House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Mark Sewards Excerpts

Committee of the whole House
Tuesday 12th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)]

I am a proud, elected Member of this House. Like everyone in this place, I was sent here by my constituents to fulfil the greatest honour of my life for as long as the people of Leeds South West and Morley give me permission to do so.

I have heard Opposition Front Benchers say today that the Bill is based not on principle, but on political advantage. Serving in Westminster should never be an inalienable birthright. We can all get behind that basic principle. The very concept of hereditary peers remains indefensible in the 21st century. We are one of only two nations that currently has them. There should not be 92 seats in the other place reserved for people born into the right families. It is time to end that.

This Bill not only sets out our ambition to remove this archaic right, but shows our determination to make our democracy stronger and more representative. It is just the start of our commitment to reforming the other place and improving its ability to do what we were all sent here to do: serve the public. It is right that, after the immediate start on hereditary peers, the Government will take time to consider how best to implement further reforms, with the public and peers heavily involved in those discussions. Given the enthusiasm among Conservative Members for the changes that may be coming, I look forward to their leading the charge with us to reform the other place.

That said, there has been some confusion on the Conservative Benches about the Opposition’s position on the Bill. On Second Reading, I enjoyed the suggestions that we were going too far, as well as the suggestions that we were not going far enough. Conservative Members appear to want more debate on the broader changes that we suggest for the other place, but they spent their time in government blocking such changes for more than a decade. Zero progress was made.

[Sir Gavin Williamson]

rose—

[Nick Timothy]

rose—

[Mr Sewards]

I will happily give way to whichever Member is more enthusiastic.

[Nick Timothy]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and to my right hon. Friend. The hon. Gentleman has presented an argument that is based on the principle that hereditary peerages are wrong. Will he give us a clear, principled argument in favour of life peerages? Why does he believe that that is acceptable when those peers can legislate for a lifetime—for decades—with no accountability at all?

[Mr Sewards]

I emphasise that hereditary peers are in the House of Lords because they are born into a particular family. That cannot be right. Life peers are there because they are appointed, usually because of expertise that they can offer in scrutinising legislation. I therefore suggest that life peers definitely have the advantage over hereditary peers simply because they are not there through the family they were born into.

[Sir Gavin Williamson]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his generosity in giving way. He makes a persuasive and strong argument. What right does he think the Bishop of Winchester has to vote on matters relating to his constituents in Leeds South West and Morley, or to mine in Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge? What gives that bishop the right to be a legislator? What is the argument?

[Mr Sewards]

I have read the right hon. Gentleman’s amendment and understand his arguments, but the changes that we are proposing today are quite simply a down payment on the broader changes we will be bringing to the other place. And when we bring those other changes forward, I look forward to marching side by side with him through the Aye Lobby.

I gently suggest that many of the problems in our country today have been made significantly worse because the Conservative party has often prioritised keeping its factions happy ahead of any coherent policy making for our country. We have seen a microcosm of that today, and we saw it on Second Reading. It appears from most of the amendments submitted in Committee that the Conservatives do not have a problem with the substance of the change that we are offering, so I look forward to seeing many of them march through the Aye Lobby with us.

The other place plays an incredibly important role in our democracy. Its Members both scrutinise and improve legislation passed in this place, which has been very welcome—depending on who we ask—over many years. But the change we are considering today is very simple and is necessary to fulfil the promise we made at the general election: that we would end the outdated practice of hereditary peers.

I may not look it, but I am old enough to remember the last Labour Government. They started the process of reforming the other place, and it was clear then, as it is now, that it was a transitional compromise. It may have taken a while, but it falls on this Government to see through the work they started. This is an incredibly simple and effective change to the other place and I urge all Members of this House to support it.

[Sir Gavin Williamson]

I appreciate having had the opportunity to table a number of amendments to the Bill, very much in the hope of improving it and ensuring that we get it into the best possible place to deliver change—change that will ensure that the laws going through Parliament are scrutinised better and more democratically.

I appreciate that in politics there is a certain amount of robustness, a certain amount of argument, a certain amount of the “Punch and Judy politics” at which we all despair. We should be looking to do more and to do better. There are a number of things that the Labour party set out in its manifesto that I think command broad public support, and there are a number of things that it did not spell out in its manifesto that it is implementing and that most certainly do not command support. What does command broad public support is some of the changes Labour set out for the House of Lords. That is why I have tabled new clauses 3 and 4. I firmly believe that there is strong support for the introduction of a minimum contribution requirement in the House of Lords.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pete Wishart]

If that comes up for a vote this evening, we would support it. That is one way forward. It certainly would deal with some of the more egregious power that the Prime Minister has. I think that people across this country forget that our Prime Minister has this power—that he has this prerogative to singlehandedly design our legislature. The more that people learn about some of these issues the better. The one in seven who currently support these arrangements will fall to one in 70, because the place is an absurd embarrassment—by the way that it does business, by the way that it is allowed to set its membership and by the way that it presents itself to the world.

We have an opportunity this evening to improve, deal with and get some sort of solution to what this country does on a democratic basis, but the Government are not grabbing it—they are not even prepared to kick out the bloody bishops, for goodness’ sake. How on earth, in 2024, can we be in situation where we have bishops legislating in a modern, advanced, industrial democracy? It is beyond a joke.

We are removing the hereditaries, and those on the Government Front Bench are right: there is no great objection to the hereditaries being removed. I do not even sense much of a defence from some of our crustiest, oldest colleagues, who are sitting next to me; they half-heartedly feel that they have to do it for their pals, but they are not sincere and they do not really mean it. They know that time is up for the hereditaries, and quite rightly so—it is absurd that they are still a feature of our democracy in 2024.

After this, the bishops are going to stand out like a sore thumb in a cassock. They will be the ones on the frontline when it comes to the ridicule. I have a little suggestion for my friends, the clerics down the corridor: how about sticking to their ministries? It is not as if they are without a whole range of issues just now. Would they not be better deployed dealing with some of the things that we have seen in the news over the course of the past few days, instead of concerning themselves with attempts to run our country? We live in a multi-faith and no-faith complex democracy, where so few people actually attend their Church.

This historic remnant from medieval times—that we have to have bishops in the House of Lords—is totally absurd. I will be supporting the new clauses on this subject in the name of the right hon. Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge. In fact, they are only in his name because he beat me to the Table Office when I was trying to remove the class of bishops through the many amendments that I tabled.

The last amendments that I managed to table are a bit more trivial, but they address something that I think we still have to consider: the idea that former Members of Parliament should automatically expect a place in the House of Lords. We all know what it is like, don’t we? Towards the end of a Parliament, we all ask each other—well, no one asks me—“Are you going to get a place in the House of Lords, then, for standing down?”, and some say, “Ooh, I think so, I think so.”

There is always that tap on the shoulder for the parliamentarian who may be in the autumn of his or her career: “We’d like you to do the right thing, colleague. Would you mind thinking about standing down? We’ve got a new youthful, more energetic colleague, who would be a bit more helpful to the Prime Minister. We’ll make sure you’re all right; there’s a place in the House of Lords waiting for you.” How about ending that? It is a feature that the public particularly loathe and despair of, and it is just not right.

If colleagues want to continue to have a place in our legislature, they should stand for election. That is what most parliamentarians across the world do. Do not expect a place in the House of Lords. I have tabled new clause 13, which would deal with the issue. It states quite clearly that no one should be given a place in the House of Lords if they have served as a Member of Parliament in the current or last Parliament. I think that is fair and I encourage the Government to think about it as the Bill goes forward.

I will not be supporting the amendments tabled by those on the Conservative Front Bench. I do not suppose that they would expect me to do so. I do not even understand them, and I do not think that they really understand them either. The Opposition seem to be encouraging the Government to move quicker when it comes to House of Lords reform, and at the same time they are telling the Government that they are going too far. I will let the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds), who is on the Front Bench, explain exactly what they are trying to achieve, because I am having real difficulty following.

I will support the Liberals Democrats’ amendments, as I think they make a reasonable stab, but I say ever so gently to my Liberal colleagues that they have more places in the House of Lords per capita than any other political party in this place, so if they are serious about developing the House of Lords, why do they not just stop appointing people? That might have an impact—because all this mealy-mouthed, silly reform is not doing anything.

I will finish on this point: this is our only chance. There will not be any more House of Lords reform, regardless of what the Government say, and I know that they have said something to their Back Benchers to encourage them to come along today and tell us that there is further reform to come. There will not be further reform. All of us have seen this before. There are colleagues on the Conservative Benches who have seen this, been there and got the T-shirt—and that T-shirt says, “No more Lords reform in this Parliament.” That is what happens.

[Mr Sewards]

I am very grateful to the hon. Member for giving way, although perhaps less so now that I realise I have put myself in his sights. Looking back to the 1999 law, it is tempting to be jaded—especially for Members who were here then—and to think no more reform is coming. Does he accept, however, that many Labour Members, including almost all those present today, are brand-new and cannot be compared with that 1999 cohort? We are prepared to make further reforms in this Parliament—after all, the public voted for change, and we are here to deliver it.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Mark Sewards Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Thursday 4th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)]

I rise to speak to all the Lords amendments, but I will go into more detail on Lords amendments 1, 2, 3 and 8. I am pleased that the Bill is making progress, and I look forward to seeing it on the statute book as soon as possible. We are one step closer to fulfilling yet another manifesto pledge.

I welcome Lords amendments 4, 5, 6, 7 and 9 for the reasons already set out. They will allow Members of the other place who lose capacity to retire with the dignity that they deserve. It is clearly a sensitive and complex problem, and I congratulate the Government on finding a solution that received unanimous cross-party support in the other place. I hope it will receive the same cross-party unanimous support in this place today.

We have already discussed Lords amendments 1 and 8, which propose to stop hereditary peer by-elections and stop any vacancies being filled, although they would still allow current hereditary peers to stay in the Lords, allowing their numbers to grow smaller and smaller as they gradually begin to leave. If passed, the amendments would leave the current crop of hereditary peers in the Second Chamber for years and years—indeed, in some cases, as we have heard, for decades—but the entire purpose of the Bill is to remove them immediately, because of the principle that underpins our decision to make this change.

[Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)]

I count a great many hereditary peers among my friends, and I know that they do excellent jobs. However, Britain stands, alongside Lesotho, as a complete anomaly in the 21st century by preserving legislative roles based on lineage. Serving in this House, as in any other, is a privilege of the highest order. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that our legislators should be there on the basis of merit rather than DNA?

[Mark Sewards]

I congratulate the hon. Lady for having so many friends in the other place. I could not agree with her more—it is almost as if she has read my speech and hence made her timely intervention.

[Andrew Rosindell]

If the hon. Gentleman agrees that the hereditary principle is wrong and that no one should be in this Parliament by dint of DNA, surely he is saying that we should abolish the monarchy. The Crown is part of this Parliament and Royal Assent is part of the legislative process. If we go by his principle, the hon. Gentleman is basically saying that the monarchy itself is no longer relevant. Is that what he is saying?

[Mark Sewards]

All I would say is, “Long live the King.” What we do with our hereditary peers today does not affect what we do with our monarchy. As I was saying, no one should serve in the other place and make our laws simply because of the family that they were born into. No one should—not them, not me, not my children and not theirs. That is a basic principle that I hope we can all get behind.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman’s case, in essence, is that the only form of legitimacy in the exercise of power is democratic legitimacy, but that does not square with the exercise of power in all kinds of other ways, does it? We do not elect our judges—some countries do, but we do not. We do not elect all kinds of people who exercise fundamental powers. Many kinds of legitimacy are not democratic legitimacy. Surely he acknowledges that, had the Government come forward with a proposal that allowed the hereditary peerage to wither on the vine, it would be hard for anyone in the House to disagree, given that the Government had a manifesto commitment.

[Mark Sewards]

The principle I am talking about applies specifically to the two Chambers that make and scrutinise our laws, submit amendments and so on. The idea that some people should be allowed a say in that process because of the family they were born into is alien to me. The House of Lords should have been abolished years ago. I am glad that the Government are finally taking the steps to remove that principle.

I am certain that decent arguments can be made for the contributions of hereditary peers being good ones, often with the nuance and expertise that comes with dedicated service in the other place. I have no doubt that we will hear such arguments today, but the same is true of those who are appointed as life peers—at least when political parties fulfil their responsibilities and choose appropriate people for the roles. Life peers, too, will go on to make excellent contributions and scrutinise our laws carefully using their relevant expertise and knowledge—given that they are often selected because of their expertise and knowledge, and not in the cynical way that the shadow Front Bench and others were suggesting earlier. Even if they do not, it is a life appointment, not one based on blood that they can pass down to the next generation, so I think that the system of life peerages is the better way to go. If Opposition Members genuinely believe that the hereditary peers who will lose their places because of this legislation should still be in the other place, they can ensure that the Leader of the Opposition, whoever that is, submits their names to make them a life peer.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

The hon. Gentleman makes the point extremely well, and I think that people with a mind to compromise would like to go down that road, but does he recognise that the usual handful of allocations will not be enough on this one-off occasion to meet the requirement that he has so ably outlined?

[Mark Sewards]

More than 20 positions are available already and, as time goes on, more will become available. It will be up to the Leader of the Opposition to make that decision.

[Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Labour party manifesto stated clearly that we will abolish hereditary peers? Were we not to do so, the people of this country would simply be bewildered.

[Mark Sewards]

My hon. Friend made the point extremely well. I have had to deal with this on a number of issues, including introducing VAT on private schools, for example, where Members came to this place, argued the point and said that we had no right to do it—yet it was in our manifesto, so we have a moral obligation to pass this legislation. I hope that Opposition Members will join us in the lobbies as we do so. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) chunters from a sedentary position, but I am more than happy to take an intervention, if he wishes to make one.

[Alex Burghart]

If the hon. Gentleman believes that the Labour party has a moral obligation to implement every part of its manifesto, how does he feel about the bits that it has already ditched?

[Mark Sewards]

The Labour party has a moral obligation to fulfil our manifesto pledges, and I am confident that during our five-year term we will make great progress on everything that we set out in that document.

I have argued that Lords amendment 1 undermines the core purpose of the Bill and is entirely inconsistent with our commitment to remove hereditary peers from the other place. Lords amendment 2 is an attempt to ensure that in future all Ministers who sit in the House of Lords are paid a salary. Having read Lords Hansard, I know that this is a well-intentioned amendment and I can see why the Lords have submitted it. However, ministerial salaries are determined by the Ministerial and Other Salaries Act 1975, so any proposals to change them should be made through amendments to that Act rather than through this Bill. This Bill is specific, narrow and focused. If we want to have a conversation about those salaries, we need to allocate far more time to that and consider separate legislation, so I will not be supporting Lords amendment 2.

I had to do quite a bit of reading around the subject to understand Lords amendment 3. I understand that Lord True, the leader of the Opposition in the House of Lords, wanted to clarify the power of the monarch to confer a life peerage that is granted without a right to a seat in the House of Lords. The creation of a new form of life peerage without any kind of parliamentary responsibility is unnecessary—I will take interventions, as I am happy to have this point clarified—because, quite simply, the King already has that power. He used it when he granted his brother, Prince Edward, the title of Duke of Edinburgh. Therefore, the power already exists and the need to clarify that power is unnecessary.

Lord True mentioned that the newly clarified power could be used to honour people without swelling the ranks of the House of Lords. However, as we have already heard, if we want to recognise special contributions to public life, there are already plenty of ways to do that, such as knighthoods, damehoods, OBEs, CBEs and so on. I maintain that life peerages should be reserved for those who actively participate in the work of the House of Lords, and I therefore urge the House to disagree with Lords amendment 3.

Speaking about Lords reform more broadly, which has come up during the debate, I was pleased to read in Lords Hansard that Baroness Smith has suggested that a Select Committee, set up in the other place, could be used to examine a mandatory retirement age and minimum participation requirements, which I know many Members in this House support. The suggestion included a timeframe: set the Committee up within three months of the Bill receiving Royal Assent and it will report back next year, so we can make real progress on the other commitments. I wholeheartedly endorse that approach and look forward to the outcome of this work.

[Sir John Hayes]

The hon. Gentleman is being generous with his time. I am inclined to agree with him about the appointment of life peers who do not sit. I do not know the view of Members on the Government Front Bench on that, but the hon. Gentleman makes a good and valid argument. If people do not attend, it is sensible that they should not retain their right to do so. If people are appointed to the House of Lords and then never turn up, there is a good argument that there should be a point at which they should be told that they no longer have that title. However, on the matter of retirement on the grounds of age, this is a very dicey business, given that we have legislation that prohibits discrimination on the basis of age.

[Mark Sewards]

The right hon. Gentleman’s point is well made and I will be following the work of the Select Committee closely. We have already heard names mentioned of people who are over the age of 80 and still making great contributions, so I will follow the Committee’s work closely before making a final judgment on the issue.

More broadly than the work that the Committee will undertake, once this Bill has become law, I will continue to advocate for a second Chamber that is more representative of our nations and regions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

What about Scotland?

[Mark Sewards]

The hon. Gentleman chunters from a sedentary position. When it comes to Scotland, the figure is about 2% or 3%—I cannot recall the actual figures, but I will check.

The point remains that we have to make the House of Lords more representative of our nations and regions. We could address this issue in a piecemeal way, in the same way that we have addressed the hereditary issue over many decades. We could slowly introduce reform after reform on who gets appointed, where they come from, what proportion have to come from Yorkshire and so on, but I am not a fan of that approach. We should be as bold as possible and do the difficult work now, because we were elected to do the difficult work in this term and set out an ambitious plan for the wholesale replacement of the other Chamber, ready to be made up of people from all our nations and regions. It should be a truly democratic body that draws on the same golden thread that should always exist between the people we serve in this place and those who should sit in a second elected Chamber. [Interruption.] Hon. Members chunter that this point is off topic; I probably agree, because the Bill does not cover that.

I will draw my remarks to a close. The Bill in front of us will remove the archaic right of somebody to sit in Parliament because of the family they were born into; I find that principle very hard to disagree with. The Bill shows our determination to make our democracy stronger and more representative, and it should be just the start of our commitment to reform the other place and improve our ability to do what we were all sent here to do: serve the public.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)]

I find this to be quite a curious debate thus far. There is not any great energy among Members on the Conservative Benches; I fully expected and anticipated that they would be down here in great numbers to defend their noble colleagues. I think there is only one Conservative speaker left—I look forward to the remarks of the hon. Member for Windsor (Jack Rankin). There was not the usual energy in the speech of the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart); I just do not know what was missing. There is a sense that they cannot be bothered defending this issue any more, which is a good thing. I am also beginning to detect a little bit of a drift between noble Lords in the Conservative party in the House of Lords and Conservative Members here.