House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Committee (3rd Day) (Continued)

20:05:00

Amendment 33

Moved by

33: After Clause 1, insert the following new Clause— “Lords Spiritual(1) A maximum of five Church of England bishops may sit in the House of Lords.(2) Of those five bishops, one must be the Archbishop of Canterbury, one must be the Archbishop of York, and the remaining three must be nominated by the Synod of the Church of England.(3) No bishop may sit in the House of Lords beyond the end of the Parliamentary Session in which they turn 70 years old.”Member’s explanatory statement This amendment reduces the number of bishops sitting in the House of Lords from 26 to five.

My Lords, I rise to move Amendment 33 in my name, which would reduce the number of Bishops in the House from 26 to five: the most reverend Primates the Archbishops of Canterbury and York and three other right reverend Prelates nominated by the synod of the Church of England. I am delighted to see the right reverend Prelate in his place—he has booked his slot among my remaining three by being here tonight. I accept that this is not in the Bill, and nor was it in the Labour Party manifesto, but spending perhaps 20 or 30 minutes on this will be worthwhile, and I cannot see any other way to raise the topic. Naturally, I expect all Front Benches to keep a million miles away from this subject. I shall be very brief and leave it to other noble Lords to speak in favour of or against this probing amendment. I shall give the House some statistics for consideration. The number of Church of England baptisms in 2023 was 67,800. The average Sunday attendance is about 700,000. The average Christmas attendance is about 2.3 million. Of course, we have 26 Bishops and an electorate of 48.2 million people, as of the last election. Therefore, there is one Bishop per 27,000 people at attending church on Sunday. There is one Bishop per 88,500 people at Christmas attendance. The maximum size of a constituency is 77,000. Last year, the daily attendance in this House was 397. Of course, we do not have constituencies and neither do the Bishops, but the number of Peers who attend divided into the electorate would mean one Peer for every 121,000 electors. But, even with Christmas attendance, we have one Bishop for every 88,000 Church of England attendees. I accept that it would not take an expert statistician to find fault with my conclusions from these statistics, which I admit are highly flawed, but it seems to me that we are overrepresented by Bishops in this House and I leave it to other noble Lords to offer a view for or against that view. I beg to move.

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 48 in my name and the consequential Amendment 49. Perhaps I might begin by saying that I am not making any personal criticism of any of the present Lords spiritual. Most, and perhaps almost all, are important contributors to our debates. However, in a debate of this kind, we have to ask the question: on what basis do the Lords spiritual sit here? My suggestion to the House is that we should examine the criteria and ask ourselves whether they are well founded. The objection to hereditary Peers is very similar to the objection to the Lords spiritual. In the case of hereditary Peers, while both the pool of candidates and the electorate are small, there are, at least on the Conservative Benches, both hustings and elections. But the way in which individuals become Bishops is very far from transparent, and there is no filter of elections and hustings. Moreover, the pool of candidates for the episcopacy is a very small one, and indeed the selectorate is even smaller. The process itself is very discreet. Once an individual becomes a fully fledged bishop, that person, subject to gender preferences, has a very good chance of becoming a Member of this House. It is, in short, a case of the Rt Rev Buggins. In the case of the two Archbishops and the Bishops of London, Westminster and Durham, membership of this House is automatic—a self-perpetuating oligarchy. That is obviously not a good way to constitute our legislature. So one has to ask: what about the tests of suitability and propriety? Most of the Committee agree that such tests are important. These debates—the last three days—have shown that the Committee values the role of HOLAC. Some of us, in fact, want to enhance its role. But HOLAC has no role to play in assessing the propriety or suitability of individual bishops to become Members of this House. I note, incidentally, that my noble friend Lady Berridge’s Amendment 90B addresses this matter. I know of no scrutiny—certainly none of a publicly transparent kind—that addresses the question of the propriety or suitability of appointment. Then there is regional representation. Again, that is an issue viewed as important by most of this Committee. The Lords spiritual are drawn exclusively from dioceses in England—there are none from Scotland, none from Wales and none from Northern Ireland. So one has to ask: on what basis are the Lords spiritual here? As with the hereditaries, it is historic. The Bishops once represented a landed interest—no longer. The Lords spiritual once reflected the pre-eminent national Church—no longer, I say with regret, as an Anglican who regularly attends my local church. This country is now a secular society and, to the extent that it is not, Anglicanism is no longer pre-eminent. Then there is the question of numbers: 24 Bishops and two Archbishops—not, I acknowledge at once, a large proportion of the House. But, once we embark on a serious attempt to reduce numbers and refresh our membership—and if, as I suggest, it is very hard to discern reasons of principle to justify the presence of the Lords spiritual in this House—I am afraid that the occupants of the episcopal Bench become candidates for removal. I know that will not be the consequence of the Bill, but I hope that we will be prepared to debate the issue with honesty and candour.

My Lords, I must say that I am a little distressed to hear from Conservative Benches the nature of this criticism of the Bishops. It is unfortunate. I understand, however, that people get cross with the Bishops for all sorts of reasons—I certainly frequently do in columns that I write. I also hesitate to speak on this subject because these are high and complicated matters. But I do feel that somebody has to speak for the Bishops here, because they will not speak for themselves. After all, our Lord said, “let this cup pass from me”, and that is more or less so for the Bishops. They cannot say, “No, I want to keep the cup. I want to go on and have another pint in the Bishops’ Bar”. They have to express a becoming humility, which basically means that they have to shut up on this subject—or so they will tend to feel. Of course, we feel cross about this sometimes and I believe that there is a problem with the Bishops in this period. I will illustrate it with an example. I had a very lovely, pious aunt, who, as a child, attended her parish church. Two clergy preached there: one was very good at it and one was very bad. She said to her parents, “When Mr X preaches, I listen, and when Mr Y preaches, I keep my mind on higher things”. Sometimes, with some of the episcopal utterances we hear nowadays, we need to keep our minds on higher things.

20:15:00

One point of agreement I have with the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, is that there is a link between the rights of hereditaries and the rights of Bishops. It is precisely for that reason that I am against what he is arguing for. We should not allow temporary things to worry us so much; we should look at this sub specie aeternitatis, which, translated into politics, means “after the next election”. We also need to look at it in the light of the past 800 years. The history matters here, because what the Church of England represents in your Lordships’ House is a settlement—one that was very hard to achieve and is constantly under possible threat. It has caused great division and, in the past, murder and conflict.

The noble Viscount was mistaken in saying that the Bishops are not a land-owning interest any more; they are collectively a land-owning interest, and a very big one—although, of course, less than they were. Bishops used to be, for example, Lord Chancellors. Today, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol led us in our prayers; 300 years ago, her predecessor was the Lord Privy Seal. I wonder whether the present Lord Privy Seal, having to put up with rather a lot, might like to swap roles with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol today.

The Bishops have a long history in the power of the land, which has obviously greatly declined. However, that does not mean that they do not matter. In fact, in a certain way in modern times, Bishops have become a little more important in the public eye because of modern communications. An example of that—albeit one that many people do not greatly enjoy—is “Thought for the Day”; another is the way that Bishops and Archbishops in the 20th century have become very well-known and reached much larger audiences than in the past. In that sense, audiences have become more religious, if you like, than they were in, say, the 18th century.

Even in this House, it is occasionally possible for a Bishop to be prophetic in the sense in which bishops are supposed to be. For example, the late Bishop of Chichester, George Bell, spoke in this House, very controversially and famously, against the allied carpet-bombing of German cities. As a result of that speech, he was not promoted to Archbishop of Canterbury, because Winston Churchill was not pleased. However, it was an authentic Anglican response to a very important question.

We must always consider this alongside all the links it makes with other bits of our constitution. The noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, referred to the Writ of Summons; he was talking about the Writ of Summons of Peers in general. I recommend an excellent article by the Reader of the Temple, the Reverend Mark Hatcher, in the Ecclesiastical Law Journal. We are summoned in the name of our faith and allegiance to the King—that is what binds us—but the Bishops are summoned in the name of their faith and love for the King. It is an interesting distinction, which shows the historic closeness of the Church in this country, and the whole idea of the establishment in its proper sense, to other institutions and the monarchy. We should not forget the famous phrase that people used to use to defend our constitution, “No bishop, no King”. They were very closely linked—so let us be a bit careful about how we go on this.

Mr Hatcher, Reader of the Temple, did a survey of the Bishops—I do not know whether right reverend Prelates here today were victims of it—in which he asked their opinion of various things and what they thought their role was. They said that they wished to speak for people of faith in their diocese—and I think their territorial role is very important, actually—but that, surprisingly, they did not speak in this House for the Church of England. Noble Lords may think that very odd; surely that is what they are supposed to do. I think not. They are not supposed to have one voice and one line. They are not a trade union for a particular denomination; they are individual Christian voices. That needs to be thought about and, if possible, respected. You could say they are like Cross-Benchers who wear dog collars and lawn sleeves. That is the spirit of what they are—or, at least, what they should be.

You could argue that a lot of this seems very outdated, but we know that Tony Blair thought the same about the office of Lord Chancellor and look what a mess he made of trying to get rid of it, with all the knock-on consequences. We can see how this would happen in the amendment from the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham. Looking at the enormous list of things that he thinks must be removed and changed, you realise how many threads have to be pulled out. I ask: to what purpose?

This is in another amendment, so I mention it only in passing, but it is important that the Bishops represent a warm house in our constitution for other faiths and denominations. They are not sectarian. Actually, this is a modernisation; they were not like this 100 years ago, but they are like that now, as is widely recognised by Jews, Muslims, Hindus and Roman Catholics, of whom I am one.

In the conduct of this House, although we may sometimes think, “Gosh, these are all Guardian-reading characters over there”, and that we may as well read the Guardian rather than hear their speeches—sometimes that does occur—they are very careful of the courtesies and conventions of this House. I have never heard a Bishop be rude to anybody here, and we try not to be rude to them. I notice that we defer to them when they get up, for example. They try, collectively, to live up to the prayer in which they lead us every day on the conduct of this House and how we try to behave here. It is very good to hear that prayer and all the other prayers that are said.

I suppose what I am saying is that the Bishops are the spiritual equivalents of the hereditaries. They inherit their role, though not by blood, and it has a real meaning. It is essentially a benevolent custom. Maybe it was not so when they were very rich and oppressive many years ago, but it has become largely benevolent, even though we all know the Church of England is going through a difficult time at present. They try honourably to discharge that role in your Lordships’ House, and that is important.

It follows that, if the basis on which the hereditaries sit here is to be removed, that of the Bishops should go too. There is a grim rationalist logic about that—get rid of the hereditaries and chuck out the Bishops. The famous word used by people who never want to argue but wish merely to assert is to say that it is “indefensible”. In my view, nothing that has existed for a very long time is indefensible, though you may be up against it in certain ways. It needs to be argued and proved.

So why are the Government leaving the Bishops alone? Why are they picking on the hereditaries but not following their rationalist logic and having a crack at the Bishops as well? It has been suggested that this is because the Bishops feel tenderly towards the Labour Party. That is an unworthy suggestion that we should try to put out of our minds if we can.

My Lords, the time limit is 10 minutes. If the noble Lord could wind up, I would be ever so grateful.

Forgive me; I end by saying that, if only the Government could apply the wise restraint they show on the matter of the Bishops to the very similar position of the hereditary Peers, they would drop this divisive and unnecessary Bill.

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Moore. I very much agree with everything that he has said. I refer to Amendment 78 in my name. Within a reformed House, this is for the Lords spiritual to continue under their existing statute with their current numbers of 26 reduced to 20. Two points should perhaps be emphasised: first, and in general, the importance of having non-political Benches and groups in a reformed House; and, secondly, in particular, the case for retaining enough Bishops in order for them to carry out their rota systems in the House of Lords, these being necessary in view of the heavy work commitments of bishops outside Westminster and the House of Lords. The quality of the present House is its independent-mindedness over party politics. That attitude may apply to all our Benches. However, with Cross-Benchers and the Lords spiritual, we are fortunate in having as many as two Benches that are non-party political in any case, that benefit being unique and unshared by other Parliaments. That is why, and in this context, my noble friend Lord Hailsham might feel able to concur that our Bench of Bishops should remain within a reformed House: not just to lead it in prayer but to influence its debates. Equally in this context, my noble friend Lady Berridge may feel able to agree that Bishops in continuing to sit here should not have to be dependent on HOLAC, not least since their existing statute already enables them to be here in their own right. A Bench of Bishops numbering 20 would be 3% of a reformed House of 620, of which 600 might be temporal Members. Yet with their heavy Church commitments beyond Westminster, perhaps my noble friend Lord Blencathra might agree that the rota system for attending to House of Lords duties would become unreasonable and under increasing pressure if their numbers were to reduce too much below 20.

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 90B in my name in this group, and I am grateful for the relaxation of the rule so that one can speak in Committee having not been able to be here at Second Reading. This simple amendment would bring into force the evidence of the chair of the House of Lords Appointments Commission, the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, to the Public Administration and the Constitutional Affairs Committee of the other place in her pre-appointment hearing on 24 October 2023 in which she said that, “every nomination ought to be checked, even if it is a bishop or a hereditary peer”. As I am sure noble Lords will be aware, under the public bodies rules, the noble Baroness is not permitted to contribute today. The appointment of a bishop or archbishop, and their suitability—to use the language of nominations by the Prime Minister or the Leader of His Majesty’s loyal Opposition—are, of course, matters for the Crown Nominations Commission, but propriety checks matter for the integrity of the nation’s legislature and its safety. From recent reports in the media about HOLAC’s decisions—of course, decisions are confidential—it seems to be exercising that propriety muscle. What we know is that there are those who by convention would have joined your Lordships’ House who have not been given a peerage. I wish to make it clear that this amendment would not affect a nomination by the Church commission—that is a Church matter and outside the scope of the Bill. The amendment would mean that a Writ to come to Parliament would not be issued unless HOLAC had done its propriety checks, checks that, as far as I understand it, even the Chief of the Defence Staff undergoes to come to the Cross Benches. I am, of course, aware that a non-statutory body, HOLAC, preventing a Writ of Summons being issued would be unusual, but I hope this amendment will serve to promote discussion of this important principle. How it is achieved in practice is perhaps a matter for another day. Sadly, this safeguarding issue relating to bishops has come to the fore with the recent resignation of the Bishop of Liverpool, who would have become a member of the nation’s legislature without any propriety checks by HOLAC. Of course, I must state that those were merely allegations that have been refuted, but there remains confusion about how the proceedings of the Crown Nominations Commission of the Church of England were conducted, and there are allegations, again refuted, that pressure was put on the CNC during that process. I note that HOLAC’s checks are not just for criminal matters, so it could have been appropriate for that independent body to look at such a case prior to the issue of a Writ. Yes, this amendment would mean that there could be a diocesan bishop entitled to come to your Lordships’ House who was not accepted by HOLAC, but that in itself makes clear the different roles of HOLAC and the CNC, and the role of Parliament, which is sovereign, as distinct from the Church of England. Who is safe to be in Parliament should not be delegated to a body from any other institution, despite any assertions of how good the CNC is. The case of the Bishop of Liverpool and the failure last month, for, of course, unknown reasons, of a Crown Nominations Commission to appoint a Bishop of Durham, who would have come straight into your Lordships’ House—of course, CNCs have to be private—highlight the problem for Parliament: why did that person withdraw? Were there safeguarding issues? Was it the process? We just do not know. I hope His Majesty’s Government will consider this matter seriously.

20:30:00

It was International Women’s Day last Sunday, so the safety of women, including staff in this workplace, is high in my mind. I am reminded of the comments to me, from staff, which led to your Lordships’ House eventually deciding to remove security passes from those charged with serious criminal offences. A female member of staff in that case said that there were concerns: they work late at night in this building, which has many nooks and crannies. It is not, sadly, acceptable for HOLAC not to be able to check the Bishops for safeguarding purposes.

On 4 December 2024, I outlined that it would be best, and perhaps wise—for victims, for the clergy and for the institution—for the Church of England to have a judge-led type of inquiry into a whole raft of issues, but this has not happened. That might have given your Lordships’ House insight into the integrity or otherwise of the process of the CNC appointment of the last Bishop of Liverpool. It is regrettable that no such independent inquiry was undertaken and regrettable to have to raise this matter as an area where the Church of England needs once again to submit, at the very least, to independent oversight of yet another safeguarding issue.

I shall speak briefly now to the other amendments in the group, which give one the option of no Bishops, five or 20. The number has not changed since 1878, I believe. After 147 years, the Church in the legislature looks the same, but it does not look the same out there. We need fewer Bishops, and we need other denominations to be represented. While the canon law of the Church of Rome may prevent a cardinal joining the legislature, there are, if I am correct, 6.2 million Catholics in the UK. With a wonderful history of Catholic social teaching leading to Caritas, CAFOD and the Jesuit Refugee Service, to name but a few, there is many a lay Catholic who could join the nation’s legislature. It would not be difficult to find such representatives.

What of the other denominations? For the 14 years I have been here, this has been the saddest aspect of still having 26 Bishops and five retired Bishops on the Cross Benches. The Church in the UK is, as the Church of England says, a presence in every community, but if we go to Southwark diocese, where I live, or the Old Kent Road, we see that they are awash with Black Pentecostal churches, often founded owing to the racism encountered in the Windrush era. There is the Church of God of Prophecy and the New Testament Church of God—we never hear of them in your Lordships’ House, and there is still no leadership of those churches here, which I find really upsetting—followed by the migration of hundreds of thousands who form the British African churches. The Redeemed Christian Church of God regularly assembles 40,000 people in the Excel centre but has no leadership represented here. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Moore, that the individual Christian voice is needed, but those denominations can speak for themselves and should have their own representation.

Also in Southwark diocese, let us take St Philip’s on Queenstown Road. The Southwark diocese website says that it is closed. Drive past it on a Sunday, as I do, and it is so busy with young and old from the Ethiopian and Eritrean Orthodox churches in their wonderful white costumes. That is the saddest fact of all, if we look back to 1878: the Coptic Orthodox Church, the Orthodox Church of Ukraine and the Syriac Orthodox churches, some of whose adherents were crucified by IS. I know that your Lordships’ House loves ceremony, and the non-conformists that I have mentioned, and the Pentecostals, can be quite relaxed, but the Orthodox church has robes that put the present Bishops’ robes to shame. It is so sad that we have not honoured those communities with representation here.

While I know the Church of England response of old from my 14 years here—“It is open to HOLAC, Elizabeth, to appoint such people”—de jure, that is true, but in fact the privilege and monopoly of the Church of England mean that no further places in an already large House can be justified. While I ask His Majesty’s Government to look at this, with spaces becoming vacant on the Cross Benches, I also ask the Lords spiritual to give up some of their places, to give them away—to give away some of their privilege and power. It is time to let others in.

My Lords, I do not actually believe in God. However, just in case, I always seek to adhere to the highest ethical and moral standards, especially so far as public life is concerned. I do not propose to speak to the next group because it is so closely related to this one. The vast majority of your Lordships’ House are nominally Christian. If your Lordships want to have Prayers read by a Bishop—and I do—we need about 27 Bishops so that one of them can be the duty Bishop for the week or for two weeks, or however they organise it. An important point about the Bishops is that they normally retire, although, as the noble Baroness pointed out, a few come back as life Peers—and they are welcome. Bishops are appointed by the Prime Minister. If there were a problem, I am sure that in most cases the Prime Minister would find out; I am not sure that HOLAC is any better equipped, especially in so far as some of these safeguarding issues are concerned. It would be profitable for the Leader to find some way for other religious leaders to have temporary membership of your Lordships’ House in the same way as the Anglican Bishops. I do not think this point has been made today, but just because only a few other states have a revising Chamber with religious or moral input, that is not a good reason for us not having such input. I would counsel leaving the Bishops well alone.

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Scriven has his name to Amendments 48 and 49 but is unable to be here, sadly, so let me speak briefly from our Benches. I declare my interests as a member of the Church of England and as a former member of the Westminster Abbey Foundation; I am still active with it. I am very disappointed that the noble Lord, Lord Moore, did not suggest that abbots should be restored to their places here. Clearly, if we are discussing longer-term reform of the Lords, we need to address the question of the Bishops. At the same time, we might as well—other noble Lords have done this via Amendment 34 —address the question of faith representation in the House. In my lifetime, I have seen the Church of England—and certainly Westminster Abbey—become much more welcoming to ecumenical arrangements of all sorts. The Cardinal Archbishop has read the lesson in Westminster Abbey several times. I have been to a joint Jewish-Christian service in the abbey. I have listened to readings of the Koran in the middle of an abbey service. That is part of how the Church of England now tries to maintain its position as a national Church representing all faiths. It is worth mentioning in passing that this House is not entirely without representation of other Churches and faiths. My namesake was the Moderator of the Church of Scotland two years ago and the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths of Burry Port, is one of the most distinguished Methodists. The noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger, was the lead rabbi of Liberal Judaism, and we had a retired Chief Rabbi on the Benches of our House for some time. There is a broader question, which we clearly need to address, about the role of representatives of faith in a different House, if we are slowly moving further in that direction. The Bishops need to respond to that, and I hope they will contribute to that debate. That is as far as we need to go when discussing this Bill because it is not necessarily part of the Bill. But in the broader, wider discussion that we are unavoidably finding ourselves having in Committee, that has to be one of the questions under discussion. The noble Lord, Lord Moore, did not remark that there were only 14 or 15 Bishops in the Middle Ages, as I remember, and that the reason the number was fixed at 26 was because the number of dioceses was mushrooming so fast in the course of the 19th century. Perhaps that is the number we should go back to as an interim measure, but I look forward to hearing from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Sheffield if he is about to contribute to the debate.

My Lords, I am sorry to disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Moore, in the fact that the Bench of Bishops is briefly going to speak up on its own behalf. He may be surprised, as may many noble Lords opposite, that in the first eight months of the current Parliament the Bishops have voted 29 times, and only five times with the Labour Government. The Bishops are not party political; we really do seek to improve and scrutinise legislation. That is by the way. I am grateful for the opportunity offered by this range of amendments to address some of the concerns expressed by Members of this Committee about the place and role of those of us who serve on these Benches. Although we are not whipped and do not have a party line, the Lords spiritual are pretty much all of one mind that your Lordships’ House would benefit from some reform, not least to do with numbers and patronage. As noble Lords would expect, we believe that a reformed House of Lords should include Lords spiritual and should continue to reflect the present constitutional arrangement. I will try to speak briefly to all the amendments in this group, taking first Amendments 33 and 78, which seek to reduce the number of Lords spiritual serving on these Benches. Amendment 33 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, would reduce the number from its current 26 to five—the two Archbishops and three others nominated by the Church’s General Synod. In practice, since every one of the Lords spiritual has full-time responsibilities outside this place, a reduction to five would make it impossible for the remaining Lords spiritual to perform their functions as parliamentarians alongside their duties as diocesan bishops or primates. Although there are at present 26 Lords spiritual, noble Lords will notice that we are never by any means all present at any one time. That is because the demands of our other responsibilities prevent it. Only a minority of Lords spiritual are able to be present in this Chamber on any given day, and I urge noble Lords to keep this in mind in any consideration of a reduction in the number of those serving on these Benches. Amendment 78 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, seeks to reduce the Lords spiritual by a smaller number, to 20. As in the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, there is no obvious rationale for the number chosen. We are very open to the possibility of a reduction in the size of your Lordships’ House as a whole, with consequences for the Bench of Bishops, but we believe that a conversation about the number of Bishops should take place as part of a comprehensive review of membership of this House. We would warmly welcome representations not just from other Christian denominations but from other faith groups in this country. Amendments 48 and 49 in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, would prevent new Lords spiritual receiving writs to join the House but would allow current Bishops to remain until retirement and would not prevent someone who is a Bishop being made a life Peer. However, the amendment would permit a bishop to enter for the purposes of reading Prayers. While we appreciate the latter aspect of this amendment, we note that the role of the Lords spiritual is much more than mere chaplaincy. We highly value the privilege of leading your Lordships’ House in prayer, but we do not regard that as our only, nor always our most significant, contribution. Ultimately, on these Benches we oppose these amendments on the basis that they would effectively sever the constitutional link between Church and state. This limited Bill is not the place to settle questions about the constitutional status of the established Church of England—that is a bigger discussion for another time. Finally, Amendment 90B in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, would amend the Bishoprics Act 1878 so that the issuing of writs to Lords spiritual would be subject to the approval and effective veto of the House of Lords Appointments Commission. I understand the noble Baroness’s desire for the appointments process for diocesan bishops who become Lords spiritual to be robust. We on these Benches share that view and, indeed, would be open to the direct scrutiny of this House if that is what the House desires. However, there is already a stringent process for assessing propriety in the appointment of the diocesan bishops who subsequently become Lords spiritual. In fact, I venture to suggest that, while of course not perfect, the process overseen by the Crown Nominations Commission in the discernment of new diocesan bishops is at least as thorough as the other processes used to appoint Members to this House. Moreover, Writs of Summons to Lords spiritual are issued by the operation of law, not by the will of the Prime Minister or the Leader of the Opposition, so any involvement of the House of Lords Appointments Commission would need to be quite carefully calibrated. Noble Lords will hardly be surprised to learn that we on these Benches are not able to support this group of amendments.

20:45:00

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Sheffield, who has made a very robust defence of the Lords spiritual in this House. As he was speaking and outlining the reasons why certain numbers would not work, it occurred to me that the logical thing was not to have Bishops at all. Then, they could devote all their time to their diocesan work without having to worry about sitting in Parliament. I found the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, very persuasive for a number of reasons. The first is the historical link, which was also mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Moore, between the hereditary peerages and the Lords spiritual. A House of Lords Library briefing in 2017 said: “The participation of the Bishops in public business dates back to the early feudal period, when Bishops were summoned to Parliament by virtue of their feudal status as royal tenants by barony. It has been said that ‘at one time the Spiritual Peers were the most influential Members of the House. They filled the more important offices of state, and in actual number they had a majority over the Temporal Peers’”. So there is that historical link. The bishops were powers in the land. They owned land—as indeed the Church of England still does—and it was therefore not surprising that they should have a voice in Parliament, but that argument can no longer be made. I have been reflecting on what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Moore: no bishops, no King. I come from a part of the United Kingdom, and am a member of the Church of Scotland, which has not had bishops since the Reformation, but I can tell noble Lords that the King is respected and very much loved in Scotland. Next week, we will debate the Church of Scotland (Lord High Commissioner) Bill, which is a good illustration of the link between the monarch and the Church. It means that the Church is a national church, but without us having any desire or need to be in the legislature, not even the Scottish Parliament. It is a link. So, while the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Sheffield says we cannot break the link between Church and state, I think we can. There is no need for the Church, or any particular church, to have representation in the legislature—and it still can be a national church. It can still reflect the views from the different component geographical parts. The noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, made the valid point that, while it is said that the Church of England has the great advantage of having its dioceses, and it brings views from different parts of England to your Lordships’ House, it is representation from only one part of our United Kingdom. It does not have any representation from Scotland, Northern Ireland or Wales, and in a Parliament that seeks to be a Parliament of the United Kingdom—and many of us here are very strong in our belief that we should continue as a United Kingdom—it is unfortunate that only one part of the United Kingdom has religious representation. I have looked at the amendment that suggests a whole series of different denominations and faiths that could be nominated. It brought to mind that, when the Scottish Parliament was established in 1999, the first resolution we voted on was whether there should be a “time for reflection” or “prayers”, and time for reflection it became. One of my colleagues, Donald Gorrie, now sadly deceased, proposed prayers by proportional representation. I looked at the list in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, and thought, “For heaven’s sake! They’ll be wanting to have faith representation here by proportional representation, and who knows where that would lead us to”. The last time the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland discussed this issue, it took the view that there should be no bishops in a smaller House of Lords, and nor indeed should there be automatic representation of any other denomination or faith. By all means have bishops, moderators, clergy, or presidents of the Methodist Conference who get here on their own merit as life Peers, but there is no need for them to be automatically ex officio appointed to your Lordships’ House. For that reason, I am very supportive of the amendment tabled by the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham.

My Lords, I extend my sincere thanks to the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, for tabling Amendments 48 and 49, which I am pleased to be supporting today. I rise in strong support of both amendments, which offer an opportunity for meaningful reform. Plaid Cymru has long advocated an end to the automatic provision of legislative seats to Bishops, a change that these amendments would help to realise. Currently, 26 seats are guaranteed to Bishops of the Church of England, yet, as we have just heard from the noble Lord, no guaranteed seats exist for the Church in Wales, the Church of Scotland or for any other faith group. This disparity reflects a deeper issue: the exclusion of Wales and Scotland from representation within the Lords spiritual. It is, regrettably, another example of the UK Parliament’s continuing disproportionate focus on England. Beyond the Vatican City and Iran, most countries do not grant automatic seats as lawmakers to religious leaders. While some Members of your Lordships’ House may propose the inclusion of representatives from other faiths, I firmly believe that this is not a viable solution. The complexity of deciding which faiths, denominations or non-religious organisations should be represented alongside the constantly shifting demographic of the UK make such a proposal impossible. This is why I cannot support Amendments 33 and 78; they do not differ significantly from our current system, which already grants 26 Bishops automatic seats. As such, they fail to address the issue of representation in a meaningful way. Polling data from a YouGov survey conducted last September reveals the depth of public sentiment on this matter. Only 22% of respondents believed that the House of Lords should continue reserving places for Church of England Bishops. This consensus spans political divides, age groups, gender and regions. Across the board, the public support an end to reserved places for the Lords spiritual. Let me be clear: this is not a reflection of the valuable work done by individual Lords spiritual. On the contrary, many Bishops have made significant contributions, particularly on prison reform, contributing to debates on overcrowding and offender treatment; and through their efforts to support migrants and refugees, including their vocal opposition to the Rwanda Bill, which should be commended. However, these accomplishments speak to the individuals involved, not the system that automatically grants them a place in the House of Lords. In a reformed second Chamber, such individuals could, and should, be elected on the merit of their work and dedication, not based on their religious office. Therefore, I urge the Committee to support Amendments 48 and 49, which represent a clear and necessary step towards a more equitable and representative House of Lords.

My Lords, as somebody who is about to be expelled from the House of Lords, I cannot help feeling a little bit sorry for the right reverend Prelates on the Spiritual Bench. At the moment, they are, fashionably, everybody’s whipping-boy or girl. Everybody is rather against the Church of England at the moment. It is leaderless, with no Archbishop of Canterbury. So it is a pretty rotten way of attacking the Church, when they are down. There are so many good reasons to have a spiritual side to the House of Lords. There are hardly ever more than three or four Bishops in the House at any one time, and usually there is only one. So they hardly make an enormous amount of difference to our voting, but they do make a difference to how we are seen and to the tone of our general debates. I do not think one should decry that spiritual side of the House and its important links as part of the established Church. One of the reasons why I hate this Bill so much is that it takes a very piecemeal approach—flinging out just one cohort of the House without caring whether it does any good or what will happen when it is missed. I feel exactly the same way about the Bishops; they should be preserved until there is proper thought given to the kind of House we want. I know the Leader of the House will say, “If you want to wait for everything to be agreed, nothing will be agreed”, but that is not necessarily the case at all. It is not about everything being agreed but making sure that the worst aspects of this removal of various Peers are taken into account. There has been much mention of other faiths, and I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness. As a member of the Church of Scotland, it would be quite nice to hear from a fellow member of that church, and the noble and learned Lord is himself a distinguished former moderator of the Church of Scotland. There is obviously room for other faiths, and during the time I have been here there have been many occasions when representatives of other faiths have been present and played a useful part. Particularly when we deal with great moral issues of the day, whether on embryology, abortion or—no doubt soon if the Bill passes the House of Commons—assisted dying, the voice of the spiritual side of the House is very much to be welcomed. When I came here, the noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk, was the senior lay member of the Roman Catholic Church, and I spoke regularly against him. I think the current Duke does not want to take up that role—and in any case, he is going to be expelled as well. Less well known is that, over the last few years, the Roman Catholic cardinal archbishops have been offered places in the House of Lords, and often have wanted them, but have been denied the opportunity because of an issue with the Pope in Rome. I have got no idea what that is, but it is an interesting point about how this House is perceived and the importance with which it is perceived by other faiths. On balance, this has been a very good debate, and one that no doubt we shall return to, and I hope that my noble friends will withdraw their amendments when the time comes.

My Lords, times have changed for the Church of England since my ancestor in the 19th century demolished the small village church to build a larger one to accommodate increased demand. I support Amendment 90B, in the name of my friend Lady Berridge, about some sort of quality control on the appointment of Bishops. I am afraid to say I have to use Tim Dakin, the previous Bishop of Winchester, as an example of where quality control should have been exercised. His predecessor, Michael Scott-Joynt, was absolutely outstanding and made tremendous contributions in the House. Unfortunately, Tim Dakin did not live up to the standard of that previous Bishop. There were queries even about whether he was properly ordained—perhaps the Appointments Commission might have been able to inquire into that more seriously. The Bishop, who managed to alienate his own clergy, commissioned a report on alleged abuse by the Channel Islands clergy—who are actually part of the Diocese of Winchester—and the Archbishop of Canterbury had to issue an apology to the Dean of Jersey for the hurt and treatment they had received. The Church of England was sadly missing in action during Covid by closing the churches. There was no real danger of getting Covid in the larger churches due to the lack of attendance, and I do not recall many inspiring contributions in the House, apart from the Archbishop of Canterbury remotely celebrating communion in his kitchen. I have to disagree with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Sheffield, who said that the Bishops’ Benches are non-political. The Archbishop of Canterbury got very political during the passage of the previous Government’s immigration Bill and criticised it seriously. Generally, the Church seems to be keener on giving reparations to apologise for slavery than supporting rural parishes. On the other amendments, I do not really agree with them. We should keep 25 religious Members of the House of Lords but have a multifaith membership of the House.

21:00:00

My Lords, I shall speak to this group of amendments in particular and would argue for the retention of the Bishops as currently constituted. I fully appreciate the arguments advanced by noble Lords supporting the group of amendments and equally the intellectual arguments against the Bishops remaining here as advanced by Humanists UK and others. To the charge sheet against the Bishops, I would add that they are also extremely frustrating politically—at least to those of us on this side of the House—as between 2019 and the last general election they voted with the Government only 4% of the time. Often during the long evenings spent in the Division Lobbies, it seemed as if the Bishops were pre-programmed to vote against anything the Conservative Government were doing, just because it was the Conservative Government doing it. I also appreciate that they should more accurately be called Lords religious rather than Lords spiritual, as there is precious little spiritual, and a lot religious, in their involvement with identity politics and every fashionable left-wing cause that comes their way. I also appreciate that they are historically illiterate, as seen by the £1 billion target for reparations, supporting the view of the recent Archbishop of Canterbury that the British more or less invented slavery and did absolutely nothing to end it. I also appreciate that they are corporately cataclysmically incompetent, spending precious funds on meaningless virtue signalling while parishes are crumbling around the country. Nevertheless, the Bishops do represent a continuity with our constitution, history and culture and their presence here acknowledges that there is a power to be considered beyond the material and the political and one which still guides many lives. It is right that this part of life is acknowledged to exist by the Bishops being here. I would also argue that their presence here is a reminder of our religious history on whose behalf many of our laws were written, making what the Bishops represent a kind of canvas on which is painted much about the British constitution we hold dear and which can easily be taken for granted. My argument for the Bishops is that, if we are to lose the soul of this House by removing the hereditaries, we should at least keep the heart of it as represented by the Bishops.

My Lords, this is a very serious subject and the fact that some may not consider it to be serious or worthy of a long debate is troubling but, I would submit, it should be troubling above all to the Church of England itself which, to the great distress of many of us, has yielded so much of the spiritual ground in this nation that it once bestrode. I have said more than once that this radical Bill—one of very few in the history of this House to throw out existing Members—has far-reaching implications. The perfectly logical view is that the removal of one group of Members is closely connected to, and has repercussive effects on, the wider membership of the House. As we have heard, that logical connection elides into the urgent aspiration for exclusion that we have heard in some speeches today. Amendments in both Chambers concerning the Lords spiritual are just one example of this repercussive effect. The noble Lord, Lord Moore of Etchingham, gave what was, I would give him, not a Conservative speech but a notable Tory speech, to which the noble Lord, Lord Strathcarron, offered a coda. The Lords spiritual have been here since the origins of this House. Indeed, like the hereditary Peers, they were among the creators of our Parliament. They survived Henry VIII’s exclusion of the abbots, to which the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, referred, and when Parliament last decided to throw them out in the Bishops Exclusion Act in 1642, they were welcomed back warmly after 1660. When the British population moved to the new great cities such as Manchester—again, the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, referred to this—it was considered expedient to create new bishops, although there were not, perhaps, what many of us might consider to be the superabundant numbers in the parishes of today. There was considerable debate at that time about whether it would be possible to limit the rights of bishops to receive a writ to sit in this House. In 1847, the Liberal Government introduced the Bishopric of Manchester Bill, which limited the number of Lords spiritual in this House to no more than 26—that is what we have today. There was considerable resistance at the time, on the grounds that this interfered with the prerogative and, more objectionably, with the right of any Lord spiritual or temporal Peer to attend the House. But the reality, as people saw it, was that, although new bishops were no longer automatically included and a route of entry was partially closed, no one was being excluded. The House settled on this as a reasonable compromise, as the number of bishops expanded. This House, in its wisdom, has always tended to compromise on matters of composition. Since 1847, the historic limit of 26 right reverend Prelates has been maintained. There may be no magic in this number. I remember being present at discussions in around 2002, when the Conservative Party was proposing a smaller senate of 300. The right reverend Prelates indicated then that 12 might be the minimum number that would leave them with sufficient capacity to perform their important spiritual advisory duties in the House; I do not know whether that is still the case. They do a lot. After all, last night, one of them—the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Sheffield himself—stepped in to assist the House by acting as a Teller in a Division. He was voting against the Government, but I have to tell him that he was voting against the Opposition as well—perhaps that is how the numbers are now squared. We welcome the Bishops’ presence in all guises and at all times. When a gash—others would see it as unfinished business—is being made in the body of the House, I wonder whether it is wise to alight so fast on the next group to be excluded: some or all of the Lords spiritual. In the other place, the Bill faced amendments by a Conservative Back-Bencher to expel the right reverend Prelates, and in your Lordships’ House noble Lords from almost every party have signed up to related proposals—although I noticed that a proposal from the Labour Benches to expel all the Lords spiritual in two years was withdrawn shortly before the first Marshalled List was published. I hope no one in this House felt any pressure to keep quiet. My noble friend Lady Berridge tabled Amendment 90B to require Writs of Summons under the Bishoprics Act to be vetted by the House of Lords Appointments Commission. My noble friend Lord Hailsham took the same line, perhaps even more vehemently, but from a different angle. Although I understand my noble friend’s thinking and salute her constant stand on issues of propriety, which is greatly admired in this House, I am afraid it is an amendment we cannot support. The Church has its own rigorous processes for the selection of bishops, culminating in the Crown Nominations Commission, and it does have processes on conduct, to which no one is immune. Giving a veto to HOLAC would, in my submission, fall foul of the constitutional principle put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Butler, in our debates on Monday. My noble friend Lord Blencathra proposes the immediate reduction of the Lords spiritual from 26 to 5 in his amendment, which would also introduce a retirement age. That number would be too small, even if we were to move, for the reasons I have given. My noble friend Lord Dundee proposes 20 and my noble friend Lord Hailsham goes a step further by seeking to exclude all future bishops and archbishops of the Church of England from taking a seat here. These amendments have gained support formally from other parties, with signatures, as we have heard tonight, right across the Chamber. I am glad that the Labour Back-Bench amendment was withdrawn. My party would have opposed it, as I oppose the amendments of my noble friend Lord Hailsham. It is true that, with 890 votes cast by the right reverend Prelates against the Government of which I was a member, and only 36% in favour—the highest percentage of votes against a Government ever recorded from those Benches, in four successive Sessions—noble Lords might think I have some animus in the matter. I do not, because I am a generous soul and I was brought up an Anglican. I believe that considerations of party advantage or disadvantage should not enter decisions about classes of Peers who should sit in this House. As I said at Second Reading, it will not be long before the Bishops are the only Members not appointed under the 1958 Act. This Bill starts down a path that I fear we will be hard-pressed to close off, with the wholesale removal of blocks in the House; first the hereditaries, then perhaps the Bishops, and then, if Labour honours its manifesto pledge, the over-80s too. I agree with the wise words of my noble friend Lord Strathclyde on the spiritual dimension. We do not support the removal of the right reverend Prelates. Every institution gains from a spiritual dimension. Taking them out now would simply add to instability in the House, give scant recognition to their important role inside and outside the House, including the territorial dimension, and walk without due consideration into a difficult debate on the disestablishment of the Church and, as my noble friend Lord Moore of Etchingham said, perhaps even the role of the monarch in the Church. Heaven knows, some of us yearn to hear the Christian voice raised more clearly in witness to the nation and not see it dimmed further. Change, such as is proposed in these amendments, to remove or lessen that voice in this House would require the most careful consideration and debate. I hope that my noble friends will agree not to press their amendments.

My Lords, this group of amendments has raised a number of issues. We have heard impassioned and deeply held views on both sides of the argument. As the noble Lord, Lord True, says, this was debated in the other place, where it went to a Division and was lost by 320 or so votes. A lot of noble Lords made the point that it is important we recognise that, in this House, we welcome people of all religious faiths and of no religious faith. They all add to the diversity of this place. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, made the point that there are questions about the future of this House and its composition, as noble Lords have commented on. We have made proposals about what kind of alternative second Chamber could replace the current House of Lords as a long-term ambition. It would be something more representative of the nations across the UK. That would be consulted on, including with the public, with soundings taken as to how they feel that an alternative second Chamber would best suit them. There are different kinds of amendments in this group. The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, and the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, are looking to remove or reduce the number of Lords spiritual. The noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, who has considerable expertise and respect across the House and the country for her views on safeguarding issues, wanted to amend the Bishops Act to enable HOLAC to approve any Bishops. In fact, the only two groups that HOLAC does not comment on are the hereditary Peers, who come in through by-elections, and the Bishops. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord True—it is nice to be able to say that from the Dispatch Box—in that I am not sure that a role for HOLAC regarding the Bishops is appropriate. The Bishops have their own method for being considered and an approval process before they come to this House. I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Sheffield for his comments on this issue. He will have heard what Members have said. I think his voting record in the future may confound us. My experience of the Bishops is that they challenge the Government, whoever the Government of the day are. He was a Teller against the official Opposition and then the other night he was a Teller against the Government. I suspect that we may see this on other issues as well. We welcome the presence of the Bishops here. They will have heard the comments from noble Lords; some were more measured than others and some were more supportive than others. There is a place in the House for the Bishops at the moment. However, if there are wider discussions on any future composition of the House, the Bishops will be part of them. But, at this stage, I request that the noble Lord withdraws the amendment in his name.

21:15:00

My Lords, if I may mix my metaphors, someone had to put on the suicide vest and poke his head above the parapet by putting down this highly controversial amendment for a drastic reduction in the number of Bishops. It had the desired effect: in a debate of one hour and 10 minutes, we have had some very interesting speeches and suggestions for a possible way forward in looking at other faiths in another amendment. We have had the benefit of three very powerful speeches. My noble friend Lord Hailsham made a very powerful speech about the removal of all Bishops. That was immediately countermanded by an equally powerful speech by the noble Lord, Lord Moore of Etchingham, who made the finest case for retaining the Bishops that I have ever heard; he mentioned the line—in fact, the truth—that we must not disturb the settlement. The third excellent speech was from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Sheffield, who made the valid point that having only five Bishops would make it impossible for them to work here. I accept that, but he also said that the Bishops were open to discussion on their possible numbers in any future settlement or change to the House of Lords. My noble friend Lord Dundee wanted to reduce the number of Bishops from 26 to 20. Forgive me, but I cannot see the big difference that that would make. My noble friend Lady Berridge called for a check on the propriety of Bishops. I have no intention of entering into that detail, but she spoke at length on adding other faiths, which is the subject of my Amendment 34.

I discussed Christians.

My Amendment 34 intends to add representatives of five other faiths, so I accept that our amendments are not exactly the same. She talked about lots of other churches and religions not being represented. That is something I was going to talk about in relation to my next amendment, if I moved it. When the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, spoke, I asked myself, “What on earth is he doing here at 9.15 pm on his birthday? It certainly can’t be to hear my speech”. I should say that, on my next amendment, a colleague complained that I missed out the Church of Scotland; it was not the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, but the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness. He also made the point about including other faiths. The noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Llanfaes, quoted the polls. If this House or the Government were to do everything the polls wanted every time they wanted it, they would be changing policy every six months—so I do not necessarily go along with that. I accept my noble friend Lord Strathclyde’s point that this issue needs further consideration, in the round, with further Lords reform. I simply do not want to get into the detail of what my noble friend Lord Northbrook said; I hope he will forgive me. At first, I thought that my noble friend Lord Strathcarron was going to support getting rid of all the Bishops, but his speech was a rather intriguing way of keeping the Bishops by criticising everything they did. But he did make the point that they make a very valuable contribution to this House. My noble friend Lord True, the shadow Leader, made a very careful and thoughtful speech, mainly arguing for the status quo and making the point that the Bishops may be sitting on the only Benches in this House that will not be appointed by the Prime Minister in future. The Leader also made a thoughtful and wise speech, calling for wider discussion. I was due to move the next amendment—Amendment 34—which seeks to reduce the number of Bishops to five and add five representatives of other faiths. However, given that we have had some extensive speeches tonight on adding other faiths, I may change my mind on moving that amendment. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.

Amendment 33 withdrawn.

Amendment 34 not moved.

Amendment 35

Moved by

35: After Clause 1, insert the following new Clause— “Rights of life peers to sit in the House of Lords(1) Section 1 of the Life Peerages Act 1958 (power to confer life peerages) is amended as follows.(2) At the end of subsection (1) insert “, and, as the case may be, the incidents specified in subsection (2A) of this section”.(3) Omit from “and” in subsection (2)(a) to the end of subsection (2)(b).(4) After subsection (2), insert—“(2A) A peerage conferred under this section may, if the letters patent so state, during the life of the person on whom it is conferred, entitle him, subject to subsection (4) of this section, to receive writs of summons to attend the House of Lords and sit and vote therein accordingly, and shall expire on his death.””

My Lords, it would be a really useful flexibility in our system if life Peers could be appointed without the right to sit in the House of Lords. Frankly, there are people who deserve a peerage but who do not want the obligations, which we have been discussing today, to attend here and deal with the minutiae of legislation. In particular there are those who have grown senior and grand enough that arguing whether a comma should be moved one word to the right is not how they want to spend their life—unlike me. So this would be a useful addition to the structure of our life peerage. It would enable people to be honoured properly and to be given a seat in this House only if that is what they really want and they intend to make full use of it. I beg to move.

My Lords, I support the sentiment of this amendment. Again, this is a longer-term issue, but separating the honour from the obligation is an important part of how we should be moving forward. We know that a number of people have desperately wanted peerages—I am one of the many who found, after my appointment to this House, that the number of people who wished to invite me out to lunch to tell me what excellent Peers they would make increased very considerably. This House has—happily—become much more professional in the past 20 years. We do now recognise this as a job, but we do not necessarily need to be Peers to do the job. Perhaps if we were called “Senators” or whatever, that would work quite as well. I immensely enjoy my title, in the sense that Saltaire is a very special village. It is now a world heritage site. It has a Hockney gallery, and I suspect that no one apart from me in this House knows that Paul Hockney, David’s elder brother, was a Liberal Democrat councillor and the Mayor of Bradford. The more important thing for the long-term interest of this House is that we have good people appointed to the second Chamber, and that this is thought of first as a second Chamber and not so much as a House of Lords. Those who wish to have titles could perhaps have titles that do not have the obligations that we all now willingly accept to examine legislation, to debate difficult issues and to play a part in the governance of this country.

My Lords, I just say that I will have to leave at 10 pm, but I think we have time for me to make a speech. I am not convinced that this is a good idea, although I understand my noble friend’s thinking. Like it or not, we live in a much less deferential society. It always depresses me when I read of senior military officers or junior ratings or NCOs in the Regular Army being referred to as “Mr”, even in a military context. Many years ago, when I was just a full corporal in the reserves, I was proud of the rank that I held and what it indicated. However, I am not sure now that being a Peer is an attractive rank or honour any more. We see one Baroness who is a national treasure more often referred to by her damehood than her peerage. I have a point for the Minister and perhaps the Leader to consider. So far as I am aware, there is no reliable, regularly used database of preferred styles for their Lordships. Googling an active Member will take an unsuspecting user to a highly misleading page on the House website. The result is that the uninitiated will inadvertently send irritating emails to traditional Peers such as myself, but at the same time they may irritate other Peers by being far too deferential—the worst of all worlds. Would it not be better if the House of Lords website made it clear what each Peer’s preferred style was? The situation is even worse, as some potentially really good members, particularly from the party opposite, may be deterred from putting themselves forward for consideration for a peerage because they would be horrified by the prospect of being addressed formally as a Member of your Lordships’ House. This problem could be alleviated by having the database I have referred to and encouraging its use, particularly by the lobbying industry.

My Lords, I refer to Amendment 76 in my name. Its effect is to make a distinction between non-parliamentary and parliamentary peerages. Political patronage, along with awarding other honours, would continue to create non-parliamentary peerages but no longer those which confer a parliamentary right to sit in the House of Lords. As a result, conversely, a parliamentary right to sit in the House of Lords would be decoupled from political patronage. To that extent, Amendment 76 connects to other amendments to this Bill on the future composition of the House of Lords. These include: first, a revised role for HOLAC to appoint within a reformed House of 600 temporal Peers one-third—or 200—as non-political Cross-Benchers; secondly, the setting up of an electoral college representative of all parts of the United Kingdom to indirectly elect 400 political Members, or two-thirds of a reformed House; and, thirdly, the establishment of different membership group numbers in order best to ensure the continuity of our present very high standard of legislative scrutiny and revision. In a reformed House, this would be done by having the non-political Cross-Benchers in the majority, with 200 temporal Members—50 more than either the government or opposition parties, which would have exactly 150 political Members each, while other political and temporal Members, including the Liberal Democrats, would number 100. Amendment 76, therefore, is in the context of a continued high standard of legislative scrutiny in a reformed House. It is achievable, provided that, as a first step, the right to sit and work in the House of Lords becomes decoupled from political patronage.

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Lucas has raised an interesting point. There must be a case for decoupling the gift of a peerage or title from the membership of a legislature. Whether one thinks it a good idea or not, that is the route along which this Bill is slowly taking us. When the hereditary Peers leave this House, that will be another step towards it ceasing to be a House of Lords. It will become a senate, second Chamber or whatever you want to call it. The reality is that, if you take the Lords out of the House, it is not a House of Lords any more. Whether the Government want to go that way or not, that is the route they are going. There has for years, not just in the last few years or decades, been this discussion about people being awarded peerages and obviously not really wanting to be Members of this House. They want to be called “Lord”; they like coronets and being grand, being called “My Lord” in restaurants, having tables and things such as that. It is done as a reward, whether for giving money to a political party or for some rather better reason—I do not know—but the reality is that some have been rewarded in this way and do not really have any interest in being a Member of this House. They want to be called “Lord” but certainly do not want to sit through Report of the rats and mice Bill at 9.45 pm. That is the route we are going along, whether we like it or not, and at some stage this House will have to think about it. At some stage, whether on this or on future legislation, there will undoubtedly be a split between the peerage Lords and this House. They will divide and go in different directions. That is the reality of life.

21:30:00

My Lords, I have signed the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Lucas in this group, but that is not because I agree with every aspect of his amendment. I am not sure that any amendment is necessary to achieve the purpose that he and some others who have spoken want to see. Indeed, it could have the negative effect of locking the absolute right of the Crown to create any form of peerage within the frame of the 1958 Act, which, among other things, says that all peerages created under it can be only baronies. I support the amendment because I have long advocated the course that it seeks to enable, and I sense support for that in the Committee. It seeks the creation of peerages that do not entitle a person to a writ to sit in the House of Lords. The nation will always want to honour those who are most distinguished among us with the high honour of a peerage, yet, as we have heard, not everyone who might be glad—or perhaps hungry or avid—to accept or secure an honour will wish to undertake the sometimes arduous role of playing a part in your Lordships’ House. We all know such people. We have all have known also some who walk the narrow tightrope between honour and duty. I do not subscribe to the view that all who come here must smash the pain and endurance barriers in participation or attendance. I deplore the fact that some of our number, including much-respected colleagues on the other side, are being measured in this way in a current media campaign against the House. However, I acknowledge that many in this House and outside have high expectations that someone who accepts a peerage should be active in this House. The noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, reminded us of the wording of our summons in an earlier debate. As some have argued, if we were able clearly to separate those who wish to play a role in Parliament and those who do not, it would, at the lowest argument for such a proposition, reduce at least some of the inflow in headline numbers to this House, to which many attach importance. In short, as argued by my noble friends, and as I would argue, you could have on one side Lords created under the 1958 Act, with all the expectations of a Writ of Summons conferred by that Act and the accompanying duty to take part, and another set of Peers honoured with the same degree of barony—even, potentially, a higher degree—who had no wish to be in this place but who have been proved deserving of such an honour. That is surely perfectly possible. I have argued this case to at least three Prime Ministers, but the usual reply comes that the law is uncertain. I do not think it is that uncertain, but, if it is, let us, while we have this Bill before us, rally round my noble friend’s amendment, or some variation of it come Report, and make it certain. This would be an exceedingly useful change for the body politic. The Life Peerages Act did not create a novel concept of a peerage for life. That had existed for centuries. It corrected two problems that had arisen in decisions by your Lordships’ Committee for Privileges. In 1922, in the Viscountess Rhondda case, it decided that a woman could not sit in this House—a shameful judgment, in retrospect—and in 1856, in the Wensleydale case, it concluded that a life peerage did not confer on a man a right to sit and vote in Parliament. The Wensleydale case is germane to this argument because, although the House held that Sir James Parke’s life peerage did not entitle him to sit or speak in the House—he was later, as many of us know, given a hereditary peerage to allow him to do so and to take up his role as a Law Lord—the Committee for Privileges did not and could not extinguish his life peerage, which remained in existence as a perfectly proper exercise of Queen Victoria’s prerogative as the fount of honour. The issue was whether the hereditary Peers wanted to have him as a life Peer. Although it was said at the time that the creation of a life peerage for men might have fallen into disuse, the Wensleydale barony showed that it had not. Furthermore, long after the Restoration and into the 19th century, monarchs created peerages for life which did not confer the right to a writ to sit in this House. Charles II created 10, I think; James II created one; William III created at least one; George I created three, I think; and there were others later into the 19th century. They were all for women—and maybe that explains why Charles II created 10 of them. Sadly, in those days, because they were women, they were unable to sit. The power to create such peerages without the right to sit is, therefore, in my submission, absolutely inherent and current in the Crown. That was also the conclusion of the Lord Speaker’s committee on the size of the House in 2017, in, I believe, paragraphs 25 and 26 of the report. I see the noble Lord, Lord Burns, indicating assent. Whenever we listen to the Letters Patent at Introductions, we hear reference, after the words “in pursuance of the Life Peerages Act 1958”, to another phrase: “and of all other powers in that behalf us enabling”. Among those other powers is, clearly, the power to create other types of peerage than a life peerage under the 1958 Act. Indeed, we had peerages under the 1876 Act until lately. I submit that a Prime Minister could advise the monarch tomorrow to create a life peerage that did not entitle the Peer to sit in this House. I submit that that would be a useful innovation that would be widely welcomed on all sides, whether you were to call it modernisation or, as I am asserting, a useful revival of a custom of the past. It would, frankly, be a far more useful modernisation than what is in the Bill before us. I commend this proposal to the House, as I commend the purpose of my noble friend’s amendment. It is a change that is long overdue and does not require legislation. If Sir Keir Starmer were to take it up, I think it would be widely welcomed as a modern and sensible innovation.

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, for their amendments and for the brevity with which they spoke. With the greatest respect to their Lordships, the Government do not consider the amendments to be necessary or appropriate. The reason why is that the Government believe there should be clarity both in your Lordships’ House and in the public at large as to what a life peerage is and, importantly, what the responsibilities are of those accorded the privilege of appointment. The granting of a life peerage, as we all know, brings with it responsibility for the work of your Lordships’ House: scrutinising legislation and holding the Government of the day to account. As my noble friend the Leader of the House has said, Peers should be appointed not only in recognition of their skills and expertise but in anticipation of those skills being put in service to your Lordships’ House. The Government believe there is obvious benefit to the reputation of Parliament that the role of life Peers is well understood by members of the public. It may be thought that it would be apt to confusion if there is another class bearing the same name but not carrying with it the same obligations. By contrast to the life peerage, the honour system represents the monarch’s recognition of past service or achievement without any obligation to future service. We do not consider that there is a clamour, either in Parliament or among the public, for some form of superannuation to the honour system so that some would bear the same title as life Peers who work in this House. For those reasons, I respectfully ask that the amendment be withdrawn.

My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General sits down, there already are large numbers of Peers who are not Members of this House, so there are already two classes of Peer in that sense. So that part of his argument is spurious. Also, if the noble and learned Lord casts his mind back—I am not sure if he was in the House at the time; he probably was—we spent some time earlier this evening talking about Peers who are Members of this House who clearly do not obey the Writ of Summons and do not want or choose, for lots of reasons, to play a part in this House. So, both the arguments he has put forward are completely spurious.

With the greatest respect to the noble Lord, I made my points by reference to life peerages. Obviously, as your Lordships know well, there is nothing contained in this Bill that will affect the status of hereditary peerages, other than the rights to sit and vote in this House. Were the logic of the noble Earl’s argument to be taken to its logical extension, we would create a third—possibly even, on the noble Earl’s argument, a fourth—class of peerage. The Government simply do not consider that necessary. There is no public clamour for it. Certainly the arguments in favour of it could not possibly, in the Government’s view, outweigh the confusion that would arise in the public’s mind as to what a life Peer is and what their functions are, and that confusion would not serve to enhance the reputation of your Lordships’ House.

I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his response. I am even more grateful to him for promoting me to an Earl, which I would love to be. Do not apologise; I am delighted to be an Earl and am enjoying the 30 seconds of earldom that I have been given. The reality is that there are masses of Peers walking around the streets—I say “masses”, but it is quite a lot: several hundred—and going into smart restaurants and not coming into your Lordships’ House who are called “Lord This” and “Lord That”. They do not have a badge on them saying, “I am a hereditary Peer”, or another one saying, “I am a life Peer”. The fact is that most people in the world do not know the difference between a life Peer and a hereditary Peer. Again, the argument that the noble and learned Lord puts forward is a complete fantasy.

Well, I am very grateful to the noble Lord for forgiving my rookie mistake. We have already discussed during the course of the evening what I anticipate is an almost unanimous view of those of your Lordships who participate regularly in this House on the unacceptable situation of those who do not. There has been a fruitful discussion today, with insightful contributions from all sections of this House, reflecting a determination to address both that problem and the issue of participation. However, I respectfully say to the noble Lord that the very fact that there are Members of your Lordships’ House who do not participate but nevertheless continue to enjoy the benefits of the title is not an argument for creating yet another class of life peerage; it is an argument for the work that will, I hope, take place to address the problems that we face with participation.

As was referred to earlier by the Leader of the Opposition, in the Lord Speaker’s Committee, we looked at this in some detail and had legal advice that it would be possible. However, on this narrow question, surely there is another group of people who are around: those who have retired and have kept their titles but no longer receive a Writ of Summons.

Again, we need to remember what the amendment seeks to do, which is create yet another category. The question there is: how would this help and who would it serve? The Government’s position is that a further category would not help promote the image of your Lordships’ House in the public eye. It would lead to confusion and it would not add to utility. There is no suggestion that the honours system is somehow bereft of a further status that needs to be met by the creation of a further class of Peer.

The noble and learned Lord asked how this would help and who it would serve. I had the privilege of acting as an adviser to a former leader of my party, a former Prime Minister, and I certainly saw, as noble Lords have alluded to, the not inconsiderable queue of people who come to offer themselves for service in the upper House. I have seen party leaders of all political persuasions come under similar pressure. It would help them to be able to say, “Look, there are ways of recognising your great contribution to national life without giving you a seat in the legislature”, thus separating the distinction of a barony, earldom, marquisate or whatever from a perpetual role in legislating for the life of the nation.

That may be a convenient out for Prime Ministers present and future but it is not, in the Government’s view, a compelling reason to create a further class of life Peer; and it is certainly not compelling enough to offset the confusion in the public eye that would be created by such an additional class.

21:45:00

I am sorry to persist. It is clear that we are getting nowhere on this tonight, but I believe this is a very constructive proposal. I am very disappointed by the noble and learned Lord’s response. A peerage is a peerage; a barony is a barony, whatever it is, under whatever part of the prerogative or Act of Parliament, or otherwise, it exists. As the noble Lord, Lord Burns, pointed out, we have retired people, we have hereditary Peers—the public are not reeling about in confusion. It may be that the noble and learned Lord is reeling about in confusion, but there may be many ways and many things that attach to the possession of the title “Lord”, just as if you have a knighthood, you can be a cricketer or a captain of industry, or many other things. The noble and learned Lord is ingeniously trying to create difficulties where, frankly, none exist. I would have thought this modernising Government would have the imagination to take a step forward.

My Lords, at the risk of being sent to a re-education camp by my Chief Whip, I find the noble and learned Lord’s argument more persuasive. However, I gave no notice to the Minister about my issue on styles. Can the noble and learned Lord give some careful consideration to that in due course and write to me on it?

Yes, of course, I will.

My Lords, I understand what the Government’s policy is; I think it is profoundly mistaken. As my noble friend on the Front Bench said, I do not think that people perceive someone who is Lord Hermer to be different from any other species of Lord Hermer who might have appeared as a hereditary Peer or, indeed, a Law Lord. It is a title, and the fact that these things come from different directions would not cause a problem. I think that all of us who have been in this place for a while are aware of people who have come here and are totally unsuited to the job we do and the life we lead but who have, in every way, deserved the honour of a peerage—I will not name names, but it is easy to think of lots of them. I can also think of those who have not taken up a peerage, when they obviously deserve one, because of the obligations that being a Member of this House brings and which they personally would wish to avoid. I think that something along these lines would be good. I share my noble friend Lord True’s frustration at having been unable to persuade the previous Government of various things, but I did have hopes of this reforming Government, and I am sorry that they have been disappointed. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 35 withdrawn.

Amendment 36

Moved by

36: After Clause 1, insert the following new Clause— “No majority for one party in the House of LordsAfter section 1 of the Life Peerages Act 1958, insert—“1A No majority for one party in the House of Lords(1) An appointment may not be made to the House of Lords if it would have the effect of taking the total number of peers from parties forming part of the Government to more than 40% of the total members of that House.(2) If at any time the number of peers from parties forming part of the Government exceeds 40% of the total members of the House of Lords, no appointments to the parties forming part of the Government may be made until that number is reduced below 40% either by resignation, new appointments or leave of absence.””

My Lords, it seems to me—and this is certainly something that I would want to take through to Report—that, if we are to have a House that is totally appointed by the Prime Minister, one of the really important things is to have some control of the consequences of that for the House of Lords. It is in our memories the threat that was made in 1911 to flood the House with Peers to support the Government. I think that would be a disaster. I am glad we avoided it at the time. The Lord Lucas at the time was a Liberal, and therefore sensible. I do not think it is the right basis for a second Chamber in a democratic country that the Prime Minister can, if they are sufficiently upset with the second House, effectively flood it with their own supporters and have done with it. Moving, as we are, to a House where the Prime Minister has total control over who comes in, we ought to have some recognition of the current settlement, which is that the Government do not have a majority in this House. I beg to move.

My Lords, my noble friend does the Committee a significant service by putting forward this amendment. It encapsulates the arguments around a fully appointed House and this extraordinary situation that we find ourselves heading towards—a fully appointed House, with all appointments made by the Prime Minister, and a ratchet, in effect, in numbers, going upwards and upwards, when there is a change of Government. I think my noble friend’s amendment, which sounds so simple and straightforward, throws up any number of difficulties, and we could spend the next two or three days of Committee, if such things existed, talking about how this mechanism might work. My noble friend Lord Lucas is absolutely right to raise the question of the balance between the parties and the Prime Minister’s ability to introduce, unchecked, large numbers of Peers into the House. I was very taken —on Monday, I think it was—when we were talking about the question of elections, when a hushed silence went through the Committee and there were some shocked faces. I felt like I was in a Bateman cartoon: the man who dared to mention elections in the House of Lords—shock, horror. But here we are, discussing one version of an archaic situation versus another. It is quite clear that there is no rational defence of the Prime Minister being able to appoint, without any check on numbers, to this House. The question of coalitions—parties that might come together and then split apart, parties that might themselves divide—would cause all sorts of difficulties. I suspect that this amendment that my noble friend has put forward is a legislative hand grenade, designed to illustrate the difficulties rather than necessarily put forward a carefully worked through solution.

The noble Viscount will not be surprised at me saying again that the only way to deal with the problem that this amendment seeks to address is to have an election.

I quite agree with the noble Lord.

My noble friend’s amendment to ensure that no one party has a majority in the House of Lords is a relatively new idea. In the pre-1999 House of more than 1,000 noble Lords, there was often a majority well-disposed to the Government of the day. I remember observing, as an adviser in the Conservative Government after 2015, that this was perhaps the first Conservative Government in history who did not enjoy a majority in the House of Lords. What we are confronting here is a relatively new phenomenon. Of course, it was a problem that the Labour Party faced much earlier, and had to contend with under the leadership of my noble friend Lord Attlee’s grandfather, after 1945. Out of that arose what we know as the Salisbury convention, though really it should not be called that. Viscount Cranborne had not acceded to the marquisate at that time, and poor old Viscount Addison never gets remembered. Under that convention, your Lordships’ House agreed that it would not seek to thwart the main lines of Labour’s legislation provided it derived from the party’s manifesto for the previous election. Sadly, the then-future fifth Marquess did not tell us what to do about full stops or other punctuation in Labour manifestos, but it was a convention that certainly helped the Attlee Government get its business through and make all the changes that it did to this country. It echoed the referendal theory, which was developed under the third Marquess, in relation to legislation that was brought forward by Liberal Governments, but it is clear there was a lack of clarity on this convention. I remember the noble Baroness the Lord Privy Seal arguing to your Lordships’ Committee on the Constitution, when I was in Downing Street advising my noble friend Lady May of Maidenhead, that it was far from clear that the Salisbury-Addison convention was ever intended to apply to minority Governments and that was not an eventuality that was foreseen by the Marquess of Salisbury in the 1940s. There are clearly a lot of gaps to fill. There was an attempt by your Lordships’ House—indeed, there was a Joint Committee—to look at the conventions and the two Houses’ understanding of how they operated, back in 2006. I wonder whether the noble Baroness or the present Government have any intention of repeating that exercise, in looking to codify or clarify the convention or to point out other unforeseen circumstances, such as minority Governments in another place. In the 1997 Labour manifesto, there was a sentence that said: “No one political party should seek a majority in the House of Lords”. There was no such statement or commitment in the 2024 manifesto. I think the noble Baroness the Lord Privy Seal has been clear from the Dispatch Box before that it is her view that no party should seek a majority in your Lordships’ House, and I would be grateful if she would expand on that in a moment. But I think my noble friend Lord Hailsham, who has spoken a few times—

Briefly.

My noble friend, who has spoken briefly and enjoyably on every occasion, is keen to hear from the Lord Privy Seal, as are we all, so I leave it to her.

I am grateful. I was wondering what the chuntering was—I did not quite catch what the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, was talking about. It is an interesting proposal from the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. I cannot recall—and I think the noble Lord had this right—the last time any political party had an overall majority in this Chamber. He talked about an overall majority, as the Conservative Party has been the largest party for a very long time; before the passing of the 1999 Act, it had over 40%, so it was the Conservative Party that had that majority prior to the hereditary Peers leaving at that time. Since their removal, no party has ever had more than 40% of the seats. Even when this Bill is passed, the Government Benches will still only be 28% of the seats of this House. I was not quite sure what the noble Lord meant by a “ratchet effect”. The noble Lord will know that I have decried that. It worked very badly under the last Government, where it seemed that every time the Government lost a vote, they would put more Peers in, even though they had a much larger group than any other party and still lost votes. The issue of losing votes is often to do with the quality of the legislation; it is never just about numbers in this place. The purpose behind the amendment from noble Lord, Lord Lucas, is to address the fact that it has been said, in the media and in the Chamber, that today’s Government are trying to remove hereditary Peers to create vacancies and bring in more Labour Peers to create a majority. My very strong view is on record—in Select Committee in the other place and here—that this House does its best work when there are roughly equal numbers between Government and Opposition. I would like to see a House of Lords that is more deliberative. We got into some bad habits under the last Government, where a system of “We have the numbers and can get this through” came about. That largely started during the coalition Government, when there was a very large majority for the coalition. Almost anything the coalition Government wanted to do would get through. When we have roughly equal numbers between the main opposition and government parties, we do our best work, because we are more deliberative in our approach and more engaged in how we work. We are not just thinking it is all about vote; it is about the quality of debate and the quality of advice we can offer.

22:00:00

The noble Lord mentioned again about the Prime Minister making appointments. The Prime Minister does not make all appointments; appointments go through the Prime Minister, but political parties nominate. The noble Lord smiles at me, but he will know that under the last Government the proportion of new appointments to the Opposition was significantly lower than the proportion the Government took to themselves. I have given this figure before but, at the end of the 2010 Session, when Labour had been in government, we had 25 more Peers than the Conservative Party. After the same period of time, but a period of Conservative Governments, there were more than 100 more Conservative than Labour Peers. That imbalance does not serve the House well, and I would like to get back to having a better balance between parties.

Perhaps an indication of our good faith on this is that, despite the disparity in the parties, at the last round of appointments I know that the Conservative Opposition did not expect any new Peers to be appointed. However, on top of the resignation honours list that is still to come from the previous Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, we suggested to the Opposition that there could be six or seven new Peers, even given the disparity in numbers. I say that in some good faith, because I do not want to play the numbers game; it does not serve the House well.

I recognise the good faith that the Government have shown so far, and we have acknowledged in our previous exchanges the different records of previous Conservative Prime Ministers in this regard. The noble Baroness has been very kind about my former boss, my noble friend Lady May. Once she gets to the roughly equal numbers of the two Benches facing one another that she sees, does she see a case for putting in a protection so that future Prime Ministers, who may not behave with the same discretion that Sir Keir Starmer is currently behaving with—I am sure with the noble Baroness’s support and encouragement—are not able to do what previous Prime Ministers have done before, to her dismay? We have talked about the need for some check on the number or the rate or regularity with which Prime Ministers can recommend people: they go through the Prime Minister, but at a time of the Prime Minister’s choosing and in the number of his choice. Should there be a protection there?

The noble Lord tempts me—I wonder whether he is trying to tempt me against a future Cameron or Johnson premiership, because that was the time when the numbers were increased. I have had the same pressure from some of my own colleagues after the behaviour of previous Conservative Governments. I would hope that there would not be a need for it, but I think it is something we would look at in future, if Prime Ministers were behaving in a way that was inappropriate in terms of appointments. However, we are not at that point at the moment and it would be wrong at the moment to put that in. The Norton Bill also talked about 20% for the Cross Benches. While I think that that is a fair and appropriate percentage of the House for the Cross Benches, I would not define that in statute, because defining only one party or group in statute does not help the balance of the House—it is rather mixed, then. In saying that the governing party cannot have more than 40%, you then have to look at the balance for the rest of the House and not just at one particular group. I agree with the noble Lord on conventions; they are important and have stood the test of time. I remind him that it is not just the Salisbury convention—it is the Salisbury/Addison convention, because there was a Labour and a Conservative leader at the time who agreed on conventions that have served this House well. They served us through the 1999 legislation and will serve us well in future. I think that we would all want to abide by them, because we do our best work when we abide by the conventions, as we did in opposition. So I understand the sentiments behind the noble Lord’s amendment and have a lot of sympathy with it. I think that the House works best in that way—but the amendment is too restrictive at present and I respectfully ask that he withdraw it.

My Lords, I am grateful to the Lord Privy Seal for that comprehensive answer. We clearly agree on the state of parties that makes this House work best. We also agree as to who has pushed those percentages in a way that perhaps they should not have done, and it has not been the Labour Party. My concern is to produce a system which preserves the sort of balance that she and I agree we need in the face of a future Prime Minister who does not behave well—of whatever colour; probably our party given the precedence—but, either way, my concern is for the House more than party. For now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 36 withdrawn.

Amendment 37 not moved.

I am not able to call Amendments 38 or 39, as they are amendments to Amendment 37.

Amendment 40 not moved.

I am not able to call Amendments 41 and 42, as they are amendments to Amendment 40.

Amendment 43 not moved.

Amendment 44 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.

I am not able to call Amendment 44A, because it is an amendment to Amendment 43.

Amendment 45 not moved.

I cannot call Amendment 46, because it is an amendment to Amendment 45.

Amendments 47 to 51 not moved.

Amendment 52 not moved.

Amendments 53 and 54 are amendments to Amendment 52, so I cannot call them.

House resumed.

House adjourned at 10.07 pm.