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.