House of Lords: Composition

Private Notice Question

12:01:00

Asked by

To ask His Majesty’s Government (1) what plans they have for the removal of excepted hereditary peers from the House of Lords and (2) whether they plan to keep the House informed on any proposed changes to its composition before the publication of relevant legislation.

My Lords, I beg leave to ask a Question of which I have given private notice, and I declare my interest. The question is as follows: to ask His Majesty’s Government, first, what plans they have for the removal of excepted Peers from the House of Lords and, secondly, whether they plan to keep the House informed on any proposed changes to its composition before the publication of relevant legislation.

My Lords, I think the noble Lord’s Question referred to excepted hereditary Peers. Today, probably as we speak, the Government are introducing a Bill in the other place to deliver on our clear manifesto commitment to bring about immediate reform by removing the right of the remaining hereditary Peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords. The Bill was included in the King’s Speech, which was debated at length in your Lordships’ House. It will complete the process started a quarter of a century ago to remove hereditary Peers from Parliament. The Government are keen to maintain an ongoing dialogue with your Lordships about this legislation and our other manifesto commitments on reforming this House.

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness the Leader of the House for that Answer, but is it not a bit shoddy that she was prepared to speak to the press yesterday and had to be summoned to the Dispatch Box today rather than make a Statement to the House about one of the most important issues facing this House—namely, its composition? This is a high-handed, shoddy political act, removing some of our most senior and experienced Peers, such as the Convenor of the Cross Benches, the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and many others who have held some of the most senior positions in government and commerce. Why have the Government and the noble Baroness not sought any discussions or consultation among the parties? Twenty-five years ago, countless debates and questions took place in the House and, ultimately, we finished up with a consensual way forward agreed among the parties. Why are there no proposals to remove those Peers from the House who very rarely come, rather than those who have shown an active commitment over many years? I hope that the noble Baroness will now engage with the usual channels to find a suitable day for a debate on the Floor of the House to discuss proper reform of the House of Lords.

I have always admired the noble Lord’s ingenuity, and never more so than today. It is a bit of a reach to say that a Statement should have been made to this House first. This was first debated around the hereditary Peers by-elections, it was debated following the Labour Party’s manifesto commitment, and I have had numerous conversations since the election and will continue to do so. A Bill has been introduced in the other place today; it will come to your Lordships’ House and we will have our discussions in the normal way. The noble Lord says that there was agreement previously. It was because there was no agreement during the passage of that Bill that further discussions took place and temporary arrangements were made on a transitional basis to exempt some hereditary Peers from the legislation. This will complete that process. I remind the noble Lord that my comment to the press about the Bill’s introduction—made in the normal way—started by recognising the valuable contributions that many hereditary Peers have made to Parliament.

My Lords, I remind the House that my party is committed to further reform of this House, including the introduction of an elected element, which we first declared as party policy in 1911. I also remind the House that, during the last Parliament, a number of Conservatives—who know very well who they are—spent a great deal of time complaining that the Liberal Democrats were overrepresented in this House because of our small numbers in the Commons. It is now quite clear that one of our most immediate problems is the overrepresentation of Conservatives compared to their small numbers in the Commons. Can the Leader of the House tell us whether there have been any discussions so far about a voluntary reduction in the number of Conservatives in this House to reflect the new situation since the election?

I have had no approaches from the party opposite about its numbers. On the noble Lord’s point about wider Lords reform, for the last 25 years one of the arguments has been that nothing should be done until everything can be done—but no one agrees on what “everything” is. A piecemeal approach is by far the better way. The party opposite complains about Lords reform, but in the years that it was in government the only proposal it came forward with was to move the House of Lords to York.

My Lords, could the Leader of the House advise me whether this was included in the Labour Party manifesto, what the result of the general election was and what majority was achieved by the Labour Party? On a more serious note, can she confirm that, if any hereditary Peers were thought fit to be appointed as life Peers, that could be done?

This was part of the Labour Party manifesto at the last election. Noble Lords may recall that the passage of my noble friend Lord Grocott’s Bill to end the hereditary Peers by-elections was blocked. Perhaps 10, 15 or 20 years ago that might have been a better way forward, but that opportunity has now passed. The election result was quite clear. I can confirm that, if Members leave this House as hereditary Peers, there is no block at all to them coming back as life Peers if their party wishes to introduce them.

My Lords, on the commitments in the manifesto and what the party opposite said about House of Lords reform, what has happened to the proposal to expel everyone after they reach the age of 80? Why has that been dropped from the Bill? Is not the answer that this is a naked attempt to disable opposition in this House from a Government who have a majority in the other place, although this place is the only part of Parliament which properly scrutinises legislation? The Government are undermining our ability to carry out our duties effectively.

Again, the noble Lord’s ingenuity is always impressive. He knows that that is not the case. He also knows that the Labour Party manifesto at the last election was the only one I have seen in recent years that praised the work of this House—we continue to do so—and recognised the valuable work that it has done. In my answer to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, I said that one of the important things in this House is incremental reform. As I have said before—I think the noble Lord was present when this was repeated at least twice in debate on the King’s Speech—the House will be consulted on the manifesto commitments on retirement age and participation. The manifesto also talked about immediate actions on particular issues. The other commitments of course remain, and they will come forward in due course, after discussions and dialogue across the House.

My Lords, although the Minister is very good on these matters, she does not quite seem to understand that her party is dabbling with constitutional reform. Surely she, among many others, agrees that when it comes to constitutional reform it is absolutely essential that there is agreement between all parties, otherwise we spend years and years in useless argument, getting nowhere. Does the noble Baroness not accept on this issue, as she has just learned from some of the responses she has just had, that once you touch on constitutional issues, the time has come to try to work out a common way forward—the future common ground—in a sensible, mature and adult way, and not get lost in party ding-dong?

The noble Lord is being a little patronising in saying that I do not understand constitutional issues. I will be happy to reach consensus, where it is possible. As the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, said, a quarter of a century ago there was eventually a consensus that transitional arrangements would be made for the remaining hereditary Peers.

Would the Minister use this opportunity to end another long-standing anomaly whereby the wives of Lords and Barons have the title “Lady”, which confuses them with those who have earned the title? This should end, or change so that our husbands, or the partners of women Peers, also get some sort of honorific title.

I think there are mixed views across the House about this issue—I have to say that Mr Smith might not appreciate having a title. It does seem an anomaly, although not one that overly concerns the House. However, I note the noble Baroness’s comments.

My Lords, can my noble friend remind the House how many from the hereditary Peerage in this House are women?

I recall the Countess of Mar from some years ago, and there may have been one other Member of the House of Lords who was a female hereditary Peer. There is none currently and, as far as I am aware, none is eligible for election in the hereditary Peers by-elections.

May I return to the extraordinary decision to use the standing orders of this House in order to avoid our statutory obligations in relation to the holding of excepted Peers’ by-elections? When I raised it before, the noble Baroness the Leader of the House said that she was confident that that move did not breach the law. However, it has since been suggested to me that the legal advice she received was more ambivalent on the matter. Is she willing to publish the legal advice on which that extraordinary decision to avoid our statutory obligations was based and, in doing so, show respect for the rule of law?

When that decision was taken, it was entirely and completely within the rule of law. The legislation states that the House should hold by-elections. How it holds them is a matter for this House. I was approached by Members from across the House, including from Front Benches, who said that they wished that those by-elections would not take place during the passage of the Bill. Therefore, the House made the decision, under its Standing Orders, to pause the by-elections for a period of 18 months. That is entirely within the law and was done with the full agreement of this House.

My Lords, one of the benefits of this House is that some of us have been around a long time. I was much involved in the decision 25 years ago. The truth was that Viscount Cranborne, now the Marquess of Salisbury, had tied the Labour Government up in knots. The decision to allow hereditary Peers to remain was a way of untying that knot, with a solemn promise that legislation would be brought forward for proper reform of the House of Lords. I am afraid that simply to abandon the deal made 25 years ago without that substantial reform of the Lords is a sham.

I disagree with the noble Lord on his final point, but I would expect him to make it because he is committed to an elected House. It is interesting that, when the debate was going through the House of Lords a quarter of a century ago, there was concern from a large number of hereditary Peers who were in your Lordships’ House at the time, and in order to smooth the passage of the Bill, arrangements were made that 92 hereditary Peers would remain on a hereditary basis. On that basis, Lord Cranborne was sacked from his job as Leader of the Opposition, and I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, who was put in his place—he was perhaps a beneficiary of that. The noble Lord, Lord Howell, made the point that constitutional reform should be made with care and consideration, and 25 years seems a fair amount of care and consideration.

My Lords, for the avoidance of doubt I should say that I was the one who proposed that we look at the by-election matter. I have repeatedly made clear, both from that Dispatch Box as Leader and since, that I believe the best way forward for this House certainly in areas of constitutional change is by consensus, and not on the basis of divisive and partisan legislation. There is a further and wider point. It is a courtesy and a duty to Parliament for Ministers to come to Parliament, and certainly to an affected House, to make a Statement on novel legislative matters before they are spewed out in the Guardian, the Times and other media. I do not know whether it was a decision of the noble Baroness that the pre-spin be done in this way; perhaps she was instructed by No. 10 not to make a Statement in this House. However, it was unlike her and not typical, and the misjudgment not to make a Statement in this House did not reflect her normal courtesy. I welcome some of the things that she said, so will she repeat her undertaking to enter into discussions now in the spirit of consensus? My door is open, as is, I am sure, the noble Earl’s.

I thank the noble Lord for his comments on hereditary Peers’ by-elections; both he and the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, have approached me. In terms of constructive debate, I spoke to the Cross-Bench Peers yesterday and I would welcome an invitation to speak to the Conservatives. I do not think the noble Lord can do so as a matter of course, as it is by invitation, so I would welcome an invitation too. There was a bit of faux anger on his part about a Statement to this House. This issue was in the Labour Party manifesto. During the King’s Speech debate, it was the subject of almost the entire content of the noble Lord’s response to my comments in the constitutional debate. When a Bill is introduced into either House, it is normal for a comment to be made. I wanted to ensure that it was on the record that we welcomed and appreciated the contribution made by hereditary Peers, and that is why it is in the Statement. It is a perfectly normal way of doing things. It did not come as a surprise to the noble Lord. It has been debated in this House on many occasions and I am sure the dialogue will continue.