House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Report (2nd Day)

16:15:00

Amendment 13

Moved by

13: After Clause 1, insert the following new Clause— “Unsalaried MinistersNo one who is a Minister of the Crown shall be eligible for membership of the House of Lords unless they are in receipt of, or have been offered, a salary under the Ministerial and Other Salaries Act 1975.”Member's explanatory statement This amendment would mean that unpaid Ministers would not be eligible for membership of the House, effectively requiring all Lords Ministers to be paid.

My Lords, before speaking to Amendment 13, I should explain that I have tabled Amendment 13A on the supplementary list to put beyond doubt a point that may have been an unintended effect of the original drafting of Amendment 13. Amendment 13A ensures that the proposal in Amendment 13 would not apply to any existing Member of this House, but only to future ministerial appointments of new life Peers. After all, we on this side do not favour the forced expulsion of any Member of your Lordships’ House, and indeed your Lordships voted to support that important constitutional principle only last week. It has been agreed in the usual channels that, if the clarifying Amendment 13A is supported in a Division, Amendment 13 will be accepted as a consequential, so there will be only one vote on this issue. The purpose of this is to send a clear message to the other place and to all Governments—I emphasise “all Governments”, and will come back to that—that service as a Minister in your Lordships’ House should be properly remunerated. There are other issues that need to be addressed, including pension and severance pay, but this amendment is about pay. I spoke at some length on this in Committee, and I do not need to repeat all the arguments here, but let me set out three firm principles on which surely we across this House should all stand. The first is a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work; the second is equal treatment for Ministers in both Houses; and the third is that no Member of this House should be prevented from serving their party, their House and their country for the lack of private means to do so. That is an unfairness that should have ceased to exist in the 18th century, let alone now in the second quarter of the 21st century. None of those basic principles that I have set out currently applies to Lords Ministers’ pay. Surely all Government Ministers in the House of Lords, whichever party is in office, should be paid. If they wish to renounce that pay, or any part of it, that is all well and good, but that does not affect the basic underlying principles. In Committee, I spoke very frankly of my sense of shame—and, I might have added, anger—that I was unable to resolve this issue while I was Leader of the House because of, frankly, opposition at the top of both major parties. I exclude the noble Baroness opposite from this, who was extremely helpful and constructive in our discussions. I need not repeat those points today. Towards the end of the last Government, 14 Ministers and Whips in this House were expected to work unpaid. The unpaid Ministers included my noble friends Lord Howe, Lord Minto, Lord Camrose and Lord Roborough. It is richly ironic that their public service and self-sacrifice then will now be rewarded by this Bill, as originally drafted, excluding them from our House. As I said in Committee, I felt particularly keenly that it was a disgrace that my noble friend Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon, a consummate and internationally respected servant of his country, lost out doubly as being unpaid and unable to claim an allowance because he was so often unable to attend the House because of his duties overseas. Such things should not happen. Today, the Downing Street website tells us—I take it directly from there—that the noble Baroness, Lady Gustafsson, of Chesterton, and the noble Lords, Lord Hanson of Flint, Lord Timpson and Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill, all work as Ministers of State unpaid. The noble Lords, Lord Moraes, Lord Wilson of Sedgefield, Lord Katz and Lord Leong, and the noble Baroness, Lady Blake of Leeds, all work as Government Whips unpaid, according to the government website this morning. Perhaps only those of us in this House understand the immense burden and workload that falls on Whips in your Lordships’ House. It is quite different from what happens in the Commons. We admire them all greatly, and each of those Ministers I named are greatly admired and respected by their colleagues on this side of the House. But no one should be required to do all that work without pay. No one in any other workplace would tolerate that as a fair way to treat labour. Where is the clause in the massive Employment Rights Bill to right the wrong that is done not just to those individuals but, frankly, to the dignity of this House? I take nothing away from the sense of public duty. I admire it tremendously because it has led noble Lords under successive Governments to give public service here without reward. But not everyone in this place has the means to do that. That is an unfairness and an injustice, and it should end. The problem results from two 50 year-old statutes: the Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975 limits the total number of paid Ministers to 109, and the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 allows for up to 95 Ministers in the House of Commons. If the Commons takes up its full allocation of 95 ministerial places, the effective, legal statutory limit for paid Ministers in your Lordships’ House under that limit of 109 is just 14. Clearly, that is not enough. The system must be changed. Of course, it could be changed by a simple Bill agreed across the parties to amend paragraph 2 of Part V of Schedule 1 to the Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975 Act. I am sure we could agree that very swiftly. The self-sacrifice and sense of duty of those who serve for nothing should be respected. However, it need not for ever be repeated. We cannot neglect this issue, I submit, for the dignity and effectiveness of this House. This amendment would force the hand of all future Governments and all parties in the other place to address the issue. Now that the Bill has now been amended and is going back to the other place, I hope we may agree to send this important message down the Corridor. On the basis of my experience and my sense of the rightness and fairness of this House, it is high time to open up the opportunity to every one of us here who may wish to serve their party and country as Ministers or Whips in this place but cannot afford to do so without pay to have that chance. On our side, we will work across the House to agree and expedite a fuller solution going beyond this initial step, which will redress the balance between Commons and Lords Ministers. In the interim, I commend this first step to the House, with the firm belief that if no message is ever sent, the same experience that I and former Leaders of the House have had will go on recurring and people here will be asked to work for nothing.

My Lords— Amendment 13A (to Amendment 13)

Moved by

13A: At end insert— “(2) This section does not apply to Ministers of the Crown appointed before the day on which this section comes into effect.”

My Lords, as explained, I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.

I apologise for jumping the gun, but the enthusiasm I feel for this amendment from my noble friend goes back to the previous Parliament: I pay tribute to the Leader of the House and to my noble friend for the efforts that were made in the last Parliament to right this wrong. Perhaps I could just make a few punchy points. There is a limit, as my noble friend has explained, on the total number of Ministers. I was very indebted, in the last Parliament, to my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham, who pointed out that there seems to be an increasingly inflationary effect on the number of Ministers who are needed to run this country. When I was Secretary of State, pre-devolution, we were responsible for everything, not just the devolutionary matters in Scotland, and we did it with one Secretary of State, four Ministers and two law officers. There are now 29 Ministers in the Scottish Parliament. I am looking at my noble friend Lord Clarke. He and my noble friend Lord Fowler ran the Department for Transport in 1979 with two Ministers, and in 1979, that department was responsible for British Airways, the ports and the National Freight Corporation, none of which applies to the present or the previous Government’s Department for Transport, just to show that I am being non-partisan. In 1979, there were two Ministers, but by 2023 there were five Ministers in the Department for Transport, with much less to do. The same was true of the DHSS, which had five Ministers in 1979. The DHSS was then split into two departments: the Department of Health and the DWP. The DHSS had five Ministers in 1979, but the two departments between them had 12 Ministers. You could argue that things have got more complicated, but there does seem to be an inflationary effect which even beats the Bank of England in the ability to create this kind of growth. I think that it is very important that the principle that my noble friend has enunciated should be upheld: no one should be unable to be a Minister because they do not have the private means to do so. But just to follow up on my point, it looks to me suspiciously as though ministerial appointments in the other place were being used as a means of patronage by the previous Government to make sure that people would go through the Lobbies. This Government do not really need much patronage —until recently, at least, they had a huge and loyal majority—but it looks as if that is what is happening. If we add to that the appointment of people who act as trade envoys and so on, it looks as if appointments are being used to increase the power of the Executive at the expense of the elected Chamber and this House. I think that my noble friend’s amendment and this principle is very important, because it goes to the heart of the ability of Parliament to hold the Executive to account. This is not the only anomaly in the way this House is treated in respect of remuneration. Our Select Committees, if they go and do their work outside the House, can claim only half a day’s attendance, yet if people participate in our Questions remotely, they can claim a full day’s attendance allowance. I am sick to death of reading in the newspapers how we in this House are paid £371 for just turning up. No one points out that, out of that £371, people are expected to make a contribution to their overnight allowance and expected to cover their own secretarial and research costs. I point out that in the other place, the allowance for secretarial and other support can go up to £250,000 and the housing allowance up to £25,000. Yes, MPs have constituents but, in this House, we often sit long after the other place has gone because we are clearing up the mess which is left when Bills have not been properly considered. Ministers in this House—God bless them—are expected to stand at the Dispatch Box, although they do not always do so, and answer questions not only on behalf of their departments but for the whole of the Government. This is an onerous task, and the idea that people should be expected to do that unpaid is, frankly, utterly outrageous.

16:30:00

It is just as outrageous for people at the other end of the Corridor to use patronage—because that is what I think is happening here—to create additional ministerial duties. Goodness knows what they are all doing; they must be tripping over each other in departments. As far as I can see, under the last Government we seemed to go through a period in which the Ministers were simply told what to do by people in No. 10 and a bunch of unelected special advisers. There is no justification for what is going on here. I very much hope the Government will accept that there is support on all sides of the House for dealing with this anomaly and ensuring that those who serve our country so brilliantly by being Ministers on the Front Bench are properly rewarded for doing so and, more importantly, that no one is prevented from doing so.

This system, in which Ministers are expected to rush here to get their £371, is ridiculous. How can this work for Foreign Office Ministers—such as the noble Baroness, who may be doing important work overseas and is completely unpaid, as in the last Government with the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon—or Defence Ministers? It is completely unacceptable and is yet another example of how the other place shows a lack of respect for this place in how it receives and considers our amendments, and how it treats our Ministers and people in Parliament. I hope that the Leader will be able to persuade her colleagues to find a way of finally sorting this out, so that people can see that this House is respected and treated properly.

My Lords, as probably the most recently retired unpaid Minister, I acknowledge the shop stewarding role of the noble Lords, Lord True and Lord Forsyth. Clearly, they raise an issue of principle. As they have set out, the issue is around a Prime Minister’s management of MPs in the Commons and both Acts of 1975. Although I do not think this amendment is really appropriate in this Bill, it is a substantive issue and it is clearly unacceptable that Ministers of the Crown are unpaid. It reduces the talent pool from which to choose, and it has a flavour of cricket 50 years ago and gentlefolk amateurs. That is quite unfair, but it gives a flavour of those compared with professional politicians. How can this be solved? Of course, Prime Ministers could exercise rather more restraint over the number of Commons Ministers who are appointed—good luck with that. As the noble Lord, Lord True, said, we could also bring forward a little Bill to increase the number of paid Ministers allowed. I cannot believe—and the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, put his finger on it—that a Government would ever increase the number of paid Ministers in the febrile atmosphere in which we currently operate. It is worth acknowledging that the inflation has gone down a bit. Research from the Library shows that in 2010, the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, had 118 Ministers, which, by my reckoning, means at least nine were unpaid. The noble Baroness, Lady May, had a similar figure in 2015. Mr Johnson had nine unpaid in December 2019, according to a Parliamentary Answer. My figures show that Mr Sunak increased it to 17 unpaid Ministers, 15 of whom were in your Lordships’ House. Frankly, I am very dubious that we will see any improvement until we come back to the fundamental issue of substantive reform of your Lordships’ House. The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, may shake his head, but the reality is that the Lords is treated in the way that it is because we are not legitimate at the moment. I am afraid that the sorts of amendments from the Lib Dems on an elected House, and even tinkering around in terms of the numbers, is not going to cut the cake until we decide what the role of the second Chamber should be, its powers, how its membership is arrived at and whether Ministers would be appropriate to serve in such a reformed second Chamber. Finally, the question which noble Lords and all other commentators will never answer is: what are the respective powers and relationships between the Lords and Commons, and how do you resolve differences? Let us get down to the real business and not go ahead with this proposal, which, I am afraid, is for the birds.

My Lords, I support these amendments because arrangements in a free economy involve an exchange of labour in return for payment. Since time immemorial, we have accepted that the labourer is worthy of his hire. Not only does payment represent a benefit to him for work done, but it reflects the obligations on the employer to meet certain conditions and take certain responsibilities, as it does on him. In the case of ministerial salaries, as my noble friends have pointed out, this has long been recognised in law, with limits put on the number of Ministers, of course. The Ministers of the Crown Act 1937 regulated the salaries payable to Ministers. As we have heard today, the 1975 Act expanded on that and on the limits on numbers. Unpaid Ministers in the House of Lords should indeed be entitled to claim parliamentary allowances under the prevailing rules of Parliament, but they are not. As we have heard, many lose out even on the attendance allowance if they are on business abroad. There is good reason to pay people for work expected of them and done. In my view, it is thrice blessed. It blesses he or she who gives their labour, he or she who takes the money and he or she who benefits from the labour. I am in no doubt that without payment—I speak as a former director of a think tank and an employer—we cannot expect clear responsibilities to be fulfilled without Lords Ministers and the public being clear about the obligations on all Ministers, including those in the Lords. Parliament and the Executive will not be seen to be responsible to their paymasters. We need to be clear about what the duties are in this Chamber. We know what they are, but the public are not aware of them. We have heard today about the long hours and the serious grind that is put in by Ministers of the Crown. Therefore, it is in my view very important that this work and this contract of employment—for that is what it is, even if it is not stated—should be set out. People should freely see what is expected of Ministers and that they fulfil their duties. It is very good for democracy, for our constitution and for accountability, so I support the amendments. I also echo what was said by my noble friend Lord True, that they can denounce the payment—I add that they could give it to charity—but the principle should be implemented.

I was very happy to add my name to this amendment as someone also with personal experience. My noble friend Lord True set out three principles which I think we would all agree with. I think there is a fourth: meritocracy. The best person selected for a position should be selected regardless of race, gender, religion, sexuality or wealth. We all believe in the principle of equality in this House, so why should it not apply in the case of Ministers?

My Lords, I too was happy to put my name to the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord True, and agree with the points that my noble friends have made so far. In contrast to the rest of the Bill, where we have been debating complex and profound elements of our constitution, this—as we have heard—is a much more common-sense amendment. It could be fixed with a single clause or even, to placate the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, a sunset clause attached to it if others agreed that more reform was needed. In addition to the points made about being paid fairly for the work that one does, attracting the best talent from the widest pool and adopting an approach of meritocracy, as my noble friend Lord Markham said, I will make a couple of other points. The first is stability. Both the previous and current Governments have been able to attract people of great talent, reputation and achievement, but historically that has not always been a stable ministerial model. Stability is important for delivering and executing a Government’s policy effectively. If a Minister changes every year, that is unhelpful, and I know that a number of previous Ministers have felt unable to continue in their role, despite the unquestioned expertise that they brought to it. As has been touched on, there is also an effectiveness point. I was fortunate to be a Minister in the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport and the Department for Education. In the Department for Education, I did pretty much all my visits on a Friday because I needed to claim my expenses—or allowance, whatever it is called—for attending your Lordships’ House. As has been noted, colleagues in the Foreign Office, the Ministry of Defence and so forth were not able to. An article in the Times in 2023 reported a Conservative Back-Bencher—I am dying to know who it was—as saying: “You can always find ambitious flunkies who will do it—but it is much harder to find anyone good”. I have to say that I have never thought of myself as an ambitious flunkey, and I worked with excellent fellow Ministers. For me, being a Minister, although I was unpaid, was the highlight of my career. I would do it again like a shot, paid or unpaid, but it is not a choice we should ask potential Ministers to make.

My Lords, I rise to give strong support to the amendment moved so ably by my noble friend. Like other noble Lords, I do so on the basis of some experience. In November 2021, I was invited to join the Government as a Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Northern Ireland Office. I had been involved in the affairs of Northern Ireland since the mid-1980s and advised six Secretaries of State, so it was familiar territory for me. At the time, however, it was made clear that there was no salary. Ministers of the Crown are rightly forbidden from having outside interests. As has been pointed out, some are fortunate enough to be independently wealthy. Alas, I was not in that category. As a result, for reasons that will be understood across the House, it was necessary for me to attend your Lordships’ House each sitting day. Being an effective Northern Ireland Office Minister requires a significant amount of engagement and visibility within Northern Ireland itself, but I was severely constrained from doing that for a year. For that first year, invitations to attend events or meetings from Monday to Wednesday—or to substitute for other Ministers who might have three-line Whips in the other place—had to be declined. Noble Lords will be familiar with the ongoing significance of US involvement in the affairs of Northern Ireland and of the importance of engaging directly with Irish America. Of the ministerial team of three— I assure my noble friend Lord Forsyth—at the NIO at the time, I had by far the most experience in these matters and the best network of contacts. So in March 2022, then Secretary of State Brandon Lewis asked me to accompany him on the annual week-long St Patrick’s visit, which typically involves high-level meetings at the Executive Office, the State Department, the House Speaker’s lunch and the President’s reception at the White House. I see the noble Lord, Lord Hain, in his place; he will be familiar with those events. It is essential that the UK Government’s voice is heard during this frantic week. Unfortunately, however, I had to decline the invitation in order to attend your Lordships’ House. It was, to put it mildly, a less than satisfactory situation and, as has been referred to, a number of my noble friends had similar problems when they were in government. It cannot be right that Members of your Lordships’ House have to face the challenges with which I grappled for a year and be expected to perform as Ministers without a salary—frankly, it is absurd. The Prime Minister himself is certainly aware of this issue, as he discussed it with me as a problem to be resolved during an event that we both attended at Hillsborough Castle in April 2023. I strongly support my noble friend and urge the Lord Privy Seal, herself a distinguished former Northern Ireland Office Minister, to accept this sensible and necessary amendment.

16:45:00

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, made a very eloquent speech, but I am puzzled by it. He did not dispute the merits of what is proposed in this amendment or the mischief that it is addressing; his point appeared to be that nothing will be done by government until there is fundamental reform of this House. But we all know that that will not occur—at the very least, not for a very long time. Because of that, over recent years this House has regularly addressed specific mischiefs and improved them. This is another one, and we should act on it.

My Lords, I declare an interest: for five years, I was an unpaid Lords Minister and Whip in the coalition Government. When we have a coalition Government—we may very well find ourselves with a rather messy coalition after the next election—there may be an argument for having a larger number of Ministers, because we have to spend some of our time marking each other, so to speak. My responsibilities were in the Foreign Office and the Cabinet Office, and I did indeed spend quite a lot of time outside the country. That enabled the Foreign Office to send someone to a number of countries that would otherwise have been entirely neglected without the most junior Minister, as it were, being sent there. I was lucky enough—and still am—to have an academic pension and a wife who has an academic pension, which means that we are moderately comfortably off. Maybe if we were of the Conservative variety, we would find that we needed more to live on, but one can manage not too badly on an academic pension. I did not mind missing some of the days in the House. We have heard a number of interesting speeches, which have ranged very widely, including on the relationship between the two Houses. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, that I am reading a book on the House of Lords in the 17th and early 18th centuries, when we had conferences between the two Houses; maybe he would like to suggest that we move back towards that. Here we are on Report for a Bill that has been deliberately designed to be as narrow as possible, but we are talking about the relationship between the two Houses, the way in which government is structured and how many Ministers we need. The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, is absolutely correct that keeping the Back-Benchers in order has led to an expansion of government patronage. He did not make as much about the expansion of PPSs in the House, as well as trade envoys, which has meant that the House of Commons has ceased, in effect, to do a lot of its scrutiny job. Indeed, some weeks ago I met a Labour MP, elected last year, and she said that she wondered what the purpose of an MP is in the House of Commons now, as they are not expected to change legislation or to get at the mistakes that their own Government are making. There are some very broad issues here, but those issues are broader than this Bill. We all know what the impact of this amendment, if passed, would be: the House of Lords would have fewer Ministers. That would damage this House very considerably, because the current Government are highly unlikely to shrink the number of Ministers in the Commons. If we want to shrink the number of Ministers, we should be agitating, but, of course, part of what has happened is that as local government has got weaker and central government has taken on more of what used to the role of local democracy, Ministers have expanded in all the things they do. So, from these Benches, we will not support the amendment. Yes, we do favour much wider parliamentary reform. Yes, we favour much more thoroughgoing reform of this House. Yes, we are immensely disappointed at the timidity of this Government, with respect to this Bill as in so many other areas. But here we are, with a Bill that is concerned with a small change in the nature of this House, and unable to persuade the Government, without a much longer conversation, to change the 1975 Act, to change the way the Commons operates and, in that case, those of us on these Benches will vote against the amendment if a Division is called.

My Lords, I was sitting here with unusual patience, but the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, has encouraged me to intervene to make just one point. The Bill says it is to: “Remove the remaining connection between hereditary peerage and membership of the House of Lords; to abolish the jurisdiction of the House of Lords in relation to claims to hereditary peerages; and for connected purposes”. Whereas I agreed with almost everything that the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, said, it is nothing to do with this Bill, and I do not understand, with due respect to the clerks, how they agreed these amendments. I think it is a disgrace.

My Lords, I was going to intervene briefly anyway, but, in response to the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, I do not think it is customary for any Member of this House to start to question the clerks, who do not have the ability to speak for themselves. As the noble Lords knows, if this amendment were not allowed, it would not have been possible to table it. The only point I want to add was prompted by something my noble friend Lord Caine said. I do not think it has been reflected in this debate. Before we decide how to respond to my noble friend pushing his amendment, the noble Lord Caine made the point that, when a Member of this House becomes a Minister, even an unpaid Minister, they have to give up all their outside interests. There is another factor that it is worth us being aware of: the same Ministers are also subject to the ACOBA restrictions for two years after they stop being Ministers. So their employment prospects also have some constraints put on them, after they have not been paid for two years and they have had to give up any outside interests as well. That is something else we should take account of.

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord True, for raising this issue again, following the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson. It is one of those issues. He and I have discussed it many times, including when he was Leader of the House. I think the principle of paid Ministers is an absolutely sound one and I welcome the noble Lords, Lord True and Lord Forsyth, to the Ministers’ union, for which I am happy to supply application forms in due course. As much as the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, is an unlikely shop steward, I am sure he would be very welcome. This comes to the heart of the issue. I have to disagree with my noble friend Lord Foulkes; the clerks did rule it in order as an amendment. There was some surprise about the range of amendments we have had on the Bill, but that is not to say they are not in scope. We have to accept they are in scope, however wide they go from the original title of the Bill. I am glad the noble Lord, Lord True, tabled his Amendment 13A. I think he did so, recognising that the consequence of Amendment 13 would be that not only would we lose Ministers from the Government if it passed, but we would lose them from your Lordships’ House as well. They would have to go immediately, as Ministers, so I welcome his amendment. First, it is right to say that the work of a Lords Minister is one of the most difficult jobs in government.

Hear, hear.

My noble friends agree with me—both paid, I hasten to add; both Foreign Office Ministers and our Defence Ministers are paid Ministers but are still here in the Chamber, recognising the duty and responsibility they have to the House, as well as to their departments and the Government. As I say, the work Lords Ministers do covers not just their ministerial work in the department but any other work related to the Government, and they will answer questions on behalf of any issue affecting their department. I have great pride in the Ministers we have in our Government, and indeed I think the House has always respected Ministers from all the three parties who have been in government in the past. I disagree with the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, when she quoted somebody else who talked about it being “hard to find someone good”. Actually, we do find good people, but they make a sacrifice in order to do so—she is nodding that she did quote somebody, and I accept that.

To be clear, I also completely disagree with that, which is why I went on to say that I had worked with excellent Ministers, and we have excellent Ministers today.

I did not think that was what the noble Baroness said; I thought she was quoting somebody else. On the points made about ministerial pay, again, there was a very spirited and valuable defence from the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth. I have to say that the noble Lords, Lord Forsyth and Lord Hunt, went rather wider than this particular issue, as did the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, in talking about the respective merits of the House of Lords and the House of Commons. That just shows the appetite for looking at these issues across government. As the noble Lord, Lord True, confessed, we have been able to make some improvements in this Government. Before the general election, there were 31 Ministers in government in your Lordships’ House, of whom only 17 were paid and 14 were unpaid. We have been able to improve that situation; we now have only nine unpaid Ministers out of 20 Ministers. The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, asked for an assurance from me that I would use my best endeavours to persuade colleagues to try to find a way forward in delivering this. He will know, as does the noble Lord, Lord True, that I have done so since I have been in post and did so before, which is partly why the position is so much better than it was under the last Government. I look forward to further improvements in that regard. The noble Lord, Lord True, gave his three principles. The first was a fair day’s pay for work done, and the second was equal treatment. Actually, there is not equal treatment between the two Houses. He will be aware that the ministerial salaries that Ministers receive in the House of Commons are in addition to their salary, whereas in the House of Lord there is a choice in the sense that Ministers who are unpaid claim, or can claim, the daily allowance. So if we say that they are completely unpaid, we understand what we mean by that but those outside the House may not. However, it is also worth looking at the fact that, since 2010, there have been no incremental or cost-of-living increases in ministerial salaries. That has meant that Ministers whom we term unpaid, particularly if they live in London, can be earning more than Ministers who are paid. So there are a number of issues to be addressed. I am not citing exact figures, but it is a very similar amount. I am pointing out that there are a number of issues to be addressed in the inequalities between both Houses. I think we all agree that no one should be prevented from serving. So I am not disputing the principle behind the amendment; I am saying that we cannot support the amendment. If the noble Lord had as his amendment that he wanted to amend the Ministerial and Other Salaries Act to increase the number of Ministers overall, that would certainly help guarantee an increase in the number of Ministers. But it has always been the case since then that there has been a small number of unpaid Ministers in your Lordships’ House; it grew under the last Government. However, if this amendment was passed, it would not mean that any currently unpaid Lords Minister would receive a salary—it would have no impact. It would not increase the number of salaries available for Lords Ministers, therefore it is not a practical solution to what we all agree is a problem. It would also put limits on the ability of the Prime Minister to choose the Ministers he or she seeks to choose. This amendment would have no effect and we cannot support it. It is an issue to be addressed, and the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth—who is leaping to his feet as I speak—sought an assurance that we are addressing it. He can take some comfort that this is a significantly better situation than under the last Government. Before I ask the noble Lord, Lord True, to withdraw, I will take this urgent intervention.

My Lords—

Before the noble Baroness sits down, can she help me on a procedural point? If Amendment 13 were to be passed, Amendment 13A is clearly sensible. We are going to consider Amendment 13A first. Will it be possible to agree Amendment 13A and then vote against Amendment 13?

17:00:00

The noble Lord makes an interesting point. My understanding—I look to the clerk—is that we will vote on Amendment 13A first, and the noble Lord, Lord True, has said that he regards Amendment 13 as consequential and would not seek to press it. It would have to be a vote for or against Amendment 13A, rather than Amendment 13.

I am most grateful to the Leader of the House. The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, may have some validity. He said that, in practical terms, it probably means increasing the number of Ministers in order to deal with this issue. That would be a one-clause Bill that could be agreed between both Front Benches and would go through very quickly, I would suggest. Will the Leader explore with her colleagues the possibility of doing that? My noble friend Lord True tried this with the last Government and, unfortunately, there was a view taken at the top of the party, which did not understand this place, not to agree to it. In fairness, there is overwhelming support, and anyone in the House of Commons who understood this issue would surely find it possible to vote for such a Bill without difficulty.

The noble Lord makes an interesting point. I know the draft Bill under the last Government that he refers to. We were never approached about that draft Bill—I am not aware of any discussion. The noble Lord, Lord True, spoke to me about it, but, as a party in the other place, we were never approached about it and it was never discussed. There are two ways of dealing with this: an overall increase in the number of Ministers, or some way to ring-fence the number of Lords Ministers within the total number of Ministers. The noble Lord made an important point when he said that the number of Ministers overall in government is growing and asked whether that is necessary. A discussion could take place around those two issues—that is the better way—but we want to secure, for this House, the right number of Ministers to do the work that is required of us. Having said that, this amendment is not a way to achieve this. It would not take us any further forward. The noble Lord’s suggestion is actually better, and I would be happy to take that forward. I urge the noble Lord, Lord True, to withdraw his amendment.

My Lords, I am grateful to all those who spoke in this short debate. I have been struck above all by one thing: absolutely nobody who spoke has disagreed with the principle behind this amendment. It has had universal support. We had a startling intervention from the Liberal Democrat Benches, to say that they supported the principle but would vote against the amendment.

The noble Lord said his amendment has universal support, but it does not. I talked about the principle of supporting our Lords Ministers, and said that I preferred the way forward suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth. I do not support the amendment, but I do not think anyone disagrees with the principle of ensuring that we have the right support for our Ministers.

That was exactly my point, and the noble Baroness has reiterated it.

If I may also correct the noble Lord, I pointed out that the consequence of this would be a reduction in the number of Ministers in the Lords, which would be extremely bad for this House.

That was also incorrect; it need not necessarily do that at all. I must say that I was surprised when I heard the strictures from the Liberal Democrat Benches—“We cannot support this because this is a very narrow Bill”. Were those not the Benches that pressed two Divisions on the Bill to redesign the House on a democratic basis? They have the gall to now come forward and say that your Lordships should not ask that our Ministers be paid. The intervention was even more startling having heard the explanation from the Liberal Democrat Benches. The intervention from the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, who is universally respected in this House, was germane, and I thank him too. I had not realised that he was also on the list of unpaid Ministers, which would have been 10 up until a few weeks ago. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, immediately and skilfully picked up the key point that he made. He said that there is never going to be a Bill that comes along to deal with this. Frankly, as I said, we have had the Employment Rights Bill—

My Lords, I served as Whip on the Bill in 1999 and I was present for every session. I keep the flame that, one day, we will deal with these issues in a substantive way. I still stick to my point that we will make no progress in this area whatever. I know that the Leader may not agree with me but the idea that a Government would bring forward a Bill to say that we are going to increase the number of paid Ministers is completely naive. That is why, in the end, we should get down to the real business of sorting out what this place should really be for.

The noble Lord absolutely makes my point for me. When an opportunity arises, let us put aside all the ardour of this and that, and whether or not we like hereditary Peers. We have a Bill that concerns our House and the better workings of this House. As the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said, if there is a mischief that might be addressed, let us use this opportunity to address it. The Bill has already been amended. It is not a Bill that is intacta. It is not a Bill that is not going back to the House of Commons. Under successive Governments, for all the striving of the noble Baroness opposite, the House of Commons has continued, and will continue, to ignore the voice of the House of Lords in respect of our request. If we support my amendment, it will force the House of Commons to consider this point and to consider whether there should be a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work in the House of Lords. It will force the House of Commons to consider whether meritocracy should apply and whether the absence of wealth should not deny one the opportunity to serve one’s country in Parliament. It will force the House of Commons to consider the principle that no one should be prevented from serving their party or this House for the lack of private means. Those are critical principles that should be laid before the House of Commons. This amendment would enable that to be done. I beg Peers from all sides to stand up for their fellows—perhaps silent fellows—in this House who secretly would like to come forward and serve but, as we have heard from these Benches and the Benches opposite, have to look at their bank balances and say that they cannot. Yes, we can. I beg leave to test the opinion of the House.

1|17:08|284|239|Division on Amendment 13A (to Amendment 13)|Amendment 13A (to Amendment 13) agreed.||0|0

17:20:00

Amendment 13, as amended, agreed.

Amendment 14 not moved.

Amendment 15 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.

Amendment 16

Moved by

16: After Clause 1, insert the following new Clause— “Retirement from the House of LordsIn section 1(2)(b) of the House of Lords Reform Act 2014, after “peer” insert “or a person holding a lasting power of attorney for that peer”.”Member’s explanatory statement This amendment allows for a person holding a lasting power of attorney for a peer to sign on their behalf when notifying the Clerk of the Parliaments of the peer’s retirement.

My Lords, in Committee, it was pretty much acknowledged that this amendment addressed a genuine problem and that the House as a whole would benefit from a solution. That problem, in a nutshell, is that the House of Lords Reform Act 2014 clearly states that a notice of resignation “must … be signed by the peer and by a witness”. Therefore, if a Peer has lost mental capacity and the Clerk of the Parliaments does not feel able to accept an attorney’s signature, there could be the perverse situation where a Peer’s attorney could arrange medical care or sell a Peer’s house but could not submit a notice of resignation on their behalf, thus leaving that Peer free to speak or vote in the House when they really should not. This is undignified for the Peer and bad for the reputation of the House. Amendment 16 would amend the House of Lords Reform Act 2014 to allow a person holding a lasting power of attorney to sign a letter of resignation on a Peer’s behalf. Following the debate in Committee, I do not think the intention is controversial and I will not spend more time on it. I thank the Leader of the House and the Clerk of the Parliaments separately for spending time with me to discuss this amendment. The Leader has done what she said she would do in Committee and has, together with the Clerk of the Parliaments, come up with a solution—the issue is whether it is the best one. In the decade or so since the passing of the 2014 Act, the Clerk of the Parliaments and his predecessors have accepted legal advice that it would not be lawful to accept a notice of resignation by a Peer’s agent or attorney. The Leader recently commissioned further advice from the Government Legal Department, which I am informed admits that there are good arguments on both sides but now advises that an attorney may submit a notice of resignation on behalf of a Peer. Armed with the new government lawyers’ advice but conscious of the good arguments on both sides, the Clerk of the Parliaments has changed his mind and said that he is now prepared to accept the legal risk of accepting a resignation from an attorney, subject to certain safeguards. I emphasise that the unfortunate Clerk of the Parliaments is only implementing a system that we have created but is forced to take the legal risk by accepting the new advice instead of the previous advice. He may later be found to be correct in accepting the advice or he may not. What would happen if a successor Clerk of the Parliaments disagreed with his interpretation of the advice? What would happen if a court found that the advice was incorrect? Why should we leave the Clerk of the Parliaments to bear the risk that we have created? Surely it would be better if we made the situation clear by amending the 2014 Act in the way the amendment suggests. The Government are already amending that Act in Clause 3(4). As we all know, legislative time is at a premium, so adopting the amendment is a perfect opportunity for this House to do its duty to revise legislation and remove doubt. In the words of the Leader of the House when she was Leader of the Opposition, “there is an obligation on us to do what we can to improve legislation. That is our role”.—[Official Report, 31/1/23; col. 636.]

Before my noble friend sits down, I fully understand why he is suggesting this and I have a lot of sympathy with it, but, for clarity, I would like to know about a detail in his discussions with the Clerk of the Parliaments. For the attorney to exercise an attorney’s power, they would have to make sure that the person they were representing had lost capacity. What steps have been included to assess that capacity? I served on the Mental Capacity Act committee for many years, and under the Act there is a procedure to assess someone’s capacity. Particularly in respect of very elderly people, sometimes people are deemed to have lost capacity when in fact they are suffering from things like urinary tract infections. For that power to be exercised legally, what has my noble friend agreed will be the way in which capacity is legally assessed?

As far as I understand it, the Mental Capacity Act 2005 says that an attorney established under a lasting power of attorney must think about the code of practice within that Bill when they make decisions on the other person’s behalf, so they are under a duty to abide by the code of practice that is contained within that Bill.

Forgive me, but within that code of practice is a clear code of conduct for how capacity is assessed and by whom. There should be an assumption of capacity before that process starts.

Exactly. The attorney under a lasting power of attorney has duties. If he or she was exercising that duty within the realm of the Act, they would be acting lawfully, and they would establish capacity using the advice that is contained in the code of practice. I beg to move.

My Lords, I will be brief because I cosigned and spoke to this amendment in Committee. The amendment seems to me to be bathed in common sense and one that this House should accept without question. It is a timely amendment that is also based in humanity. As I explained last time, there are two types of powers of attorney, but Section 1 of the 2014 Act does not seem to come within either of them. Therefore, to avoid the confusion that currently seems to be abroad, we should make that confusion go away by agreeing to my noble friend’s amendment. We have heard something of what the Clerk of the Parliaments may or may not think, but, with the greatest respect to him, what he thinks is neither here nor there. This is a government Bill, and presumably the Government’s policy is not to permit this amendment. They must justify their refusal to accept the noble Lord’s amendment, and they cannot hide behind their lawyer or our clerk. The simple point is: are we to be humane? Are we to allow those who have lost their capacity to be released from the burdens of membership of this House of Lords, or are we to leave them to hang on in some undignified way? My noble friend’s amendment is sensible, humane and timely, and I support it with great vigour.

17:30:00

My Lords, I have added my name to this amendment. I suggest, in addition to the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, that the position is even worse. We are not relying on the Clerk of the Parliaments; the Government are relying on legal advice which has been received that none of us have seen. I cannot understand, on a matter of this importance which goes to the integrity of the House, why we are denied access to legal advice which, as I understand it, the Government are relying on in order to respond to the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Ashton. This is a matter on which certainty is essential and I, for my part, without seeing this legal advice, cannot accept that the best solution is not to put the matter, with clarity, in legislation.

My Lords, I join with others to support the amendment proposed by my noble friend Lord Ashton. The constitutional role of this House is to review and improve legislation, and this is a clear case of improving legislation. I make only two points. First, to repeat the observation made by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, we have never seen the second set of legal advice that has now been provided by the Government Legal Department. There is absolutely no convincing reason why confidentially should not be waived in respect of that legal advice. It is impossible for us to make any judgment without that happening. It is equally clear that there remains real doubt as to the advice received. The Clerk of the Parliaments has talked about being willing to take a risk. There is only a risk where there is uncertainty. The second point I wish to underline is that mental incapacity does not necessarily proceed in a linear fashion. I take the simple example of George III: periods of pronounced mental incapacity may be followed by clear and lengthy periods of lucidity. Indeed, in the case of George III that led to constitutional problems, because when lucid he went on to question some of the steps taken in the regency. Here, you also have the case of someone who suffers a massive nervous breakdown and fully recovers, only to discover that they have been resigned from this House—an irretrievable step. They cannot go back, so what do they do? They seek to challenge and review the decision on the grounds that it was unlawful, and they may well succeed. What happens if, after one or two years in court, it is determined that that person was entitled to continue as a Member of this House, and they then say, “Well, I would have acted in the following way with regard to primary or secondary legislation that passed through this House during the period when I was unlawfully prevented from contributing to proceedings”? It seems to me that it just leads to a constitutional problem, one that is simply resolved by a very straightforward amendment to the 2014 Act.

My Lords, I have seen two of these instances happen before. On legal advice given to a Minister not being revealed to this House, I can remember a huge row about it, and the House adjourned for 10 or 20 minutes while everyone recovered their composure because the row got so bad. It has been longstanding legal advice, and whether it is a good or a bad thing, this is probably not the place to break it, unfortunately. I do agree that it would have been very helpful to the House on the other occasion if the Minister had been able to say what that advice was. It is a good question whether we should do it, but I do not think this is necessarily the place or time, although there is long precedence for that. On the question of powers of attorney or legal capacity, I have met this too to do with a will and things like that. The answer, very simply, is that you get advice on the question of legal capacity. If you want to push it far enough, it can end up in the courts or the Court of Protection; probably, the power of attorney would end up in front of the Court of Protection, if someone wants to push it that far, and it would be very unfortunate. If, in the George III case, the person recovered somewhat and two years’ later said, “No, I wish I had not been chucked out”, I am afraid he would not have been sitting for two years, so he would be disbarred from the House by reason of non-attendance. So that might just solve the problem.

My Lords, I rise to support my noble friend’s amendment. I want to make a slightly different point in addition to the legal arguments that have already been made. It is a shame to be speaking before hearing the Leader of the House set out her case, but, as my noble friend said, she was very clear in Committee that she takes this matter very seriously, as I know she does. As we discussed in Committee, all of us who have led our groups or been Chief Whips have had to deal with this issue, and I think we are united in knowing that it needs addressing. The thing I find hard to understand is why we would not use the opportunity we have right now to put this matter beyond doubt. There are very few opportunities to do that, and one is presented to us right now, so I hope that the Leader of the House will take it. If she does not and my noble friend presses for a Division and is successful, I hope that, in the period between now and the Commons considering any amendments we pass, she will use the opportunity to make the case for this amendment to the Prime Minister and his Cabinet colleagues. As the Leader of the House sometimes reminded me when I was sat where she is, the Leader has a responsibility not just to bring the Government’s arguments to this House but to represent the arguments of this House back to government. This is one of those occasions when the House would look to her to take that lead. I would simply add that, on this occasion, this is not political or partisan; it is about serving the public interest, not just the interests of us as individual Members. I hope that the Leader of the House will act in accordance with that if my noble friend divides the House and is successful in passing his amendment.

My Lords, the point raised by this amendment is very short, and I will therefore make only three short points on it. First, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said, it is unfortunate that we do not have sight of the relevant legal advice. Here, the Government are not relying on legal advice that is covered by the normal principles of confidentiality; this goes directly to how the House is going to vote on this matter, and it is unsatisfactory and unfortunate that we do not have sight of that legal advice. Secondly, whatever view one takes on the underlying position, we now know that there are two contrary and conflicting legal opinions out there. That necessarily gives rise to ambiguity, which is something we should avoid if we possibly can. That brings me to the third point: we can avoid ambiguity here, because this amendment makes very clear what the position is going to be going forward, and we have the ability to put the matter beyond any doubt. Given that the Bill is already going back to the other place in respect of a number of points, I suggest that this amendment ought to be accepted. If the Leader of the House is unable to accept it, these Benches will support my noble friend in the Lobbies.

My Lords, I am grateful for that, and perhaps I can offer a helpful way forward. This amendment is identical to one tabled in Committee, except that it seeks to permit Peers to retire by allowing a person holding a lasting power of attorney to sign the notice of retirement, which is then given to the Clerk of the Parliaments. The debate we had in Committee was very useful. As I think the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, said, it was an example of the House at its best, coming together to resolve an issue concerning the dignity of our Members that we all need to be resolved. There was cross-party support for addressing this issue, which has lingered unresolved for far too long, and which the House should have addressed a long time ago. At the Dispatch Box last time, I made a commitment to report back to the House, and I am able to do so positively today. I will give some of the background of why this matters to me: I was concerned about it before I was Leader of the House, when I was Leader of the Opposition. I know that previous Leaders and Chief Whips were given the same advice as I was—that it was not possible for somebody to be retired by lasting power of attorney or by power of attorney. I had a case with a colleague whose health was declining, the family wished that Member to retire, and when they approached the Clerk of the Parliaments they were told that the Member could not be retired but he could take a leave of absence. I found that completely and totally unacceptable, because we did not give that Member the opportunity to leave this House with dignity. I investigated further, and I was shocked to discover that they would not even accept a power of attorney. Given that the circumstances in which a power of attorney is accepted are significant, for this House not to accept it seemed rather strange, and I thought it was unacceptable. You can sell your family home, you can resign somebody as a director of a company, but you could not retire from the House. I raised this matter with the Clerk of the Parliaments, but I also sought my own government legal advice. I have discussed the matter with noble and learned colleagues around the House and the Clerk of the Parliaments, and we reached an immediate practical solution. Members may or may not have seen the Procedure and Privileges Committee’s report. The Clerk of the Parliaments contacted me to say that, having reviewed the legal advice available to him and his predecessors, subject to safeguards—which I will come on to—he would be willing to accept the notice of resignation submitted to him on behalf of a Peer who has lost capacity, holding either a lasting power of attorney covering property and affairs, executed under Section 9(1) of the Mental Capacity Act, or an enduring power of attorney made prior to the 2005 Act coming into force. The safeguards were that the clerk would see the power of attorney, which is a standard procedure in all cases, and that if there was any doubt or any concern, he would raise that with the Whips.

Will the Minister give way?

I have a number of other points to make that might be helpful.

I will be brief. What is the basis of the clerk’s—

As to the noble and learned Lord’s impatience, I ask him to bear with me as I go through this. The basis of that is the legal advice received on that. I understand the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, about not sharing legal advice, even though that is a commonly held view in government, but I will come to that as I may have a way forward that will help him. I think he understands the risks of sharing legal advice and knows full well why the Government do not share it. We have moved on, and it is now possible. There are families of noble Lords who presently are looking at this to ensure they can retire Members who are ill. That decision is based on a lasting power of attorney or an enduring power of attorney, so we are clear that we can accept both of those. The noble Lord referred to the risk that the position may change again. The matter has already been considered and approved by the Procedure and Privileges Committee, of which the noble Lord, Lord True, is also a member. The report that I showed was published on 24 June with details, and the relevant amendments have been made to the Companion. To state the obvious—I am sure that noble Lords understand this—to reverse that would require further consideration by the committee and then notification to the House. I am confident that the position is practical and sustainable and will not be reversed. The House has a clear view on this matter: Members should be able to retire with dignity through power of attorney. We should let that work through and ensure it takes full effect. Having listened to the discussion that has taken place, I want to proceed further. I have long held the view, and have discussed it with noble Lords across the House, that this House should take some responsibility for managing its own affairs. The question is: does this have to be in statute in order to take effect? As I have said previously on issues such as retirement and participation, I want the House to step up to its own responsibilities. I question whether we need primary legislation to resolve this, and I do not think we should pass legislation that is not needed, but I am also concerned that as drafted, the amendment could risk unintended consequences. Unlike the report of the Procedure and Privileges Committee, this amendment makes provision only for lasting power of attorney. This is part of a broader area of law that involves both enduring power of attorney, which is recognised in the Procedure and Privileges Committee report, and other forms of legal authority, such as the ordinary power of attorney, more regularly used when someone manages an individual’s affairs when they are temporarily abroad or unwell. There are also the provisions that the noble Baroness referred to in the Mental Capacity Act 2005, and legislation prior to that which was carefully developed and set out when a lasting power of attorney or an enduring power of attorney should or should not be relied upon. Those ensure that safeguards are in place. By singling out just the lasting power of attorney and making it so that a notice signed by a person holding one is effective in all circumstances, the amendment makes no provision for the wider context. This is a complex issue. I have to admit to noble Lords that when I first embarked on this, I thought it was a straightforward issue, and the more I have looked at it, the more complex it has become. I am wary of looking at simple legislative fixes for what are complicated issues.

17:45:00

I am grateful for the debate today. I understand the strength of feeling across the House, and I think the noble Lord has really been considering the risks and whether they are so great that we need to have something in statute that ensures that any risk is eliminated. I understand that point. I think we all want to get to exactly the same outcome, and I do not think there is any difference in our view on this, so I want to be honest with the House about the options today.

First, the noble Lord can press his amendment and we as a House can accept the decision of the clerk as set out in the committee report, which Members and their families can avail themselves of and look at now. Secondly, the noble Lord can press his amendment and the House can decide that there has to be a statutory solution and vote for his amendment. The House would be saying in those circumstances that the only way forward is a statutory route. That would mean that the current arrangements that are in place, and that I took back as I was asked to do, would have to fall. The ruling by the Clerk of the Parliaments, which currently accepts the lasting power of attorney, could not continue if the House felt that the only way forward is a statutory route.

For the reasons I have given, I say to the House that if the noble Lord’s amendment were passed, we could not just do a simple tidy-up operation. There would be a bit more work to be done, so I make this offer to the noble Lord and the House—I have discussed this with the noble Lord. I am open to continuing discussions on this, because I think we all want to get to the same place, but it is extremely complex and we want a solution that has longevity and durability and is not going to be questioned further down the line. The amendment as it stands at present would have to be tidied up; it is not sufficient on its own. The suggestion I have made to the noble Lord is to have further discussions between now and Third Reading to see whether we can find a way to take this forward. If agreement can be reached to bring forward changes to the Bill to reflect that and not cause further problems, I make a commitment to the House to take those forward. If agreement cannot be reached, it is still open to the noble Lord to bring forward his amendment at Third Reading.

It is really the challenge set out by the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell: can we find a way forward that we all agree on? We are trying to get to the same point. I hope that we can.

The noble Baroness has been extremely helpful. In the period before Third Reading, if the noble Lord, Lord Ashton, agrees with that approach, would she be prepared, at the very least, to share with the House, or with those who are interested in this issue, the substance of the legal advice, so that we can understand what the issues and uncertainties may be?

I think the best way forward would be for the government lawyers to talk with lawyers in the House with an interest, including the noble Lord, so that we can find a way forward. It is in the interests of the House to resolve this and for lawyers to talk to lawyers. I am not a lawyer and I have no intention of becoming a lawyer, although the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, once accused me of being a lawyer —I say that with some pride—but I think we are all in the same place and want to find a way forward.

Before the noble Baroness the Leader sits down, has any thought been given to the fact that the law of Scotland may not be precisely the same as England’s? I was not able to catch what she was saying in her original statement as to what the formula is she is using, but care has to be taken to see that the law of Scotland would be covered by whatever solution is being put forward.

The noble and learned Lord is right and I am grateful to him for the discussions we have had on this point. In the legislative solution, there would have to be reference to Scotland as well. That is why I am confident that our current position, for the Procedure and Privileges Committee, is the right one and works. However, I accept the views of noble Lords who want to put this matter beyond risk. If it is possible to do that through discussions then, as I have said to the noble Lord, I am happy to delay Third Reading to enable those discussions to take place. That is a way forward on this. I hope it is available to the noble Lord, because we want to get this right. None of us wants to be in a position in which a noble Lord whose family think it is appropriate for them to retire is in legislative limbo and cannot do so. If we pass this today, we would be in that position. I am very happy to have discussions with government lawyers between now and Third Reading to resolve the matter. I urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

My Lords, I thank everyone who spoke in this debate, including my co-signatories—a formidable legal team. I repeat my thanks to the Leader of the House, who spent a lot of time discussing this with me. I am very grateful for her offer to work further on this matter over the coming weeks, and I am willing to accept that. However, I am afraid I do not think the commitment she has made, though generous, is enough, and I noted that it quite understandably included the ominous phrase “if agreement can be reached”.

I am sorry to intervene on the noble Lord. To be clear, if he puts his amendment to the vote, we cannot support him in that amendment and therefore we cannot have discussions on it between now and Third Reading, because it will be part of the Bill. We would have to wait until ping- pong and have discussions then, which is why this is a better route forward. I am sorry if noble Lords do not quite understand the procedure around how we would have to manage this, which is why I suggest we have discussions. We are even prepared to delay Third Reading to allow for those discussions to take place, so that we can reach a solution that satisfies the whole House. It is a perfectly reasonable way forward.

It is a shame that it is take it or leave it, as far as discussions are concerned.

The noble Lord is a former Chief Whip and he will understand the procedures of the House. If he puts his amendment to the vote today and it is not agreed, the vote we had in Committee stands and the clerk has accepted it. If his amendment is agreed, it is therefore part of the Bill and we cannot address that until it has been to the House of Commons. It is not that we are saying take it or leave it; we are saying that we are unable to do so within our procedures. The way that the House can have the discussion is at Third Reading. It is in the noble Lord’s hands.

I do not agree with that exactly. It would be perfectly possible to have discussions, even if it was in the Bill. Even if there are particular problems, once it is in the Bill it can be brought back at Third Reading.

My Lords, to assist the House, paragraph 8.153 in the Companion says that: “An issue which has been fully debated and voted on or negatived at a previous stage of a bill may not be reopened by an amendment on third reading”.

There is still ping-pong. However, I accept what the noble Baroness the Leader of the House has said. I am quite surprised there is such controversy about what I thought was a fairly common-sense amendment. We would like to get a solution that everyone could agree on. There is a principle here that errors or problems with legislation should be addressed by legislation. If we have something that we all agree is wrong in a Bill then it should be corrected in the Bill. I have accepted what the noble Baroness has said about having discussions before Third Reading and that the Third Reading could be delayed to enable those discussions. I am sure that we will come to an agreement if we discuss this sensibly. I am therefore prepared to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 16 withdrawn.

Amendment 17

Moved by

17: After Clause 1, insert the following new Clause— “Rights of life peers to sit in the House of Lords(1) Section 1 of the Life Peerages Act 1958 (power to confer life peerages) is amended as follows.(2) At the end of subsection (1) insert “, and, as the case may be, the incidents specified in subsection (2A) of this section”.(3) Omit from “and” in subsection (2)(a) to the end of subsection (2)(b).(4) After subsection (2), insert—“(2A) A peerage conferred under this section may, if the letters patent so state, during the life of the person on whom it is conferred, entitle him, subject to subsection (4) of this section, to receive writs of summons to attend the House of Lords and sit and vote therein accordingly, and shall expire on his death.””Member's explanatory statement This amendment would make it possible to create a life peerage without a seat in parliament under the Life Peerages Act 1958.

My Lords, in preface, I thank the noble Baroness the Leader of the House for her readiness on that amendment. We have reached a good point as a result of that discussion, and I thank her for that—though there is no doubt in my mind that there is a matter to resolve. Amendment 17, in my name, seeks to amend the Life Peerages Act to place absolutely beyond doubt what I and many others consider probably is beyond doubt: the untrammelled power of the Crown to create a peerage that does not bring with it a summons to attend your Lordships’ House. Throughout the passage of this Bill and over many years, if not decades, we have heard arguments about the size of the House, complaints about people who take peerages and then do not attend the House, reference to people who accept a peerage and then very swiftly retire, and on many occasions criticism of previous Prime Ministers’ extensive peerage creations. This one is not doing too badly, and I have no complaint—it was perfectly reasonable, to my mind, that the Labour Party should create more Peers in this House. That has always been my position, and I stand by what I said when I was in government and at this Dispatch Box. We welcomed all these new Peers in the good spirit that is customary in our House. However, we all know that not all who receive the supreme honour and dignity of a peerage for life in many walks of service—business, the Armed Forces, the arts or even sport, and many others—want to be working Peers in this place, or even feel that they may be equipped to do so. Some come and then swiftly retire. Some very rarely pass those brass gates but, in the statistics, they still count among our number. Neither of those things serves the interest of the House as a whole. This is one of many reasons why I submit to your Lordships that there is an overwhelming case for a modernising reform of our system of peerages, so that those who are worthy of being honoured in this way for their services to public life, with this extraordinary high degree of honour, but who do not want or may not be able to fulfil the obligations to attend here, may receive a peerage for life without being required to take a seat here. He is not in his place, but I have often heard the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock, make this point and I have always agreed with him. My noble friend Lord Lucas argued it very ably in Committee, and I was pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, supported the sentiment in Committee. He argued that “separating the honour from the obligation is an important part of how we should be moving forward”.—[Official Report, 12/3/25; col. 796.] I agree with him, and I hope that now the Bill is going back to the other place he will be as good as his word and support what he called this important part of moving forward—though, having heard earlier that the Liberal Democrats’ policy on the Bill is to vote against principles they support, I wish I could be more confident that he would follow me if I chose to divide the House. I will obviously listen carefully to the debate. As I argued in Committee, it is probable that the right to create a life peerage of this type already exists. Indeed, such a life peerage was created as recently as 2023 in the case of the present Duke of Edinburgh, and there are many historical precedents, as I explained in Committee. When we hear a new Peer introduced in the House, we hear our clerk intone these words every time, after the reference to the Life Peerages Act: “And of all other powers in that behalf us enabling”. These affirm the undoubted and full range of powers inherent in the monarch to bestow peerages and other honours.

18:00:00

However, it is not done, because some people say the power does not really exist, that it is not clear and it has not been done for a long time, except in the case of the present Duke of Edinburgh. While it may then be legitimately argued that the power to create the type of peerage I suggest already exists, the purpose of this amendment is to put it absolutely beyond doubt and, frankly, encourage its potential use. Why should we not have life Peers who are not required to attend this House by Writ of Summons?

I have just a practical question, really. There is a Peer who came into this House and did not make a maiden speech for 10 years because he considered the peerage an honour. Then, one day, the Prime Minister said to that person, “By the way, with your experience, I’ve got a bit of a job I want you to do”. That Peer came in and made his maiden speech and worked inside the Government. That would not be possible with this kind of amendment.

It would. If such a rare case applied, a second, life peerage under the 1958 Act could be conferred—it would be very simple. Like much constructive reform, this may not be a great innovation. It is an extension of a principle that exists under the royal prerogative, an extension to the 1958 Act so that non-sitting life Peers may be created through a statutory process as well. This would be helpful to Prime Ministers who wish to honour distinguished men and women but not necessarily to swell the ranks of this House. There are many Peers who currently do not have the right to sit in your Lordships’ House, and I found the arguments put against this proposition in Committee faintly risible. A clear and unequivocal reform, enabling the creation of non-sitting life Peers under the 1958 Act, would be no more or less confusing than the current position, but it would relieve us of the potential difficulties both for individual Peers and for the House, to which I have referred. It might save some future Peers, and indeed your Lordships’ House, from the unnecessary embarrassment of including people who do not want to be here or to stay here for very long. I cannot think for the life of me why any Government would wish to resist it.

My Lords, I will risk the possibility of being called risible by the noble Lord, Lord True, for disagreeing with him, but I think he has failed to spell out precisely one point that he should have done. He prayed in aid various people, including my noble friend Lord Foulkes as someone who thought we should separate membership of this House from the peerage. I agree with that—it is a very good idea—but there are of course two ways of doing it. One way is to say that you do not require a peerage to be in this House, nor do you need a title—we could be called Members of the upper House. That deals with the problem just as effectively as the problem he has constructed, which I do not think is a serious one, to create a new category of Peer. This is the last thing we want to be doing in a Bill of this sort, which tries to simplify and clarify membership of this House, however far from that we have strayed. According to my reckoning, if we were to make the mistake of following the advice of the noble Lord, Lord True, we would then have six categories of membership of this House. We would have hereditary Peers here for at least another 40 years, maybe longer, due to the amendment we have carried; some Law Lords remaining from the previous legislation; Bishops; life Peers; and we would still have—though not as Members of the Lords—hereditary Peers, who are not able to sit in the Lords. He is adding a further category of life Peers who are not able to sit in the Lords. If he tried to explain that in “Understanding the House of Lords” to the average 18 year-old studying the British constitution at the moment—or the average anybody—it would sound like the ultimate in making a mountain out of a molehill. We do not need additional categories of membership of this House; we need fewer.

I am not proposing an additional category of Members of this House; the whole point of this amendment is that those people should not be Members of this House. By the way, any life Peer who retires from this House is still a life Peer and a Lord, so is the noble Lord confused by that?

If the noble Lord, Lord True, cannot see the difference in category between a life Peer who can sit in here and legislate and a life Peer who cannot, then we are going to have considerable difficulty in having a sensible discussion. They are obviously fundamentally different, just as there is a fundamental difference between a hereditary Peer who cannot sit in this House because he is not one of the favoured 92, and a hereditary Peer who can. Believe me, they know the difference—and I am sure the life Peers would, as well.

Just to help the noble Lord’s confusion, there are the courtesy titles of the younger sons of certain levels of the peerage.

My Lords, my support for this concept is not new. Indeed, this was one of my recommendations to the noble Lord, Lord Burns, for his report. If Prime Ministers had created fewer Peers so that we were not so numerous, I would continue to resist this concept of creating Peers with no right to sit in this House making laws. However, our numbers are perceived to be a problem. We must recognise that Prime Ministers need to grant peerages not just because they need bodies in this House, legislating, but because they need to reward achievement in the same way as others receive other honours, like knighthoods and other gongs. Being granted the title of Lord or Baroness is a great reward in itself, but I can see merit in Prime Ministers being able to grant a peerage and the title of Lord or Baroness to someone who would not be entitled to sit in the Lords and make laws, but in recognition of the good they have done in their own particular field. I cannot define a category of these people, but it may be like an even higher version of a knighthood. This suggestion may give Prime Ministers the flexibility they need to create peerages and reward people for their great work without flooding this House with new Peers. Perhaps the noble Baroness the Leader of the House would like to make this suggestion to the new Lords Select Committee and ask it to report back with recommendations, because I believe there is merit in having non-legislative Peers.

My Lords, I apologise for intervening, but I have to do so because this is a concept that, like the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, I have proposed in your Lordships’ House on many occasions. I have not heard that support for it from the Conservative Benches in the past, but I have put it forward because I believe it would be a useful component of a wholesale reform programme of your Lordships’ House. However much I agree that it is useful, I cannot agree that we should vote for it tonight. If I had written the Labour Party manifesto, I might have included it, with many other things, and if I had been the parliamentary draftsman for this Bill, I might have looked much more widely and had a much wider Bill —but I am neither of those things. We have before us a very specific, narrow Bill. I do not believe that I shall argue later in today’s proceedings even about the content of the agenda for the Select Committee—but this should not be included in it, because it is not based on a manifesto commitment in any way. It is completely piecemeal, and I have not heard support for it in the past as part of a wholesale package of reform. Therefore, however much I might be tempted by the idea, I shall be happy to vote against it if the noble Lord, Lord True, puts the question to the House.

Thinking of the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, I trust that no wives of these new Lords will take the title “Lady”. That just creates a whole lot—we have wives of Knights who call themselves Ladies, we have wives of noble Lords who call themselves Ladies, and now we have some of us who call ourselves Ladies. If this was to go through, I trust that the new Lords—who I am against, by the way—should not be able to give that honorary title, unless my husband could become Lord Hayter.

My Lords, the combination of titles with membership of the second Chamber is one of the many things that we have inherited from the medieval period and the 16th and 17th centuries. It is very pleasant, most of us enjoy it and I particularly enjoy the title that I have, because the village in which I live is a special one, a world heritage site, and people love to come and visit us. But I am occasionally confused—some years ago I was at a conference in Japan from which I had to return early. As I shared a taxi to the airport with a senior Japanese diplomat, he asked me in a most polite way, “Are you returning to your estate”? I wanted to say, “No, to my allotment”, but did not feel that he would entirely understand the subtlety of that reply. We in the Liberal Democrats are in favour of a working and modern second Chamber. It is interesting that the noble Lord, Lord True, in his quirky way, described this as a modernising move. It seems to us to be adding another area of complexity, as the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, said, to our already highly complex honours system. There are plenty of honours around: there are knighthoods, damehoods, and members of the Order of the Companions of Honour and the Order of Merit. We are not quite sure why—perhaps for the Conservative Party in particular—if one wants to award one’s more generous donors with something, the title of a peerage is particularly important. The noble Lord, Lord True, did the honour of quoting what I said at Committee. I emphasise that, in terms of modernising the role of the second Chamber, we are in favour of thoroughgoing reform in which the title would be separated from membership of this House. What would then happen to the title is, to us, a matter of secondary importance. I know that the noble Lord, Lord True, has a particular problem with the existence of Liberal Democrats, which relates to events in Richmond in the past. It is even more difficult now that the Liberal Democrats are at roughly the same level as the Conservative Party in the polls. I note that the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, used to object to the appallingly high number of Liberal Democrats here at a point when we had, as he would point out, fewer than 10% of the number of Conservative MPs in the Commons. Now that we are at two-thirds of the number of Conservative MPs in the Commons, I look at those very full Conservative Benches and wonder whether the noble Lords, Lord Forsyth and Lord True, really wish to defend the gross imbalance between Conservatives in this House and the other forms of representation. I remind the noble Lord, Lord True, that not only in Richmond, but throughout England, the number of Liberal Democrat councillors is about to overtake the number of Conservative councillors, so there are a range of areas that are a source of underlying problems for the noble Lord, Lord True. No doubt he wakes at 2.30am and thinks about the Liberal Democrats in a devilish fashion. What my party wishes is to separate the honours system from membership of this House. We value the work of the House as a second Chamber, we see it as a working second Chamber and we do not think it should be muddled with the honours system in the future.

I do not wish to be unkind to the noble Lord, but my recollection of the coalition Government is that every time the Government wanted to get agreement on a policy, the Liberals demanded more peerages, which is why we got those numbers. Therefore, for him to argue against this amendment is a particular example of how the Liberals behave in politics.

That was an imaginative idea from the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, but it is the first time that I have heard it. I am not sure where his sources may be. I do not wish to detain the House. This seems to us to be an unnecessary amendment, and we will not support it.

18:15:00

My Lords, Amendment 17 is identical to Amendment 35 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, in Committee. There was a lively debate on this proposal in Committee, as we have also seen today. However, I would point to our extensive, comprehensive and long-standing honours system that seeks to recognise and promote the outstanding contributions made by individuals from the length and breadth of the country, and all sections of society. With the sovereign as the fount of honour, honours are awarded based on merit, regardless of background, for those who give service above and beyond to better the lives of others. I would have thought that this was an answer to the apparent problems suggested by the noble Lord, Lord True. Many of your Lordships will agree that it is an honour to be appointed as a Peer, but that quite rightly brings with it responsibilities to the work of your Lordships’ House. Peers are appointed in recognition of their skills and expertise, and how they can be put to the service of your Lordships’ House. As my noble friend the Leader of the House said last week, party leaders should be mindful of this when making nominations. The Government do not support the decoupling of a life peerage conferred under the Life Peerages Act 1958 from membership of your Lordships’ House. We have a manifesto commitment to introduce a participation requirement, to ensure that all Peers contribute to the work of the House, which many noble Lords have been clear that they support. I do not think that creating another layer to the system, to provide for the creation of non-active Peers, is in keeping with the mood of the House. The noble Lord, Lord True, and others, have consistently advocated for a thoughtful and measured approach when implementing constitutional changes, to avoid unintended consequences. It is not clear how this new honorific peerage would work in practice. It is not clear what HOLAC’s role would be in this two-tier system, whether there would be a role for another honours committee, whether such a system would necessitate the need for additional governance structures or who would remove such a title if we got to that point. In addition, to create a new class of Peers with the same titles as the ones who sit and vote would exacerbate the confusion that already exists amongst the public regarding the difference between honours and peerages. In essence, this amendment raises further questions that have not been given due consideration, especially when we already have an established and much respected honours system to recognise excellence. I therefore respectfully request that the noble Lord withdraws his amendment.

My Lords, I am disappointed by the response from the party opposite. Is this not the great reformist party? Is this not the party that speaks about its accomplishments in changing Britain? We have heard from the Front Bench opposite that they cannot support the idea that anybody could be a Peer and not have to come and swell the ranks in your Lordships’ House. That is not the way that your Lordships’ House, in its evolving thinking, has been going. We have an important and interesting debate which is being put to us later by the noble Lord, Lord Burns. The feeling of the House is that we should find ways to reduce the numbers, and one way of reducing the numbers is by reducing unnecessary entries by people who have no intention of being working Peers. I agree with what the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, said. As a matter of fact, if you google me, you will find that I have repeatedly, over many years, proposed this reform, and have even done so from the Dispatch Box opposite.

Perhaps I was not clear enough. The proposition to which I have always given support is that there should be a complete separation of honours and titles from membership of your Lordships’ House. For that, I have not had support from the noble Lord’s Benches.

My Lords, the amendment includes a separation. Do we have such a low view of the public that we think they cannot tell one person from another? In a previous debate, the Attorney-General offered the argument that it was so confusing. Does he think that the public could not tell an Attorney-General from a major-general? Are they so confused?

A constant argument of the Conservatives against any changes to our electoral system has been that the public would be unable to understand a voting system in which one put “1”, “2”, “3” and “4”, rather than simply “X”. If that is the Conservative view of the public in relation to voting, I think the noble Lord would find it hard to argue that, without much more complicated citizenship education, the public would be expected to understand the distinctions he is making.

I am again startled, as always, by an intervention from those Benches. The noble Lord may remember that we had a referendum on proportional representation; the public well understood the proposition being put to them and they rejected it. For the noble Lord to say that the public would not understand this, he is digging a bigger hole for himself. As for the Lib Dems, I love the Lib Dems. One of the most beautiful things about Britain is its eccentricities, and we love the Lib Dems’ charming eccentricities. All we ask is that they are always charming—which is not always the case, although they have been today. Let me return to the case in point. My noble friend Lord Blencathra skewered it when he pointed out, very fairly and properly, that this matter was put to the Burns committee. It is in tenor with the way the House is going in trying to find ways not to swell our ranks artificially. It is therefore an extraordinary idea—we have heard it already—that the Government support something but cannot support it today, and yet they might support it sometime in future. That is a nonsensical argument, as is the argument that the public might be confused. I remind the House that this is not an unheard-of thought; many people have argued for it over a period of years. It would be a useful addition to the honours system. It would prevent the House being burdened and embarrassed by those who, frankly, do not want to come here but who deserve a high honour. I beg leave to test the opinion of the House.

2|18:23|265|247|Division on Amendment 17|Amendment 17 agreed.||0|0

18:35:00

Amendment 18

Moved by

18: After Clause 1, insert the following new Clause— “Non-attendanceIn section 2 of the House of Lords Reform Act 2014 (non-attendance)—(a) in subsection (1), after the second “Lords”, insert “for 10% or more of sitting days”; (b) in subsection (2), after “Lords”, insert “for 10% or more of sitting days”;(c) in subsection (2)(a), leave out “at no time during the Session attended the House” and insert “attended the House for fewer than 10% of sitting days during the Session”.”Member’s explanatory statement This amendment will ensure that Peers would be required to sit at a minimum for more than 10% of the House’s sitting days in order to maintain their membership of this House.

My Lords, each of us receives, on appointment and at the start of each subsequent Parliament, a Writ of Summons. The writ says: “We strictly enjoining command you upon the faith and allegiance by which you are bound to Us that considering the difficulty of the said affairs and dangers impending (waiving all excuses) you be personally present at Our aforesaid Parliament … to treat and give your counsel upon the affairs aforesaid”. These words have a natural meaning, and everyone who is in the Chamber tonight is living up to their writ. I have observed in the various debates, starting in November last year, that those Peers who are in our House only very rarely are not living up to the words or the spirit of their Writ of Summons. Legally speaking, the minimum attendance is governed by Section 2 of the House of Lords Reform Act 2014. This provides that every Peer must attend at least once during a Session that lasts more than six months, or they cease to be a Member going forward. There have been quite a lot of statistics on attendance during the passage of this Bill. I am, as I think many are, very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, for his work in this area. I have run a few fresh statistics for this current Session. Up to last Friday, 122 of our 834 Members had attended less than 10% of the time. Looking at how close people of the 122 are to the 10% line, at the whole-House level, it is entirely reasonable to think that, were this amendment to be enacted, 83 Peers, or 10% of the House, might choose a retirement option. I have looked very carefully at the Cross-Bench position once again; the 10% hurdle is one that would allow a very important part of the Cross Benches to continue their valuable work in the House without threat. Examples of this cadre would be senior lawyers still in practice and senior academics. Having looked at the statistics for this session, which I did not have available in Committee when I made a similar point, I can say that nothing has changed. I feel the 10% hurdle is set with the interests of the House in mind. I believe this is the correct level to move participation to, from that set in 2014 of just one day. I further note that, thanks to the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, we were able to debate this at some length in Committee. I am very sorry, I have the wrong draft in front of me, but I think my point is made. We have been able to debate this a number of times. I can say, having been present at every single one of the debates, that throughout the House there has been general agreement about people who do come and do not fulfil their obligations under the Writ of Summons, which is a very serious document. There was not a single person who did not feel that this was wrong. The only real debate was how high the bar should be set. I made the point that, in the selfish interests of the Cross Benches, we have a number of people who are not able to come more than 10% of the time, or significantly more, and so, for us, we would want a lower bar. However, it is the case that we would have a haircut of a number of Members. A lot of us feel that there are too many Members of this House. Certainly, with the facilities that we enjoy—the number of offices and desks and the sheer cramming when I go to buy a sandwich in the River restaurant downstairs at lunchtime —that would be a benefit. Anyway, I hope this will be a very interesting debate. The Leader and I have discussed this over many months, and I am very grateful. In fact, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, and I have also discussed it, as well as various other interesting ways around. In the meantime, I beg to move.

My Lords, I tried to deal with this problem when I was convenor in 2018. In that year my noble friend Lord Burns produced his report, which received quite a lot of support across the House, and I was persuaded that it was one of my duties as convenor to see whether I could persuade some Members on the Cross Benches to retire so that we would achieve the balance that my noble friend was seeking. What I did—it was my own choice—was to choose a 10% level, which the noble Earl has chosen in his amendment. I was conscious that the only way I could deal with this was by writing letters to people who were below the 10% bar, suggesting to them that it might be better for them to retire if they were not really able to make use of their privilege of membership of the House. I received a mixed response—I do not think I was particularly popular in making that suggestion. But some of them responded, and a number decided to retire. The result was that I was able to achieve the balance that my noble friend Lord Burns was proposing, and I was able to maintain it during the rest of my tenure as convenor into 2019. I was greatly helped by the fact that the Prime Minister at the time was the noble Baroness, Lady May, who had very little interest in proposing new Members of the House, certainly as far as the Cross Benches were concerned, so the balance was quite easy for me to achieve. Looking back, I am conscious of two problems. The first was the lack of authority. I really had no authority whatever, particularly as convenor; the convenor is much respected, but he does not have any authority among the Cross-Benchers. Just because I said it was time to retire, that was not necessarily something that they should follow—it was merely advice. Therefore, if we are to follow this suggestion that attendance is to be a qualification, we need the backing of something to enable the proposal to be enforced. Whether that is by legislation or by standing order is a different matter, but some kind of backing is necessary if the noble Lord and his successors are to be able to maintain the idea that attendance below 10% is not acceptable any more, and therefore people should retire. The other problem—I am anticipating what my noble friend Lord Burns will tell us in the debate on Amendment 23—is the balance being upset by new Peers coming in whose number exceeds that of those who are retiring. That is a different issue, which we will come back to on Amendment 23. My main point in support of the noble Earl is, first, that the 10% figure was one that I had decided was the right one in my time—we may want to debate it, but it seemed a sensible one—and, secondly, that we need some kind of authority across all the Benches seeking to enforce the idea. I offer my support for that. I have just one footnote. One of the people to whom I wrote and who decided to retire was an academic who did not live in London and had very good reasons for finding it very difficult to get here to attend. Looking back, I thought it was a shame that he retired because if he had been a little more active, he would have made a major contribution. His attendance was at only 1%, and I thought, “Well, okay, it’s not really a margin”. If he had been at 9%, I might have said, “Look, let’s just drop it and try a little harder”, but his attendance was so far below that I felt there was no chance. If we have a cliff edge at 10%, there is the question of some people dropping over the edge of the cliff who really should not do so, and the committee should probably discuss that quite carefully.

My Lords, I have sympathy for the amendment and I am happy with the percentage suggested, but there is a difficulty. I spent most of 1995 running an NGO in Rwanda. In the winter of 1997-98, I was engaged in military operations in Bosnia; fortunately, it was a peacekeeping operation and it was for only six months. In 2003, I was engaged in a war-fighting operation. Fortunately, because of our military success—initially, anyway—I did not need to spend very long there. There could be very good reasons why a noble Lord is unable to attend, and we will have to find some way of dealing with that, but I support the general principle of the amendment.

18:45:00

My Lords, I signed the amendment from the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and I rise briefly to support him. The House may recall that in Committee I presented three options for the removal of Peers who attended infrequently, and the mood of the House seemed to coalesce around the 10% one. I say to my noble friend Lord Attlee that leave of absence should deal with the problem he has just described. If we were not being constantly told by the Government that there are too many Peers, I might not necessarily advocate this measure. If a Peer turns up for just 5% of sittings, he is not getting an allowance for the 95% of sittings when he is not here, so there is no burden on the taxpayer. However, there is a burden on all the rest of us doing all our committee work, as we will find out when our hard-working hereditaries are removed and the Whips start calling around for volunteers to fill the slots they were previously filling. We will then realise how much our hereditaries have been doing. Of course, I think this issue will now be considered by the new Select Committee, and I look forward to seeing its conclusions. I just want to flag up two points. First, I note that this amendment suggests amending the House of Lords Reform Act 2014. That proves the point I made to the noble Lord, Lord Newby, last week: we may need legislation to do these things, and it cannot be done just by internal Standing Orders. Secondly and finally, when the Select Committee makes recommendations on attendance, how will we pass them into law? If we cannot use Standing Orders, we have to use either primary or secondary legislation to do it. In the debate on my Amendment 23A, coming up shortly, I shall lay out a quick, simple and painless way to do it with secondary legislation; I commend it to noble Lords and hope they will all be here to support it.

My Lords, when the noble Baroness comes to reply to this amendment, can she assure us that her new committee will look at the question that the noble Lord, Lord Newby, raised as to whether the House of Lords already has the powers to do this? As the Convenor of the Cross Benches said, we all agree to the terms of the Writ of Summons. There is a very strong argument that that inherently gives this House the power, through its Standing Orders, to achieve what this amendment sets out to achieve. It is clear that this question has never been settled or established. The noble Baroness’s committee would be an ideal forum to do that, and I very much hope that it will.

My Lords, I am puzzled by the intervention just now by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee. For some time now, if a Member of this House has been posted abroad or for some other reason is unable to attend the House regularly, they apply for a leave of absence. It is as simple as that.

My Lords, I hesitate to rise in this debate and was not intending to, but since no other Member of this House has spoken in opposition to the amendment from the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, I shall do so very briefly. I hesitate to do so because when I was Education Secretary, I introduced legislation to deal with persistent absentees, and therefore it might be thought that I was in sympathy with the intent behind this amendment. But one of the reasons why I am very cautious about seeing this amendment go further is this. It is based on a false premise that we hear often, which is that this House has too many Members and new schemes must be found somehow to identify those who should be expunged or removed at any point. If we look at the Division lists in the votes that we have just had, the numbers are lower than one would expect in some of the Divisions in the other place. The suggestion that there are too many Members can often be a means of trying to get rid of those Members whom the Executive or others, for whatever reason, ideologically or otherwise, find inconvenient—a stone in the shoe. We in this House should not be seeking to reduce the range of voices, to limit the number of Members or indeed, potentially, to forfeit expertise. That takes me to my second point. Many of those Members of this House who will not be here for 10%, 11% or 12% of the time—or whatever arbitrary percentage figure we choose—will be people of eminence who will be occupied outside in deploying their expertise for the public good or who will have achieved eminence in a particular role. They may be, for example, former Prime Ministers. Would it be right if we found that, for example, Theresa May—the noble Baroness, Lady May —had attended this House for only 8% or 9% of Sittings in a given year and should somehow be expelled? That would be an outrage, but that is what would happen if we followed this arbitrary proposal. That takes me to my third point. I know that this amendment comes from a place of courtesy and consideration and that the Cross Benches are anxious to ensure that this House can accommodate the request for reform that comes from the other place and from outside. That is why I am so cautious in pushing back. But, rather than seeking to bend the operation of our House to those who are not in sympathy with it, we should seek to ensure that it operates effectively in challenging faulty legislation and in making sure that expertise is deployed—not in attempting to regulate our numbers but in attempting to regulate the flow of legislation that comes from the other place which is faulty and which benefits from the expertise here. If we lose a single voice that is expert and authoritative in challenging that Executive, we undermine the case for this place. That is why, with the greatest respect, I oppose this amendment.

My Lords, we undermine respect for this House if we continue to have people who do not turn up more than once in each Session. The answer to the point from the noble Lord, Lord Gove, about previous Prime Ministers is that the rule is not absolute, because Section 2(3)(b) of the legislation being amended provides that the House may resolve that the period of attendance should not apply to the particular Peer “by reason of special circumstances”, so there is already a statutory provision that allows for exceptions. My other point in answer to the noble Lord is that we have already accepted the principle. Section 2(1) requires that each Peer must attend at least once during a Session, so we have accepted that people who do not comply with the timing position must go. The only question is whether that is a realistic limit. I entirely agree with the convenor that a once-in-a-Session provision is not an appropriate rule. A much more appropriate rule is to require people to be here 10% of the time.

My Lords, I strongly support the principle behind this amendment. We have debated the concept at some length and, in my view, it is essential that we now move to a position where there is a rule that means that people who play no part after a period cease to be Members of your Lordships’ House. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, talked about persuading non-attendees to retire, and I too have done that. One case is seared in my memory: I went to see a member of the Liberal Democrat group with my Chief Whip to try and explain to him that he had done absolutely nothing for a considerable number of years and it might be appropriate for him to retire. He was extremely sweet; he smiled and said, “I never thought of that. Could you give me a bit of time to think about it?”. Years later, he still had not thought about it. So I am absolutely certain that we need to move. As for the objections of the noble Lord, Lord Gove, the people we are talking about are not the stone in the shoe; they are never in the shoe. When they are in the shoe, they are normally sand at best, because they do not do anything. The idea that we would lose voices of any consequence by saying that people had to be here rather more than they are at the moment is just wrong, I am afraid, as far as legislation is concerned. In my experience, the number of people who normally are not here and suddenly turn up to play a full part in a Bill is immeasurably small. My only problem with the amendment, as the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, knows and as I have said before, is that this issue should be considered first by a Select Committee, for a number of reasons that have been given—10% may be the right answer, but it is worth thinking about that. The other thing that has been put to me—it will be contentious, but at least we ought to think about it—is whether the requirement applies retrospectively. Some people have said that, unless it applies retrospectively, we will get flooded with people who have never been here before. There are arguments for and against it, but we need to discuss that; we have not done so at all. So, for those reasons, while I absolutely support the principle, if the noble Earl were to press this amendment to a Division, I do not think we would be able to support him in the Lobby.

My Lords, when I was appointed to your Lordships’ House, I was summoned to an interview conducted principally by the chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Jay. He said to me at the end, “There’s one thing I want to ask you: if we were to appoint you to the House of Lords, would you come and would you contribute? We look really stupid when we appoint people who then don’t bother to come—who take the title and swan off into the evening”. I said, “I tend not to take on anything unless I’m going to do it properly”. I very much support my noble friend because, looking around your Lordships’ House, I see people who are here the whole time, who care passionately and who feel that it is an honour and a privilege. Picking up on what the noble Lord, Lord True, said on another amendment about a fair amount for a fair day’s work, I say that the reverse is true. If you do not bother to come and do not work, you do not deserve to be here. I will support my noble friend.

My Lords, I remember what you might call the good old days before the first reform, when a lot of hereditaries got chucked out. In those days, although there were nominally a lot of Peers—many more than now—people turned up when they knew something. There was a hardcore who turned up to run things for the two parties, but other people turned up when they knew something; they would suddenly appear. Sometimes you would get quite a swelling on something. Some experts turned up only when they only knew about something. I remember that, once, they were talking about decommissioning the North Sea oil rigs, and very few of us knew anything about it. I have never forgotten how someone up on the Back Benches stood up and gave the Government a talk on it all that completely destroyed everything they had in the Bill. He showed that the people who had drawn up the stuff knew nothing about it, and the Government stood up and said, “Yes, I think we’d better get together and discuss this. Could you come and advise us?” That was the end, and I think it all got sorted out afterwards. You have to be careful that you do not knock out people who are experts on something. I know that a lot of the stuff that I have done in this House has not been on the Floor but when legislation is coming up and you are preparing for it. I have been in IT, and I remember the identity cards stuff and how a lot of the things were impractical—people do not think about things—as well the digital economy, online identity and all those things. We did briefing papers and stuff, which take a lot of time behind the scenes. That needs to be taken account of, but I do not know how you would do it. But, in principle, I can see the point of this. If someone does absolutely nothing, yes, they need to move on.

My Lords, I will briefly respond to a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Newby. If we voted for this amendment now, it would probably apply from this Session, because of Section 2(6). We would probably have to amend that to ensure that it applied from the next Session. Has the Leader of the House considered whether any change of the rule of non-attendance would necessarily require a legislative change? At the moment, that rule is provided for in statute.

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, for his amendment and the time that he has devoted to considering this issue, not just since our debates in Committee but over many years. It is an issue that has occupied his mind and those of many of his predecessors as Convenors of the Cross Benches—we heard from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, as well.

19:00:00

In the section of its manifesto promising immediate reform of the House of Lords, the Labour Party pointed out:

“Too many peers do not play a proper role in our democracy”.

It pledged to

“introduce a new participation requirement”.

As we know, that promise does not form part of the Bill that the Labour Party has laid before us, but there is no reason why it should not. The Leader of the House has always said that she will be happy to proceed by consensus where it is possible. I hope that, following the lead of the Convenor of the Cross Benches, the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, we will be able to establish some consensus on this question today.

In opening his remarks, the noble Earl reminded us of the authority on which we have all come to this House. We sit here in response to a Writ of Summons from our sovereign, who has commanded us, “waiving all excuses”, to be at the Parliament holden here at Westminster to treat and give our counsel on certain arduous and urgent affairs. By and large, we obey that command—some more diligently than others.

Data from the House of Lords Library show that, during the last Parliament, on average, noble Lords attended on 46% of the days when they were eligible to do so. Of the 966 people who were eligible to attend at least some of the last Parliament in this House, 28 did not attend at all and more than 100 Members—116—attended on less than 10% of the days when they could have done; that is the threshold before our consideration now. The noble Earl’s amendment sends them a firm but polite message: “Come and join us a bit more often or retire gracefully, helping us to improve the size and reputation of our House”.

We are not a House of full-time professional politicians, nor do we want to become one. We are proud to have among us people who remain busy as surgeons, judges, captains of industry, chancellors, vice-chancellors, ambassadors and high commissioners. Their experience, past and present, augments the work that we all do together: holding the Government of the day to account and improving the legislation that is brought before us. I agree with the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, and my noble friend Lord Blencathra in response to the commendable example given by my noble friend Lord Attlee. The leave of absence allows—

This is the problem, though. When I was running an NGO in Africa, if I had taken a leave of absence and come back to the UK on R&R —some opportunity—but there was a debate about Rwanda, I would not have been able to take part.

That is true, but it would have been open to my noble friend to make the decision that he felt was best in terms of how he could best serve his country: by continuing the work or by bringing that experience to the debates that were present before your Lordships’ House. This is why we have the leave of absence provision. Those who serve in the Diplomatic Service make use of it at the moment. As I said in Committee, we understand the no-less-noble demands on the time of our colleagues who serve as husbands and wives, as parents and grandparents, and as carers—they help reflect the population we all serve—but the Government and the House are right to insist that we all take our duties here seriously and that we are seen to be doing so. We already have a minimum attendance requirement through Section 2 of the House of Lords Reform Act 2014. That, as the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, said, requires just one day of attendance per Session, which he and others have rightly argued is not really commensurate with the command that we have received from our sovereign. That Act became law in 2014 thanks to a consensus and an initiative taken here in your Lordships’ House. Incidentally, the initiative was taken by a former leader of the Liberal Democrats, Lord Steel of Aikwood, who would, I think, be staggered to hear the argument advanced by the leader of the Liberal Democrats here today that he supports the principle but does not want to take this opportunity to make this change. If that is the pace of change favoured by the Liberal Democrats, it is no wonder that they have not finished the job they set out to do in 1911. Under the 2014 Act, which your Lordships decided, 16 noble Lords have been removed for failing to clear the very low hurdle that it established. We do not criticise them; we know that some of them were seriously ill. Perhaps that Act helped them take a decision that it would have been rather painful for them to take more actively. However, it still leaves a large number of people who, in the words of the Government’s manifesto, “do not play a proper role in our democracy”. In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Newby, reminded us that we are summoned here to give counsel not just on the topics on which we consider ourselves experts but on the certain arduous and urgent affairs that change throughout the course of a Parliament. Also in Committee, my noble friend Lord Bethell reminded us how the collective deliberative act of parleying that we all undertake here requires getting to know one another and establishing bonds of trust and understanding—not just turning up and disappearing into rival Division Lobbies. That is how we establish the consensus that the Leader of the House rightly wants us to achieve. There is, I think, an emerging consensus in your Lordships’ House that the current attendance requirement of a single day per Session, without having to speak, vote or sit on a committee, is too low. Thanks to the spreadsheets compiled by the Library at the request of my noble friend Lord Blencathra, we know who we are talking about without having to name names or point fingers. We can proceed calmly and empirically. The Convenor of the Cross Benches is among those who have looked very closely at those numbers and been satisfied that a 10% requirement would not affect what he called in Committee the “low-frequency, high-impact Members”—[Official Report, 12/3/25; col. 719.] who bring sparing but specialist experience, particularly to the Cross Benches. I have to say to my noble friend Lord Gove—sadly, he was not yet among us in Committee, so he missed my quoting “Evita” in citing the example of our noble friend Lord Lloyd-Webber—that I have much sympathy for what he says. Lord Lloyd-Webber was driven from your Lordships’ House and attacked for being a composer first and a politician second; as I said in Committee, I found it disappointing that he was not able to be here with us, when the pandemic hit, to give his experience on behalf of our performing arts, the West End and the theatres around the country that were facing plight. I must say, the 10% threshold that the Convenor of the Cross Benches has looked at would raise the bar slightly but would not prevent us having the expertise of people like Lord Lloyd-Webber joining us sparingly, but importantly, for our debates. I think that my noble friend Lord Gove will find that our noble friend Lady May of Maidenhead will clear that bar quite easily. There are certainly some further questions that the House will need to address in future—for instance, how we turn attendance into more active participation so that we are not encouraging people to game the system by simply making speeches for the sake of appearing in Hansard, and so that people are not just turning up and reciting speeches written by lobby groups into the pages of the Official Report. We are all embarrassed by our colleagues from all corners of the House who turn up to lurk below the Bar for a few paltry minutes or skulk off after the first Division of the day—it would be a disgrace for us to expel hard-working Members from your Lordships’ House and not address that problem—but we can do this in bite-sized chunks, as the Leader of the House said. There is no reason why proper consideration of those issues, whether through a Select Committee or future debates on the Floor of the House, should prevent us taking this initiative today, saying that we expect better and raising the bar a little higher. As the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, put it earlier, here is another mischief that we can rectify through this Bill. I think that this amendment, in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, would be a sensible and timely upgrade to the 2014 Act. We have seen that Act in operation for a decade now. We can strengthen it in the light of what we have seen over the past 11 years. It would provide the authority that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, says will be necessary if we are to make progress on this important issue. We can allow ourselves the time to consider other matters without delaying taking a step that would, I think, genuinely improve the standing and function of your Lordships’ House. I do hope that the noble Earl will press his amendment when the debate is concluded and that we can all embrace this important, timely and modest improvement to the functions of your Lordships’ House.

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, for raising this issue again today. I am grateful for the discussions that we have had on it and, indeed, for the discussions that we have had in your Lordships’ House on a number of occasions. My sense is that there is a lot of support—I have been encouraged by it—for a participation requirement, although I do not think that there is consensus on what the level should be. The noble Earl seems happy with 10% but, in our previous debates, a number of noble Lords have been against 10% and been concerned that attending once a fortnight, as it would turn to be, might cause ridicule to the House. I have to say, I do not know what the appropriate figure is, but it is right that we discuss it and look at what it could look like. Noble Lords have raised a number of issues in this debate. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and others said, requiring attendance once in a Session does not really invite participation. There is an issue here: we all think that we know what we mean when we talk about participation and what levels are appropriate, but quantifying that is different. This is why I think that having a debate around one particular field—in this case, the figure of 10%—is very helpful. The noble Lord, Lord Gove, said that it would reduce the range of voices. It does not reduce the range of voices if they are the voices of people who do not attend this House. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, that the noble Baroness, Lady May, would easily score on that point as well. We have to consider how best to address this issue. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, asked an important question about something that I raised last time— I just want to emphasise that. I have said a number of times that if the House can take responsibility for its own behaviour and actions then it should do so. As for what the House could do with its Standing Orders, that is not 100% clear. There are lots of things that we can do via Standing Orders and, where we can, we should take responsibility and do it. However, it would be appropriate for a Select Committee to look at participation/attendance and retirement in the round and to find an appropriate way forward, and at what needs legislation and what could be done prior to or without legislation. That would be a valid way to move forward and one that I could commit to. The noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, is very keen to set a figure in stone and in statute. I am not keen to do that. I have gone round the houses a little on this and said it before, but this Bill is before the House as it is because the principle of this was discussed 25 years ago, and the Bill completes that part of the reform. On attendance and participation, particularly the areas that have been discussed, there is consensus that something should be done, but I have not seen consensus around the House on a particular number. It would be worthwhile for Members across the House to look at this and see how it could be done. It may be that 10% is the appropriate figure, but we have not said what it should be for participation. That is something which the House needs to look at. How do we do it? Should it be in statute? The noble Lord, Lord Newby, raised what might happen at the other end. If we sent an amendment to the other place saying that we want 10% attendance, those in the other place who attend a lot more regularly might think that 10% was difficult to justify and might have other views on it.

The other place did pass the 2014 Act, which requires us to turn up only once per Session.

That was a long time ago. I do not think that it anticipated that people would turn up just once per Session. Despite the inventive proposal from the noble Lord, Lord True, to have Peers who do not have to attend at all, as the Prime Minister stated recently—the Opposition have said something similar—our expectation is that Members of this House want to play a role in this House, participate in our activities and engage, as the noble Lord said, with other Members. It is not just about sitting here listening to other people debating but about playing a full role. The point about expertise is an important one, though we are not all here just for our expertise, as we do not have an expert on every single issue. We are here for the judgment we bring, having listened to debates. The timescale for a committee of the House to look at these issues is important. If we let the momentum drop when so many noble Lords are keen to progress on this, we would be failing in our duty. I anticipate setting up such a committee very soon after Royal Assent, to look at these issues in the round and make proposals for your Lordships’ House to consider, and to consider whether we can move more quickly on things that can be done without or prior to legislation. I assure the noble Earl that I am very keen that we make progress and deal with these issues as quickly as possible. I hope that reassures him that I have no intention of putting this issue on the back burner. All the points that he has raised are entirely valid. It is not just the reputation of the House we are concerned about but the value of the work that we do. It is impossible to do that work if somebody turns up only occasionally, possibly just to vote or to be here for only one amendment. If we are dealing with legislation, they probably should see that legislation through in its entirety, as a number of noble Lords do. I am grateful to the noble Earl for raising this and hope that it is a view that he will put to the committee when it discusses these issues. I respectfully ask that he withdraw his amendment.

19:15:00

My Lords, this is the fourth time we have had a very similar debate on this topic in the last nine months. As ever, it has been of high quality, and I am very grateful to those who have participated. I referred earlier to the many meetings that I have had with the Leader. I know how busy she is, and she has been very helpful on this topic. In those meetings we have talked about the committee and whether it could go a bit wider and deeper. I suspect that, when we come to the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Burns, the subject of the committee will be raised again, as it has this issue within it. I have had extensive discussions with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, around what Standing Orders could do within the House. Many noble Lords will not be that familiar with Standing Orders, but Standing Order 2 regulates the minimum age for being in the House. The minimum age of 21 is nothing to do with statute but is in the Standing Order. That is an example of how powerful the Standing Orders can be. However, they cannot strike down primary legislation. They could never strike down Section 2 of the House of Lords Reform Act 2014, but they could be added on top of it, as long as they are consistent with the Act itself. I am of course a hopeless lawyer, but the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, is not, and it did seem that there is considerable promise in the Standing Order route. That route brings another difficulty. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, looked at the statistics some years ago. I have now looked at lots of statistics and we have come to the same answer. I take comfort in that. However, putting 10% in statute would mean that, if it turned out that 10% was the wrong number and that it should have been 9.2%, it would be very difficult to move that around. If it was a Standing Order, it would be rather better. That might sound as if I am not for my own amendment. Of course I am, as anyone would be. My feeling is that the words “personally present” and “treat and give your counsel” from our Writ of Summons are simply not taken seriously enough by a large number of fellow Members of the House. At the end of all of that, and after an awful lot of discussion and thought, I have decided that I should beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 18 withdrawn.

Amendments 19 and 20 not moved.

Amendment 21

Moved by

21: After Clause 1, insert the following new Clause— “Expiry of right to receive writ of summons(1) The Life Peerages Act 1958 is amended as follows.(2) In section 1(2)(b) omit “subsection (4)” and insert “subsections (4) and (5).”(3) After subsection (4) insert—“(5) For peerages granted after the end of the Parliament in which the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Act 2025 is passed, the right to receive a writ of summons expires on the twentieth anniversary of the introduction of the person holding the peerage into the House of Lords.”.”Member's explanatory statement This amendment introduces a term limit for peerages created after the end of this Parliament by limiting the right to receive a writ of summons to 20 years. It has no effect on existing peerages.

My Lords, Amendment 21 is substantially the same amendment that I tabled in Committee and seeks to achieve the same purpose but with one substantive difference, which is in timing. The amendment I tabled in Committee would have come into effect during this Parliament, whereas this amendment would come into effect in the next Parliament. I will explain briefly in a moment why I came to the decision to change that. The amendment itself is the same, so I will not repeat the explanation, save that it seeks to create term limits of 20 years. I am not hugely hung up on 20 years, 15 years or 25 years. I am concerned with the principle that nobody should have the right to sit in this place for ever. There is obviously a discussion to be had around retirement, which we have had. I listened very carefully to the comments of the Lord Privy Seal in that debate last week, and think that around that the Select Committee will do a good job. However, I am not sure that it will entirely be able to do the job that is required. The reasons why I have gone for a new timing are, first, that it would be only fair to allow the current Government the freedom to do what they wish during the lifetime of this Parliament and to perhaps make up for some of the more egregious excesses that happened in the last Parliament. It is a little unfair to remove the current system and, as it were, at half-time change all the rules. That was the first reason, which may just be me being a bit overly fair, but I thought that it was. Secondly, if during this Parliament there is further reform, and if the Government are able to take through legislation which gives us a different landscape, this amendment coming into force in the next Parliament could be got rid of or scrapped. I want to make it clear at the outset that my primary choice would be a democratically constituted House of Lords, which is what I have said in many of our debates and, on and off, in different guises for the best part of 30 years. I took part in the debates in the other place in 2012 and the consideration of the draft legislation and was happy to vote with the majority in the House of Commons for that Bill to achieve a Second Reading. But I recognise that having got that far up to the hill and been marched back down again by our then leader, there is little chance of anything substantive happening. I rather suspect that the Select Committee will do its work and discussions will continue, but that at the end of this Parliament we will not be greatly further forward than we are now. The amendment is a real longstop in the sense of if we arrive at that situation, and if, as has been pointed out by a number of noble Lords, the electoral results for the next Parliament are somewhat more surprising than they might have been at the last general election. Indeed, one poll I saw showed that what would be the largest party in the House of Commons would have no representation in this House—although there were one or two speeches last week that sounded remarkably like a job application from the Benches across—while the largest party in this House would be the fourth party in the Commons, which is a completely ridiculous situation. My amendment does not solve that in any way, shape or form, but it would put a burr under the saddle and make sure that if we were in that circumstance, the Government of the day would need to do something about it. My amendment very much ties in with Amendment 23 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Burns, which I hope to speak to briefly later, with one exception which I will leave to that point. However, there is an opportunity in this legislation, which may be the only legislation that would affect no one in your Lordships’ House during this Parliament or any of the operation of this Parliament or fetter the Prime Minister in any way during this Parliament but that, if none of the hoped-for reforms came through, would in the next Parliament take effect and oblige, I rather suspect, some action. I will say two other things in moving the amendment. The first is in response to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and his comments earlier about how function should come before form. I take the diametrically opposite view and always have done, and it was a point that was thrashed out in the Committee of both Houses when we looked at it in 2012. I think the function comes from the form; if you introduce a democratic element, the form will change. That also follows the history of what has happened in the relationship between the two Houses over the years. If you have long discussions about the function, you will end up never changing anything and never changing the form. But, most of all, what I would say is—

My Lords, I cannot resist intervening. How on earth can one go ahead and say we will elect the House of Lords without looking at the powers the House would have? We have the conventions, which, in essence, are voluntary constraints on what we do. The conventions would not last one second with an elected House. It would be wholly irresponsible to simply go ahead with an elected House without sorting out the powers, and particularly what we do when there is a dispute between the two Houses. Would the courts have to be involved? What other mechanism would you have to decide on? You cannot go for an elected House without sorting that out.

My Lords, one of the great joys of being a chalk stream trout fisherman is to land a fly on top of the fish and watch it take with such vigour. I am very grateful to the noble Lord for having done so. I am not going to engage with him in this debate on my amendment, because it is not part of it, as I did not engage when he made the point earlier. If he would like to meet me in the Bishops’ Bar at any time, I will take him through the detail with the greatest of pleasure. I say to the Lord Privy Seal that if by any chance she were to make me an offer as generous as that which she made to the noble Lord, Lord Ashton, earlier, she would not have to repeat it and I would grab it with both hands. I genuinely hope that the Government might reflect on this. It has been put to me that this is not necessary because if we get our elected House, we will not need to have this form of term limit. That is absolutely true, but my amendment is not about if we get an elected House; it is about if we do not get an elected House. Finally, I agreed with the Lord Privy Seal when she said, as she once agreed with me when I said it, that we are here not for our expertise but for our judgment. I do not have vast expertise other than in running hotels and trout fishing, but I think I have good judgment. My judgment is that if we fail to do this at this juncture, we may well end up regretting it and not having the kind of reform that we all really would want to have. I beg to move.

I must point out to your Lordships that the new clause proposed by Amendment 21 would be in substitution for the new clause “Rights of life peers to sit in the House of Lords” agreed by the House earlier today in Amendment 17.

My Lords, I oppose the amendment, and I should perhaps declare an interest as one of the many Members of the House who has had the privilege to be in the House for over 20 years, but that is not the reason for opposing the amendment. The reason is that I do not accept the argument that contributions to the House decline the longer you have been here. In fact, in many cases the opposite is true. In the period I have been in the House, some of the most distinguished contributions have come from former Ministers, former civil servants, former judges and former distinguished people in many careers who, over time, bring their experience; and that experience and the memory of past legislation and previous government experience are an extremely valuable part of our legislative process. The premise of this is mistaken. Of course, people may wish to retire at a certain age, but for those who have the faculty and the desire to continue, longevity and age should not be a barrier.

The noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, is absolutely right to make us think about whether time limits for service in your Lordships’ House are a way of looking at when retirement should happen, rather than the hard stop of a particular age. I am particularly grateful to him; I think he is giving me grandmother rights under his proposal, and I have been here a very long time. This is undoubtedly one of the issues that the Select Committee the noble Baroness is putting forward should consider, even though she has been talking about retirement, because the question is rightly being put about the contributions that can be made. Even in the very short debate we are having now, it is very obvious—I would not be happy with a single term of office. It is important that a proportion of people serve longer than the 15 or 20 years proposed as a period of office. If you look at the House of Commons and the value of the people who have been there for decades, such as the Mother of the House and the Father of the House, and the contributions they make, you cannot simply say that one size fits all. This is a useful contribution and I hope it will be considered by the Select Committee, but I am afraid I cannot support the noble Viscount’s amendment to the Bill.

19:30:00

My Lords, I support Amendment 21, which, as the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, said, would require that from the next Parliament all life peerages be created for a fixed term of 20 years. I looked up the debate that introduced the Life Peerages Act 1958 to see why it was decided that a new Peer should be created for life. I found that Viscount Hailsham, Viscount Stansgate and Earl Attlee participated at Second Reading on 3 December 1957—plus ça change. It was difficult to see that the issue of why new creations should be for life was ever discussed apart from in the introductory speech by the then Leader, the Earl of Home, who said: “We … have willingly modified the hereditary principle by the introduction of Life Peers”.—[Official Report, 3/12/1957; col. 615.] As hereditary Peers were there for life, that principle was applied equally to life Peers so that they would be there on equal terms. Actually, there was much more of a discussion as to whether the daily allowance of three guineas would be enough to attract people of the right calibre. Now that there will, sadly, be no more hereditary Peers who are here for life, the original logic of making the rest of us here for life falls away. The need for experience, which is a feature of your Lordships’ House, needs to be balanced by the equally important need for that experience to be up to date. Is someone who was at the top of their profession 20 years ago of more value to the House than someone at the top of their profession today? The amendment would allow the House to refresh and renew those qualities that make it different from the other place, which is why I support it.

My Lords, I declare an interest in that I have been a Member of your Lordships’ House for 28 years. I am extremely grateful to my noble friend for sparing me from the noose he is gently preparing for others. I absolutely agree with him that we need to move to a position where the House is refreshed, which is why we have spent so much time talking about other ways of doing it—the central one being, of course, retirement. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, I think there is now consensus across the House that being here for life is no longer acceptable, because we no longer wish to see people who are in declining years decline in your Lordships’ House. The question that this amendment raises is, what is the best way of achieving that refreshment? I rather agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, that for some people—I would like to think I am one of them, but other people may well disagree—being here for quite a long time can bring benefits. I completely agree that it also brings disbenefits—one’s expertise, to the extent that one ever had it, is more in the past. On the other hand, there are things about the parliamentary process and the way we do business, particularly in a curious body such as this, that you accrete over a long period. Although I am absolutely in favour of a retirement age and might even favour a younger retirement age than some other Members of your Lordships’ House, if somebody were appointed at the age of 50, I am not sure I would want them necessarily to be required to retire at 70. My noble friend says that the advantage of passing this amendment is that it would be the burr under the saddle in case the Select Committee makes no progress and does not do all the things we will ask it to do. It is incumbent on us all to try to make sure that the committee is a success. This sort of burr will not help or hinder that process. It requires us to agree—broadly speaking, I think we have—that we want to make changes around retirement and participation and that the best way of getting there is via a Select Committee. So, although I have complete sympathy with what my noble friend is trying to achieve, I am afraid I cannot support it because I do not think it is the best way of getting to the end that he wants.

My Lords, I will speak briefly as the issue of term limits was covered extensively in Committee and touched on briefly last week. I thank all noble Lords for their contributions. There have been a number of proposals for reform of your Lordships’ House during the debates on the Bill. In common with many of those other proposals, and indeed even those being mooted for consideration by a Select Committee, the noble Viscount’s amendment would apply only to new Peers. The reason for that is the perennial problem, as my noble friend Lord Parkinson observed in Committee, that any debate on House of Lords reform very quickly descends into self-interest. I agree with that aspect of the noble Viscount’s amendment because, as we on these Benches have repeatedly stated, we fundamentally disagree with the removal of active parliamentarians from your Lordships’ House by the Executive. Not only does the Bill remove some of the most active, knowledgeable and experienced Members of this House, it fails to respect the existing rights and expectations of our long-serving hereditary colleagues. I have, for my sins, been involved in many negotiations with trade unions and their leaders and representatives, many of whom now sit on the Benches opposite, and I have the greatest respect, and indeed admiration, for the way they fought for their members. Notably, they would always argue for grandfather rights and against the removal of any rights or privileges for existing members. I hope that those on the Liberal Democrat Benches have therefore come around to our way of thinking and that perhaps they will display the same kindness and consideration to our hereditary colleagues in future votes. Of course, the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, may have another incentive for not making his amendment retrospective. If a 15-year term limit were introduced without the grandfather rights this House has proposed for our hereditary Peers, 59 Liberal Democrat Peers—more than 75% of their number—would have been removed from your Lordships’ House by 2029. I will not repeat all the reasons why we disagree with this amendment, except to emphasise that we are a House of knowledge and experience; we should respect and appreciate public service. As such, we should not seek to prevent those who are actively and effectively contributing, and who wish to continue to do so, being able to serve. While I thank the noble Viscount for explaining his amendment so clearly today, I am afraid that it does not have the support of our Benches.

My Lords, Amendment 21 tabled by the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, is similar to his amendment in Committee. With regard to a term limit of 20 years, it may be of interest to your Lordships’ House to know that the current average length of service for noble Lords is 13.7 years, which suggests that 20 years may or may not be something the House will want to consider. The Government agree with the principle that membership of this House should not be for life but respectfully disagree with this approach. As set out in our manifesto, the Government believe that a retirement age is the most effective way of realising this principle while also achieving the objective of reducing the size of your Lordships’ House. As the Leader of the House set out at the beginning of Report, we want to see further reform of your Lordships’ House, and we are determined to maintain the House’s enthusiasm and determination to implement the manifesto proposals on retirement age and participation. We think this can best be achieved by establishing a Select Committee, and we will work with the usual channels to put forward a proposal for the House’s approval. We believe that looking at these matters in bite-sized chunks is the best way to progress reform of your Lordships’ House. I also reiterate that that your Lordships’ House should feel confident to take greater ownership over the management of our affairs. That means we should consider where we can implement solutions without the need for further legislation, if that sort of approach has the agreement of the House. Of course, if there is an agreed view that legislation is a better route forward, the findings of the commission may help pave the way to take the relevant legislation forward, because we will have agreed that view. With all these issues in mind, I respectfully ask that the noble Viscount withdraw his amendment.

My Lords, I am grateful to all those who have taken part in this short debate, which highlights the important issue of the size of your Lordships’ House and the fact that, if more people are constantly coming in than are going out, it is always going to get bigger. I rather disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Blackwell, that people should be enabled to come here for as long as they wish; a time limit of a certain length is a fair way of ensuring current expertise and not having the bed blocking that would otherwise happen. I am grateful for the comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman. I knew she was not going to support me, but I am grateful for the sympathy that she generously gave to the point that I was making. The noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, and I were co-conspirators in the other place on many attempts to get a democratic outcome. It was very nice to have his support, notwithstanding the comments of his Front Bench here today. As always, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Newby for his comments. I respect his faith in the Select Committee; I have to say that my faith is not quite as strong as his, but we will see where we go with that. The noble Baroness, Lady Finn, missed the point with considerable style. It is not about 15 years; my whole point is that this was about laying it in the next Parliament to allow people to look at it there. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Anderson, that, yes indeed, if you are going to eat an elephant, it is best to do it in bite-sized chunks. However, this elephant has been around for 114 years or whatever it is, and I have a strong suspicion that it will still be galloping around in another 114. However, with that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 21 withdrawn.

19:42:00

Consideration on Report adjourned until not before 8.42 pm.