on numbers, to this House. The question of coalitions—parties that might come together and then split apart, parties that might themselves divide—would cause all sorts of difficulties. I suspect that this amendment that my noble friend has put forward is a legislative hand grenade, designed to illustrate the difficulties rather than necessarily put forward a carefully worked through solution.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

The noble Viscount will not be surprised at me saying again that the only way to deal with the problem that this amendment seeks to address is to have an election.

[Viscount Goschen (Con)]

I quite agree with the noble Lord.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Lord Newby Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 25th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Trenchard (Con)]

My Lords—

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords—

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

It is appropriate that we hear from the Lib Dem Benches, as we have not heard from them yet.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I very strongly agree with much of what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, said, particularly his last comment. As long as we have independent Cross-Bench Peers in your Lordships’ House, there is a very strong argument for having former senior judges and civil servants as part of their number. However, I have three reasons for disagreeing with these amendments. I realise that, as a mere Lib Dem, I will not at this point have the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, shaking in his shoes, but I hope that the Committee will forgive me if I have a go.

The first point is that I am opposed in principle to the idea that people should get a peerage just because of their formal title and position. The reason was explained in part by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope: although some people in that position will then come and play an active part in your Lordships’ House, others will treat it as an honour. We will not see them and they will not play a part. One thing that has gone through the debates on this Bill is a view that everybody who is a Member of your Lordships’ House in future should play a full part in its activity. I simply do not believe that these proposals to automatically grant people places would achieve that aim.

The second argument is the slippery slope argument. In a way, my noble and learned friend Lord Wallace of Tankerness’s amendment demonstrated this: there was a clear gap in what was already proposed, so he came up with another category that might justifiably form a part. In respect of the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, once you start specifying a greater range of people it becomes a more difficult problem. I see the noble Lord, Lord Macpherson, in his place; I certainly think that former Permanent Secretaries to the Treasury, as a general rule, have a greater claim to membership of your Lordships’ House than directors-general of the BBC.

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Lord Newby (LD)]

I say that much as I respect the noble Lord, Lord Birt. That just demonstrates the problem of specifying individual placeholders who should get a place in this Chamber.

Thirdly, the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, made a valiant attempt to explain why he did not think the separation of powers mattered. The only thing I will say is that the separation of powers was legislated for by Gladstone in the Judicature Act 1873, a provision that was not implemented when Disraeli became Prime Minister the following year. As in many other things, I prefer Gladstone to Disraeli. This may or may not have been Liberal policy for 152 years—it actually beats our commitment to having a directly elected House of Lords as the longest commitment continuously held by a political party before it was implemented— and I see no reason why we should change from that position now.

[Lord Keen of Elie (Con)]

My Lords, the first life peerages were conferred under the Appellate Jurisdiction Act 1876, which remained in force until the impact of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005. It is perhaps notable that the first three appointments as Lords of Appeal in Ordinary were Scottish lawyers. It is also notable that the next three appointments as Lords of Appeal in Ordinary were Irish lawyers. However, 15 years later, a suitable English lawyer was identified and appointed.

Against that background, I turn first to Amendments 56 and 57, in the name of my noble friend Lord Wolfson, to which I have added my name. I must note two points. First, I express a degree of surprise about the advice he received from the Cabinet Office upon his appointment to the Government. There is a long and perhaps dishonourable tradition of Attorneys-General, Solicitors-General and Lord Advocates assuming high judicial office after their service in government. Indeed, in the case of the Lord Advocate, it was invariably the practice into the 1960s that he would appoint himself to the most senior judicial office available, there being no conflict of interest. However, there are very good reasons why it is of benefit to this House, as a political House, to have the benefit of those who have served in high judicial office, whether they do so following their retirement or at an earlier stage.

It was a point made by my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier and touched on by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, that, while Lords of Appeal in Ordinary sat in this House, they would do so with a self-denying ordinance. They would not engage in matters that were potentially controversial from the perspective of their judicial office; for example, you would not have seen them engage in debates with regard to the Human Rights Act and other similar matters. However, as my noble and learned friend pointed out, it gave those in high judicial office some impression of the political mood so far as legislation was concerned, and that would have an impact on them when they came, in due course, to address what were potentially politically controversial issues that were raised to a point of law. I suggest that there was always a significant benefit in having such qualified persons in this House, albeit that it may be appropriate that they should be here after the judicial retirement age of 75 and up to the Government’s intended retirement age of 80—I see some of the government Back-Benchers wincing at that, but I understand that that is the intention.

I support the points made by my noble friend Lord Wolfson. I do not go so far as the amendment proposed by my noble friends Lord Banner and Lord Murray, and I do not take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, that we are dealing here with protected places. We are dealing here with those who are not executive appointments to this House, of which a greater proportion are going to emerge as a result of this legislation.

In these circumstances, it appears to me that there are two elements. There is the element of an honour conferred on those who are granted high judicial office, and that is already reflected in the fact that the present President of the United Kingdom Supreme Court had a peerage conferred on him upon his appointment and the fact that the Lord Chief Justice, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Burnett of Maldon, had such an honour bestowed upon him as well. Frankly, I would be confident that those who have held high judicial office and have been public servants for so long a part of their career will, as a matter of course, become engaged in the proceedings of this House if that opportunity is presented to them.

I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Newby, that there should be no link between the peerage and a distinguished office which has been held. I do not believe we have to go down a slippery slope. However, I acknowledge that the separation of powers has to be noted and acknowledged, albeit Montesquieu was talking about the United States’ system and not our own—and even there, there are changes afoot.

I invite the Government to consider very seriously Amendments 56 and 57, and to comment on the other attendant amendments which would bring those who have held high public office and been distinguished public servants into this House, almost invariably on to the Cross Benches.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, whether or not one agrees with the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, that many of the issues we have been debating should not have been debated—I think with every passing hour, his arguments will gain more support among your Lordships—the one thing they have done that should help the Government is tease out the views of the House on the whole raft of issues the Government say in their manifesto they plan to legislate for later in the Parliament.

The Government are in a much better-informed position of what your Lordships’ House thinks on issues such as retirement age and what is acceptable behaviour than they were at the start. So we should all be—at one level, in theory—extremely relaxed, because the Government have a manifesto commitment to do all these things, on which we broadly agree, during the lifetime of this Parliament.

The problem is that a number of noises have emanated from the Government—not in your Lordships’ House—that perhaps they will not actually do it and that this might be the endpoint. That is why people are getting nervous, because the other things the Government are committed to—on which there is consensus, virtually, in your Lordships’ House—may not actually happen. That is why these amendments have been tabled and I completely support the principles behind them.

I am not sure that having an amendment that says that within a certain time the Government should come forward with unspecified things gets you desperately far. My problem with the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, even though the third component of it mirrors our own amendment on an elected House in some respects, is of a different order. There clearly is no consensus in your Lordships’ House about an elected House, however much we would like it. That has to be dealt with separately from all the other issues where there is agreement and on which we need to make progress during this Parliament.

I hope that, if not tonight—I hope it will be tonight—then certainly on Report, we have a much clearer idea from the Government what their timetable is for getting to the next stage, because if we had that, it would ease a lot of the current debates, behind which lies a fear that the issues on which we are agreed may not be progressed in a timely manner. I look forward to hearing the Leader of the House’s response to this common plea from the House to keep at it and let us know the pace the Government intend to adopt in doing so.

[Lord de Clifford (CB)]

My Lords, I support these amendments, especially Amendment 81 from the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington. I refer to my interest in the register: I am a hereditary Peer.

As stated on many occasions in Committee by the Minister on the Front Bench, this is a simple Bill with one simple action: to remove the right of hereditaries to sit in this House. Other than the first day in Committee, when your Lordships spoke on amendments to Clause 1, the remaining days have been spent mainly on reform of the House of Lords, with many different proposals being suggested, such as the length of a term a Peer should serve, a possible retirement age, a participation requirement for Peers, and a longer-term view of an elected Chamber or a partially elected Chamber, with regional participation.

The Labour manifesto mentioned the immediate removal of the hereditary Peers, which we are debating and which will most likely go through. I support this, although with disappointment, bearing in mind the good work that hereditary Peers have done in this House. The manifesto sets out more options for future reform, such as a retirement age and a participation requirement, with a long-term vision of a second Chamber to replace this esteemed House.

By the end of Committee, we will have spent nearly 20 hours discussing Lords reform. That is why I support these amendments: they require the Government to come back at some point in the future to say when the next Lords reform will take place—therefore, not wasting the time spent in this Session of Parliament discussing Lords reform. The track record of this House in agreeing some form of reform is not good. Hereditary Peers have remained here for 25 years.

Amendment 81 in the name of the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, which I support wholeheartedly, is simple—a bit like the Bill. It requires the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament a draft Bill containing legislative proposals for reform of the House of Lords within two years. It does not set out any detail about what should be in the proposed legislation; all it does is force the Government to take forward the next stage of reform, which, it appears from Committee, most Peers agree needs to happen.

The Leader of the House has encouraged us all to engage with her on the future of the House. I thank her for the time she has spent with Peers. These amendments may add to her workload because they put a deadline on making decisions with regard to reform, but some proposals have already been set out in the manifesto. They set a deadline for things to happen; without deadlines on difficult and indecisive issues, things just continue on and on. That is why a date would help to take reforms forward—it is important.

The reforms may not be perfect despite the length of time we have debated the issue. The legislation will not be a perfect solution and not everybody will agree, but reform is wanted from outside the House and therefore a deadline to force something through is appropriate at this stage. That is why I support these amendments to continue Lords reform after the removal of hereditary Peers.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Lord Newby Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 25th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, on these Benches, we strongly agree with the central thrust of the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Burns, which is that the House is too big and should be reduced in size. It is interesting to consider that if all parties and the Government had accepted the Burns report and we had legislated for the Grocott Bill when they were first proposed, we would not now be faced with a House of this size.

One of the elegant things about the original Burns report was that it was a way of dealing with the size of the House without legislation at a time when no legislation was likely to be forthcoming. This is obviously not the case now that we have this Bill, but we are also looking at having a retirement age and a bar for participation, both of which, even if retirement age is phased in, will have a very significant impact on the size of your Lordships’ House.

Although the noble Lord makes the case that his amendment sort of dovetails with those, one could equally argue that they drive a coach and horses through it. Not that I wish to disagree even in the interim with the principle of it, but the one thing it does not deal with, and is an extraordinarily difficult problem with or without the Burns approach, is what the balance of the composition of the House should be.

We are in a five-party political system at the moment, leaving aside the nationalists in Scotland and Wales, and this House conspicuously fails to reflect that. The position that my party has found itself in is that over a decade we have had three new Peers, all three of them within the last year. I have been, as it were, commanding a slowly shrinking iceberg floating south with no prospect of new Members.

On what basis does the Prime Minister determine how many Liberal Democrats there should be in the House? It is a whim, truth be told. You can have a principle that says that there should be parity between the two largest parties, but beyond that no principle has ever been adumbrated while I have been in your Lordships’ House as to how you deal with all the other parties.

This is a real problem and under the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Burns, there is not even a hint of how you deal with this conundrum of balance. Under it, the Prime Minister could, if he wished, replace every two departing Peers with a new Labour Peer—he could do any variety of mixture—and that seems to me a real problem. Noble Lords will not be surprised to know that we favour having an elected House because we do not believe that there is a logical or defensible way around the conundrum of the prime ministerial whim deciding on the composition of a second Chamber in a mature democracy.

[Baroness Finn (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Burns, with Amendment 82, proposes an immediate restriction on appointments—a two-out, one-in policy— until this House reaches 650 Members, at which point it would transition to a one-out, one-in model. Your Lordships are no strangers to this proposal. It echoes the recommendations of the Lord Speaker’s Committee on the Size of the House, known to us all as the Burns report. Once again, the noble Lord makes a compelling case with his usual eloquence and my noble friend Lord Northbrook pursues a similar objective by different means. He would require the Government to publish a draft Bill implementing the Burns report before the provisions of the current legislation can take effect. Reflecting on both these amendments, I venture this: it is not size that matters, but the perception of it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Trenchard (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Strathclyde on tabling his very sensible Amendment 90A. It should find favour on all Benches because, as my noble friend said, it ticks so many boxes. It would ensure that the hereditary Peers who have sat in your Lordships’ House these 25 years have not sat in vain. We were allowed to continue to sit on the basis that stage 2 would provide some substantive reform and move the House’s composition in the direction of a popular basis, as stated in the Parliament Act 1911.

The amendment would introduce some democratic legitimacy by allocating seats according to party blocs based on the average of the number of votes cast in the last three general elections. That provision would ensure that the composition of the House provides a balance to major shifts in public opinion that result in wide disparity of seats in the House of Commons, which is elected on a first past the post basis. It would give a nod to PR, since the voting strengths are determined on the basis of the number of votes cast, ensure that your Lordships’ House provides stability, and help to avoid dramatic shifts in policy supported by the public only ephemerally.

The amendment should be supported by those of your Lordships who agree with the view of the noble Lord, Lord Burns, that the House should be reduced to 600 people. It should also be supported by those noble Lords who believe that the Bill as drafted is discriminatory, in that it treats some members of the body of Lords temporal differently from others although, for all practical purposes, there is no difference between life and hereditary Peers in terms of rights and privileges in this House. We are appointed to serve on committees or on the Front Bench without any consideration of the route by which we entered your Lordships’ House.

The amendment treats all holders of a Writ of Summons to this Parliament equally. It would result in the House enjoying greater democratic legitimacy but retain the service of those noble Lords who are more independent, and election by party groups would give preference to those who work harder and make a greater contribution. It is an excellent amendment, and I ask the noble Baroness the Leader of the House to consider it seriously.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, for this ingenious proposal. The aim of getting down to 600 Members would be achieved by having a retirement age and sensible participation limits. That would probably get us well below 600. But I really rise just to ask the noble Lord whether, when he replies to this debate, he could confirm that his support for this amendment has not undermined the principled stance he took on my amendment, which calls for a wholly elected House.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Lord Newby Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 1st April 2025 Lords Chamber

So the offer made by the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton of Epsom, is something the Government should look at very seriously, given the customs, traditions and broad amity which have tended to be the basis on which your Lordships’ House has operated in the past and which we would not wish to see lost. At the end of the six months, the Bill would come into operation, even if there was no agreement, but it would give a chance for a consensus to be found. The Front Bench is not placing as much value on the opportunity for consensus as many other noble Lords in the House believe it merits.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I disagree with all these amendments because I believe they are based on a misconception that the change we are discussing is a fundamental change. It is not; it is a tidying-up measure. It does not affect the powers of the Lords or our relationship with the Commons, far less our relationship with the regions and nations of the United Kingdom. The amendments which say we need to institute a new process to evaluate the impact on all these broader things is totally pointless, because it will have virtually zero influence on all those things.

There are two areas of further change which we have spent lots of time debating which have nothing to do directly with the Bill. One has to do with how the current House of Lords improves the way it operates, whether that is by having a retirement age, participation levels or all the other things that we have spent a lot of time discussing that the Government have in their manifesto. We can possibly discuss how to achieve it in the next group.

The second question, which is certainly beyond the purview of this Bill, has to do with whether you have long-term democratic reform. Clearly, from these Benches we think we should. Clearly, the House of Commons in the coalition Government thought by a massive majority that we should. That is not a revolutionary change which has not been discussed and where MPs have not thought about the issues which concern the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, so much. They were discussed and a conclusion was reached—but whether the Bill proceeded had everything to do with politics and nothing to do with the principle behind it.

So these amendments would get us nowhere. As for a constitutional conference, as the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, has said, in the past they have reached no conclusion, because you do not reach a total consensus on this. If anybody thinks that, frankly, they have not been listening at all, and anybody who hears the words “constitutional royal commission” thinks “years of delay”—and whatever we need, we do not need that.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, I must disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Newby. If there is a misconception here, it is about the continuing presence of our hereditary colleagues in your Lordships’ House. They were not kept here by some form of transition, as the Deputy Leader of the House put it in an earlier debate; they were kept here because, in the debates at the end of the last century, nobody could answer the fundamentally important question of what this House is for, how it ought to be constituted and whether there was a better route to come here than the route by which we have all come, in our different ways. We were kept here as surety to ensure that the reform process that the then Labour Government embarked on would continue. They had a further decade in power after 1999 and brought forward no further measures, which is why so many of us on this side are sceptical about the speed with which they will bring forward the further reforms that they proposed in their most recent manifesto. So this is a very important group of amendments because, as Amendment 95 puts it, it is about the impact of this Bill on the effectiveness of the House of Lords.

The Government, like the noble Lord, Lord Newby, have cast this Bill very narrowly and argued that this is a tightly focused Bill. In some ways it is too narrowly cast and too tightly focused. It ducks the questions of what this House is for and the questions that flow from it about how it should best be composed. But, although narrow, the Bill will have serious and sweeping impacts on this House of Parliament. As my noble friends Lord Hamilton of Epsom and Lord Swire put it, this Bill puts the cart before the horse. It avoids those questions and seeks to enact a very important change based on a misunderstanding of the position from the late 1990s.

Throughout this Committee, we have heard concerns raised from all corners of your Lordships’ House that this Bill will leave us a less effective legislative Chamber. Ministers have disagreed with the concerns that have been raised. Well, here is their chance to prove it. If those of us who have expressed our concerns are wrong, these reviews will be the opportunity to prove us wrong.

I believe that the fears we have heard in this Committee are well-founded. Our hereditary colleagues attend your Lordships’ House more frequently than life Peers. They play a more active role, not just in the Division Lobbies and in the Chamber but in our committees, on the Woolsack and in convening the Cross Benches. As my noble friend Lord Shinkwin put it in our debate on the first group, armed with the data that the Library has provided him, our hereditary colleagues play a valuable and active role in the functioning of your Lordships’ House. The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, said in that debate, “Why are we thinking of removing those who work the hardest while leaving those who do not?”

I am sure the Deputy Leader will say that all these questions about participation and activity can be addressed later. Again, these amendments are an opportunity for him to do that. At no point in this Committee have we had any commitment from the Government about when they plan to turn to the next parts of the reforms that they proposed in their manifesto. Ministers have not even committed to do so by the end of this Parliament. So I share the concerns that my noble friend Lord Hailsham has raised: that we will be waiting another decade or longer to see the further reforms that noble Lords have called for throughout the course of these debates.

My noble friends’ amendments in these groups would give us the opportunity to review progress after 12 months, on the timetable proposed by my noble friend Lord Dundee, or two years, in the timeframe proposed by my noble friend Lord Lucas. It would also be an opportunity for us to review what we have lost. We have heard in the course of these debates how our hereditary colleagues bring valuable experience from their work in business and agriculture, two areas where on the Government’s record it is clear that they have something of a blind spot, and it is important to have those voices raised in this scrutinising House of Parliament.

I am sure the Deputy Leader will seek to persuade us that, once again, our fears are misplaced and that these amendments are unnecessary, but I urge him to look seriously at these amendments, which call for modest but important reviews. The Government listened to the concerns that were raised in your Lordships’ House in our debate on the Football Governance Bill and gave us a statutory review of that new regulator after five years. I know football is something that attracts a lot more attention than reform of the House of Lords, but I think the constitution of our second legislative Chamber is about as important as the beautiful game. I hope the Deputy Leader will look at this and consider giving us a review in this Bill as well.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Lord Newby Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 1st April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, this group and the next group of amendments all seek to either defer the implementation of the Bill or to set conditions on its implementation. The reason for that second point has to do with various other changes that noble Lords wish to make in how the House is constituted and behaves, which it believes that it is most likely to achieve by setting those conditions. I disagree with that; I think that the simplest and most sensible thing is to pass this Bill as it is and proceed to look at the other things, as I will now suggest.

Early in these debates, lost in the mists of history, the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, said that he thought that it was unfortunate that the powers that be had allowed amendments on such a wide range of things, and I said that I agreed with him. To a limited extent at least, I have changed my mind, because the earlier debates around retirement, participation and attendance demonstrated that there was a very considerable degree of agreement in your Lordships’ House. Hopefully, that gives us a basis for going forward that did not exist before—and that was a good thing.

The question is how we go forward. An assumption has been that the only way to make those significant further changes is by further legislation. As I said earlier in these debates, I am very wary of that, because the House would cease to be a self-regulating House and would become a Commons-regulated House. The House of Commons would determine what it said about when we should retire, how often we should come and how we should behave when we are here.

Knowing some of my new colleagues, I can quite well imagine that a lot of them think that 80 is far too old for anybody to be in your Lordships’ House. They will think, “Well, I’ll make a bit of a name for myself by putting down 65”. I can see a lot of people thinking, “That’s a jolly good idea—we’ll show ’em”. The arguments that we have heard ad infinitum here about how wonderful we are cut zero ice at the other end of this Palace. I can well imagine that we would find ourselves with a different retirement age to the one that is currently likely to form the nearest thing to consensus in your Lordships’ House.

I equally think that colleagues at the other end, who know very little or nothing about the way we work, would be appalled that we think the kind of attendance level we have been discussing—10%, 15% or 20%—is even vaguely reasonable. They think that we are here to do a job and you cannot do a job on one day a fortnight. I am therefore strongly of the view—and I hope the Leader will take a lead on this—that we should look at ways, which I believe exist, under which we can introduce retirement, participation and attendance norms that would satisfy your Lordships’ House and continue the principle that we are a self-regulating House. I hope she might take a lead by convening a group herself or establishing another group to do the task, within a set timescale, of reaching consensus—or rather, something that nearly everybody can live with—on those areas, so that we can deal with them ourselves.

Apart from anything else, beyond thinking that no further legislation is possible in this Parliament, anybody who has been in government will find it difficult to believe that any Government would introduce a House of Lords reform Bill in two successive Sessions. That is very unlikely for any Government. When I was the Government Deputy Chief Whip, I was on the future legislation committee with Members of the Commons—I think the noble Lord, Lord Young, chaired it at one point. I pity the poor Minister who came to argue before that committee that they wanted a second House of Lords reform Bill within 18 months. I just do not think it is doable.

There is a way forward for all those second-stage reforms. Then there is the third stage: the possibility of the House of Lords being elected. There is a very easy way of dealing with that within the context of this Bill. It is simply for everybody to vote for a resubmitted Amendment 11, in my name, which I shall put down before Report, calling on the Government to start drafting a Bill which looks at electing your Lordships’ House.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

Does the noble Lord accept that, if you are going to elect your Lordships’ House, you have to decide what it will do beforehand?

[Lord Newby (LD)]

No.

[The Lord Bishop of London]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 109, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Northbrook. Those of us on these Benches are clear that we support the inclusion of wider faith representatives in your Lordships’ House. Since before the Wakeham commission, we have favoured wider representation. Many of us work alongside different faith leaders and we know well the expertise that they can bring. In past submissions to this House, the Church of England has offered to work with the appointments commission on how representatives from other denominations and faiths might be identified to serve here. However, this is not straightforward. For example, Roman Catholic clergy are prohibited by the Vatican from serving on legislatures, and it is not easy to find representative leaders among diverse bodies such as Churches or other faith groups. This would require serious discernment, more than is offered by Amendment 109.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Lord Newby Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 2nd July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Monckton of Dallington Forest (Con)]

My Lords, I support the amendment from my noble friend Lord Parkinson. “Peer” comes from the Latin word par, which means “equal”, and in this House, wherever we sit, we are all equal. We have a shared experience; we are here with a common purpose to scrutinise legislation and serve our country. There may be Peers with whom we disagree or Peers whom we admire, but in the brief time that I have been in this House, I have understood one thing: we are all in this together. Both hereditary and lifetime appointments form a constituent part of the legislative process within the framework of the constitution of the United Kingdom. To abolish the hereditary element is an attack on our constitution, but this has already happened, so I accept reluctantly that there should be no further elections for hereditary Peers.

What I find hard to accept is the spiteful ejection of the existing hard-working hereditary Peers, who across this House bring so much energy and expertise. The unique composition of the House of Lords does not seem rational, but it really works, as Ian Dunt wrote in his book How Westminster Works … and Why It Doesn’t. He is a man of the left, and this was not what he thought he would discover when he began working on this book. But that was his conclusion: this is the one element in our system that works.

The hereditary colleagues in the last Parliament had overall a better attendance record than life Peers, and over half of them serve as members of Select Committees. I declare an interest as my father was a hereditary who was booted out in 1999. He was a retired general who brought all his military experience to the Defence Committee. One of the things I have noticed is that our hereditary colleagues have a greater humility—and perhaps, if I may put it this way, noblesse oblige—than those of us who think we have been placed here because of our wonderful achievements. I really believe that the removal of our colleagues will leave our House worse off, rather than better, and surely the principle of any reform should be improvement, not diminishment.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, will not be surprised that I do not agree with this amendment, for the reasons so pithily put by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. There are a number of points with which I could take issue, but I will pick up a couple from the speech by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson. He implied that those of us who supported the “Grocott Bills”, in their various guises, were almost being hypocritical by not voting for this today. The truth was—with all due respect to the noble Lord, Lord Grocott—that the Grocott Bills were second best. They were the best that was on offer, and we saw them as a way of making some progress while believing that what is in this Bill was preferable.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

How can the noble Lord possibly argue that it was second best when the Leader of the House has told us that, had we accepted Grocott in the last Parliament, this would not have been necessary?

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I am explaining to the House what I thought at the time, not what anybody else might think.

The noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, said that the system of by-elections should not be thought to have been eccentric. The noble Lord, Lord Grocott, was very eloquent in pointing out just how eccentric they were, particularly in respect of by-elections for the Liberal Democrats. On one notable occasion, there were seven candidates and three electors, and nobody in the Liberal Democrats knew who half the candidates were. They were truly eccentric. They brought the House into disrepute, certainly in respect of those by-elections, and they were simply not sustainable in any way.

I strongly agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, in pointing out that one consequence of this amendment would be to maintain over a considerable number of years—unless there was a great increase in the size of the House—a significant Conservative plurality over the Labour Benches. That seems me to be a bad thing, because the inevitable consequence would be that the Government would increase their numbers, and we would have a bloated House. Apparently, everybody agrees that the House is too big, yet this amendment, if agreed, would have that consequence for decades to come.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Newby]

4: After Clause 1, insert the following new Clause—
“Duty to take forward proposals for democratic mandate for House of Lords(1) It is the duty of the Secretary of State to take forward proposals to secure a democratic mandate for the House of Lords.(2) In pursuance of the duty under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must carry out the steps set out in subsections (3), (4), (5) and (6).(3) Within 12 months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must lay before each House of Parliament a consultation paper on methods for introducing directly elected members in the House of Lords.(4) After laying the consultation paper under subsection (3), the Secretary of State must seek the views on the matters covered by that paper of—(a) each party and group in the House of Lords,(b) each political party represented in the House of Commons,(c) the Scottish Government,(d) the Welsh Government,(e) the Northern Ireland Executive,(f) local authorities in the United Kingdom,(g) representative organisations for local authorities in the United Kingdom,(h) the general public, which may include citizens’ assemblies, and(j) such other persons and bodies as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.(5) Within 16 months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must lay before each House of Parliament a report on responses to the consultation.(6) Within 18 months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must lay before each House of Parliament a draft Bill containing legislative proposals on the matter mentioned in subsection (3).”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause imposes a duty on Ministers to take forward proposals to secure a democratic mandate for the House of Lords through introduction of directly elected members.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, excuse me while I find my notes; I am not used to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, being so reticent. Before I begin, following the injunction of the noble Lord, Lord True, I feel I must declare the interest that I am a life Peer.

I rise to move Amendment 4 in my name and those of my noble friend Lord Wallace, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Llanfaes, and the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. The question of whether to elect the second Chamber is one of the longest-standing unresolved issues in British politics. Amendment 32 from the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, helpfully reminds us of the wording of the preamble to the Parliament Act 1911, which says that the Lords should be elected but at a more convenient time than the present. For 124 years, no convenient time has presented itself, and we on these Benches think that at long last we should put that right.

Our amendment sets out a timetable for doing so. It would require the Government, within a year of the passage of the Bill, to publish a consultation paper on methods for introducing directly elected Members to the House of Lords. This would contain a number of options and could, for example, include the option of retaining an element of non-party Members of your Lordships’ House.

Having produced this paper, the Government should then have an intensive period of consultation involving the groups set out in proposed new subsection (4). Importantly, and having taken account of comments made in Committee, the consultees would include members of the general public, possibly involving citizens’ assemblies. I strongly favour the use of the citizen assembly mechanism on an issue such as this; ordinary citizens should have a direct say on how they are governed, and the citizens’ assembly route has proved itself very effective in a number of countries for deliberating on contentious public policy issues. At the conclusion of the consultation period, the Government would then be required in short order to produce a report on the conclusions of the consultation and to come forward with a Bill for introducing direct representation into your Lordships’ House.

This issue was debated at great length in Committee. As the arguments have not changed since then—indeed, some of them have not changed for over a century— I will not belabour them all. In short, we believe that the Lords should be elected on the basis that, in a democracy, laws should be passed by people chosen by the people to act on their behalf. It should be elected because the unelected House has a strong geographical imbalance in which London and the south-east are greatly overrepresented and the north, Scotland and Wales are underrepresented, and because it would almost certainly be more representative of the ethnic and party-political diversity of the country.

I will not elaborate on all these arguments, but I would like to say something about geographic representation. It is unfortunate that we do not even know the geographic breakdown of the complete membership of your Lordships’ House, but on partial evidence collected by the Library we find that, between them, London and the south-east provide 45% of our membership, compared with 32% of the population. By contrast, the north-west, with 13% of the population of the UK, provides only 4% of Peers. All other northern regions, the Midlands, Scotland and Wales lag behind. This severe imbalance is reflected in our debates. At a time when the cohesion of the country is under threat, this is clearly unsatisfactory.

In Committee, noble Lords across the House argued that the Prime Minister had too much power over appointments, and I strongly agree. I think that if people realised quite how much power the Prime Minister already has, they would be appalled. The Prime Minister decides not only how many of his own party should be in the Lords but its balance. There are no rules. Opposition parties have to play the role of Oliver, pleading with the Prime Minister for more. Sometimes they get it; more often, they do not. Either way, this sort of horse-trading over the composition of your Lordships’ House is demeaning to our democracy and should be brought to an end.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

I note what the noble Lord says about the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Brady, and the risk of first past the post in two Chambers. Although I agree with the principle of what he is arguing, why does his amendment say nothing about how the powers of the two Houses are to be resolved in the event of both being elected? Does he accept that one of the great failures of the Clegg Bill was the fact that Mr Clegg refused to have any debate at all about what the respective powers should be?

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, this is the main argument that has been used consistently by people who do not want this place elected. It is based on a false premise, which is that, if both Houses are completely or largely elected, it will lead to persistent and irresolvable conflict. If the noble Lord looks at the work that the convener has instituted, which compares second chambers around the world, he will find that there are many that are wholly or partially elected, in countries that have mature democracies, in which there is not persistent stasis because they cannot agree. There may be arguments about the relative powers of the House, but I simply do not believe that having the sorts of elections that I am talking about will lead to the complexities that many noble Lords raised and that, in many cases, are raised as a basis for opposing a principle to which they object.

[Lord Rooker (Lab)]

Does the noble Lord accept that most of those countries, which I have looked at as well, have a written constitution? We do not. That is the thing that would make it incredibly difficult to resolve disputes between the two Houses. There has to be another formula for that.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

I am not sure the noble Lord is right about that. We do not have a written constitution now, but we have conventions that enable us to deal with difference—

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt again, but this is a really important point. We have conventions. We voluntarily decide not to exercise all the powers that are given to us. Why on earth would an elected second Chamber keep to those conventions?

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, we on these Benches have argued consistently for a written constitution, which has been opposed by the rest of the political establishment. We would definitely support a written constitution, but, in the absence of a written constitution, Parliament operates in a manner based on conventions. If the rest of Parliament—the other parties—will not have a written constitution, there is no reason why a new basis of election here should lead to the tearing up of all the conventions.

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

The noble Lord would surely agree that, if we were going to have an elected second Chamber, which I strongly support, it would require legislation. In the course of the debate regarding that legislation, we would have to put in anti-deadlock procedures.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

Of course, that would be debated as part of that process; I accept that.

If I could proceed, I was saying that I believe that, under our proposals, people should be elected on a regional basis, so that they could look to the common interests of a wider area than a single constituency. They should be elected by proportional representation, so that we can avoid the dramatic swings in membership that we have seen in the Commons.

After the 2015 general election, I was mocked—very effectively, if I may say so—by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, because we did very badly in that election yet retained significant numbers here. After the last election, the Tory party finds itself in the position we found ourselves in. If we had the system that the noble Lord, Lord Brady, is proposing, a future Conservative Party in the House of Lords could be decimated in the way it has been in the Commons. What I am proposing here is a more balanced system that means that these wild swings, which you see through first past the post, do not persist. That would bring an element of stability to Parliament that would be extremely sensible.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

I wonder whether the noble Lord would stand for election under this system. I am thinking about how it would operate: I knock on someone’s door and they say, “I’m worried about the health service”, “I’m worried about housing”, or whatever, and I say, “Actually, that’s for the House of Commons, but I’m very good at revising legislation”. There might be a reaction on the doorstep that is even more hostile than we are used to—certainly those of us who were in the House of Commons. How does the noble Lord expect the voters to take us seriously if we are not able to say that we will absolutely fight for whatever it is? This division of powers will mean that we are second-order operators. I suspect that the noble Lord’s answer is that he would not stand for election, and that is probably true of most of the Members of this House. So what we will get is a whole load of party-list B-team people.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Newby (LD)]

If we had succeeded with the Clegg Bill and I had been summarily evicted from your Lordships’ House, nothing would have given me greater pleasure than to knock on doors across Europe—

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Lord Newby (LD)]

Doors across Yorkshire—and Europe; I am quite ambitious, really. Nothing would have given me more pleasure than to knock on doors across Europe—

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Lord Newby (LD)]

Across Yorkshire, and to say to people, “I am standing for election here to fight for the things that I believe in on the economy, the health service and so on; and I am doing so because I think there should be a group of people who represent the whole of my region, not just a small proportion of it”. I believe—indeed, I know—that there is a raft of issues being dealt with at the moment at a regional rather than constituency level, for which there is no accountability. I would have been extremely confident in standing and making that argument anywhere in Yorkshire. I am only sorry that the delay in getting a democratic basis for the House of Lords means that I will be far too old to exercise that opportunity if and when it comes.

I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Brady, that I have not been able to do it in a coherent manner because of the interruptions, but I was attempting to say that his suggestion of holding elections metronomically, two years after the Commons, would not work. We could have in future, as we have seen in the past decade, periods of instability or situations such as we found ourselves in in 1964 and 1974 when the Government had a slim majority and called a second election soon after the first. In these circumstances, having a second Chamber that is elected independently from events in the Commons would give a degree of stability, rather than adding to the level of instability. The noble Lord, Lord Brady, is right to want this Chamber to be elected but wrong in his recipe for how to do it. Our amendment sets out a clear process to consult and then decide upon a method of electing the House of Lords, and I commend it to the House.

[Lord Brady of Altrincham (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Newby, is right to want to see an elected upper House but completely wrong in the way that he wants to see it enacted. However, the reason I want to speak briefly to my Amendment 22 and, I think, also to support his Amendment 4 is that the principle is correct that we should have an elected House. The kind of process that he suggests in Amendment 4 would be valuable and important, but it is also important to make it clear that there is a very wide divergence of views, both about the appropriate powers of the two Houses and indeed the way in which they should be elected and put together. I favour geographical constituencies—not as big as the whole of Europe, which he appeared to want to represent—but that is obviously very different from party list systems and the PR system of election that the Liberal Democrats want to see.

I am delighted to speak here with my noble friend Lord Hailsham sitting in front of me because one of the great authorities on this issue who is always cited is of course his ancestor—his father—who famously talked about an “elective dictatorship”. My concern, having spent 27 years as a Member of the House of Commons, is precisely grounded in that worry that a Government with a significant majority in the House of Commons—unless it has completely lost control—can get its legislation through with almost no impediment. It is also free to ignore amendments sent from this House, precisely because we do not have the legitimacy that an elected House would have.

I discussed this a little while ago with the great constitutionalist, Professor Sir Vernon Bogdanor. He said to me, “I completely disagree with you. It would be quite wrong to have an elected upper House”. But his next comment made, for me, the argument as eloquently as anybody could for an elected upper House. He said, “I’ve written many times that what we have achieved in Britain is the perfect unicameral Parliament, just with two Chambers”. I am afraid that, all too often, that is how our Parliament operates. For this House to have effect, we depend entirely on a Government with a large majority in the House of Commons deciding whether they will accept or take an interest in amendments and improvements that come from the often excellent revising work done by the House of Lords.

I do not want to detain the House for long, but I do think that, in principle, it is right to move to an elected House. I completely disagree with the prescription from the noble Lord, Lord Newby, for how to go about it—and I am greatly reassured to find that he disagrees so profoundly with me. This is a debate that has been going on for over a century, as he said. It will continue, but it is important that we engage with it in the spirit of accepting that it is not a given that the House of Commons operates so well as a democratic assembly that it automatically deserves unquestioned precedence. My time in the House of Commons tells me that it works very poorly in most ways. Its principal function is to select a Government and, most of the time, it then then lets the Government get on with pretty much what they want to do. More challenge in our Parliament, which comes with democracy, is the way forward.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)]

My Lords, this has been a genuinely interesting debate, and I thank the noble Lords, Lord Newby and Lord Brady, for tabling their amendments. First, I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Newby, that I am one of the minority: a West Midlands-based Peer.

My noble friend Lord Winston as always makes a pertinent and interesting point with regard to experts. He is someone I regularly reference when I talk about our House of experts. I usually say that I doubt he, like many of us, would ever have put his name forward for an election—but we are lucky to have him.

Amendments 4 and 30, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Newby, are similar to his Amendments 11 and 115 in Committee. They seek to place a duty on Ministers to take forward proposals to introduce a democratically elected element to the House of Lords. In bringing forward proposals, the Government would be required to consult with a number of groups—I am glad the noble Lord remembered to add the public to his list this time around.

Amendment 22, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Brady of Altrincham, is similar to his Amendment 90D in Committee. The amendment seeks to place a duty on the Government to produce a Bill which makes provisions to limit the size of the House and provide that all its Members be elected.

We had a spirited debate on similar amendments on the second day in Committee, when your Lordships made a number of insightful and intriguing points about the fundamental nature of this House and its place in our constitution. That debate and this one underscored the importance of considering the potential benefits of reform, alongside the implications for the balance of power within Parliament. Like then, I note that the debate today has demonstrated that the House has yet to settle on a particular side of this issue. This remains a fundamental issue with all the amendments.

Put simply, amendments of this kind are not for this focused Bill. This legislation is the first step in reforming the House. As stated at the beginning of Report, once the Bill receives Royal Assent, the Leader of the House will set out in more detail how we plan to approach the next stage of our reforms.

The longer-term aim is that the Government will consult on proposals for more fundamental reform through the establishment of an alternative second Chamber that is more representative of the nations and regions of the United Kingdom. There will be an opportunity for the public to provide their views on how to ensure that this alternative Chamber best serves them. Amendment 22 in particular cuts across this aspect of the Government’s manifesto commitment as it does not make any provision for consultation with the public.

It is clear that there is an appetite for reform and that there are ongoing conversations that we will need to have, but it is also clear that we are not yet ready to have a settled position within your Lordships’ House. With that in mind, I respectfully ask that the noble Lord, Lord Newby, withdraws his amendment.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I am extremely grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. It is normally the case that at this point, one says that it has been an extremely interesting debate. Despite us having debated this many times, it has been a very interesting debate because it has illuminated the central issue that a democratically elected Lords would raise. Are we to be a mere adjunct of the Commons—and, at the end of the day, a totally powerless one—or not, and are we to be part of a more effective parliamentary system in which the Government are challenged effectively?

The truth is that under the current system, the Government are challenged effectively in the Commons only when they have a rebellion in their own ranks. The Opposition cannot challenge them because, at the end of the day, they always win. We cannot challenge them, because at the end of all the ping-pong, we have no legitimacy to stand firm. I do not think anybody who has followed recent decades of British parliamentary activity would claim that the Government have been challenged effectively and that nonsenses have been called out effectively by Parliament, so I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Brady, and the noble Viscounts, Lord Hailsham and Lord Thurso, for making that point.

Obviously, as noble Lords have pointed out, there will be tensions between two elected Houses, but I believe that—as in many other countries which have this—it is possible to resolve them. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, said he opposed having the House of Lords elected under PR because it would give us more legitimacy in some senses than the Commons elected under first past the post. Of course, there is a very easy answer to that, which is to elect the House of Commons by PR as well. That would clearly be a great advantage.

The Government’s approach is an Augustinian one of “We want to reform, but not yet”. We ought to be putting a bit of pressure on them, nudging them towards the goal which they claim to espouse. Therefore, I wish to test the opinion of the House.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Lord Newby Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 2nd July 2025 Lords Chamber

[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.

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

I agree very much with the noble Lord, Lord Newby, who said almost everything I was about to say in the next group, but it is no less welcome for that. I just want to pick up the point about us all voting for each other. I was here in 1999, and it was a very unpleasant experience to have people constantly sidling up to you, who had never spoken to you before, and urging you to vote for them because they were such a good chap, to use a phrase. I really hope that we do not go back to that, but let us get on to the next group and we will talk more.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Lord Newby Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 9th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, we undermine respect for this House if we continue to have people who do not turn up more than once in each Session. The answer to the point from the noble Lord, Lord Gove, about previous Prime Ministers is that the rule is not absolute, because Section 2(3)(b) of the legislation being amended provides that the House may resolve that the period of attendance should not apply to the particular Peer

“by reason of special circumstances”,

so there is already a statutory provision that allows for exceptions.

My other point in answer to the noble Lord is that we have already accepted the principle. Section 2(1) requires that each Peer must attend at least once during a Session, so we have accepted that people who do not comply with the timing position must go. The only question is whether that is a realistic limit. I entirely agree with the convenor that a once-in-a-Session provision is not an appropriate rule. A much more appropriate rule is to require people to be here 10% of the time.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I strongly support the principle behind this amendment. We have debated the concept at some length and, in my view, it is essential that we now move to a position where there is a rule that means that people who play no part after a period cease to be Members of your Lordships’ House. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, talked about persuading non-attendees to retire, and I too have done that. One case is seared in my memory: I went to see a member of the Liberal Democrat group with my Chief Whip to try and explain to him that he had done absolutely nothing for a considerable number of years and it might be appropriate for him to retire. He was extremely sweet; he smiled and said, “I never thought of that. Could you give me a bit of time to think about it?”. Years later, he still had not thought about it. So I am absolutely certain that we need to move.

As for the objections of the noble Lord, Lord Gove, the people we are talking about are not the stone in the shoe; they are never in the shoe. When they are in the shoe, they are normally sand at best, because they do not do anything. The idea that we would lose voices of any consequence by saying that people had to be here rather more than they are at the moment is just wrong, I am afraid, as far as legislation is concerned. In my experience, the number of people who normally are not here and suddenly turn up to play a full part in a Bill is immeasurably small.

My only problem with the amendment, as the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, knows and as I have said before, is that this issue should be considered first by a Select Committee, for a number of reasons that have been given—10% may be the right answer, but it is worth thinking about that. The other thing that has been put to me—it will be contentious, but at least we ought to think about it—is whether the requirement applies retrospectively. Some people have said that, unless it applies retrospectively, we will get flooded with people who have never been here before. There are arguments for and against it, but we need to discuss that; we have not done so at all.

So, for those reasons, while I absolutely support the principle, if the noble Earl were to press this amendment to a Division, I do not think we would be able to support him in the Lobby.

[Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)]

My Lords, when I was appointed to your Lordships’ House, I was summoned to an interview conducted principally by the chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Jay. He said to me at the end, “There’s one thing I want to ask you: if we were to appoint you to the House of Lords, would you come and would you contribute? We look really stupid when we appoint people who then don’t bother to come—who take the title and swan off into the evening”. I said, “I tend not to take on anything unless I’m going to do it properly”.

I very much support my noble friend because, looking around your Lordships’ House, I see people who are here the whole time, who care passionately and who feel that it is an honour and a privilege. Picking up on what the noble Lord, Lord True, said on another amendment about a fair amount for a fair day’s work, I say that the reverse is true. If you do not bother to come and do not work, you do not deserve to be here. I will support my noble friend.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 21, which, as the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, said, would require that from the next Parliament all life peerages be created for a fixed term of 20 years. I looked up the debate that introduced the Life Peerages Act 1958 to see why it was decided that a new Peer should be created for life. I found that Viscount Hailsham, Viscount Stansgate and Earl Attlee participated at Second Reading on 3 December 1957—plus ça change.

It was difficult to see that the issue of why new creations should be for life was ever discussed apart from in the introductory speech by the then Leader, the Earl of Home, who said:

“We … have willingly modified the hereditary principle by the introduction of Life Peers”.—[Official Report, 3/12/1957; col. 615.]


As hereditary Peers were there for life, that principle was applied equally to life Peers so that they would be there on equal terms. Actually, there was much more of a discussion as to whether the daily allowance of three guineas would be enough to attract people of the right calibre. Now that there will, sadly, be no more hereditary Peers who are here for life, the original logic of making the rest of us here for life falls away.

The need for experience, which is a feature of your Lordships’ House, needs to be balanced by the equally important need for that experience to be up to date. Is someone who was at the top of their profession 20 years ago of more value to the House than someone at the top of their profession today? The amendment would allow the House to refresh and renew those qualities that make it different from the other place, which is why I support it.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I declare an interest in that I have been a Member of your Lordships’ House for 28 years. I am extremely grateful to my noble friend for sparing me from the noose he is gently preparing for others. I absolutely agree with him that we need to move to a position where the House is refreshed, which is why we have spent so much time talking about other ways of doing it—the central one being, of course, retirement. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, I think there is now consensus across the House that being here for life is no longer acceptable, because we no longer wish to see people who are in declining years decline in your Lordships’ House.

The question that this amendment raises is, what is the best way of achieving that refreshment? I rather agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, that for some people—I would like to think I am one of them, but other people may well disagree—being here for quite a long time can bring benefits. I completely agree that it also brings disbenefits—one’s expertise, to the extent that one ever had it, is more in the past. On the other hand, there are things about the parliamentary process and the way we do business, particularly in a curious body such as this, that you accrete over a long period. Although I am absolutely in favour of a retirement age and might even favour a younger retirement age than some other Members of your Lordships’ House, if somebody were appointed at the age of 50, I am not sure I would want them necessarily to be required to retire at 70.

My noble friend says that the advantage of passing this amendment is that it would be the burr under the saddle in case the Select Committee makes no progress and does not do all the things we will ask it to do. It is incumbent on us all to try to make sure that the committee is a success. This sort of burr will not help or hinder that process. It requires us to agree—broadly speaking, I think we have—that we want to make changes around retirement and participation and that the best way of getting there is via a Select Committee. So, although I have complete sympathy with what my noble friend is trying to achieve, I am afraid I cannot support it because I do not think it is the best way of getting to the end that he wants.

[Baroness Finn (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly as the issue of term limits was covered extensively in Committee and touched on briefly last week. I thank all noble Lords for their contributions.

There have been a number of proposals for reform of your Lordships’ House during the debates on the Bill. In common with many of those other proposals, and indeed even those being mooted for consideration by a Select Committee, the noble Viscount’s amendment would apply only to new Peers. The reason for that is the perennial problem, as my noble friend Lord Parkinson observed in Committee, that any debate on House of Lords reform very quickly descends into self-interest. I agree with that aspect of the noble Viscount’s amendment because, as we on these Benches have repeatedly stated, we fundamentally disagree with the removal of active parliamentarians from your Lordships’ House by the Executive.

Not only does the Bill remove some of the most active, knowledgeable and experienced Members of this House, it fails to respect the existing rights and expectations of our long-serving hereditary colleagues. I have, for my sins, been involved in many negotiations with trade unions and their leaders and representatives, many of whom now sit on the Benches opposite, and I have the greatest respect, and indeed admiration, for the way they fought for their members. Notably, they would always argue for grandfather rights and against the removal of any rights or privileges for existing members. I hope that those on the Liberal Democrat Benches have therefore come around to our way of thinking and that perhaps they will display the same kindness and consideration to our hereditary colleagues in future votes.

Of course, the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, may have another incentive for not making his amendment retrospective. If a 15-year term limit were introduced without the grandfather rights this House has proposed for our hereditary Peers, 59 Liberal Democrat Peers—more than 75% of their number—would have been removed from your Lordships’ House by 2029.

I will not repeat all the reasons why we disagree with this amendment, except to emphasise that we are a House of knowledge and experience; we should respect and appreciate public service. As such, we should not seek to prevent those who are actively and effectively contributing, and who wish to continue to do so, being able to serve. While I thank the noble Viscount for explaining his amendment so clearly today, I am afraid that it does not have the support of our Benches.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Lord Newby Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 9th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Burns, for his amendment and the way he introduced it. He raised four very substantial issues—much more substantial than most of the issues we have spent most of the day debating. Should there be a maximum size of the House? How do we get there? How do we then stop recidivist Governments breaching it? Once we have got there, how do we balance the new appointments between the various parties?

The first and third questions are very straightforward. Yes, there should be a limit. Yes, it will mean that no Prime Minister can then threaten to flood the House with 100 new Peers, but the last time that was tried was over 110 years ago, and it has not proved to be a necessary part of public policy-making in the interim. Is the noble Lord, Lord Gove, right when he says the more voices, the better? Clearly, there is a point at which that ceases to be the case, and what we are arguing about is where that should be. If there were 5,000 people here, there would clearly be too many voices, and we would not be able to do anything. Those of us who have spent many hours debating here, including everybody who has been involved with the Burns amendment, have formed the view that the place would be better if it had a cap on its numbers. So, yes, there should be a cap on the numbers. It should be a legislative cap. If we have that, it solves the problem of how we stop future Prime Ministers ratcheting up the numbers again—they will not be allowed to do it by law.

How do we get to that number, 650 or whatever it is? Actually, if we do what we say we are going to do in terms of retirement and participation, we get beyond that number; we get below it. In fact, one of the arguments about having a straightforward retirement age is that we are taking out too many people, so I do not think that the bit of the noble Lord’s amendment that deals with how we get to the number would be needed in practice.

If we agree that there should be a limit and that it means you cannot ratchet up again, and if we say that we get to the limit by the combination of retirement and participation limits, the difficult question that remains is: once you have got below the limit, how do you decide on the balance of appointments? The noble Lord says there is a convention that the Labour Party and the Conservative Party should have broad parity of numbers. That may be fine, but there are some others of us here, both on these Benches and the noble Lord’s. What are we going to do about all that?

In his original report, the noble Lord came up with an elegant proposal to deal with the balance that related to votes and seats over a period of three general elections. It would have had the advantage of being a stabilising force while still reflecting the fact that the House has to move with the country. I supported that at the time, as I think the Government did, and would support it again.

On how we implement all this, if we could agree on it all, given that the debate about retirement is in part a debate about numbers, one of the issues will be how quickly we do it. If we require primary legislation to deal with retirement, I do not see why it would be illogical to include something about numbers in that.

How you deal with my point about how you rebalance over time once you have got below the cap, whether you do that by convention or statute, is a matter for another day. The only thing that worries me slightly is that framing a statute that could not be amended in the light of changing political circumstances might be quite difficult.

These are hugely important issues. There is quite a lot of consensus on some of them, but I hope we are able to debate them sensibly and make progress on them during the course of the Parliament and in the context of the other debates we are having, not least on retirement.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, in many ways this is the most important amendment we are considering today, because it is the only attempt to curb the power of the Executive over Parliament. The Bill, as the Government drafted it, shifts the scales rather dangerously in their favour. It leaves the Prime Minister the sole person responsible for deciding who comes to this House and who leaves it. If we were to throw out the small number of excepted hereditary Peers in the way that the Bill as originally drafted put it, which the House has now voted against, every Member of this House would be appointed by, or subject to the approval of, the Prime Minister of the day—a situation found in no other democratic Chamber.

As we have heard from our debates in Committee and last week, the House of Lords Appointments Commission, HOLAC, has no power to insist on the nominations it makes, and no guaranteed number or guaranteed timescale. While this Parliament has already seen the introduction of 45 Labour Peers, 21 Conservatives and three Liberal Democrats, the independent commission has not been permitted to make any nominations under the present Prime Minister.

In our debate last week, the Leader of the House confirmed that the four Cross-Bench Peers announced last month were people of the Prime Minister’s own selection, not the House of Lords Appointments Commission’s. Moreover, in the statement the Prime Minister made alongside that announcement, he made clear that, like his predecessors, he would be prepared to overrule HOLAC in exceptional circumstances if it objected to one of his nominations on the grounds of propriety.

Even the Lords spiritual, notwithstanding the changes made under that great Presbyterian Gordon Brown, pass through Downing Street on the way to their episcopal throne. Crucially, the procedural changes made by Mr Brown are not set in statute and so could be undone by a future Prime Minister with a snap of their fingers.

I have served in government in different capacities under four Prime Ministers. I have seen the power of patronage and the seductive temptations it offers to Prime Ministers as their other powers wane. We have seen the current Prime Minister wielding that power already—that is not new and not unique to him, but the Bill he has sent us would leave him more powerful than any of his predecessors and leave him and those who follow him free to succumb to those temptations without, as noble Lords have put it, any guard-rails.

At the beginning of his premiership, Sir Keir Starmer began by appointing new Peers at a faster rate than any Prime Minister for three decades. I am glad that he has now slowed down, but he could change speed again whenever he wants. The Leader of the House has argued, and I can see will argue again, that that is because of the profligacy of his predecessors—following the argument made by the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, about the ratchet effect that leaves us in this situation after every general election. In doing so, she and the Prime Minister have given the game away that the Bill is not just about ending the hereditary peerage but about removing a large number of Peers from beyond the Government Benches.

The Leader has told us repeatedly that, even with that excision, the Labour Party will form only 28% of the seats in your Lordships’ House. Can she tell us today, with the same clarity, that she expects and intends the Labour Party to form the same proportion by the end of this Parliament, or does she see why so many of us, like Elvis Presley, have “Suspicious Minds” about that?

More worryingly still, we have seen the power of executive patronage in action throughout our debates on the Bill. I am sure I am not the only one to have noticed the conspicuous number of abstentions in some of the Divisions so far, or to have been surprised by the arguments of noble Lords who are usually so robust in asserting our role as a revising Chamber advising that on this Bill, which has such profound consequences not just for your Lordships’ House but for our constitutional settlement, we should not make any amendment at all or disagree with the House of Commons, who have still—the majority of them—sat for only 170 days. I detect a certain nervousness, not just among our hereditary colleagues or those over or approaching the age of 80, about voting for things that might annoy the present Government. I know the Leader will want every Member of your Lordships’ House to know that they can and should perform their legislative scrutiny on this Bill, as on any other, without fear or favour, so I hope she can reassure us that no one, even those who would vote on the Bill in a way that she would rather they did not, will suffer any ill feeling or consequence from the Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, despite the late hour, I make no apologies for returning to the subject of implementing any conclusions reached by the new House of Lords Select Committee in considering possible retirement ages, attendance thresholds and participation rates. The excellent announcement of this Select Committee by the Leader last week was welcomed by all sides, and I am certain that it will provide workable solutions. My amendment would ensure that these solutions are delivered into law expeditiously and without the need for new primary legislation.

The Leader said that she hoped the committee would be up and running by October and would probably report by the end of July 2026, but let us say September 2026 to be on the safe side. We all know that our Select Committees excel in what they do, and I am absolutely certain that this committee will have firm recommendations on some sort of retirement regime, possibly around the age of 85 but with various tweaks. It will most likely recommend an attendance threshold of some sort. Attendance is about those Peers who may turn up for fewer than a set threshold of 5%, 10% or 15%, whatever it might be.

Participation rates are far more difficult. Participation will need to tackle the abuse of those who may turn up for 20%, 25% or 50% of the time and then do absolutely nothing or very little. Determining what and how many contributions will be adequate will be very difficult, and the committee may not reach any conclusions or may have various options for this House to consider as a whole.

However, I believe that, by the autumn of 2026, this House will have before it a report with recommendations, which we will debate and possibly amend, so that by the end of 2026 or early 2027, this House will have agreed by a majority a way forward on retirements and attendance, and possibly participation.

I ask my noble friends not to tell the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, but I may on this occasion be in full agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Newby. If we get attendance, participation and retirements right, we may not need a fancy formula to reduce overall numbers—but that is an aside.

What will the noble Baroness the Leader do with those decisions of this House? She and her noble friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent, said in our debates before dinner that we will attempt to use in-house measures—that is, Standing Orders—where we possibly can, and we all agree with that. They also said that we will need to consider the best legislative route for those issues where Standing Orders were not sufficient and legislation would be required. The subtext was that that legislation would be primary.

The noble Baroness would be faced with two options for primary legislation. One is that she could say to the Select Committee, “Thank you very much—very good work. We will now consult on the second stage of Lords reform, maybe consider a partly elected Chamber, possibly with regional elements, and we will add those conclusions to a Bill in due course”. We all know that, if the noble Baroness says that, the whole thing will be kicked into the long grass. The second option is that she could say, “Thank you very much. I will now go to the Parliamentary Business and Legislation Committee and seek approval for a specific Bill to deliver these recommendations”. For noble Lords who are not familiar with the PBL, it is a committee of the most powerful Cabinet business managers who decide which bids from departments get approval for the next stage—that is, putting a Bill team together then briefing the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel, which will draft the Bill. I can tell those noble Lords who have never appeared before it that it can be quite scary at times. It is currently and usually chaired by the Leader of the Commons, with both Chief Whips, the Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, the Attorney-General, the Leader of the House and the Minister for the Cabinet Office.

The first question that the committee will ask the Leader will be whether the Bill is a manifesto commitment. Yes. That is a good. Is it short? Yes. That is also good. Can it be easily amended? Yes, because the Lords is much more flexible and can permit a wide range of amendments. The committee will then say, “So, Lord Privy Seal, are you telling us that all this Bill does is put a retirement age and an attendance threshold on Peers, and that they could debate a wide range of amendments in primary legislation?” The noble Baroness, being honest, will say that that could happen. The committee will ask whether there are any votes in it, and the answer will be no, not really.

We all know that the Leader is very able and persuasive, but I suggest that, with possibly just 18 months to go before a general election, she will have no hope whatever of the PBL approving a Bill to implement what our Select Committee decides, at a time when there will inevitably be the annual Home Office criminal justice Christmas tree Bill in the wings, and maybe something on health, employment, immigration and all the other big political issues that will take priority. Does anyone in this House seriously think that any Government would introduce a Bill on changes in the Lords in a King’s Speech in 2027, to be debated in 2028, maybe months or a year before a general election? I simply do not think so. That is why we need my Amendment 23A.

The amendment is self-explanatory. It would simply build in a statutory instrument power enabling the Government to implement any Lords Select Committee recommendations voted through by this House. It would provide that, if this House amends any of the Lords Select Committee recommendations, we can vote that through. It would enable the Government to amend this Bill when it is an Act, the Life Peerages Act 1958 and the House of Lords Reform Act 2014, should that be necessary. I do not know if it will be, but the Public Bill Office thought that we should have the power to do so, just in case it should prove necessary. Of course, amending those Acts is a Henry VIII power, but I do not think that any Government can complain about Henry VIII powers, since all Governments use them excessively in all Bills.

While it may be possible to deal with attendance through Standing Orders, as I think was hinted at earlier, I have not heard any suggestion from any noble Lord that we could invent a retirement or participation regime that we could implement by Standing Orders alone. If that were the case, the Government would have been shouting about it from the rooftops from Committee onwards. It is assumed that these things will require some form of legislation.

Without my simple amendment, we could find ourselves in the ridiculous position of having proposals on which the majority of this House agrees, and with which the Government also agree, but we can only deliver bits of them through standing orders, and have to wait for primary legislation to do the rest—primary legislation that might never come. It will be fascinating to see what reasons the Government use to reject this new clause. It does nothing to undermine the thrust of the Bill. The noble Baroness the Leader introduced the idea of a Lords Select Committee to come up with recommendations. How can the Government possibly reject this simple solution to deliver into law the recommendations of the committee she has proposed? I beg to move.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Lord will not be surprised to know I do not agree with him. We discussed this before and my view, oft repeated, is that we should, wherever we can, proceed without legislation. We can do that with a number of the issues we are debating. As the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, pointed out, the minimum age at which a person can be a Peer was never legislated on—admittedly, it was a bit ago that that was introduced. We need to look at whether it might be possible to introduce a retirement age without fresh legislation. Either way, I do not want to commit to giving the House of Commons the whip hand over what we do about our own rules when we can change those rules ourselves.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, I am intrigued by my noble friend’s amendment. Yes, it would make good some of the failings of the Government, who have not honoured their 1998 pledge to bring forward their proposals for reform before they remove the hereditary Peers. Nor have they delivered on their promise in the manifesto of 2024 to bring forward proposals for reform on composition, in terms of retirement age, participation obligations and so on. It would perhaps be a good way of making good the problem we face, which is the removal of over 80 of the Peers who are most effective in scrutinising the Government and holding them to account. One cannot help but agree with those who see this Bill as vindictive for that reason, and a partisan attack on the ability of this House to fulfil its constitutional function.

However, dare I part company with my noble friend Lord Blencathra? I feel it is a very bad move to have government by committee—even a Select Committee of this House. By their very nature, committees do not have a sense of the feeling of the whole House, or indeed of the country, which is more important. For this reason, I would worry about such powers for a Select Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, in view of the hour and the mood of the House, I intend to be brief. I merely say to the noble Lord, Lord Newby, who said we should pass our own rules where we could, that I agree entirely. My amendment deals with those areas where we cannot pass our own rules.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

Surely the noble Lord’s amendment requires a statutory instrument to cover every single recommendation of the Select Committee.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

Yes, it is one way to guarantee that it happens, but if this House can bring about some of the rules we want through our own Standing Orders, so be it. The legislative power is there; it does not have to be implemented if the House has done it its own way.

It simply comes down to this: are we going to implement the recommendations of the Lords Select Committee that the noble Baroness herself has created, as we may amend them, or are going to hang around hoping we will get a government Bill in due course to do it sometime? I have said before, and I need not repeat it: I simply do not see that happening.

It was rather disingenuous of the noble Baroness to say the amendment is not technically perfect. I am talking about the general concept here of implementing what this House decides through a statutory instrument, and if the amendment is not technically correct, it is a simple—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, described the preamble as “fine words”. He will know the saying, “Fine words butter no parsnips”. Well, these words have buttered no parsnips for over a hundred years and, personally, I have had enough of fine words on their own.

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I am slightly disappointed that this is the second time this evening that the noble Lord, Lord Newby, has failed to put the case for election when he was talking about the best way to deal with limiting the size of the House and prevent it growing. The best way is to have a constituted, elected House where the people decide how the numbers in the House change. Now, again, he has failed to align himself with the long-held wish of his party to see election. At this late hour, my noble friend has elicited a notable reticence from the party opposite in pursuing its electoral objectives.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

The noble Lord seems to forget that I moved an amendment for an elected House of Lords and, unless my recollection is faulty, he chose not to support it.

[Lord True (Con)]

Well, that is true. The elements are greatly mixed in us, as Shakespeare taught us. There is that terrible duo word of “PR” that always lurks around in any proposition that comes from the noble Lord, Lord Newby.

I do not think that this is a time for reflection on the progress of this Bill. We will have a chance for that next week on “Bill do now pass”. I am pleased that, in general, the conduct of the debates has been good and important issues have been raised. I fear that a more appropriate preamble for this Bill would be something along the lines of, “Whereas it is desired to create an all-appointed House, and no proposals have yet been presented to restrict growth in the power of the Executive over such a House, it is politically expedient to exclude immediately over 80 Members of Parliament who do not support the Executive”. I think that would probably be a reasonably accurate preamble.

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for the patience and willingness to engage with the House that she has again shown in the Chamber this evening. I liked my noble friend’s impish and humble address to the House, but I think that, when the time comes, he should probably withdraw the amendment.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Lord Newby Excerpts

3rd reading
Monday 21st July 2025 Lords Chamber

The Labour Party has won. No hereditary Peer will ever again take their oath at this Dispatch Box. However, I submit that it is not necessary, on top of that, to wield the brutal axe on our colleagues who sit here now. That is what the amendment passed by your Lordships’ House for grandfather rights asks the Government to moderate. There is a chance—and a choice—to temper historic victory with a magnanimity in that victory. Such a statesmanlike choice would benefit this House in keeping the Members whom we value and, at the same time, unleash a spirit of good will that could carry us all together through the rest of this Parliament.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, the Bill, which has occupied 51 hours of your Lordships’ time, is exceptionally short. It has occupied that much time because it has been used as an opportunity to discuss virtually every possible aspect of the future composition and powers of your Lordships’ House.

As those unfortunate enough to hear my contributions will know, we have argued consistently that this should be an elected House, a move which would deal, in one fell swoop, with the worry of the noble Lord, Lord True, about the excessive power of the Prime Minister in his or her ability to create new Peers. Sadly, your Lordships’ House did not agree with me and those on our Benches on broader reform. However, it has already done one useful bit of tidying up with the agreement reached on the power of attorney.

It has also demonstrated—helpfully, I think—a fairly considerable degree of consensus on what are likely to be the next elements of reform; namely, the need to have a retirement age and to set at least low bars in terms of participation. Having heard the arguments on those issues and discovered that there is a very considerable degree of agreement about the principles of them, I think the noble Baroness’s proposal for a Select Committee is timely. But we must not let grass grow under our feet. It is important both that this committee is established and that it works with a set timetable, bringing forward proposals to your Lordships’ House, so that we can be invited to agree on them, in the near future. There are many good things about your Lordships’ House, but other things were exposed and debated at some length during the debate, and we have it in our power to deal with some of those quite quickly. For the good of the House and for the good of democracy, we need to get on with it, and from these Benches, we look forward to playing our part in doing so.

Finally, I have been guided through the shoals and perils of the Bill by Elizabeth Plummer in our Whips’ Office, without whom I may well not have retained what sanity I have. I am extremely grateful to her.

[The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)]

My Lords, the rest of the Bill and ping-pong will play out in September, I suppose, but I add my voice to those saying that the most valuable thing that will come out of the Bill is the committee which will consider the further reforms. For my part, I want the committee to go wider and deeper. I know that the noble Baroness our Leader would prefer it to be a bit narrower in order to get things through in a reasonable time. The committee will be a vital workstream for us, which I hope will produce quite a few ideas around which consensus will be built. It is very good that we have already had the first of those ideas: the power of attorney one that was discussed earlier on. I hope further—this is the depth of the committee—that it will bring forward mechanisms to move the ideas from things that are talked about to things which will represent real change to our House, which we have so long wanted.