House of Lords (Peerage Nominations) Bill [HL]

Lord Norton of Louth Excerpts

Friday 14th March 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Norton of Louth]

Relevant document: 17th Report from the Delegated Powers Committee

[Lord Norton of Louth (Con)]

My Lords, I wish to explain the context of this Bill, detail its principal provisions and, most importantly, stress what it is designed to achieve. Its introduction is premised on a dual need: to strengthen the House in what it does and in how it is seen by those outside.

Many of those taking part in this debate are aware that this is a revised version of the Bill I introduced two Sessions ago. It has been amended in the light of what was said in that debate. However, its genesis goes back much further. Almost 20 years ago, I penned the first draft of what became the House of Lords Bill, better known as the Steel Bill. It was introduced into this House by Lord Steel of Aikwood on behalf of the Campaign for an Effective Second Chamber, a body I founded with my noble friend the late Lord Cormack.

The Bill had four main provisions, which in effect constituted the manifesto of the campaign. It put the House of Lords Appointments Commission on a statutory basis; it ended the by-elections for hereditary Peers; it allowed Peers to retire; and it provided for Peers who commit serious criminal offences to be expelled from membership of the House. It was variously debated, twice in 2007, and enjoyed wide support, but, because of opposition from a small minority of Peers, we were not able to make progress as it stood. We were, though, able to get two of its provisions enacted—enabling Peers to retire and removing those who commit serious offences—through the House of Lords Reform Act 2014, introduced as a Private Member’s Bill in the other place by Dan Byles and facilitated it in its passage by the Government. We now also have the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill going through your Lordships’ House. That means that only one provision of the Steel Bill is, in effect, unfulfilled: putting the House of Lords Appointments Commission, HOLAC, on a statutory basis. For me, this Bill constitutes unfinished business.

This Bill has four main provisions. First, it puts HOLAC on a statutory basis. The case for doing so has always been strong, but is made even more so by the hereditary Peers Bill. Enactment of that Bill will mean there is no route to becoming a Peer independent of prime ministerial patronage. My contention is that this Bill has to be conjoined with the hereditary Peers Bill to ensure that the Prime Minister does not enjoy exclusive, unrestrained power to create Members of this House. Those who have opposed the hereditary Peers Bill for giving too much power of patronage to the Prime Minister need to explain, if they do not support this Bill, what they would do to constrain that power.

Putting HOLAC on a statutory basis would protect its independence. It can be argued that no Prime Minister would think of getting rid of HOLAC, but the point is that they could. It could have been argued that no Prime Minister would ignore a recommendation of HOLAC on the appointment of Peers, but they could—and, as we know, have done. The point is not just one of quality control: fundamental to my argument is that it is core to public trust in appointments to this House. In terms of what the public want from HOLAC and the appointments process, my Bill is a modest one and, as we have seen with the Steel and Grocott Bills, if you do not make modest changes now, the likelihood is that you will eventually end up with more radical surgery.

There are two changes from the Bill I introduced two Sessions ago. The first is made in response to what was said in debate on the Bill, where concerns were raised that putting the appointments process in statute opened up the prospect of judicial review. I have therefore introduced an ouster clause. This is exceptional but, as with the ouster clause in the Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Act introduced by the Conservative Government in the last Parliament, justified in the context of the measure. It is not a qualified provision of the sort referred to by my noble friend Lord Howard of Lympne in Monday’s debate. The clause meets the concerns raised by the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, in the earlier debate; he cannot be here today, but he has authorised me to say that the inclusion of the clause fully meets his concerns and that the Bill now has his full support.

The second change derives from public expectations. The Bill provides that, if HOLAC recommends against a name being put forward to the monarch, the Prime Minister cannot put forward that name for two years. It is not a bar. The name could be resubmitted. However, it forces the Prime Minister to reconsider someone who is not judged suitable at the time.

Secondly, the Bill enshrines the core principles widely endorsed by Members on the size and composition of the House: that is, that it should be no larger than the House of Commons, that no one party should enjoy an absolute majority and that at least one-fifth of the House should comprise Cross-Bench Peers. These provisions enable the House to do what it does well. We are too large and we recognise that we need to reduce our numbers, but size is a second-order issue relative to the need to be seen to be effective in fulfilling our core functions, not least legislative scrutiny. Because no party in government enjoys an absolute majority, it works to persuade the House to accept the provisions of a Bill. In the Commons, there is a culture of assertion; in this House, there is a culture of justification. Ministers need to justify what they bring forward. Ensuring that a significant proportion of the House is independent of party contributes to the independence of the House and provides a route for people who have served in public office and have no party-political affiliation to join it. These in effect constitute goals for the Prime Minister. They provide a core organising framework.

Thirdly, the Bill provides that those nominated for membership must meet the criteria of “conspicuous merit” and demonstrate

“a willingness and capacity to contribute to the work of the House”.

In the light of the Delegated Powers Committee report, I am content to confine it to those provisions. The committee has drawn attention to some subsections of Clause 7—even though the clause is the same as in the 2022 Bill, to which the committee raised no objections.

When the Bill was debated in 2022, some Members thought the criterion of “conspicuous merit” was too broad; others, I know, think that it encapsulates what we need and what the public expect. If we are to do our job effectively—and, in effect, justify our existence—we need to maintain a membership characterised by experience and expertise. We also need to be seen to be bringing in Members who can make a distinctive contribution. In my view, generating guidance as to what constitutes “conspicuous merit” is not the most onerous of tasks as it essentially requires those nominated to show what they have contributed by way of experience or professional achievement. The experience may not be earth-shattering but may, by its nature, be distinctive. I am not opposed to generating a different wording; the key point is establishing a clear threshold of merit.

Fourthly, there is a need for transparency, requiring those party leaders putting forward names for peerages to inform HOLAC of the criteria and process employed for making the nomination. Injecting the fresh air of transparency is a further means of enhancing public trust in the process. When we debated the Bill last time, the then Leader of the Opposition, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, expressed doubts about this provision. Yet the Government have, in effect, conceded much of the principle by publishing citations for nominations. I commend them on that. This Bill pushes a little further in a way that serves to tackle public cynicism.

That brings me to the purpose of the Bill, which is the core reason for this debate. It is to establish the need to change the process by which people are nominated for peerages. It is necessary—not desirable but necessary —for the House to maintain its claim to legitimacy, both in how Members arrive and in the work they do. This House contributes to good law because of a unique combination of membership and procedures that distinguish it from the other place. It fulfils functions that the House of Commons may not have the time or the political will to fulfil. It is recognised as carrying out detailed scrutiny of legislation that enhances the quality of law in this country. However, the public derive their view of this House not from what it does but from how Members are selected and how some behave.

Enacting this Bill will enhance the work of the House through bringing in Members qualified to carry out its functions, and tackle the distrust that now engulfs the nominations process. As I said, the provisions are modest relative to what the public want. There is clear public support for nominations to be taken out of the hands of party leaders and given exclusively to HOLAC. The Wakeham commission recommended that most Peers be nominated by HOLAC. If we do not make changes now, more radical reform beckons.

This debate gives the House the opportunity to send out a clear signal as to the need for reform of the nomination process and a recognition that change is necessary to establish confidence in that process. The defence offered for the existing system, I submit, is not sustainable. In the debate on the previous Bill, we were told that the Prime Minister is the one who makes the nominations and is accountable to Parliament for those nominations. That is constitutionally correct. It is also a practical nonsense. When was the last time a Prime Minister was held accountable, in any meaningful form, for nominations to this House? The Prime Minister is not the one who suffers in any significant manner. It is this House that gets the political opprobrium. Under this Bill, the Prime Minister would remain the sole person responsible for submitting names to the monarch, but he or she would work within a process designed to ensure that those being nominated were, and were seen to be, highly qualified.

The other objection raised was that the Bill would give too much power to HOLAC, a body that is unelected and not accountable for its actions. I believe that is based on a false premise. HOLAC would be created by law and if it was seen to be acting in an inappropriate way, its role could be changed by law. In any event, the powers being conferred are limited and, I believe, proportionate. The only power will be one of restraint, requiring the Prime Minister to wait two years before being able to resubmit a name. The more significant challenge to the Bill is not that it gives too much power to HOLAC but that it confers too little.

We are now in March. This Bill is not going to make it to the statute book unless the Government facilitate its passage or take it over. I am not overly optimistic that the Minister will make such a promise. What we can do is use this opportunity to acknowledge the need to reform the process by which Members reach this place. We have to embrace change to enable us to do even better what we already do well and, even more crucial to this debate, demonstrate that we recognise public discontent with the process as it stands. Doing nothing is not a viable option. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Norton of Louth (Con)]

My Lords, I think that I am in order in congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Mattinson, on her excellent maiden speech. The noble Baroness noted that the public do not trust politicians to tell the truth. Opinion polls show that the public trust professors to tell the truth; I shall therefore speak as a professor.

There have been some excellent speeches. I am especially grateful to those who have added their voice in support of the Bill, which has been the overwhelming majority of those who have spoken. I will deal briefly with those who took a contrary view. My noble friends Lord Sherbourne and Lord Leigh of Hurley may not appear dangerous radicals but, de facto, I am afraid that that is what they are. If we do not make modest change now, much more radical change will come later, and neither of my noble friends advanced alternatives to what I am proposing to deal with the problem that we have identified.

My noble friend Lord Jackson uncharacteristically got one or two things wrong: first, the Bill predates the Johnson premiership, as I explained in my opening speech; and, secondly, Clause 10 is not unprecedented, again as I explained. My noble friend Lady Finn did not explain why the ouster clause will not work in this Bill but apparently will work in the Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Act. I also note that my noble friend did not engage with or come up with any alternatives to the present system, which attracts the criticism that we have heard and has been well adumbrated by Peers in this debate.

The assertion as to the Prime Minister’s accountability for making nominations is built on thin ice. I will not digress on to the point about party leaders being elected: Governments are elected through elections to the House of Commons, while party leaders are elected by their own parties. The point is accountability. I am about to write a chapter on Maundy Gregory for a book on political fixers. His activities led to a change in the law: the Honours (Prevention of Abuses) Act 1925. There is no reason why there should not be a further change in the law and every reason why there should be.

I reiterate the need for reform of the nomination process. We do not exist in a vacuum, although some noble Lords have spoken as if we do. We need to achieve public trust in that process. This Bill is designed to make it clear that we recognise that. As I tell my students, Private Members’ Bills do not normally make it to the statute book. Their value is in raising issues and getting them debated. They help to bring issues on to the political agenda. This debate has achieved that purpose.

Bill read a second time and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.