House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Committee (5th Day)

15:43:00

Amendments 90B to 90D not moved.

Amendment 90E

Moved by

90E: After Clause 1, insert the following new Clause— “Life peerages to be nominated by party groupsOn the day on which this Act is passed, the Prime Minister must recommend to His Majesty the King that—(a) 46 individuals nominated by the Leader of the Conservative Party in the House of Lords,(b) 33 individuals nominated by the House of Lords Appointment Commission to sit on the crossbenches,(c) 4 individuals nominated by the Leader of the Labour Party in the House of Lords, and(d) 4 individuals nominated by the Leader of the Liberal Democrat Party in the House of Lordsbe granted a life peerage under section 1 of the Life Peerages Act 1958.”Member’s explanatory statement This amendment would require the Prime Minister to give groups in Parliament the ability to nominate individuals to be appointed as life peers to replace the number of hereditary peers in their group. This could include reappointing some hereditary peers as life peers.

My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Foster of Aghadrumsee and Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, for their support. My amendment proposes the nomination of life peerages equivalent to the number of hereditary Peers, split proportionally between the parties and groups affected. I shall speak to the detail of it shortly. I came to this conclusion after a number of conversations and considerable thought on how to resolve this matter in a way that reflects the disposition of our House: of respect, courtesy and consideration towards our colleagues —something that one should expect in any place of work. When I spoke at Second Reading, I expressed the view that current hereditary Peers should be awarded life peerages if this Bill removes their ability to sit in this House as hereditary Peers. It was a wish to protect valued and respected colleagues from eviction from this House, prompted, as I said then, by a feeling that there may be an element of discrimination or prejudice at play. I hope, having been sensitive to such things from a young age and from experience, that I will always stand up to prejudice no matter from where it comes or to whom it is directed. It is simply a principle that I wish to uphold. Having listened carefully to the debates on this Bill over these last weeks, I am still trying to understand why it is being brought forward by the Government when there are so many other more pressing issues for them to address. Nevertheless, if noble Lords will indulge me with their attention for a little longer, I will share some more background to this amendment. I came to this House just over a decade ago and was introduced by my noble friend Lord Strathclyde, a pre-eminent hereditary Peer and former Leader of this House. I knew my noble friend from serving on the Strathclyde commission, which he so ably chaired, and was hugely honoured that he agreed to be one of my supporters. During my first few weeks here, my noble friend Lord Younger of Leckie, another hereditary Peer, became my mentor. I do not think there could have been anyone kinder and more conscientious. He did everything he could to ensure that I understood the workings of your Lordships’ House. Several months on, my noble friend Lord Taylor of Holbeach, then Chief Whip, asked whether I would consider being a party Whip. I said yes. My group, or flock as we called them, had something in common—they were all Scots, and a fair number of them were hereditary Peers. If anyone is concerned about representation of the regions, Scotland is very well represented by our hereditaries. I will mention just a few of those in my old flock. My noble friend Lord Lindsay currently serves on our Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, is president of the Chartered Trading Standards Institute, and has been president of the National Trust of Scotland and Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland. My noble friend Lord Caithness, the chief of Clan Sinclair, currently serves on our procedure committee and the Food, Diet and Obesity Committee. He has also been a Minister of State in no less than five government departments: the Department for Transport, the Home Office, the Department of the Environment, His Majesty’s Treasury and the Foreign Office. My noble friend Lord Dundee is the royal standard-bearer for Scotland. He is a farmer who runs two charitable trusts that he founded, and he has served for many years on the Council of Europe and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe. He has also been a Government Whip and government spokesman for education, Scottish affairs, home affairs and energy. All of them made me feel so welcome and showed me the utmost respect and kindness. I could not have asked for better colleagues looking out for me when I joined this House. What I am trying to say is that the people affected by this Bill are our friends. Not only that: they are distinguished parliamentarians who contribute so much to this House to which we all belong. A more recent colleague and friend of mine in this House is my noble friend Lord Minto. He has served as a Minister of State in the Department for Business and Trade and as Minister of State for Defence—both unpaid positions, might I add—and we have regular catch-ups over tea. On our very first meeting, my noble friend and I discovered some common threads: the family of a very close friend of my late father, an eminent gentlemen by the name of Shaharyar Khan, a former ambassador of Pakistan to the United Kingdom, had a strong connection to my noble friend’s grandfather. Historical photographs and information were shared, but that is where the cozy backstory ends. My noble friend’s grandfather was the viceroy of pre-partition India. I have rather a dim view of empire, as noble Lords would expect, but I do not choose to see my noble friend through the lens of history. When we enter this place, those strange concepts of class and privilege are left outside. We are here as equals—as Peers. The clue is in the name but, to be clear, I do not argue for the hereditary principle. It belongs in the century before last. The point is that if we do not believe that someone should become a Member of this House because of who their parents were, surely it is not right to remove people from this House because of who their parents were. With that in mind, I come to my amendment. I hope that the noble Baroness the Leader of the House—the Leader of our whole House—knows that I hold her and her Front-Bench team in the highest esteem. She has told us that this Bill is not a cunning attempt at gerrymandering, and we should believe her. My amendment follows on from that understanding. If this Bill is not about gerrymandering then on the day that it passes into law, which it will, as it was a manifesto commitment, the Prime Minister should at that point recommend to His Majesty that life peerages be granted to replace the number of hereditary Peers who are to be lost. It would be up to the leaders of the parties in the House of Lords or, in the case of the Cross-Bench Peers HOLAC, to replace the hereditary Peers they have lost with life Peers. There would be no back-room deals, a term used more than once during these debates; let us just be transparent. Here are the numbers lost and they should be replaced. If we feel that some, even most, of our hereditary Peers are worthy of being appointed as life Peers, then there really should be no objection; and where there are hereditaries who do not attend the House or who intend to retire, this will be a good opportunity to replace them with fresh talent. Some more women on these Benches would be a good idea. In all cases, qualification for this House can and should be based on life experience, knowledge, commitment and a quality not often mentioned: wisdom. I really hope that we can overcome the prejudices that I fear I am detecting. We should judge each other on what we do and say, rather than on who we are and where we come from. We should respect the huge contributions that so many hereditary Peers have made over the years. We should allow for a smooth and fair transition to the next stage of our illustrious history, in readiness for the challenges and opportunities of a new and exciting age, by bringing with us the best of our talent and recruiting what more we need. I believe that my amendment addresses all these points, and I beg to move.

My Lords, with regret, I oppose this amendment, despite the fact that I often agree with some of the views of some of its proposers. It seems to me to have at least three quite serious objections. First, it does absolutely nothing to reduce the numbers in this Chamber—quite the reverse. Together with the numbers already appointed and those likely to be appointed, we will greatly increase the size of this House well beyond the 600 which has often been recommended as desirable. Secondly and differently, it greatly enhances the influence of party leaders and I really do not want to do that. What if Mr Johnson was the leader of the Conservative Party now? I certainly would not want to give him these unlimited powers. Lastly, and much the same, it does not address the concerns frequently expressed in this Committee as to the lack of any proper criteria to ensure that the individuals concerned are fit and proper persons or, for that matter, will participate fully in the business of this House. While I can understand the reasons that it is put forward, I think it is a thoroughly bad amendment.

My Lords, I profoundly disagree, almost for the first time, with the noble Viscount. I put my name to this amendment, and I want to say to the Committee that I am concerned, as he clearly is, about the size of the House. We are the second largest second Chamber, apart from China, and 237 Members of this House have attended less than 20% of the time they should, of which 127 have attended less than 10% of that time. We have leave of absence, and one Peer has had 8.5 years of leave of absence, while others have had several years but remain on the list of Peers who could attend at any time. We now have a system for Peers who do not do anything and do not attend: they could be asked to leave. So far, only 16 have been asked to leave, despite the numbers who really do not attend and do not contribute. For comparison, we can look at the hereditary Peers in your Lordships’ House. Out of the 88 hereditary Peers that we had until yesterday, two only have failed to do more than 20% of attending this House, which if I may say so compares rather well with the other Peers in this House who do not attend. I attend fairly regularly, as your Lordships will know, and I have noticed over the years that I have been here the enormous hard work of the majority of the hereditary Peers. Not only do they play their part by coming and contributing, but they contribute substantially; they play a valuable part in the work of this House. Among many hereditary Peers, two are more hard-working than many others among us. If the successive efforts of the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, to get rid of elections of hereditary Peers had been successful, there would be no question about the current hereditary Peers remaining. Unfortunately, it was not accepted, and it is disappointing that it was not accepted. I think that the last Government and the Conservative Benches were at fault in not recognising the writing on the wall, because we would not be here if the Grocott proposals had been allowed. But in recognising the enormous contribution that those Peers make to this House, it would be very sad if this Government did not do what this amendment asks for. What saddens me even more is that this Government, by taking this particular Bill forward, without offering the opportunity to consider those Peers who do not attend and do not contribute, are allowing them to remain technically as Members of the House, and doing nothing about it. Getting rid of those who do the work and leaving in those who do not seems to me something that the Government should really reflect on, and I ask them to look seriously at this amendment.

My Lords, it is a pleasure, privilege and honour to follow the noble and learned Baroness, and I agree with everything that she has had to say in her remarks this afternoon. I also commend the noble Baroness, Lady Mobarik, for gathering together an eclectic bunch to support her in this amendment, which is very worth while considering by the whole House. I have been a non-affiliated Member of this House for just two years and four months, and I am very pleased to be associated with this amendment and be one of the names attached to it. Since I have come into this House, I have noticed, like the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, that often the expertise, life experience—to use the phrase of the noble Baroness, Lady Mobarik—and wisdom come from members of the hereditary peerage. If noble Lords want to ignore that fact, they should be up front as to why. There is a range of Peers from right across the political spectrum in this House; sometimes I still have a “pinch me” moment that I am sitting here listening to Peers giving of their wisdom and life experience. While that is true across the political spectrum of life Peers, it is also very true of hereditary Peers. I respect the work and commitment of the hereditary Peers in this place, who raise their voices on such a wide range of issues. I want to acknowledge that this afternoon.

16:00:00

I think it is fair to say that even some of the most ardent supporters of reform of this place—in other words, those committed to abolishing the hereditary principle once and for all—would still acknowledge that individual hereditary Peers have made and continue to make a valuable contribution to this House. I made my maiden speech in the same debate as the noble Earl, Lord Minto, who has had an honourable mention today. The noble Baroness, Lady Mobarik, has mentioned a range of Scottish Lords, as one would expect, and as a Northern Ireland Peer I want to mention and celebrate the contribution of Northern Ireland hereditary Peers in this place—men such as Lord Glentoran and of course the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, who still sits in this House today. This amendment is a route to allow, in an elegant and sensible way, the different party-political groupings to acknowledge the contribution that they have made over many years and continue to make.

In many ways, the amendment is not rocket science. Indeed, it has been talked about as far back as 1999 as a possible way forward. It allows active hereditary Peers to become life Peers by the nomination of their party, thereby not changing the composition of the House, as we have been told that that is not what this Bill is about—it is just about dealing with the principle of hereditary peerage. If that is so, individuals who are here by dint of being hereditary Peers could become life Peers under this amendment.

This amendment allows the different groupings to appoint some working hereditary Peers—those making a real contribution to this place—and perhaps to replace those who are not able to contribute as much as they would like or as much as they have done in the past with working Peers from the same affiliation. That awarding of life peerages to those hereditary Peers who contribute to this place in a positive way would give a continuity that should not be underestimated.

If the House were to agree to this amendment, I like to think it would also allow the party leaders and HOLAC, in respect of the Cross-Bench Peers, to reflect the United Kingdom as a whole and not just London. This House needs diversity in all sorts of ways, including geographical diversity. I have been struck by impactful interventions from hereditary Peers from right across the UK—from Scotland, Wales, regions of England such as the south-west and, of course, Northern Ireland. This House benefits from different voices which are here because of the hereditary principle. If that is to go, I would like to think that geographical spread would be acknowledged by the party leaders and HOLAC.

Amendment 90F, which comes after this group, looks at increased representation from Northern Ireland. I am broadly supportive of that: however, I would like Peers from the whole of the UK to be properly heard in this place. I recognise that we are not representatives of where we come from—although in some debates you could be forgiven for thinking that we are on occasions—but having Peers from across the different parts of our country gives this place a different perspective. This amendment would allow party leaders and HOLAC to reflect that. I hope the House can support it.

My Lords, on the face of it, it is utterly illogical and ridiculous for me to have signed this amendment. I want to get rid of the hereditaries and the Bishops—no offence. I want to make this House at least half the size. I agree, a little, on all sorts of things with the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, but let us deal with size in a different place. Leaders already have quite a lot of power. We have tested these people. That is the whole point. We know the records of the Lords we are getting rid of—we have seen them and heard them. To suggest that they might not be a fit is also illogical. Of course, they do not need the title. I am sure that a lot of us just love being Lords and Ladies, but they do not, because they have been Lords all their lives, so for them it is not a promotion. This Bill has an element of prejudice—I do not like it. As a working-class person, I loathe privilege and this sort of nonsense, but, at the same time, I also resent separating people into groups where you pick on them —we had an Oral Question on this today. So I very much support this. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Mobarik, on putting together an eclectic mix of people to support her—all women. That is interesting, I am not sure she intended that. This has been a painful debate and this amendment would close it. It would be an elegant solution to what has been a terrible amount of drudgery for all of us.

My Lords, I have spoken sparingly on this Bill, wishing to speak only if I had something useful to say—a self-discipline which I note has not been practised universally during the course of the Bill. To summarise my position, the principle of hereditary Peers is unsustainable in 2025; the Bill should not be opposed; but the Bill has consequences for the functionality of this House. I provided evidence at Second Reading that a hard-working, regularly attending cohort of hereditary Peers was making a valued contribution to this House. The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, confirmed the point eloquently in her contribution. My solution was to convert some of them into life Peers. If I understand the position of the Government correctly, the valued contribution being made to the House by this hard-working core of hereditaries is not disputed. Nor do the Government seem to refute, in principle, the idea of a conversion to life Peers—according to Labour Back-Benchers, you achieve that by putting the names on a party list and submitting that for approval, as is current practice. So, if we have agreement on the two main consequences of the Bill, what is the best way of finding a solution when it is this Bill that is creating the consequences? The “prepare a party list for conversion to life Peers” approach has, to me, two obvious failings. It takes no account of the Cross-Benchers, who are very valuable Members of this House precisely because they have no party-political affiliation and have to sign a statement to that effect. They cannot organise a party list. Secondly, surely we owe it to the hard-working hereditaries who have been turning up and doing their share of the heavy lifting to recognise that contribution as a House and offer a House solution to what is a one-off event? This abolition will not recur. The sensible amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady Mobarik provides just that. That her amendment has drawn support from the noble Baronesses, Lady Foster of Aghadrumsee and Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, speaks volumes for the common-sense desire across the House to find that elegant solution. I had hoped that by this point conversations would have been taking place through usual channels to progress this solution, but it seems that this process has become constipated. If my noble friend’s amendment, with the authoritative support it has garnered, administers the necessary dose of laxative, it has my unqualified support. Even the dogs on the street know that we have to come up with a solution. I hope the Government will sense the momentum behind this amendment, will become positive in their reading of the mood of the Committee, and will be prepared to come forward with something constructive.

My Lords, I will not detain the Committee for long. I find myself very much in sympathy with the intention of this amendment and particularly with what the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, said a few moments ago. Our tradition in this House is evolution, not revolution. We know the outstanding contribution that many of the hereditaries have made to our work. My concern is that in the ongoing work that we do, the sheer thousands of amendments that have been passed because of the detailed work that this House has done—I do not have the figures at hand—sorting out some complex but sometimes misguided Bills that have come to us, have often relied on some of the most expert, established and experienced Members of this House. This amendment would not undermine the fundamental principle of the Bill. I think everybody in the Committee accepts that it has come because it was part of the election manifesto, and we want to work with that. But this would enable us to draw on the huge expertise and ensure that we can focus our abilities to keep doing our fundamental work. It would be only a temporary phase, and eventually the Bill would achieve what it wants to do. Meanwhile, I hope that His Majesty’s Government will look closely at this to see whether we can find a way through that draws on the best experience we can of the Members of your Lordships’ House as we take our work forward.

My Lords, I very much endorse what the right reverend Prelate said in his—to use a religious word—irenic speech, which I hope will help. I think we all want to address this subject without prejudice and, if we do, I think we will see how strong this amendment is. By the way, one of the objections to the hereditary Peers remaining in this House is that they are all men, but I notice that four noble Baronesses have put their name to this amendment. If it is good enough for them, it should be good enough for the rest of us. In my career as an employer, I have sometimes had the misfortune to sack people, and to feel that I had to sack them. I am afraid that one sometimes gets into a situation when one is sacking people when, in order not to hurt their feelings, one keeps telling them how marvellous they are. Sometimes, reasonably enough, they ask, “Well, why are you sacking me, then?”, and it can be difficult to say. Usually, the reason is that actually you do not think they are very marvellous. This amendment teases out the real motive of the Government here. That is what we want to know. We are all agreed, and the Government themselves seem to be agreed, that the hereditary Peers are marvellous as individuals, which is all that is being proposed here—not the hereditary principle but the actual hereditary Peers. So what is it—why do they all have to go? If you press and press, the underlying thought that the Government cannot express is what people used to say in other prejudiced situations. They are saying, “We don’t like your sort”, and that is a bad way to make a law in this House.

My Lords, I have not spoken on the Bill before, but I hope the Committee will forgive me if I do so very briefly now. I do not support the actual wording of this amendment, but I so strongly support the underlying principle behind it, and most particularly what the right reverend Prelate said. Why are we still sitting here? Why are people not sitting down in a room, privately sorting this out? This amendment would give the Whips the power to decide who they are to choose. It raises the question of the future administration of this House and the numbers after the hereditary Peers have gone, which they undoubtedly will under the Bill. Something far bigger has arisen from the way in which this Bill has been debated—when I have not been in the Chamber, I have been watching it on the screen—and a great many ideas, some of them new to me, have come up about what needs to be done. It is clear that it needs to be major. There needs to be major restructuring, because otherwise we are going to have the power to send people to this House concentrated in one pair of hands, and that cannot be right. Those Peers currently in the House who wish to remain, who contribute regularly and who are able and willing to continue to do so should, in my view, be offered life peerages. I am told that the number would be nearer to 30 than 90, so we would reduce the size of the House to a degree by just that move. We all come to this House by myriad different routes; sometimes they are strange or unorthodox. We are proposing to remove just those who have come by heredity, and of course the Bill will go through. Very few people, other than Sir Michael Ellis in the other place, would argue that it is wrong to insist on a right to sit in this Parliament because of heredity.

16:15:00

The rest of us came here by a number of different routes. Some have particular expertise that is needed here; some have done outstanding charitable work or have given long-standing political service. Some come as a reward for political donations, as compensation for losing a seat in the Commons, for reasons of celebrity or for no good reason that is apparent to others. I think we could all nominate one or two in that category. This Bill removes just one group: a number of people who have already given good service, some very long service, and valuable contributions to both this House and the Government.

Our present Government currently stand accused of unkindness in relation to a number of their policies, including the one that preceded this debate today, and of fighting the old class war, which belongs in the last century. I hope that in this Bill decency, generosity and acknowledgement of merit, even in those whose political views we may not share, will prevail. We shall see.

My Lords, I too support this amendment, so eloquently presented by the noble Baroness, Lady Mobarik. I find it a little disingenuous for the Government to claim that the Bill must go through as it honours a manifesto pledge. A manifesto pledge is not in itself a justification for policy, especially when it overturns the cross-party, solemn and binding 1999 agreement. Let us not forget that only 33% of the electorate voted for Labour. That is hardly a clear mandate for such a major change in our constitution. Expelling 88 hereditary Peers en bloc is neither fair nor necessary. It is crude and vindictive and, to me, reeks of aristophobia. Hereditary Peers are acknowledged by everybody, even Ministers, to be hard working, bringing expertise and commitment to public service. Many have served on the Front Bench without pay. They bring geographic, social and rural representation, qualities increasingly rare in our public institutions. They have proven their worth through quiet, consistent commitment to this House. Is this really how we would like to treat those who have given so much to this institution? What about the younger Peers who entered this House in good faith, expecting to serve with honour and dedication, but who are now being told to leave immediately, with no plan, no time to prepare and no opportunity to build a new career? Where is the justice in that? If the Government’s real aim is to reduce the size of the House, why have they abandoned the other part of that same manifesto pledge: to introduce a retirement age of 80? That alone would reduce the number of hereditary Peers by 13 through natural attrition, without a mass expulsion, and bring the number of Peers down to 457. By contrast, removing hereditary Peers would leave us with 748 Members. Let us be honest: this Bill is not about reducing numbers or making the House more effective. This is not reform; it is politics dressed up as reform. True reform is committed, consistent and considered. It does not single out one group for discrimination. The Government argue that hereditary Peers should have accepted a previous deal, but fairness does not expire. If the Grocott solution was fair then, it should still be fair now. Let hereditary Peers retire with dignity. Some are willing to do so, but those who wish to continue serving should be allowed to remain, through a phased transition and by granting them life peerages. That would show fairness, principle and compassion. This amendment does not stand in the way of reform or seek to preserve the hereditary route into this House. It simply asks that reform be carried out with decency and not, as the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, pointed out, with discrimination. After all, wherever we come from, we are all accidents of birth. This amendment offers a solution and a path forward that ensures that we are all treated equally as Peers. I hope that this Government will consider it, as it would be a good solution.

My Lords, a great and very wise public servant once said that the House of Lords is a disgrace and the enemy of good government. He explained why: it is filled, he said, with people who know what they are talking about. That great servant of the state was, of course, Sir Humphrey. Our hereditaries have not scratched and scrabbled their way into this House simply for a title. They have already got one—in some cases, several. I doubt that most of them have come here for the occasional 300 quid. By and large, like the rest of us, they have come here to do what they see as their public duty, because they have something to offer—something unique and special. In the words of Sir Humphrey, they do know what they are talking about. I hope that Sir Keir will listen to Sir Humphrey. Sir Keir wants to get his legislation through, and he must, but there is no need to rip this place apart to do so. My noble friend Lady Mobarik’s amendment is one of many that have been put forward that could bring about a happy solution—the indisputable rights of the Labour Government in harmony with the indubitable duties of this House of Lords. Our hereditary system is coming to an end. That is not in doubt. But our individual hereditary colleagues—our noble friends the Howes, the Kinnoulls, the Strathclydes, the Stansgates and the Addingtons—are not the enemy. They have been, and they are, exceptional public servants. A very clear mood has emerged around this House this afternoon in almost every speech. I hope that we and the Government will take that into account. There will come a day when we all will have to leave this place. May we go with grace and may we go with the gratitude of our colleagues ringing in our ears. Hereditary Peers deserve no less.

My Lords, I rise to support Amendment 90E in the names of my noble friend Lady Mobarik and her eclectic range of cross-party sponsors. I congratulate her on the eloquent and powerful conviction with which she moved her amendment. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, for her principled and courageous cross-party stance. As a disabled person, I am quite used to people feeling sorry for me. Today, the people I feel sorry for are the Government, because of the unenviable quandary they find themselves in. There they are with an overwhelming majority in the other place—yet the effect of this Bill will be to undermine your Lordships’ House as the only remaining check within Parliament on their untrammelled power. That is why I welcome this amendment: because it would help the Government out of their quandary by giving them, and indeed us all, the opportunity to consider the question of our hereditary colleagues from a different, non-discriminatory perspective, one that draws on what unites us and makes us strong as a House of disparate lived experiences, social backgrounds and beliefs, as the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, reminded us. I hope today’s debate will help us all view the question under consideration through the prism of the one theme that I feel has emerged so far and that binds us together: our common commitment to service. I asked our excellent Library for a few statistics, and I thank it for enabling me to give the numbers a human face—something that is so absent from this clinical Bill. I would like to put the numbers in the context of our hereditary colleagues’ loyal service to your Lordships’ House and to the country. Some 48 of our 87 hereditary colleagues serve as committee members, two as committee chairs. Six of our hereditary colleagues serve as Lord Deputy Speakers: one non-affiliated, one Conservative, three Cross-Bench and one Labour. Eleven of our hereditary colleagues serve on the Opposition or Liberal Democrat Front Benches, or, in the case of the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, as Convenor of the Cross Benches. If we look at attendance, as the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, reminded us, we can all agree that it is a really useful and important indicator of commitment to your Lordships’ House. In the 2019-24 Parliament, life Peers attended 47% of the time; our hereditary colleagues attended 49%. Finally, I will mention length of service and dedication to duty. The average length of service of our hereditary colleagues is 23 years, and the longest length of service is 62 years. That alone is impressive. There is one figure the significance of which puts the whole concept of loyal dedication and service to your Lordships’ House in perspective: 2,080. That is the total years of service given to your Lordships’ House by our 88—now 87—hereditary colleagues, if we include those who were re-elected following the 1999 reforms. The tragedy of this Bill is that it implies that that counts for nothing. Instead, our cherished, dedicated hereditary colleagues are to be cast out. Look at them, my Lords: they sit among us today, continuing to serve loyally while we debate their fate and they languish—politically at least—on death row, awaiting a summary execution. Is this really how they deserve to be treated?

16:30:00

As someone with a background in the charity sector before I came to this House, I saw the best of all parties and none, so I cannot look at this through a party-political lens. I would say that how we treat our hereditary colleagues surely transcends party politics. In fact, I wonder if this is more about us than it is about them. Ultimately, is it not about whether we can look our hereditary colleagues in the eye and then look in the mirror at ourselves?

This amendment enables us to do that. It also enables us to say that service is never an anachronism; rather, it is a bond that unites us as a House, whether we were appointed by King Charles III or by King Charles II. I appreciate that that means that some of our colleagues look remarkably well preserved—I jest, but at stake is surely the integrity of our House.

Yesterday, we were debating mental health. I wonder what consideration we have given to the impact on the mental health of our hereditary colleagues from feeling that they are to be disowned by their colleagues. For what? It is because, as we have already heard, of an accident of birth. We should ask them how it feels, because I fear that we forget that they bleed too. Surely we need a crime that merits such a sentence as the summary expulsion proposed in this Bill, but there is not one, and I suspect that we all know that.

In conclusion, I believe this amendment deserves our support for two reasons. First, as we have already heard, it charts a reasonable and pragmatic way forward that avoids revisiting the battle fought and lost over the hereditary principle. Secondly, it would enable the Government to put you Lordships’ House back together again, so that it can function as one House, and all of us can serve it to the best of our ability for the remainder of our lifetimes. Let us not be divided on this. I hope that we will do right by our hereditary colleagues and by our own conscience, if this amendment comes before the House on Report.

My Lords, like the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, I have not spoken previously in the debate on the Bill. I apologise to the Committee, but I have been sitting, watching and listening carefully, from a distance. From a distance, trying to be a member of the public looking in, I can see why, occasionally, allegations have been made that the House conducts itself in a disgraceful way. If this amendment is carried, we know perfectly well that it will go to the Commons and be overturned there and not come back, or, if it does come back, that it will be subject to ping-pong. On and on we will keep debating, wasting time and using public money, when we know that, at the end of the day, if we get a deal, it will be a very small deal indeed. If we do get a small deal, I ask the mover of the amendment this. I am over 80 years old and believe that, after they have dealt with the hereditaries, the Government should move on to deal with the other part of their manifesto: the 80 year-olds. I believe that they should do that because I am a democrat and I believe I am accountable to the people, not just to myself or my party. If it comes to the 80 year-olds, do we then decide who among us work hardest and who are the brightest? Who among us should we retain and who should we kick out? Will the mover of the amendment please say whether she would wish that principle to be applied to that part of the Government’s policy, which has been endorsed in a manifesto by the people of this country?

My Lords, it is always difficult in this debate, which has been difficult for many, to justify some of the arguments on logic alone. The Leader of the House has presented some logical arguments, some of which are not really arguable against. She is right on logic: it is slightly absurd that 740 families provide Members of the legislature—but then, perhaps, is it logical that one family provides the monarchy? The very small numbers that we have in this House seem fair and reasonable, and appropriate for a country that prides itself on its history and traditions. We have lots of idiosyncrasies in this country. Why do we not plan to knock down this crumbling building and replace it with a vast, super-efficient, open-plan glass and steel structure, with views across the Thames?

Hear, hear!

I am coming to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, in a minute. Of course, we would not do that. Likewise, I believe we can respect where we come from and recognise our rich fabric of community by allowing people who are proven to be good at their job and represent how democracy came to this country over centuries, as power was wrestled from the monarchy, to be allowed to continue to have a presence here. As a meritocrat, I accept the argument that the best people should be appointed to this House, and it is not as if we would start from here by appointing new hereditaries—although my mum keeps telling me that she reckons I am up for an earldom, but I think that is unlikely. I hasten to add that, in my view, as the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, said, anyone in this House who does not contribute sufficiently and appropriately should be asked to leave forthwith. This amendment would allow people who are clearly capable, and who have the hugely valuable assets of institutional memory and years of experience, to remain. I had in my script to say that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, is right—it is not an expression I am used to, but she none the less makes the point that the hereditaries in this House fought to come in, through an election, because they wanted to serve. If we are totally honest with ourselves, there is, as the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, said, a certain randomness as to why any of us are here. The little that I know about the appointment process has shown me that it is perhaps more random than is generally recognised. I suggest to the Committee that to adopt the amendment is to do the right thing for people who have served us well and continue so to do. We are told that poll after poll supports the abolition of hereditaries, and that might be true—I am not so sure. Even if it is, I think most people would accept that there is room for a very small percentage of Members of this House to come from a hereditary background and be allowed to serve their time. This amendment is in another fine British tradition: for a suitable compromise to be acceptable.

My Lords, this is an important Bill, and I am sorry not to have spoken on it before, owing to my commitments on the Front Bench at a busy time for the economy. My noble friend Lady Mobarik is right to press the Government on the transitional arrangements. I will focus on two points in that context. The first is the loss of talent and experience that we face, and the damage that that could do to our scrutiny function at a time of great challenge and change in our country. The second is the pressure that will grow for an elected House if all our hereditary Peers disappear overnight, as currently planned. I have been reading a book called Judgement at Work by Andrew Likierman, a former dean of the London Business School. He defines judgment as “the combination of personal qualities with relevant knowledge and experience … to make decisions or to form opinions”. Length of time in a role, or a succession of roles, improves judgment because prior experiences remain accessible sources of knowledge and provide an understanding of success and failure. We are lucky to have many long servers among our hereditary Peers—280 years of service, in the words of my noble friend Lord Shinkwin. Many also have experience of responsibility outside government and have learned, over time, to cope with complexity and risk, to listen, to work with others and to know who to trust. Those are all ingredients of judgment—soundness of judgment—as well. In view of what the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, said, I should add “hard work” as a very important quality that has been demonstrated by the hereditary Peers. They also come from across the country. We heard from my noble friend Lady Mobarik about Scotland and from my noble friend Lady Foster of Aghadrumsee about the importance of Northern Ireland representation. They provide a good mix, as we have seen today, with other Members of the House who are often from political backgrounds and very focused on the south-east. To develop the argument, I will cite three examples. The first is our deputy Conservative leader, my noble friend Lord Howe. He has sat in this House for 40 years and is a master of the art of scrutiny in the most courteous and compelling way. When I arrived, he was a Health Minister and the person whom I and most others chose to model ourselves on—effective at the Dispatch Box, in the tea rooms and in Whitehall. More recently, he steered the difficult legislation on infected blood through the House, working across party to excellent effect. All that experience as a Minister of Agriculture, Health, Defence and at the FCO, and in opposition, is helpful to the Government of the day and to the House as a whole. My second example is the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, with whom I have had the pleasure of working on amendments to the national insurance contributions Bill. He worked as a foreign correspondent at the start of his career, but he is a serial entrepreneur and was able to produce spreadsheets on the impact of the NICs changes on small businesses he was involved with—which the Treasury unfortunately had refused to provide. It would be a great pity to lose that practical business voice. Some life Peers, including myself, speak in the House with the benefit of business spectacles, but, of course, we get out of date as we cease to be involved with business day to day. Keeping voices such as that of my noble friend Lord Londesborough would help us to reach sound, common-sense judgments from experience. Thirdly, the noble Lord, Lord Vaux of Harrowden, has an impressive background in finance and he brings that to our debates and committees. The noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, noted the hereditaries’ important role in committees. I highlight the valuable role the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, played in particular as chair of the House’s Finance Committee. He may not thank me for saying so, as the concept probably will not see the light of day, but he suggested to me the brilliant idea of dealing with the restoration of the Palace of Westminster by building a small US-style service tower in one of the courtyards, no doubt in Pugin style, and then concreting in the basement services. This novel idea would reduce the risk of fire and of asbestos contamination during the renovation and, I suspect, would cost much less. The point is that it shows the value of critical thinking—we must not lose that. That brings me on to my second theme. I think the current mixture of Peers appointed by successive Prime Ministers, especially if there are not too many of them, Bishops and the historic element, just about works, partly because of the mix of views, experience, age and skills that are represented. Without those who are currently hereditaries, it becomes much more difficult to justify a wholly appointed House. Moreover, giving a lot of power to the great and the good on HOLAC would not help at all. I believe that, if we indulge the brutal decapitation of the hereditary Peers later this year, we will rightly face growing demands for an elected House. Noble Lords should reflect on this and on the discussions today around my noble friend’s amendment before they vote on this Bill. In the words of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans, we need evolution, not revolution.

16:45:00

Before the noble Baroness sits down, can I just correct her on regional balance? So far as I am aware, at present we have only one hereditary Peer in the House from Yorkshire. I think the north of England is very underrepresented and there has been, I regret to say, with the hereditary peerage, a tendency for young generations to move to the Home Counties over the years and, of course, to go to school in the Home Counties as well. So the regional representation of the hereditaries is not particularly good.

My Lords, I understand why noble Lords opposite would like to terminate debate, but I think there is a case for going a little bit further. Since noble Lords have allowed themselves some personal reflections, perhaps I can first add one of my own, which is that, when I was introduced to this House, one of my supporters was a Cross-Bench hereditary Peer. I will not mention his name, because I have not told him in advance that I am going to make these remarks. It all went back to the fact that, more than 40 years ago, I used to play bridge with his mother, and when he made his maiden speech shortly after his 21st birthday, I sat with his mother in the Peeresses’ Gallery and listened to him. We remained in touch and so, when I was being introduced, I thought that it was time for some payback. He willingly agreed, adding that he had never in the whole of his time in the House been asked to sponsor anybody at their introduction, so he was very happy to do so. He has served throughout that time because he survived the Blair cull. He has been committed to the House and he has worked hard. What so many people find unfair—as I said, I have not discussed these remarks with him at all—is that he is to be expelled not because of lack of merit, not because of lack of commitment, not because of lack of expertise, but simply because of the way in which he entered the House. As the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, said, there seems to be an inherent unfairness in that. I turn to the amendment, which I support. I emphasise that this amendment is not about the hereditary principle. It is about the principle of expulsion. We seem to be taking it for granted that an act of expulsion is sort of okay, whereas, in fact, it is almost entirely without precedent. There is the baleful precedent of Pride’s Purge, and since then the only example of the expulsion of people as a class from Parliament was what happened in 1999. To take that as a precedent so that it becomes, if you like, a normal thing for groups to be expelled from one House of Parliament or another, but more likely from this House, according to—I will not say the whims, but perhaps the vagaries of what might appear in manifestos is a very bad principle indeed. It does not affect only the hereditary Peers; it affects all of us because one can divide and one can create those criteria for expulsion according to, really, anything that fits, and can achieve political and other objectives in doing so. When we say, “A whole group of us is to be expelled”, we appear to have a precedent for it in 1999, I grant you that, but it is not a good precedent. It is not a precedent that should be repeated. The proposal made by my noble friend Lady Mobarik avoids that and puts that danger at some distance from us. So I think that there are broader reasons for accepting it than simply our admiration of and friendship with the individuals involved in this case. There are broader reasons of principle for accepting it and I urge the Front Bench to consider them on constitutional grounds.

My Lords, I support my noble friend Lady Mobarik’s amendment. It is consistent with the Government’s manifesto pledge, in that it accepts the principle of removing the hereditary Peers. I am not sympathetic to that change and I do not go along with the assumptions on which it is proposed. None the less, I accept that the Government have given their manifesto pledge and they have the right to make this change. That, however, does not preclude the arrangement proposed by my noble friend. If anything, it should open the way for it. Such a major change in the legislature of this country is a matter of constitutional importance, as is the separation of powers and how we are governed. In these matters, an evolutionary approach is best. This amendment opens the way for retaining the expertise of some of the most experienced, knowledgeable and dedicated Peers. British political history may have been dramatic during its other periods of constitutional change. None the less, the arrangements—whether extending the franchise in the 19th century, Catholic emancipation, or Irish home rule and then the treaty with Ireland—were evolutionary. They incorporated something of what went before by allowing for a gradual evolution, not a violent upheaval. Similarly, reform of this House has been gradual and saved something of what went before. This brought Britain political stability, and brought stability to our democracy, unlike in the cases of other friends and neighbours, such as France, which is a unitary power like Britain but did not necessarily follow the evolutionary approach. We see reports that this continues, even to the present day. This Bill is a Labour Party measure. I have nothing but admiration for the party opposite, which emerged as a main party of government in the early 20th century. It accepted the constitutional conventions and it helped democracy in this country to evolve. It was also helped by the restraint of the Conservative leadership, which refused, as one interwar Prime Minister put it, to “fire the first shot”. This was not because of a desire to appease politically but as the means of enabling Britain’s democracy to evolve gradually—and evolve it did. Labour won power, first in 1924, again in 1929 and then, dramatically, in 1945. It was given a fair crack of the whip to get on with the manifesto pledge and be judged at the end of the Parliament on the whole package of how well it did in power. Similarly, with this House, there has been an evolutionary, not political, change. There is a settled constitutional way of proceeding, consistent with the manifesto pledge. I hope that the Government will accept this amendment—that they will accept the established and successful way of incorporating something that has gone before. I hope that they will, in this way, signify their respect for the consensual approach to constitutional change, and that they will not fire the first shot.

My Lords—

Front Bench!

I shall be brief. I apologise; I have not spoken on this Bill so far. Noble Lords who know me will know that one of the reasons is because my fantastic mother-in-law, Dorothy Ann Bray, started end-of-life care and has now passed away. This is the first time I have spoken since then. I like this amendment, but I do not agree that it is perfect. I urge the usual channels to find a way to work together to make sure this House can come together behind whatever the final solution is. For me, that is all that matters. I appreciate that the Government have a mandate for change, but my children and my grand- children live in this country and I do not want them to think that we have a petty and vindictive Government. If this is about the principle and not the numbers, they must succeed with the principle but find a way of protecting the actual people who we all live and work with and care about.

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Mobarik for initiating this debate and all those who spoke, notably those formidable Baronesses, the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Foster and Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. I believe that a number of our colleagues who face summary exclusion under this Bill will have been greatly touched by what my noble friend Lady Mobarik said, the perspective from which she said it and the way that she said it. I think that they will also have been touched by much that others said too. There has been a great deal of talk about respect throughout Committee, which I believe has been thoughtful. Indeed, as the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, said, it has raised important issues touching the House. Our debates have generally reflected great credit on all sides. I am sure that the expressions of respect for our hereditary colleagues are meant by all. I understand that it does not always feel like that when you see a Bill that tells you, as my noble friend Lord Shinkwin pointed out, in a powerful speech—the second he has made in your Lordships’ Committee—that whatever you have done in this accumulation of 2,080 years of public service cannot change one dot or comma of the sentence of expulsion. We all need to contemplate that, and that has been the ask from the Committee in this debate. My noble friend Lord Shinkwin made a Shakespearean allusion, and I have to say: “The quality of mercy is not strained”. A sense of magnanimity is in the air. The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, reminded us of the dedication of so many hereditary Peers and compared them against the service, or lack of service, of many Peers who are not being excluded under the legislation before us. That thought and sentiment was echoed by others in the debate. How do we go forward? The noble Earl, Lord Devon, who is not in his place, said in an earlier debate that he did not think there should be horse-trading between party leaders inside or outside this House about who should stay. My noble friend Lady Mobarik also said that she did not care for back-room deals. I understand those feelings, but it surely need not be everyone who goes or no one. There is a middle ground and, as my noble friend Lady Mobarik challenged us all, does this Committee as a collective really wish to lose all the good people who she and so many others have referenced in the course of this debate? As I have said before in your Lordships’ Committee, and as we have heard from all sides in today’s debate, there is another party to this matter, beyond the party-political interests of the two Front Benches—mine or of the party opposite—and beyond even those deep family instincts that surely we all understand across the House drive us in the views that we take, particularly on this type of question, and that in fact make the great political parties what they are—the sense of their tradition and the sense of their aspirations. That other party to this matter beyond our two parties is this great House itself.

17:00:00

The questions put before us by my noble friend and others are: what does your Lordships’ House think about who and what it may be losing and, as my noble friend Lord Moylan put to us, what in the future may be the knock-on effects of singling out and excluding a category of Peers with no transition? I think all noble Lords know where I stand in the ideal world: I believe there should be full transitional arrangements or grandfather rights. That has often been the case in the past, as it was with the Law Lords. I make no secret of the fact that I believe there should be transitional arrangements—evolution, not revolution, as the right reverend Prelate so wisely put it.

I tabled an amendment earlier in Committee that would have had broadly the same effect as that before us set down by my noble friend. I did not move that amendment, not because I do not share the sentiments of my noble friend Lady Mobarik or of many others who have spoken—I do share them—but, as I told the Committee at the outset, I recognise, as do most Peers who have spoken, the mandate of this Government to end the entry of hereditary Peers. The time, as many have said, in which birth gave you a seat in this House has gone, and that is universally recognised. I have also recognised that the Government would wish any transitional arrangement—which again I submit we should have, in equity and justice—to be dampened by retirements and/or other procedural mechanisms to address their concerns about numbers. I made that clear in my opening speech in Committee.

I remain convinced that there is a way forward, and I hope very much, having listened to this impressive debate, that—informed by the spirit of kindness, compromise, understanding and, yes, respect that has informed this very debate—we may find a way in the period between Easter and Whitsun to reach a generous settlement that respects the interests of all, not least the interests of the whole House, which I think have been eloquently expressed by many in this debate. To such an enterprise, in search of such a settlement and in response to such a call, as we heard so eloquently from my noble friend Lady Mobarik and others today, my door is open and my commitment will be full.

I say from the start that I know the noble Baroness, Lady Mobarik, and respect her. Certainly, I welcome her contributions to this House, and many times in debates we have been on the same side, which reflects how this House operates. I had to decide whether in responding I should respond to the amendment or to the debate. I have decided that I will follow the Companion and stick to the amendment. The noble Baroness’s amendment seeks to compel the Prime Minister to recommend 87 new Peers. The noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, is absolutely right: is that really what we want to do in terms of where we are? I also point out that while the noble Baroness’s amendment says that she wants to mirror the political balance of the outgoing hereditary Peers, there is nothing in it that would guarantee any hereditary Peer remaining in this House, so I am not sure what the last hour has been all about. Nevertheless, I want to focus. I think the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, summed it up—and I agree with her—when she said that we are a country that takes constitutional change gradually. I recall from the Labour manifesto in 1901—I do not recall it; I remember reading about it—that we were seeking then to abolish the House of Lords. We have changed our mind over time. We have reached a sort of view about it. The hereditary principle was addressed over 25 years ago, and the noble Lord opposite has said that it has gone. We do not support the hereditary principle when it comes to this legislative House. I say to the noble Lord, Lord True, that the transitional arrangements that were made over 25 years ago are now going to come to an end. We have had 25 years to look at a sensible way of dealing with this issue. My noble friend Lord Grocott has offered many opportunities to do it on a gradual basis which have all been rejected, primarily by noble Lords opposite. We have now reached the point where we have a manifesto commitment to deal with this issue. I understand why the noble Baroness has made her amendment and understand the nature of the debate, but, as my noble friend the Leader of the House has set out many times before, it is for the Prime Minister to make recommendations to the sovereign on new Peers. In doing so, the Prime Minister invites nominations from party leaders across the House, so, again, I say to the noble Lord, Lord True, that there is nothing stopping him making recommendations to his leader to include hereditary Peers in any new list. Why not do that? Why not offer that transitional arrangement? It is not for us to decide who stays in this House. It is not for us to decide whom the leader of the Conservative Party decides to recommend to the Prime Minister—

Will the noble Lord just explain how that works for the Cross Benches?

I was going to come to that point, but as the noble Lord gives me the opportunity, let me say that my noble friend the Leader has addressed that. She is working in consultation and wants to have further discussions about how we address that issue. Certainly, I am confident that we will be able to do so, because I think the Cross-Benchers play a very important role in this House, and the Convenor of the Cross Benches is a hereditary Peer.

If the noble Lord is prepared to have those discussions with the Cross Benches, what is wrong with the Official Opposition? Why can he not have the same discussions with them?

I repeat: the Prime Minister of this country has made an offer. In terms of the new Peers that we have recently had introduced into this House, the Conservative Party was offered more than Labour was ever offered in previous nominations. It is a very important point: the simple fact is that, if the leader of the Conservative Party wanted to nominate hereditary Peers to life peerages, they can do so. This amendment—

Oh!

I do not mind being interrupted, but what is the point?

The Deputy Leader of the House knows that that is not the case. The leader of the Opposition can make nominations when the Prime Minister graciously allows her to do so. It is entirely up to the Prime Minister when and how many.

Correct, and you have just had six; you could have nominated hereditary Peers as life Peers. There was nothing stopping you—nothing. The important point is that we have had opportunities to deal with this issue over the last 25 years and have not done so. As a consequence, Labour put in its manifesto a clear commitment to deal with the hereditary principle once and for all, which is what we have before us in this very short, simple Bill. Let me just address this point. The Prime Minister also invites the House of Lords Appointments Commission to make nominations to the Cross Benches. In deciding the number of these nominations, the Prime Minister considers a range of factors, of course, including the political balance of the House. Certainly, retirements and other departures mean that new Peers will always be needed to ensure the House has appropriate expertise and, as has been said before, there is no reason why hereditary Peers cannot be nominated in future lists. Political parties have the opportunity to do that. My noble friend the Leader has recognised the special position of Cross-Benchers and committed to discuss it with the relevant parties. That is the commitment she has made. If the noble Baroness, Lady Mobarik, is concerned with the party balance of the House, I remind your Lordships that even if this Bill is passed the Government Benches will make up 28% of this Chamber, compared to 31% for the party opposite. As my noble friend the Leader has said before to your Lordships, this House functions best when there are roughly equal numbers between the two main parties; I stand by that. As I have said to the noble Baroness, there are many occasions when we operate on a cross-party basis. I do not see that this Bill will change that one bit—far from it. It will bring about a more sensible balance in this House. With respect to the noble Baroness, Lady Mobarik, this amendment is unnecessary. It is not appropriate for this Bill and I respectfully request that she withdraws it.

The noble Lord has returned to the question of numbers, completely ignoring the points I made about other ways of addressing that. I set that to one side but, as I understood it, his concept was, “Well, you”—I do not think that he can have meant me—“can send some people here if you want to”. The Government are about to expel 44 of our people. Is the noble Lord saying that the leader of the Opposition can name 44 who will come straight back? That appeared to be the logic of his position. Will he answer the specific point on numbers? The Prime Minister decides the numbers; that is the fact.

Certainly I know that is the case, and we found that out the hard way in the past 14 years. But can I just say—and the noble Lord knows this—we are dealing with an imbalance at the moment? He keeps talking about how many Conservative Peers are hereditary, but that is not the question in this Bill. The question in this Bill is about the principle of hereditary Peers, not about whether they are Conservative. In fact, so much of the debate has been about how they are not political and not partisan, but then the noble Lord keeps repeating how many of them are Conservative.

17:15:00

What we have now is a transitional arrangement from over 25 years ago. We have had many opportunities, through the Grocott Bill and others, to see them wither away, which were not taken up. We are now in the position of saying that, after 25 years, the hereditary principle will end. If the noble Lord’s party, when the Prime Minister approaches his leader and says, “We are going to have a new list—here is the number of Peers you can have”—you could have done it with the last six that you got. You could have appointed and nominated a hereditary Peer who has done good service to this House to make sure that they can continue to do good service to this House, not as a hereditary but on the basis of their duty and service as life Peers. That is the answer.

My Lords, first, I thank all those who have participated in this debate and shown their support for the intention behind my amendment. I am disappointed that the noble Lord, Lord Collins of Highbury, decided not to respond to the debate as such. I thought that that was the purpose of Committee stage.

I am hesitant to interrupt the noble Baroness, but there is one hereditary Peer whom I do miss greatly, and that is the Countess of Mar. She would have jumped up many times and said, “Please, your Lordships, speak to the amendment” —and that is what I was trying to do.

Thank you—I shall remember that on the next occasion. There have been so many notable speeches today, but time does not permit me to mention all of them. I think that this debate has shown that we on these Benches, joined by others across this House, are not trying to hold on to the hereditary principle but want to hold on to our hereditary colleagues. I strongly believe that my amendment would provide a civilised, mannerly and appropriate way in which to manage ourselves, in keeping with the customs and courtesies of our great House. There is clearly widespread support for some kind of transitional arrangement, and I sincerely hope from the bottom of my heart that the noble Baroness the Leader of the House will reflect on this very carefully and take my noble friend Lord True up on his very fair and reasonable offer before Report. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 90E withdrawn.

Amendment 90F

Moved by

90F: After Clause 1, insert the following new Clause— “Review: Northern IrelandWithin 24 months of the day on which this Act comes into force, the Secretary of State must produce a report assessing the desirability of increased representation of Members from Northern Ireland in the House of Lords.”

My Lords, there has been quite a lot of talk about the reason for His Majesty’s Government’s moves on this Bill, and I want to go back to the beginning of it. I shall go back to when the Minister for the Constitution, the right honourable Member of Parliament for Torfaen, Mr Nick Thomas-Symonds, speaking in a very blasé kind of Cabinet Office video, expressed the Government’s motivation for this legislation in these terms. He said that the legislation was needed because: “I want young people growing up … in my constituency, and indeed in every part of the country, to feel that they have the same chance as anyone else … in making the laws of the land”. In other words, his point was that the existence of the category of hereditary Peers contains within it a bar to public service because, as the young people in Mr Thomas-Symonds’ constituency, and indeed every other constituency, look at the option of public service by means of serving as a hereditary Peer, that option is of course by definition closed to them unless they are from a tiny minority of people who happen to have a parent or grandparent who carries a hereditary title. I understood that the Government’s aim in this was to create a United Kingdom in which there is no reason in principle why membership of the Lords, for the purpose of making laws, should not be open to any UK citizen, subject to the other parameters in paragraph 1.2 of the Companion to the Standing Orders, and to give everyone the right in principle to be considered for appointment to the upper House. However, the Cabinet Office video and the Government’s stated intention regarding the hereditary Peers Bill cause some considerable concern to not just me but the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, who has signed the amendment, and others in Northern Ireland. We have received, as other Peers may have, a letter from 15 young people on the subject that has moved me to table this amendment, after a great deal of discussion with the Public Bill Office. The signatories all live in Northern Ireland and for the most part are students or have not long left university. They are all young. They begin by referencing the Cabinet Office video and the Minister’s reason for the Bill, which I have just read out but will repeat: “I want young people growing up … in my constituency, and indeed in every part of the country, to feel that they have the same chance as anyone else to play a part in making the laws of the land”. In response to this, the young people state: “It is quite extraordinary that the Minister should have uttered these words at the same time the Irish Sea Border was affecting the most dramatic reversal of UK citizenship in our history, removing from us all means of making the laws to which we are subject not just in relation to one law or 300 but 300 areas of law. The truth is that the presence of 92 hereditary peers in the House of Lords in no way threatens our right, along with the rest of the population, to be considered for Life peerages. Similarly, they do not impact in any way our right to stand for election to the House of Commons or Northern Ireland Assembly. The Irish Sea border, by contrast, not only threatens that right; it nullifies it completely in 300 areas of law, denying us the rights enjoyed by our peers in Torfaen and everywhere else in the country to make the laws of the land. The Government cannot, on the one hand, lecture young people about the importance of active citizenship and yet, on the other hand, say, it’s so unimportant that all the people of one part of the UK should be happy to lose it in relation to 300 areas of law. There may be some people in Government who don’t think Northern Ireland matters but they should think about the wider messaging implications of their actions for young people across the whole UK. How can something that is vital in one part of the country be vital in that part of the country if in another part of the country it can be dispensed with? Consistency is important. ‘Do as I say not as I do’ never really works”. Their point is simple. The Windsor Framework effectively denies them access to any legislature making the laws to which they are subject in a staggering 300 areas, and removing the hereditary Peers will not change that. It feels as if we in Northern Ireland are subject to a classic conjuror’s illusion, where our eyes are being led away from confronting the greatest ever assault on the integrity of UK citizenship and towards a comparatively minor adjustment in the opposite direction that it hopes will capture our attention. These young people have not been taken in by that illusion and have asked me to table an amendment for two reasons: first, to expose the injustice and hypocrisy of the Government’s position and to challenge it; and, secondly, to warn that the erosion of UK citizenship as a whole is inherent in its erosion in Northern Ireland, and we kid ourselves if we pretend that is not the case. The UK’s position as a strong polity depends on people being active citizens—voting, standing for election and making themselves available to serve as Peers. That in turn depends on people believing that our citizenship matters. That is quite impossible to do if your Government tell people that their citizenship is so unimportant in one part of the United Kingdom that it can be dispensed with in a staggering 300 areas of law. You cannot do that in one part of the country without it undermining the value and importance of UK citizenship generally. The Government have shown that, far from being essential, citizenship can at least in part be dispensed with. I acknowledge that increasing the number of Northern Ireland Peers provides no answer to the injustice created by the Windsor Framework. There is nothing to be gained by having more people in place here to exercise the more limited citizenship that has been imposed on Northern Ireland people. We need the restoration of our full citizenship so that the young, and indeed all people in Northern Ireland, have the right in common with the rest of the UK—the common right that validates that we are one country, a body politic—to stand for election, to make themselves available for nomination to your Lordships’ House and to make all the laws of the land. After that letter was sent to some Peers, a cross-party letter appeared this morning in the Daily Telegraph, signed by a number of these young people—some members of political parties, some not. We have had quite a lot of support come in already from young people in Great Britain. I name some of them who have spoken out this morning: Jacob Watts from Cambridge, Tom Gartside from Newcastle, Kane Blackwell and Scott Lewis from Cardiff. In the same way that young people in Northern Ireland are feeling about this, it is not going to take a lot to get young people across the country to realise that their citizenship and all the talk about getting young people involved are a nonsense when it comes to something like this. The important thing is that sometimes—and this happens with individuals—you live in denial and keep pretending that if you just ignore it, it does not matter. It is the same with Governments. The Government should—and, if they wanted to, they could now—go back to the European Union and tell it that the Windsor Framework is not working, because it disrespects the territorial integrity of the UK in violation of international law, partly disfranchises 1.9 million UK citizens and is, as such, unsustainable. My amendment says, “Think behind this”. This is not just about getting rid of hereditary Peers. What we have done in Northern Ireland is a disgrace to the citizenship of our citizens, particularly to the young people of the future. I am moving my amendment to get that debate, but I hope that both the Government and the Opposition will not try just to deal with the actual amendment. Of course we would like more Peers from Northern Ireland, but that is a very different matter from the crucial issue I am trying to raise today. I beg to move.

My Lords, I rise very briefly to say a few words on the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey. When Ireland and Scotland had representative Peers, there were 28 Irish and 16 Scottish representative Peers. Now, I believe there are 22 Irish Peers born in Ireland and 61 Scottish Peers born in Scotland. Recent population figures for Scotland showed a population of about 5.5 million, and for Ireland about 2 million. But as the Irish representative Peers represented the whole of Ireland, overall the Northern Irish are fairly represented in the House of Lords, with 22 Peers against 28 representatives for the whole of Ireland before the Republic came into existence. Perhaps Scotland has too many Peers now, compared with its former representative Peers.

My Lords, I support the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey. This is no surprise, as I have my name attached to it. I can think of no more eloquent a way of doing so than commending to noble Lords, and the right honourable Member for Torfaen in the other place, the social media video made by young people in Northern Ireland in response to the Cabinet Office video introducing the Bill. It is regrettable that the Cabinet Office put out that particular video.

17:30:00

The young person speaking to camera says:

“The government says it wants to give young people across the UK the same chance as anyone else to make the laws to which they are subject and that they are rising to this challenge by taking a bill through Parliament to remove hereditary peers from the House of Lords … The truth is that the presence of 92 hereditary peers in the House of Lords in no way threatens my right to make the laws to which I am subject either by being made a life peer, an MP or an MLA. What does threaten my right to make the laws to which I am subject, though is this Government. Through their Windsor Framework they deny me, unlike the people of England, Wales and Scotland, the right to make the laws to which I am subject in 300 areas”—

that was mentioned by the noble Baroness. They continue:

“Even if I was an MP, a Peer and an MLA all rolled into one, I still would not be able to make these laws. To fundamentally undermine my citizenship in this way, and that of all the people of Northern Ireland, while pretending to be moving forward is deeply disingenuous and a very serious breach of trust”.

The video then makes a very prescient observation that we would all do well to reflect upon:

“When challenged the only justification they can come up with is that they are required to disenfranchise me by international law. This doesn’t help them at all. It makes them complicit in effectively sabotaging international law, making it an unenlightened tool to justify reactionary causes for which it was never designed”.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, mentioned, it is important to read the letter in today’s Daily Telegraph. One of the critical points made by the young people who signed that letter is that the negative impact of this arrangement damages the UK as a whole, not just Northern Ireland. The Telegraph letter states:

“The Government should not lecture young people about the importance of active citizenship, only to argue that those in one part of the UK should be happy to lose it in relation to 300 areas of law. There may be some in Government who don’t think Northern Ireland matters”—

I suspect that is true—

“but they should consider the wider messaging implications of their actions for young voters. How can something that is vital in one part of the country be dispensed with in another? Consistency is important”.

As the noble Baroness pointed out, there has been no shortage of young people responding. One, a student at Cambridge from the north of England, said:

“I stand in complete support of our peers in Northern Ireland. Voting and citizenship are essential features of any country that calls itself a democracy. Disenfranchising young people in this way goes completely against that. The Government is blatantly treating Northern Ireland as a second-class part of the United Kingdom”.

Another, a student at Newcastle University, said:

“Sir Keir Starmer once said that rights are only fair if they are universal. Isn’t telling one part of the country that citizenship and voting is vital, while simultaneously disenfranchising young people in another part of the country an example of two-tier”

citizenship? Yet another, not from Northern Ireland but from GB, said:

“The Government must think young people are exceptionally stupid”—

I never thought that about young people—

“if they can get away with telling young people in Stratford, Sittingbourne, Swansea or Strathclyde that citizenship and voting is vital while at the same time disenfranchising young people in Northern Ireland who are having laws thrust upon them from a foreign power without the ability to change that legislation”.

Surely there is something wrong here. I do not just throw this at the Government because, to be fair, they inherited it. This was the brainchild of the Conservative Party, so they do not stand here in a good light in relation to this.

Another young person, from Cardiff, said:

“What’s happening to our peers in Northern Ireland is a disgrace: stripped of rights, silenced by a state that dares to preach citizenship while practising discrimination. You don’t get to bang the drum for voting and civic duty in England, Wales and Scotland while turning Northern Ireland into a democratic wasteland”.

Can that be right? This is not policy; in my book, it is pure cowardice.

The Government cannot have it both ways. Either the strength of UK citizenship is really important across the whole country—such that it would be wrong, as Mr Thomas-Symonds MP suggests, for young people in any part of the country to feel that anyone in any other part of the country has a better chance than them of making the laws to which they are subject—or it really does not matter, such that it is absolutely fine not to have the right to stand for election to make the laws to which we are subject in 300 areas or to elect legislators for us in those areas.

The message of the young people who have written to me is clear. They used to enjoy the same chance of making the laws to which they were subject as anyone else in the country, notwithstanding the existence of hereditary Peers. Now that right has been taken from them such that they do not have the same chances as young people or indeed any adult living in the rest of the country to make the laws to which they are subject, and, as it was the Government who set in motion the securing of their disenfranchisement, they do not appreciate Ministers pretending to be concerned about the integrity of their citizenship. They do not feel that hereditary Peers should be made to feel like a threat to the integrity of their citizenship when the greatest threat to its integrity comes from the actions of the Government themselves.

In seeking to prevent a rerun of this calamity, we would do well to ensure that the smaller parts of the United Kingdom have significantly stronger representation in the upper House, which is why I happily support this amendment, although what we really need is to replace the Irish Sea border with mutual enforcement, re-enfranchising the people of Northern Ireland.

My Lords, I did not intend to support the debate on this particular amendment. However, having listened to the debate thus far, I think it is probably quite important that I say just one thing. I did not get the letter to which the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, have referred—I am not quite sure why I did not get it as a Northern Ireland Peer, but I did not. I want to speak because it is important to reassure young people in Northern Ireland that they are not being disenfranchised, that they do have the right to stand for election in the United Kingdom and that, equally, they have the right to apply for admission here through the House of Lords Appointments Commission, as I did. I work with Learn with the Lords, and most recently I attended Banbridge Academy in Northern Ireland. Some weeks ago, the noble Baroness, Lady Cash, once a pupil at Banbridge Academy, was introduced into your Lordships’ House. When I presented to those young people in Banbridge Academy, I showed them the video of the introduction of the noble Baroness, Lady Cash, and said to them, as I always say to the students to whom I speak, “You too can do this. The House of Lords is a place to which you can apply, but before you get there you are going to have to work very, very hard and build yourself a reputation”. So that is my first point. I want to reassure the young people of Northern Ireland that nothing in the Bill or indeed in the Windsor Framework disenfranchises them. I want to say a brief word about the Northern Ireland Scrutiny Committee, of which I am a member. There are issues, and the scrutiny committee is working on those issues and will take evidence tomorrow from the noble Lord, Lord Murphy. But, apart from that, there is a recognition in Northern Ireland of advantage in the Windsor Framework. Businesses have given evidence to the predecessor Windsor Framework committee, to the effect that they had gained significant advantages from the existence of the Windsor Framework. I just wanted to introduce a note of balance, to reassure young people and to say that all is not gloom and doom in Northern Ireland.

My Lords, I speak in support of the amendment in the names of my noble friends Lady Hoey and Lord Morrow, having similarly been in receipt of representations from young people in Northern Ireland. What the Minister for the Constitution, Nick Thomas-Symonds, said is worthy of repeating: “I want young people growing up in … my constituency, and … every part of the country, to feel that they have the same chance as anyone else to play a part in making the laws of the land”.—[Official Report, Commons, 15/10/24; col. 719.] That is very thoughtful of him, yet at the very same time that Minister would have fully known that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland was less than three weeks away from sending a Motion to Stormont, on 31 October, asking MLAs to agree to the disfranchisement of their constituents, in relation to not just one law but a staggering 300 areas of law, as has been outlined by my noble friends. For the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, to suggest to this Committee that young people are not being denied rights that others throughout the United Kingdom are receiving is not factual. The rights of young people—in fact, of the people of Northern Ireland—are not the same as those throughout the United Kingdom, and I will give the reason why.

I have to point out to the noble Lord that a young person who applies from Scotland, Wales, England or Northern Ireland has equal rights to make law here in Westminster and in the devolved Assemblies. There is no difference. There is a different situation in Northern Ireland with regard to the framework, but the noble Lord is not correct in what he says.

There are 300 areas of law that apply to people in Northern Ireland over which no elected representative, either here or in the Northern Ireland Assembly, has any control. That has not happened for England, Scotland, or Wales. I cannot understand how the noble Baroness, who has a bright past and certainly tremendous knowledge, would not understand the difference. There are 300 areas of law over which they have no control whatever. No matter how many elected representatives they send to either Westminster or the Assembly, they have no power over those areas of law. It is bad enough to pressure MLAs to vote to disfranchise their constituents in 300 areas of law, but to do so while the Minister was trying to pretend that the Government are so committed to opening up lawmaking to all that they feel bound to do away with hereditary Peers generates an overall progressive impression that they are so divorced from the impact of their actions and delivers a message that serves only to greatly compound the underlying sense of injustice. Moreover, I believe that it is an insult to hereditary Peers to suggest that it is a government priority to remove them while at the same time pressing changes on British citizens in Northern Ireland that impact on their lives in 300 areas of law over which they have no say, nor any democratic input. On 1 March 2023, my colleague and noble friend Lord Morrow read out a submission from an 18 year- old student, Jack Steele. I wish to remind the Committee of something of what he said: “As I have mentioned, I would like to see the importance of my rights restored to an equal footing with that of other members of the United Kingdom. I would like to see the rights which my parents enjoyed for 25 years, delegated to me. I would like to see the continuity of peace and civility rather than violence and disorder. I would like to see the restoration of democracy in Northern Ireland. I am young and I have a life to live. It’s my desire to see Northern Ireland work and to make a difference. However, I cannot make a difference as the right to elect people to legislate … has been stripped from my generation” in 300 areas of law. Two years later, we are no further along, and a generation of young people are disfranchised. That is why they are asking us today to raise our voices in this Committee and demand that they are made subject only to the laws which their elected representatives have decided and can therefore be held accountable for at the ballot box, and to stop the continual imposition of EU legislation on the people of Northern Ireland. They simply ask that they be treated on equal footing with the young people of England, Scotland and Wales. Is it too much to ask that we not direct our focus and energies on removing hereditary Peers, which would make little difference to the lives of our young people in Northern Ireland, and instead divert our resources to stop the denial of democracy in Northern Ireland and rightfully restore the democratic rights of these young people?

17:45:00

I appreciate that simply increasing representation from Northern Ireland in this House would not guarantee a majority prepared to state that a credible way forward can involve the disfranchisement of any UK citizen, as is happening in Northern Ireland, but it would increase the chance of someone in government finally listening. The real answer, of course, is replacing the iniquitous Irish Sea border with mutual enforcement, which would facilitate the restoration of our citizenship. Let us hope that this debate today will at least help stimulate interest in our just cause.

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, talked about how we need to think about our messaging. The noble Lord, Lord McCrea, has spoken about the denial of democracy and problems with democracy. I think that, as a House, we need to think about how we look to the outside world and where we are now in context. We look across to the United States and we see the subversion of constitutional democracy. We see here an increasingly disillusioned public, particularly the disillusioned young, throughout the country, not just in Northern Ireland. I have just finished reading the latest book of the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, the title of which is, Could it Happen Here? If we look ahead and think about the implications for British politics of the next four or five years—in which we may well have an economy that does not grow, foreign threats appearing much more serious, and foreign interference not only from Russia and China but from anti-democratic groups and billionaires within the United States—we could find ourselves, by the next general election, in a very difficult situation that challenges the assumptions of our democracy. I say to the Conservatives here that, if they are still happily thinking about our established two-party system, they have not looked at the opinion polls for the last several months, in which our two established parties have been receiving well under 50% of public support, in which four parties have been receiving more than 10%—Reform has been up there, way ahead of the Conservative Party, most of the time—and in which the likelihood of turnout in the next general election dropping further ought seriously to concern us. In his book, the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, sets out a scenario for a future election taking place under conditions of economic difficulties, foreign interference and foreign threats, and disorder on the streets. That is serious. That is a threat to our constitutional democracy. That is what we ought to be considering, rather than, if I may respectfully suggest so, being overindulgent by talking about ourselves and a very modest—too modest—proposal for further minor reforms to the way this House operates. I appeal from these Benches that we recognise the context we are in and pay attention to that, rather than to ourselves.

My Lords, I commend the amendment brought forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, and my noble friend Lord Morrow, and commend the young people who have helped to provoke this debate. I agree with the previous speaker that we need to focus on the future. Looking to our young people and to what we can do for them is very much at the heart of that. I support this amendment, but not because I believe that Northern Ireland is the best part of the United Kingdom, nor because I believe that the Peers that come from Northern Ireland bring the greatest level of sagacity to this House. Those two things are self-evidently true, but I support this amendment because it identifies two deficiencies within the Bill. It does not do violence to the Bill but points out two things that we need to consider for the future. Many unkind critics of the Bill will see the removal of the hereditary Peers by the current Government as a party-political gesture: throwing red meat to the activists within the Labour Party. Perhaps even unkinder people may say that it is used to distract from some of the actions of the Government in the last number of months—over pensioners, the WASPI women, the farmers or, most recently, those on disability benefits. I am sure that the Government would very clearly deny that. However, that denial has a level of credibility only if the actions taken in this Bill move beyond that one simple action of the removal of the hereditary Peers towards a much wider reform of our democracy and of this House. The amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, does that by starting to look towards the future. What should the composition of this House be in the future? Undoubtedly, in terms of composition, we have a much more diverse House than we had a number of years ago. I recently viewed one of the old episodes of “Yes, Minister”, in which Sir Humphrey was sitting around the table with eight or nine of his Permanent Secretary colleagues, every one of them male, every one of them middle-aged and every one of them middle-class. He concluded a discussion by saying, “Well, I don’t think we could get a more diverse group of individuals than us here”. Thankfully, we have begun to move away from those days. We have a much more diverse group of people within the House of Lords, from a wide range of backgrounds. But that is not to suggest that we can rest on our laurels. One area where we are still lacking is in a level of regional diversity throughout the United Kingdom. This House should be the voice of all parts of the United Kingdom. When I talk about regional balance, I do not mean between competing boroughs in north London; I mean throughout the entire country. In future, we need to reflect that. The amendment makes specific reference to Northern Ireland, but it could be true of other elements. In debate on one of the earlier amendments, it was mentioned that only one of the hereditary Peers came from Yorkshire, for example. We need to have that wider reflection. Therefore, keeping an observance of the composition of this House as we move forward and recognising that there is widespread representation of the diversity of this country, particularly on a regional basis, is important. My second reason for commending this amendment, and the second gap that has been identified, is that the supposed driving force behind this amendment was a step towards equality, a step towards greater democracy and a step towards accountability. A case may be made that this is a step in that direction, but it rings hollow when people from my part of the United Kingdom are denied that level of equality, that level of democracy and that level of accountability, because of the current arrangements in place in the post-Brexit situation. Two things need to happen to rectify that. First, the frictions that are there in terms of the Irish Sea need to be removed completely. We need to see, as the first step, the Government honouring what has been pledged in the past. When the previous Government proposed changes, the current Government, then in opposition, were fully in support of those. Yet we are now a number of months into the new Government and have not seen the speed of action that needs to take place. That is not simply a political point coming from these Benches. Evidence is being given of the daily impact on the ground by retailers, some of the large supermarkets, the haulage companies and the freight companies. That evidence will tell you of the friction that is there. Actions that need to be taken. Secondly, as has been highlighted, for Northern Ireland a deep democratic deficit has been left, which means that, uniquely, we are left in a situation in which, on a wide range of our laws, we are placed in a different position from the rest of the United Kingdom. Solutions can be pursued. My preferred solution would be mutual enforcement. However, we are told by the Government that they are going to do a reset with Europe. Nobody is quite clear what that means. I suspect that the parameters of any form of reset are probably changing on a relatively daily basis as the world changes. If the Prime Minister is to be genuine in what he means by a broader reset, we need to see a reset which treats all the United Kingdom on an exactly equal basis, with exactly the same rights, responsibilities and restrictions as any other part of the United Kingdom. We need to see a reset not simply with our wider external relations or indeed the internal unity of the United Kingdom. If this Bill and this amendment are to have value, we need to see a reset of our democracy, our sense of equality and our sense of accountability. This amendment has been very useful in provoking that debate.

My Lords, I can say without fear of contradiction that our former colleague the Countess of Mar would have been incredibly voluble over the past 35 minutes or so. I rise to make my first contribution to proceedings on this Bill from the Opposition Front Bench. Speaking as somebody whose origins are in the city of Leeds, some 200 miles away from north London, I hasten to add that my origins are about as far removed from the world of hereditary Peers, stately homes and landed estates as it is possible to be. I put on record my strong opposition to the measures contained in this legislation, and indeed the motivations behind it. The Bill, should it go through unamended, will sweep away centuries of unique British heritage and tradition from Parliament and our national life. The House that remains will be a fundamentally different institution, and not for the better. I intend to pay some lip service to the Standing Orders and actually speak to the terms of the amendment on the Order Paper before the House this evening. However, while preparing to speak to the amendment, I could not help but reflect on the role and representation of Northern Ireland Peers in your Lordships’ House and the contribution that Peers of Ireland over many centuries have made, which continues in a small way to this day. Some of these titles in the Peerage of Ireland predate the Act of Union. My noble friend Lord Courtown and the noble Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery, who was in his place a short while ago, are two examples. Their forebears would have been entitled to sit in the pre-union Irish House of Lords in Dublin. Incidentally, the Chamber of the Irish House of Lords is preserved intact inside the Bank of Ireland, the old Parliament House, opposite Trinity College on College Green, should noble Lords wish to visit it. I would very much recommend that they do; it is well worth it. After 1801 and the union, the Peers of Ireland, around 100-strong, did not gain the automatic right to sit in the House of Lords. Some, such as Lord Palmerston, spent their entire careers in the House of Commons. It might be argued by some that, under the union, when it came to the hereditary peerage, there was an Irish Sea border. Instead of the automatic right, as my noble friend Lord Northbrook reminded us, under Article 4 of the union, a fixed number of 28 Irish representative Peers were elected from among the peerage of Ireland to serve here for life. Some Peers of Ireland were also given peerages of Great Britain or the United Kingdom. This practice continued into the 20th century. For those who think that by-elections to your Lordships’ House are a recent innovation, they actually have a much longer pedigree. As has been pointed out on a number of occasions during earlier debates on this Bill, the secession of the Irish Free State from the United Kingdom in 1922 did not lead to the ejection of the 28 Irish representative Peers from this House. They were, wisely, allowed to stay, though their numbers were no longer replenished until the last one, the 4th Earl of Kilmorey, died in 1961, thus allowing the Irish representative Peers to disappear from this House gradually with good grace and dignity.

18:00:00

I support those who believe that this is the precedent that should have been followed in this Bill in respect of remaining hereditary Peers, and I hope the Government Front Bench will take a more constructive attitude to the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lady Mobarik, to which she spoke so movingly. As it stands, the Bill will sweep away the last remnants of the Peers of Ireland from this House, and part of the rich tapestry of the peerage and our history will be gone for ever, much to our detriment.

In turning directly to the amendment before the House, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for raising the important issue of Northern Ireland representation. As a number of colleagues heard me say when I was the other side of the Dispatch Box, I am a unionist first and a Conservative second, and I believe strongly that Northern Ireland should be as fairly and equitably represented as other constituent parts of the United Kingdom. Alas, that has not always been the prevailing opinion. I can well remember, when I was working as an adviser at the Northern Ireland Office in the early 1990s, just how hard the then Ulster Unionist leader, Jim Molyneaux, had to fight to be allowed to nominate just one life Peer.

The prevailing view within officialdom at the time was that such a move would be seen as integrationist in nature, bringing Northern Ireland closer to Great Britain, and would therefore be unwelcome to nationalism and, of course, to Dublin. Thankfully, and particularly in the post-1998 agreement era, we have moved on from that, and a steady succession of distinguished figures from Northern Ireland have been appointed to your Lordships’ House as life Peers. Those of us who have had the privilege of debating with them frequently can testify to just how doggedly, determinedly and persuasively, across the Chamber, they fight Northern Ireland’s corner; we have had an example of that this afternoon. They are much valued colleagues and friends, not least my noble friend Lord Empey, who was one of my supporters when I was introduced to your Lordships’ House in 2016. If I may add a personal note, I put on record just how much I, and I suspect the House more generally, miss the wise counsel of one of the greatest of Northern Ireland politicians, Lord Trimble.

Under this legislation, Northern Ireland stands to lose its one hereditary Peer, the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, who has been here since 1987, having survived the cull in 1999. The noble Viscount comes, of course, from a distinguished County Fermanagh family, his grandfather being the third Prime Minister of Northern Ireland, who was himself also the nephew of the great Field Marshal, Lord Alanbrooke.

The noble Viscount is a farmer, a soldier, a former member of the Policing Board, a lord-lieutenant and Knight of the Garter whose knowledge of and devotion to County Fermanagh and to Northern Ireland is profound. His entire life has been one of duty and service to his country and his sovereign. If anything highlights one of the great iniquities in this Bill, it is the prospect of losing him while at the same time keeping some who make absolutely no contribution here.

However, political representation from Northern Ireland in your Lordships’ House remains overwhelmingly unionist in composition. Indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, is almost the sole voice of constitutional Irish nationalism in this Chamber, and she is very highly respected across this House. It is a shame the noble Baroness is not in her place this afternoon.

If there is to be a commission or a review of the type set out in the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, while it might be too much to expect Sinn Fein to take up places here, give that they refuse to take their seats in the other place on the grounds that it is, to them, a foreign Parliament, I hope that, in future, the SDLP, of which the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, is a distinguished former leader, could be persuaded to nominate and to ensure that the nationalist tradition, too, is properly represented in this House, so that we get the widest range of political opinion from across Northern Ireland. I say that as someone whose strong preference is, as your Lordships know, for the union, but it is important that we have a greater representation of nationalism in your Lordships’ House.

I conclude by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, once again for her amendment, the sentiments behind which I support, and I look forward to the Minister’s reply.

My Lords, before I turn to the substance of the amendment, I place on record my congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey—whose ingenuity, as ever, I admire—on finding a new way for us to debate the Windsor Framework in your Lordships’ House. I want to reassure all noble Lords who participated in this debate, but especially the noble Baroness and the noble Lords, Lord Morrow, Lord McCrea and Lord Weir, that I am always more than happy to debate the Windsor Framework and its implementation at any time. In fact, since the general election, we have discussed it in your Lordships’ House, through the method of regret amendments, for many hours, and I have been here, as I am sure the noble Baroness will testify, for every moment of said debates. I therefore hope that noble Lords know of my personal commitment to Northern Ireland, along with that of my noble friend the Leader of the House of Lords. I know that noble Lords were quoting from the Telegraph today, but I hope that they do not question the commitment of Government Front-Benchers to Northern Ireland and the events happening there. I would welcome a conversation outside this Chamber with the noble Baroness about how we can move forward and perhaps engage with some of the signatories to the letter. I also want to thank the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, for her reassuring voice and the contribution she has made in respect of young people from across the United Kingdom, but especially from Northern Ireland; this House is as accessible to them as it is to any other British citizen. I say that as a working-class woman born in Edinburgh, educated in Bristol, with a London accent, who is proud to have “Stoke-on-Trent” in my title and to be a Member of your Lordships’ House. On that note, I also want to thank the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, for his considered comments on the future of democracy. We have a Question on Thursday which I will be replying to, and which he may like to participate in. I also want to recognise the contribution of the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, and to place on record my thanks to him for hosting me when I visited in February. Brookeborough House now hosts a facility to support veterans who served during the Troubles; it was a privilege to meet him and the veterans at his house. I want to thank the noble Baroness for her amendment and all noble Lords for their contributions. The Government are clear that this House works best when diverse perspectives are represented, including from all nations and regions of the United Kingdom. Alongside the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, we have a number of Peers from Northern Ireland who have brought so much to the House. We currently have 12 former Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly, two of whom are former Speakers there, and two former First Ministers. Such diversity deepens and enriches the House’s ability to scrutinise legislation and to hold the Government of the day to account; I think I can speak for the noble Lord, Lord Caine, too, on that issue. I, for one, very much enjoy working with noble Lords on these issues, which are so relevant to Members of your Lordships’ House: from legacy-related issues to public service transformation and the post-Brexit trading environment, which has been today’s theme. As has been mentioned before, it is the responsibility of party leaders, including the Prime Minister, to consider who is best placed to represent their party in the House of Lords when nominating individuals to your Lordships’ House. I would hope that, as part of that consideration, Prime Ministers reflect on the national and regional representation of this place. The Government have also committed to more fundamental reform by establishing an alternative second Chamber that is more representative of the regions and nations of the United Kingdom. I hope that gives some reassurance to the noble Lord, Lord Weir. We will consult on proposals to provide an opportunity for the public to contribute their views on how to ensure that the alternative Chamber best serves them. I therefore respectfully request that the noble Baroness withdraw this amendment.

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for responding in her usual way and showing that she actually cares about Northern Ireland. We all know she does very much, and we are very lucky to have her on the Front Bench. I also thank her for mentioning the young people and the Daily Telegraph letter. I was very disappointed that the opposition spokesperson did not even mention that and that he was more interested in the history of Irish Peers. I thank the noble Baroness for that; perhaps it might be helpful if we arrange a meeting for those young people next time she is in Northern Ireland. That would be very helpful. I will pick up just one point to make this clear. The noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, and others mentioned the idea that somehow any young person in Northern Ireland could be elected, just like any other normal person. That is not the point; the point is that they cannot be elected to anywhere that makes the laws for their own country. I really do not understand why noble Peers do not understand this: no one in this House can make laws for part of Northern Ireland in those 300 areas of the law. I will give your Lordships two quick examples: the two “p”s—pets and parcels. Not a single person in Northern Ireland had a say here about what was going to happen with parcels being sent from people in this country to Northern Ireland, which is part of the United Kingdom. No one had a say on pet passports. They had nothing to do with democracy in this place, in the House of Commons or in Stormont. It is a nonsense to say that people are being treated in the same way. I thank the noble Baroness the Minister for talking about my ingenuity. Lots of other people are involved in this. I will give way.

I thank the noble Baroness for giving way, but she did accuse me of speaking nonsense. My point is that people from Northern Ireland who are elected to the House of Commons and people from Northern Ireland who serve in your Lordships’ House have the same rights to make law as Peers and Members of Parliament from other parts of the United Kingdom. The fact that we have a situation in Northern Ireland that is slightly different from that in the rest of the United Kingdom, in terms of the single market, is the product of the Brexit vote and nothing else. The repercussions of it apply across the United Kingdom, so it is incorrect to say that the people of Northern Ireland have lesser rights on things like that. Quite simply, we all have the same rights, but we have different constitutional positions.

I thank the noble Baroness; I think she has made my point for me. The reality is that the European Union decides the issues in Northern Ireland. No young person—none of the 15 young people who wrote that letter—will have any say on their future, unless the Windsor Framework and the protocol change. Every time we raise these debates, all I want is to get the Government to recognise—although they were not directly involved in doing this so we also want to get the Opposition to recognise—that the Windsor Framework and the protocol are unsustainable if we care about the United Kingdom and about democracy. I thank your Lordships again for taking an interest. I am sure that I and other Peers will find other ways of raising this issue. It will not go away, because it is about democracy and the union of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 90F withdrawn.

Clause 2: Claims to hereditary peerages

Amendment 91 not moved.

Amendment 92 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.

Amendment 93

Moved by

93: Clause 2, page 1, line 8, at end insert— “(3) Any peerage claim is to be made to His Majesty in Council.(4) A claim under this section must be made in accordance with such rules as His Majesty may by Order in Council prescribe. (5) Section 3 of the Judicial Committee Act 1833 (reference to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council of appeals to His Majesty in Council) applies to a claim under this section as it applies to an appeal to His Majesty in Council from a court.(6) The Judicial Committee may require an applicant to give such security for the costs of the proceedings as the Judicial Committee may direct.”Member's explanatory statement This amendment seeks to clarify the future of claims to a hereditary peerage as originally drafted by the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel for the House of Lords Reform Bill 2012.

My Lords, my Amendment 93 would put the process for dealing with peerage claims into the hands of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. When the Bill was published, many people noted that Clause 2 abolishes the role of the House of Lords in peerage claims, expressly including claims to peerages that are in abeyance. However, it does not replace that system; in other words, the clause abolishes but does not also replace. I appreciate that, three weeks ago in this Committee, the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General, whom I am delighted to see here, appeared somewhat surprised to find that there are many Peers who do not sit in your Lordships’ House but are Peers none the less. That is a fact. We must have an effective system in place to determine peerage claims. The Explanatory Notes to the Bill set out how this process is to work in future. I will quote them, because this is short and clear: “As well as removing the final link between hereditary peerage and membership of the House of Lords, the Bill also abolishes the jurisdiction of the House of Lords in hereditary peerage claims. The intention is that: a. any complex or disputed peerage claims that would have otherwise been considered by the House of Lords will instead be referred to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council by way of section 4 of the Judicial Committee Act 1833; and b. claimants to a peerage of Ireland will no longer petition the House of Lords to confirm their succession”.

18:15:00

This raises two short questions with which my amendment is designed to deal. First, why should this process not be in the Bill? Secondly, what process will exist for the Irish peerage? We heard something about the interesting history of the Irish peerage in the last group.

I am sure that noble Lords have this at their fingertips, but I will just set out the current process by which a person can claim a hereditary peerage to which they are entitled. Under the current system, when somebody inherits a peerage that is neither complex nor disputed, they apply to the Lord Chancellor, through the Crown Office, to be included in the Roll of the Peerage. If the title to which they are succeeding or claiming is an Irish title, the claimant must take the additional step of petitioning this House directly.

Where a claim is complex or disputed, or where the Lord Chancellor, having received the application, is not satisfied that the claimant has established a right to succession, the matter is referred here to the House of Lords. It is then passed to a committee for determination; that committee is made up of three current holders of high judicial office—three senior judges—who are not Members of the House and four Members of the House. The committee then reports back to the House. The House usually resolves a claim in line with the committee’s decision—I am not sure what happens if it does not—with this resolution reported to the Crown.

This process was established following the royal warrant of 2004, which was itself made necessary by the last Labour Government’s constitutional changes. So this is a problem of the Labour Party’s making. Again, it is another example where it has had a long time to complete some second-stage reform, but has failed to do so. The current system, as I have set out, is not straightforward; it might be good for lawyers, but not for anybody else. Would it not be simpler to have this system set out in the Bill, rather than it hiding away under the royal warrant and guidance from the Ministry of Justice? The Government have set out their intentions in the Explanatory Notes, and I do not disagree with them and the principle behind which the Explanatory Notes and my amendment sit; I really seek to have those intentions reflected in the statute.

As I have said, the Bill abolishes the role of the House of Lords in determining the claims, but without putting a replacement system into law. We need clarity for Ministers about how this will work in future. I hope that, when the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General replies, he sets out what provisions will be made for Irish Peers to claim their titles, after the role of the House of Lords in these claims has been abolished, because that would expressly fall away. Can the noble and learned Lord confirm that it is the Government’s intention that claimants to Irish peerages will need to apply only to the Lord Chancellor to be entered on the Roll of the Peerage in the first instance; and that complex or disputed Irish peerage claims would also be referred to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, in the same way that complex or disputed claims to other peerages will be?

The amendment is important because if, at a future date, there are no hereditary Peers in your Lordships’ House, it would make sense for this House not to be involved in determining peerage claims. Equally, however, we need a clear and comprehensive system and method to determine those claims. I suggest that that is best done in the Bill. For those reasons, I beg to move.

Amendment 93A (to Amendment 93)

Moved by

93A: At end insert— “(7) The Judicial Committee must seek the advice of and evidence from Garter King of Arms (for England, Wales and Northern Ireland) and the Lord Lyon (for Scotland) when determining peerage claims under this section.”

My Lords, my probing Amendment 93A would safeguard the current process of proving succession to a peerage. According to the College of Arms: “The Royal Warrant of 2004 requires that a person wishing to be recognised as a Peer prove succession to the relevant dignity, to the satisfaction of the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice. Garter King of Arms provides a ruling to the Crown on whether each claim has been satisfactorily made out”. For more complex claims, the current process is that “advice should be sought from an officer of the College of Arms in London, the Court of the Lord Lyon in Edinburgh (for Peerages of Scotland), or a solicitor”. As my noble friend Lord Wolfson of Tredegar said, claims are currently made “by submission of a formal Petition to the House of Lords and Statutory Declaration to the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice via the Crown Office, made on behalf of the claimant by a suitable person”. According to the Ministry of Justice guidance notes, the current situation is that the Lord Chancellor is charged with keeping a Roll of the Peerage to ensure that, as far as possible, records of successions of peerages are kept in good order. The point of my amendment is to ensure that, when the House of Lords is removed from any role in determining new peerages, the existing roles of the College of Arms and the Lord Lyon are fully taken into account, as well as the procedures for proving succession to a peerage. As the noble Lord, Lord Collins, said, this Bill is about hereditary Peers. My worry is that if the Ministry of Justice is to be in sole charge of approving hereditary peerage claims, further legislation could be brought in to abolish hereditary peerages in their entirety. Finally, as a non-lawyer, may I ask the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General how contested peerage claims are going to be dealt with in detail? Do they go to the lower courts first and up through that process? Why is the final Court of Appeal going to be the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council? From my layman’s understanding, the committee mainly handles cases from our overseas territories and certain Commonwealth countries. Why is it not to be the Supreme Court? I have read that judgments of the Judicial Committee are not binding on UK courts, having only persuasive authority. Does this not add an unnecessary extra layer of complexity to this issue, and could this not be resolved by just replacing the Judicial Committee with the Supreme Court?

My Lords, I really think we are giving these matters a significance they do not deserve. I absolutely do not think that the Privy Council should be made responsible for the adjudication. That might have been the case in 1833 and while we had hereditary Peers dominant in this House, but the truth is that the possession of a hereditary peerage will confer no right to sit in this House of Lords. That being so, what is the purpose of this amendment? There is often dispute between prospective Peers: one says that they are entitled and the other says that they are. Well, that is a matter for them. It is a sort of boundary dispute. It would perhaps be a proper matter for a county court—or if, for that matter, there was a financial settlement of some substance, maybe for the High Court—but the idea that the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council or the Supreme Court should be involved in a quarrel between two people claiming to be a hereditary Peer is complete nonsense.

My Lords, the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, seemed to indicate that hereditary Peers may not exist here in the House of Lords in the future, and I think the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, indicated something similar. At what point will there be no hereditary Peers in the House of Lords, and how might that situation—which I would strongly support—come about?

My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Wolfson’s Amendment 93. I totally disagree with my noble friend Lord Hailsham on this. It is a matter of significant importance to families, whether it is about a peerage or about entitlement with regard to due process around issues such as inheritance and legitimate descent. For my part, I exceeded the 100 days set out in the Tony Wedgwood Benn renouncement Act, which was passed in 1963. Post 1963, you could not renounce further than 100 days unless you had clarity within that 100 days about renouncing. I was a Minister in another place at the time. I therefore went through six years of process to satisfy my family, and indeed my grandfather and father, that the rightful inheritor of the title and a small estate was indeed one of three boys, I being the man at the time—there were two young boys. I say to my noble friend that I felt duty-bound to go through that process and, on behalf of the family, to come to the right conclusion. My experience lasted some six years of detailed work: it went through the Tunbridge Wells Magistrates’ Court and the Family Division and ultimately came here. I think my noble friend is trying to seek clarity and find a Bill in which that clarity can be made available to disputes outside this Chamber as well as, as currently, to people within it. In many respects, the burden of proof is very significant. In my case it was the first use of DNA, to refute the paternity of my half-brother’s fourth wife’s child and then to finally render his son illegitimate from the fifth wife because of a bigamous marriage and forgery of the divorce papers. I simply put that in the context of the difficulties that some of these cases lead to. The monarch’s role, while symbolic, still carries weight in recognising or confirming legitimacy of hereditary peerages and of a claim. Each case is unique. The process can be lengthy and complex, especially where controversy and legal disputes apply. I believe the Moynihan case underscores the intricate nature of peerage succession and the legal challenges that can arise concerning legitimacy and inheritance. As I say, that is not primarily because of a seat in the House of Lords: it is a matter of family. I think everybody here and their families want to make sure that they know who their parents are and that, especially if some great act has been done by a forebear, it is recognised in the family and there is due process. Given that peerages are granted ultimately through the symbolic role of the Crown, I think that the simple amendment that my noble friend has put forward, and the Lord Chancellor’s response, will be very helpful in this context. The process outlined by my noble friend Lord Wolfson, drawing on the House of Lords Reform Bill in 2012, is right. My only concern is that the cost of the process should never deter to prove a legitimate case being heard. I represented myself in court at each stage of the process. That is not always possible for people who genuinely want to make sure that the right outcome is determined. I am sure the Attorney-General will give us clarity as to the process to be followed. If there is the opportunity and necessity for an amendment to be made, it could well be made through this Bill in order to clarify the position moving forward, without any relevance whatever to a seat in the House of Lords.

My Lords, I will say two things very quickly. The first is on Amendment 93A. The Lord Lyon is also a King of Arms, so that ought to be added after “the Lord Lyon”. He is in fact King of Arms for Scotland, whereas Garter is not. His jurisdiction is north of the border, over the Scottish titles. The second thing is that I have a feeling that, sometime in the past, titles could be heritable property in Scotland and have come under some of those laws there, so if someone does something it probably has to be dealt with by law courts and not in the very casual way that the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, is talking about. I am afraid I disagree with him. This amendment, which may need to be modified, goes some way to clarifying the situation that it ought to go here—otherwise, I think we will have a mess in the courts later. I thoroughly approve of Amendment 93 and, with a slight caveat, of Amendment 93A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Northbrook.

18:30:00

My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Wolfson and Lord Northbrook, for their amendments, and all noble Lords for their contributions. These amendments seek to provide how peerage claims in the future will be dealt with. As the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, pointed out, from his own personal experience, there is a need for clarity. In the Government’s view, with respect, that will not be achieved through these amendments, but I hope that this address to your Lordships can provide the clarity that is sought. I start by providing a brief overview of the Government’s intention for peerage claims, starting with the process as it currently is, as was set out by the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson. As many of your Lordships will know, a peerage claim is when a person seeks to be formally recognised as the holder of a title of a hereditary peerage. Usually, it is the case that the claimant of a peerage is the undisputed heir and is entered on to the Roll of the Peerage following an application to the Lord Chancellor. However, as the experience of the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, illustrates, if the Lord Chancellor refuses—for example, if the claim to title is not immediately made out or the claim is disputed or complex—a person can pursue it by way of petition to the Crown. Currently, these petitions are referred to the House of Lords to advise the Crown on how to determine the claim. As a matter of high principle, since the Bill removes the final link between hereditary peerages and membership of your Lordships’ House, the Government consider that it is no longer appropriate for hereditary peerage claims to be considered by your Lordships’ House. Clause 2 therefore removes such jurisdiction from this House. In future, the intention is that any complex or disputed peerage claims, which would have been referred by the Crown to this House, will instead be referred to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. The Judicial Committee’s constitutional role is to advise the sovereign, so it is ideally placed to consider these matters. In answer to the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, the position will be precisely the same in respect of disputed Irish peerages. With those principles in mind, I turn to the amendments. Amendment 93, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, seeks to set out a new process for making claims for hereditary peerages by replicating the provisions of the House of Lords Reform Bill of 2012, which, your Lordships will remember, did not proceed. There are two reasons why we do not consider it appropriate. The first reason is that it seeks to provide an express power to refer claims to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. However, that power already exists in Section 4 of the Judicial Committee Act 1833, which provides that His Majesty may refer matters to the Judicial Committee for consideration and advice. I am sure noble Lords would agree that, where it is unnecessary to duplicate legislative provisions, we should avoid doing so. The second reason is that the amendment is based on disproportionality, as it would require all peerage claims to be made to His Majesty in Council, rather than through the filter of a first application to the Lord Chancellor, as the royal warrant provides for. It would place a duty on the Judicial Committee to deal with all peerage claims, including straightforward claims that are not currently considered by your Lordships House. The amendment would therefore result in a significant increase in claims already considered beyond the stage of consideration by the Lord Chancellor to be entered on the Roll of the Peerage. It would lead to an increase in work of the already hard-working—indeed, overworked —Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. Based on recent figures, the amendment would result in the Judicial Committee having to consider an average of 12 claims per year. By contrast, the House of Lords has considered only seven complex claims over the course of the last 50 years. It would be a very considerable increase in business for the Judicial Committee, and, with respect, it would be disproportionate to place that burden upon it. Amendment 93A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Northbrook, seeks to place a duty on the Judicial Committee to “seek the advice of and evidence from Garter King of Arms … and the Lord Lyon … when determining peerage claims”. The royal warrant of 2004 established the Roll of the Peerage, which is prepared in consultation with Garter and the Lord Lyon. The warrant also outlines the first stage in the peerage claims process, which is an application to the Lord Chancellor to be entered on the Roll of the Peerage, which the Lord Chancellor may refuse or accept. Following such an application, advice is sought from the Garter King of Arms or the Lord Lyon, who prepare a report on the claim and make a recommendation to the Lord Chancellor. The noble Lord’s amendment would place a statutory requirement on Garter or the Lord Lyon to advise the Judicial Committee. However, that is not necessary, because the Judicial Committee will already have access to the reports of the Kings of Arms during any consideration of the claim. For those reasons, the amendment would place what we consider to be an unnecessary and duplicate burden on the Kings of Arms. I hope that I have answered already the noble Lord’s question as to why it would be appropriate for these matters, where they are disputed, to go to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council rather than to the Supreme Court. In essence, it is because the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is, constitutionally, the appropriate place for the monarch to refer disputed claims. Therefore, we consider it to be the appropriate body, not the Supreme Court. In answer to the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, as to when the last hereditary Peer will be able to sit in your Lordships’ House, as your Lordships will know, the aim of the Bill is that that will happen at the end of the Session after Royal Assent. Grateful as we are for the amendments tabled by the noble Lords, we respectfully ask that they consider withdrawing them.

My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General for his detailed and considered reply. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 93A (to Amendment 93) withdrawn.

My Lords, I will of course withdraw the amendment. Before I do, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General for answering the question about the Irish peerages. I will look very carefully at what he said in response to the rest. I had a wry smile when the noble and learned Lord said that it is unnecessary to duplicate legislation. I started off with that aim as well and I ended up with the Pet Abduction Act 2024. It is all very well when you are faced with a lawyer across the Dispatch Box here, but when you are faced with a group from the House of Commons with the wind in their sails, it may be more difficult to hold to that. I used to tell people that the statute book was not a form of semaphore to send signals, but that often fell on deaf ears. I am grateful for the support I had en passant from my noble friend Lord Northbrook. Respectfully, I fundamentally disagree with my noble friend Lord Hailsham. There is an interesting—by which commercial lawyers normally mean expensive—legal question raised by the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, as to whether a peerage is a matter of property or not. Quite beyond that, we do not want these cases starting in the county court and going all the way up. We need somewhere to resolve them, and the Privy Council is the obvious place. It resolves other sorts of disputes to do with universities and things like that. It would be a bit of fun for it, in between all the other difficult jurisdictional work that it does. My noble friend Lord Moynihan gave a good example of a disputed peerage. My answer to the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher—who was obviously satisfied with the Attorney-General’s answer, because she has now gone—was going to be slightly different. I was going to encourage the noble Baroness to stay for groups 5 and 7, when the questions of commencement and when we will have the last hereditary Peer will be before the Committee. I was not going to give an answer now, so that she would stay and listen to the debates on those groups. I hope that she comes back. On a more serious note, if there are discussions, as we have heard, through the usual channels on the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Mobarik, the answer given might be that it will be when one of the current hereditary Peers in the House reaches the ripe old age of 120. Subject to that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 93 withdrawn.

Clause 2 agreed.

Amendment 94 not moved.

Amendment 95

Moved by

95: After Clause 2, insert the following new Clause— “Review: impact of this Act on the effectiveness of the House of LordsWithin two years of the day on which this Act is passed, and annually thereafter, the Secretary of State must publish a report on the impact of this Act on the effectiveness of the House of Lords at discharging its core functions.”

My Lords, in moving Amendment 95, I will speak to my other amendments in this group. I very much hope that we will be able to amend this Bill so that the House of Lords, as it carries on from it, is a great deal better at improving and reforming itself, and being a reflective, ever-improving place than the House of Lords has been in the 30 or so years that I have been here. This amendment is a small attempt to add some drive and mechanism for self-improvement to the Bill. I beg to move.

My Lords, within this group, I will refer to my Amendments 96 and 99. Amendment 96 focuses on four connected aspects, including the quality of legislative and government scrutiny that the House of Lords provides; the relationship between His Majesty’s Government and Parliament; 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, member states of the Council of Europe and the rest of the world. Within 12 months of this Bill becoming an Act, a duty would be imposed on the Secretary of State to produce a detailed review of how these four aspects have been affected. Central to them is “the quality of legislative and government scrutiny that the House of Lords provides”, as expressed in proposed new subsection (b). Your Lordships will agree that it is that attribute of our present House which must continue within a reformed House, where its quality function takes precedent and to which membership composition is a secondary and subservient consideration. Thereby, this consideration connects to the three other aspects, beginning with the relationship between His Majesty’s Government and Parliament. As indicated in proposed new subsection (a), within a reformed House, the sustained quality of function of the present House has to enable the same constructive working relationship as that at present between this House as a revising Chamber of Parliament and the Government in another place, the House of Commons. This is not so much to challenge or contradict legislation proposed by the Government, but instead constantly and competently to revise and improve whatever that proposed legislation might be. Consequently, as a by-product and in the light of the huge number of amendments accepted every year, cross-party solidarity and resolve develop among parliamentarians, both here and in another place, to help the Government of the day to improve their initial versions of proposed legislation. That in turn reflects an achievable balance of power between His Majesty’s Government and Parliament, which is referred to by proposed new subsection (c). Within the United Kingdom, such balance is dependent on the democratic forces of local authorities and regional Parliaments, and the opportunity for those energies to contribute towards a desirable balance of power between the Westminster national government and Parliament. This opportunity comes as a result of a reformed Westminster second Chamber to which the majority of its temporal Members, serving for 15 years, might be indirectly or directly elected, coming to the House with the authority of parliamentarians representing all parts of the United Kingdom and therefore assisting the balance between His Majesty’s Government and Parliament—exactly in the necessary direction implied by Quintin Hogg when, in view of our voting system allowing large government majorities for one political party or another, he coined the term “elective dictatorship” as he warned of the risk within the United Kingdom of political imbalance and extremes. Here, I am very grateful to his son, my noble friend Lord Hailsham, for his support for Amendment 96 and, in particular, of its proposed new subsection (c), in favour of an improved balance between His Majesty’s Government and Parliament. Proposed new subsection (d) highlights the example that the United Kingdom Parliament sets to the Commonwealth, the 46 member states of the Council of Europe and the rest of the world, in which regard your Lordships will agree that if a reformed second Chamber can strengthen democracy in the United Kingdom, by example it may be able to do so elsewhere as well. Amendment 99 also refers to the duty of the Secretary of State to carry out a review within 12 months of the new Act, yet it also outlines various other proposed amendments already debated. All these have in common that they seek to sustain the present quality of function of this House, where numbers in a reformed House are capped at 620, with 20 Lords spiritual and 600 temporal Members, of whom the majority are of political Members, with the government and opposition parties having exactly the same numbers, and where, through HOLAC, the numbers of non-political Cross-Benchers are increased.

18:45:00

My Lords, I shall speak to my Amendment 101, which calls for a constitutional conference. We have spent much time debating what the composition of your Lordships’ House should be in the future, but I am afraid that we have the cart before the horse: before you decide on how you would like to reconstitute the membership of your Lordships’ House, you have to decide what they are going to do. This is the problem that we have at the moment: the Bill does not address the question of the powers of your Lordships’ House. However, until you have decided on the powers of your Lordships’ House, you cannot really decide how you are going to change the membership. At that point, you will get completely bogged down, because you will not then be able to tell people who are elected to your Lordships’ House that they cannot vote at Second Reading, that there is a limit on the amount of ping-pong you can play with the elected House, and so forth. I sincerely hope that the Government will institute a constitutional conference on the relative powers, because that will be a vexed and difficult issue. I am sure that the other place rather revels in the fact that this House is so illegitimate. Since it can claim that it is legitimate and has a democratic mandate, it can basically overrule what happens in your Lordships’ House, which is reduced to the role of a revising Chamber. On the other hand, the Government have to decide what this House really does. I suggest that it would be very sensible to set up a constitutional conference to work on the relative powers, which could be introduced to your Lordships’ House as it stands today. The Government could then see the results of the decisions made by a constitutional conference on what should and should not happen in this House with the existing membership before they perhaps decide to change the membership overall. The composition of your Lordships’ House is an extremely complicated issue as well, because there are many different facets to your Lordships’ House, not least the Cross Benches, which play a very valuable role in the deliberations of your Lordships’ House in revising legislation. On the other hand, it is very difficult to see how you can combine the Cross Benches with an elected House; I do not see how you elect independent Members. The political parties would have something to say about elections. It is complicated. Perhaps you could appoint Members of the Cross Benches and have other Members elected, but this is all quite difficult. What happens to the Lords spiritual? Are we to continue to have them in this House if it becomes elected? Many different issues are raised on the whole question of the composition of your Lordships’ House, not least the issue of elections. Are you going to have elections on the same day as you have a general election for the other place, or at a different time? Do you want the composition of this House politically to be different from that of the House of Commons, or do you want it to be the same? There are many different issues that come up on this, and it needs a lot of deliberation and cross-party discussions, and we have to give serious thought to how this will all work out in the future. Unless we do think through all this, we will get ourselves into a terrible muddle. It is no good people just getting up saying, “I believe in an elected House”, as the Prime Minister did the other day. You have to think through the ramifications of having an elected House. Would an elected House challenge the House of Commons? I suspect it would. Therefore, you come back to the relative powers of each House. We are in grave danger of getting into a complete muddle over all this. If we want clear thinking into the future, we will have to work these things out with cross-party consensus, and through constitutional conferences, to arrive at some form of system for the future. This is nothing other than very complicated; we should be giving serious thought to it now.

My Lords, I will speak briefly on Amendments 95 and 96 to which I have put my name. In doing so, I have basically three concerns. First, I have a strong suspicion that the Government will bring no further proposal for the reform of the House of Lords during the lifetime of this Parliament. Secondly, related to that, a review would act as a spur, so there is just a chance that a review might encourage them to do so. Thirdly, I think the public should know that many of us in this House favour a much more radical solution to the composition and powers of this House. I am one of those: I believe in an elected Chamber. That takes me to the point made by my noble friend Lord Hamilton. I entirely agree with him that fundamental to any debate should be the powers of this House, because from a decision on the powers stems the decision as to composition. If you are content with being but a revising Chamber, then a process very similar to what we now have is perfectly appropriate. But if, as I believe, you need to have a Chamber which has powers commensurate with the House of Commons and can face the House of Commons down in appropriate cases, then it has got to be elected. I have always believed that, to stand against the elective dictatorship of which my father wrote and spoke, we need an elected House with powers similar to those in the House of Commons.

My Lords, I very largely agree with the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Hamilton of Epsom. My Amendment 101A is slightly more ambitious—perhaps too ambitious for the taste of your Lordships this evening. We have debated this Bill for four full days now. I do not wish to test the patience of noble Lords much further, but I do think we are missing an opportunity here. I rather share the view that, as far as the Government are concerned, this will be it in relation to this House. I do not see them moving to any further stage, certainly not in this Parliament. All the evidence, for instance, on an age restriction in this House suggests that it is slightly eclipsed by the average age of the most recent appointments made by the Government to this House. However, it is worth pausing to consider that, since two fundamental issues have arisen with implications for the constitution—those being devolution and Brexit—we have had no deep thought as to how we now wish this country to be governed. In fact, the last royal commission, which is what my amendment calls for, was instigated in 1969: Lord Crowther started it, and it was finished by Lord Kilbrandon in 1973. It was a contentious commission. Two people resiled from signing it, and people did not agree on it, but at least there was a debate about how we wished this country to be governed. We have seen a lot of things happen without there being any thorough or clear thought as to whether they are the sort of things that we want to happen. We have seen an expansion in the Welsh Parliament; just recently, they have extended the number of Members. We have seen debates within the Scottish Parliament as to whether you can be a Member of Parliament as well as a Member of the Scottish Parliament. We have had debates about there being no English Parliament when all the component parts of the United Kingdom now have their own Assemblies. We have heard how in Northern Ireland there has been paralysis over recent years. Do we want to look again at the d’Hondt process? Do we want to look again at how we select the First Minister in Northern Ireland? Do we want to look again at how political parties can self-designate in Northern Ireland? We have seen recently moves to reorganise local government in England without much debate—a move to unitaries, getting rid of a lot of our district authorities. I personally support that in most cases, but we have had no consideration as to what that means for the representation of the voters in being represented properly. In the House of Lords itself, in the last Parliament—my noble friend Lord Forsyth was very quick on this the whole time—we had Ministers in this Parliament who were unpaid. I would suggest that, in a democracy, when we have a bicameral system of legislation, to have unpaid Ministers performing the roles of Ministers in the other House is absolutely unacceptable. I very much hope that the Treasury Bench will confirm that there are no Ministers currently doing this unpaid. Incidentally, as we have heard, the majority of Ministers who were doing it unpaid when we on this side of the House were in Government were actually, yes, hereditary Peers. When I first came to this House, which was not very long ago, the Lord Speaker told me that he thought the difference between the other place and this place was that in the other place you get up and you tell people, and in this place you get up and you ask people. In that spirit, I would ask whether your Lordships agree that what we are doing with this Bill is just spraying a bit of body paint on to a rotting carcass. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Wallace: I think the British public are in a febrile state and do not feel that they are being properly represented. We need to do something about that as a matter of urgency, and what better way than to have a root and branch royal commission to look at how this country is governed and should be governed, how the balance of power is distributed around the country, and whether we need a bicameral system of government going forward? If we do not need that, so be it; we will have to have some other check on the Executive. If we do, and I suspect that most of your Lordships would think that we do, then we need to decide what the powers of that second body—us, your Lordships’ House, whatever we want to call it—need to be. I personally believe—I have changed my mind on this—that what we are seeing with this Bill is a move towards a completely different second Chamber. I would not be at all surprised if, in the next decade-plus, we do have an elected senate. Maybe that is a good thing; I do not know if it is a good thing or not. What I do know is that we need to have the debate, on all the issues that I have mentioned. I do not believe that this Bill should become an Act until we have thoroughly thought through the implications of what we are doing.

My Lords, I have added my name to the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Hamilton of Epsom. This short debate has ranged very widely, and I would like to bring it back to something a little narrower. Before I do so, I will say—as I said at an earlier stage in Committee—that I agree with my noble friend Lord Hailsham: we are headed in the direction of a democratically elected upper Chamber. Quite frankly, a House that is wholly appointed in the 21st century, in a democracy, is a ridiculous thing; it has no legitimacy. This is where we will have to go. I do not say that because I am avid for change but because it is an inevitable and logical consequence of the process that we are engaged in today.

19:00:00

I wish to bring things back to a narrower focus which relates to the question of a constitutional conference. My noble friend did not draw a picture of what a constitutional conference looks like. We have a picture of what a royal commission looks like, which my noble friend Lord Swire has given support to. We had constitutional conferences both before the Parliament Act 1910 and before the Parliament Act 1948. They consisted of a series of meetings between senior representatives of the parties in the Commons and in the Lords to try to find an agreed way forward on the issues, which in 1910 related to the powers of the House of Lords and in 1948 related to the Labour Party’s concern that while it was in power in the House of Commons it was deeply underrepresented in your Lordships’ House.

Neither series of meetings reached an agreement, but that was not their value. Their value was that they allowed the party leaders and senior figures in both Houses to come together on the parameters of the direction forward. Although they could not agree necessarily on the details, and the Government went ahead and legislated in the way that they did in both Parliament Acts, they determined the shape of the final outcome. The result was that there was an element—quite a strong element in 1948—of consensus about the legislation that finally passed.

What is clear in the debate on the Bill before us today is that there is a deep lack of consensus about it and a sense of mistrust, rightly or wrongly, as to whether the Government are correctly representing their position that this is simply the first of a series of measures that will follow, or whether, as my noble friend Lord Hailsham said, this is simply one measure which will not be followed by any others, at least not in this Parliament, and the rest of the Labour Party manifesto is not going to be enacted.

It is of course possible for the Government, given their majority in the House of Commons, to force this through by sheer pressure of numbers. By brute force, they can achieve their way. But this proposal for a constitutional conference from my noble friend Lord Hamilton—which would be limited to six months, so would not be a delaying tactic—would give the Government a serious and even elegant means of at least finding a route to discussion with the parties and the party leaders. Even if agreement was not reached within those six months, it would help to take some of the sting out of the sort of debate we are having at the moment and allow the House to continue in operation without excessive acrimony.

So the offer made by the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton of Epsom, is something the Government should look at very seriously, given the customs, traditions and broad amity which have tended to be the basis on which your Lordships’ House has operated in the past and which we would not wish to see lost. At the end of the six months, the Bill would come into operation, even if there was no agreement, but it would give a chance for a consensus to be found. The Front Bench is not placing as much value on the opportunity for consensus as many other noble Lords in the House believe it merits.

My Lords, I disagree with all these amendments because I believe they are based on a misconception that the change we are discussing is a fundamental change. It is not; it is a tidying-up measure. It does not affect the powers of the Lords or our relationship with the Commons, far less our relationship with the regions and nations of the United Kingdom. The amendments which say we need to institute a new process to evaluate the impact on all these broader things is totally pointless, because it will have virtually zero influence on all those things. There are two areas of further change which we have spent lots of time debating which have nothing to do directly with the Bill. One has to do with how the current House of Lords improves the way it operates, whether that is by having a retirement age, participation levels or all the other things that we have spent a lot of time discussing that the Government have in their manifesto. We can possibly discuss how to achieve it in the next group. The second question, which is certainly beyond the purview of this Bill, has to do with whether you have long-term democratic reform. Clearly, from these Benches we think we should. Clearly, the House of Commons in the coalition Government thought by a massive majority that we should. That is not a revolutionary change which has not been discussed and where MPs have not thought about the issues which concern the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, so much. They were discussed and a conclusion was reached—but whether the Bill proceeded had everything to do with politics and nothing to do with the principle behind it. So these amendments would get us nowhere. As for a constitutional conference, as the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, has said, in the past they have reached no conclusion, because you do not reach a total consensus on this. If anybody thinks that, frankly, they have not been listening at all, and anybody who hears the words “constitutional royal commission” thinks “years of delay”—and whatever we need, we do not need that.

My Lords, I must disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Newby. If there is a misconception here, it is about the continuing presence of our hereditary colleagues in your Lordships’ House. They were not kept here by some form of transition, as the Deputy Leader of the House put it in an earlier debate; they were kept here because, in the debates at the end of the last century, nobody could answer the fundamentally important question of what this House is for, how it ought to be constituted and whether there was a better route to come here than the route by which we have all come, in our different ways. We were kept here as surety to ensure that the reform process that the then Labour Government embarked on would continue. They had a further decade in power after 1999 and brought forward no further measures, which is why so many of us on this side are sceptical about the speed with which they will bring forward the further reforms that they proposed in their most recent manifesto. So this is a very important group of amendments because, as Amendment 95 puts it, it is about the impact of this Bill on the effectiveness of the House of Lords. The Government, like the noble Lord, Lord Newby, have cast this Bill very narrowly and argued that this is a tightly focused Bill. In some ways it is too narrowly cast and too tightly focused. It ducks the questions of what this House is for and the questions that flow from it about how it should best be composed. But, although narrow, the Bill will have serious and sweeping impacts on this House of Parliament. As my noble friends Lord Hamilton of Epsom and Lord Swire put it, this Bill puts the cart before the horse. It avoids those questions and seeks to enact a very important change based on a misunderstanding of the position from the late 1990s. Throughout this Committee, we have heard concerns raised from all corners of your Lordships’ House that this Bill will leave us a less effective legislative Chamber. Ministers have disagreed with the concerns that have been raised. Well, here is their chance to prove it. If those of us who have expressed our concerns are wrong, these reviews will be the opportunity to prove us wrong. I believe that the fears we have heard in this Committee are well-founded. Our hereditary colleagues attend your Lordships’ House more frequently than life Peers. They play a more active role, not just in the Division Lobbies and in the Chamber but in our committees, on the Woolsack and in convening the Cross Benches. As my noble friend Lord Shinkwin put it in our debate on the first group, armed with the data that the Library has provided him, our hereditary colleagues play a valuable and active role in the functioning of your Lordships’ House. The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, said in that debate, “Why are we thinking of removing those who work the hardest while leaving those who do not?” I am sure the Deputy Leader will say that all these questions about participation and activity can be addressed later. Again, these amendments are an opportunity for him to do that. At no point in this Committee have we had any commitment from the Government about when they plan to turn to the next parts of the reforms that they proposed in their manifesto. Ministers have not even committed to do so by the end of this Parliament. So I share the concerns that my noble friend Lord Hailsham has raised: that we will be waiting another decade or longer to see the further reforms that noble Lords have called for throughout the course of these debates. My noble friends’ amendments in these groups would give us the opportunity to review progress after 12 months, on the timetable proposed by my noble friend Lord Dundee, or two years, in the timeframe proposed by my noble friend Lord Lucas. It would also be an opportunity for us to review what we have lost. We have heard in the course of these debates how our hereditary colleagues bring valuable experience from their work in business and agriculture, two areas where on the Government’s record it is clear that they have something of a blind spot, and it is important to have those voices raised in this scrutinising House of Parliament. I am sure the Deputy Leader will seek to persuade us that, once again, our fears are misplaced and that these amendments are unnecessary, but I urge him to look seriously at these amendments, which call for modest but important reviews. The Government listened to the concerns that were raised in your Lordships’ House in our debate on the Football Governance Bill and gave us a statutory review of that new regulator after five years. I know football is something that attracts a lot more attention than reform of the House of Lords, but I think the constitution of our second legislative Chamber is about as important as the beautiful game. I hope the Deputy Leader will look at this and consider giving us a review in this Bill as well.

I do not think the Arsenal kick-off is quite yet; I have another half an hour or so. I am not going to repeat all the arguments from the first group. We had an extensive debate about that, so I am not going to go through it. But, in relation to the challenge that the noble Lord has just made, we have had a transition for over 25 years. As the noble Lord, Lord Newby, said, there were attempts to make fundamental changes, but they all hit the fundamental problem of “Don’t do anything until you do everything”. That is the problem here, and it is not going to be resolved by royal commissions and other bodies. I have seen those royal commissions, and they tend to mean long grass and do not build consensus. The amendments in this group relate to types of formal review. In some cases, they would make commencement of the substantive provisions in the Bill conditional on such a review. I note that the Committee has discussed similar amendments in previous groups. Given that, I hope noble Lords will forgive me for repeating the words of my noble friend the Attorney-General: these amendments are unnecessary and disproportionate. Amendments 95, 96, 98, 99 and 102 are concerned with the imposition of a duty to review the impact of the Bill following implementation. I stress again that the impact of the Bill is straightforward—no one can see it as complicated—and post-legislative scrutiny would likely not yield any more meaningful conclusions. Amendment 95, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, would require the Secretary of State, within two years of this Act being passed and annually thereafter, to publish “a report on the impact of this Act on the effectiveness of the House of Lords” at discharging its functions. As my noble friend the Attorney-General pointed out last week on a similar amendment to this, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, placing a duty on the Government to undertake reviews until the end of time feels disproportionate in these circumstances. There is also an implication that our hereditary colleagues are intrinsically better able than life Peers to help the House to carry out its functions. As I said on a previous Committee day, who are we judging here? Are we judging life Peers as being inferior, not able or not committed?

19:15:00

It is empirical. The data show that our hereditary colleagues currently come here more often and participate more. That is not a slight on those of us who are here as life Peers, but does the Deputy Leader not accept that the data show the valuable contribution that they make to the work of this House?

I do not think the data show what the noble Lord is suggesting. It is a marginal change—1% or 2%. The simple fact is that, when you start implying that some noble Lords are better than others, I am afraid you are implying that life Peers somehow make less of a contribution. They do not, and that does not help us in terms of what we are trying to achieve here. The idea that our hereditary colleagues are intrinsically better does not help the House to carry out its functions. It does a disservice to the contribution made by life Peers on all sides of the Chamber, particularly our Cross-Bench Peers. It is important to point out that there was no legislative scrutiny following the passage of the 1999 Act, despite that legislation removing a significantly higher number of Members from your Lordships’ House. This was because it was not necessary. The House continued—

The reason why a certain number of hereditary Peers were kept here in your Lordships’ House was to perform that post-legislative scrutiny. Again, the Deputy Leader has suggested that this is the ending of a transitional phase, removing those who were kept here to try to keep the last Labour Government on their toes about reform. If this is the end of a transition, can the Deputy Leader tell us what we are transitioning to?

As I said, the Leader of the House and others have acknowledged that what we did in 1999 was remove the hereditary principle. As my noble friend Lord Grocott has said on a number of occasions, that was not simply a mechanism to ensure transition; it was about saying to the Labour Government, “You won’t get your business through if you don’t keep these hereditaries here”. That was the reality, as my noble friend made clear in previous debates. We have had over 25 years since the removal of the hereditary principle while maintaining 92. The Opposition had the opportunity on many occasions to support my noble friend so that those hereditary Peers could have stayed, but no: we ended up electing further hereditary Peers who were much younger and had no record of experience—as the noble Lord suggested—prior to their election by a very small number of people. The reality is that we are trying to defend the indefensible. We have a clear commitment in our manifesto. By the way, there was no legislative scrutiny—I will come on to other commitments in our manifesto—but it is disingenuous of noble Lords to say that somehow they do not believe what we are saying. The proof of the pudding will be in the eating. I assure noble Lords that we will commit to that. Amendment 96 from the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, would place a duty on the Government within 12 months of the Bill coming into force to produce a report dealing with its effects, including on devolved Governments, the Commonwealth, members of the Council of Europe and the rest of the world. As I have said, the impact of the Bill is very clear and I submit that, contrary to our propensity to talk about ourselves, the implications of the Bill are unlikely to be felt substantively throughout the international community. I say to the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham—I have said this many times before—that the Government are committed to reforming the House of Lords, as set out in our manifesto. As my noble friend the Leader of the House has said in previous debates, the Government are keen to engage on how best to implement the other manifesto commitments by building consensus and understanding the needs of this House. She will come forward with proposals for doing this in a structured way. Noble Lords are also aware of our longer-term commitment to consult the public on an alternative second Chamber. In light of this comment, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.

My Lords—

Oh no!

I am not going to be shouted down. I did not hear the Minister specifically address Amendment 101 in the name of my noble friend Lord Hamilton of Epsom. It effectively offers the Front Bench a choice either to force this through simply on weight of numbers or for a limited period of six months to delay the implementation of the Bill for the purpose of a constitutional convention, with a view to achieving as much consensus as possible. Does the Minister wish to comment before he concludes his speech?

I thought I had commented on it at the beginning. The simple fact is that the idea that you do not do anything until you do everything is not acceptable. It has not worked. We have introduced a staged process of reform. This is the first part of that reform—clearly stated in our manifesto—and we will move on to other aspects of our manifesto commitment in consultation with Members of this House. I ask that the Member withdraws the amendment.

My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who have spoken on their other amendments and to the noble Lord, Lord Collins, for his response. I was here for the previous Bill, of course, and can tell the noble Lord, Lord Collins, that his Front Bench was a great deal more convincing then about the inevitability of rapid progress to further change than his Front Bench is being now. We have heard nothing of ideas or substance from the Front Bench. It feels to me, just like it has on every previous occasion, that this will not happen. Under those circumstances, something like Amendment 11 from the noble Lord, Lord Newby, is crucial. The noble Lords, Lord Cromwell and Lord Blencathra, have explored mechanisms that may be combined quite well with Amendment 11 to make it more effective. Something along those lines is what this House should send back to the other place so that the momentum for change is reinforced and, as far as possible, this House retains a degree of initiative in pushing that forward. We need change, as the speakers to this group of amendments have said. We need that progress towards change to be public and believable, and we are not getting it at the moment. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.

Amendment 95 withdrawn.

Amendments 96 and 97 not moved.

Clause 3 agreed.

Clause 4: Extent and commencement

Amendments 98 and 99 not moved.

Amendment 100 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.

Amendments 101 to 101H not moved.

Amendment 101I had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.

Amendment 102 not moved.

House resumed. Committee to begin again not before 8.25 pm.