House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Committee (4th Day) (Continued)

20:55:00

Amendment 74

Moved by

74: After Clause 1, insert the following new Clause— “Future composition of the House of Lords (statutory appointments commission)Within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a draft Bill containing legislative proposals for—(a) conferring power on the House of Lords Appointments Commission to recommend the appointment, as crossbench peers, of one third of the membership of the House of Lords other than the Lords Spiritual, and(b) conferring a duty on the House of Lords Appointments Commission to consult with—(i) the Leader of the House of Lords,(ii) the Shadow Leader of the House of Lords,(iii) the leader of the third largest party-political group in the House of Lords, and(iv) the Convenor of the Crossbench Peers,on an ongoing basis, when discharging their power under paragraph (a).”Member's explanatory statement This amendment is connected with others in the name of the Earl of Dundee which provide for further reform of the House. It would require a draft Bill providing for an Appointments Commission appointing crossbench peers as one third of the temporal members of the House.

My Lords, the purpose of this group of amendments is, within a reformed House, not to diminish but instead to preserve and improve the high standard of function of the present House. This is our successful ability of legislative scrutiny and holding the Government of the day properly to account. It is proposed that the House is capped at 620, with 600 temporal Peers and 20 Lords spiritual. As indicated in subsection (a) of the new clause in Amendment 74, a Lords appointments commission would recommend 200 temporal Peers, or one-third of the total of 600, as non-political Cross-Benchers; subsection (b) of the new clause also confers a duty on the commissioners to consult on an ongoing basis with the Leader of the House and the shadow Leader of the House, with the leader of the third-largest party-political group in the House and the Convenor of the Cross Benches. An electoral college, representative of all parts of the UK, indirectly elects 400 temporal Peers, or two-thirds of the 600, as political Members, the government and opposition parties having exactly the same number at 150 each, or 37.5% each out of 400, as stated in subsection (3) of the new clause in Amendment 75, while the other political parties, chiefly comprising the Liberal Democrats, have 100, or 25% of 400. This means that, at 200, the non-political Cross-Benchers have 50 more members than the Government or the opposition parties, at 150 each. That in turn ensures a far better standard of legislative scrutiny than otherwise obtaining if, within a reformed House, either the government or opposition political parties had a majority instead. For two reasons, indirect elections of 400 political Members are much preferable to direct elections of 400 political Members. First, direct elections would lead to conflict with the House of Commons, whereas indirect elections avoid that. As a result, and secondly, arising from direct elections, such competition with another place would also distract and undermine the democratic value and quality function of a reformed House as an effective revising Chamber. Regarding the procedures and ratios of indirect elections, subsection (1)(b) of the new clause in Amendment 75 puts a duty on the Secretary of State to ensure that the indirect elections are conducted with integrity, fairness and transparency. Out of 400 places for political Members, and given that 2023 statistics indicate a total UK population of 68,265,000, England—which represents 84.5% of that figure—would be allocated 338 places; Scotland, which represents 8%, would be allocated 32 places; Wales, at 4.5%, would be allocated 18 places; and Northen Ireland, at 3%, would be allocated 12 places. As detailed by subsection (2) of the new clause in Amendment 75, the electoral college comprises selected participants who become the electors. These would include: some Westminster House of Commons parliamentarians; some from each of the three regional Parliaments in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland; and, as electors of English Members to a reformed House, some English local government representatives.

21:00:00

Turning to Amendment 79 on consultation and regard for effect, subsections (b)(ii) to (iv) of the proposed new clause refer to three connected areas of advantage which the House, if reformed in a competent manner, should have produced. Thus, as detailed in subsection (a) of the new clause, in preparing necessary draft Bills, it would become the duty of the Secretary of State to consult the four group leaders in the House to ensure that this happens. These areas of advantage are: first, the quality of legislative and government scrutiny that the House provides; the balance of power between His Majesty’s Government and Parliament; and the example that the Parliament of the United Kingdom sets to the Commonwealth, ECHR member states of the Council of Europe and the rest of the world.

For the necessary transitional period between the present House and a reformed one, as your Lordships are well aware, in his report the noble Lord, Lord Burns, whose Amendment 82 I fully support, presents a good workable system, which is this: in a given year, the collective total of life Peers who retire or die are replaced at 50%. This means that, in a natural way and over not too many years, the current number of temporal Peers, which is now just under 800, will have come down to about 600.

Obviously, it comes down more quickly if life Peers are coerced to retire at 80 or 85. However, it is surely far wiser not to enforce that. Instead, with the retirement age of 90, the transitional period would be over more years than otherwise, yet with the huge advantage of enabling some new Peers in the reformed House when they first begin to serve their 15 years, to do so alongside a sufficiency of existing life Peers, thereby which association all the more can help new Members to develop and uphold the skills, usefulness and democratic efficacy of this House as a revising Chamber.

That is why, within this group, subsection (b) of the new clause in Amendment 77 indicates the capped number of 620 which a transitional House seeks to achieve by reducing the present number of just under 800; advocating in subsection (a) that, in a given year, the collective number of life Peers who retire or die is, therefore, replaced at 50%; and in subsection (c) that new Peers, whether coming in during the transitional period or after it has ended, would serve for a maximum of 15 years.

In summary, this group of amendments advises arrangements both for a reformed House and for a transitional one. The objective, as referred to in Amendment 79, is to preserve and ever improve the present high standard of legislative scrutiny and other attributes. This is accomplished through a temporal House of 600 Members, of which 200, or one-third, are appointed as non-political Cross-Benchers, at 50 more than the government and opposition parties, which at exactly 150 each, and along with the Liberal Democrats and other political parties altogether numbering 100 Members, then make up the combined political element of 400 within a reformed House of 600 Members, these 400 political Members being indirectly elected by an electoral college representative of all parts of the United Kingdom.

Taking into account recent discussions on this Bill, it may be that the various elements in this group of amendments are already partially acceptable to your Lordships.

For example, the noble Baroness the Leader of the House has said that she supports the government and opposition parties having equal numbers. My noble friend the opposition Leader of the House has also said that he adopts a flexible approach towards numbers.

The Liberal Democrat party has taken steps to assess how a reformed House can best serve UK democracy. Its recent leaders Lord Steel of Aikwood and the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Pittenweem, are the architects of a formula for an electoral college, representative of all parts of the United Kingdom, to indirectly elect a proportion of political Members to the House.

During our current discussions from their Benches, the noble Lord, Lord Newby, along with my noble friend Lord Hailsham and others from different groups and parties are in favour of the Cross-Bench amendments tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Devon, and the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich; these being through an appointments commission to increase the numbers of non-political Members in the House.

Yet where there may be strong consensus among all your Lordships is on a central point running through all stages of our deliberations and emphasised by many, including the noble Lords, Lord Moore of Etchingham and Lord Inglewood, and my noble friends Lord Tugendhat and Lord Lucas.

This is that, whether in the planning stage or in its delivery of a transitional House or a completely reformed one, the priority is to sustain a high quality of function, to which at all times composition of membership should remain a secondary and subservient consideration.

These amendments correspond to that way of thinking. I beg to move.

My Lords, the previous Labour Government commissioned a royal commission, chaired by my noble friend Lord Wakeham, which looked very carefully at all these matters about a well thought-out solution for Lords reform. It is extremely unlikely that an individual noble Lord, on his own or with a little help, could do as good a job as the Wakeham commission did.

My Lords, I agree with my noble friend Lord Attlee’s remarks about the Wakeham commission report, which deserves examination. I congratulate my noble friend Lord Dundee on his set of amendments. He has clearly thought extremely carefully about his approach and I fully agree that, as we go forward, we should primarily be guided by the functions of the House and their effective performance. How we should be constituted should flow primarily from that. My noble friend has set out an ingenious and comprehensive scheme for reform and a mode of transition towards it. He proposes indirect elections. I fear it may be a personal fault in me to believe that, should there ever be an elected element in the upper House, it should be directly elected by the people, although I well understand the considerations that have led my noble friend to the conclusion he reached. As my noble friend acknowledged, a number of the themes in his amendments have been discussed under their specific heads in other groups on the Bill. He will therefore forgive me if I do not pursue them again now. However, although I welcome his view that a strong independent element should remain in the House, the figure he suggests of over 30%—a third larger than the number of Peers allowed to the Government under his scheme—is surely too high. If we were ever to have a written constitution— I venture to hope we should not—I am sure that the framers would wish to consult my noble friend on the details of his proposals for the House of Lords, given his careful consideration of the matter. In the interim, I thank him for his thoughtful and considered reflections. I am certain that they will be studied carefully by those in the future genuinely contemplating reform.

My Lords, I admire the ingenuity and ambition of the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, in tabling these amendments, in addition to the careful consideration he has given in presenting a package of reforms. He poses a range of questions about the future composition of your Lordships’ House. However, the noble Earl will understand that we cannot accept them, as we are currently engaging in wider discussions with noble Lords from across the House about the way forward. The noble Earl will be aware of the Government’s long-term ambition for more fundamental reform by establishing an alternative second Chamber that is more representative of the regions and nations of the UK. The Government’s manifesto makes a commitment to consult on proposals to provide an opportunity for the public to contribute their views on how to ensure that this alternative Chamber best serves them. As an aside, I note that the noble Earl’s Amendment 79 does not include the public in the list of people whom the Secretary of State would be obliged to consult. The Government are open to differing views on what an alternative second Chamber could look like. Nothing on this matter is settled and it is right that we continue the debate, including with the public at large. With the greatest respect to the noble Earl, his amendments would put the cart before the horse and bring forward a comprehensive package of reform, not only before the public have had the chance to have their say but with a pre-empted outcome. I therefore respectfully request that the noble Earl withdraws his amendment.

My Lords, I am grateful for the kind remarks from both Front Benches. I very much take on board the comment of the noble Baroness, Lady Anderson, about how the public should be consulted. On Report, perhaps one of the first things that it might be constructive to do is to bring back a revised amendment that incorporates that consideration. If we agree that what should come first and foremost is the quality of legislative scrutiny and other high-standards benefits of this House, to which membership composition is secondary and subservient, then in the light of that prescription and within this grouping, your Lordships may agree that three aspects should perhaps be brought back on Report: first, the proportions and numbers indicated for different Benches in a reformed House; secondly, the role of the Appointments Commission; thirdly, that of the electoral college. Fortunately, in the present House, the quality of legislative scrutiny is able to be as good as it is in spite of the political patronage system that appoints numbers here indiscriminately. However, that system of indiscriminate appointments of numbers would, surely, undermine a reformed House, within which good-quality results are likely to be sustained all the same, provided that respective numbers are established in the first place, such as the proposed 200 non-political Cross-Benchers, having 50 more Members than the two main political parties, with 150 each. Having said that, I appreciate the comments of my noble friend Lord True, who takes the view that that might not work, while my view is that it could probably be made to work. Although HOLAC or a statutory appointments commission is the way to increase as necessary the numbers of non-political Members in a reformed House, nevertheless, on Report a further amendment is needed to safeguard the reputation of the commission and its usual procedures of appointments against judicial challenge. Equally, for the reasons already outlined, although an electoral college indirectly electing 400 political Members protects United Kingdom democracy better than direct elections of 400 political Members would, Amendments 75 and 79 should still both be revisited on Report, in connection with further evidence supporting, in comparison with direct elections for a reformed House of 600 temporal Members, the greater usefulness, authenticity and public benefit of the formula proposed, which consists of indirect elections for 400 political Members combined with commission appointments for 200 non-political Members. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 74 and will not press my other amendments in this group.

Amendment 74 withdrawn.

Amendments 75 to 80 not moved.

Amendment 81

Tabled by

81: After Clause 1, insert the following new Clause— “Further reform of the composition of the House of LordsWithin two years of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a draft Bill containing legislative proposals for further reform of the composition of the House of Lords.”Member’s explanatory statement This amendment would require the Government to lay before Parliament a further bill to reform the House of Lords after the removal of hereditary peers.

My Lords, I say to the Leader that I should like to reserve the right to table the amendment again on Report.

Amendment 81 not moved.

Amendment 82

Moved by

82: After Clause 1, insert the following new Clause— “Restriction on nominating new life peers (1) During any period in which the membership of the House of Lords exceeds the membership of the House of Commons, the number of recommendations made to His Majesty for the granting of new life peerages under section 1 of the Life Peerages Act 1958 (power to confer life peerages) must not exceed one new peer for every two who leave the House through retirement or death.(2) Once the membership of the House of Lords is equal to or less than the membership of the House of Commons, recommendations made to His Majesty for the granting of new life peerages under section 1 of that Act must not be such that they would cause the membership of the House of Lords to exceed the membership of the House of Commons.”

My Lords, we have spent many hours examining individual proposals for reform, including term limits, age limits, participation limits and the strengthening of HOLAC. I will bring together these threads and argue that none can be entirely effective in the long run unless we can establish a ceiling on the size of the House of Lords. For me, this is the keystone around which we can build the other elements of reform we have discussed. Without it, it will be difficult to stabilise the number of Members, and we will likely encounter the problem of increasing size again. I am less committed to the precise number for this ceiling and more to the principle of a ceiling. My amendment proposes a limit on the size of the House of Lords, specifying that it shall not exceed the size of the House of Commons. Until we reach this limit, there would be only one appointment for every two leavers. I emphasise that this amendment is not intended to delay the passage of the Bill, which I support. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, for joining in this seminar on the future reform of the House—possibly the longest seminar I have ever participated in.

21:15:00

One striking feature of the period since the introduction of life peerages in 1958 is the upward trend in the number of life Members. For example, there are 200 more life Peers in the House today compared with the year 2000. Over the past 25 years, we have been recruiting at an average rate of 30 per year, while the departure rate has been not much over 20 a year. Furthermore, the appointments have often been disproportionately directed towards the Government of the day. Following changes in government, a new Government rapidly increase their own number to match or overtake their main rival, leading to the observed increase in the number of life Peers.

While a participation requirement and an age limit have the potential to reduce the size of the House, and there was some support for both during this debate, my amendment aims to address these issues as a whole. The Lord Speaker’s committee argued that, for the long term, we need a number of changes to ensure that the House’s size remains below that of the House of Commons. This can be achieved with a statutory ceiling on the size of the House, supported by mechanisms for a suitable retirement rate and a matching appointment rate for the number of leavers.

The committee argued that the most reliable way to generate sufficient leavers was through a system of term limits for new Members. For example, for a House of 600, you would eventually generate, on average, 40 leavers a year, with 15-year terms, or 30 leavers a year, with 20-year term limits. We advocated for single terms. However, a workable option would be reappointment for a shorter term, such as five or 10 years. Party groups would then have to decide between reappointment for a shorter term or a new appointment for 15 or 20 years.

The committee suggested that the new appointments should be shared, based on the results of the latest general election. Additionally, 20% of appointments should be Cross-Bench or non-affiliated Members. The noble Baroness the Leader of the House has mentioned several times her view that the House functions best when the numbers of the two main parties are roughly equal, and this approach to sharing new appointments would generally meet that objective.

These arrangements would offer several advantages. Since they would be constrained in the number of appointments they could make, Prime Ministers and party leaders would be motivated to recommend appointments of Members who are most likely to be active participants in the House. Furthermore, it would end the harmful practice of leap-frogging as the party of government changes.

During the early stages in Committee, significant attention was devoted to the concern that, after the departure of the hereditary Peers, the House would be entirely nominated by the Prime Minister. In previous debates, I have expressed my concern with our present arrangements, which allow the Prime Minister to determine the number of appointments to the House in total and the party composition of those appointments. This practice seems rather anomalous for a House that scrutinises government legislation and holds the Government to account. A limit on the size of the House would reduce the discretion of the Prime Minister but it would not change their constitutional role in recommending to the Crown who should be appointed.

To conclude, a limit on the size of the House would restrict appointments to be no higher than the number of leavers, incentivise the House to establish mechanisms to increase the average number of leavers annually, and encourage party leaders to appoint individuals who would add most to the deliberations of the House. I beg to move.

My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 110 in this group. The report of the Lord Speaker’s Committee on the Size of the House was published in 2017. As most noble Lords sitting here before then know, the Lord Speaker tasked the committee with exploring methods for reducing the size of the House. From the start, it took the view that any reduction in the number of Members must not be undone by reversion to the persistent historical tendency of the House to increase in size. The committee and the report designed a system intended to keep a reduced membership within a fixed cap for as long as the House remains an appointed Chamber, while allowing it to be refreshed and rebalanced in line with general election results over time. It has been strongly supported by the Campaign for an Effective Second Chamber. At the time, the Lord Speaker’s report proposed a system that could be implemented without legislation. It required a working agreement between the parties and a willingness by existing Members voluntarily to take the steps needed to achieve the target reduction in the size of the House. It did not propose time limits or compulsory retirement for existing Members. The report proposed setting the cap on the size of the House at 600—a reduction in existing membership of more than a quarter, making it smaller than that of the House of Commons. The committee report proposed, as per the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Burns, that until the target of 600—which the noble Lord’s amendment would increase to 650—was reached, there should be a guiding principle of “two out, one in”, whereby one half of all departures, retirements and deaths from the House as a whole would be earmarked for reducing its size and the other half allocated to new appointments, distributed between the groups on a fair basis. Once a target had been reached, all vacancies would be allocated to new appointments: a “one out, one in” system. To meet the aim of reducing the size of the House in a reasonable timeframe, the committee believed that it would be necessary to agree the rate of departures from the House. The extent to which the rate was to be increased—a matter for the House to decide—would determine how long it would take to reach the target of 600 under the “two out, one in” system. In deciding the rate, the committee believed it would be necessary to agree the basis on which future Members should be appointed, so that the current and new systems could be interwoven in a way that worked effectively. Two other key areas in the report, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Burns, were, first, fixed terms of 15 years for new Members, to generate sufficient turnover, and, secondly, fair allocation of appointments to reflect the result of the most recent general election. The fifth report of the committee, published in July 2023, detailed progress since 2017. Initially, then Prime Minister Theresa May responded positively to the report and, in the first two years of the scheme, good progress was made in reducing the size of the House. Prime Minister Boris Johnson showed no interest in the issue of the size of the House. While the number of departures from the House continued to be in line with the committee’s benchmark, the number of appointments far exceeded departures, and were granted predominantly to members of our party. There was concern that, as the Conservatives now had so many more Members than Labour, the next Labour Prime Minister would appoint a large number of new Peers in order to get the Government’s business through the House. Of course, this has come to pass, with Keir Starmer having created, I believe, 45 new peerages. The committee summarised the lessons learned over the previous six years. It now accepted that its original timetable for a transition to a House of 600 was too slow and vulnerable to political events. However, it felt that one of the lessons of the previous six years was that there is little point in going through a difficult period of reducing the size of the House if the progress is undone by excessive new appointments subsequently, particularly if those appointments are not fairly balanced between the parties in the way proposed by the committee. Instead, it believed that it would be effective to seek to secure a limit on the size of the House and a fair way of allocating appointments before endeavouring to reduce the size of the House or introduce term limits for appointments. Ideally, the committee emphasised, this should be achieved through legislation. As the committee felt that this would not be a government priority, there could be a formal agreement between the main party leaders for the time being. This would ensure that retirements would not be cancelled out through excess future appointments, thus encouraging more Members to take retirement with confidence. The committee focused on the process for appointing the Cross-Bench Peers, stating that the system was now “a muddle”. The regime introduced by Tony Blair involved the House of Lords Appointments Commission, HOLAC, appointing most of the Cross-Bench Peers, and the Prime Minister making up to 10 non-HOLAC Cross-Bench appointments per Parliament. By 2023, this was no longer being observed. Instead, there have been a great number of prime ministerial appointments of Cross-Bench and unaffiliated Peers, while HOLAC has been limited to a maximum of two or three appointments per year, with none at all in five out of the last 10 years. While HOLAC appointed 59 Peers in its first 11 years, it has been granted only 15 appointments in the subsequent 11 years. HOLAC’s aim is to appoint individuals who will add to the breadth of experience and expertise that already exists within the House of Lords, and to help to ensure that the House fully represents diversity within our country. It puts considerable effort into selecting and vetting the people who can best meet the needs of the House and show a willingness to participate regularly. HOLAC’s vital task cannot be achieved with the small number of appointments made over the last 11 years. The Prime Minister should revert to a maximum of 10 non-HOLAC Cross-Bench appointments per Parliament and increase the number of Members that HOLAC is allowed to appoint. In summary, the amendment seeks to follow three key elements of the fifth report of 2023. First, there should be a cap on the size of the House, although 600 could be optimistic in the short term. Secondly, there should be term limits of 15 or 20 years to allow refreshment and rebalancing of the House. Thirdly, there should be a fair allocation of new party appointments. Fourthly, there should be a mandatory retirement age, which is not in the Burns report but was emphasised earlier by the Government as per their manifesto, although they are rowing back on this as the largest number of political Peers over 80 are Labour. Also, they have appointed several Labour Peers over the age of 80. I believe the combination of all four would bring the House size down to the level required, and a draft Bill should be published to implement these proposals before the end of this Session.

My Lords, I do not want to add to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Northbrook, and certainly not to the excellent case made by the noble Lord, Lord Burns—that is why I put my name to his amendment—except to say that we cannot continue as we are. We are over 800 strong and we keep ballooning, and that has to stop. The size of the House is too great. I ask my noble friend the Leader of the House to reassure the House that she will take this seriously and consider the report by the noble Lord, Lord Burns. Incidentally, that report—I remember the debate; I took part in it—was supported by every party. The noble Lord’s all-party committee was not pushing against a great wall of opposition; it was supported by everyone, and we ought to do something about it. Will my noble friend consider doing so after the Bill is passed? We want this Bill passed as quickly as possible, but then we must return to this issue because it cannot be left on another shelf for ever.

My Lords, the House will not want to be delayed. I just want to make one point in support of my noble friend’s amendment. I say to the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, that I had the honour of serving on the Wakeham commission and I think we did a pretty good job, but the committee under my noble friend Lord Burns did a better one.

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 82 only. I spoke in November in our debate on House of Lords reform and, in December, at the Second Reading of this Bill. I said I felt that there were three unfairnesses in the make-up of our House: the hereditary Peers, the Bishops and—the biggest one—the prerogative powers of the Prime Minister to make unlimited appointments to a legislature in a western liberal democracy. That is a very big power without precedent in any other western liberal democracy. I am not going to repeat anything that has been said already, but for me Amendment 82 does two things. It patrols the size of the House—that is important, although I know there are people who have other views—and, most importantly, it puts a cap on the prerogative powers of the Prime Minister. I fully admit that our current Government are fully and transparently democratic, but that will not necessarily be the case for ever more. Future Governments may not have that make-up, so I feel this is a safety mechanism as well. As we go forward from here, I feel strongly—here I agree very much with the noble Lord, Lord Hain—that the thrust of this amendment is important, and I commend the noble Lords, Lord Burns and Lord Hain, for bringing it forward.

My Lords, I offer my support to the noble Lord, Lord Burns, in this amendment. The key point is that his report was based on a situation where there was unlikely to be any legislation possible in the foreseeable future. There is now the possibility of legislation, because we are debating it. I think it is agreed on in all parts of the House that a limit is necessary. I was very struck by the noble Lord’s comments that the principle is more important than the number, and his move from 600 to 650 simply to get the principle in. It seems to me that there are a few things in our debate on which we agree which could be accepted by the Government, while there are a vast number of things which are completely out of scope and require a full debate on the future of the House. In this respect, this is something that the House would do well to listen to and I hope the Government, when it comes to Report, will look favourably on whatever the noble Lord might bring forward at that point.

21:30:00

My Lords, on these Benches, we strongly agree with the central thrust of the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Burns, which is that the House is too big and should be reduced in size. It is interesting to consider that if all parties and the Government had accepted the Burns report and we had legislated for the Grocott Bill when they were first proposed, we would not now be faced with a House of this size. One of the elegant things about the original Burns report was that it was a way of dealing with the size of the House without legislation at a time when no legislation was likely to be forthcoming. This is obviously not the case now that we have this Bill, but we are also looking at having a retirement age and a bar for participation, both of which, even if retirement age is phased in, will have a very significant impact on the size of your Lordships’ House. Although the noble Lord makes the case that his amendment sort of dovetails with those, one could equally argue that they drive a coach and horses through it. Not that I wish to disagree even in the interim with the principle of it, but the one thing it does not deal with, and is an extraordinarily difficult problem with or without the Burns approach, is what the balance of the composition of the House should be. We are in a five-party political system at the moment, leaving aside the nationalists in Scotland and Wales, and this House conspicuously fails to reflect that. The position that my party has found itself in is that over a decade we have had three new Peers, all three of them within the last year. I have been, as it were, commanding a slowly shrinking iceberg floating south with no prospect of new Members. On what basis does the Prime Minister determine how many Liberal Democrats there should be in the House? It is a whim, truth be told. You can have a principle that says that there should be parity between the two largest parties, but beyond that no principle has ever been adumbrated while I have been in your Lordships’ House as to how you deal with all the other parties. This is a real problem and under the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Burns, there is not even a hint of how you deal with this conundrum of balance. Under it, the Prime Minister could, if he wished, replace every two departing Peers with a new Labour Peer—he could do any variety of mixture—and that seems to me a real problem. Noble Lords will not be surprised to know that we favour having an elected House because we do not believe that there is a logical or defensible way around the conundrum of the prime ministerial whim deciding on the composition of a second Chamber in a mature democracy.

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Burns, with Amendment 82, proposes an immediate restriction on appointments—a two-out, one-in policy— until this House reaches 650 Members, at which point it would transition to a one-out, one-in model. Your Lordships are no strangers to this proposal. It echoes the recommendations of the Lord Speaker’s Committee on the Size of the House, known to us all as the Burns report. Once again, the noble Lord makes a compelling case with his usual eloquence and my noble friend Lord Northbrook pursues a similar objective by different means. He would require the Government to publish a draft Bill implementing the Burns report before the provisions of the current legislation can take effect. Reflecting on both these amendments, I venture this: it is not size that matters, but the perception of it.

Oh!

Before I turn to the substance of the amendments, I will interrogate the premise that this House is too large and should be made smaller. Time and again in this debate, noble Lords have invoked the total number of Members, drawing unfavourable comparisons with other second Chambers around the world. But before we lose ourselves in the arithmetic of armchairs, let us consider a few rather more revealing figures. Since 1999, the average daily attendance has never exceeded 497 Members. Last year the figure was just 397 Peers—barely 51% of the total membership. Even in our most heavily attended vote, on the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill, just 634 Members took part. These are not the numbers of a bloated, overbearing assembly; they are the numbers of a House that flexes with the rhythm of expertise and interest—that breathes in and out according to the demands of scrutiny. We are not and were never meant to be a full-time House. It is neither expected nor desirable that every Peer attends every day. Many noble Lords bring with them outstanding commitments rooted in their industries and fields of expertise. This is not a weakness; it is our strength. It is the very foundation of our ability to scrutinise, revise and improve legislation. Some of us are generalists and able to contribute widely. Others are specialists, drawn in when their knowledge is most needed. That blend is not accidental; it is essential. To fix an arbitrary cap on our numbers, particularly one tied to the size of the House of Commons, would not enhance our function; it would potentially diminish it. It would risk leaving gaps in our collective knowledge, stifling the very expertise on which this House depends. Without a mandatory retirement age to generate vacancies, restrictions on appointments could become a blunt instrument, blocking the arrival of fresh insight while leaving the door shut to renewal. Although I maintain that, in itself, size does not matter, I can see that the perception of size is an issue. Public confidence and trust in this House matter, and I do not blame the public for misunderstanding what we do—how could they when so much of our work is invisible, unbroadcast and uncelebrated? We all bear the responsibility for explaining it better, proving our value and showing that the presence of hundreds of Members does not mean hundreds of voices speaking at once but is rather a reservoir of wisdom summoned when needed. I look forward with great interest to the Lord Privy Seal’s reply to this debate, but I will close with a question: do the Government believe that it is the size of the House that matters, or is it merely a convenient fig leaf to cover a more political ambition—the removal of over 80 hereditary Peers, the vast majority of whom do not take the Government Whip?

My Lords, this was a short but interesting debate. I thank the noble Baroness for injecting some humour into it. It seemed that the female Members of the House found it funnier than—if I dare say it—the male Members of the House. Perhaps I will pass over that quite quickly and move on.

You need a fig leaf.

It continues. There have been some interesting discussions. The noble Lord, Lord Burns, used his amendment to refer back to the Lord Speaker’s Committee, when he looked at the size of the House and how related issues might be addressed. His amendment focuses on the idea of two out, one in, although he spoke more widely on the report, which was very helpful. I will come to that in a moment. The noble Lord, Lord Northbrook, wants to delay the commencement of the Bill, which is why he tabled his amendment. He seemed to think we should have a draft Bill first to implement the Burns committee’s report. I looked into his interest in the Burns committee, and I was surprised, given that he thought it so important to delay this Bill until there is a draft Bill on the Burns committee, that he did not speak on the Burns committee when it was debated in your Lordships’ House. I think he referred to it in debate on my noble friend Lord Grocott’s Bill. It is an interesting point but not one that we would be able to accept, because it would just delay this Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Burns, raised some interesting issues. When we debated the Burns committee report there was widespread support around the House for it. Looking back, I was not sure during the debate that every Member was fully signed up to every part of the report, but there was a real view that something had to be done and that this was going in the right direction of how we might address the issue. The noble Baroness made a point about size and how we are not a full-time House. We are very much a full-time House. We sit longer and later than the other place, but we do not expect every Member of your Lordships’ House to be full-time. Members have outside interests, and we do not expect everybody to be here all day, every day—and neither should we. It would be unhelpful to the House if every Member was always here and we were all full-time politicians. We bring different experiences and different issues to the House. I think we agree that the size of the House should come down. This is a bit about perception. We regularly read about the size and the bloat of the House, and how we are the second-largest assembly in the world, but we are not. If we look at the active membership—Members who attend reasonably regularly—then the House is not that size; it is much smaller. The two measures we are looking at, on retirement and participation, go a long way towards addressing some of the criticisms that are made. That is why I am so keen—and I have said that I will come back to the House on this—to have a mechanism that Members can input into so that we can see if the House can reach agreement on what that might look like in practice. We have had some discussions about that already. The noble Lord, Lord Newby, made some points about allocation. We discussed this before on the Bill from the noble Lord, Lord Norton, which suggested that 20% of the House should be Cross-Benchers. Although that is a pretty fair figure for the Cross-Benchers, having a mechanism within your Lordships’ House that, in effect, determines what the size of one group should be does nothing about the relative size of other groups. One of the things I have looked at with some dismay over the years is how the government party has grown and grown. The noble Lord said his party had had only three new Members, most of them very recently. To come back to an earlier debate, at one point I think more new Ministers were appointed—in some cases for very short terms in office—to this side of the House than we had appointments in the whole of that time in opposition. We therefore need to get a better balance between the two parties. The noble Lord, Lord Burns, is absolutely right. The House does some of its best work when we do not play the numbers game and say, “We’ve got more than you, we can win a vote”. We got into bad habits during some of the coalition years, when there was an automatic majority. We saw large numbers come in under Boris Johnson in particular: when the Government lost votes, their answer was to appoint more Peers. That did not have the effect that the Government wanted it to have. The House does its best work when there are roughly equal numbers between the Government and opposition parties, and when we are more deliberative in our approach rather than thinking that everything has to be resolved by voting. The House was designed to take that sort of approach. But the House is larger than it needs to be and it does not reflect the work we do or how we operate. The noble Lord, Lord Burns, did the House a great service with his report; he focused minds. These are issues that we will return to, but he established an important principle that the House should look at dealing with some of these issues. It is very important that we do, because our views on how we should operate matter. This goes back to earlier debates about the skills and experience required, and about the make-up of the House that we want to see. We will have that debate in a moment, I am sure, on the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra. This has been an important debate and I am grateful to both noble Lords for their amendments, but I would respectfully urge them not to press them.

My Lords, I am very grateful for all the comments that have been made about the Lord Speaker’s Committee’s report and in response to the amendment. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hain, who been supportive throughout this process; that has been important to ensure that we did really have cross-party support. The noble Lord, Lord Newby, raised the allocation of places. I thought I mentioned this in my remarks, and it was certainly set out in some detail in the Lords Speaker’s Committee’s report. New appointments should be allocated according to the proportion of the votes in the previous general election. That would certainly be reflected in the number of Liberal Democrats. I appreciate there would be a problem if there was suddenly a very big shift in the voting behaviour in the country—for example, if a new party emerged. Then, of course, there would be some issues about balance. The noble Baroness, Lady Finn, emphasised the whole question of whether it really matters what size the House is—it needs to come and go according to the rhythm of the place. But the reality is that without a ceiling on the House, the numbers have gone up and up over the whole period since there have been life peerages. There is no control mechanism with these arrangements. Whatever we do in the short term to bring down the numbers, if we do not have a commitment on what we want the size of the House to be and a mechanism for keeping it there, I can see nothing other than that the numbers will continue to rise.

21:45:00

When I go around speaking on this subject, which I have to do from time to time, I can mount a case for an appointed House, but I also have to acknowledge that one is pushing the tolerance of the public in so much of what they read about the House: the absence of a retirement age, the absence of a requirement to attend regularly, the ability for someone to be in the House for 50 years or more, and the idea that there is no limit to the size of the House. These are all very difficult things to sell to people for a legislative Chamber.

I was watching a new series on Netflix: a version of “The Leopard” that has just started. I was reminded of Tancredi’s famous phrase:

“If we want things to stay as they are, things will have to change”.

I very much feel that is necessary if we are to win the balance and maintain the support of public opinion. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 82 withdrawn.

Amendment 83

Moved by

83: After Clause 1, insert the following new Clause— “Peers from chartered professional bodies(1) The Prime Minister must recommend to His Majesty the King that one member from each chartered professional body be granted a life peerage under section 1 of the Life Peerages Act 1958 (power to confer life peerages) in accordance with this section.(2) The peerage granted under section 1 must entitle a peer from a chartered professional body to sit in the House of Lords for five years only (a “temporary peerage”), at which point the Prime Minister must propose a new peer from the chartered professional body.(3) The Prime Minister must only recommend the individual proposed by each chartered professional body.(4) Each chartered professional body may determine the individual they propose for a temporary peerage by the method it considers appropriate. (5) A chartered professional body under subsection (1) means any professional body granted a royal charter after the day on which this Act is passed and any professional body below—(a) Association of Chartered Certified Accountants;(b) Association of Corporate Treasurers;(c) Association for Project Management;(d) Association for Science Education;(e) British Computer Society;(f) British Psychological Society;(g) British Society of Gastroenterology;(h) Chartered Institute of Management Accountants;(i) Chartered Association of Building Engineers;(j) Chartered Institute for Archaeologists;(k) Chartered Institute for Securities and Investment;(l) Chartered Institute of Arbitrators;(m) Chartered Institute of Architectural Technologists;(n) Chartered Banker Institute;(o) Chartered Institute of Brewers & Distillers;(p) Chartered Institute of Building;(q) Chartered Institute of Credit Management;(r) Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management;(s) Chartered Institute of Environmental Health;(t) Chartered Institute of Fundraising;(u) Chartered Institute of Horticulture;(v) Chartered Institute of Housing;(w) Chartered Institute of Internal Auditors;(x) Chartered Institute of Journalists;(y) Chartered Institute of Legal Executives;(z) Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals;(z1) Chartered Institute of Linguists;(z2) Chartered Institute of Logistics and Transport;(z3) Chartered Institute of Loss Adjusters;(z4) Chartered Institute of Marketing;(z5) Chartered Institute for the Management of Sport and Physical Activity;(z6) Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys;(z7) Chartered Institute of Payroll Professionals;(z8) Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development;(z9) Chartered Institute of Plumbing and Heating Engineering;(z10) Chartered Institute of Procurement & Supply;(z11) Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy;(z12) Chartered Institute of Public Relations;(z13) Chartered Institution of Railway Operators;(z14) Chartered Institute of Taxation;(z15) Chartered Institute of Trade Mark Attorneys;(z16) Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers;(z17) Chartered Institution of Civil Engineering Surveyors;(z18) Chartered Institution of Highways and Transportation;(z19) Chartered Institution of Wastes Management;(z20) Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management;(z21) Chartered Insurance Institute;(z22) Chartered Management Institute;(z23) Chartered Quality Institute;(z24) Chartered Society of Designers; (z25) Chartered Society of Physiotherapy;(z26) Chartered Trading Standards Institute;(z27) College of Optometrists;(z28) College of Paramedics;(z29) The Chartered College of Teaching;(z30) Energy Institute;(z31) English Association;(z32) Geological Society of London;(z33) Institute and Faculty of Actuaries;(z34) Institute of Chartered Accountants in England & Wales;(z35) Institute of Chartered Accountants in Ireland;(z36) Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland;(z37) Institute of Chartered Foresters;(z38) Institute of Chartered Secretaries and Administrators;(z39) Institute of Chartered Shipbrokers;(z40) Institute of Conservation;(z41) Institute of Directors;(z42) Institute of Health and Social Care Management;(z43) Institute of Marine Engineering, Science and Technology;(z44) Institute of Materials, Minerals and Mining;(z45) Institute of Mathematics and its Applications;(z46) Institute of Maxillofacial Prosthetists & Technologists;(z47) Institute of Measurement and Control;(z48) Institute of Physics;(z49) Institute of Practitioners in Advertising;(z50) Institute of Refrigeration;(z51) Institution of Chemical Engineers;(z52) Institution of Civil Engineers;(z53) Institution of Engineering and Technology;(z54) Institution of Engineering Designers;(z55) Institution of Mechanical Engineers;(z56) Institution of Occupational Safety and Health;(z57) Institution of Royal Engineers;(z58) Institution of Structural Engineers;(z59) Landscape Institute;(z60) The Law Society;(z61) Law Society of Northern Ireland;(z62) Linnean Society of London;(z63) Royal Aeronautical Society;(z64) Royal Agricultural Society of England;(z65) Royal Anthropological Institute;(z66) Royal Asiatic Society;(z67) Royal Astronomical Society;(z68) Royal College of Anaesthetists;(z69) Royal College of General Practitioners;(z70) Royal College of Nursing;(z71) Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists;(z72) Royal College of Organists;(z73) Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health;(z74) Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Glasgow;(z75) Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh;(z76) Royal College of Physicians of London;(z77) Royal College of Psychiatrists;(z78) Royal College of Radiologists;(z79) Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists; (z80) Royal College of Surgeons of England;(z81) Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh;(z82) Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons;(z83) Royal Economic Society;(z84) Royal Geographical Society;(z85) Royal Historical Society;(z86) Royal Incorporation of Architects in Scotland;(z87) Royal Institute of British Architects;(z88) Royal Institute of Navigation;(z89) Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors;(z90) Royal Institution of Naval Architects;(z91) Royal Meteorological Society;(z92) Royal Microscopical Society;(z93) Royal Pharmaceutical Society;(z94) Royal Photographic Society;(z95) Royal Society for Public Health;(z96) Royal Society of Biology;(z97) Royal Society of Chemistry;(z98) Royal Society of Medicine;(z99) Royal Statistical Society;(z100) Royal Town Planning Institute;(z101) Society for Radiological Protection;(z102) Society of Dyers and Colourists;(z103) The Textile Institute.”

My Lords, Amendment 83 is in my name. At first glance, it may scare your Lordships if 129 of these suggested new Peers descend on us in one fell swoop, in addition to our current 850 Members—but that is not my intention. Let me explain where I am coming from on this. First, I am working on the assumption that we will reduce the numbers in this House by possibly 250 by the end of this Parliament—those retiring, those who fail to turn up and those who fail to participate. I am old enough and cynical enough to say with absolute certainty that I am afraid that no Prime Minister will ever implement the report of the noble Lord, Lord Burns, so we need to reduce numbers some other way. We boast that we are a House of experts, which is true in comparison with the House of Commons. We have lawyers, doctors, farmers, financial experts, a Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors Peer, veterinarians and some other specialists. But we do not have the full range of specialists we could use. I asked the Public Bill Office to add the names of these 129 professional chartered institutes and royal colleges so that noble Lords could see the wide range and just what we could be missing. At first glance, noble Lords will say, “Goodness me, we can’t have all these people here. What would they bring?” But I challenge any noble Lord to say that the presidents or vice-presidents of any of these royal colleges or chartered institutes would have nothing valuable to contribute to some of our expert debates. Of course, we will all have our personal views and biases on which ones are more important and prestigious than others, and we may have some snobbish put-downs about some. I am reminded of the time when John Major allowed technical colleges to become universities and I heard some commentators call them “hairdressing degree universities”. I agree that some of the experts from the royal colleges of medicine may have more to contribute to a debate about assisted dying than, say, the institute of waste management—well, probably, although it may have a view as well. However, in seeking, for example, a better-designed Holocaust memorial than the monstrosity Adjaye wants to inflict on us, I would prefer to hear from the institute of designers than any distinguished royal colleges. It is horses for courses, and in the House of Lords we have an awful lot of courses. When our expert Select Committees embark on a new inquiry and need to interview experts and collect evidence, it is to many of these organisations on my list that they will turn. Look at the lists of evidence submitted, for example, and you will see the names of many of these organisations. When the Government go out to consultation, every one of these organisations will be on their distribution list as a stakeholder for the relevant subject or area. I suggest that if the Government consult these organisations as knowledgeable stakeholders, we should have one of their number in here on a short-term peerage. We have some very able accountants and financiers, but every day this House and its committees would benefit from having Peers from the Institute of Chartered Accountants, the Chartered Institute of Management Accountants, the Chartered Institute of Internal Auditors, the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy and the Chartered Institute of Taxation—and I may be so politically rude as to suggest that maybe the Chancellor too could benefit from some of their advice at the moment. We have the long-running problem that after 17 years we still cannot get on with restoring this building. Perhaps if we had Peers from the Association for Project Management, the Chartered Association of Building Engineers, the Chartered Institute of Architectural Technologists, the Chartered Institute of Plumbing and Heating Engineering, the Chartered Institute of Procurement & Supply, the Institution of Civil Engineers, the Institution of Structural Engineers, the Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers, the Institution of Mechanical Engineers and others, perhaps the place would be rebuilt by now. We do not have enough experts in this House who design and build things. I also think we need experts from trading standards and environmental health. On the environment, we have some experts here already, but we could do with more, such as from the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management, the Chartered Institute of Horticulture, the Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management, the Institute of Chartered Foresters, the Landscape Institute, the Royal Agricultural Society of England and the Chartered Institution of Wastes Management. Last week in Grand Committee we had the digital markets regulations and the immigration biometric information regulations. Today in Grand Committee we debated—although I did not debate it as I could not understand any of it—the Electronic Communications (Networks and Services) (Designated Vendor Directions) (Penalties) Order 2025, which is on the tip of all your Lordships’ tongues, to be followed by the Ecodesign for Energy-Related Products and Energy Information (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2025. I accept that I may be the only Peer in this House who would not have a clue what these regulations seek to do, but perhaps if we had experts from the Institution of Engineering and Technology, the Institute of Physics, the Energy Institute and the British Computer Society, we would have a much more informed debate. If noble Lords look down the list in Amendment 83, they can see experts in some of the Government’s central priorities for education needs in this country—and, if we are to have growth, institutes for housing, science education and a whole range of mathematical and science disciplines, as well as logistics and transport. Noble Lords may say, “It’s all right; we can get some of them already if they are nominated through HOLAC”. Yes, but it is very hit and miss, requiring someone to nominate someone who may or may not be an up-to-date, current expert in any of the 129 disciplines listed in my amendment—and that person, like the rest of us, will serve until death or retirement, whereas my amendment would ensure a new expert from the institute every five years. The key point of my amendment is that these Peers nominated by their respective institutes would serve for five years. That would ensure that we were getting a constant flow of experts who were up to date with their areas of expertise. What I did not put in the amendment is the logistics of doing this. I suggest that we could bring in up to 26 per annum over a period of five years so that they did not all arrive in one fell swoop and all depart at the same time. Their order of introduction could be done by ballot. My amendment states that the Prime Minister cannot substitute his own preference, but I neglected to say that HOLAC would still have the final say on propriety and, if HOLAC rejected a nomination, the institute would have to propose someone else who satisfied the propriety test. They would all be Cross-Benchers and be instructed that they were not spokespersons for their institute but individuals giving us their personal expertise based on the professional expertise for which the institute nominated them in the first place. In our debate on an elected House a few nights ago, a few noble Lords made the point that we can widen the franchise, so to speak, and be more democratic without requiring direct elections. If we adopted the system that I propose, we would be introducing an indirectly elected element that would be more democratic, I suggest, than just the Prime Minister making appointments. I would also hope that we would not need individual nominations through HOLAC or the Prime Minister because they wanted a Peer with experience in taxation, ecology, archaeology or any of the 129 disciplines in my amendment. Of course, the Prime Minister will still make political appointments, but my system in this amendment would guarantee that, in five years’ time, the House had 129 experts from these professional bodies, constantly renewing their expertise in addition to any other noble Lords who have been appointed. I also suggest that this would give us a more regional spread, since it is likely that some of the appointees will be from countries of our United Kingdom other than England—and, indeed, seven of the institutions listed here are not English. In conclusion, this suggestion is not as frightening as it first appears when one looks at the Marshalled List with these 129 organisations. These experts, introduced to the House at a rate of up to 26 per annum and changing every five years, would give us a whole new cadre of experts and at least 100 professionals that we do not have in here at the moment. If noble Lords worry that that is too many at one time, then I would remind the House that the Prime Minister has introduced 45 new Peers in his first 250 days as Prime Minister, and we can expect another large batch of politicians and aides in the last Prime Minister’s resignation honours. Naturally, of course, my amendment will not be acceptable—possibly by all sides of the House—but I suggest quite humbly that I think I have got a germ of an idea here which, with refinement, could give us more independent experts, widen the franchise, be more democratic and not allow the Prime Minister to be solely in charge of Lords appointments. I say we need more experts; if we boast that we are a House of experts, then let us prove it by accepting this amendment. I beg to move.

Front Bench!

My Lords, I put on a tie this morning which represents the royal agricultural societies of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Where are they on this list? I learnt something about this—and the former Leader of the House my noble friend Lord Strathclyde and the then Cabinet Office Minister my noble friend Lord Maude will know about this—in the Public Bodies Bill. Schedule 7 to that Bill listed the public bodies that we were going to abolish, and we ended up having to revoke that whole schedule. Lists are an abomination in legislation. I advise the Committee that my noble friend is wrong, and I disagree with him totally on this idea.

My Lords, with due respect to my noble friend, I want to say something on this proposal. The House can normally rely on the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, for good sense, but this is a seriously bad idea and I can rely on my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal to explain in detail why. I just want to make the point, speaking as a member of the professional body listed at subsection (5)(z33) of the proposed new clause, that the idea that we come here to provide expertise, professional advice or technical advice is seriously wrong. If we want such expertise, we should pay for people to come and tell us rather than expect individual Members to provide it on the fly. It is the wrong form of representation within this House. I say to the Committee that, as a jobbing actuary, my hourly rate is significantly more than the daily allowance, so I do not want members of my profession or other professions to be taken advantage of.

Front Bench!

My Lords, agreeing with the noble Lords, Lord Taylor and Lord Davies, that we are here for judgment, not experience, I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra: what has he got against the hospitality industry, which is not on his list? I speak as the president of the Institute of Hospitality.

My Lords, I have some sympathy with the thrust of my noble friend Lord Blencathra’s amendment. Indeed, a number of the professions that he has suggested would, ironically, replace the gifted amateurs—those we may be about to lose—the hereditary Peers. I scribbled down, in the past few minutes, the number of hereditary Peers with valuable experience in finance, banking and investment, foreign exchange, accountancy and insurance. On top of that, we have engineers, vets and property managers, as well as those representing the agriculture and forestry industry, transportation and logistics, the law, human resources and public relations. Indeed, we even have an ex-diplomat. Of those 90 hereditary Peers, I am pretty certain that 89 have come from the private sector, and nearly all have valuable experience of wealth creation. I will stop there, but I must ask what we are being replaced by.

22:00:00

My Lords, I am very touched by the determination of the noble Lord, Lord Harris, to hear from me. I am very happy to act as a performing seal to keep the noble Lord happy for hours on end, if he wishes, but that has never been the intention of the party on this side. If he looks carefully in Hansard, he will see me having said, from this Dispatch Box, that there was no question of our Front Bench dividing this House at any stage in Committee, and I hope that that message has been relayed to Members opposite. My noble friend Lord Blencathra raised an interesting issue in his typically creative way. Like others, I flinched when I saw the long list of bodies in his amendment, although it underlines the depth and range of skills that there are still in this great country. Having listened to his arguments, I realise that he has put forward a probing—or perhaps more a scattergun—amendment. My noble friend is right that it is vital that we have a wide range of expertise to be called on as and when it is needed. That expertise, or the ability to analyse and deploy it, is one reason why your Lordships’ House has the authority that it has. It is why—although this is not germane to this amendment—I am rather more sympathetic to the occasional expert contributors we have among us than some who measure participation by quantity only. The ingenious proposal from my noble friend Lord Blencathra, which does not seem to have found favour, is that temporary peerages be granted for representatives from each chartered professional body. We also heard another interesting proposal earlier from my noble friend Lady Laing on temporary Ministers, which I found fascinating. One might even moderate those proposals to consider: if we are a modern Chamber, and if we wish to be modern and we speak about reform, can we not think of doing things in different ways from all the other boring assemblies around the world? We are an interesting place. That area near the Throne is where the judges come at State Opening, on writs of assistance, to be present in the Chamber; it is not technically part of the Chamber. Could we not moderate the kind of proposal that my noble friend Lord Blencathra has put forward, so that if we are discussing something highly technical, we occasionally have people come here to advise and respond in our Chamber to inform our proceedings? It is just an idea. If we are thinking of the future, let us be open without necessarily having to call people here for a long period with permanent peerages, as my noble friend said. Certainly, if we were ever to consider anything along my noble friend’s lines, he is surely right in proposing that any such appointment be temporary, to keep people at their most relevant and to allow a degree of flexibility within each sector to propose their representatives. I admire my noble friend’s ingenuity in asking us to reflect on the expertise that we have, the expertise that we need and the expertise that we stand to lose, as my noble friend Lord Leicester said, if the proposal to exclude all hereditary Peers and all Peers over 80 were to go forward. We should have in mind the expertise we might lose as we consider any proposals for change and transition. However, my noble friend and the Committee will not be surprised when I say that, despite my great respect for his intentions and ingenuity, I am afraid that we on this Front Bench cannot support his specific proposals. Appointing representatives from all chartered professional bodies in this way would make our House a bit too corporatist for my liking, and my noble friend leaves out other great institutions of the land. That said, we should reflect on whether there are other ways in which we could have witnesses occasionally to advise us on technical matters when we are considering important legislation. If we are to have this great modernisation, let us also consider innovative ways in which we might draw on the great wisdom of the British people.

My Lords, this has been an interesting debate, and there has not been very much support for the noble Lord’s proposal. One thing that impressed me—he may have gained a record, at least so far on this Bill—was that he managed to produce an amendment longer than the Bill itself. I do not recall that happening before. It is clear that the different backgrounds, experiences and knowledge of noble Lords from around the House are really valuable in our deliberations. There are indeed past presidents of societies sitting in the House at the moment. The noble Lord, Lord Rees, has been president of the Royal Astronomical Society. The noble Baronesses, Lady Rafferty and Lady Finlay, have been presidents of the Royal College of Nursing and the Royal Society of Medicine respectively, and the noble Lord, Lord Trees, was president of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons. They have enhanced the debates—the noble Baroness, Lady Rafferty, has not been here very long but we look forward to more contributions from her; she has proved herself already—and these appointments are always welcome to your Lordships’ House. I think the noble Lord gets that. Where I struggle with the noble Lord’s amendment is with regard to all the other organisations. The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, got it absolutely right: once you get a list, you look at the things you are excluding, and I do not think the chartered institutes and royal societies are the only groups that can provide such expertise. I also note that, had all the appointments been made that the noble Lord speaks of, they would make up about 30% of the House as Cross-Benchers. I think the noble Lord, Lord Norton, said that the Cross Benches should make up around 20%, which is roughly what most people were talking about, and this amendment would take it well over that. They would probably be larger than either of the two parties of government. The noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, made the point that I would have made, but he got there first—obviously, it is a very good point to make, because it was what I was thinking. Why are we here? We are here for our experience, our knowledge and the contributions we make, but basically, we are here for our judgment. We listen to people who are experts and those who are not experts, and we listen to the public. We take on board all those things, and ultimately, we all have to act on our honour and make a judgment on the information before us. The noble Lord, Lord Davies, pointed out how much the expertise that Members bring to this House would cost if it came from outside this place. But I do not really want a House just of experts, and I do not know where the noble Lord got that from. We are not a House of experts; we are a House that comes together to reach an expert opinion. We have experts among us, but not all of us have an expertise. Many do, but others are here, as the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, said, to exercise judgment. We want Members to speak not just on one issue in which they have expertise; we expect them to look at a range of issues while they are here. I am also uncomfortable with the idea of temporary membership of the House, which the noble Baroness, Lady Laing, raised earlier as well. We want all Members to be equal and to have equal status here; we do not want some Members who are temporary and some who are not. I am sure that the noble Lord tabled his amendment with the best of intentions, but I ask him to withdraw it.

My Lords, my political antenna detects that my suggestion has not received universal acclaim. I say to my noble friend Lord Taylor of Holbeach, who was my superb Chief Whip, that I am sorry if I missed out the royal agricultural societies of Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland. That would put my list up to 130, from 129. He does not like lists, but the Bill is nothing but a list of 88 people to chuck out, so I suggest that it is a list as well. The esteemed organisation of the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, is not a chartered institute or a royal society. I say to the Leader of the House that one has to create a cut-off somewhere. There are lots of other able organisations, but I wanted to pick those that were officially chartered institutes and royal societies, and which had therefore reached a certain level of acknowledged expertise, possibly among their peers. I note the points made by my noble friend Lord Leicester, and I largely concur. The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, was quite strongly against my amendment. He did not want these experts in here; he would prefer to pay them to speak to us. Suppose that, over the next few years, HOLAC had nominated each of these individuals. Why would it nominate them? It would nominate them because they were experts in their field. We would say, “Jolly good, welcome here; we need your expertise”. Of course this House needs experts and expertise. I say to the Leader of the House that I am not suggesting having 650 technical experts; I am suggesting 129 experts, plus any others we may have, which would leave another 400 or 500 Peers to exercise our judgment. I agree with my noble friend Lord True that we need to look at innovative ways. I said that I had the germ of an idea here. Most people think that this germ should be disinfected and done away with immediately, I suspect, but there is a possibility here to do things differently. He said that my plans were too corporatist. I thought that he said that they were too corpulent, which the House rather is at the moment; it is too large. I am clearly not going to succeed. I do not intend to bring this back on Report. I was floating an idea and in five years’ time, say, the House may wish to look at it. I am grateful for the Minister’s response. In view of the attitude tonight, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 83 withdrawn.

Amendment 84 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.

Amendments 85 and 86 not moved.

Amendment 87

Moved by

87: After Clause 1, insert the following new Clause— “Former Members of the House of Commons and special advisersThe Prime Minister must not make a recommendation to His Majesty for the granting of a life peerage under section 1 of the Life Peerages Act 1958 (power to confer life peerages) to any former Members of the House of Commons of the United Kingdom, or to special advisers to the Government of the United Kingdom, the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government, or the Northern Irish Executive, until at least two years have passed since the end of their service.”Member's explanatory statement This amendment seeks to delay the appointment of former MPs and special advisers to the House of Lords until at least two years have passed.

My Lords, in moving Amendment 87 I will also speak to my Amendments 88 and 89. These amendments have elicited a lot of attention from my noble friends since I tabled them. My noble friend Lord Forsyth of Drumlean singled them out during our debate on Amendment 1, when he promised that he would not speak on them. It is good to see him in his place to fulfil that promise this evening. I make it clear from the outset that I have nothing against Members of Parliament. Some of my best friends are Members of Parliament. For a long time, I wanted to be a Member of Parliament, and I tried—with conspicuous lack of success. However, the role of a Member of your Lordships’ House is different. This House is calmer, quieter and more consensual than the other place. It respects the primacy of the elected House and recognises that with nobody in the majority here, the way to get things done is by constructive debate and compromise. Some of the best advice that I received when I took my place in your Lordships’ House was to hold off making a maiden speech and to spend some time in the Chamber learning not only the rules of the House but its ways and its tone. It is very easy for those who have watched too many of the proceedings of the House of Commons to assume that that is how we behave here as well, but it is not. We are less partisan, less pointed and less pugnacious, although it is very easy to slip into those habits. I have done so myself on too many occasions. Those habits are even harder to give up for noble Lords who have served for many years with distinction in another place, as are the more innocuous but still alien habits such as repeatedly intervening on each other, thanking the Lord Speaker for calling us or referring to “honourable Members” rather than “noble Lords”. We are a self-regulating House. Our ways and procedures are set and policed by how we choose to behave. Even in my short time here, I have seen those ways evolving. A great deal was lost during the challenging months of the pandemic, when we had to do things differently. Some, but not all, of that has been clawed back. We are in a constant state of flux, with new Members arriving all the time, bringing new perspectives and new ways of doing things. As a self-regulating House, it falls to all of us to protect those courtesies and conventions that we think important. That is why I lament the way that this Bill will expel so many long-standing Members who know how important those conventions are, and many more recent arrivals who learned by watching them as apprentices before they were elected. I overlapped here only briefly with the Countess of Mar, but it was long enough to know how valuable a role she played, keeping us all on the straight and narrow. Lady Mar was a Deputy Speaker of your Lordships’ House for many years, and of the two dozen Deputy Speakers we have today, five are hereditary Peers drawn from the Labour, Tory and Cross Benches. Many others have served on the Woolsack previously. If they are to go, as this Bill proposes, we will have to work even harder to hold on to some of those subtle traditions that make this House such a pleasant and productive place to legislate.

22:15:00

We will be doing so at a time when the proportion of the House drawn from the other Chamber is rising. In recent years, it has risen to more than a fifth of the House. Our current 21% is a record, and it shows no sign of abating. The pressure on Prime Ministers of all parties to wrap their colleagues in ermine will always be great. My noble friend Lord Vaizey of Didcot alluded earlier to his success in lobbying for a promotion to these Benches. Sometimes it is to free up a safe seat for a favoured son or daughter; sometimes it is the opportunity to rid oneself of a nuisance colleague—I will not hazard to guess which it was in my noble friend Lord Vaizey’s case.

Of course, former Members of Parliament bring great and valuable experience to our proceedings here. They are well versed in parliamentary procedure. They are under no illusions about the long days and the late nights that are involved. They have, as constituency representatives and election candidates, spoken to many thousands of their fellow citizens, and have a keener sense of public opinion than most of us. However, we should be, and should be seen to be, more than just a retirement home for former MPs and special advisers. There are many other bodies from which we can draw experienced and willing legislators. While your Lordships’ House currently has 181 former MPs, we have only 11 former Members of the Scottish Parliament, seven Members of Senedd Cymru, 12 Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly, 11 London Assembly Members, and 40 former or current council leaders—that compares to more than 300 principal local authorities.

While my noble friend Lady Finn will mount a stout defence of that much maligned class, the special adviser, from which she and I are both drawn, I hope she agrees that our numbers should be limited as well. As with MPs, special advisers come in all shapes and sizes. When looking at my amendment, noble Lords might have envisaged a 20- or 30-something straight out of “The Thick of It”. In fact, former special advisers are to be found in every corner of your Lordships’ House: people such as the noble Lords, Lord Lipsey, Lord Liddle, Lord Donoughue and Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, on the Labour Benches; the noble Lord, Lord McNally, from the Lib Dems; and my noble friends Lady Laing of Elderslie, Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton and Lord True. They are found even on the Cross Benches, where there are people such as the noble Baroness, Lady Hogg. Between us, we render some useful service to the deliberations that we have in your Lordships’ House, but if we are not to be seen as a House of professional politicians—I welcomed what the noble Baroness the Lord Privy Seal said about that earlier—our numbers ought to be rationed as well.

When the Lord Privy Seal or whoever comes to respond from the Treasury Bench, it would be useful to hear some indication of whether they think I have got the limits too high or too low and what they think the correct proportion of former MPs and former special advisers should be in your Lordships’ House. The Lord Privy Seal has spoken previously of her desire to see roughly equal numbers between the two principal parties. I do not know whether she has a sense of how many former MPs it is ideal to have in your Lordships’ House, but I would welcome her thoughts on it and those of my many noble friends who have caught me in the corridors to tell me already. I beg to move.

My Lords, I agree with the general thrust of these amendments. When I came to your Lordships’ House in 1992, to get from the House of Commons to the House of Lords you had to have been a Cabinet Minister, preferably for two tours, Mr Speaker or the Deputy Speaker, or an MP of stratospheric reputation. Being a junior Minister was nowhere near enough. We would have to be careful with the drafting of Amendment 89, because a very good candidate could have either been a spad a very long time ago or had a high-profile career in industry and then been a spad. That is just a drafting issue.

My Lords, I start by making it clear that we value the contributions of all noble Lords in this House, regardless of whether they have served as Members in the other place or as special advisers in government. I say this with a smidgen of self-interest, as a former special adviser myself, and in full awareness that my noble friend Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay served as special adviser to my noble friend Lady May of Maidenhead, who, of course, is not only a former Member of Parliament but a former Prime Minister. Your Lordships’ House benefits a great deal from their service, as it does from many others who have come from the other place or through government. None the less, these amendments raise the interesting question of what this House is for. It is reasonable to consider the broader experience that we need to fulfil our responsibilities. It is important that this House remains a distinct second Chamber and that we do not blur the lines between the two Houses. Your Lordships’ House benefits from a large membership with broad experience and expertise, whether from former Members of Parliament or otherwise. The House of Lords Library has produced useful research in this area, which tells us that 21% of noble Lords have previously served as MPs in the House of Commons; that is 181 former MPs. Unfortunately—or perhaps fortunately—the House of Lords Library does not readily provide information on the number of former special advisers, but, as we know, there are at least three of us in the Chamber this evening. I understand why some noble Lords might consider a cap on the number or proportion of ex-MPs and special advisers, as proposed by my noble friend Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay’s amendments, to be beneficial and to ensure a balance of perspective and experience in your Lordships’ House. The expulsion of our hereditary colleagues would deprive us of a huge amount of private sector experience, which cannot easily be replaced. The Bill stands to exclude chartered accountants and surveyors, the former president of the Heavy Transport Association and a former managing director of Paperchase. They are among many more examples of businessmen, entrepreneurs and industry titans whose perspectives we will greatly miss. We should not take their experience and expertise for granted; it is vital for the scrutiny of legislation that affects businesses, markets, industry, workers and employers alike, and our wider economy, that our private sector is properly represented by those who know and understand its operation. Of course, having a background in politics does not preclude one from having other types of experience. Indeed, it is valuable experience in itself. Some of our most effective Members are those who have been here the longest and who have learned over the years how to get things done within Parliament and across government—critical skills in a legislative Chamber. The other suggestion that we have discussed is what I consider a cooling-off period, as proposed by my noble friend Lord Parkinson’s Amendment 87. It is an interesting suggestion that might alleviate an external perception of political patronage and perhaps lighten the pressure on Prime Ministers to confer such patronage. However, I do not believe that it would be right for this House to limit the ability of a democratically elected Prime Minister to make the appointments that they wish. As my noble friend pointed out, these amendments cause us to consider the House of Lords as our second Chamber. We fulfil a role that is very different from that of the other place. We have the time and ability to scrutinise and revise legislation in a way that the House of Commons does not, while respecting the will of the elected House. This House is one of the highest-quality revising Chambers in any democracy, and it is a role that the House rightly takes very seriously. Your Lordships’ House has a constructive, consensual way of doing things. It should desist from becoming more party political and more like Punch and Judy than noble Lords are used to. We should be wary of any such trends. Your Lordships’ House works best when we treat each other with respect, making revisions and posing questions constructively. One of the many negative effects of losing our hereditary Peers is that we will lose a great number of those who act as the custodians of the conventions and manners of this House. To conclude, I do not support the literal interpretation of the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, but I understand and sympathise with the intention with which they were tabled. We welcome the contributions and experience of all noble Lords, but it is right that we should reflect on what we will lose with the removal of our hereditary colleagues. It is also right that we reflect on the unique role that your Lordships’ House has in our parliamentary democracy and the need for us to uphold our distinct customs and conventions to continue that role. I thank my noble friend for giving us the opportunity to reflect on and debate these thoughtful proposals.

My Lords, this is an intriguing set of amendments, particularly given the professional experience of the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay. I declare my interest as a former Member of Parliament myself. I hope, as far as the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, is concerned, that it would be my stratospheric reputation that earned my place here—

Hear, hear!

—although I may be slightly too young for the retirement home for ex-Members that the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, referred to. Since I joined your Lordships’ House, I have had an unusual aspiration: to get “chutzpah” into Hansard—I look forward to seeing its spelling. I believe that the noble Lord’s amendments have given me such an opportunity. We are very lucky in your Lordships’ House to draw on a range of expertise from across public life, law, science, academia and the arts and cultural sector. We have former Permanent Secretaries of government departments, former or current vice-chancellors of universities, news editors and a number of former presidents of esteemed institutions, as outlined in the last group, and we even have BAFTA winners among us. It is true that a significant proportion in this Chamber are former Members of Parliament: at the last count, it was 21%. We also have a number of former special advisers in this place—some are sitting on the Benches opposite me. I should declare at this point that I have many friends who are current and former special and political advisers. I do not think that is such a bad thing. Your Lordships’ House is predominantly a political house. The Prime Minister invites party leaders to nominate individuals to this place, and party leaders choose who should best represent them. It is likely that many of the people they nominate have a political background as special advisers or former Members of Parliament, Members of the Scottish Parliament, the Senedd or the Northern Ireland Assembly. Both Houses work most effectively when we understand the day-to-day workings of the other. As a former MP, I have certainly found the experience of the other place very useful as we consider how this House can work best—and how much more effective we can be than some of my former colleagues in the other place. In addition, a number of noble Lords who have been Members of Parliament have also been Ministers. They have a deep understanding of departments and how the work we do here affects government and the delivery of public services. Former special advisers, recent or otherwise, too have valuable experience to bring to your Lordships’ House. For some Peers, their time as a special adviser or political adviser was one role among many that have led to their appointment to your Lordships’ House and is not necessarily the reason they were appointed. The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, is an obvious example. He was a special adviser before he became an MP, but I do not believe that that is the reason he was appointed to your Lordships’ House. The same could be said on my Benches for my noble friend Lord Reid, who was also an adviser but held many posts in government. There are many other former special advisers from across the House who bring valuable insights to our work, both from their days as special advisers but also often from outside this experience. Such perspectives are incredibly valuable in this place. They deepen and enrich our ability to scrutinise legislation and hold the Government to account. As someone who regularly signs off a significant number of Written Parliamentary Questions, I often reflect—to my genuine concern—on the insight held by former Ministers and special advisers about the mechanisms of government. They bring a genuine level of scrutiny and insight. It is, of course, important that we maintain a non-party political element to the House of Lords. The Cross-Benchers especially provide specialist expertise and insights that we would not always find on the political Benches. As the Government have said repeatedly during these debates, it is just as much about what Peers bring to this House and their willingness to contribute to proceedings as about their experiences and achievements before they came to this place. After all, I note that the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, is truly proving his worth with his extensive contributions throughout Committee. It is up to party leaders, including the Prime Minister, to decide who best represents their political parties in the House of Lords. It is right that they are able to choose who is most suitable. Restricting party leaders’ ability to choose knowledgeable, experienced figures to sit in this House just because they have a political background would be a disservice to us all. I respectfully request that the noble Lord withdraws his amendment.

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply and for the most generous defence of special advisers that I have heard outside of the Thursday evening drinks we used to have at the Two Chairmen pub when I was in government, when the special advisers used to get together for a chinwag. I accept all the points she made, not just about special advisers but about Members of Parliament and the great contribution they bring, as I acknowledged in my speech. I see that as well.

22:30:00

I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Attlee for his constructive drafting suggestions and to my noble friend Lady Finn for engaging not just with the literal interpretation of the words in my amendment, as she put it, but with the spirit in which they were brought. I am grateful too to the Minister for so delicately pointing out my chutzpah in bringing these amendments. I did so with a self-awareness, but I should at least be grateful, I suppose, that she did not call me a schmuck—for now.

There is still time.

I note that I did not hear an answer to my question about the Government’s view on the ideal number of former special advisers and Members of Parliament. As we pass this Bill, which gives such unbridled powers to the Prime Minister to appoint whomever he wishes to your Lordships’ House, we should be mindful of the growing and accelerating trend to put former Members of Parliament and special advisers here. With that, and with thanks to the Minister, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 87 withdrawn.

Amendments 88 and 89 not moved.

Amendment 90

Moved by

90: 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.

My Lords, after what I acknowledge was not a popular measure, I hope that this one will find more support on both principal Benches of your Lordships’ House. My Amendment 90 seeks to address the long-running problem we all acknowledge of the number of Ministers serving in this House who are not salaried. When I had the privilege of being a Minister in the previous Conservative Government, I was lucky enough to be in receipt of a salary that was important, principally, for the pension contributions and the national insurance contributions it allowed me to pay. But some 40% of my colleagues on the Front Bench in the previous Conservative Government were unsalaried. That meant that not only were they not taking home a salary cheque at the end of the month, they were also not paying into their pension, their national insurance contributions were not being made and, in some cases, because of this and because of their age, they were not in receipt of severance pay when the general election put an end to their time as Ministers. This is a problem that affects both the major parties when they are in government. It dates from the Ministerial and Other Salaries Act of 1975, which was written with a noble aim to ensure that the Executive does not grow too large by comparison to the legislature and that the cost to the public purse should be limited, but it was drawn in an age when Ministers in the House of Lords were assumed to be drawn from the landed gentry. We are not anymore, and, in the absence of baronial lands in Whitley Bay being granted to me, I was very grateful for the salary that allowed me to carry out my work as a Minister. This is a problem that my noble friend Lord Forsyth of Drumlean and many others have raised in previous Parliaments and in this one. I know that it is one that draws the attention of the noble Baroness the Leader of the House. I hope that, much as in the debate on power of attorney, this may be an opportunity for us to solve a long-running problem that causes problems for Governments’ ability to find Front-Benchers and to draw people from all walks of life, from modest backgrounds, to serve their country in government. I beg to move.

My Lords, I rise briefly to support my noble friend, who is absolutely right. If I have got my figures correct this time, this Labour Government are abusing only four Lords Ministers, while the last Conservative Government, disgracefully, abused 11 Lords Ministers, by not paying them. That is simply not right. Part of the problem is that Prime Ministers like to stuff their departments full of paid MPs and, of course, they have their PPSs as well to help them. The larger the payroll of MPs in the Commons, the less likely there is to be a rebellion. So it pays for any Government to have as many paid Members of Parliament as possible, and their PPSs. About 35 years ago, as a junior Whip, I encountered a colleague who was very concerned that that he was not fully involved in policy development in his department. He said to his Secretary of State that he would like to be more fully involved. The Secretary of state told him, “You’re just a PUS. Your job is to reply to all the letters from people whingeing about not getting their bypass”. That rather put him in his place. My noble friend is right: there has been a large expansion of the roles of PUSs and others. I personally think that that is wrong. There is also a view that Peers can afford to do it for free: “Let’s have as many paid MPs as we can within the ceiling of the allowance, and then get Peers to do it for free”. That is utterly wrong. Many of them cannot do it for free. Noble Lords in this House who have been doing it for free have been doing it out of a sense of duty, not because they can afford it. On that note, I see my noble friend Lord Younger of Leckie in his place. He and my noble friend Earl Howe were Ministers for 30 or 40 years between them. I doubt if they got paid for two or three years of that. There were those who did job after job unpaid. It is not right that any Government, whether Conservative or Labour, should abuse Peers in that way.

My Lords, public service in the old days used to be quite a different thing. My forebear, Admiral Robert Barlow, used to be the superintendent of the Chatham Shipyards. He ran the shipyards through his personal account and took quite a lot of the Government’s money to build large houses for himself and his family. But we are now in the 21st century, and we should be doing things in a different way. We should not be relying on public servants to pocket cash. We should have a modern, meritocratic form of government. It is therefore completely and utterly wrong that we expect Ministers to work hard for no pay at all. I pay tribute to the noble Lords, Lord Hanson of Flint, Lord Timpson, Lord Ponsonby, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, and Lord Hendy, and the noble Baroness, Lady Gustafsson, all of whom are on the ministerial list with the word “unpaid” underneath their names. I was one of those Ministers. I had my name on the ministerial list with the word “unpaid” underneath it, and it was a complete humiliation. I found it completely undermining that it was thought in government that I was someone who was not worth the salary that others were paid. I was not worth the £81,000 that a Minister of State got; I was not worth the £71,000 that a PUS got. It hit me that I was not taken seriously in my department in that respect. This is an old-fashioned system that we need to end. The 1975 Act was well-intentioned, but it is out of date. We should be supporting a meritocracy. I have seen in my own Government some of our finest people walk out of government because they could not afford to hold down the job. Instead, the people who could afford the job got the place. In this day and age, this is quite wrong. I know that the Leader is very keen not to amend the Bill, but this is such a ripe opportunity to undo a serious injustice in the way we do government. I beg the Leader to take this opportunity and accept this amendment.

My Lords, I declare a personal interest, in that my son-in-law, my noble friend Lord Johnson of Lainston, acted as an unpaid Minister of State in the previous Government. I am grateful that he did not look to his father-in-law to subsidise him, and that he managed to survive without doing so. But the fact is that it is all to do with the number of paid jobs there are in any Government and the reluctance of government to extend that number of jobs. It is a hard decision, I accept, but one that I have always been assured government is prepared to take. The sooner the Government get on with it, the better. As has been pointed out by my noble friends, it is a complete iniquity that people should be asked to serve for nothing. As has been pointed out by my noble friend Lord Bethell, people often give up the job that they are very good at doing, and somebody less adequate takes over because they are prepared to do it for nothing. This is all completely wrong, and we should change it as soon as possible.

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Parkinson, in his ever-ingenious way, has found a route to raise the question of ministerial salaries in the House of Lords. Having heard the strong feelings expressed, I think it is a matter that needs to be dealt with. There are a number of issues involved—as some touched on, there are matters in relation to pension and severance pay as well—but my noble friend’s amendment relates to salaries. This is one of a number of issues—power of attorney, which we discussed earlier, being another—that the existence of the Bill has brought to the surface, and which go beyond the vexed and divisive issues of composition that are raised in the Bill and indeed in the Government’s manifesto. Surely if we can address any of these issues, for the good of the House, the Government or the country, we should find a way to do so. Of course, Government Ministers in the House of Lords, whatever party is in office, should be paid. I give particular thought, although he is not here in his place, to people such as my noble friend Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon, a truly outstanding servant of this House and of his country who, because he was not able to attend the House in the conduct of his normal duties, lost out doubly as being unpaid and unable to claim an allowance. Frankly, when I had the honour to be Leader of this House, I was deeply troubled by the fact that I had colleagues who were asked to work without pay. No one in any workplace would tolerate that as a decent way to carry on. The problem, as we have been told, arises from the interrelation between two 50 year-old statutes—we are often told that old law should be re-examined. Those are the Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975, which limits the total number of paid Ministers to 109, and the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975, which limits the number of Ministers in the House of Commons to 95. If the Commons takes up its allocation of 95 then the effective limit for paid Ministers in your Lordships’ House under the limit of 109 is just 14. That is clearly not enough. Between 1979 and 2019 the total number of Lords Ministers and Whips fluctuated between 21 and 27. There are further complications arising from overall limits on the numbers of Ministers of State. The system needs review. When I was Leader of this House, I had discussions in the usual channels with other parties on this, and it was clear then that there was broad agreement that the injustice should be attended to—that it surely could not be right in the 21st century that you should need private means in order to serve as a Minister of the Crown. In saying that, I take nothing away from the high sense of public duty that led many noble Lords under successive Governments—including, I thought, some under this one—to undertake public service without reward. When a number was given, the noble Baroness indicated that it was not true, but I had thought that there were some in this Government who were unpaid. Whether or not that is true, under any Government the self-sacrifice and public sense of duty of those people should be honoured, respected and remembered. However, it need not be for ever replicated, Government after Government. In the context of a reasonable settlement for the future of this House, as we go forward from this Bill, this matter might again be usefully discussed across party lines. In March 2024, towards the end of the last Government, there were 14 Ministers and Whips in your Lordships’ House who were working unpaid. They included all six Ministers of State in this House, as the House of Commons wanted all paid posts then as Ministers of State for MPs. If that is not happening today under this Government, it will happen in due course as the demands on patronage grow. The unpaid Ministers included my noble friends Lord Howe, Lord Minto, Lord Camrose and Lord Roborough, whose public service now is to be requited by the current Bill as drafted by being expelled from Parliament. As we have heard, others had previously performed for nothing.

22:45:00

I always sought to be honest with this House and I attached the highest importance to the good of this House, across this House. I referred to this matter on the Floor when I was Leader, and it was not popular, I can tell you, with some of my Commons colleagues. I found it a shameful position. I particularly regret that, when I requested support for a short Bill to correct this, it was rejected at the top of the then Conservative Government. When I sought alternative means to address it, within the rules of the allowances payable in your Lordships’ House, it could not in the end be agreed, as I understood it, because of difficulties at some levels in the then Labour Opposition.

We have to find ways to go beyond those setbacks. We cannot neglect this issue. I deeply appreciated the co-operation of the noble Baroness opposite then in trying to find a solution. I offer her the prospect of reciprocal engagement today, as and when good relations allow.

I am very grateful to my noble friend for raising this important matter. I do not expect the noble Baroness the Leader of the House to respond in detail today; it is not appropriate. However, we should discuss these matters outside the Chamber, as we have in the past and can again.

I wanted to put on record the shame I felt at the situation that occurred while I was Leader of the House. I hope that we may find a collective way forward to open the ability to serve as a Minister in your Lordships’ House in the 21st century to every one of our Members, irrespective of their private means.

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, for raising this issue. It has been raised in your Lordships’ House previously, and the noble Lord the Leader of the Official Opposition has raised some of the legal issues around the legislation that causes part of the problem. I have to say—and I think the noble Lord would say the same—that I am immensely proud of the work that my ministerial colleagues do. If you look across Parliament, you find that there are few Ministers who work as hard as Lords Ministers. Partly that it is because Lords Ministers—as I look at the team, I think, “What a team!”—have to cover a range of issues, including for their colleagues. They will answer any issue raised across their department. I have enormous respect for the work they do. The problem lies with legislation that is 50 years old that limits the number of Ministers overall: it limits the number in the House of Commons and then it limits the number of different categories of Minister. As the noble Lord says, it has been the case for a number of years that there have been a small number of unpaid Ministers. I am pleased to say we have made some progress. We have five paid Ministers of State in your Lordships’ House now and significantly fewer unpaid Ministers. However, I take the point; I do not think that any Minister should be unpaid. It is not just the issue of pay; it is the respect that we gain in doing the role. The noble Lord refers to arrangements that he tried to come to with his Government and failed to do so, and how he and I spoke. I have to say that the reason we did not reach agreement was that the arrangements did not address all the issues that I think need to be addressed. I considered that it was a stopgap measure that would get us through a short period, but I did not think it was a long-term solution. This is something that is very much on my agenda, and my colleagues know it is on my agenda. It is a good old trade union principle that people should get paid for the job they do, and that should be the case. I have to say, though, that it is not related to this Bill. It is quite a stretch to get it in the Bill, and I admire the noble Lord’s ingenuity. However, the effect of his amendment if it were to pass would either be immediately to reduce the number of Ministers in the Commons or to lose Ministers from this place. The third option would be to change the legislation, which is probably a bit above my pay grade for now. I can say that these matters are under discussion, and I will do what I can with my colleagues to ensure that all of them get the proper support that they should get when doing their jobs. For now, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

Surely it would be possible, if the noble Baroness is not prepared to accept my noble friend’s amendment, to have a one-clause Bill which simply alters the number and is agreed between the usual channels, which could pass through both Houses. It is very hard to understand why this could not be done. The noble Baroness may say, “When you were in government you did not do it”, but the former Leader of the House, my noble friend Lord True, made perfectly clear the effort that was put in. I would have thought a Labour Government would stand for the principle that everyone should receive equal pay for equal labour.

The noble Lord is right: if there was agreement across both Houses—if he could persuade the leader of the Opposition to support this in the other place as well—I would certainly talk to the Prime Minister. But this is something that has to be done cross-party and not with party-political capital made out of it. We also need to say a bit more about the work that our Lords Ministers do. There is nobody in this House who does not hold Lords Ministers in the highest regard. Perhaps we ought to be saying that to our colleagues in the other place as well.

My Lords, I very much agree with the final words of the Leader of the House and what she says about Ministers. I see how hard-working her team of Lords Ministers are. When they go into their departments tomorrow bleary-eyed after these long debates, they will have diaries full of meetings and boxes full of papers—prepared without the expectation that they should have been here at nearly 11 pm the evening before, so I very much agree with her. I particularly welcome the noble Baroness’s willingness to look at this issue on a cross-party basis. I know that there is never a good time to legislate to pay politicians more, but this is a problem that has been kicked down the path for half a century. It is causing problems to the social composition and the sense of fairness about Governments. I hope we might be able to act on it. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord True for his candour about the efforts that he made as Leader of your Lordships’ House, and the sense of shame and frustration he feels that he was not able to persuade our colleagues in government to do it. With this Bill there is an opportunity to right this wrong. I hope the noble Baroness and my noble friend Lord True will take this away and continue those discussions. If not, I see there is an employment Bill coming down the line and we will be able to assert our trade union rights in the future. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 90 withdrawn.

Amendment 90A

Moved by

90A: After Clause 1, insert the following new Clause— “Election of temporal members of the House of Lords(1) In section 1(2)(b) of the Life Peerages Act 1958 (power to confer life peerages), after first “and” insert “, if elected in accordance with section (Election of temporal members of the House of Lords) of the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Act 2025 for a particular Parliament, to”.(2) In section 1 of the House of Lords Act 1999 (exclusion of hereditary peers), at end insert “unless they were in receipt of a writ of summons to attend the House of Lords in the Parliament in which the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Act 2025 came into force”. (3) Within three months of the day on which this Act comes into force, 600 peers who were in receipt of a writ of summons to attend the House of Lords in the Parliament in which this Act was passed must be elected to sit and vote in the House of Lords for the rest of that Parliament by elections conducted in accordance with standing orders of the House of Lords and the rest of this section.(4) Elections to choose 600 members of the House of Lords must be held on the first meeting of each new Parliament and those eligible to vote and stand in any such election shall be—(a) any peer who was eligible for election in the election conducted under subsection (3), and(b) any peer who has received a writ of summons under section 1(2)(b) of the Life Peerages Act 1958 since the day on which this Act comes into effect.(5) Any peer who was eligible to stand in, but was not elected in, the elections specified in subsections (3) and (4) shall be excluded from membership of the House of Lords for the rest of that Parliament, although they may be included in accordance with subsection (7) and are eligible to vote in elections and stand for election to sit in subsequent Parliaments.(6) Nothing in this section shall enable any person to attend the House of Lords, or to sit and vote in that House, at any time when disqualified under any other enactment.(7) In the event of the death, exclusion or retirement of any peer elected to sit in the elections specified in subsections (3) and (4), their place will be filled for the rest of that Parliament by the peer in their party group or, in the case of crossbench and non-affiliated peers, their group as defined under subsection (10) of this Act, who was not elected who received the highest number of votes in any list or lists of candidates for election produced by the Clerk of the Parliaments for the purpose of these elections.(8) The standing orders referred to in subsection (3) shall make provision for 480 members who are members of political parties to be elected by members of their party group in the elections mandated by this section.(9) The number of members under subsection (8) allocated for each party group must be determined by the mean share of total votes cast for each party in the previous three general elections.(10) The standing orders referred to in subsection (3) shall make provision for 120 members who are not a member of any political party (“crossbench and non-affiliated members”) to be elected by all peers described in subsection (4) of this section.(11) Should the leader of any party indicate that their party does not wish to have members in the House of Lords then the vote share of that party shall not count in the allocation provided for under subsection (9).(12) If under subsection (9) any party is entitled to a number of seats in the House of Lords which is greater than the current number of peers eligible to stand for election who are affiliated to that party, then new peerages may be created under the Life Peerages Act 1958 to provide for those places to be filled.(13) Nothing in this section shall affect the right of Lords Spiritual to attend the House of Lords, and they are not eligible to participate in the elections under this section.”

My Lords, the night is young and there is still plenty of time, so it is a real delight to move Amendment 90A in front of an audience of the Labour Party on its Benches. I have to tell noble Lords opposite that their own Front Bench has been working valiantly during the days we have spent on this Bill with near-deserted Back Benches. It has been rather depressing, in just the last few minutes, to see the Government Chief Whip going around tapping the odd folk on the shoulder and sending them home just as I was about to get to my feet and get into my stride. But that will not put me off. This amendment is not a probing amendment; it is a helpful amendment, designed at a problem that has been haunting the House of Lords for many years. My noble friend Lord Fowler, and the noble Lords, Lord Burns and Lord Butler, have referred to it this evening in looking for imaginative ways of dealing with the issue of the numbers in the House. At a stroke, this amendment finds the solution to that, and it does so in several ways. This is an amendment that is already in statute law in the House of Lords Act 1999. It is therefore extremely well precedented; we have demonstrated that it can work. Perhaps noble Lords who were around 25 years ago will remember that the then Convenor of the Cross Benches, Lord Weatherill, moved an amendment—which became known as the Weatherill amendment—to reduce the number of hereditary Peers to the 92 that exist at the moment. This amendment seeks to reduce the size of the whole House to some 600-odd people—the Bishops, incidentally, are supernumerary to that. It would do so by election—a well-tested method of reducing the size of the House that worked extremely well in 1999. Tonight, I offer it up to the Committee, not just as one amendment but as three in one. It is a solution to a problem, it is already in law, and it is already well precedented. I know that the noble Baroness the Leader of the House will find the amendment very difficult to accept, but perhaps she will indicate that she finds real attraction in finding an electoral way of reducing the size of the House without relying on the kinds of formula that so many noble Lords tried to introduce in the past. I offer it to the Committee, and I very much hope that it might be brought forward in a future Bill in due course. I beg to move.

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Strathclyde on tabling his very sensible Amendment 90A. It should find favour on all Benches because, as my noble friend said, it ticks so many boxes. It would ensure that the hereditary Peers who have sat in your Lordships’ House these 25 years have not sat in vain. We were allowed to continue to sit on the basis that stage 2 would provide some substantive reform and move the House’s composition in the direction of a popular basis, as stated in the Parliament Act 1911. The amendment would introduce some democratic legitimacy by allocating seats according to party blocs based on the average of the number of votes cast in the last three general elections. That provision would ensure that the composition of the House provides a balance to major shifts in public opinion that result in wide disparity of seats in the House of Commons, which is elected on a first past the post basis. It would give a nod to PR, since the voting strengths are determined on the basis of the number of votes cast, ensure that your Lordships’ House provides stability, and help to avoid dramatic shifts in policy supported by the public only ephemerally. The amendment should be supported by those of your Lordships who agree with the view of the noble Lord, Lord Burns, that the House should be reduced to 600 people. It should also be supported by those noble Lords who believe that the Bill as drafted is discriminatory, in that it treats some members of the body of Lords temporal differently from others although, for all practical purposes, there is no difference between life and hereditary Peers in terms of rights and privileges in this House. We are appointed to serve on committees or on the Front Bench without any consideration of the route by which we entered your Lordships’ House. The amendment treats all holders of a Writ of Summons to this Parliament equally. It would result in the House enjoying greater democratic legitimacy but retain the service of those noble Lords who are more independent, and election by party groups would give preference to those who work harder and make a greater contribution. It is an excellent amendment, and I ask the noble Baroness the Leader of the House to consider it seriously.

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, for this ingenious proposal. The aim of getting down to 600 Members would be achieved by having a retirement age and sensible participation limits. That would probably get us well below 600. But I really rise just to ask the noble Lord whether, when he replies to this debate, he could confirm that his support for this amendment has not undermined the principled stance he took on my amendment, which calls for a wholly elected House.

23:00:00

My Lords, I do not want to delay anything, and I do not actually want the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, to respond to my thoughts. But there is the matter of the Lord Speaker and the Senior Deputy Speaker: they are both Members of the House, so would they have to stand? There are also a number of judges whom the Convenor of the Cross Benches has to produce for particularly contested private Bills and other things. So, although I was very interested to hear the noble Lord’s introduction of the idea, it has quite a few legs that would require to be sorted out.

My Lords, it is unfortunate, in a way, that my noble friend’s carefully thought-out amendment has come forward at this hour and at this time. It draws on existing practice, as was done in 1999; it provides a way to get towards a number that the House of Lords might be content with; and it addresses issues of party balance—I take what the convenor has just said about the specific interests and concerns of the Cross Benches. We are not going to have a serious or thoughtful examination of this significant amendment at this hour on this particular day. What it does do, however, is remind us that there is a lot in the Bill about a finality and an alleged completion of unfinished business. There are differences about what bit of business is being finished or left unfinished, but what is absolutely clear—as I said at the start of our debate—is that the future of the House remains a fog. We have to bend our thoughts and consideration to the future; considerations were put forward for us by the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, and others in earlier amendments. We cannot have ease or security in this House without the kind of arrangements and patterns of governance and composition—the kind of things that are addressed in my noble friend’s amendment. By the way, I always thought he was a passionate advocate of an elected House, and he may well still be under the surface; I do not know. But we really have to find a way. The noble Baroness was talking earlier about consultation, and no specific timescale was given in response to any of the amendments—from the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, or the noble Duke—for when we might see some of the fog about our future lifted. There has to be some model or mechanism; it might be close to what we have now or something nearer to what my noble friend Lord Strathclyde suggests. We cannot have closure unless we have an opening to the future—a better one than we have heard in our debates on the Bill so far.

My Lords, again, this is an ingenious amendment, and I congratulate the noble Lord. I am not sure whether he or the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, wins the prize tonight, but both amendments are longer than the Bill, which is something of an achievement when drafting amendments to legislation. On the point that the noble Lord opposite has just made, I will say something I have reiterated several times: there is a three-stage process from the manifesto. The first stage is this, which is the completion of the reform started in 1999 around hereditary Peers. The second is the issues we have debated tonight and voted on many times—they are not for this Bill but for moving forward—on issues like participation and retirement. There is not an exact timetable, but we will get clearer to that in the process as we get to Report. Then there is a longer-term objective for consultation with the wider public on an alternative second Chamber. It is not rocket science; I have been quite clear around that. This amendment would create a House of 600 Members—and I am not sure that that figure has been raised before by the noble Lord, but I am happy to be corrected on that—we would have self-perpetuating elections by Members of this House at the beginning of each Parliament, and the only people who could vote would be Members of this House. It would also completely undermine the purpose of this Bill, because hereditary Peers would be able to take part in those elections, stand for them and vote. The noble Lord’s proposals for future composition are interesting, but I take into account the points made by the noble Earl the Convenor. It does not address the wider issues of the House, but I know the issues that he is trying to get to. We will continue that dialogue and formalise that in due course around other issues that have been raised, and I gave a commitment to that earlier on tonight. But this amendment would undermine that dialogue and engagement, and I ask the noble Lord to withdraw it.

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken. I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Newby, that I have not given up on the idea of an elected House, but I am a realist, and I do not think that there is much thirst for it in this House—and I am not entirely convinced that there is very much thirst for it in another place either. The fact that it did not appear in the manifesto of the Labour Party rather indicates that view. We are still relying on the preamble to the 1911 Act. I join the noble Lord, Lord Newby, in trying to encourage a long-term solution around that. The noble Lord, Lord True, is right. At some stage we need to find a real solution. Of course, there are age limits and all sorts of other things that you can bring in, but none of those is popular either. The idea of an election works; it has been tried and tested, and I hope that, on reflection, the Leader of the House will feel that there is some purpose in this kind of amendment, which would change the whole debate about the size and numbers in the House, and keep people in who have the support of other Peers to remain in the House for the rest of their lives. Having heard what everybody has said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 90A withdrawn.

House resumed.