House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Lord True Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 3rd March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord True (Con)]

It was Labour.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

Well, let us agree to differ on that.

The Gordon Brown proposals are out there, and there are a range of other matters that we could begin to pull together very quickly; we do not need to start again. I find the reference to the Council of the Nations and Regions interesting. In two or three weeks I have a Question on how precisely the new Council of the Nations and Regions will fit in to our constitutional arrangements, because I am not at all sure that I or the Government yet understand how it will fit in.

We need to level up the way our politics are done. I have spent most of my political life in Yorkshire. We now have a situation in which Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have some voice in London, but the English regions and the English principal councils do not. I am not entirely sure that mayors elected on perhaps 29% or 30% of the vote on a 25% turnout will have that much legitimacy to represent their areas to the central Government. The question of how far the second Chamber should be constituted so as to strengthen the representation of areas outside London in the centralised governance of this country is very important, so we need to move on to that.

We shall say from these Benches to the Government Front Bench, several times, that before we clear this Bill we need some assurance as to where we go from here and when we might start to move from here. This is an interesting, slightly idiosyncratic set of proposals, but one could perhaps throw it into the mix.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord True]

9: Leave out Clause 1 and insert the following new Clause—
“Exclusion of remaining hereditary peers(1) Section 2 of the House of Lords Act 1999 (exception from section 1) is amended as follows.(2) For subsection (2) substitute—“(2) No more than 89 people at any one time shall be excepted from section 1.”(3) For subsection (4) substitute—“(4) Any vacancy resulting from the death, retirement, resignation or expulsion of an excepted person under subsection (2) after the day on which the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Act 2025 comes into force is not to be filled by further exception.””Member’s explanatory statement
The purpose of the amendment is to prevent any more hereditary peers coming to the House of Lords by virtue of the 1999 Act in future. However, it allows peers who are already serving the House to remain as members for life in the same way as is allowed to all other Lords Temporal.

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I must tell the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, that in the last Recess I visited the tomb of Diaghilev on San Michele. As always, it was covered with ballet shoes. I wonder whether one was put there on behalf of the noble Lord’s great-great-grandmother. You never know.

I am sure not many people are here to listen to me, so I must make it clear that I have absolutely no intention of testing the opinion of the Committee on this or, in fact, any other amendment in my name, as I offer the amendments I put forward as a basis for open discussion and potential improvement of a Bill that will pass, as I said. As noble Lords will recognise, this amendment is based on ideas put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, which he used to love but which, we heard earlier, he now absolutely loathes and condemns, so he would never vote for my amendment.

However, the amendment has the same effect as the noble Lord’s Bill, ending the by-elections provided for under the House of Lords Act 1999, something I think we are all agreed on in light of the Government’s mandate. But it amends the present Bill to leave out what was added to the Grocott Bill—the wholesale expulsion of 88 or 89 fellow Members, one of whom is currently on leave of absence. It would also allow our existing valued colleagues who serve here—we have heard from all sides how much they are valued—the possibility to continue on the same basis as the rest of us came here and serve here: for life. I believe that to be fair, reasonable and in accordance with the practice of this House. That is what happened in 1922, when Irish Peers left the House, as we were told earlier.

In 2009, when the Supreme Court was set up and the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary were abolished by the Labour Government, existing Law Lords were allowed to stay. They were given, in effect, grandfather rights or acquired rights, and that is how the noble and learned Lords, Lord Woolf, Lord Mance and Lord Hoffmann, were and are sitting with us. It is how we benefited for so long from the truly memorable wisdom of noble and learned Lords like the late Lord Lloyd of Berwick and the recently lamented Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood. It is how the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hale of Richmond, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury, sit here.

When the Law Lords were abolished for the future, 23 people—no more—were given these grandfather rights, retaining the acquired right to sit. Did that damage the House? Does that damage the House? I suggest the continued presence and use of that experience does precisely the opposite. Why should it be different with those friends we have among us as elected hereditary Peers? When I say friends, I mean friends on all sides, including in the party opposite. They are people we know, sit with, learn from and share service with every day. Why are they being given, in effect, summary dismissal under the Bill? That is what it is; that is what the Bill says.

In law, summary dismissal is acceptable only in cases of gross misconduct such as physical violence, racism, sexual harassment, theft, or deliberate disclosure of sensitive information. I am not sure that the noble Earls, Lord Minto, Lord Clancarty, Lord Kinnoull and Lord Howe, have ever been guilty of any of those. I am told there is another ground for summary dismissal, which may appeal more to some in government, and that is serious insubordination in the workplace. Perhaps some of my colleagues, seen from Labour headquarters, are guilty of that. Well, good for the independence of the House of Lords.

To be serious, in Amendment 1 I spoke about a four-part plan that I believe would be a good destination for this House, while giving the Government greater security regarding their legislative programme and what they wish for: ending any inflow into the House based on the hereditary principle. That is something Sir Keir Starmer can take to the party conference. Point one of my proposals was that we recognise the Government’s mandate to end this flow. This amendment does not challenge that.

Noble Lords may well know that soon after the election last summer—this was not popular with all my colleagues—I and the Convenor of the Cross Benches, the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, went to the noble Baroness the Leader of the House to suggest the suspension of by-elections as an earnest of good faith and recognition of the direction the Government wished to go. We recognised the Government’s mandate, even if we might regret it. It was also an earnest of our wish to work in a constructive way with the Leader of the House, whom we greatly respect, to find the best way forward for the whole House. That is still my wish.

I know the noble Baroness and her commitment to the whole House, which she has displayed over nine years as leader of her party here, Leader of the Opposition and now Leader of our House. I am sure that if the absolutists and absolute positions are kept in the wings, we can find a way forward, based on the trust I have in her good sense and pragmatism. But there has to be give and take. We accept the shutting of the door, but we cannot back a full-scale purge.

There is a stakeholder far larger than my party, or indeed the party opposite, and that is the House itself. The House may have a view on whether it wants to lose these colleagues. It is not in the interests of the House, either in practice or as a precedent, to have some of its most effective Members summarily excluded. I say again that what I fear in my heart is that what is done once will inevitably happen again when another party holds the reins. The Conservative Party has never yet excluded Members of other parties, and I hope it never will, but I can imagine others around who might not have the same scruples, and a precedent of damping summary exclusion might be in the interests of the House.

In my speech earlier, I suggested as a second point of agreement that there should be a stay on wholesale exclusion, but with, as my third point, some agreed approach to numbers. I add this also for reflection. In the purest practical terms, both presentationally and constitutionally, it is easier to keep existing Members but address numbers by retirement from the ranks and other measures, rather than throw everyone out and then have the Prime Minister bring significant numbers back by creating new life peerages in the most public of all forums. For years, the party opposite supported the Bill brought forward by the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, to end by-elections. That was never our policy, except in the context of a stage two Bill such as we brought forward in 2011-12. Even the coalition agreement of May 2010 saw the issue of existing Peers as something that must be respected. I look back to the coalition agreement, which said there would

“be a grandfathering system for current Peers”.

My amendment follows past precedents and has exactly the same effect as that of the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Grocott. It ends new entry but keeps those now here, just as Labour did with the Law Lords. Why should the Government be against that now? When the ending of by-elections was discussed on 13 March 2020, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, who was in her place earlier but is no longer here, said:

“It would not affect any of our existing Members, whom we look forward to hearing from, I hope, for many, many years”.—[Official Report, 13/3/20; col. 1231.]


On 3 December 2021, the noble Baroness doubled down on that, saying:

“This modest measure would make change very gradually. We are not seeking to say farewell to any hereditary already here; indeed, we look forward to their contributions for many more years.”.—[Official Report, 3/12/21; col. 1569.]


Was that not a wise and humane position? For the Liberal Democrats, speaking to the same Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, said:

“No existing Member of the House—and I accept that we have some very excellent hereditary Members—should feel threatened”.—[Official Report, 3/12/21; col. 1567.]


What has changed? Why is the exclusion of these 88 people so essential? If it is about ideology, we can do little but oppose it, and there seem to be some who are of that mind whom I would wish to restrain. If it is about numbers, we should surely rule no options out, but sit down to discuss it, keeping in mind at all times the best interests of the whole House. If we want to get to a destination—and I think there is scope for agreement on a destination—we need to be open about the potential routes. Let us keep all options on the table if we really wish to enable a settlement.

On 7 September 2020, the noble Baroness the Leader of the House said:

“All Members of your Lordships’ House are welcomed. In fact, most of us really do not know who are the life Peers and who are the hereditary Peers”.—[Official Report, 7/9/20; col. 545.]


How sad it is that this Bill and this provision are driving a wedge. What the noble Baroness said then was the best of the noble Baroness—the best of our Leader. She is a Leader we all know and respect. How she said it then is as it should be, and how it should stay. We are all one, and stronger as one. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

I had not realised we were quite as democratic as that. Obviously, I am sorry for people who enjoyed it here and are going. I dare say it will happen to me before too long. But, really, they cannot complain when they have had an innings of 40-odd years. It is a pretty good deal, especially when they come from a cohort of Peers who have come via the electoral process, of which much has been heard—occasionally with approval, I am amazed to say. People coming via that mechanism can have no complaints if their service comes to a conclusion. I think 40-odd years is a very good innings and there is no reason to weep and wail because it is coming to an end.

I will not go through the rigmarole of asking why on earth the noble Lord, Lord True, has had his change of mind. It is not entirely accurate to say that he was a slavish servant of the Government at the time because, when my Bill was first introduced, unless my memory serves me badly, he was not a member of the Government and, along with the noble Lords, Lord Strathclyde and Lord Trefgarne, and the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, was resolutely opposed to the Bill, just as they were to every attempt to reform this place over the period that they were in power. I am not going to speak any longer, for fear that I will get interrupted.

[Lord True (Con)]

If the noble Lord will allow me, I was strongly in favour of the proposals put forward by the coalition Government and I look forward with interest to the debate launched by the noble Lord. That was my view.

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord True, is talking about the coalition period. He was in favour of the Bill then. I assume that is what he is arguing about, not my Bill. I am talking specifically about my Bill, which he previously opposed in a powerful way and has now tabled an amendment to implement. I have no intention whatever of voting for the amendment, he will not be surprised to hear. Those who have sat it out as hereditary Peers have had a very good, generous innings from a very small electorate. Hereditary Peers on the list who have said that they are available for election have something like a one in 200 chance of becoming a Member of the House of Lords, whereas members of the general public have a one in 75,000 chance of becoming a Member of Parliament—so it has been a pretty privileged group. Many have served well, but the end is nigh and I suppose we will continue to repeat these kinds of assurances.

I will make one more point and then I will sit down for the rest of the evening. We make much of these 92, including many capable people, leaving their position in the Lords. A mere eight months ago, some 220-odd people lost their seats in the Commons and, although most of them were Tories, I am prepared to admit that maybe some of them made a useful contribution while they were Members of Parliament—but you go; you are chucked out; that is what happens. And that is what is likely to happen as soon as this Bill becomes law.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

The noble Baroness has made her point. There are times in life when you have to seize opportunities to make things happen and, sometimes, if you fail to take that opportunity, that time passes. The party opposite is suggesting this now only because an alternative proposal came forward. Had the noble Lord come forward before our manifesto, I would have bitten his hand off and gone with it. It is a shame that he did not.

Looking at other points that were made, the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, was someone who had lots of amendments, as I recall, to the Grocott Bill, although he did not speak to them. It is a shame. I actually stopped coming to the Chamber to listen to the debate because it was the same thing time and again—there were so many amendments. So, here we are now because 25 years ago, the principle was established that hereditary Peers would no longer have the right to sit and vote in the House of Lords. That is what has brought us to this point now.

To answer some of the questions, the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, talked about some of the characteristics of hereditary Peers and the work that they do. The same applies to life Peers, as I am sure she will readily admit. There has always been scrutiny in this House, not just from hereditary Peers but from across the House. This House has always discharged its duties and will continue to do so.

The noble Lord, Lord Newby, asked the noble Lord, Lord True, for his response, which he received. I have always said that there is no barrier to Members of your Lordships’ House who have hereditary peerages receiving life peerages. That does not have to wait until the end of the Bill. If peerages were offered tomorrow by the political parties, they could be made life Peers. It is different for the Cross Benches. I do not think it is for me or the Government, if there was to be a proposal for other Members of other parties, to say who they would be, but there is a way of working this out and I will discuss this with the relevant parties. I accept that the Cross Benches are in a different position and would need different arrangements as well.

The noble Lord, Lord True, talked about his four-stage plan, some of which I had heard before but some of which was new to me as well. He says that this is a way of offering greater security for the Government to get their business through. I am sure that with his normal courtesy it would not be, but I hope that is not a suggestion that, if we do not do this, we will not get our business through. I just want to confirm this. Because he is aware of the conventions of the House—and I hope I understand him correctly—I think he is looking to seek further protections in terms of ping-pong, but if he could confirm that to me at some point, that would be very helpful, because I am sure he does not mean it to sound in any way as a threat. I am sure that is not what he intended, but it did come out a little bit like that. I will read Hansard, or we can talk further on that to make sure we have got it absolutely clear.

I have to be honest with the noble Lord. I understand why he has put this through, but I wish he would have come to this conclusion earlier—I really would have welcomed it—and I ask at this stage that he withdraw his amendment.

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all those who have spoken, and of course to the noble Baroness the Leader of the House. We began today with what I thought was a generally very good-tempered debate, one where I felt on both sides that there was a willingness to seek a way forward. I am sorry that we have ended in a slightly scratchy way, which I do not think was characteristic of the day, and I would rather not dwell on the recent words. I will bring this proposition back to the House, subject to whatever discussions we may or may not have before Report, because I suspect that the House—which has a say in this matter, not just the two political parties—might well believe that this is not an unreasonable approach, tempered in the way that I described earlier by agreements on one of the strands of my proposals to address the question of numbers, including by retirements.

I prefer to dwell not on failure but on the future. All I know of the noble Baroness the Leader of the House is her care for this House and her concern for the future, and that is where I am coming from. I do not do threats, and I do not make threats, but anybody who has been present in the worst parts of the debate today can see that people are feeling that there are strong passions on both sides. We heard them from the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, and we heard them from others. Those of us in leadership positions in the House must find ways to calm that, to reach agreements and to find a way forward.

I hear again that it is not possible for the Government to consider this, and that the horse has gone, or the boat has left—or whatever it is. This last weekend, the Prime Minister made a great act of statesmanship and, frankly, political courage, in which he took the incredibly difficult decision to cut spending on aid to protect our country and secure it for the future. The Prime Minister adopted a powerfully held position in the interests of the whole. I hope that we will, in the next few days and weeks, not rule out any route towards finding a solution to this problem, and that includes, as I said in my earlier speech, aspects tempered by ameliorative action on numbers.

It was a very impressive debate. I asked at the start whether it was about numbers; we can deal with that. If it is about ideology or firm places, we will have problems—but they will not necessarily be with me. That is not a threat; it is true that people will oppose that position. I hope that we are better than that.

I very much appreciated my noble friend Lady Finn’s powerful appeal to reason.

I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, might come back after dinner in a slightly more generous vein than before, so perhaps I can recommend him a better accompaniment to his food. The argument of “When you go, you go” is his view. As was aptly pointed out, if you are an MP, you can come back; our colleagues who are being excluded have only an exit door.

My noble friend Lord Hamilton of Epsom rightly pointed out that there are many younger, active hereditary Peers who do a great service to this House.

The noble Lord, Lord Newby, asked me two questions. He asked whether the Conservative Party was planning some exclusion. The fact is that the noble Lord is voting for exclusion, so he should not be too surprised that some other party might look at another group. I said that the Conservative Party never had—and, I hope, never would—go down that route. However, there are other parties on the block—there are other kids on the block—so if we make it, “Yes, you can come in and you can take out a group”, you could, for example, introduce 15-year term limits, which is very popular in the House. You could get rid of anybody who served for more than 15 years. We heard the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, say earlier that lots of people have been around here a long time. What would be the effect of that on composition? I would go. I do not know who else would go, but someone might pick up that plan and, looking at what was done in 2025, say, “No transition, no grandfather rights at all”. I am just warning that it could happen, and it might not be a party represented in this House that would want to do it.

Finally, I must refer to the great speech of my noble friend Lord Shinkwin. The Committee was absolutely silent listening to what he said, informed by his extraordinary life experience and courage, and the wisdom that has come from that. Some of us will have heard his words in different ways but, having heard what my noble friend said, surely we must show openness and inclusion to all our Members. Let us not rule out anything, even tonight; let us come back and consider the best way of solving this conundrum. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 9 withdrawn.