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.