House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Lord True Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 12th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Strathcarron (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak to this group of amendments in particular and would argue for the retention of the Bishops as currently constituted. I fully appreciate the arguments advanced by noble Lords supporting the group of amendments and equally the intellectual arguments against the Bishops remaining here as advanced by Humanists UK and others.

To the charge sheet against the Bishops, I would add that they are also extremely frustrating politically—at least to those of us on this side of the House—as between 2019 and the last general election they voted with the Government only 4% of the time. Often during the long evenings spent in the Division Lobbies, it seemed as if the Bishops were pre-programmed to vote against anything the Conservative Government were doing, just because it was the Conservative Government doing it.

I also appreciate that they should more accurately be called Lords religious rather than Lords spiritual, as there is precious little spiritual, and a lot religious, in their involvement with identity politics and every fashionable left-wing cause that comes their way. I also appreciate that they are historically illiterate, as seen by the £1 billion target for reparations, supporting the view of the recent Archbishop of Canterbury that the British more or less invented slavery and did absolutely nothing to end it. I also appreciate that they are corporately cataclysmically incompetent, spending precious funds on meaningless virtue signalling while parishes are crumbling around the country.

Nevertheless, the Bishops do represent a continuity with our constitution, history and culture and their presence here acknowledges that there is a power to be considered beyond the material and the political and one which still guides many lives. It is right that this part of life is acknowledged to exist by the Bishops being here. I would also argue that their presence here is a reminder of our religious history on whose behalf many of our laws were written, making what the Bishops represent a kind of canvas on which is painted much about the British constitution we hold dear and which can easily be taken for granted. My argument for the Bishops is that, if we are to lose the soul of this House by removing the hereditaries, we should at least keep the heart of it as represented by the Bishops.

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, this is a very serious subject and the fact that some may not consider it to be serious or worthy of a long debate is troubling but, I would submit, it should be troubling above all to the Church of England itself which, to the great distress of many of us, has yielded so much of the spiritual ground in this nation that it once bestrode.

I have said more than once that this radical Bill—one of very few in the history of this House to throw out existing Members—has far-reaching implications. The perfectly logical view is that the removal of one group of Members is closely connected to, and has repercussive effects on, the wider membership of the House. As we have heard, that logical connection elides into the urgent aspiration for exclusion that we have heard in some speeches today. Amendments in both Chambers concerning the Lords spiritual are just one example of this repercussive effect.

The noble Lord, Lord Moore of Etchingham, gave what was, I would give him, not a Conservative speech but a notable Tory speech, to which the noble Lord, Lord Strathcarron, offered a coda. The Lords spiritual have been here since the origins of this House. Indeed, like the hereditary Peers, they were among the creators of our Parliament. They survived Henry VIII’s exclusion of the abbots, to which the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, referred, and when Parliament last decided to throw them out in the Bishops Exclusion Act in 1642, they were welcomed back warmly after 1660.

When the British population moved to the new great cities such as Manchester—again, the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, referred to this—it was considered expedient to create new bishops, although there were not, perhaps, what many of us might consider to be the superabundant numbers in the parishes of today. There was considerable debate at that time about whether it would be possible to limit the rights of bishops to receive a writ to sit in this House. In 1847, the Liberal Government introduced the Bishopric of Manchester Bill, which limited the number of Lords spiritual in this House to no more than 26—that is what we have today.

There was considerable resistance at the time, on the grounds that this interfered with the prerogative and, more objectionably, with the right of any Lord spiritual or temporal Peer to attend the House. But the reality, as people saw it, was that, although new bishops were no longer automatically included and a route of entry was partially closed, no one was being excluded. The House settled on this as a reasonable compromise, as the number of bishops expanded. This House, in its wisdom, has always tended to compromise on matters of composition.

Since 1847, the historic limit of 26 right reverend Prelates has been maintained. There may be no magic in this number. I remember being present at discussions in around 2002, when the Conservative Party was proposing a smaller senate of 300. The right reverend Prelates indicated then that 12 might be the minimum number that would leave them with sufficient capacity to perform their important spiritual advisory duties in the House; I do not know whether that is still the case. They do a lot. After all, last night, one of them—the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Sheffield himself—stepped in to assist the House by acting as a Teller in a Division. He was voting against the Government, but I have to tell him that he was voting against the Opposition as well—perhaps that is how the numbers are now squared. We welcome the Bishops’ presence in all guises and at all times. When a gash—others would see it as unfinished business—is being made in the body of the House, I wonder whether it is wise to alight so fast on the next group to be excluded: some or all of the Lords spiritual.

In the other place, the Bill faced amendments by a Conservative Back-Bencher to expel the right reverend Prelates, and in your Lordships’ House noble Lords from almost every party have signed up to related proposals—although I noticed that a proposal from the Labour Benches to expel all the Lords spiritual in two years was withdrawn shortly before the first Marshalled List was published. I hope no one in this House felt any pressure to keep quiet.

My noble friend Lady Berridge tabled Amendment 90B to require Writs of Summons under the Bishoprics Act to be vetted by the House of Lords Appointments Commission. My noble friend Lord Hailsham took the same line, perhaps even more vehemently, but from a different angle. Although I understand my noble friend’s thinking and salute her constant stand on issues of propriety, which is greatly admired in this House, I am afraid it is an amendment we cannot support. The Church has its own rigorous processes for the selection of bishops, culminating in the Crown Nominations Commission, and it does have processes on conduct, to which no one is immune. Giving a veto to HOLAC would, in my submission, fall foul of the constitutional principle put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Butler, in our debates on Monday.

My noble friend Lord Blencathra proposes the immediate reduction of the Lords spiritual from 26 to 5 in his amendment, which would also introduce a retirement age. That number would be too small, even if we were to move, for the reasons I have given. My noble friend Lord Dundee proposes 20 and my noble friend Lord Hailsham goes a step further by seeking to exclude all future bishops and archbishops of the Church of England from taking a seat here. These amendments have gained support formally from other parties, with signatures, as we have heard tonight, right across the Chamber.

I am glad that the Labour Back-Bench amendment was withdrawn. My party would have opposed it, as I oppose the amendments of my noble friend Lord Hailsham. It is true that, with 890 votes cast by the right reverend Prelates against the Government of which I was a member, and only 36% in favour—the highest percentage of votes against a Government ever recorded from those Benches, in four successive Sessions—noble Lords might think I have some animus in the matter. I do not, because I am a generous soul and I was brought up an Anglican. I believe that considerations of party advantage or disadvantage should not enter decisions about classes of Peers who should sit in this House.

As I said at Second Reading, it will not be long before the Bishops are the only Members not appointed under the 1958 Act. This Bill starts down a path that I fear we will be hard-pressed to close off, with the wholesale removal of blocks in the House; first the hereditaries, then perhaps the Bishops, and then, if Labour honours its manifesto pledge, the over-80s too.

I agree with the wise words of my noble friend Lord Strathclyde on the spiritual dimension. We do not support the removal of the right reverend Prelates. Every institution gains from a spiritual dimension. Taking them out now would simply add to instability in the House, give scant recognition to their important role inside and outside the House, including the territorial dimension, and walk without due consideration into a difficult debate on the disestablishment of the Church and, as my noble friend Lord Moore of Etchingham said, perhaps even the role of the monarch in the Church.

Heaven knows, some of us yearn to hear the Christian voice raised more clearly in witness to the nation and not see it dimmed further. Change, such as is proposed in these amendments, to remove or lessen that voice in this House would require the most careful consideration and debate. I hope that my noble friends will agree not to press their amendments.

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

My Lords, this group of amendments has raised a number of issues. We have heard impassioned and deeply held views on both sides of the argument. As the noble Lord, Lord True, says, this was debated in the other place, where it went to a Division and was lost by 320 or so votes.

A lot of noble Lords made the point that it is important we recognise that, in this House, we welcome people of all religious faiths and of no religious faith. They all add to the diversity of this place.

The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, made the point that there are questions about the future of this House and its composition, as noble Lords have commented on. We have made proposals about what kind of alternative second Chamber could replace the current House of Lords as a long-term ambition. It would be something more representative of the nations across the UK. That would be consulted on, including with the public, with soundings taken as to how they feel that an alternative second Chamber would best suit them.

There are different kinds of amendments in this group. The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, and the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, are looking to remove or reduce the number of Lords spiritual. The noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, who has considerable expertise and respect across the House and the country for her views on safeguarding issues, wanted to amend the Bishops Act to enable HOLAC to approve any Bishops. In fact, the only two groups that HOLAC does not comment on are the hereditary Peers, who come in through by-elections, and the Bishops.

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord True—it is nice to be able to say that from the Dispatch Box—in that I am not sure that a role for HOLAC regarding the Bishops is appropriate. The Bishops have their own method for being considered and an approval process before they come to this House.

I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Sheffield for his comments on this issue. He will have heard what Members have said. I think his voting record in the future may confound us. My experience of the Bishops is that they challenge the Government, whoever the Government of the day are. He was a Teller against the official Opposition and then the other night he was a Teller against the Government. I suspect that we may see this on other issues as well.

We welcome the presence of the Bishops here. They will have heard the comments from noble Lords; some were more measured than others and some were more supportive than others. There is a place in the House for the Bishops at the moment. However, if there are wider discussions on any future composition of the House, the Bishops will be part of them. But, at this stage, I request that the noble Lord withdraws the amendment in his name.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I have signed the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Lucas in this group, but that is not because I agree with every aspect of his amendment. I am not sure that any amendment is necessary to achieve the purpose that he and some others who have spoken want to see. Indeed, it could have the negative effect of locking the absolute right of the Crown to create any form of peerage within the frame of the 1958 Act, which, among other things, says that all peerages created under it can be only baronies. I support the amendment because I have long advocated the course that it seeks to enable, and I sense support for that in the Committee. It seeks the creation of peerages that do not entitle a person to a writ to sit in the House of Lords.

The nation will always want to honour those who are most distinguished among us with the high honour of a peerage, yet, as we have heard, not everyone who might be glad—or perhaps hungry or avid—to accept or secure an honour will wish to undertake the sometimes arduous role of playing a part in your Lordships’ House. We all know such people. We have all have known also some who walk the narrow tightrope between honour and duty.

I do not subscribe to the view that all who come here must smash the pain and endurance barriers in participation or attendance. I deplore the fact that some of our number, including much-respected colleagues on the other side, are being measured in this way in a current media campaign against the House. However, I acknowledge that many in this House and outside have high expectations that someone who accepts a peerage should be active in this House. The noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, reminded us of the wording of our summons in an earlier debate.

As some have argued, if we were able clearly to separate those who wish to play a role in Parliament and those who do not, it would, at the lowest argument for such a proposition, reduce at least some of the inflow in headline numbers to this House, to which many attach importance. In short, as argued by my noble friends, and as I would argue, you could have on one side Lords created under the 1958 Act, with all the expectations of a Writ of Summons conferred by that Act and the accompanying duty to take part, and another set of Peers honoured with the same degree of barony—even, potentially, a higher degree—who had no wish to be in this place but who have been proved deserving of such an honour. That is surely perfectly possible.

I have argued this case to at least three Prime Ministers, but the usual reply comes that the law is uncertain. I do not think it is that uncertain, but, if it is, let us, while we have this Bill before us, rally round my noble friend’s amendment, or some variation of it come Report, and make it certain. This would be an exceedingly useful change for the body politic.

The Life Peerages Act did not create a novel concept of a peerage for life. That had existed for centuries. It corrected two problems that had arisen in decisions by your Lordships’ Committee for Privileges. In 1922, in the Viscountess Rhondda case, it decided that a woman could not sit in this House—a shameful judgment, in retrospect—and in 1856, in the Wensleydale case, it concluded that a life peerage did not confer on a man a right to sit and vote in Parliament.

The Wensleydale case is germane to this argument because, although the House held that Sir James Parke’s life peerage did not entitle him to sit or speak in the House—he was later, as many of us know, given a hereditary peerage to allow him to do so and to take up his role as a Law Lord—the Committee for Privileges did not and could not extinguish his life peerage, which remained in existence as a perfectly proper exercise of Queen Victoria’s prerogative as the fount of honour. The issue was whether the hereditary Peers wanted to have him as a life Peer. Although it was said at the time that the creation of a life peerage for men might have fallen into disuse, the Wensleydale barony showed that it had not.

Furthermore, long after the Restoration and into the 19th century, monarchs created peerages for life which did not confer the right to a writ to sit in this House. Charles II created 10, I think; James II created one; William III created at least one; George I created three, I think; and there were others later into the 19th century. They were all for women—and maybe that explains why Charles II created 10 of them. Sadly, in those days, because they were women, they were unable to sit.

The power to create such peerages without the right to sit is, therefore, in my submission, absolutely inherent and current in the Crown. That was also the conclusion of the Lord Speaker’s committee on the size of the House in 2017, in, I believe, paragraphs 25 and 26 of the report. I see the noble Lord, Lord Burns, indicating assent.

Whenever we listen to the Letters Patent at Introductions, we hear reference, after the words

“in pursuance of the Life Peerages Act 1958”,

to another phrase:

“and of all other powers in that behalf us enabling”.

Among those other powers is, clearly, the power to create other types of peerage than a life peerage under the 1958 Act. Indeed, we had peerages under the 1876 Act until lately.

I submit that a Prime Minister could advise the monarch tomorrow to create a life peerage that did not entitle the Peer to sit in this House. I submit that that would be a useful innovation that would be widely welcomed on all sides, whether you were to call it modernisation or, as I am asserting, a useful revival of a custom of the past. It would, frankly, be a far more useful modernisation than what is in the Bill before us. I commend this proposal to the House, as I commend the purpose of my noble friend’s amendment. It is a change that is long overdue and does not require legislation. If Sir Keir Starmer were to take it up, I think it would be widely welcomed as a modern and sensible innovation.

[The Attorney-General (Lord Hermer) (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, for their amendments and for the brevity with which they spoke. With the greatest respect to their Lordships, the Government do not consider the amendments to be necessary or appropriate.

The reason why is that the Government believe there should be clarity both in your Lordships’ House and in the public at large as to what a life peerage is and, importantly, what the responsibilities are of those accorded the privilege of appointment. The granting of a life peerage, as we all know, brings with it responsibility for the work of your Lordships’ House: scrutinising legislation and holding the Government of the day to account. As my noble friend the Leader of the House has said, Peers should be appointed not only in recognition of their skills and expertise but in anticipation of those skills being put in service to your Lordships’ House.

The Government believe there is obvious benefit to the reputation of Parliament that the role of life Peers is well understood by members of the public. It may be thought that it would be apt to confusion if there is another class bearing the same name but not carrying with it the same obligations.

By contrast to the life peerage, the honour system represents the monarch’s recognition of past service or achievement without any obligation to future service. We do not consider that there is a clamour, either in Parliament or among the public, for some form of superannuation to the honour system so that some would bear the same title as life Peers who work in this House.

For those reasons, I respectfully ask that the amendment be withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord True (Con)]

I am sorry to persist. It is clear that we are getting nowhere on this tonight, but I believe this is a very constructive proposal. I am very disappointed by the noble and learned Lord’s response. A peerage is a peerage; a barony is a barony, whatever it is, under whatever part of the prerogative or Act of Parliament, or otherwise, it exists. As the noble Lord, Lord Burns, pointed out, we have retired people, we have hereditary Peers—the public are not reeling about in confusion. It may be that the noble and learned Lord is reeling about in confusion, but there may be many ways and many things that attach to the possession of the title “Lord”, just as if you have a knighthood, you can be a cricketer or a captain of industry, or many other things. The noble and learned Lord is ingeniously trying to create difficulties where, frankly, none exist. I would have thought this modernising Government would have the imagination to take a step forward.

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

My Lords, at the risk of being sent to a re-education camp by my Chief Whip, I find the noble and learned Lord’s argument more persuasive. However, I gave no notice to the Minister about my issue on styles. Can the noble and learned Lord give some careful consideration to that in due course and write to me on it?