House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Committee (5th Day) (Continued)

20:25:00

Amendment 103

Moved by

103: Clause 4, page 2, line 16, leave out from “force” to “which” and insert “on the day on”

My Lords, Amendment 103 has generated quite a lot of interest across the House. It is a very simple and easy to understand amendment. It effectively activates what would then be an Act of Parliament on Royal Assent. Colleagues may not be surprised that I tabled it after the Opposition, most unusually, moved the adjournment of the House, all as part of their attempt to frustrate the legitimate work of a newly elected Government. They won that vote by a majority smaller than the number of hereditary Peers who voted with them. We saw men who sit in the House by virtue of appointment by an earlier Prime Minister—something which they now seem to decry about today’s Prime Minister—stop a newly elected Government continuing with its business that day. That adjournment may not have been on this Bill, but it was behaviour which is not normally witnessed in your Lordships’ House and which we had hoped would not be seen again. However, I see from the Guardian that something similar has been suggested for trying to stop the Renters’ Rights Bill. I hope that the Guardian is wrong. With regard to this Bill, we have had to sit through a tsunami of amendments that have no relevance to the purpose of the content of the Bill and which everyone knows will never be part of the Act. It may well be that the clerks said that such amendments were acceptable, but that does not mean that they had to be tabled. Just because you can do something, it does not mean that you should do something. I was particularly surprised to find that His Majesty’s Opposition had tabled amendments on future appointments to this House, which they know have got nothing to do with the Bill and will not find their way into the Act. The mover of that amendment is shaking his head. I think he knows jolly well that they are not to do with the hereditaries and that they will not find their way into this Act. That is not the action of a responsible Opposition. There are also amendments, some perfectly within scope, tabled by hereditary Peers without the customary signal of a declaration of interest. The Code of Conduct says that we should all act solely in terms of the public interest and act and take decisions impartially. Peers “should not act or take decisions in order to gain financial or other material benefits for themselves”, and should “conduct themselves in a manner which will tend to maintain and strengthen the public’s trust and confidence in the integrity of the House of Lords”. Importantly, the Code of Conduct says that, when speaking, any financial interest must be declared where relevant to the matter under discussion. Given that the privilege of membership of this House affects every hereditary Peer and that they have an interest in whether they are to lose their ability to be here, I would have thought that, even if it was only a perceived interest, they would have declared it when speaking or tabling any amendments. In relation to our excellent hereditary colleagues in this House, I remind them that, contrary to what has been said, this has not been rushed and they have had enough notice about their future. When I was on the Opposition Benches, I spoke to many Bills from my noble friend Lord Grocott, and he and I warned your Lordships’ House, particularly the then Government, that failure to accept his Bill, which would simply have stopped new entrants, would mean that more drastic action was likely to follow in due course. That would have been heard by all the hereditaries at that time and would have been known by any who joined since. Indeed, had we stopped the by-elections a decade ago, I am confident that this Bill would not be before us today, and those of our colleagues present at that time would have been able to see out their lives as full Members of this House, as the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, said in an earlier amendment today. So those who will be leaving as a result of this Bill, and who were here a decade ago, really have only the Conservatives to blame for what is happening now.

20:30:00

Our colleagues in this House cannot say that Labour kept its intentions secret. Nearly a year ago, our manifesto said:

“The next Labour government will therefore bring about an immediate modernisation, by introducing legislation to remove the right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords”.

That was a clear manifesto commitment, which included the word “immediate”. Despite that, we have witnessed repeated arguments and unnecessary degrouping, not for the convenience of the Committee but seemingly to spin things out. In fact, I was tempted to degroup my two amendments in this group just to get even—but I resisted that temptation.

It is always good to look at history when discussing legislation. I am, as ever, guided by the noble Lord, Lord Lexden—I think not in his place at the moment—who, in the House magazine, reminded us that in 1910-11:

“The Tories’ fury knew no bounds”.

They “foolishly”—his word, not mine—used their

“position in the upper House to wreck much of the legislation of the great reforming Liberal government, which won a massive majority in 1906”.

We know where that led, but it seems the Tories never learn. By using the numbers they have here, so recently augmented by Boris Johnson, to frustrate a newly elected Government’s programme, they are damaging, in my view, not just themselves but the reputation of this House.

We have witnessed five days of debates on a four-clause Bill, covering two pages, with one simple proposition: that hereditary Peers would no longer be legislators in this House—although, of course, they could always stand for election to the House of Commons. We have had long debates, with some speaking on many occasions. I am sorry not to see the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, here—he and I did battle on the radio earlier today. He obviously has a clear interest and I think has already spoken about a dozen times, not today but during the debate. Many of these speeches, in fact most of them, have repeated the same mantra: that they do not like the Bill or they are demanding some guarantee of a life peerage, possibly in exchange for better progress on the Bill.

For myself, and possibly for the noble Lord, Lord Norton, with whom I jointly chair the Campaign for an Effective Second Chamber, the real loss is that this time-wasting and irrelevant content has taken both the good will and, possibly, time from other changes which so many of us want to see, whether that is action on the size of the House, on the role of HOLAC, on participation activity rates, on term limits or age limits, or indeed anything else. Had we been able to deal swiftly with this Bill and got on with debating these far more substantial and far-reaching changes, that would have been to the benefit of the whole House, even had we not gone as far as an elected House, as some Members want.

I guess my warning today is that, if the antics that we have witnessed continue on Report, even with the threat of more ping-pong, the amendment which I am moving now might not be necessary, as Royal Assent and the end of the Session may happen at the same time because of the delay in getting the Bill through.

We should be moving rapidly to get the Bill through, to give our highly respected hereditary friends and colleagues time to know when they are leaving, so that they can realise and fulfil their contribution until then. It would give certainty to the whole House about when that will happen and give us time to plan. Many are Deputy Speakers, chairs of committees or leading Members in other roles; we will need time to do some back-filling and to get on and develop that, so we really should finish the Bill as soon as possible.

My amendment is simply asking that we please get on with this—that we stop having these unnecessary amendments and speeches. Let us deal with the single issue: namely, that the hereditaries, as in our manifesto, will cease to be legislators in this House—although they could always stand in the other one—and then we can get on with other business. I beg to move.

My Lords, first, as the strictures tell us and for anyone who does not know, I declare that I am a hereditary Peer. I support this pair of amendments—Amendments 103 and 112—which may come as a surprise to some noble Lords. I do so for two reasons. The first is that, although I would like to stay on, as some amendments have kindly hinted, the Bill is going through. The hereditaries have now been waiting on the parliamentary equivalent of death row for months, so perhaps it is time just to get on with it. Secondly, I have been thinking about how we hereditaries can render one last service to this House on our way out and, perhaps, give our ejection some greater meaning, or even honour. Then it hit me: the noble Baroness’s amendment might be improved by adding, perhaps on Report, a consequential amendment that states that each so-called hereditary being ejected takes with them one Peer who does not attend, or who does attend but does not participate. Some noble Lords, on this April Fools’ Day, might think that this is merely a light-hearted suggestion to lighten the mood after some rather sharp words earlier, but I invite the Committee to consider the benefits of such an amendment. Not only would it accelerate the end of the hereditary element—something which, with apologies to Hamlet, some Peers feel is “a consummation Devoutly to be wished”— but it would, and not before time, cull the free-riders, improve the external perception of the House and even reduce costs. There are plenty of such non-participating Peers from which to choose. Indeed, it has been suggested to me that every hereditary should take two such companions with them to the scaffold. More gallows humour perhaps, but I cannot help noticing that, if adopted, this would go a long way to reducing the size of the House closer to that of the Commons, which many in this House support. It would also enhance the reputation for Member participation and significantly increase productivity per capita—an issue which I know the Government are very committed to those outside Parliament achieving. Although I have no realistic expectation that this suggestion will be accepted today, I have spoken previously on the need to address participation. My Amendment 63 —which proposed that, after this Bill becomes an Act, an effective group be convened, with a short timescale, to receive evidence, define a benchmark and get it implemented—received fulsome cross-party support. Perhaps the findings of this group should be called “second-degree burns”, in honour of the previous Burns report—I’m here all week; settle down, please—which the House warmly supported but then signally failed to act on. Where I am very serious is that, if my suggested consequential amendment to the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, is not supported, after the Bill is passed and the hereditaries are sent into oblivion, I hope that the House itself will at last insist on achieving such reform. We shall see. That would, at least in part, give some validity to the much-quoted promise that the end of the so-called hereditaries would coincide with a fuller reform of this House.

My Lords, I think I have a sense of humour, but I did not find the noble Lord’s speech at all amusing. What is being proposed here is a nasty proposition. It is being proposed in the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, but she did not actually speak to it but rather complained about the process by which this Bill has been scrutinised by the House. Let us spell it out here: this is a very nasty proposition that every single hereditary should be forced out of this House the moment the Bill receives Royal Assent. The mask has slipped, because it is all about numbers. It is about reducing the number of Conservatives in this House; Conservatives who have a duty to provide opposition to the Government and to seek to warn them where we believe they are making errors or mistakes —and, my goodness me, that becomes an increasingly onerous task. The noble Baroness talked about degrouping. I am very sad that the amendment has not been grouped with that of my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham, who has a rather more satisfactory and sensitive approach. The noble Baroness mentioned in her speech that she convened the group that has done so much to bring forward iterative improvements to this House, led by the late Lord Cormack and my noble friend Lord Norton. The whole point of that group and its success is based on the fact that it achieves consensus, works in harmony and works across the House. To have an amendment that suggests that the hereditary Peers, who have given years of public service to this House, should be trashed the moment the Bill gets Royal Assent is an outrageous proposition. It shows scant regard to how this House operates. There are no fewer than five Deputy Speakers who are hereditary Peers. When the Bill is passed, what is going to happen? Where are these Deputy Speakers going to be found from, just like that, on a timescale that remains unknown? It means that the Convenor of the Cross Benches would disappear just like that, and the Cross Benches obviously have a great job to do in this House. Then there are the committees. I said I would speak only once on this Bill, to the first amendment, but this amendment is so nasty and unpleasant that I feel I should point out some of the practical consequences. I mentioned in my speech at the beginning of this process the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, who serves on my committee and is a really able Member. Are committees to be denuded of their participation just like that? Think of the practical considerations. All that may not exude much sympathy, but I think all of us in this House are pretty fed up with reading in the newspapers how we get £371 a day just for turning up. The fact is that Members on the Front Bench are unpaid, and people are meant to meet their other costs out of this, which include research facilities and perhaps overnight accommodation for people coming from elsewhere. What of those hereditary Peers who have staffing or other obligations? Are they suddenly to be cut off, without any concern? I find it astonishing that the noble Baroness, chairing this group as she does, should come forward with such a divisive amendment. When I spoke at the beginning, I suggested that there was a way forward—to reach a consensus in the House that looked at the requirements of the House, the role played by the hereditaries and their necessity in enabling the Opposition, Cross-Benchers and others to hold the Government to account. Wise Governments like to be held to account because that is what prevents them making serious mistakes. As the House of Commons fails to do its job, this House becomes ever more important. We need an arrangement here. I understand that the Government have a clear mandate. The hereditary principle is over and a number of the hereditaries will leave the House, but let us do this in a way that does not poison the atmosphere in this House and does not prevent us carrying out our proper duties. We can do without amendments like this. My noble friend Lord Young’s amendment, when we get to it, is the sort of approach I would much prefer to see coming from the noble Baroness than the amendment she has just moved.

20:45:00

My Lords, I feel almost ashamed to speak to this amendment, as doing so gives it credibility. I speak in sadness, as I cannot believe that any Member of this House would wish ill on our hereditary colleagues, as is suggested by the wording of this amendment. Its timing certainly favours booting out our colleagues and friends as soon as possible—it is nasty and brutal. Our colleagues and their forebears have served this House for generations. I shall never forget the former Lord Montagu of Beaulieu telling me on his last day here that it was his duty. He could hardly speak but he thought it was his duty to attend whenever he was able. Duty was his motivation and it remains the motivation of our hereditary friends. Yet the noble Baroness wants to drive them out in this manner. I hope that all noble Lords will take this amendment and the ill intent behind it very seriously and, if there is a Division at another stage, vote against it to show respect and gratitude for what our colleagues and their ancestors have given to this House, and indeed our country, over centuries.

My Lords, it has been an effort not to speak for the previous several hours, but flesh and blood can take only so much. I have listened to virtually all the debates that have taken place, including numerous Second Reading debates that took place on the first group of amendments today, with Members, kindly enough, pointing out to us that they had not had the opportunity to speak so far. We are on the fifth day in Committee and they did not speak on Second Reading, but they thought it was their duty to, in effect, give us a Second Reading speech today. They have since departed. I am sorry that they seem to have all gone somewhere else now and their interest in the Bill seems to have finished. On my noble friend’s amendment, it is difficult for me not to repeat things. We are talking about 88 people who have known for a quarter of a century—if they know anything about these things or follow them—that this House has decided that the hereditary principle should not apply to legislators. Now, they are apparently faced with some gross injustice that will cause them great pain. As I have pointed out before, I have been summarily thrown out of Parliament, as has the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth. I got over it pretty quickly, to be honest.

Yes, we were both thrown out by the electorate, but we were given some resource to enable us to deal with staffing and other issues. We were supported in that process.

The decision to remove the hereditaries means they are being removed by the electorate —the electorate that elected a Labour Government with this manifesto commitment. The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, will not know, because I departed rather before he did, that there was none of the kind of soft landings in quite that degree when I lost, but I do not complain about that. Man up. Man up is about the right phrase for a men-only section of the House of Lords. Plenty of notice is being given. My noble friend says it should be on Royal Assent. I think someone suggested it should be at the end of the Parliament in four and a half or five years, or at the end of this Session. When is the end of this Session? We do not know. It could be in a few weeks. The fact is that there will be a date, there will be plenty of time to address it, and no great injustice is being done by following the result of a general election. Great kindness and support are being shown. We have all said, or many of us have said, that there are some very able hereditaries, but the most amusing of the comments I have heard is, “How will we cope with all this talent being lost to the House? Maybe we should set up a review after a year to see what damage has been done to our democracy by these people departing”. I simply say to that, “Don’t bother”. We have done it; we had a review. Twenty-five years ago, 668—I think that was the figure—hereditary Peers were removed. We are talking about 87 now. We have had a template to see the damage that results from the departure of hereditary Peers. As far as I can make out, in the period since the 668 departed, the earth has still revolved around the sun in much the same way as it did before. The British people have taken it all very calmly and in their stride. I do not recall any demonstrations against it. I have not heard a tangible argument from anyone specifically spelling out what damage was done to the work of this House by the departure of that group of people. I have nothing against them. There may have been an Einstein among them as far as I am concerned, but this House is bigger than it will be when a certain number of people depart for whatever reason. It is suggested that if you throw a group of people out like this, all sorts of other groups will feel threatened. Well, if they do feel threatened, they will get around 25 years’ notice if precedent is anything to go by. I want to put one final test—I slightly realise the risks I am taking by speaking at all—to people, mainly those on the other Benches. I have to take it at face value, although I have my doubts, that they are desperate for further reform of this House. They are urging the Government at the earliest possible opportunity to bring forward a series of reforms. I have never noticed them arguing for that other than in the present circumstances, but that is their argument, to which I say that if I were advising the Government now, in the light of this debate—where a very narrow, well-publicised, well-rehearsed, well-anticipated reform is taking place and has allowed this Committee over five long days and bits of nights to discuss everything from attendance to statutory commissions, the role of the Bishops and everything under the sun—my advice to them would be to think twice before they bring in any piece of reform legislation whatever because all this stuff was able to be debated this time, apparently legitimately, so they would be running a grave risk to their legislative programme if the same amount of time was given to any further reforms. The real test will be this. Let us get on with the rest of this Committee. Let us get on with Report. I think three days should be the absolute maximum after five days in Committee.

It is two and a half days.

My Leader says two and a half days, and I always bow to her suggestions. And let us put some perspective into this. The image we present through the discussions that we have been, and are still, having—that this is the single most important issue facing this House this Session, and that we need to debate it at huge length, which we do not give to every other subject that comes along—is not the best of public relations as far as this House is concerned. I shall not be tempted to get up again, but I did want to inject a bit of realism into our debate.

My Lords, the nature of this amendment has been clearly set out by my noble friends Lord Forsyth and Lady Seccombe. My noble friend Lord Forsyth explained what the amendment actually does, and he made us confront the reality of what the amendment purports to do. I heard my noble friend Lady Seccombe say that she was ashamed to have to speak to the amendment, because it is so brutal—and brutal it is. Therefore, one wonders why this amendment has been brought forward by the noble Baroness. The reason she gave was an odd one. The reason she gave was that, when the House adjourned at 10 pm, as it customarily does, light descended on her and she just had to put down this amendment. I have not been here as long as the noble Baroness, but my understanding is that the House generally adjourns at 10 pm unless there is an arrangement between the usual channels for a later sitting. I understand that there was no such arrangement and that was why the House came to an end and adjourned at 10 pm. In any event, the idea that that is a reason to go further than the Government’s own Bill in respect of the date by which the hereditaries leave this place is, as a reason, not a reason at all. It is a fig leaf. There must be else something behind it. One wonders, what is that something else? I look forward, as I always do, to the words of the Leader, but especially on this, because this amendment contravenes, in terms, the Bill. It goes well beyond the Bill. We have been hearing this evening that, when the Front Bench responds to amendments, the Minister should respond to the amendment and not to the debate. Therefore, I look forward to the Leader saying in unequivocal terms that she is opposed to this amendment. Otherwise, there will be a concern that—in a series of groups where very few people have spoken, and very few amendments have been put forward, from the government Benches—this amendment and this speech have been singled out above all else to be made and to be said. We of course oppose this amendment, for the reasons already set out. However, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, who spoke in this House on one of the various Private Members’ Bills put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Grocott. I see that he got in early with the Government’s excuse as to why they cannot do second-stage reform: because it will be so amended and will take up so much time. That was very useful. I do that when I am in court. If I think that point is going to come up in six months’ time, I just put down a “sleeper”, as I call it. That was a good, old-fashioned sleeper as an excuse for no second-stage reform. But I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, who said in your Lordships’ House on 3 December 2021: “We are not seeking to say farewell to any hereditary already here; indeed, we look forward to their contributions for many more years”.—[Official Report, 3/12/21; col. 1569.] What has changed to make the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, not content with her own Government’s Bill but seek to accelerate the expulsion of the hereditaries? There seems to be no reason for it at all. I do hope that the Leader of the House will join me in our forthright opposition to this amendment.

21:00:00

My Lords, it has been an interesting debate. This is the first of three groups of amendments on the commencement. I take the point that it may have been more helpful to debate them together, but we have three different groups, so we will debate them in that way. I will speak to both the amendment and the debate, which may be helpful. My noble friend spoke to her amendment but also about some of the motivation behind it. It seems to me that she felt a little goaded, if I am correct in my interpretation, by how the Bill has been handled across the House, and perhaps some of the talk about delaying its implementation meant that she felt obliged to put the other side of the coin. I know how noble Lords feel about leaving. The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, drew a distinction between leaving here and leaving the other place rather unceremoniously when we were voted out by friends and neighbours and colleagues. He shares that distinction with my noble friend here and the noble Lord, Lord Hanson. It is not a pleasant feeling; it is emotionally difficult. One day you have a role and the next day you do not, and you do not know when it is coming. The thing about this Bill and the way it is proposed by the Government is that we do know when it is coming. As many of us have been saying for several years now, the failure of the last Government to accept the Grocott Bill has brought us to where we are today, despite the efforts I made to ensure that my party helped that Bill’s passage through both Houses to get it on the statute books. So, I understand the point, and we tried to avoid it, but we are where we are now. I wrote in the House magazine four or five years ago that, if we failed to accept the Grocott Bill, this would be a consequence. It is not one we took with relish, but it is where we are because of what has happened previously. I reject that it is nasty and brutal. It is not intended in that way. In fact, one of the things my noble friend said, although she spoke to the amendment, was that she did not want Royal Assent to coincide with the end of the Session. She would rather have Royal Assent and then get to the end of the Session, but, if the Bill took too long, they would coincide. I think the balance we have in the legislation is the right way forward. I remind the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, that the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, as wonderful, smart and experienced as he may be, does not speak for the Government. He will be aware of that. I am encouraged, because I have heard so much agreement over the five days. My noble friend Lady Anderson has counted 39 hours of debate in Committee and at Second Reading and we have been greatly encouraged by the support there has been for proposals on participation, particularly, and on retirement. That was not there before we had those discussions. That is of enormous assistance in taking these issues forward and, although it may not have felt like it at times during long debates, I am grateful to those who have brought through those issues. The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, is worried that, with the departure of hereditary Peers, this House will no longer effectively scrutinise the Government. I have absolute confidence that this House will not shirk its duty and will maintain the ability to hold Governments to account. He will know from his time in government that it is not just the opposition parties who hold the Government to account. It is a matter for the whole House, including, as he will have found sometimes, Members from the Government’s own party. So this Government are confident that it will not affect the ability of the House to scrutinise legislation or hold the Government to account. Having said all that, the effect of my noble friend’s amendment would be that the remaining hereditary Peers would leave your Lordships’ House on Royal Assent. That is beyond what is currently proposed in the Bill. She made the point about ensuring that there is time for the House to make arrangements for those who serve on committees, on the Woolsack and in other roles in your Lordships’ House, and we think that the sudden departure on Royal Assent would be a step too far. The approach we have taken in this legislation is consistent with the approach that was taken in 1999. That is fair and reasonable. I am grateful to my noble friend, because she has allowed me the opportunity to make some points. She made the point that, if the House wants to move on to the other issues, we need to get on with this Bill and see it through—but I can confirm that it is not the Government’s intention to bring forward anything similar to that, but rather to leave the effective date of the legislation as it is now, so I respectfully request that my noble friend withdraws her amendment.

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for addressing the debate as well as just the amendment. Will she assure us that that is the general policy of the Government? Otherwise, I am going to have to draft three times as many amendments for the schools Bill to make sure that all the points I want to raise are covered on paper.

I am sorry: I am not really sure I understand the point that the noble Lord is making at all. I am not sure it is relevant at this point anyway.

We were taken to task in an earlier group, and answers were given just to the amendment rather than to the width of the discussion.

I was trying to aid the Committee, but I think the noble Lord would agree that in previous debates the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, was congratulated on her ingenuity but that had very little to do with the Bill. It is entirely appropriate for Ministers to respond in the way that they wish, and to speak to the amendment is the usual way forward. I have broadened my comments out to be helpful to the Committee, but we would normally expect the Committee to speak to the amendment and the Minister to do the same.

My Lords, I thank all those who have spoken in the debate. I particularly welcome not just the support but the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, which was even more ingenious than some of the others that we have heard. Maybe we can make a little list of which two of us should go out with the hereditaries. My noble friend the Leader of the House clearly understood exactly what I was saying, which is: if we are not careful then this will be on Royal Assent, because if we go much further then it will be at the end of the Session. That was the point of this debate. I think colleagues know I am not ill-minded or—what were the other words used about me?

Nasty and brutal.

I am slightly surprised to be called that, I have to say.

I did not say that the noble Baroness was nasty and brutal. I said her amendment was nasty and brutal.

“Hairs”, “fine” and “splitting” come to mind. There are two major issues: we have been warned about having these long debates and about amendments that, frankly, are never going to be accepted, because even if they go through here on opposition votes then they will be overturned down there. So what are we doing debating Motions that are never going to be in the Bill and probably should never have been tabled?

My Lords, this goes wider than the Bill. That is the second or third time that we have heard the doctrine that this House must never propose or suggest anything that the other House might disagree with. This is the revising Chamber and, even if we fear that the House of Commons might disagree with what we propose, in our wisdom we have every right, on every Bill, to ask the House of Commons to think again.

I do not disagree with the noble Lord, but I remember him saying the opposite from this Dispatch Box.

Surely the issue is good advice. If I am trying to say anything, it is: can we get on with it? That is really what the amendment is about. We should not be tabling amendments that are out of scope. I am sorry to do this in front of the clerks but, honestly, some of them are not pertinent to the issue. The advice is: can we please get on with this? I think my noble friend will want to take forward the wider suggestion, but she is clearly not going to do that until we have moved on this issue. So to all those who want more done, my advice—and this was the purpose of the amendment—is not to leave it too long, or it will be the end of the Session by the time this comes in. I would have loved to have had this amendment debated with the rest. I kept getting draft lists that said “degroup”, and people have clearly been asked to degroup their amendments. I do not know why mine fell out, but I would have much preferred the whole of the idea of commencement to be in one group. Still, frankly, if we are going to have amendments tabled saying that it should go to the end of the Parliament five years on, then of course it must be possible to say, “Are there other dates as well?” So the purpose of the amendment was to say two things. First, please can we not go on until basically the end of the Session before this comes in? Otherwise, the hereditaries will have no notice of it and the House will have no time to make adjustments. Secondly, can we get it done for the sake of this House moving on? We heard earlier about constitutional amendments. That was in the Conservative manifesto for the election before last, but it never happened. The noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, quite often used to ask about it at Question Time: “Where is this promised thing?” It did not happen. I have an answer for the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson of Tredegar. What has changed since 2021 is that at that point it had not been accepted. In 2021, we said, “Can we please just stop the by-elections and keep the people in?” That was rejected by the noble Lord’s Government. That is what changed. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 103 withdrawn.

Amendment 104

Moved by

104: Clause 4, page 2, line 16, leave out from “force” to end of line 19 and insert “on the day after the Secretary of State has— (a) issued a document for public consultation containing proposals for ensuring the membership of the House of Lords is more representative of the regions and nations, and(b) published a draft Bill giving effect to those changes.”Member's explanatory statement This amendment makes the commencement of the Bill subject to the prior issuance of a consultation document and draft legislation on the representation of the regions and nations in the House of Lords. It makes subsection (4) otiose.

My Lords, we come now to a group of amendments which deal with second-stage reform. I feel it incumbent on me, therefore, to start by tackling directly the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, in the last group where he suggested— I hope I am not misrepresenting him—that noble Lords on this side of the House who advocated for further reform beyond this Bill were either acting in bad faith or at least inconsistently in that they had not been calling for that reform before today. I think that charge is easily understood. I can entirely understand why the noble Lord might reach that view, and it needs to be answered before we go ahead. The only answer I can offer is to some extent a repeat of remarks I made on an earlier day in Committee that, when you change one part of a complicated machine, other parts of it also change and need to be re-evaluated. As I have said perhaps twice, to turn this House into an entirely appointed House makes it ridiculous in the 21st century in a democracy. Therefore, one is forced to think by this measure—there is nothing wrong with it—about what the future might be, and we may reach different views. However, it does not mean to say that because we have not articulated them before we are behaving inconsistently or in bad faith. I hope that gives some reassurance to the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, that we are taking these issues very seriously. I shall speak only briefly to my own amendment and allow other noble Lords to speak to their amendments in this group. My own is in some ways the simplest. It looks forward to what we refer to as second-stage reform but really there are three stages of reform in the programme indicated by the Lord Privy Seal: this Bill; the other measures in the Labour Party manifesto which I regard as being under the heading “immediate” but she believes should follow, presumably, reasonably soon; and then the further commitment, which is clearly separate in time in the manifesto, to consult on altering the House of Lords so as to give more representation to the regions and nations. My amendment simply says that the Bill should proceed only when the Government have issued that consultation document. They are committed to consultation and, presumably, the consultation begins formally with a consultation document that would contain options and questions and so forth—it is not necessarily a firm commitment—together with a draft Bill, which might have alternative sections in it reflecting that consultation document. It would show earnest on the part of the Front Bench that there really is going to be change, that the rest of their manifesto is not a hollow shell and that we are not simply going to be left, as so many of us suspect and fear, with the reform in this Bill and then nothing else to follow. This is opening a door for the Front Bench to say, “Yes, we are serious about our manifesto, and we believe that these documents should be issued and be there for public scrutiny. The process will start—not conclude—before the Bill commences”. This is a very modest ask of the Government and I hope that the Lord Privy Seal would find herself able to show her earnest by agreeing to it. I beg to move.

My Lords, I must inform the Committee that if Amendment 104 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments 105 to 110 by reason of pre-emption.

21:15:00

My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 109 in this group, which follows on rather nicely from my noble friend Lord Moylan’s amendment but takes it a stage further. The Labour manifesto of 2024 stated: “Labour is committed to replacing the House of Lords with an alternative second chamber that is more representative of the regions and nations”. Hence I am, in this probing amendment, reminding the House of the proposals of the royal commission of 2000, chaired by my noble friend Lord Wakeham, in its paragraphs 33 to 38, to receive the opinions of the Government and other noble Lords on them. The commission recommended that “a new second chamber of around 550 members should be made up as follows: A significant minority of the members of the new second chamber should be ‘regional members’ chosen on a basis which reflects the balance of political opinion within each of the nations and regions of the United Kingdom. The regional electorates should have a voice in the selection of members of the new second chamber. Those members in turn will provide a voice for the nations and regions. Other members should be appointed on the nomination of a genuinely independent Appointments Commission with a remit to create a second chamber which was broadly representative of British society and possessed all the other characteristics mentioned above. The Appointments Commission should be responsible for maintaining the proportion of … ‘Cross Benchers’ … in the new second chamber at around 20 per cent … Among the politically-affiliated members, the Appointments Commission would be required to secure an overall political balance matching the political opinion of the country as a whole, as expressed in votes cast at the most recent general election. To facilitate a smooth transition to the new arrangements, the existing life peers should become members of the new second chamber”. The commission then stated that “party patronage and Prime Ministerial control of the size and balance of the second chamber should cease. The Appointments Commission should ensure that the new second chamber is broadly representative of British society. It should make early progress towards achieving gender balance and proportionate representation … of minority ethnic groups. In order to identify appropriate candidates for the second chamber it should maintain contacts with vocational, professional, cultural, sporting and other bodies. It should publish criteria for appointment to the chamber and invite nominations from the widest possible range of sources”. The royal commission then presented “three possible models for the selection of the regional members”. Each model had the support of different members of the commission. Model A proposed “a total of 65 regional members, chosen at the time of each general election by a system of ‘complementary’ election. Votes cast for party candidates in each constituency … would be accumulated at regional level. The parties would secure the number of regional members for each region proportional to their shares of the vote in that region, drawing the names from a previously published party list. Regional members would be selected for one-third of the regions at each general election”. Model B proposed “a total of 87 regional members, elected at the time of each European Parliament election”. Clearly, the timing of this would have to be refined, now that we have left the EU. It said: “One-third of the regions would choose their regional members at each election. The system of election used for electing members” suggested was the same as was previously “used for electing the United Kingdom’s members of the European Parliament, although a majority of those supporting this model would prefer a ‘partially open’ list system of proportional representation (PR)” where electors have the option to vote for the candidate or the party. Model C proposed a much larger “total of 195 regional members elected by thirds, using a ‘partially open’ list system of PR, at the time of each European Parliament election”. Again, this timing would have to be refined. Model B had the support of a substantial majority of the commission, which proposed that to “promote continuity and a longer-term perspective, all members (under all three models) should serve for three electoral cycles or 15-year terms, with the possibility of being reappointed for a further period of up to 15 years at the discretion of the Appointments Commission”. With regard to religious faith, a substantial majority of the commission recommended a “broadening and deepening of religious representation in the second chamber. Representation should be extended beyond the Church of England to embrace other Christian denominations … and representatives of other faiths”. In conclusion, the report states that its proposals “represent a significant change from what has gone before. No new member of the second chamber will arrive there on the same basis as any existing member of the House of Lords. No new member of the second chamber will get there via an Honours List. The new second chamber will be more democratic and representative than the present House of Lords”. The Chamber would be more democratic because it “as a whole will reflect the overall balance of political opinion within the country. Regional members will directly reflect the balance of political opinion within the regions”. The House would be more representative because it would “contain members from all parts of the country and from all walks of life, broadly equal numbers of men and women and representatives of all the country’s main ethnic and religious communities”. In conclusion, I believe that the Wakeham commission proposals would make the House of Lords more representative of the regions and nations, as per the Government’s election manifesto.

My Lords, I have Amendment 111 in this group. Over the last four days of debate, I think I have been convinced that there are better ways of achieving this.

My Lords, this group and the next group of amendments all seek to either defer the implementation of the Bill or to set conditions on its implementation. The reason for that second point has to do with various other changes that noble Lords wish to make in how the House is constituted and behaves, which it believes that it is most likely to achieve by setting those conditions. I disagree with that; I think that the simplest and most sensible thing is to pass this Bill as it is and proceed to look at the other things, as I will now suggest. Early in these debates, lost in the mists of history, the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, said that he thought that it was unfortunate that the powers that be had allowed amendments on such a wide range of things, and I said that I agreed with him. To a limited extent at least, I have changed my mind, because the earlier debates around retirement, participation and attendance demonstrated that there was a very considerable degree of agreement in your Lordships’ House. Hopefully, that gives us a basis for going forward that did not exist before—and that was a good thing. The question is how we go forward. An assumption has been that the only way to make those significant further changes is by further legislation. As I said earlier in these debates, I am very wary of that, because the House would cease to be a self-regulating House and would become a Commons-regulated House. The House of Commons would determine what it said about when we should retire, how often we should come and how we should behave when we are here. Knowing some of my new colleagues, I can quite well imagine that a lot of them think that 80 is far too old for anybody to be in your Lordships’ House. They will think, “Well, I’ll make a bit of a name for myself by putting down 65”. I can see a lot of people thinking, “That’s a jolly good idea—we’ll show ’em”. The arguments that we have heard ad infinitum here about how wonderful we are cut zero ice at the other end of this Palace. I can well imagine that we would find ourselves with a different retirement age to the one that is currently likely to form the nearest thing to consensus in your Lordships’ House. I equally think that colleagues at the other end, who know very little or nothing about the way we work, would be appalled that we think the kind of attendance level we have been discussing—10%, 15% or 20%—is even vaguely reasonable. They think that we are here to do a job and you cannot do a job on one day a fortnight. I am therefore strongly of the view—and I hope the Leader will take a lead on this—that we should look at ways, which I believe exist, under which we can introduce retirement, participation and attendance norms that would satisfy your Lordships’ House and continue the principle that we are a self-regulating House. I hope she might take a lead by convening a group herself or establishing another group to do the task, within a set timescale, of reaching consensus—or rather, something that nearly everybody can live with—on those areas, so that we can deal with them ourselves. Apart from anything else, beyond thinking that no further legislation is possible in this Parliament, anybody who has been in government will find it difficult to believe that any Government would introduce a House of Lords reform Bill in two successive Sessions. That is very unlikely for any Government. When I was the Government Deputy Chief Whip, I was on the future legislation committee with Members of the Commons—I think the noble Lord, Lord Young, chaired it at one point. I pity the poor Minister who came to argue before that committee that they wanted a second House of Lords reform Bill within 18 months. I just do not think it is doable. There is a way forward for all those second-stage reforms. Then there is the third stage: the possibility of the House of Lords being elected. There is a very easy way of dealing with that within the context of this Bill. It is simply for everybody to vote for a resubmitted Amendment 11, in my name, which I shall put down before Report, calling on the Government to start drafting a Bill which looks at electing your Lordships’ House.

Does the noble Lord accept that, if you are going to elect your Lordships’ House, you have to decide what it will do beforehand?

No.

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 109, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Northbrook. Those of us on these Benches are clear that we support the inclusion of wider faith representatives in your Lordships’ House. Since before the Wakeham commission, we have favoured wider representation. Many of us work alongside different faith leaders and we know well the expertise that they can bring. In past submissions to this House, the Church of England has offered to work with the appointments commission on how representatives from other denominations and faiths might be identified to serve here. However, this is not straightforward. For example, Roman Catholic clergy are prohibited by the Vatican from serving on legislatures, and it is not easy to find representative leaders among diverse bodies such as Churches or other faith groups. This would require serious discernment, more than is offered by Amendment 109.

My Lords, I think that I am the only Member of the House, except for the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, who was here in 1999 for the first expulsion—

I was.

I was.

We voted for it.

Oh, there were others. I remind the Committee that we were brutally removed when the Act was passed. It was late December that the Bill was taken through its final stages, and we were out of the House by the end of December. The great difference—as I hope other noble Lords who were there in 1999 will remember—is that we did not have any long debates. We had no debates about the future constitution of the House of Lords, except whether it would be elected or appointed. That is where our discussions ended. I am getting a nod from the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, so I am getting support on that point.

21:30:00

I participated only at Second Reading of this Bill. I jumped up once to remember a noble Lord on the Cross Benches who had had prison service and became the penal expert in the House, but other than that, I have not intervened. I have not listened to all the debates, but this has been an interesting five days, with a lot of points made. The firm congratulations should go to my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal, who patiently dealt with one amendment after another. She did not make the point—which I think she could have—that most of the amendments fell well outside the Long Title of the Bill.

When we get to Report—I am particularly addressing noble Lords on the other side of the Committee—we will have had all the discussions about the future constitution and role of the House of Lords. So could we on Report, partly out of kindness—there is kindness from all sides of the House toward my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal—leave her undertakings to consider many of these constitutional features of the House and bring forward the necessary legislation or the changing of the rules of the House? Can we have a thoroughly shortened Report stage and not another elongated stage, like this Committee?

My Lords, I do not know if it is a sentiment shared by the Ministers opposite, but I for one think that the 39 hours we have spent in Committee on this Bill has been time well spent—maybe 39.5 hours now, I suppose. The Government chose to affect this part of the reform that they set out in their manifesto not through a royal commission or constitutional convention but on the Floor of your Lordships’ House, in a Bill they drafted knowing, through their experience, all the downsides of that when it comes to the scope and role of your Lordships’ House to scrutinise and ask questions. They chose to do it that way. I am glad that the five days we have spent in Committee have afforded the Lord Privy Seal the opportunity to hear the consensus, enthusiasm and anxiety of many noble Lords to see the Government turn to those other parts of their manifesto commitments on the reform of this House as swiftly as possible. The points covered in these amendments echo questions that were left unanswered in 1999 and in the decade of Labour Government that followed that Act. If the remaining hereditary Peers are to be expelled before these questions are answered, we owe it to them at least to set out a timetable within which these matters will be turned to. We would not have needed five days in Committee if answers were a bit more forthcoming to some of the questions that noble Lords raised. I hope that the Leader of the House is able to address the questions that underly these amendments and to set out, with a bit more certainty, when the Government propose to turn to the second stage of their reform of your Lordships’ House.

My Lords, it is a theme we have discussed which regularly goes beyond hereditary Peers. I understand the point the noble Lord has made. The Committee has been useful. I would not have expected the debate to range so widely, given that it was quite clear in the manifesto that there were three stages here—the first being immediate reform to hereditary Peers; the next being to talk about participation, retirement, HOLAC and things such as the citations that we now have for people, which have already been put into place without needing any legislation. We will see more issues coming forward on the kind of things that we can do. Though it was unexpected, the scope of the amendments has been rather wide. It has been useful—I think the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, would agree if he was listening—if unexpected, because I had not realised quite the degree of interest and concern from noble Lords, and support for bringing forward the other issues on participation and retirement. I think that helps us move things forward. It was unexpected and at times frustrating but it has been very helpful. I am grateful to noble Lords for that. However, these amendments go further than I would be willing to accept because they all make the progress of the Bill towards Royal Assent conditional on certain actions being taken. That would be a rather unusual step for this House to take. The objection is not that further reforms should not happen—noble Lords will know from conversations I have had with them that I am committed to that, and our manifesto committed to it. There was support from around the House, which had not been forthcoming before, so I was very encouraged by that. But it should not be conditional on the Bill. The reason why this part came forward—I feel as if I am repeating myself, but it has happened before and it will happen again, and I am not the only one—is the principle established over 25 years ago on hereditary Peers. We signalled this part of legislation several times beforehand—I will repeat myself—but we offered support to get my noble friend Lord Grocott’s Bill through; that was rejected and we said this would happen, and here we are now. I had not realised how much support there was around the House for the other issues, so we can look at that and, I hope, bring things back some time soon. So this is the immediate reform and it can happen separately, prior to other reform. The noble Lord, Lord Northbrook, made proposals for a draft Bill along the lines of the Wakeham commission’s findings. I had not heard him speak so often or so eloquently on Lords reforms before this Bill, so I am grateful to him for doing so. The Wakeman commission was in 2002. That does not mean that some of those proposals are not still relevant and cannot be considered, but it was a long time ago and things change, as he will know. But I am grateful to him for his interest in that, which I had not appreciated before this Bill. I look forward to working with him and others on that as we go forward. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, I think his memory is slightly remiss on this one. It was, in fact, in November that the Bill got Royal Assent, and it happened so quickly then—I think this was the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, made earlier—because we had Royal Assent towards the end of the Session. The noble Lord, Lord Newby, had concerns about this. When he raised this point previously it was almost as if—to coin a famous Tony Blair phrase from a Labour Party conference some years ago—Members heard the sound of pennies dropping. I got the impression that many noble Lords thought that it would be preferable if this House came to an arrangement or to a broad consensus on participation and retirement rather than having legislation on it. I am happy about either. I would like to find a way forward to get some consensus, if that is possible. It may be that legislation has to follow that, or that there will be legislation if there is no consensus. As I say, this is how I would have preferred to deal with this issue had we been in government sooner, but as Leader of the Opposition I made it clear that it was my view that, if the House can come to a consensus and arrangement on how we do things—I hope to be able to talk more about the process—then I would be happy to do so. As I say, I am greatly encouraged, even by noble Lords who have never previously spoken on or shown any interest in Lords reform, that there is a different mood now, and I think Members want to look at this issue. I want to correct the noble Lord, Lord Newby: the proposals in the Labour Party manifesto were not for an elected second Chamber. It was not so specific. It talked about “alternative” arrangements for a second Chamber, and that would be for consultation. I know some noble Lords from across the House would prefer an elected Chamber, while others prefer other arrangements. On my own view, I must admit that I am nervous. The noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, has said that he thought we should challenge the House of Commons more, and that greater democracy in this Chamber would make us challenge the House of Commons more. I still think of the House of Commons as the primary, elected Chamber. There is a different role for your Lordships’ House, which brings me to the point that the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, raised, in a rare moment of agreement between us: we have to look at the function of a second Chamber before we move forward too quickly on the arrangements for a fully reformed second Chamber. There is a debate to be had about that, which is why our manifesto talks about engaging and consulting, including with the public, to do so. It is right to give that careful consideration. We have a proposal before us. I do not think that the commencement of the Bill should be conditional on any of the measures before us, so I ask that noble Lords do not press their amendments.

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who spoke in this short debate. All of them were excellent, but I will comment in particular on the speech by the noble Lord, Lord Newby, which I found very interesting and hopeful, in many ways. He is right that many of the measures in the Labour Party manifesto, which many of us are asking to see brought forward, at the very least for debate, would be better dealt with in and through your Lordships’ House than by means of legislation. Indeed, that would make it easier for the Front Bench to bring them forward in a prompt and timely manner. He also opened the door—as did my noble friend Lord True, when he spoke earlier in Committee—to discussions with the Lord Privy Seal about how to take these things forward. The great difficulty we have had so far is that there has been no substantive response to that, but I found what the noble Lord, Lord Newby, said interesting.

My Lords, the noble Lord says that there has never been a substantive response. I can be clear that I have always said almost exactly the same words as I have said today, or paraphrased them: I have always thought that the best way is to seek consensus in this House. At the conclusion of this Bill, I would like to reach consensus in this House on other issues that we have been discussing in the manifesto, and I look forward to bringing in some proposals for how we might achieve that. It is up to the House whether it wishes to accept those or not.

Nothing in what the noble Baroness just said contradicted what I said. There has been no substantive response. The noble Baroness might want to proceed by consensus. That is a method of proceeding. I refer to the substance, and there has been no substantive response, despite the fact that it has been perfectly open to the Front Bench to bring forward substantive proposals, at least for discussion, so far. There is no need for my Amendment 104—again, this relates to what the noble Lord, Lord Newby, said—to be embedded in legislation. The noble Baroness, from her years in opposition, complained that it is designed to hold up implementation of the Bill. She knows perfectly well that, to a degree, it is a contrivance to attach an amendment to a commencement clause in order to allow for a debate, but the plain words of my amendment, which are largely taken word for word from the Labour Party manifesto and include not a commitment to a democratic House but to exactly what it says in that manifesto, could be achieved by the simple expedient of the Government bringing forward exactly the consultation document they promised and exactly the draft Bill that needs to go with it, exactly as it stands in their manifesto, at a time of their choosing but in the near future, as an earnest of what they are doing so that we can see the direction in which they are going. Obviously, the need for legislation or any amendment to this Bill would then fall away, because the Government would have done what the amendment calls for. We are to some extent going round in circles. We want to hear the Government’s programme. There is no substance to the Government’s programme. I am glad that we have flushed out that there is no substance to it. With that, all I can do is beg leave to withdraw this amendment.

Amendment 104 withdrawn.

Amendment 105

Moved by

105: Clause 4, page 2, line 16, leave out “Session of” Member's explanatory statement This amendment would remove Exempted Hereditary peers over a longer timescale, to permit the House to benefit from their input while giving them more time to seek alternative employment.

My Lords, we all accept that the hereditary principle is now over. The Labour manifesto said that they would remove hereditary Peers, but it did not say exactly when. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, said that it was to be immediate, but “immediate” in the manifesto referred to modernisation and a retirement age of 80 for Peers. It was the modernisation which would be immediate, not necessarily the removal of hereditary Peers.

21:45:00

It has been suggested that some of us in this House have come rather late in the day to wanting to see reform and retirement ages and so on. Some noble Lords will be aware of the spreadsheets which I commissioned from the Library. We had a debate on day 2 using all the information on them. They came about last year when I emailed the splendid Mr Tobin in the Library. I said, “Dear Mr Tobin, do you remember all those spreadsheets that you prepared for me in 2015 to send to the Lord Burns committee? Could I have them updated, please, for this?” I used that information then, and many of us have believed in reform for a long time. The information that I supplied to the noble Lord, Lord Burns, was about retirement ages, participation rates and attendance rates. There was also a suggestion that the Government could introduce a non-legislative Peer: Prime Ministers need to give out gongs to people; they could give out gongs and call people Lords but not necessarily with a writ to come to this House.

We now have this Bill, which says:

“This Act comes into force at the end of the Session of Parliament in which this Act is passed.”

Therefore, we can assume, as everyone has said, that the hereditary Peers will be chucked out in about six months’ time—or maybe just into the new year if the Government continue to introduce massive Bills which are ill thought-out. However, why the haste to throw out some of the most hard-working Peers in this House? We all agreed in earlier debates that there were about 118 Peers who turned up for fewer than 15% of our sittings and over 70 who turned up for fewer than 10% of our sittings. We agreed that there were a dozen or so Peers who turned up but did absolutely nothing. There was also agreement that we needed a retirement age of about 85. However, the Government have refused to countenance any of these changes which would deliver the smaller House that we all want to see.

Again, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, who I regret is not in her place, said that if we had not wasted five days debating this Bill, we could have dealt with those other things. That is disingenuous, because the amendments that I moved on day 2 did tackle those things. To be fair, the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, came up with a far better amendment on participation rates than the one that I introduced. On a retirement age, the noble Earls, Lord Devon and Lord Kinnoull, had a far better amendment than my suggestions for retirement. Other suggestions on attendance rates were supported by the noble Lord, Lord Burns. Those suggestions were made, but “We do not want them in the Bill because it is too complicated and unnecessary”.

The only amendment that we need on Report—this is where I disagree with my noble friend Lord Moylan—is a simple one which says something like, “Whenever the House of Lords passes a resolution relating to retirement ages, participation or attendance, the Government shall bring forward regulations and lay them before both Houses of Parliament”. That gives this House six months, 12 months, 10 years, to figure out the details of retirement and participation and then pass a resolution which will be laid before both Houses in a regulation by the Government. That is all we need—no new legislation, just to build that tiny power into the Bill.

Instead, we have this vendetta against 99 hereditaries in the belief that the Government will win more votes here if they do this. I did the figures—again for the committee of the noble Lord, Lord Burns—and, if any Labour or Conservative Government in this House wanted a guarantee that they would win votes for the majority, they would have to reduce the combined numbers of Cross-Benchers, Lib Dems, Conservative, Labour and non-affiliated Peers to no more than 250 in total. Alternatively, it would have to add about 300 Labour or Conservative Peers.

Since when has a lack of a majority here stopped the Government getting their legislation through? Between 2005 and 2010, the Labour Government suffered 175 defeats in the House of Lords. The Conservative Government of 2019 to 2024 suffered 410 defeats. Yet, for all those defeats, I do not recall any major Bill in the Labour or Conservative manifestos being completely blocked or sabotaged by Lords action—by the Opposition action, whether Conservative or Labour.

Of course, what it means is ping-pong, which is inconvenient for Ministers and a bit boring, but at the end of the day, the Government always get their way, and rightly so—just as it is right that they have to work a bit harder for it. Thus, I suggest that throwing out some of our hard-working Peers at the end of this Session is vindictive and politically unnecessary for the Government to get their business through. We should have the decency to let them serve out this Parliament.

The Labour manifesto said that it would introduce a retirement age for Peers turning 80 at the end of the Parliament, not the Session. On the one hand, the Government will get rid of the hereditaries at the end of Session, but on the other hand, Peers aged 80 will not leave until the end of the Parliament. Why that inconsistency? I cannot understand the difference.

Finally, I will make a hypothetical but valid point. Suppose a Conservative Government decided to introduce a retirement age for some life Peers at age 85, meaning that they would be slung out the second the Bill became law or at the end of a Session, and say that would mean 30 Labour Peers being slung out. I think there would be outrage in this House. There would be outrage on the Conservative side that a Conservative Government would dare to treat Peers in that way. Labour Peers should reflect on that: if they are going to do that to hereditaries, what would it feel like if a Tory Government did that to them? That is what the Government plan to do to 88 hereditaries in a few months’ time. I leave it to noble Lords to reflect on that, and I beg to move.

My Lords, Amendments 107 and 113 in my name seek to postpone the removal of the hereditary Peers to the end of the next Session, rather than the end of this one. For the record, I have never sought to have my amendments degrouped from any others. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, earlier on today, this is the first time I have spoken on the Bill, though I have, of course, followed the proceedings. I support other amendments that would postpone the removal of the hereditary Peers, but I believe mine has the best chance of getting the support of other parties, because the postponement is relatively modest and so does the least injury to the haste with which the Government have committed themselves in their manifesto. The real criticism of this Bill is not that it is gerrymandering or prosecuting a class war. There are perfectly respectable arguments for removing the hereditaries. The substantial criticism of the Bill is that it will undermine the capacity of the House of Lords to hold the Government to account by removing some of its most active Members—that is its Achilles heel. The House of Lords is not a place where sheep may safely graze. It is a key part of our constitution, improving the quality of legislation and giving the other place an opportunity to think again. We have repeatedly heard of the disproportionate amount of heavy lifting done by the hereditary Peers; I will not repeat those arguments, but not only have they gone unchallenged but Government Ministers have gone out of their way to heap praise upon the hereditaries for the work they do. The Government’s public response to this criticism is to say that it is an insult to the rest of us to imply that we cannot backfill the void. But in their hearts, they know that the House will be weaker. I believe they plan to do something about it, but they will not acknowledge this publicly, or begin to discuss what their response might be, until the Bill is safely on the statute book. My amendment seeks to allow more space for that discussion and more space for the subsequent response than is provided for at the moment by postponing their departure until the end of the next Session. It would give more time for ranks to be replenished and capacity to be retained, possibly by the retention of some of those due to leave. As we have heard, many hereditary Peers sit on Select Committees, the work of which goes on from one Session to the next. We heard from my noble friend Lord Forsyth about the five Deputy Speakers. We need a longer transition if the work of the House is not to be disrupted. The amendment is perfectly consistent with the manifesto, and it actually addresses the weakness in the Government’s defence. I believe there is a further argument for more time: we should treat fairly those who have given up careers outside and give them more time to adjust. I note what the noble Lord, Lord Burns, said on Second Reading on 11 December: “My first reservation is the implication that all excepted hereditary Peers should be required to retire once the Bill becomes law”. He went on to say: “Often, they have given up alternative careers to join this House”.—[Official Report, 11/12/24; col. 1736.] I was relieved to hear that the Government will not support Amendment 103, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter. Here, I will refer to what happened last time. In June 1993, the Labour Party committed itself to a two-stage process of reform, removing the hereditaries in the first stage. After the election in 1997, they actually left in 1999—six years after the commitment and two years after the election. By contrast, there has been dramatically less notice this time. There had been reports in the last Parliament that, following the publication of the Brown report in 2022, the House of Lords would be abolished and replaced with a form of regional representation. In February 2024, it was reported that wholesale reform would not be a priority for the first term; then there were reports that a Labour Government would confine themselves to implementing the Grocott Bill. It was not until 13 June last year that the Labour Party committed itself to the abolition of the hereditary Peers, leaving some 18 months before removal. The Government sometimes point to the contrast with MPs, who lose their job overnight. But there is an important difference. Every MP knows that there will be a day of reckoning every five years or less: that is the deal. But it is not the case with Peers. Also, for every MP who is removed, a new one takes his or her place—an important distinction. In 1997, there was a key difference. The two groups of Peers principally affected, the Conservatives and the Cross-Benchers, were allowed to choose their share of the 92 remaining. That meant that the capacity of the House to hold the Government to account was affected only marginally. There is no such safety net this time round, and the time in which to rebuild that capacity, as in the Bill, is much less. I end with a final reason. It is important to avoid the ungracious way in which the hereditary Peers were made to depart in 1997: “Thank you and goodbye”, with T-shirts celebrating their departure. There was an absence of generosity of spirit last time, which I know the current Administration are anxious to avoid. This amendment is moderate and sensible. It deserves serious consideration from the Lib Dems and Cross Benches, on whom its fate will depend.

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham, who set out some wise and compelling reasons for his amendment. I hope that the Government will consider it as seriously as it deserves to be taken. My Amendment 106 in this group is not so much about timing as about ensuring that proper bicameral consideration has been given to the Bill before it becomes an Act of Parliament. It seeks for commencement to take place not at the end of this Parliament but at the end of the Parliament after this. This follows the point that I raised at Second Reading, when I pointed out that we have a very new House of Commons: more than half the Members of another place were elected for the first time in July last year. When I spoke at Second Reading, I pointed out that the other place had sat for only 62 days; with their greater experience by the end of this Committee, they have now sat for 115 days—still not a great deal of time. In this Parliament, we have so far passed only three Acts of Parliament. Two were money Bills and one was about renationalising the railways. At Second Reading, I wondered how many MPs had had the chance to experience effective working between the Houses and across the parties to see how we make laws better by working between the two Chambers. There has still been little opportunity for them to do so; on the whole, they are still a rather green bunch on the green Benches. That is why, while I and all noble Lords respect the primacy of the elected House and the mandate on which the Government were elected, we would find it disappointing if this Bill, which seeks to make such profound changes to your Lordships’ House, has to be rammed through with no amendments from your Lordships’ House; and why I find it disappointing to hear again from the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe, and others that we should not dare to put an amendment that we know will be overturned in another place. With a majority of 174, that argument could apply to every piece of legislation brought before us in the rest of this Parliament. That is not the role of your Lordships’ House. I hope that it does not become it. Not by seeking to lengthen the time before commencement but by asking that greater thought is given to this by both Houses of Parliament, full of people who have experience of legislating for the better interests of our country—and sharing some of the concerns that were set out by the noble Lord, Lord Newby, about becoming a House regulated by the lower House—I hope noble Lords will look at my Amendment 106 with seriousness as well.

22:00:00

My Lords, the hour is late, so I simply want to say this: I hope that the noble Baroness the Leader of the House will take on board the very wise advice given by my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham in speaking to his amendment. He is vastly experienced, having been Leader in the other place. I think all of us, with the possible exception of the odd Conservative Whip, have much enjoyed the way in which he takes a sometimes very independent and always well-considered view of matters before the House. Notwithstanding the earlier debate, I would like to be on record as very firmly in support of what he suggested. I hope that the noble Baroness the Leader will treat that seriously in the interests of the House as a whole.

My Lords, other amendments in this group have a tendency to delay the date of implementation of the Bill. My Amendment 107A is neutral on that. It would remove the words relating to the end of the Session from the Bill and instead would make the implementation of the Bill dependent on a statutory instrument to be moved by the Government. To make it all the easier for the Government to accept it, I have ensured that it would be through the negative procedure, so it would be the easiest thing in the world for the Government to do. That flexibility might be of advantage to the Government; indeed, if I were them, I would seize this amendment with open hands and adopt it as my own. Noble Lords who are hereditary Peers may think that it introduces an element of capriciousness about their fate and that they would therefore be uncertain about when they would come to the end of their term. But there is already a large degree of capriciousness and uncertainty, because the end of the Session is, of course, not a fixed date: it will be decided, in effect, by the Prime Minister, and I am sure he will decide it according to a broad range of considerations. The fate of Members of your Lordships’ House is probably quite low on that list. The Session could end at any time. Noble Lords who feel that they would somehow be losing control of events by handing this power to the Government just need to remember that the end of the Session is equally in the Government’s power. But this would give the Government a little more flexibility and allow them to have more discussions, perhaps after the Bill has passed, about an appropriate time for implementing it, so as to be able to carry noble Lords with them a little more.

My Lords, I spoke in November and December, and again in this Committee, about the necessity of avoiding a cliff edge when we were thinking about retirement ages. I thought it would be interesting to inform the Committee of the nature of the cliff edge for the Cross Bench and the necessity I therefore feel for considering very carefully the transitional arrangements, which this series of amendments really goes to. In a pure sense, we would lose 18.5% of our membership—and, therefore, of the people who put in the hours in this House—upon the coming into force of this Bill. If you adjust that by taking out the people who come less than 10% of the time—the people who really are inactive—that rises to 22.5%. Without a transitional arrangement, the Bill represents quite a difficulty for the Cross Bench in trying to deliver the services we try to deliver to this House.

My Lords, I will be incredibly brief. My name is on the amendment, along with that of my noble friend Lord Blencathra. It is an issue I raised at Second Reading. It is something that has been of great importance, but we have had some very fine interventions and speeches this evening, which I do not wish to repeat. I would simply say, without trying to sound in the least bit pompous, that constitutional change is not just a matter of winning votes; it is also about winning arguments and taking others with you. I simply say to the Government that, judging from the mood I have sensed this evening, if they were to give even a little in this area, they could gain a great deal. I encourage the Government to look again a second time, and indeed a third time, at some of the very fine points that have been made in this House this evening.

My Lords, I express my support for the last speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Newby, on his approach to what might happen on Report, and encourage him to reflect on the suggestion from my noble friend Lord Blencathra that, if that needs reinforcement, it might be by way of making sure we can make changes to this House as a result of secondary legislation that is initiated here.

My Lords, given the hour, I can also be brief, because the essential points have been made by the Convenor and by my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham. In essence, what lies behind all these proposed amendments is the question of effectiveness and the importance of putting in place some transitional arrangements to make sure that we do not face the cliff edge, to pick up that phrase from the Convenor, which would be to the detriment of all of us in this House and, indeed, to Parliament generally. We have, as my noble friend Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay reminded us, a bicameral Parliament and we have to make sure that both Houses work well together. So, the critical point here is that of effectiveness. This group shows again why analogies are dangerous in this area. The noble Lord, Lord Grocott, spoke in the last group and we had, yet again, the analogy with MPs. It is not a good analogy. The problem with analogies, as a Court of Appeal judge once put it to me, is that they are different, and we are dealing with a vastly different circumstance here: hereditary Peers leaving this House as against MPs leaving the House of Commons in a general election. The central issue here is one of effectiveness and proper transitional arrangements. Therefore, I look forward to the response of the noble Baroness the Lord Privy Seal to these various options as to how we might best proceed here.

I am afraid I start by disappointing the noble Lord.

Forgive me—I apologise.

As long as it is not a disappointment, my Lord. It would have been a disappointing end to Committee—although we have one more group to go—if we had got to the final groupings without reference to the now famous spreadsheets of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra. So, I thank him for that. With regard to some of the comments, before I move on to the substance, I just want to correct for the record a couple of things. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, underestimates the interest of our colleagues at the other end of the building: not least, I believe that my fiancé is watching on television, so I am pretty sure that some Members of the other the other place are interested.

I was wondering. I bet a fiver that that lot at the other end of the building are not sitting. If they are sitting in front of a television at home, they are not sitting in that Chamber, as we are. The analogy between us and them and our salaries simply does not hold water.

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his comments. I am a former Member of the other place and I am very aware of their sitting hours. They sit earlier than us. Also, my other half is sitting in his office doing casework while he waits for me to finish. Their hours are extensive and many Members of the other place work excessive hours. It was not unusual for me to work 100 hours a week as a Member of Parliament. I work not dissimilar hours serving your Lordships’ House. I would also suggest that not only does the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, underestimate other colleagues, but I want to correct the record for both him and the noble Lord, Lord Moylan. Actually, 13 Bills have received Royal Assent since we took office. I also thank the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, for their thoughtful contributions, which I think changed the tone of this evening’s debate. As we have heard, the amendments in this group would delay the commencement of the Bill. Noble Lords may be about to experience a sense of déjà vu, as much of my response will sound familiar from the past two groups. I think it is a fair to observe that the topic of commencement has been particularly affected by the groupings, not necessarily at the request of individuals Members, so I apologise to noble Lords if this feels repetitious. At one end of the scale, Amendment 107, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, would delay commencement until the end of the Session after the Session in which the Bill is passed. The amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, goes further by delaying it until the end of the Parliament in which the Bill is passed. The amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, would delay the removal of hereditary Peers from this place until the end of the Parliament after the Parliament in which the Bill is passed, which would potentially delay the implementation of this overdue reform until as late as 2034—not that I know the dates of future general elections. Just for the record, we talked about future general elections and MPs having an appreciation of that. I was an MP for four and a half years, and I fought three general election campaigns. I did not really have time to prepare for my departure in the way that has been suggested. As to Amendment 107A proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, it appears to make the Act come into force at the end of the Session of Parliament which the Secretary of State appoints by commencement regulations. We cannot accept any amendment that would cause delay to the commencement of the Act. The Bill currently provides that it comes into force at the end of the parliamentary Session in which it receives Royal Assent, as set out in Clause 4. In response an amendment tabled by my noble friend Lady Hayter, in the previous group, my noble friend the Leader of the House made it clear that these arrangements seek to ensure the timely delivery of our manifesto commitment without undermining the business of the House and are entirely consistent with the approach taken in 1999. I respectfully say to the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, that the Government already have a precise plan of when to bring this legislation into force, as set out in Clause 4. It is not a good use of the time of the Government, nor indeed that of the House, to require an additional piece of legislation to commence the Act. Given all that has been repeatedly said, I respectfully ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.

My Lords, I rise to respond to the debate—not just to the amendment but to some of the comments of my noble friends. My noble friend Lord Young of Cookham made an excellent speech and moved an excellent amendment. It was modest and moderate, as he said. The Achilles heel of this Bill is that it reduces the capacity of the House of Lords and the Opposition to hold the Government to account. As he pointed out, the House will be the weaker because of it. He made a very good point that, in 1999, the Conservatives had a chance to select those who would contribute most so that the House did not suffer a large drop in capacity. My noble friend Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay said that it is wrong that we should not make amendments in this House just because the Commons would not like them and would reject them. He is absolutely right on that point. My noble friend Lord Moylan said that his amendment would give some flexibility and certainty. There is a certain merit in his argument. It would not be on just whenever the Session might end but on a date of the Government’s choosing. That could be announced well in advance to give hereditary Peers who are leaving this House some certainty. I agree entirely with my noble friend Lord Forsyth of Drumlean in the tribute he paid to the Leader of the House, who is courteous and thorough and treats all Members with courtesy and respect. The noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, is rightly worried about the disproportionate effect on the Cross Benches. He made a very important point tonight. He was very brief about it and I would like to have heard more, but from what I understood, he made one of the most important contributions in our debate. I thank my noble friends Lord Dobbs and Lord Lucas for their support tonight. My noble friend Lord Wolfson of Tredegar also made the point that the central point of this is effectiveness. This Bill reduces effectiveness. He also made the point that retirement or the way MPs leave their House and the ways Peers leave this House are totally different and are not comparable. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent, for her response. Okay, my amendment about going to the end of the Parliament may be going too far, but I think my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham made an excellent argument for just two Sessions. For the life of me, I cannot understand the Government’s undue haste in this. What is to be gained by chucking the hereditaries out at the end of this Session rather than at the end of the next Session? However, having said that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 105 withdrawn.

22:15:00

Amendments 106 to 113 not moved.

Clause 4 agreed.

Amendment 114 not moved.

Clause 5: Short title

Amendments 115 and 116 not moved.

Clause 5 agreed.

House resumed.

Bill reported without amendment.