House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Second Reading (continued)

15:47:00

My Lords, before the House adjourned this debate at 1 o’clock, we had heard the excellent and interesting maiden speech from the noble Lord, Lord Brady of Altrincham, whom I warmly congratulate on his appointment to the House. He began his speech, as many maiden speakers rightly do, by thanking the staff off the House for their helpfulness in welcoming new arrivals. That helpfulness, friendliness and efficiency of our staff has, in my experience, lasted the full 18 years I have been here, and I would like to begin my valedictory by paying a warm tribute to all of them. It seemed like a good idea for my last speech in this House to be in a debate relating to the House, and on a Bill which I strongly support. However, when I saw the number of speakers signed up for the debate, I thought, “Will I get only two minutes to reflect on 18 years?” So the extension of the debate agreed by the business managers and the advisory time of five minutes came as something of a relief, for which I thank them. In such a well-attended debate, I also have the unexpected privilege of speaking before a large number of colleagues, including many friends from all sides of the House with whom it has been a pleasure to work during my 18 years here. I was very touched earlier by all the kind comments directed towards me. I support this Bill and very much accept the argument that it is better to deal with this measure separately, rather than in a wider package of reforms on which it would be much more difficult to get a consensus. As my noble friend Lady Smith said in Question Time on Monday, the big-bang approach of trying to deal with all aspects has led to inertia and the absence of reform. As has been widely pointed out, this measure was in the Government’s manifesto and is unfinished business from 25 years ago, when it was only ever intended as an interim agreement in the compromise reached then. Having listened to many speakers earlier on today, I have to say that it is not true that after 1999, the Labour Government forgot about reform. I worked with the late and very much lamented Robin Cook, who came up with a number of options, but on which the House of Commons as a whole failed to agree. While the Bill is about the composition of the House, I hope that a changing composition will not in any way detract from its essential role as a revising Chamber. This role is badly needed in our democratic system, particularly given the complex nature of much modern legislation. This House has traditional strengths which are still relevant today. Walter Bagehot, writing way back in 1877, said: “The House of Lords, as is well known, does a great job in committee work”. Nearly 150 years later, this statement still rings true. What I wish, however—I direct this comment to our new Government as they move forward—is that government will take our committee work more seriously in future, respond much more quickly to the recommendations of our reports and timetable early debates on them, rather than our waiting many months to discuss them. I also appeal, without much hope, sadly, to our press and media generally to pay more attention to our reports. By ignoring them, they do democracy a disservice, and they fail to highlight the important evidence given to us by witnesses with expertise in and significant experience of the subjects of our inquiries. Going forward, I make a plea to improve the regional balance here, whether as a nominated House or a directly or indirectly elected House. We need to be a Chamber of the nations and regions, and I believe that this regional imbalance is our main weakness. It has been said that the old hereditary system created a kind of regional balance, because of the pattern of landed gentry estates across the UK. The noble Lord, Lord Newby, referred to this in his speech, but he was also right to say that it did nothing to create a real cross-section of our society, or to reflect our increasing diversity. But going forward, regional balance must be a guiding principle that the Government, the Official Opposition and the appointments commission all take very much to heart. I recently had my 80th birthday, and one reason behind my decision to retire was reaching that landmark. However, on reflection, I am also sympathetic to the idea that, rather than having an age cut-off, the proposal to limit terms of office to 10 or 15 years has some merit. I hope there will be discussions on these issues and that progress on them will be made in future legislation that comes before this House. Regarding my retirement, that frequently heard phrase of politicians—resigning because of wanting to spend more time with the family—is entirely true in my case. I also look forward to spending much more time in that wonderful part of the country that is my home area, the north-east of England. My last words in this House are an invitation to you all. Some of you perhaps know that I am a long-standing volunteer tourist guide to the City of Newcastle. As a guide, I delight in showing visitors around our wonderful city, which, like London, has a history of continued importance since Roman times and many fine Norman, medieval and Georgian buildings to show for it. Particularly to those of you who have not visited Newcastle before, I invite you please to come and sample one of the many different guided tours and discover it all for yourselves.

15:54:00

My Lords, it is a real privilege to follow my noble friend Lady Quin, although it is tinged with sadness that this is the last time we will share her wisdom in this Chamber. We are really grateful for what she has said today, but also for what she has done over the years. I have known my friend, Joyce—if I can use her name for once in this Chamber—for many years. I have followed her stellar career with awe and great admiration. She spent 10 years in the European Parliament, which is a life sentence for some people. She did a wonderful job there. Then, as she said, she had 18 years in the other place and was a Minister of State in three separate departments: the Home Office, which sounded an interesting job; Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, which was even more interesting; and, above all, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, where she was Minister for Europe—and a really great one. She has also had 18 years in this place, and we have all benefited from her wisdom and enjoyed her company. We are really sorry that she is leaving us. We look forward to taking up her invitation to be shown around the north-east. If we had had a north-east assembly, as we should have, my noble friend would have stood for that and would have done a really great job as a member of such an assembly. Sadly, we did not have it. We wish her well, we thank her greatly for her service and wish her a very long and happy retirement. I turn now to the Bill, in fact to Lords’ reform more generally, on which my noble friend Baroness Quin and I agree. With no disrespect to the great work that this House has done, which I acknowledge, it is unacceptable that the second Chamber in a 21st-century legislature is not in some way accountable to the people. My long-term preference, and that of my noble friend Baroness Quin, is for a senate of the nations and region, indirectly elected and so accountable, but not a challenge to the primacy of the House of Commons. Meanwhile, we need to sort out, as others have said earlier, some of the worst aspects of our current system. The first, and most outrageous, one that needs to be dealt with is the fact that 92 men are here solely by an accident of birth. This is why I wholeheartedly support this Bill, which is long overdue. I nevertheless join in the plea that others have made to the Leader of the House—the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, made it very effectively in his outstanding speech earlier —that we should look at some of the other aspects that need to be dealt with. First, the House of Lords Appointments Commission needs to be reformed and, as others have said, given more powers. Secondly, we need to deal—again, as others have said—with the geographical imbalance. It is unacceptable that more than half the Members of this House are resident in London and the south-east of England. That is not a representation of the nation as a whole. Thirdly, we need to consider whether an age limit is needed, particularly, as some have said, on new appointments. Fourthly, as I have argued on two previous occasions, we need to separate seeing the peerage as an honour, on one hand, and as a working peerage on the other. That confuses everything. As I said the other day, when I attacked the noble Lord, Lord Botham, for not turning up, I was attacked in return by his daughter, but we need to understand the difference between an honour and a working peerage. Then, fifthly, as others have said, we should set participation criteria for working peers. It is in our manifesto, and we should take that up. Sixthly, if we have working Peers and we accept that they are working, then there should be proper support to enable them to do their job properly. We do not have that at the moment. Finally, I say with a great deal of trepidation that we need to consider whether it is right that members from one Church—as the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, said, from one country—should have an automatic right to membership of this Chamber. We must plan ahead for the long term as well, including, I would suggest, looking at the senates in western democracies such as France, Italy and Spain and the German Bundestag, so that we can at last move to a second Chamber that is fit for a 21st-century democracy. That also is long overdue.

16:00:00

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock, and I served together on the Council of Europe. Chief Whips of both parties may be appalled to know that we often agreed on many issues in Europe. Again, I agree with the noble Lord today in his glorious tribute to his noble friend Lady Quin. I also find that I am in agreement with almost half of what the noble Lord said on the Bill today. The Bill reminds me of the stalwart efforts of the late Tony Banks MP, later Lord Stratford, to ban hunting. I opposed his policy, but I pay tribute to his efforts to deliver it. I am reminded of this because I recall a few occasions during his passionate speeches when it seemed that what was driving him was not the love of foxes but his dislike of the people whom he thought did it: Tory toffs in red coats on horseback. Indeed, the Guardian, in an article in 2010, said, “It wasn’t the sport Labour MPs hated, so much as the ‘tweedy toffs’ who enjoyed it. That’s why they never went for anglers. The hunting ban was always an unsubtle excuse for class war”. And so, we have this Bill, and the class war is restarted again. The Labour manifesto promised full-scale reform, but instead we get a narrow, highly partisan measure just to remove hereditary Peers. In one sentence of the manifesto, they say that the House “has become too big”, but in the same paragraph they say, “too many Peers do not play a proper role in our democracy”. So, what is the problem to be fixed then? Since the average daily attendance last year was only 397, what does it matter that there is a list of 805 Peers but that 400 do not turn up regularly? There is no cost to the taxpayer for Peers who do not come here. However, I plan to lay amendments to implement the Labour manifesto—someone has to do it. Back in 2015, I commissioned the Lords Library to provide me with Excel spreadsheets listing all Peers, their ages and attendance records. I used that information for the inquiry of the noble Lord, Lord Burns. Then, in July this year, I asked Mr Tobin in our Library for a whole new set based on the last Parliament from 2019 to 2024. He and Mr Bolshaw did a brilliant job and gave me three superb Excel spreadsheets. I believe that the Library has now published them for us all to use. These spreadsheets list every Peer during the last Parliament who is alive today, their age at appointment and their age in 2029. They list their attendance record for those five years. I also asked the Library to produce a special one for hereditaries, and it shows what excellent work the majority of them do here and which committees they serve on. As they are Excel spreadsheets, you can select any criteria you like and get accurate figures and names. Thus, if you want to find out how many Peers would have to retire at a retirement age of 95, it is 26, including 11 who attend more than 50% of the time. A retirement age of 90 gives us 78 retirees, and a retirement age of 85 in 2029 gives us 185 retirees, including some of the most active Members of this House, and 50 of them have attended for 70% and more of our sittings during those last five years. Like most of us on these Benches, I believe in a House that is not composed of full-time professional politicians. We benefit from the wide range of experts who participate on their specialist subjects. I suggest, however, that if we want to the reduce overall numbers, there should be a minimum attendance criterion. Is there any colleague whose contribution is so valuable that we wish to keep them on our active list if they have attended only 5% of the sittings over the past five years? There are exactly 40 Peers in that category, and 71 Peers if we set the attendance at 10%. Personally, I would set it at 20%; that would remove 155 Peers. Noble Lords can look at that list; in my opinion, not one of them has a pearl of wisdom so important that we should permit them to turn up for only 25 days per annum. Interestingly, of the 88 Peers listed to speak today, there is only one with an attendance record of just under 20%. None of the other 155 Peers are listed to speak. I think that rather makes my point. Hypothetically, if we introduced a cut-off age of 85 for the year 2029, and combined it with less than 20% attendance, that would retire 204 of us, including 18 hereditaries. I suggest that is a more equitable and sensible solution, rather than the partisan chopping of 92 hereditaries, including some of the hardest workers in this House. The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, Liz Kendall, recently said that people who “can work, must work”. Here however, Labour is sacking the workers, not the underperformers. The Labour manifesto also said, “Hereditary peers remain indefensible”. Four blunt words. There was no explanation of why they are more indefensible than supporters and funders of political parties, or bishops, for that matter. I notice that, unusually for a major constitutional issue, not a single bishop is down to speak. I will need to float some amendments on the number of bishops in this House, as well as a few other amendments, as I faithfully try to implement the Labour Party manifesto.

16:05:00

My Lords, I echo the praise that has been directed to my noble friend Lord Brady of Altrincham for his fine maiden, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Quin, who grew up in Whitley Bay. I am very grateful to have had the opportunity during our overlapping time in this House for the sort of cross-party friendship that so many people have spoken about in today’s debate, and I will always fondly remember being serenaded by the noble Baroness on the Northumbrian smallpipes in the River Room during the last Parliament. I have seen the future, and it is the Football Governance Bill. We are presently debating that Bill in Committee. Now is not the time or place to talk about its merits, although I note that we were supposed to be in Committee on it again today until the Government asked us to make way for this debate. What is pertinent today is the way that our work and scrutiny have been characterised. We have had only four days of Committee: nowhere close to the 10 days we spent on what became the Online Safety Act or the 15 on what became the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act. However, the Government have already been crying foul, rather in the manner of a footballer clutching his leg and writhing around in agony on the pitch. We have been told off for tabling too many amendments, even though 46% of them—more than 150—have come from the Government’s own Back Benches. The Secretary of State has told us to get a move on and last week at Business Questions, the Leader of the House of Commons said that Members of your Lordships’ House needed to “pipe down”. I know that the Lord Privy Seal takes her responsibilities and duties to this House very seriously and I hope she will ask her right honourable friends in another place to correct the record on that matter. I say that not to get it off my chest but because I fear it reveals rather more about the present Government’s attitude to your Lordships’ House than they realise. All Governments find Parliament a bit of a nuisance; that is the purpose of Parliament. However, this Government, with their huge majority in one House, are seeking to remove 92 Members, only four of its own allegiance, from the other. The problem with debates about the House of Lords is that they are usually fixated on process rather than function: how people get here, rather than how they work when they do. That is the problem with this Bill as well. It says nothing about how your Lordships’ House ought to function, its role in our bicameral system, or even how future Members ought to be selected: it merely seeks to remove 92 of our number. Such a removal will leave us a less effective and less assertive House, and I fear that might be in part the Government’s aim—or at least a corollary with which they are not unduly concerned. This Bill is not about ending the right to inherit a place in Parliament. As my noble friends have said, that was achieved a quarter of a century ago. The deal that was made at that time to allow a small number to remain, by virtue of election and not of inheritance, was as surety: a reminder to finish the job properly. This Bill breaks that deal and does not rise to the challenge that reflects it. It will leave us with a House, as the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, rightly highlighted, whose Members are entirely selected by the Prime Minister, with no limit on the number he can appoint, no statutory process for him to follow, and not even any of the sensible guidance that the noble Lord, Lord Burns, pointed out in his contribution. I am proud to have worked for a Prime Minister who exercised her power of nomination judiciously and with restraint, but, if we are to become a House of prime ministerial patronage, there ought to be checks on that unbridled power. There could be an annual limit. We could separate the granting of a peerage from a seat in the legislature, as the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, has just said. In particular, we need a better process for deciding which former members of the judiciary are awarded a place in this House. If they do not inherit one with the job, as they used to, there will be dangers in allowing politicians to pick which judges they wish to favour. The same could be said of police commissioners, chiefs of the defence staff, senior civil servants and so many more. Careful thought is needed. It is the work of this House to think carefully about the legislation placed before us. We respect the democratic mandate of another place, although I have listened with interest to the comments about one Parliament not binding another and wonder why, if an undertaking to the seventh Marquess of Salisbury is no longer to be honoured, one made to the fifth Marquess should continue to be observed. It is our duty to caution and give counsel. That is all the more important in the present Parliament. More than half of the current House of Commons were elected for the first time this summer. They have sat for just 62 days. Most MPs have not yet had a chance to see our bicameral system at work. They have never experienced ping-pong or seen how alliances across all parties, working between both Houses, can make our laws better. I wonder how many have stood at the Bar of the House and listened to our debates. I wonder how many have met a hereditary Peer. We are well within our rights to encourage them to think more deeply about the profound constitutional questions that this Bill leaves unanswered. In the end, the Government will get their football Bill. I dare say they will get this Bill as well. But we must not shirk our duty to ensure that these and all other Bills put before us are properly considered and made better in the modest, careful and patriotic way that your Lordships’ House has been doing for more than 800 years.

16:11:00

My Lords, I gladly if slightly sadly extend my good wishes to the noble Baroness, Lady Quin, as she looks forward to a Northumbrian retirement. I hope I shall see quite a bit of her. She has done excellent public work in so many capacities. I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Brady of Altrincham, on an excellent and very interesting maiden speech—interesting not least in his support for an elected second Chamber. That is the position of my party and has been since we put it in the 1911 Act, as well as pursuing it during the coalition Government. I support this Bill. It will lead to our losing some much-valued and able colleagues, but we will have won the principle that ancestry confers no place in the legislature. Of course, the Bill takes no steps towards wider and more fundamental reforms, such as the creation of an elected House, which my party and I want, but blocking the Bill would not do so, either, and the notion that keeping the 92 Peers would somehow make it more likely for wider reform to take place has been shown to be quite false. The Government are talking a bit about consultation on time limits, participation and age limits, but no fundamental change will come before this Parliament under the present Government. They would have to be a very different Government for that to be the case. There are two particular reasons for this. One is that it is difficult to the point of impossibility to get legislation through the House to make fundamental changes to the composition of this Chamber. Even this Bill might have a few difficulties, but a fundamental Bill would have considerable ones. Secondly, and more importantly, the Government—any Government—like the situation we have now. What is not to like if you are the Executive in having a second Chamber that does all the spade work on legislation but, if it says, “This is going too far and needs to be reconsidered”, can be denounced and dismissed as having no mandate as an unelected House? It puts the second Chamber in a weak position that we have to address, and having an elected House would be one way of addressing it—elected not in an identical way to the House of Commons or on the same timescale, but under a different procedure. Since we are up against what I see as a severe barrier to radical reform, certainly for the time being, it would be quite wrong for us to say, “Because everything can’t be done, nothing should be done”. That applies not only to this Bill. I took part in the Burns committee, set up by the then Lord Speaker, the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, to consider ways of controlling the ever-growing size of the House. We proposed an agreement between the parties and groups, to be matched by restraint on the part of the Prime Minister, to limit the number of new appointments on a two-out, one-in basis, which would have allowed for retirement and refreshment of the various groups by bringing in new Peers with much-needed skills and experience, with a formula reflecting past election results. Of course, the noble Baroness, Lady May, showed restraint during her time as Prime Minister. Her successors did not, and that pretty much torpedoed progress on the Burns proposals. At the moment, we are preserving a situation in which the occupant of No. 10 Downing Street can send whomever they like to this House: special advisers, lawyers to fill law officer posts, donors, celebrities and people, mentioned several times today, who think they are getting an honour and do not seem to realise that they are getting a job with duties and responsibilities. The House of Lords is at its most popular when it challenges the Executive on some matter of great public importance. It is at its most unpopular when attention is drawn to the methods by which people are appointed to it. Over the years, this House has, by agreement, made quite significant changes and adjustments to cope with a changing world and expectations, and the need to be less distant from those whom we serve. We have a capacity, perhaps to a greater extent than the Commons, to reach agreement and resolve disagreement pragmatically and achieve results. Since we are not going to get radical legislation in the very near future, that kind of reform seems to be barred for the moment. Surely, we can make some progress rather than persisting with a broken appointments system. Once this Bill has passed, we should look again at the potential of the agreement, which the House supported, in the Burns proposals and the means that they suggested for achieving a better representation in this House and a dignity which the House deserves for the work that it does.

16:16:00

My Lords, getting rid of our esteemed colleagues, the hereditary Peers, is unnecessary and it is cheap. It creates a precedent for gerrymandering for which there is no need. In the five years between 2005 and 2010, the Labour Government suffered 175 defeats in the House of Lords. In the five years between 2019 and 2024, the Conservative Government suffered 410 defeats—more than twice as many as Labour. Why is there such a fuss about trying to get rid of a few hereditary Peers, just in case? It is despicable. Get rid of the hereditary Peers and what will come next? Will be it an intensification of the silly attack on the number of Peers in this House? The average daily attendance last year was 397. If you shrink the House, where would you get the Peers with the relevant knowledge to go through Bills in detail? Since the other place took to timetabling everything, our House acting as a revising Chamber has become ever more essential. You have only to look at the number of government amendments in Committee to realise this. To have a sufficient number of Peers to properly examine the wide range of Bills, a sizeable pool is needed. Let us reflect for a moment on how well this House works at present. Getting rid of that part of the House not appointed by today’s politicians will change the dynamic of the House for the worse. If His Majesty’s Government feel oppressed by too many Conservative hereditary Peers, they should brave the wrath of the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, and create more hereditary Labour Peers. We should not risk losing this important element of our House. Hereditary Peers may be a random and illogical element of the House of Lords, but they are nevertheless an essential part. I will not waste your Lordships’ time by repeating the statistics which prove the contribution that hereditary Peers make, as my noble friend Lord Blencathra has already talked about it. Constitutional reform should be carefully considered, which is not the case with this Bill. There is talk of different reforms for our House. Beware of what you wish for; you do not know what might come next.

16:19:00

My Lords, this is a sad day for me as we face the prospect of breaking with over 800 years of history and tradition, and development of our democracy. Since our recent debate on the future of your Lordships’ House, and prompted by numerous rumours, I attempted to table a Question for urgent and topical debate, to ask the Government to announce their plans to give life peerages to the excepted hereditary Peers. My Question was not accepted, even for the ballot, on the grounds that there was no general public or media interest in the subject. That rather proved a point that I had made—that reform of the House of Lords is not a priority for most people in this country, whether a manifesto commitment or not. In spite of being one of the few remaining Peers to have voted against the 1999 Act, I do not intend to repeat all the comments from the previous debate except perhaps, once again, to ask the Leader how, when the Labour Party’s manifesto referred to over-80s being doomed as well as the hereditaries, it became possible to drop the one pledge but not the other? In the interest of reducing the size of the House, can the noble Baroness supply us with the number of Peers who have taken advantage of one of the incremental changes that have taken place in recent years; namely, the system of voluntary retirement? The noble Baroness, Lady Quin, is an excellent example. This allows Members to make a valedictory speech and to retire amidst tributes to their contribution to your Lordships’ House and it reduces the numbers. Is there no way in which we can do more to encourage those who clearly do not wish to be active Members of your Lordships’ House to take advantage of this process on a voluntary basis? This debate has ranged rather more widely than I had anticipated, and away from the specific provisions of the Bill. I would like to see it disappear completely, but at the very least it ought to be amended to make it less abrupt and painful to those whose ancestors made this place what it is and who themselves have served diligently and conscientiously. For example, I would support any amendment that altered Clause 4(3) and changed the enforcement of the Bill to the end of the Parliament instead of the end of the Session. I believe that that would, in some way, alleviate the pain and abruptness of it all. This has been an excellent debate, with many wonderful suggestions over and above the provisions of the Bill. I take this opportunity to congratulate my noble friend Lord Brady on his maiden speech and to say once again how sorry I am to see the noble Baroness, Lady Quin, choosing the path of retirement, even though I have said that it should be encouraged—but only for those who are not making a contribution to this House.

16:23:00

My Lords, I shall speak briefly because I do not dispute the fact that the removal of hereditary Peers was in the Labour manifesto and that the Government therefore have a right to remove them and a big enough majority to do so in whatever summary fashion they care to. My concern is that we see the Government’s purpose carried through without inflicting unnecessary self-harm in the meantime. The inconvenient truth—or perhaps it is a convenient truth—is that the current arrangements work rather well and deliver the cream of the hereditary crop to the service of the House of Lords and of Parliament more widely. Many hereditary Peers have had substantial career responsibilities in the business world, in politics or government and elsewhere, and they bring heavyweight expertise, practical experience and good judgment with them to the service of both Houses. I have observed that from my position on the Restoration and Renewal Programme Board for the Palace of Westminster, the Finance Committee of the House of Lords and the House of Lords Commission. These Peers bring expertise that helps defend the reputation of both Houses for their management of public resources—and, believe me, the public are always willing and ready to believe the worst on that score. If we deprive Parliament of these services, we are at risk of cutting off our nose to spite our face, or, to quote the Prime Minister, of “putting party before country”. It is also fair to point out that the loss of the hereditary Peers would be particularly damaging to the Cross Benches, threatening to reduce our numbers significantly and carry away our excellent convenor, my noble friend Lord Kinnoull. As I understand the current position, based on a very helpful briefing from the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, to the Cross-Bench Peers a few weeks ago, there is a suggestion that the Government may consider admitting some of the sitting hereditary Peers as life Peers at some point after the passing of the Bill into law. Assuming that the removal of hereditary Peers is to go ahead, I strongly recommend that the Government move quickly to get the life peerage arrangements in place by the time the Bill comes into effect, so that the hereditaries who will remain as life Peers can continue to contribute without an unnecessary hiatus. This would show leadership on the part of the Government, help build trust and keep damage to the public interest as low as possible.

16:26:00

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Brady of Altrincham on his maiden speech and wish the noble Baroness, Lady Quin, every happiness in what I am sure and hope will be a long retirement with her family. There have been only two successful attempts forcibly to remove a body of Members of Parliament, consisting mostly of one’s opponents, from Parliament. One was carried out by the New Model Army in the 17th century, and the other by the Labour Party in 1998. It is not a very flattering comparison, but it illustrates—or, at least, the former case illustrates—that violent action taken against this Parliament results only in constitutional complications that can take several years to extract oneself from. One has to ask oneself: what is the practical political benefit to the nation of carrying out this measure? There could be several. The noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, could have said that her purpose is to achieve a permanent reduction in the size of your Lordships’ House. She could have said that her purpose is to create capacity for the appointment of Labour Peers to fill up those places. A perfectly respectable case could be made for doing either, but in fact she has given no practical benefit or purpose for carrying through this measure. The Government are doing this entirely because they can, which is exactly the same rationale that Colonel Pride used. I take this opportunity to say that the attempt by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, somehow to blame the Conservatives, and particularly my noble friend Lord True, for this measure, on the grounds that he should have embraced the Grocott Bill in the past, does not succeed in putting me or many of my colleagues on the moral back foot. Many of us were not here for the Grocott Bill; we know almost nothing about it. I did not reject the Grocott Bill, because nobody ever asked me to give an opinion on it. The one thing I would say about the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, for whom I have a great deal of respect, is that the abolition of the by-elections for hereditary Peers—by what undoubtedly remain legally dubious means—has the very sad result that we will be deprived of his commentary on the results of the by-elections on each occasion that they are announced. That has always been a highlight for me and, I think, for many other noble Lords. I turn to the political and constitutional basis for what the Government are doing, which rests, of course, on their manifesto. To anybody picking up their manifesto, as I have many times, it is absolutely plain that under the heading “Immediate reform of the House of Lords”, a series of measures and commitments is proposed. One is the removal of hereditary Peers but there are others that I do not need to recite since they have been mentioned several times. They include the age limit, getting rid of disgraced Peers and so forth. There is a list of them. They sit together quite clearly as part of that immediate commitment. There is another commitment, which has no timeline attached to it—a separate matter—which is that “Labour will consult on proposals, seeking the input of the British public”. That does not have a timeline commitment, but the others do, and they clearly belong as a package. Today, and previously in a meeting that the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, was good enough to have with all Peers, she said, particularly in respect of my comment about this in an earlier debate, that I had “missed the full stop at the end of the sentence”. It is true that I may be at fault. I had taken little notice of the full stop at the end of the sentence. I assumed that there would be a full stop at the end of the sentence. It turns out that this full stop is to bear a constitutional weight that the noble Baroness relies on. God knows where we would be if there had been a paragraph break at the end of the sentence. In that meeting, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, characterised my position as “Do nothing until you do everything”. That has never been my position. My position is that the Labour Party should commit to carrying out, and show us that it is carrying out, its own manifesto. Why is that so difficult?

16:32:00

My Lords, I am sad at the departure of my noble friend Lady Quin, whose speech I, as a granddaughter of Newcastle, much admired. I enjoyed the impressive speech of the new noble Lord, Lord Brady of Altrincham. Change has set the tone for this debate. In your Lordships’ House there is, quite rightly, a proper appreciation of the contribution of hereditary Peers. I thought that I should look at what the electorate outside thought. They do not seem to have much interest, judged by the paucity of polling. But what they have evinced is not at all the same as the opinion of your Lordships. According to YouGov, 62% think that there should not be any hereditary Peers in the second Chamber of Parliament. This discordancy can perhaps be explained by the fact that only 4% thought that they really understood what the Lords did, sadly, while 49% thought that the House of Lords was not useful. Of course, we know that the reality is quite different. I think that this gap originates from the way in which our present second Chamber came about. In some ways, it was an ingenious way to modernise. It was evolutionary, as is our habit now. Our history does not predispose us to like revolutions. We often prefer incremental change, such as this Bill. The life peerage system was more or less spatchcocked on to the feudal nobility without modifying the latter. Even after the partial reform of 1992 reduced the proportion significantly, the hereditary principle remained validated. This is a very British fudge. Fudge is nice but it does not have much of a structure. The public cannot easily discern the nature of the House of Lords because it is all thought of as part of an ancient and undemocratic system. It is no accident that the unfavourable accounts of your Lordships’ activities in the newspapers are habitually accompanied by a photograph or cartoon of an ermine-clad noble. When I spoke at my granddaughter’s primary school about the Lords, the very first question asked was, “Are they very posh?” I was able to explain that some were but that many were not, just like society in general, and that in any case that was not the important thing, which was the work we did. But “posh” is not a compliment in most circles; it speaks of unmerited privilege. Apart from being fundamentally undemocratic, the hereditary element influences popular perception of the Lords, and perception matters—that may be unwelcome, but it does. It matters in politics, as all politicians know; it matters in justice; and it is the essence of art—we need to watch it. Of course, it can be mistaken or misled, but we cannot get round it. I am afraid that the perpetuation of even a minority of hereditary Peers as parliamentarians has undermined the reputation of the House of Lords—unfairly, perhaps, from some points of view, but in a way that contributes to the general mistrust of politicians and damages democracy. I applaud the respect of the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, for the vote of the electorate for a manifesto commitment. I too support the Bill. However, we should pay attention to the reality of the valuable contribution of individual hereditary Peers—no one doubts that. It would be a pity to lose that when we dispose of the hereditary principle in our Parliament. I therefore propose that we should have an equivalent of the emeritus status for retired professors, with, perhaps, a dedicated email address, such as “@emeritus-parliament.uk”, WhatsApp groups for particular interests, and the capacity to issue news releases and generally communicate opinion like the Elders—the retired senior United Nations dignitaries. Access to digital support would be very helpful. Emeritus professors have the use of their university library, and it is for discussion whether this might work for emeritus Peers. I hope my noble friend the Leader of the House will recommend a scheme of this sort.

16:37:00

My Lords, I think the Bill, which is a bit odd, must have been drafted by somebody who had just read Animal Farm. For some reason your Lordship’s House has been divided between life Peers, who are good, and hereditary Peers, who are bad. This whole concept was elaborated on by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, who seemed to think that it is better that we lifers are appointed by the Prime Minister than that the hereditaries are elected. The noble Lord, Lord Grocott, whenever he pushed his Bills—which he constantly did—tried to persuade us that it was derisory that in some cases there were so few hereditary Peers electing other hereditaries. The product of that is the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, who, let us face it, was elected by probably three Labour hereditary Peers. The noble Lord, Lord Grocott, thought that that was ridiculous, but I say to him that at least the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, was elected. The noble Lord, Lord Grocott, was not elected, I was not elected, and neither was the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer. We were all appointed. Is there something superior about appointed Peers over elected hereditary Peers? I think not; I think the reverse is true. I will take your Lordships back to one or two people who have been life Peers. Life Peers were first brought into this House in 1958 and there was a bunch of them. Probably the most memorable name among the life Peers brought into the House at that stage was Lord Boothby. Lord Boothby’s claim to fame was that he had slept with the Prime Minister’s wife. That completely kiboshed the advice I used to give to people who wanted to be life Peers in this place. I would say to them, “Whatever else you do, make sure you don’t sleep with the Prime Minister’s wife”. Lord Boothby was rather more exotic than just that. He was photographed enjoying a drink in a Soho club with the Kray twins. Most of your Lordships are too young to remember anything about the Kray twins, but they were a very sinister couple of mobsters who were the nearest thing we had to the mafia in this country. They ran a protection racket that was absolutely ruthless. They tortured large numbers of people, and one of them was so psychotic that he rather enjoyed doing it. It took some time for the legal authorities to catch up with the Kray twins, but they eventually ended up in prison, and I think both of them died there. Lord Boothby was lucky because he did not end up in prison, but on the other hand Lord Kagan did. Lord Kagan, if you remember, was Harold Wilson’s favourite businessman; he set up a business to produce Gannex macintoshes and actually gave one to the Prime Minister. The noble Lord, Lord Alli, should take note of that, because he follows in the great tradition of stocking the wardrobes of Labour Prime Ministers. Lord Kagan eventually was released from prison. He used to come to your Lordships’ House to lecture people on prison reform, on which he regarded himself by that stage as something of an expert. We then have our colleague Lord Archer of Weston-super-Mare, who spent time in prison as well. I point this out because, quite clearly, it is wrong to say that all life Peers are criminal convicts, as only a very small number are, but the damage that one or two do to your Lordships’ House is very great. People outside find it extremely difficult to understand why people who are supposed to be writing the laws cannot uphold them themselves and are actually outside the law. So when we say that hereditary Peers are bad and life Peers are good, that does not apply in every case of life Peers by a very long way. A lot of the expertise that has been gained by some of the younger Members, particularly on the Conservative Front Bench while in government, is very valuable when it comes to holding the Government to account in forthcoming years. If we want to get rid of all that expertise, as would happen with this Bill, so be it, but that seems to be an extremely negative way of planning the future of this House and holding the Government to account. We will be looking at this Bill with very great intensity. I have a number of amendments that I would like to put down, because I think that this is a very facile Bill that needs exploring in great depth.

16:42:00

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Hamilton. I am one of the latest recruits to your Lordships’ House and I have to say to my noble friend that, in the very few weeks I have been here, I have so far encountered no violent criminals at all, as far as I am aware. Everyone has been extremely kind and gentle, and, given that I spent nearly three decades in the other place, I have been astounded at the courtesy and politeness. Being new, I hesitated to take an active part in today’s debate, but it is perhaps my very newness that allows me to observe your Lordships’ House from a slightly different angle. I begin by congratulating my equally new noble friend Lord Brady of Altrincham on his excellent maiden speech—90% of which I agreed with. We will argue about the other 10% for many years to come, I hope, as we have for many years in the past. I had the privilege of serving, during the consideration of the Bill that was brought forward by the coalition Government in 2011, on the Joint Committee on House of Lords Reform. Some noble Lords might recall that committee. I remember very well that the noble Baroness, Lady Symons of Vernham Dean, who I see in her place, was a very active member of that committee and that we drafted together an excellent minority report, which I draw to the attention of noble Lords. That committee sat for nine months, so we looked at this matter in some depth. I make just three points this afternoon. First, there is a general misunderstanding among journalists, commentators and Members of the House of Commons about what this House actually does. The fact is that your Lordships’ House has influence but not power. The elected Government have power. This misapprehension means that many observers of the current constitutional settlement are looking at it through the wrong end of the telescope. Secondly, the hereditary Peers are in a unique position in the democratic world because they have genuine independence. They owe their position to no one—well, perhaps to their great-grandfathers, but to no one to whom they are answerable now. Our unwritten constitution requires inbuilt checks and balances, and the hereditary Peers provide a very important element of that balance because they are truly independent. We should value that independence. Thirdly, there is a sharp contrast between theory and practice. If we were constructing a constitution from scratch, we would not start from here, but our constitution has developed over centuries, and the fact is that it works. The current balance between our two Houses of Parliament works. It is our duty as Parliament to hold government to account. Government is held to account in one way by the elected Members of the House of Commons, and in a different way by your Lordships. The current system works, and, as a wise man once said, if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.

16:47:00

My Lords, having read and listened to all I can about the Bill, I am still none the wiser as to why the Government are going ahead with just this reform on its own, or how it will lead to better governance of the country—surely the only real justification for any reform. The official reason given in the manifesto is that the presence of hereditary Peers remains indefensible. But if this is really so, why are there so many Labour Peers, many of them household names, who have benefited themselves or whose children are now benefiting from this “indefensible” principle? And so it will continue: the son of Sue Gray—she is soon to be welcomed among us, apparently—finds himself an MP in a safe seat and an instant PPS, all with generous funding from the noble Lord, Lord Alli; and the current Cabinet is full of examples of rank nepotism. So the objection from the Labour side cannot be to the hereditary principle as a principle, which still leaves the question of why. Is it to reduce the size of the House? All of us who work here know that this 805 number is largely a red herring, as nearly half that number rarely if ever attend. Library research shows that in 2023, the average daily attendance was 397, of whom 53 were hereditary Peers; without them, the daily number becomes 344, which, I suggest, is borderline for efficiency. So the real reason cannot be to reduce the size of the House by this reform alone, which still leaves the question of why. Is it simply gerrymandering to ease the path of government business, as is the favoured explanation on this side of the House, especially as the Bill seems to have a suspiciously high priority in the legislative programme? Related to this, is this one-step-backwards, no-steps-forward approach going to lead to better governance of the country? The answer is emphatically not. When the last Government were in power, we were always in the minority and frequently defeated in Divisions, as noble Lords will well remember. A very good thing it was too: the combined forces against us then will be against us now in opposition, and it is not good governance for any party to have an easy majority in both Houses, made worse by any new life Peer being appointed by the Prime Minister, on the basis that loyalty repaid works both ways. Of course, the Government do not want the country to be governed badly, so that still leaves the question of why. Is it that the hereditary Peers do not pull their weight? As well as the high daily average attendance, no fewer than 51 hereditary Peers are currently serving on the various House of Lords committees. Further research shows that, of the 15 most recently elected Conservative hereditaries, no fewer than nine served or are serving as Ministers, shadow Ministers or Whips—all unpaid, of course. If you include party Whips, it becomes practically a full house, so not pulling their weight cannot be the reason for being kicked out. That still leaves the question of why. Is it to cull the House of private sector representation? The hereditary Peers stand out as being almost exclusively from the private sector—the only such cohort—and there seems to be a strong disdain for the private sector, as witnessed in the recent Budget and in the fact that nearly all the newly appointed life Peers have come from the public sector. Those are the “why” questions, and I now turn to the “how” questions. How is this one stand-alone reform going to make the country better governed? How is it going to make this House of Lords a more efficient revising Chamber? How is it going to make this House of Lords a better, happier and more encouraging place in which to work? If the Bill becomes law as it stands, there is at least one unintended consequence. Nearly all the elected hereditary Peers have come from the private sector and, in order to be elected here, have had to make a firm commitment to give up their current careers and income so as to devote enough time to becoming working Peers. They have all done so willingly, but now they find, through no fault of their own, that they are about to be expelled. In other words, they have kept their side of the bargain and now find that the other side has not. As the elected hereditary Peers will now have to find alternative employment back in the private sector, it would be only fair and reasonable to extend their time here until the end of this Parliament, so they have a chance to do so. That would enable the 51 hereditary Peers who are sitting on committees to complete their work on them. It would also be within the wording of the Labour Party manifesto.

16:52:00

My Lords, the Bill ends the so-called hereditary aspect of this House. Christmas is approaching, and while, as one of the so-called turkeys directly affected by the Bill, I might abstain on it, I certainly do not propose to obstruct or delay it. However, I note the suggestion of quite a number in this House, including life Peers, that, in ending the hereditary aspect of the House, useful so-called hereditary contributors should be converted to life Peers. We shall see. I turn to wider reforms, some of which were trailed in the Government’s manifesto. The Minister has had many informal representations, and I think we all admire her for her openness to those. Nevertheless, there comes a point when discussion ends and action follows. I realise that asking “When?” in a Parliament is typically an exercise in futility. However, the hereditaries shortly departing this House in the good faith expectation of wider reform without delay deserve a specific assurance that the Government have a timeframe in mind that they can share with the House. [Interruption.] If the noble Lord could stop gesturing in front of me, that would be very helpful. I therefore ask the Minister to indicate in summing up how and when any formal structured consultations will be organised, over what period they will occur and when legislation for further reform will be brought forward. Many speeches today include suggestions to the Government, and I shall make two that I believe will be fundamental to successful reform. First, the unrestrained ability of party leaders to dangle peerages as rewards before, and then to appoint, their mates, their loyalists and their donors is both a numerical disaster and a reputational cancer at the heart of this place. I welcome the recent announcement that party leaders must explain their nominations, but that is a long way short of a proper selection and appointment process. Crucially, such appointments must be subject to a tight numerical limit that cannot be exceeded. That would at least put a lid on the inflows from that source. Secondly, on participation, this is a place of work—of public service. If we can produce legislation to discard some of the most engaged and hard-working Members of this House, surely we can summon up the courage to send on their way those who do not engage or put the work in. I do not take the “everything or nothing” line—I agree with the Government on that—but the participation element should have been part of this Bill, and it would have accelerated progress towards a resized House with active Members. Failure to include that is not only unjust to those who do engage but also has two ongoing negative consequences: first, it tells new, and current, Peers that non-engagement is perfectly acceptable; secondly, it ducks the only meaningful way to reduce the membership both at scale and on a logical basis. I hear some say that it is too difficult to construct a metric or criterion for that. It is not difficult: we already collect the data; we just need to have the guts to use them. I am talking not about an automated process but about a factual basis for discussions, giving ample opportunity to understand an individual Member’s situation. But Members unable or unwilling to engage sufficiently should resign or, failing that, have their membership ended—courteously but firmly. No system is without its challenges, but the current lack of any real system to remove non-contributors is exactly why we are where we are today, in terms of both size and engagement. Some others say that this might lead to performative participation, for the sake of it. But engagement with the work of the House, in debates, speeches, committees and so on, requires time, effort and turning up regularly, so I believe that such performative behaviours would die back pretty quickly. If we are genuinely serious about reducing numbers, and if a peerage does mean turning up and participating, we need to get on with making that the case. The alternative is the continuation of the current culture—something that the removal of the so-called hereditaries by the Bill does nothing to address. Indeed, ejecting engaged Members while leaving untouched the disengaged is an insult to the former and would simply ingrain the behaviours of the latter. To conclude, I take on trust the manifesto promises of further reform, but I hope that the Government will do four things. First, look again at the “babies and bath-water” aspect of removing useful so-called hereditary Members of this House. Secondly, limit numerically the patronage of party leaders in appointing new Members. Thirdly, commit themselves, within a given timeframe, to implementing an effective participation requirement as a condition of a peerage for both new and existing Peers. Finally, look seriously at limited terms and at enforcing the “two out, one in” principle.

16:58:00

My Lords, time precludes me from digressing to explain why my noble friend Lord True and the noble Lord, Lord Newby, exaggerated the significance of Magna Carta. The charter of 1215 did not have the impact they ascribe to it. I fear that this may be the only observation I make today that has not already been made by others. As several speakers in this debate have stressed, any proposed changes to the composition, or indeed the structure or powers, of the House should be assessed in terms of their impact on the capacity of the House to fulfil its functions. Form should follow function. This House complements the House of Commons by fulfilling tasks that the elected House does not have the time, or sometimes the political will, to carry out. It fulfils these tasks by virtue of having, at the individual level, a membership that is characterised by experience and expertise and, at the collective level, the composition that gives it some detachment from government. It is the latter point on which I wish to focus. The principal argument for the membership of the House of hereditary Peers derives not from who they are, or what they do—important though both are, as we have heard from many speakers—but rather from how they get here. They constitute the only body of Peers who arrive independent of prime ministerial patronage. Not only who they are, but their number, is not within the gift of the Prime Minister. That ensures some degree of detachment. Prime Ministers may nominate persons of distinction; they may show some restraint in the number they nominate; they may be generous in inviting leaders of other parties to put forward names. The problem is that they may do none of these things. This has the potential to degrade the capacity of the House to fulfil its essential functions. As several noble Lords have already said, there is value in having a route into the House that is independent of prime ministerial control. That is not an argument against passing this Bill. It is an argument against passing it is as a stand-alone Bill. If one removes the independent route into the House, one has to substitute a route that brings in Members that are not here on the basis of unrestrained prime ministerial power. The Bill therefore needs to be linked to one that covers the process by which names are proposed to the sovereign, be it independent of the Prime Minister or through ensuring that the Prime Minister does not nominate individuals who lack the experience or expertise—or for that matter the commitment —necessary to fulfil the essential tasks of the House. The passage of this measure addressing output therefore needs to be conjoined with one that addresses input. I have a Bill being debated later this Session that addresses the points I have made, but obviously it does not need to be that Bill. The key point is that the provisions of this Bill should not be commenced until such time as a Bill addressing nominations, ensuring that there is some means of Members coming in independent of unrestrained, and possibly ill-judged, patronage is achieved. This is wholly in line with the Government’s proposals for House of Lords reform. It ensures that two of their proposals are linked rather than treated as discrete measures, each independent of the other. The Government’s commitment to reform the appointments process must march in step with their commitment to enact this Bill. Picking up on the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Quin, this would not be a big-bang reform and I believe there would be consensus. It will be valuable to hear from the Leader of the House what is the argument of principle against adopting such an approach.

17:02:00

My Lords, like many who have spoken in the debate this afternoon, I was delighted to hear the excellent maiden speech of my noble friend Lord Brady and saddened to hear the valedictory speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Quin. We are Peers; we are all Peers. The word means equal and that is how we speak, behave and vote, and that is how we are treated in this House. There is no rank; we are equals as Peers. That should be held at the front of our minds throughout this debate. I certainly do not intend to follow the noble Lord, Lord Newby, down the line which he advanced in his speech, which I felt was uncharacteristically trying to be a little divisive between hereditary Peers and appointed life Peers. In fact, I think the reverse is true: in my third of a century or so in this House, I cannot think of a single instance where a Member’s rationale and motivation for the way that they speak or intervene has been questioned on the grounds of what type of Peer they are. They are a Peer; that is how they speak and that is how they behave, and I think that is how it should continue. My second point is that our routes into this House—unless we seriously consider elections, and I think we should—are really, for the purposes of this debate, a giant red herring. The reality is that all Peers in this House are now de facto life Peers. The hereditary element has now gone. The hereditary principle, with the abolition of the by-elections, really is a non-issue. We have to look at numbers, composition and performance of the House, but I think to produce the hereditary issue as a great dragon that needs to be slain now is a very strange concept indeed and one that I do not think people outside Westminster would recognise as any sort of a priority. Just take my noble friend Lord Strathclyde, for example, with his service as a Whip, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Minister of State, Opposition Chief Whip, Opposition Leader, Leader of the House, and no doubt a whole lot of roles that I have forgotten about over that time of nearly 40 years or so. Would anyone in the Chamber this afternoon seriously say that their own experience was superior to his on the grounds that he came to this House through a hereditary peerage some 38 years ago and they came as a prime ministerial appointment? I am prepared to take an intervention if anyone feels that they should. Why have we got this Bill? I am very tempted to say that we should join together the three measures that have taken up so much time in this House recently: the debate on farming—the attacks on farmers and the settlement there that we have heard so much about, and will do again tomorrow—VAT on private schools, and the attacks on hereditary peerages. They could all be bundled together as a unified blood-letting Bill. Let us be honest and transparent about why this is being done. I was most taken by the powerful speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, who is not in his place at the moment. He has done so much in the field of constitutional reform and was ready to mount his charger and draw his trusty sword of truth to fight the non-existent battle with the forces of heredity. He concluded by saying that he preferred the patronage of the Prime Minister. I am not sure that that conclusion was more than a modest bombshell. Unless and until we tackle the frankly preposterous system whereby the Prime Minister appoints his own jurors with no binding numbers, we are just tinkering at the edges of this issue. In my view, we ought to have a serious debate and move ahead with full constitutional reform, and leave this Bill to one side.

17:08:00

My Lords, I strongly support this Bill. Before I joined your Lordships’ House, I had somehow assumed that the body of hereditary Peers would wither away, so I was surprised to discover the farce by which their number is maintained through the only electoral process that touches this House, so that the magic number of 92 is preserved in aspic. Of course, as others have emphasised, this is not about the individuals who make up the 92, some of whom I have worked with closely, but about the principle—and it is a principle and not a red herring—of membership resulting from an accident of birth. It is an accident that, as has been pointed out already, contradicts the principle of diversity in its various forms and produces an overwhelmingly male group because of male progeniture rules. This, in turn, contributes towards a House of which only 29% are women, putting us 37th in the global ranking, according to the Electoral Reform Society. I look forward to the next stage of reform, which we will be able to discuss as colleagues, including the appointments process; a possible retirement age, although—here I have to declare an age interest—what was proposed in our manifesto seems rather arbitrary and blunt; and a participation requirement, although the difficulties in measuring that were noted in the recent debate on Lords reform. In addition, and I hope I will be forgiven, it should include the position of the Bishops, which has rightly been questioned. Again, it is a question of principle, not people, because I highly value the contribution made by many on the Bishops’ Benches, particularly on issues relating to refugees and poverty. These, however, are all just stages, leading to the more fundamental reform envisaged in the manifesto, which those who want a genuinely democratic second Chamber—including myself—eagerly await. In a recent letter to the Guardian, representatives of 10 organisations working on power and democracy—I refer here to my registered non-financial interests—called on the Government “to announce a timeline for the public consultation” that was promised “as soon as possible”. They were echoed today by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Llanfaes. They also argued that a representative citizens’ assembly “as part of a national conversation would help ensure this public consultation would bring together people from all walks of life, to hear from experts, deliberate and make recommendations”. I will be honest and admit that I am not sure what would be the best model to replace the current House with a genuinely democratic and geographically balanced Chamber. But citizens’ assemblies have provided very useful mechanisms for enabling the public to debate knotty problems in other countries, such as Ireland, where they successfully considered abortion and same-sex marriage. I therefore support this proposal to help us chart a way forward that might have broad public support. I would welcome my noble friend the Leader of the House’s thoughts on this suggestion and any indication that she can give on the timeline for public consultation on longer-term reform. In the meantime, it is the right strategy to reform in stages. I hope the current Bill will pass swiftly, so that we can move on to the subsequent stages. I too congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Brady, who is now my neighbour in Millbank House, on an excellent maiden speech. I also say how sorry I am to hear the wonderful valedictory speech of my noble friend Lady Quin, but she will always remain a friend, I hope.

17:11:00

My Lords, I repeat those congratulations. It is great to briefly have the company of my noble friend Lord Brady, in this House and very sad to lose the company of the noble Baroness, Lady Quin, a few months early. I find myself agreeing with the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, in that it would have been very nice to get the hereditary peerage made sex-blind. Her colleague Lord Diamond tried and I supported him early on; I tried in my turn, as did the noble Lord, Lord Northbrook. None of us has managed to convince a Government of any colour that they should be prepared to give time to that. It is, I think, the one regret that I shall carry with me as I depart this House. I support the Bill, and I accept its principle. I accepted it in 1992 when I joined. I expected Neil Kinnock, now the noble Lord, Lord Kinnock, to win the election and abolish us, so I joined in the expectation of being abolished but it has taken rather a long time. Along with the noble Lords, Lord Newby and Lord Norton of Louth, I think that the Bill is an opportunity to make some important changes for the benefit of the continuing House. We need to do something about the Prime Minister’s power of patronage. I favour doing that by defining the proportions of this House that are made up of, or appointed by, various parties. We also need to do something about quality, because this ought to be a self-improving House. Many noble Peers have mentioned ways in which this House could do better, which seems entirely in tune with the Government’s objectives as set out in their manifesto. I will take quality first. We should be on our honour at the beginning of every Session by confirming, in writing, that we have the mental and physical capacity to play a full part in the House, and that we intend to attend a certain percentage of sitting days and play an active part in the committees of this House, which are the core of its business. Those who can, for one reason or another, not manage that should gracefully retire. As the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, says, there should be some stick available if Members who are clearly not acting on their honour refuse to retire. Obviously, the ability to grant leave of absence to Peers who are away temporarily should remain. As the Government have proposed, when a party leader proposes that someone should be a Peer, they should make a declaration of what their qualities and experience are and how that will add to the work of the Lords and represent the interests of that party in Parliament. I suggest that, together, that would make a good way of approaching the problem of quality. The basic jury is public opinion, and our own sense of honour. Those are suitably deep and flexible ways of dealing with what would otherwise become a rather bureaucratised system. Then there is the question of proportions. Having no set proportions of Peers in this House allows the Prime Minister to flood the Chamber with new Peers whenever he or she wishes, effectively rendering Parliament unicameral and the legislature ineffective. We could deal with that simply by saying that the Bishops and the Cross Benches have a set proportion of this House, and the Opposition has at least half of what remains. That would make sure that the Prime Minister was no longer able to pack the representation of parties in this House. It would seem to me entirely appropriate in the context of a House where there was no longer a hereditary principle, and it was entirely an appointed House. As my noble friend Lord True pointed out, we have a strong set of conventions to allow that sort of House, where the Government are in a permanent minority, to be manageable, and allow the Government to get their business through. As other noble Lords have said, it would help these processes if peerages were no longer tied to a Writ of Summons. There are some people in this world who deserve a peerage, but who are really not interested in arguing “may” and “must” in the recesses of some 500-page Bill. Let them have the honour and not impose on them the obligation to attend this place. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock, that we need to do something about regional representation. I have been, in recent months, sampling what you can get for £100 a night, and I cannot see this is a great incentive for people to travel down from the north. I have not encountered any bedbugs yet, but I should not be surprised to do so. If we wanted to introduce election to this House, why not open up the hereditary Peers’ by-elections to everybody, as has just happened with the chancellorship of the University of Oxford? All Members of this House could vote, but anybody could stand. That way, we could introduce an interesting principle of election without changing the law, much as it is. I look forward to long and interesting debates on this Bill. As we have seen from the amendments there were accepted in the Commons, there is quite a lot of scope for arguing how we can use this Bill to improve the House that remains after we have gone. That, for myself, is the legacy I should like to leave.

17:18:00

My Lords, I too congratulate my noble friend Lord Brady for his maiden speech, and the noble Baroness, Lady Quin, for her valedictory speech. This Government claim that this Bill aims to modernise the House of Lords, break away from feudal traditions and fulfil a manifesto pledge. It promises to replace the House with a Chamber that is representative of the regions and nations. Yet hereditary Peers represent diverse regions better than any other group of noble Lords. Today’s hereditary Peers are not a relic of feudal privilege. They bring diverse political views, professional expertise and unparalleled knowledge of the constitution and our nation’s history. Their contribution goes far beyond their “accident of birth”, and their historical ties mean that they are directly involved with rural community, ensuring that the countryside is represented. The fact that this Bill targets non-Labour Peers reveals, as many Lords have mentioned, the true intent of this Bill. Forcing major constitutional changes without cross-party agreement undermines the delicate balance between tradition and evolution, a balance critical to Britain’s political success since the Civil War. We can contrast and compare that with the histories of France and Russia. Since the revolution in 1789, France has experimented with two empires, a monarchy and five republics in search of stability, and they are still searching. In one short century, Russia demolished an empire and got rid of its aristocracy, replacing it with a communist tyranny after a civil war which claimed 8 million lives and displaced several million more, including my grandparents. This was not modernisation; it was a step backwards. They replaced the Tsar’s regime with a worse form of autocracy. Today, the new Tsar, Putin, exerts more power than the Tsar ever did. The UK’s unwritten constitution has evolved through adaptation rather than revolution. In times of great change, we have managed to adapt and modernise without having to resort to violence. The lesson is clear: change masquerading as progressive politics rarely delivers improvement, particularly when there is no consensus on what shape that change should take. This Bill threatens our national identity and sets a dangerous precedent. It allows Governments to remove Members they dislike, transforming the House into a political, powerless body. Imagine if a future Prime Minister decided there were too many former Members of Parliament, and he or she applied the same principle. I am not sure that this House would welcome that. Ironically, as many have pointed out previously, most hereditary Peers have more democratic legitimacy than life Peers. There are only 23 excepted hereditary Peers. The majority have been elected in a fair, competitive process. These elections are based on merit and expertise rather than inheritance. Cancelling elections retroactively undermines the very principle of democracy, setting another troubling precedent. As many noble Lords have noted, if the Government truly want reform, they should address inactive Peers, improve the appointments process and ensure greater transparency in the selection process. This Bill does nothing like this. Instead, it scapegoats a particular group to advance a partisan agenda. Such hostility is misplaced and risks eroding the very foundations of Britain’s constitutional stability and its long-standing ethos of balancing tradition with modernity. The last time we tried that, almost 400 years ago, was certainly not a happy experience. This Bill is not about evolution but a poorly disguised revolution.

17:23:00

My Lords, this Bill is a very modest measure from a Government that so far, in terms of constitutional reform, have much to be modest about. The Bill is a long way away from proposing an elected House, which Labour supported overwhelmingly in 2012, and from previous Labour manifestos, such as that in 2010, when it was previously in government. However, the modest nature of the Bill is not a reason to reject it today. Some Members of your Lordships’ House were here, as I was, through every stage of all the attempts to end the farcical process of holding by-elections to elect new hereditary Peers. But for the by-elections since 1999 topping up the number of hereditary Peers by 57, the modest measure before us today would therefore have involved only around 31 Peers. I am not sure that, in those circumstances, this Government would have felt it necessary to proceed with this Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, who opposed the gentle measure of ending those by-elections, said today that this is a “nasty little Bill”, and suggested that Members of your Lordships’ House do not know who is a hereditary and who is a life Peer. He needs only to look at the UK Parliament website if he is in any doubt. From his Front Bench, we heard the noble Lord, Lord True, promise full-blooded opposition to this Bill, as the Conservatives fight to preserve the position of hereditary Peers, but his party’s position will be seen as blue-blooded opposition. If his party delays the Bill, the question then asked will be why they do not have other priorities that matter more to people in this country. The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, appeared to consider that removing the hereditary basis for membership here is somehow a democratic outrage, while the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, accused those of us supporting the Bill of gerrymandering. However, the arguments about democratic outrage are a bit rich from those who abused their power in the last Parliament to gerrymander every possible election rule in their favour. The noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, want to postpone the Bill taking effect until the end of this Parliament, which is the classic approach of Saint Augustine’s prayer: “Lord, make me pure, but not yet”. We need not spend much time on this Bill, but will we see numerous, barely relevant amendments and unnecessary de-groupings that ensure we spend many more days debating it? We hear often that ending the hereditary basis for membership of the House is a breach of a gentlemen’s agreement made in 1999, but as the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, made clear, this agreement was based on blackmail; agreements made under duress should not be considered binding. In any event, no gentlemen’s agreement carries more weight than the legislative process, and as my noble friend Lord Newby said earlier, no Parliament can bind its successors. I wonder how some noble Lords would feel if Brexit had been blocked in 2020 simply because Parliament agreed on membership in 1972 and that could not be changed. In the last 25 years, only Peers have been able to vote for Peers, and only from a very limited pool comprising only men who have inherited their position through their fathers. This Bill does not provide for what should really be done in relation to Lords reform, far from it, but that is not a reason to block a modest reform now. What we want to follow is more fundamental reform. The Leader of the House explained how this Bill will make a modest contribution to moving the House in a more proportional direction in terms of voting. I hope therefore that this is a first step towards proportional representation more generally, as most of her Labour colleagues in the House of Commons voted recently in support of Sarah Olney’s Bill providing for PR, which was passed by two votes.

17:29:00

My Lords, speaking as a historian, it seems to me that severing the link between Parliament and the noble families of Britain, after so many centuries of their service, will damage the prestige of this House. The grandeur of this place is bound up not just with its art, books and architecture but with the connection that these noble houses provide to our national past. For example, the noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk, and the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, are direct descendants of Lord Mowbray—to whose statue in this Chamber I point noble Lords. He helped force King John to sign Magna Carta, the charter document of the liberties of us all. To pick up on what the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, said, admittedly those Barons were very undiverse—none the less, that is what they did. I know that Peers are not supposed to use props for their speeches, but I thought that noble Lords would forgive me for referring to a 10-foot high, two century-old statue. Mention of the noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk, prompts me to ask the Leader of the House whether the Government approve of him continuing in his hereditary role as Earl Marshal, an office that his family has held since 1672, and the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, continuing to hold his hereditary role as Lord Great Chamberlain, which has been in continuous existence since 1138. In this fatwa against the hereditary principle, surely the Government should advise the King to throw open these posts to public competition in a transparent process overseen by the DCMS, of course after due advertisement in the Guardian—that will look terrible in Hansard; I hope there is a special font for irony. One argument repeatedly made in the debate on the Motion to Take Note of Lords reform on 12 November was that, because only Britain and Lesotho have an hereditary element in their constitutions, it is somehow illegitimate and embarrassing. We should not be embarrassed about the exceptionalism of the British constitution, which is born of a quite different historical development from those of other countries. That does not make it better or worse, simply different. Over three and a half centuries, it has been the result of evolution, and not of revolution, war and invasion. It will damage the prestige of this House to become entirely appointed. The accusation that it was a Prime Minister’s cronies’ Chamber was always vitiated by the fact that it had plenty of cronies of the Stuart, Hanoverian and Saxe-Coburg monarchs too, who are not beholden to anyone living. We ought to cherish that. Furthermore, the Bill will drive up the average age of Members of this House, when we are trying to bring it down. It will also make it more London-centric—although, admittedly, with the title I have chosen, I am in no position to grandstand about that. A sense of continuity, stability and tradition must be good for Parliament. It is true that we probably would not invent the House if it did not exist, but it none the less does a fine job of revising the occasionally substandard legislation sent over to us by the other place. The House of Lords is thus reminiscent of the old joke about the French post-structuralist philosophy professor at the Sorbonne, who asks his class: “I accept that it works in practice, but does it work in theory?” It is not mere romance, snobbery or reaction that motivates those of us who wish to keep the House of Lords, as Disraeli called it on coming here as Earl of Beaconsfield, “the Elysian fields”. A tradition of service which holds power in no awe and which sees itself as an ancient council of state rather than a glorified quango is worth defending. When this Bill passes, as, sadly, it will, the hereditary Peers shall, as the Duke of Argyll predicted 130 years ago, “return into the bosom of the people out of which we came, which we have loved so long and served so well”. Those of us who are left and who value selfless, disinterested government will mourn their removal.

17:33:00

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton of Epsom, thought of Animal Farm when he first read the Bill. I thought of one of those dread brainstorming sessions; I could hear some bright spark saying, “I know, let’s go after a bunch of pale, stale and male aristocratic toffs in the Lords. That’ll be popular with the masses”. It strikes me that this Bill may have gone through a similar policy wonk consultation as “Let’s go after those well-off pensioners taking advantage of our generous winter fuel allowance” or “Let’s go after those greedy, tax-dodging, land-owning farmers or those wealthy parents who can afford to send their special needs kids to posh private schools”. It feels a bit chippy and based on caricatures. At lunchtime, seeing that magnificent array of tractors driving past should be a salutary lesson for Ministers of what happens when lazily stereotyped villains bump into material reality—in this instance, working farmers cheered on by the public as they demonstrated against government policy. The Minister for the Cabinet Office, Nick Thomas-Symonds, justified the Bill by saying that, allegedly, if the second Chamber reflects modern Britain then it can restore public trust in democratic institutions. Do the Government really believe that all it will take to tackle profound political alienation, and a yawning disconnect between millions of voters and mainstream institutions, is to erase 88 hereditary Peers? That seems just a tad complacent. I understand the rationale that, in the 21st century, it is outdated and indefensible for those born into certain families to decide on the laws of the land. That is fair enough, but surely it is equally indefensible that any of us, with no mandate, should be sitting here at all. Okay, we are not here because of parentage, but, as other Peers have acknowledged, we are here due to another arcane form of top-down patronage. We should be careful to avoid any self-regarding discussion that imagines that the majority of us are here based on merit or our virtues. It is equally egregious to appoint those infamous cronies, donors, former MPs—many appointed after they were rejected by the electorate—and all the odds and sods who have been put here based on some prime-ministerial whim; yes, that includes me. I apologise to the great and the good, by the way, and to the Bishops, because I know that they are all blameless, but nonetheless, all of us, however virtuous, are unelected and represent an affront to democracy. I say this not to be churlish. Many here are brilliant, hard-working scrutineers. There is an abundance of expert knowledge, and plenty of rhetorical and analytical accomplishment, which is often lacking in the other place. Regardless of all that, it is hard to argue that we are the epitome of democracy. I am therefore still bemused that the Government have narrowed the scope of reform to hereditary Peers only. That seems like such a waste of parliamentary time and energy. For goodness’ sake, if you are going to do constitutional reform, do it with conviction and gusto. We should not be gaslit into accepting that this bitty, piecemeal approach is anywhere near the constitutional shake-up that was promised. I appreciate that to be radical would require courage, with a grown-up debate in both Chambers and a national conversation about how Parliament should enact the will of the people via lawmaking, and that it would encounter problems—yes, an elected upper Chamber would be a challenge to the primacy of the Commons, as was pointed out in the excellent maiden speech by the noble Lord, Lord Brady of Altrincham—but maybe looking at the Lords is the wrong focus. When this Chamber is lauded for amending poorly drafted laws, spotting unintended consequences, and having the time to scrutinise legislation properly after laws are rushed through the other place, surely our focus should be on a proper democratic solution that bolsters the time available and the scrutinising powers of the Commons. The focus should be on the Commons, to improve the quality of the laws drafted; in other words, to abolish this second Chamber and adopt a truly unicameral model, to improve and upskill the Commons, and to concentrate on improving the most important relationship, which is not between the two Houses but between the elected and the electorate. Finally, I believe that we have, at present, a problem of elitism in the UK. But in 2024 the culprits are not the gentry, lording it over the public; they are the new political and cultural overlords, who look down on ordinary people and think they know best about everything, from the public’s consumer habits to the virtues of mass migration, in defiance of popular disquiet. Forget the “to the manor born” types, correcting the P’s and Q’s of the hoi polloi; beware instead the patronising diversity and inclusion commissars who police everyday words and pronouns on pain of cancellation, and who, without irony, lecture others to, “Check your privilege”. Entitlement and elitism are alive and kicking. The hereditary principle is the least of democracy’s problems—and, by the way, victory to the farmers. The noble Baroness, Lady Quin, made her valedictory speech. If anyone is proof that 80 is an arbitrary, mad and ageist line at which to cut off somebody in their prime—I hope she has a wonderful retirement in Newcastle, which I love—she is a perfect example.

17:39:00

My Lords, the United Kingdom constitution recognises two broad classes of Peer: the Lords spiritual and the Lords temporal. I do not often think of myself as a Lord temporal, but perhaps I should, as it has a certain to ring to it. It even has echoes of Doctor Who and the Time Lords—it might impress my children. There are four categories of Lords temporal: the Earl Marshal and the Lord Great Chamberlain, both royal offices and both hereditary; life Peers; and, finally, hereditary Peers, elected under Standing Orders—I repeat that they are elected, not appointed, and in a number of cases, including my own, elected by the whole House. It is a source of political and personal sadness to me that this Bill seeks to remove altogether that latter category—in other words, to cancel their elections and to do so not merely prematurely, in flagrant breach of the agreement as enshrined in the law of 1999, but as soon as the end of this parliamentary Session. As for the cancellation of elections—our own elections—how strange, as my noble friend Lady Meyer suggests, those words sound in the mother of Parliaments. How strange, discordant and dismaying. There is a small consolation, I suppose, that, if the Bill passes, I will spend a short time only on a constitutional death row as an altogether new kind of Lord temporal: a Lord temporary, a dead Peer walking—titles which I fear will not impress my children at all. The truth is that, however things are dressed up, with no matter how many friendly smiles and whatever warm or weasel words, we are to be bundled out of this place with something that looks a little too like contempt for comfort. Moreover, we are to be bundled out not, say, by a burly bouncer at closing time, or because we have become drunk and disorderly—if only, perhaps—but by an institution and by people we know well, who know us and the nature of our service, its seriousness and quality, and the strength of our participation. This means that things will inevitably feel personal; they will feel personal because they are personal. That is a source not only of sadness but of real disappointment. There is no public clamour for our instant removal; the Labour Party’s election manifesto made no such commitment. It is also inconsistent with the spirit of the Government’s Employment Rights Bill. We may not be employees but we are people. Frankly, it is not a great look for a governing party to remove from this House, in needless haste and in the absence of wider reform, large numbers of its opponents. It is not a great look, not a great example, and not a great precedent. Who knows who will be next? The excuse is the strength of feeling to which the issue gives rise in the Labour Party—the passionate intensity with which it rejects the hereditary principle. I feel differently. I accept without hesitation that the hereditaries should depart when this House is fully reformed, and I accept the reasons why. But, at the same time, I do not underestimate our value—as legislators, of course, in a revising Chamber, but also, so to speak, our human value. Democracies are inherently imperfect and in constitutional arrangements, as in life and in love, rationality is not, thank goodness, or should not be, the be all and end all. Strict rationality, dry reason and narrow logic can actually be the foes of the body politic, not its friends—not the tiger in its tank but its kryptonite. We live in a time of great—I would say revolutionary —cultural change. It is a time to remember that healthy, happy countries, with a coherent sense of themselves, have a past as well as a present and a future, with a soul and beating heart as well as a brain. It is a time to remember the importance of British culture and British political culture, and the growing importance of our historical and ancestral roots, and of watering and respecting those roots. This is one reason we have, and today need more than ever, a monarchy. Is it also the reason the hereditary Peers have survived for as long as they have? Parliament has many roles. One of those roles is to represent the British people where it really matters and to reflect them back to themselves; to represent their character, fears and desires, hopes and dreams, and humanity, and to give expression to their inchoate feelings—feelings which are no less real or important, perhaps especially at times such as these, for being hard to articulate. This House is a revising Chamber but it is also, or should be, part of the national conversation. One of its jobs should be—above all, at a time of cultural upheaval—to help elucidate, elevate and lead that conversation. Because they are neither politicians nor appointees, the hereditaries have had, and still have, a valuable role to play in this mission, as have the Lords spiritual and as did, once upon a time, the late lamented Law Lords. In a sense, perverse though this may sound to some, it is by virtue of our very ordinariness. This is neither the moment to remove us, nor the way.

17:45:00

My Lords, I did not have the pleasure of hearing the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Brady, but I am sure that he is most welcome to the House. But I did have the opportunity to hear my noble friend Lady Quin’s exquisite valedictory speech, and I am sure that we will all miss her. I stand as a very rare species: I am a hereditary Labour Peer. More than that, I am the only hereditary Labour Peer taking part in this debate. My noble friend Lord Stansgate has avoided having to speak to the House by taking the chair for one hour as Deputy Chairman, so it has been left to me. In the parlance of these days, I should state where I am coming from, so I will express it to your Lordships. I took the oath for the first time in February 1972, nearly 53 years ago, when I was 34 years of age. At the time, Earl Jellicoe was Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House, and Lord Shackleton was Leader of the Opposition. One was the son of Admiral Jellicoe of Jutland fame and the other was the son of the great Antarctic explorer Ernest Shackleton—I felt a touch of heredity existed. I remained in the House until 1999—I was here for 27 years—and returned in 2021 at the encouragement of my noble friend Lord Kennedy, my Chief Whip. I have therefore been in the House for 30 years, with my first spell being 27 years. Since I arrived in this House in 1972, I have always held that, in the world of the Mother of Parliaments, no membership of this or any other House should be by the accident of birth, and I remain strongly committed to that principle. That is why, in 1999, I refused to put myself forward for election among the 10% of excepted hereditary Peers. I am afraid that I did not keep to that same purity in 2021, but my noble friend Lord Kennedy is very persuasive. Yes, as the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, said, there are improvements to be made, and I hope they will be put forward. The noble Earl suggested that absent prayers—I mean absent Peers: a slip of the tongue—should be excluded on a tighter basis than just one absenteeism in the whole five-year period of a Parliament. I hope that that will be attended to in Committee. Therefore, I will address only one issue, which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord True. He argued that the removal of the hereditary Peers was unnecessary and that they should be allowed to wither away. He cited the treatment of the existing hereditary Irish Peers in the 20th century, who were not removed but allowed to wither away. Indeed, they did wither away some time ago. The trouble is that the noble Lord’s argument runs against the principle that nobody in Parliament should be here by the accident of birth. It has been a great privilege for me to be in this House from 1972 to 1999, and then again since 2021. I end my short brief speech with praise for my Leader for the very tactful manner in which she introduced this Bill and her readiness to give rightful praise to a number of hereditary Peers. In her earlier speech, she actually identified two hereditary Peers of great distinction. This contrasts with the noble Baroness who was the Leader of the House in 1999, who, in a rather brief speech, addressed the hereditary Peers with the words, “Thank you and goodbye”.

17:50:00

My Lords, it is a certain pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, because when he first came to this House, he did not sit on the Labour Benches but was on this side of the House. He has played a very successful game of musical chairs around the House in a clockwise motion, going from here to the Cross Benches to the Labour Party. With his ability to do that, after the Bill has passed he will probably pop up on the Bishops’ Bench. The Bill is notable not for what is in it but for what is not in it. It is a Bill of missed opportunities to reform this House. It does not represent the Government’s own manifesto. Our fear is that there will be no further reform or follow-up of Gordon Brown’s idea for a Chamber that will be fit for the future, representing all the nations of this country. As drafted, it is an opportunity for this Government to enable the Prime Minister to pay off friends and donors. More Prime Ministers’ bag carriers will receive peerages, sadly, following the example of the last two Conservative Prime Ministers. I hope that noble Lords note that I said “two”— I absolve my noble friend Lord Cameron of any such behaviour. In the recent debate we had on reform, the Leader of the House did not tell us what she believes the future of this House will be or even what options the Government are considering. However, looking at the amendments that were laid in the Commons, we have the opportunity to prise out the Government’s thinking on the future of the second Chamber. The Labour Party’s general election manifesto committed to removing the right of excepted hereditary Peers to sit and vote in this Chamber. The commitment was made alongside other proposals to reform the House of Lords. The manifesto proposed the introduction of a “mandatory retirement age” that would require Members to retire from the House of Lords at the end of the Parliament in which they reached the age of 80. It also proposed establishing “a new participation requirement as well as strengthening the circumstances in which disgraced members can be removed”, reforming “the appointments process to ensure the quality of new appointments”, and seeking “to improve the national and regional balance”. The Labour manifesto also proposed “replacing the House of Lords with an alternative second chamber that is more representative of the regions and nations”. Finally, it said that the Government would consult on these proposals. When will they start consulting? Who will they consult? We want to know what the Government’s view is on retirement age and length of service. Is 80 going to be the retirement age? If so, why did the Prime Minister appoint two new Peers to this House who are already over 80? It was somewhat surprising. A lot of us do not want to get rid of the Bishops or disestablish the Church of England, but after looking at the debates in another place we should consider looking at other faiths taking part in Prayers in this House. On Remembrance Sunday, all the denominations were included. I looked up the list: the Chief Rabbi, the director of the Sikh Network, representatives from the Roman Catholic Church, the Methodist Church, the United Reform Church, the Baptist Union, unitarian churches, Greek Orthodox churches and the Church of Scotland, and Muslim, Hindu and Buddhist representatives. If they can attend that important service, why can they not attend Prayers in your Lordships’ House? Do the Government believe that in the future, large donors or those who represent large donors should be excluded from consideration for peerages? Should there be a participation threshold? I note, as other noble Lords have, that in the previous Session, the largest vote was 515 Peers and the largest in recent years was just over 600, on the European withdrawal Bill. That was out of a possible 805. However, if we exclude some who are unable to attend due to illness or not being in the country, that leaves about 200 further Members of your Lordships’ House who could have attended. Where were they? If the Government really want to cut down the size of the Chamber, they should identify those who do not attend, and those Peers should retire. It is also noticeable that 53 of your Lordships have not spoken in the last five years. Do they really deserve to carry on taking part in your Lordships’ House without making more of an effort to attend? There will be amendments to the Bill. They will not be, as some have claimed, a delaying tactic but a chance to discuss the issues around reform. I recognise that the Bill is a manifesto commitment and that at the end of the day it must pass, although not without proper scrutiny. To those who object to the scrutiny ahead of us, in Committee and on Report, all I can say is that if we do not properly scrutinise the Bill, what is the point in having a second Chamber at all? If this happens, the danger is that since most MPs already do not see the point of a second Chamber, their preferred reform will be a unicameral Parliament. That would be a terrible mistake and an unintended consequence of a bad Bill.

17:55:00

My Lords, I extend my welcome to my noble friend Lord Brady of Altrincham for his maiden speech. I express my thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Quin, for her charming valedictory speech. I noticed her intention to carry on with a different form of public service after she leaves this House. I confess that my knowledge of Newcastle does not extend beyond a short stop between Waverley and King’s Cross, so I note her kind invitation to extend my knowledge beyond platform 4. Much has been said and little requires repetition; be that as it may. We are concerned with a very specific Labour Party manifesto commitment under the express heading of “Immediate modernisation”. I remind the Leader of the House of the ordinary English usage of “immediate”: done at once, without interval of time. What was proposed to be done at once and without interval of time? It was the removal of the elected hereditary Peers, the introduction of a mandatory retirement age for those who reached the age of 80 during a parliamentary Session, the very necessary introduction of a participation requirement, and a very necessary reform of the appointment process. Taken together, these would address, to some extent, the numbers in the House, the quality of those in the House and the contribution of those appointed to the House. Yet the only immediate action of this Government is not modernisation but an immediate departure from their manifesto commitment. In a vain effort to mitigate Labour’s departure from immediate modernisation, the Leader expressly quoted the presence of a full stop. As the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, observed, such constitutional weight has been placed upon this small dot. There we are: the disclosure, surprising to many, that the Labour manifesto was broken down into sentences. Who would have thought it? Nil desperandum. There is a logic and coherence to the Labour Party manifesto commitment to immediate modernisation, and it is not present in the Bill. The Leader of the House spoke of the Government being able to decide whether, how or when they would implement their manifesto commitment. However, with respect, this was an expressed commitment to immediate modernisation, not an expression of separate steps hopefully heading in the direction of some modernisation at an indefinite time in the future. The Minister referred to people not being able to sit in this House because of the family they were born into. That might extend beyond the hereditary principle. Reference has been made to the constitutional anomaly of hereditary Peers. I am inclined to the view that all Peers are, to some greater or lesser extent, a constitutional anomaly. The vast majority are appointed for life, but without any commitment or obligation to turn up and do anything. But the greatest constitutional anomaly is that the Executive, in the form of one individual, the Prime Minister, have untrammelled power to determine the membership of the legislature without any reference to quality or qualification. Reference has been made also to the medieval overhang in this Chamber. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Birt, observed, that applies with considerable force to the presence of 26 Church of England bishops who inherit a seat in this House when appointed to their bishopric. What do we have from the Government on this point? Complete silence. The Bill may be presented as many things by diverse interests, but the one thing it most certainly is not is the immediate modernisation of this House, much though it may be required.

18:00:00

My Lords, I join in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Brady of Altrincham, whom I am proud to call a friend in the non-parliamentary sense of the word. I also thought that the noble Baroness, Lady Quin’s valedictory speech was lovely, and I am very grateful to her personally, because she was instrumental in putting up a plaque to my great aunt Kathleen in Newcastle, who was imprisoned for suffragette activities. I am glad to put that on the record. I am sitting next to the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, and I admired the self-sacrifice with which he went to the scaffold, as it were. But it rather spurred me in the opposite direction. Why cannot those of us who oppose the Bill, and many of us clearly do, act like Prince Blücher to his ancestor and get there just in time? I think we should try to. Your Lordships may be familiar with the story of Randolph Churchill, the irascible son of the great Winston. Randolph was diagnosed with a tumour. Surgeons removed it and, having inspected it, declared it benign. On hearing the news, Randolph’s acerbic friend, the novelist Evelyn Waugh, remarked, “How typical of modern science to find the only part of Randolph which is benign and cut it out”. The Government are offering similar surgery today. It is generally agreed in your Lordships’ House, and has been repeated by the Government Front Bench, that the 92 hereditaries do good work in this place, and their collective presence is benign. Yet here we have a government Bill whose sole purpose is to excise them from the body politic. This is a strange approach to constitutional reform. Last week, the Prime Minister sought to revive his prematurely flagging Government by announcing six milestones. Milestones mark progress on a journey. On what journey will the Bill take us? We already have good reason to suspect that no other Lords reform will come into Parliament before the next election. So this journey is a cul-de-sac and, when drivers go down a cul-de-sac by mistake, the only sensible thing they can do is reverse. But, since it is likely that the Bill will become law, we need to think ahead. Speaking as a journalist, one thing you sometimes say when inventing a headline is, “Let’s throw it forward”—and that is what we have to do here. What will this House be once the last element of the principle on which it has existed for 800 years has been surgically removed? I do not want to pursue my Randolph Churchill analogy any further because, even without the hereditary element, your Lordships’ House will do its best to remain benign and public spirited. But I foresee two things. The first is that it will inevitably become more partisan. This is partly because the change will weaken the Cross Benches, who will lose significant numbers and talent, including that of their Convenor. More generally, it is because a House chosen almost solely by government patronage will naturally tend to put party first. There is surely enough partisanship in the other place: the more it is replicated in your Lordships’ House, the less valuable and distinctive we will be. The second effect is on public perception. Shorn of the historic associations that many people respect, and which the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Belgravia, so well described, we who remain shall be looked at more bleakly. Once accident of birth is fully removed from our composition, we shall be exposed as creatures of successive Prime Ministers. We shall lack the legitimacy of tradition on the one hand or of democratic validation on the other. As the noble Lord, Lord True, pointed out, we shall be a House of Lords born in 1958—therefore very slightly younger than me, and therefore not to be revered. It is no coincidence that, since the great majority of hereditaries were removed in 1999, your Lordships’ House has been ridiculed and challenged more often than in the past. This experience fulfils the famous prophecy of Ulysses in Shakespeare: “Take but degree away, untune that string, And, hark, what discord follows!” Because we observe our own workings every day, we can see the genuine value of our collective contributions to the work of Parliament. We should recognise that this may be much less obvious to the wider public. We probably tend to think of the 92 as a rump. But I predict that, if the Bill is enacted, we life Peers shall look like a rump instead, and so, as is the way with rumps, more people will want to kick us.

18:05:00

My Lords, it is always an immense privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Moore. I am one of the more recent to have been elected as an excepted hereditary Peer, and as such was reluctant to speak today, until I realised that there have been some 60 life peerages granted since my arrival towards the end of 2022—this is prime ministerial patronage. The by-election process is challenging. It was plain to those of us recently elected that we were expected to participate actively in the House. I now realise that most people have little idea of the function of this House. Many hereditary Peers have not been part of the political system prior to admission and look at life through a different and longer-term lens. It is generally agreed by all Governments that the work of this House is consistently of the highest standards and delivers significant improvements to parliamentary legislation. The Bill is merely destructive, with no positive or constructive elements. It is clear that, in the discussions leading up to the passing of the House of Lords Act 1999, a commitment was made to complete reform of the House, but that, until such time, 92 hereditary Peers were to remain. Simple removal of the hereditary Peers is not reform. We have heard the thoughts of the late Lord Irving. This was intended to allay the fears that reform would not take place—now wholly justified. If the solemn promise of a Lord Chancellor given to this House should be so casually overturned, Parliament itself would be demeaned and its integrity impugned. The Government of this country would certainly lose national credibility and possibly international credibility. The Benches opposite continually refer to their 2024 manifesto and the single sentence under the constitutional reform section to evict hereditary Peers. Constitutional reform is a most serious, important long-term issue that will have significant impact on the governance of this country, now and in the future. Any reform should be comprehensive: taking it piecemeal will result in dysfunctional change, as has already been mentioned. We know about the other proposals in this section, as noted by my noble friend Lord Astor—I will not repeat them. The claim is that, although these actions will be an improvement to the House of Lords, Labour is still committed to replacing the House with an alternative Chamber. But, as mentioned by my noble and learned friend Lord Keen of Elie, there is no mention of the bishops—why not? The Labour Party manifesto contained big ideas—the “five missions”. Whether I agree with them or not is neither here nor there, but the electorate certainly did in July. We have seen the Budget, which the Benches opposite argue will provide growth, and the Great British Energy Bill, which is currently in Committee in this House. I ask the Lord Privy Seal: where is the legislation to tackle the other commitments? I would have expected them to be regarded as significantly more important than this Bill. They will have substantially more impact on the lives of the electorate. The Government say that they want to consult on other reforms after the passage of this Bill. Why not now? Surely, the electorate would expect comprehensive reform as in the manifesto. It would be perfectly possible to have a detailed consultation led by a Joint Committee and to bring the Bill forward later into this Parliament. In the meantime, I respectfully suggest that the Government should focus on the five missions mandated to them by the electorate. The Bill is but a sideshow in the eyes of the electorate, which voted for change. If the Government are truly committed to reform, they should commit to a formal process with a clear timeframe. This is what is being asked for by many, and I am one of them, rather than a piecemeal approach with the suspicion that nothing will occur again for decades. In my opinion, hereditary Peers have a duty to remain until such time as Parliament fulfils its commitment to full reform of this House. To give one individual total control of both Houses is an open road to a potentially dangerous place. None of us wants that. When I took my seat, I hoped to celebrate my 21st birthday in this noble House, noting that, of course, the Almighty might have other ideas. I look forward to that day, but sadly I fear that it will be with only a small proportion of those here today, as it will be 29 February 2048.

18:11:00

My Lords, the Bill to remove the remaining hereditary Peers from the House eliminates many centuries of tradition, a golden thread going back to the 13th century. In considering the legislation, I believe there should be further reform included, as promised in the previous hereditary Peers abolition Bill by the then Lord Chancellor. On 30 March 1999, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, stood at the Dispatch Box and said the 1999 Bill to abolish the majority of the hereditary Peers, “reflects a compromise negotiated between Privy Counsellors on Privy Council terms and binding in honour on all those who have come to give it their assent”. The noble and learned Lord continued his most carefully worded statement. He said that the “10 per cent”—that is the 92— “will go only when stage two has taken place. So it is a guarantee that it will take place”.—[Official Report, 30/3/1999; col. 207.] The words could not have more unequivocal, and 650 Peers left quietly on the basis of that promise. Will the Leader say whether this overrides the convention that no Parliament can bind its successors? That Privy Council promise has now been broken, so why in consequence should we honour the Salisbury convention on this Bill, particularly as there is legal opinion that it should not apply to constitutional changes? I believe that it is the responsibility of the remaining 92 and those colleagues who believe that the former Lord Chancellor’s promise should be adhered to in order to make sure that the proposed legislation includes provision to move to the stage two promised. I will highlight areas that need to be discussed in greater detail in the proposed Bill. First, because this is a major constitutional issue, there should be a referendum to ask the public what sort of second Chamber they would prefer. Secondly, there should be measures to restrict the size of the House. It cannot be right that the number of Peers keeps increasing so that only the National People’s Congress of China has more members. The right size of the House should reflect the political balance of the parties at each general election. Measures proposed by the Burns commission on retirement and new Peer creations should be included in legislation. Next, there should be an attendance and contribution minimum, and I note the comments of my noble friend Lord Astor that 50 noble Lords have not spoken in the past five years. There should also be a debate on the retirement age of 80 that was proposed in the Government’s manifesto. The current retirement procedure works well, but unfortunately its effect is totally negated by the more than compensating appointment of new Peers. Slightly confusingly, the Prime Minister has already authorised the appointment of two Peers over the age of 80. I believe that new Peers should not be appointed over the age of 80 and that 85 should be considered the retirement age. The only Prime Minister to limit appointments was Theresa May, and more should follow her example. Next, the Appointments Commission should be put on a statutory basis and be firmly applied to all new appointments, political appointments included, thus controlling the quality of prime ministerial patronage. In addition, amendments should be considered on the structure of the membership of the House. First, whether the Chamber should be elected should be debated and genuine attention should be paid to the Liberal Democrats’ views on this. As the noble Baroness, Lady Jay of Paddington, opined in the interesting TV programme “The Lady and the Lords”, this is what the general public would expect, as is reflected by public opinion polls. We should also consider rebalancing the 25 Bishops to include representatives of all faiths. Next, I propose that the name of the House should change to the Senate, as it will not allow hereditary Peers to be Members or claims to hereditary peerages to be considered by the House of Lords. Another issue that should be looked at, which is probably outside the scope of this Bill, is the powers of the House. We should be able to amend the reams of secondary legislation that come before us rather than just having the stark choice of agreeing it or throwing it out. Also, I believe that we should have the power to amend badly drafted Finance Bills, particularly where, due to the guillotine procedure, clauses are not even discussed in the other place. Finally, will the Leader say how some business mechanics are going to work when the hereditaries are gone? Can there be life peerages for shadow Ministers and Whips on the Front Bench? Will there be enough noble Lords to sit on the Woolsack? I understand that a key reason for the proposed Bill is to remove a number of Conservative Peers from the House, which means that the Government will not have to create the equivalent number of new Labour Peers. However, I feel that the Cross Bench hereditaries have been caught in the crossfire unnecessarily. Very often under the previous Administration they supported Labour and Lib Dem amendments, so they are no major threat to the Government getting their business through. In particular, the convenor should be spared abolition. What will happen to the Earl Marshal and the Lord Great Chamberlain? I note that they are also to be excluded from the House. Why can the Government not make an amendment to the Bill to make clear that they can still carry out their ceremonial duties at State Opening? In conclusion, I am sure that without negotiation the proposed legislation will need the most thorough scrutiny so that it honours the promise made by the then Lord Chancellor in 1999 and includes the additional issues I have mentioned.

18:17:00

My Lords, in his devastating book How Westminster Works … and Why It Doesn’t, the noted commentator Ian Dunt describes this House as, “one of the only aspects of our constitutional arrangements that actually works”. The words that he, as a neutral observer, uses to describe this House include diligence, expertise, consensus, seriousness, independence and a willingness to stand up to the Government. Mr Dunt draws no distinction between hereditary Peers and others, and neither could he. Those qualities are daily exhibited by our hereditary colleagues. To summarily remove such Members damages not only this House but the constitution by removing many able, experienced and effective Members of the Legislature with no accompanying plan for reform or constitutional safeguard against future Executive abuse. As many others have said, we must distinguish between the end of the hereditary principle on one hand and managing the transition on the other, particularly to minimise the sudden loss of expertise and to guard against future risks. To manage that transition means two things: retaining the wisdom and experience of our valued colleagues for a defined period, and actively introducing safeguards and reforms to address the points made by many in this House, particularly the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and the noble Lord, Lord Burns. These are regarding, notably, the appointments process; strengthening the role of HOLAC; addressing the questions of the size of the House; attendance; retirement; and, above all, the risk of excessive prime ministerial patronage, as the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, so clearly demonstrated, among others. That risk of excessive patronage applies whatever Government is in power. Without safeguards, the Bill standing alone will simply not do, constitutionally speaking. I will make four quick points. First, without the checks and balances of a written constitution, our unwritten constitution depends on the Government of the day, however large their majority in the Commons, showing restraint on constitutional matters and moving forward with consensus. The Bill’s “fell swoop” approach, if I may so describe it, is contrary to that deep constitutional tradition. Secondly, as my noble friend Lord Northbrook has just pointed out, the words of the then Lord Chancellor, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, in 1999 were expressed as a guarantee. If I may respectfully disagree with the noble Lords, Lord Newby and Lord Grocott, yes, no Parliament can bind its successors, but a guarantee given in Parliament by a senior Minister of the Crown at the Dispatch Box—technically, at the time, at the side of the Woolsack—is binding in honour and by constitutional convention, unless good reason is shown. Without very convincing reasons, the right honourable Prime Minister and his Government cannot, in honour, break such a solemn guarantee. Thirdly, the consensus approach does not contradict the manifesto and may indeed strengthen it. I can find no document that says that the Salisbury convention applies to constitutional matters. Fourthly—no one so far has mentioned this—surely a great strength of this House is that no one has a majority. That is what drives the consensus and our working arrangements. Let us not put that at risk through the Bill. Finally, as the noble Lord, Lord True, said, this does not need to be a rancorous debate. I say “Step forward now” to the bridge builders—those whose only motive is to safeguard the constitution—to find decent and honourable solutions. I hope and trust that the noble Baroness the Leader of the House—whom, as the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, said, we all so much admire and respect—will forgo the steamroller and bludgeon and will work for consensus in the best traditions of her office.

18:23:00

My Lords, I did not expect to be elected in 1999, but I was honoured and delighted to be so, as it allowed me to become the fifth Earl of Caithness elected to this House. It should not be overlooked, let alone forgotten, that there has been an elected element in this House not just for 25 years but for 271 out of the last 317 years. I agree that it has not been the widest franchise, but it is the only nod to democracy in this House. Sadly, this Government wish to dispense with democracy rather than extend it. Given the promises of the then Labour Government, I believed that I would be told to go in 2002 or 2003. Later, I expected the call for eviction row soon after 2012, until Labour refused to agree a timetable Motion for a sensible reform Bill of the House and the then Deputy Prime Minister and leader of the Liberal Democrats, Nick Clegg, retreated, humiliated, at the first whiff of battle. That was such a botched opportunity to reform this House. Soon after that, I had anticipated the call in about 2016 if Scotland had voted for independence. The threat of being cleansed from here is nothing new, and I am not speaking today to try to keep my bottom on these red Benches. I am speaking because, in 1999, some of us hereditaries were retained for two purposes. The first was continuing to hold the increasingly powerful Executive to account. I believe that we still do that, and it must be an irritation to the Labour Party that, proportionately, we attend and vote more often than life Peers do. The second, as we have heard, was a guarantee that stage 2 would take place. That guarantee was binding in honour—some guarantee, some honour. I accept that no Parliament can bind its successors but, as behaviour never lies, Labour has demonstrated a very cavalier attitude to keeping its promises. Although disappointing, it is not surprising that, after having had 25 years to think about it, Labour have come back to the House without any new proposals. Manifesto commitments will soon be forgotten. The consequences of the 1999 Act were a loss of about 100 hard-working Peers, an increase in our daily expenses as the incoming Labour life Peers would not accept the then level of allowances, and the dramatic increase in the percentage of ex-MPs here, from under 10% to over 20%. That will increase to 33% when the Bill is enacted. Ex-MPs are appointed for a variety of reasons, and I have nothing against some of them serving here. However, it would be sad if this House had the reputation of just being a retirement home for ex-MPs. I do not have the faith that some others have in a Prime Minister using his or her unfettered powers of patronage for the benefit of this House and the constitution. The Government should withdraw this spiteful little Bill and, at the very minimum, bring it back fulfilling all its manifesto commitments.

18:27:00

My Lords, I say how very sad we shall be to lose the noble Baroness, Lady Quin. Fortunately, my one of my sons has married a Northumbrian, and the comment I received from a friend was, “I hope he makes use of the Northern Counties Club”. I remember my noble friend Lord Brady making a very historic speech to the sixth form of the school of which I was then a governor, which is remembered with great pleasure. I take up a point that my noble friend Lord Strathclyde made. I think we can take it that, whatever the outcome of the Bill, the by-elections are a thing of the past. The effect of this is that no hereditary not currently a Member of this House, will, by virtue of his or her heredity, be able to become a Member of this House. The birthright of heredity, to quote the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine, will no longer exist. This therefore leaves the current hereditary Peers, of whom I am one. I make two points. Why is the proposal in the Bill to terminate membership geared to this Session, whereas other criteria such as age provide for leaving at the end of the Parliament? I cannot too strongly remind your Lordships that the retention of the accepted Peers these past 25 years was not a cosy, nostalgic link with the past hereditary tradition in your Lordships’ House but rather a running reminder of the need to take reform forward. The other point I want to make is that, at the last general election, the party opposite secured just 33% of the popular vote, whereas the electoral arithmetic provided them with almost exactly double that percentage: 411 seats out of a total of 650, or 67% of the membership of the other place. That margin between popular vote and seats held is historically the widest. I mention that because I hope it will act as an additional incentive on the part of the Government to do all in their power to drive forward plans for the future of your Lordships’ House. The presence of hereditary Peers—I have to repeat this—which formed so important a part in the memorable explanation by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine, in 1999 will no longer be there. I have been searching around for how I see the Bill, and the word that occurs to me is “impatience”. There is much in it that appears to have been compiled in haste, and I hope the Leader and her team will take that on board and be aware of the responsibility to get the Bill, unsatisfactory as it is, in the best possible state.

18:31:00

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman. Some 27 years ago, a Government were elected with a manifesto promise to end the hereditary principle in the House of Lords, resulting in the 1999 Act. Earlier this year, this Government were elected, promising to finish these reforms, and that was reiterated in the King’s Speech. When just 2% of our population say they have a lot of confidence in the House of Lords, it is to the benefit of this House that we look at how we can improve that perception and be more representative. The earlier reforms set up HOLAC, the Appointments Commission, to create a more representative House, including people’s Peers. The commission has made 76 recommendations in total, 57 of which were between the years 2000 and 2010. Since I joined the House via that system without prime ministerial patronage—though I am aware that, technically, the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, appointed me—only nine further appointments have been made in that way, but since 2000 at least 58 new hereditary Peers have been appointed through the replacement electoral system. Of those, 42 were elected involving only hereditary Peers from the relevant party or the Cross Benches, and the remaining 15 by the whole House. I thank the Library for supplying those figures for me. Had the replacement system been amended as recommended in the Bill by the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, some vacancies could have been used by the commission to ensure that the House was representative and drew on the expertise that our country can offer. There are over 60 million citizens in our four countries, so we could without doubt find excellent people to join us in our work. I recognise that many hereditary Peers hail from areas outside the overrepresented London and south-east region. However, I suggest that new appointments would allow us to increase diversity and geographical representation, give us a wider industrial and professional base and improve gender balance. A strengthened commission with more opportunities for appointments could create a more representative and proportionate Chamber from our population. Like others, I appreciate the valuable contributions to the House made by many hereditary Peers, some of whom I hope will still consider me a friend after this speech. I would therefore welcome the Government considering supporting a process for currently sitting hereditary Peers to apply for admission as life Peers, with the support of their parties or the Cross Benches, through the Appointments Commission, perhaps with a number to be agreed between the usual channels. Such an approach would ensure that the Cross Benches were not denuded of significant expertise and would enable political parties to support a small proportion of their numbers to remain, with the Appointments Commission’s endorsement. It is a shame that we cannot debate the full reforms and consider the Burns report again but, even though this has been expressed by many noble Lords today, taking an incrementalist approach cannot be avoided. I welcome the important step taken by the Bill and hope that the House can reach agreement in the kind of way that has been debated throughout the day. This House recognises the diversity of backgrounds of the other House, particularly the latest intake, and that their real-world experience is essential to good governance. It is only through reform to House of Lords composition and appointments that we can safeguard our role as a second Chamber to scrutinise and improve legislation. At the interview in 2014 for appointment to this House, I was asked what I hoped to contribute. My answer then, as now, was to insist on the reform of the Mental Health Act 1983 in order to increase patients’ rights, and to contribute to House of Lords reform. I regret that I missed both the valedictory and maiden speeches earlier because I was at a meeting about the Mental Health Bill with the Care Minister. I did not think it would be 10 years before either of these Bills would be before us. On a lighter note, we might ask ourselves: are the two Bills inexplicably linked?

18:36:00

My Lords, I rise to speak slightly earlier than I expected. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Quin, on her well-earned retirement, having given such great service to both Houses. I also congratulate my noble friend Lord Brady on his excellent maiden speech, although that is slightly through gritted teeth because he takes a huge sideswipe at me in his autobiography, where he unfairly accuses me of having been to school at Eton. I have to tell your Lordships that that is fake news and disinformation of the worst kind. Still, I assure noble Lords that they can listen to my noble friend in future and be assured that he will speak truth unto power, having learned his lesson. I have some skin in the game in this Bill. I inhabit a very small office with five of us in it, but after the Bill there will only be three of us. Noble Lords might expect me to vote for it and have some self-interest, but I have decided to put my self-interest aside and talk more objectively about the Bill. I think it goes without saying that the hereditary peerage cannot be intellectually justified, as others have said, but neither can the hereditary monarchy be justified, nor, really, an appointed Chamber. We in this House all know that we are looking at an institution and an organisation that works, in its quirky and eccentric way. In some ways, it is rather like an old banger in the garage: we cannot quite work out which bits of the rubber bands are keeping the show on the road, but it is working. I therefore approached this whole issue with a very open mind. Obviously, I like to be seen as a modernising, hip and trendy Conservative and would therefore like to say that hereditary Peers are unjustified, but I wanted to listen to the argument. The most persuasive argument, echoing what was said just now about the Bill being put forward in haste, is the need for wider reform. I have often thought that you could incrementally reform this House easily with sensible changes. We have talked about a retirement age, and it cannot be beyond the wit of man or Peers to work out a proper one. We have talked about perhaps limiting the size of the House. Amendments may even be put down—dare I say it?—about the Lords spiritual and their future. A personal bugbear of mine is the appointment of Ministers who are then put into the Lords; they can resign a week later and stay here for life. Why not give the Government the opportunity to appoint people to the Lords to serve as Ministers and then leave once that job is done? There are so many changes that could make the work of this House not just as effective but appear more effective to those who look on our work. However, it is also true that, having been in this House now for four or five years, I have become a fully paid-up member of our inchoate trade union. All those in the Chamber today arguing for the virtues of the hereditary peerage have at least provided clear and unequivocal evidence of the astonishing work rate of our hereditary colleagues—people who come here with a great sense of obligation, knowing that they are here partly by a quirk of fate, although paradoxically they are the only people in this Chamber who are actually elected to serve in it, however quirky that electoral system may be. They serve not only as Ministers, shadow Ministers and Whips but on our committees as well. With the greatest respect to the Leader of the House, who pointed out some compelling statistics about how the make-up of the House will be barely changed when our hereditary colleagues depart, she failed to mention the impending New Year Honours List, and the appearance, no doubt, of many new Labour Peers, which will skew the balance further. That goes to the fundamental point. Once the hereditary Peers go, this House will be fully appointed on the whim, effectively, of the Prime Minister, or the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, of the day. That will inevitably shape the character of the House. It will remove not only people who work extremely hard in this place but, as has been pointed out—this is an argument I had not heard before—people who have, by and large, had to make their way in the private sector before coming here, unlike people such as me, who have been career politicians and have a narrow, blinkered view of the country. There are so many compelling arguments that should give us pause for thought. Somebody earlier said, “Be careful what you wish for. What next?” There are so many parts of our constitution where the beacon of democracy does not shine. Judges are appointed, effectively, behind closed doors, and they exercise powers almost as great as those of this Chamber and this Parliament. I urge the Government to hear those arguments and to think again about a wider case for reform and changes to this House, which would give the public the confidence that it is updating itself but not losing the best of itself.

18:41:00

My Lords, I first congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Quin, on her entirely delightful valedictory speech. As she knows, I was once an MP for Gateshead, and I know her area well. She is a doughty champion for that part of the world, which does need champions. I also congratulate my noble friend Lord Brady on his excellent speech. He was a marvellously discreet chairman of the 1922 Committee. I have not yet read the book, as the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, has, but I hope I have no mention in it at all—my noble friend Lord Brady is nodding. I might buy it now—who knows? There will be more indiscretion in that book. Having been an MP for 31 years and having spent 11 years in this House, I am absolutely persuaded that we need major change in our parliamentary system if we are to improve the level of government in this country. My concern about this particular Bill is that it tackles, as a priority, the wrong target. The target should be not the House of Lords but the House of Commons, where things are going seriously wrong. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, mentioned a very interesting book, which I have read, and reread recently. I have recommended it to my stepson, who has recently become the MP for Spelthorne. It is called How Westminster Works … And Why it Doesn’t, by Ian Dunt, who is a Liberal Democrat and therefore very useful and objective about such matters. He makes the point that one of the only two things that really work in the whole of Westminster is the House of Lords and its scrutiny of legislation. One thing that the noble and learned Lord did not mention in his speech, because he is a kind man, is that the book equally condemns the lack of scrutiny in the House of Commons. We all know why that is. It was not quite the same in the 1970s, but in the last 20 or so years the timetabling of Bills has reached extraordinary levels. The life has almost been taken out of them, and when Bills have not been timetabled there have not been Bills at all. There have been proposals for which general scrutiny has been avoided. There is a real problem in the House of Commons, which we should address before we address the House of Lords. There is a way in which we could do that comparatively easily, and I commend it to the Government. I know they have set up a committee to look at the House of Commons as well, but I understand that, at the moment, it is dealing with the behaviour of Members of the House of Commons. That may well need addressing, I fully admit—we are much better behaved here. It is also looking into second jobs and matters of that kind, so they are doing something sensible there. However, the real issue is how the Commons scrutinise the Government and deal with legislation. The way forward, if I may say so, is to abolish Public Bill Committees and send Bills to Select Committees. I was chairman of a Select Committee in the House of Commons—the Environmental Audit Committee—for six years. Those committees do a serious job: they get people together and they look at evidence. It is astonishing how ideological differences disappear when confronted by the facts. Select Committees produce reports, and I never had a single vote when I was chairing a committee. We managed to agree, even though many of us approached environmental issues from diametrically opposed positions. That would be a way forward for the House of Commons to generally modernise things, without too much disruption. They do it in Denmark, and I saw it working there 20 years ago. I watched the Danish Parliament in action, and that is what it was doing. There are ways forward here, which I commend to the Government, that do not depend on this sort of Bill. The Government have said that they want to do something now, if not the whole thing. I understand that; I agree that it is often a pragmatic and sensible way forward. The danger is that they just do this. There is a window for change, which disappears after a period and then no further change takes place. That is what happened 25 years ago; that is why we have had no change for 25 years. The appetite for change disappeared under the weight of other considerations. The danger for the Government is that they have a big majority, with a lot of desire for change, yet, at the end of the day, they will produce a mouse because they have not sufficiently prioritised and do not have the right plan, and have not gone forward with real dynamism.

18:47:00

My lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Brady, who was so welcoming to us in his 1922 Committee meetings a few years ago. I wish the noble Baroness, Lady Quin, the very best in her well-earned retirement. I oppose this Bill and support the right of hereditary Peers to remain in this House. I am not a hereditary Peer. However, I just attended the Hanukkah party, which a number of Peers also attended, where I bumped into the Chief Rabbi and mentioned that I was to speak in this debate. He reminded me that, as a Levi, I can trace patrilineality and lineage back some 4,000 years —so I have some skin in the game, though it did not give me any right to sit anywhere, I am afraid. I have been looking at the history of the House and how we got to be here. The position is not as clear as I had thought. The concept of hereditary Peers can be traced to Saxon times, although Parliament did not really come into being until the 12th century. It was Henry II who first convened a court of bishops, earls and barons, and it was from 1254 that we can determine that Parliaments were held, but only to advise the monarch. Hereditary Peers as we understand them emerged in Edward I’s reign, with no right to legislate. The Lords spiritual predate the Lords temporal in that regard. It was from Henry VII’s time that hereditaries had the right to sit. We are talking about dispensing with 800 years of history. During the civil war, the Commons determined that the House of Lords was “useless and dangerous”, but we survived its instincts to abolish us, and subsequent monarchs helped fashion us. Even in the First World War, in 1917, there was the Bryce committee, which came up with plans much more radical than those in front of us today. However, they were dismissed, because wise heads realised their limitations. Since then, we have seen lots of papers, discussions and proposals, but generally we have stayed as we are because, as the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, has explained, the current system works, and we get the work done and deliver. My concern is that these proposals will neuter the effectiveness of our House and I hope the Minister, when she returns to her place, will consider the situation as I see it. Many life Peers are, frankly, so focused on entering this House that once they enter it, they are so satisfied with their title that they regard as the crowning of their career or their community service that they do not realise that there is work to be done. They do not want to work; they are too tired to work; they do not want to exert themselves. Hereditaries, on the other hand, already have a title, by definition. They do not have to push to get one. They do not regard a title as the end in itself—I am in danger of agreeing with the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, on this point; they push only because they want to serve. They want to be in this House to enable them to carry out duties. So we have a body of people who appreciate that being a Member of this House is to serve, to attend, to take office and to contribute. I would far rather a Bill which excludes those who do not contribute, as many have said. I often ask Peers and friends, “If you had the choice between the title and the opportunity to work here, which would you choose?”. I know which I would choose. In many ways, the appointment of life Peers is random, not necessarily best in class. So meanwhile, let us not object to the only group of people who really are independent from anyone political when they are selected, who want to do the job properly and, if I may say so, represent a part of our very rich history and culture which defines who we are. I want to end with something that Lord Acton—the man who pointed out that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely—said when he was talking about the transition from feudal law to the current law: “The one thing that saved England from the fate of other countries was not her insular position, nor the independent spirit nor the magnanimity of her people … but only the consistent, uninventive, stupid fidelity to that political system which originally belonged to all the nations that traverse the ordeal of feudalism”. By “stupid fidelity”, Acton refers to our steadfast, uncreative adherence to our political institutions and the gradual development of constitutional liberty over time, despite the complexities and imperfections in the system. He is warning us to pay attention to the importance of tradition and continuity in preserving political liberty.

18:52:00

My Lords, considering the very serious challenges we are facing, both domestic and international, it is difficult to understand why this debate is taking precedence. If the House requires reform, then choosing to expel a small number of Members, regardless of their contribution or achievements, can hardly be seen as a positive step. If the original purpose of the 1999 Act was to make this House a more diverse and inclusive representation of society at large, then this move is rather contradictory. Whatever the broader sentiment about the hereditary principle, I find it difficult to agree to evict respected colleagues. Most of the hereditary Peers make a huge contribution and have a strong sense of public service, borne of history, so let us not do a disservice to this House by purging them. At the very least, we should consider that all noble Lords who are currently in this House as hereditaries be allowed to continue as life Peers. We should be careful about tinkering at the edges of our democratic set-up. Other countries around the world are rather envious of what we have in terms of the stability that it has given us for centuries. The appointed, not elected, House of Lords is part of this arrangement and the hereditary Peers in turn have played a role. Change for the sake of it should be considered with caution, with checks and balances critically important. Is this group of Peers not delivering? Should we not require some quantitative evidence to abolish them? If so, what defines quality contribution here among us? Is it attendance? Is it voiced views? It is all rather problematic in the round. Once we have established what quality contribution means, then we must all be held accountable to those definitions. The Prime Minister has articulated a desire to rebuild trust in politics. Any move to give himself more power would be against this stated aim. What material difference will this disruption make to the composition of the House? What material difference will it make to the quality of our debates and to our decision-making? I request the Government to articulate a clear plan for how this elimination will serve the nation better in respect of the legislative process, since the argument is that removing hereditary Peers will have a positive effect. Some would say that their offence is that they were born into it, and we live in a meritocracy. I get that. However, they have individually done an amazing service to this country over a number of years and generations. Here, then, the practice refutes the theory. The sense of community and camaraderie within this House will be compromised by this act of ideological prejudice against a small group of long-standing Members. Practising intolerance is surely not the intention. It is seemingly uncomfortably close to ideology when who they are and not what they do is their greatest crime.

18:56:00

My Lords, it is well known that the Scots are the best and the Glasgow Scots are the best of the best, as the noble Baroness, Lady Mobarik, has proved again. I look forward to hearing more from the noble Lord, Lord Brady, and the whole House will greatly miss not hearing any more from the noble Baroness, Lady Quin, who is a great northerner, a great parliamentarian and a very good European. We will all miss her. Two hundred and thirty-two years ago today was a pretty bad day for the hereditary principle too. It was then that the trial started in Paris of King Louis XVI. That did not end well for him. I knew that historical analogies were compulsory today when I heard the imaginative interpretation of Runnymede from the noble Lord, Lord True, and I knew that bad taste would be entirely in order when I listened to the admirable speech from the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton of Epsom. The Leader of the Opposition in his elegantly cynical speech urged the Government to abjure “flinty inflexibility”—I think I have his words right—and accept multitudinous amendments to the Bill. I got the impression that he might be drafting several himself. Indeed, I hear rumours that his amendment factory is working night and day. We have had in this debate some clues as to the possible scope of those amendments: the size of the House, the appointments system, HOLAC, required participation ratios, age limits, fixed terms, the fate of the Lords Spiritual and even, of course, the perennial issue of whether we should go electoral and not appointed. I call the Opposition Front Bench’s position a bit cynical because they know full well what happened in 2003 and 2012 and know that sweeping amendments here would fail in the other place. There is actually quite a lot of cross-dressing going on here today. Our not very red, not very revolutionary Government are arguing for a cautious, painstaking, step-by-step, incremental approach. It is rather conservative, not very Keir Hardie, but the Opposition, by contrast, are disguised as Robespierre and Danton—absolutists. This Bill does not go nearly far enough for them. There must be no reform until there is full reform, with the end state defined in advance now. It is all or nothing and I call that a tiny bit cynical, because while they say they want all, they actually want nothing; despite the revolutionary garb, the aim is stasis. It is not entropy but atrophy. Seriously, how would this House look to the outside world if the Opposition got their way? The Bill was clearly spelled out in the manifesto. The other place passed it by a majority of 262. If we delay it—or worse, amend it—and so take on the other place in a bout of ping-pong, we will be seen as self-serving and undemocratic. No, it would actually be anti-democratic: dying in the last ditch to preserve the hereditary right to legislate. I want further reform. I set out my set of suggestions at excessive length in our debate a month ago, and I will not repeat them now; but actually, they are not germane to this little free-standing Bill, which we must pass. It will be sad to see friends go, but some will surely stay, rebadged to match the rest of us. To seek to wreck this Bill by expanding it in ways that we might like but the Commons would not, would be to do serious damage to public perceptions of this place. If we care about its reputation; if we care about its standing—and I hope we all do—we must pass this Bill quickly and unamended.

19:01:00

My Lords, already in this debate, it is clear that this House is more than apprehensive about passing into law this particularly dishonourable proposal to defenestrate the remaining hereditary Peers. One of the glories of our unwritten constitution is that it allows pragmatic solutions to be found to the perceived problems and conflicts of the day. The House of Lords Act 1999, through the Weatherill amendment, was just such a pragmatic, wise, effective and, ultimately, most successful compromise. No longer was membership of this House a birthright: our election process then ensured that only the best-qualified hereditary Peers passed the test to become elected Members of this House. The election process was byzantine, but it was fair and it worked. Consequently, as has already frequently been stated in this debate, the contribution over many years of the excepted hereditary Peers has been of an exceptionally high order. This pragmatic development of 25 years ago has stood the test of time. It has indeed proved to be a most judicious and successful compromise, which has earned great respect across the whole House. What we therefore now have before us is simply a highly controversial, venal, ill-thought-through and deliberately destructive piece of constitutional vandalism, setting a radical and extremely dangerous precedent. This new Administration—already very rapidly losing total credibility—are fixated, for no rational or explicable reason, on trying to force through into law some of yesteryear’s hackneyed dogma, which is only a small part of their declared manifesto commitment. However, the country has moved on, and the world has moved on. House of Lords reform is in no way a high priority for hard-pressed, working people. While the country’s current economic condition and competitiveness is declining rapidly and alarmingly, this new Administration seem intent only on giving priority to this rough-and- ready, piecemeal, mean and very damaging legislative proposal. This new Administration should be positive and constructive; they should listen to the advice of this House and not persist with being wantonly destructive. As has already been proposed, why not retire 150 Members who hardly ever turn up in the House, who do not attend or participate in debates and who do not vote? They surely should be the first ones to go. Why throw out very hard-working and effective Members, so frequently working very effectively for the best results in the national interest in a conciliatory, constructive and considerate cross-party basis? This is one of the most admirable features of the great work of this House. The excepted hereditary Peers play a vital and central role in this process. What is intended to fill the massive, self-inflicted damage to the country’s legislative effectiveness? The Prime Minister has spoken of “replacing the unelected House of Lords with a new, smaller, democratically elected Second Chamber”. This is clearly another wholly disingenuous utterance. For starters, we know that the other place is never going to cede or water down its legislative primacy. Let us be clear: it is not possible to camouflage in any way what is simply a grossly irresponsible attempt at wrecking legislation with totally disruptive intent. This intemperate and reckless measure will be strenuously resisted, and it is clear that deep-rooted amendments will have to be tabled. This legislative proposal deserves a rough passage.

19:06:00

My Lords, when I came into this House nearly 44 years ago, I was given great advice by my godfather Earl St Aldwyn, a greatly respected former Conservative Chief Whip. He advised me: “You are here to speak and vote on your conscience. Do not be bullied by the Whips or Ministers into changing your mind. Always be polite, courteous and respectful of others, be they friend or foe. Be mindful that, to have a seat in this House is a huge responsibility, and it is your duty to take it seriously. You are here to bring your experience of your life and work outside of this House to the benefit of this House’s deliberations”. My word, how things have changed. I am very much in favour of the reform and modernisation of this House and its membership. I am a strong believer that there should be available, in the honours system, an honorary peerage—and here I agree, probably for the first time in my life, with my noble friend Lord Lucas—which would be one step up from a knighthood, if you will, to recognise those who have been exceptional achievers but do not warrant, either through lack of available time or lack of interest, a seat and a vote in this House. As we all are aware, there are individuals among our Members who perhaps should retire but will not. I am sure that this is the case in many such institutions. However, this Bill to eject the excepted hereditaries does little to reform the House, and it is certainly not stage 2 of reform, as promised by the 1999 Blair Government. We should expose it for what it is: a blatantly obvious move by this Government to kick out a large number of Conservatives and Cross-Benchers to make way for the Prime Minister’s appointment of a similar number of Labour supporters. Why does this plan not affect the Bishops’ Benches? I believe that, following the passage of this legislation, there will be no more reforms for a very long while. My noble friend Lady Finn will confirm that I approached senior Conservative figures on a number of occasions over recent years, suggesting that they convert the excepted hereditaries into life Peers—for that is almost what we have become. I proposed ceasing the by-elections as part of the deal, while ending the hereditary principle in this House. Old Father Time would have played his part as well, as would retirements. Sadly, however, although my plan had considerable support, it fell down a stony path. In hindsight, it would have saved us all from wasting our time with these distractions now. The by-elections, which were unpopular on all Benches, have produced a raft of extremely talented and able hereditary Peers who are nothing but a credit to this House. My family were awarded their titles not, as has been stated in various previous debates, for sleeping with a king or a queen—although actually, I believe that one of them did sleep with the Duke of Buckingham, who then killed Lord Shrewsbury in a duel and ran off with his missus. He should have been an hereditary. They have served this great country at home and abroad, but we made a serious error in the Hundred Years’ War, when one of my ancestors—in fact, the first Earl—won the vineyards of Château Talbot and then lost them. I understand that my time is up, in more ways than one, and I shall adhere to my late godfather’s advice. I shall go quietly, with dignity and courtesy, knowing that my family have served for 600 years and that I shall be the last. I have made many friends on all Benches and shall be eternally grateful for the great privileges which have been afforded to me—yes, I grant you, by an accident of birth. I conclude by expressing my grateful thanks to all the staff who support us so diligently, especially to my friends the doorkeepers, without whose wisdom and friendship life here would have been very much the poorer. It has been a privilege to have known them all and, sadly, they will have to find someone else to cook their game pie next Christmas.

19:10:00

My Lords, the section in the Labour Party manifesto on constitutional reform begins with praise and recognition for the work of this House in performing its two crucial constitutional functions: scrutinising the Government and improving the quality of legislation. It is against this background that the manifesto goes on to set out specific areas for reform. It would be rather ironic if, in assessing this legislation, we chose to abdicate the constitutional responsibilities that the manifesto recognises. On the contrary, we have to live up to those responsibilities and, while not wrecking the Bill, we can and must do what it takes to improve it. I would not regard as wrecking amendments those that, for example, introduce a one-off transparent mechanism for converting at least some hereditary peerages into life peerages. I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Watkins, referred to a similar idea. The objective of ending the connection between hereditary peerages and the right to sit and vote in the House would still be met. Another option is to agree that there will be a one-off special list of peerages, specifically designed to deal with a situation that will not recur. It would be important to keep such a list separate from the ordinary political list that the PM, five months into the new Administration, will understandably need to publish. There has to be transparency about what is agreed. It would not be a great look for the House if it were otherwise. In that introductory paragraph in the Labour Party manifesto, which is important because it really frames the commitments that we are discussing, it is also said that the House has become too big. In answers to an Oral Question from the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, on Monday, the Leader of the House confirmed that the removal of the hereditaries is one of the measures designed to reduce the size of the House. Disappointingly, however, in her Answer the Leader did not commit to a policy of restraint in making new appointments. I ask her to tell us if she can do so now. Does she not agree that, if most of the hereditaries are, in short time, replaced with new life Peers, the Government will have failed to meet their objective through this measure and damaged our credibility in the eyes of the public? It is important to have clarity on these questions sooner rather than later because they cannot be separated from our assessment of this legislation. If we cannot get clarity on these matters from the Government, it would be proper, in my view, to find ways of securing it in statute. Ours is a constitution still centred on the principle of parliamentary sovereignty, so legislation affecting the composition of Parliament always has the greatest constitutional significance. This Bill is not a minor event; it is a constitutional moment. I very much hope that the Leader of the House will use not only her diplomatic skills but her constitutional sensibility to ensure that there will be some compromise, so that the House can proceed on this matter with the widest agreement. After all, future holders of her office and, dare I say it, occupants of Downing Street may not possess the same degree of constitutional responsibility as the current incumbents. A particular long-term aspirant to the office of Prime Minister of this country, who currently sits in the other place, comes to mind. When we are dealing with constitutional reform, we must have these scenarios in mind, however unattractive. I urge the Government to think beyond the present and really about the future, four or five years from now. I am afraid that, like the noble Lord, Lord Moore of Etchingham, I do not see the future as particularly bright if we proceed as proposed. We already have no limits on the size of the House or on the power of prime ministerial appointment. That situation will be made worse, once all the non-prime ministerial routes of appointment—the Law Lords yesterday, the hereditaries today and the Bishops tomorrow—are shut down and if it becomes acceptable to legislate on the composition of the House without wider support. We would fail in our constitutional responsibilities if we simply relied on a vague commitment that the outstanding matters will be addressed later. Of course, we cannot address all outstanding matters now through this legislative vehicle. But this is certainly the time for some clearer commitments, clearer convention and, where necessary, for targeted improvements to the Bill that help us move in the right direction.

19:15:00

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Brady of Altrincham, on his maiden speech. I will be very sad to lose my noble friend Lady Quin although, both as a Minister and as a private citizen, I have done my Newcastle visitor trips. I almost had a lump in my throat, as a former engineer before I came into Parliament, when I saw the first factory where a railway engine was built. It was an amazing operation. I made my general views on reform clear in the November debate, so I will not go over those now, but the Bill is a clear manifesto commitment within the conventions. Everyone has quoted page 108 of the Labour manifesto, but I will start off with Conventions of the UK Parliament, the report of the Joint Committee of both Lords and Commons, which is still valid today. After that report was done in 2006, both Houses voted to support it. In its conclusions, in paragraph 99, it says: “The Convention which has evolved is that: In the House of Lords: A manifesto Bill is accorded a Second Reading; A manifesto Bill is not subject to ‘wrecking amendments’ which change the Government’s … intention as proposed in the Bill”. Any of the amendments about reforming the Lords that have been hinted at today would therefore be, in those terms, wrecking amendments because they change the Government’s proposal that was in their manifesto and its operation. My view is simple: both Houses need to agree the Bill and send it back, not get it mixed up with other matters. This will be my negative bit for the Government, as I do not want to be a toady now that we are in government. The other bit that has been quoted a lot today, again on page 108, is the part about Labour being “committed to replacing the House of Lords with an alternative second chamber”. That is quite distinct from the other promise, and it cannot operate as a commitment under the conventions. The words in the manifesto are vague; they are not at all specific and therefore it cannot be covered. I say to my Front Bench that, if that commitment is based on the report of the so-called commission headed by Gordon Brown, I will vote against it. I would not give an O-level to that report and the Labour Peer on the commission voted against it. To be clear about this, I sent the establishment’s House magazine a note on it in the summer, but I was not establishment enough to get it published. That report was all about Scotland. It was not about genuine reform of a revising second Chamber, but I will not go over that anymore. The Bill has got to go back to the Commons without any amendment. That way, we can get down to putting pressure on the Government, because I want reform. The issues raised by the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, and the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, were all positive ideas. We cannot carry on just as we are, but I have seen and heard of plans by some of my new colleagues who want to amend it to include the Bishops. That will be a big mistake. It is a fundamental change to the Bill. It would amount to a wrecking amendment, because it is not consistent with it, and it would take the Bill outside the conventions that I have just quoted. At some time in another Session—if I am still here, being over the age limit—I would vote to remove the clerics from lawmaking. I do not want more of them in here; they have a job outside, which is not making laws, although I would make an exception for the Bishop of Newcastle, who has proved to be a Bishop of substance.

19:19:00

My Lords, following the constitutional crisis of 1911, the Constitutional Year Book of 1912—then an annual book of political writers and speakers—expressed at page 84 the prevailing nature of appointments to your Lordships’ House in the following terms: “The unlimited power of the Crown to add to the House of Lords has at times been looked upon as dangerous to its independence. As long, however, as a peerage is necessarily hereditary, the permanence of the creation and the necessary succession of an heir who be wholly independent would restrain a Sovereign or a Minister, save in the most exceptional cases, from any lavish exercise of this power.” While, to our modern ear, this sounds very much of its era, I suggest it contains a vital kernel of truth, which remains wholly valid today. As my noble friend Lord Roberts of Belgravia pithily put it, they were cronies of the previous Monarchs and Ministries whose successors are not beholden to anyone living. To place this 1912 analysis in its legal context, your Lordships’ House, in the Wensleydale Peerage case of 1856, held that the Crown no longer possessed the right of creating a peerage for life which conferred a seat and vote in this House. Interestingly, a life peerage without a seat and vote in this House, was seemingly valid—something which is perhaps worthy of an exploration given the comments earlier in today’s debate. All this had, of course, evolved by 1911 with the admission of Law Lords to your Lordships’ House by statutes passed in 1886 and 1887, by which those judges held the rank of Baron for life. The Life Peerages Act of 1958 ultimately reversed the effect of the Wensleydale Peerage case. However, at the time of the passage of that Act, and until the 1999 Act, life Peers were greatly outnumbered by those here through the lottery of heredity. The fundamental truth, which echoes down to us from this statement of 1912, is this: the power of membership of this House should not solely be in the hands of the Executive and, more specifically, in the hands of the Prime Minister of the day. Let us be in no doubt: this Bill will bring about a fundamental shift to our constitutional arrangements, as already observed today by, among others, my noble friend Lord Norton and noble and learned friend Lord Bellamy. The Prime Minister alone, as a result of this Bill, will have the sole power of patronage under the 1958 Act. The only group in this House not subject to that power will be the 26 Bishops of the Church of England. From the date of commencement of this legislation, these other avenues of entry to this House, entirely separate from the world of political patronage, will be locked and barred. As a consequence of this expulsion, we will become a House composed only of those political or sharp-elbowed enough to be able to catch the eye of a Prime Minister. This Bill will thus deprive the House of much experience and expertise of those from outside the world of politics and its penumbra. The House will be a much weaker place for it. As the noble Lord, Lord Moore of Etchingham, rightly pointed out, public opinion is not likely to look favourably upon a House composed solely of those appointed by comparatively recent Prime Ministers. As the noble Lord observed, it is we, appointees, who are likely to be viewed as the rump. As my noble friend Lord True said at the outset today—and repeated by others—in passing this Bill we will be snapping the threads of history, so well described by my noble friend Lord Roberts. This in turn reflects the Labour Government’s cavalier approach to our constitution, as embodied in these proposed expulsions from our Parliament of many valuable colleagues on the grounds, as noted by my noble friend Lady Mobarik, of their accident of birth.

19:25:00

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Murray, with whose excellent speech I find myself in complete agreement. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, for her introduction of the Bill. I ask, however, whether she agrees that the Bill appears to lead to an undemocratic result that Parliament never contemplated when the Parliament Act 1911 was enacted? The preamble to the Parliament Act 1911 is interesting. Its second sentence reads as follows: “And whereas it is intended to substitute for the House of Lords as it at present exists a Second Chamber constituted on a popular instead of hereditary basis, but such substitution cannot be immediately brought into operation”. Parliament’s intention, as expressed in that preamble was to move a democratic direction. There was to be, first, a future second Chamber based on a popular rather than hereditary basis and, secondly, future legislation to limit and define the powers of the new second Chamber. Over 100 years later, neither of these events has come to pass. The current Bill will result in an entirely appointed body—the opposite of a body constituted on a popular basis as contemplated in 1911. The idea that an Act of Parliament in 2025 can result in a less democratic body than was contemplated by Parliament in 1911 will strike many as odd. Some may regard it as a matter that would profit from further reflection, perhaps under the aegis of an all-party constitutional conference, as was attempted in 1910 and 1948 in the run-up to the Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949. In the debate held in your Lordships’ House on 22 July 1999 on the Standing Orders to be introduced to fill vacancies among the excepted hereditary Peers, the late Lord Bledisloe proposed an amendment which would have allowed the political party groups to enfranchise their life Peers as well as their hereditary Peers in hereditary Peers’ by-elections. I was struck by Lord Bledisloe’s observation: “One of the unfortunate consequences of the debates on the House of Lords Bill is that, for the first time, Members of the House have been distinguished from each other by virtue of the fact that they are hereditary or life Peers. That division is a great pity and every effort should be made to ensure that it disappears as quickly as possible after the Bill is passed. The process would be greatly assisted if the House recognised that all its Members are of equal value and have a right to an equal say in the election”.—[Official Report, 22/7/1999; col. 1144.] That division has unfortunately again reared its ugly head as a result of this Bill. Noble Lords are allocated to serve on their Front Benches, to serve on Select Committees, or to stand as candidates for positions as officers of all-party groups, irrespective of the route by which they entered your Lordships’ House. The Leader of the House has said that this Bill represents a manifesto commitment. That is a little disingenuous. Labour’s manifesto commitment was to do four things now, and then later to consult on proposals to fulfil its commitment to replacing the House of Lords with an alternative second Chamber that is more representative of the nations and regions. Can the noble Baroness explain why she thinks that the Bill before your Lordships today does not in this regard do the precise opposite of what the manifesto argued for? I believe the former Lord Chancellor, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, was being honest when he declared that the 1999 compromise “would guarantee that stage two would take place”, as my noble friend Lord Northbrook and others have said. “So it is a guarantee that it will take place”,—[Official Report, 30/3/1999; col. 207.] he said. The binding agreement envisaged that stage two would involve a move to an elected House, or at least the adoption of a significant directly or indirectly elected segment within a reformed House. If such a reform were now to be brought about, as was promised, I would be keen to stand for election in order to continue my work in this place, which I have always regarded as the most enormous privilege. The Lord Privy Seal rued that the change commenced 25 years ago has still not been completed. So she should withdraw this Bill and replace it with one which would actually lead towards the completion of that process. This would add to the limited legitimacy your Lordships’ House enjoys, which derives in part from history—that we have had a House of Lords for many centuries—and from the effectiveness with which we perform our work of scrutinising and improving legislation.

19:30:00

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard. We were elected very early in the days of by-elections. The most important thing about this House is that as a revising Chamber, it works. However, this House has influence, but it does not have any power. Of course, the ultimate decision-making on nearly everything rests in places where the power is held, not in a place which makes very good sense and gives very good advice, but whose advice does not have to be taken. We have no way of enforcing that. One thing that needs to be remembered about 1999 is that two people—the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, and the member of the famous Salisbury family, Viscount Cranborne; we have been reminded of how far people go back—both lost their jobs. Now, if we think about it, this House is not a good candidate for reform. Of course, the composition is troublesome, in part. But it is very large, and enough of the Members of this House are diligent, professional and careful, and they do a very good job. Down the other end, they are grateful for the good job that is being done here. My particular memory is of the quality and the culture of the staff of this House. This seems to me to be a more than essential element, perhaps a necessary condition, of why we are as successful as we are. My memory goes to the legal advisors on the Delegated Powers Committee of some years ago. I do not think it that would have been possible to have been served in a more professional, careful and courteous way. We have great strengths, but this does not make us a good candidate for reform. Why spend a lot of time and trouble looking for reforms when an institution is delivering what you want, and not giving you any undue trouble? I go back again, briefly, to 1999, to the introduction of the by-election system. There were, of course, some questions as to how well it would work. That was a case in which the staff of this House put in a system which has worked extremely well. As we have heard, something approaching two-thirds of the hereditary Peers who are here now have arrived by way of by-elections. It has worked, and that is the feature of this House which—I reiterate—is the most compelling aspect of it. We can ask ourselves what this Bill will achieve, what its purpose is and how it will improve the operations of this House, but we will not get very satisfactory answers to any of those questions. What we may need to remember is that we might have thought that we had come to the end of a period of tribal point scoring. I regret to say that we have not, and it is not likely that we will.

19:35:00

I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate today because if House of Lords reform had taken place in last 25 years, I would not have had the opportunity to be elected to this esteemed House. In principle, I cannot disagree with the Bill, despite being one of the last hereditary Peers to be elected to the House. I am obviously disappointed that my time in this House is most likely going to be curtailed before I have learned the ways of the House and how I can best serve and contribute to its workings. Whenever I am asked whether it is appropriate in the 21st century that hereditary Peers should have the opportunity to be elected to the House, I have always said no. As for why it is not appropriate, in a modern Parliament, individuals should not have the opportunity to be elected based on the patronage of the King 725 years ago, which is my privilege. Also, the make-up of the candidates for the hereditary by-elections lacks the diversity and equality needed in this current century. It is clear from the recent debates and the many contributions made today that further House of Lords reform is needed and welcomed by most in the House. The Bill is the first stage in that reform, and possibly the simplest, but how can this House and the general public know that the further reform that is needed will take place? In 1999, the retention of 92 hereditary Peers was negotiated to try to ensure further reform. That reform has not happened. It is probably correct that the 92 hereditary Peers should lose the right to sit in this House, but I feel the House needs to introduce a timeframe for Lords reform. With so many different opinions in the House on House of Lords reform, without a timeframe—or even better, a deadline—no possible decision will be made. In business, if something needs to done, putting a timeframe in place focuses the mind, and decisions are made. I acknowledge that this Government have a lot of legislation to work their way through, and Lords reform may not be at the top of that agenda. Despite this, and as other Peers have suggested, I ask the Leader of the House to consider setting out a timeframe, and even making an amendment to the Bill to ensure that the Government report to Parliament on Lords reform within a reasonable timeframe. With no timescale in place for Lords reform and the removal of most of the hereditary Peers, I do however hope that some Peers may be granted life peerages, in light of their extraordinary service to this House. The Bill would leave the House in a weakened position, as the balance of power for appointments would be in the hands of the Executive, with HOLAC providing limited nominations of future Peers. Sadly, in the past few years, the Executive have chosen to abuse that power, which has damaged the reputation of the House. The government manifesto stated that there will be a retirement age of 80 at the end of this Session. I personally do not agree with an age limit, as lots of experience would leave this Chamber at the same time. I support the Burns report and suggest that there should be a limited time to serve in the House of 15 to 20 years. There is no other institution I can think of, other than our monarchy, that is a job for life without any form of review or appraisal. The House needs to have a minimum participation requirement to ensure all Peers contribute to the workings of this great House. There has been much debate and suggestion on how this should be measured. The noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, made many excellent suggestions in the debate in November. Each system will have its flaws, but once a system is introduced it can be reviewed, changed and updated by an appropriate committee. Until you implement something, you will not know whether it works. Any changes made here will certainly not be an issue to the majority of hard-working Peers. I would also support reforms that enabled an increase in regional representation in this House. The House currently works well, and I acknowledge that small changes have been made to improve its working. It is now the time to make more significant changes, other than just removing the hereditary Peers, to ensure that it continues to do its great work to improve legislation, using the expertise and experience that we all bring to the House. This Bill is a stage in that reform. I ask the Government and the House to ensure we do not have to wait too long before more reform happens to further enhance the workings and reputation of this esteemed place.

19:40:00

My Lords, it has been a privilege to listen to most of the speeches today. Without singling out too many, it was particularly nice to hear my former House of Commons colleague, my noble friend Lord Brady of Altrincham, who is not in his place, make his very good maiden speech. He did that great trick as a writer: when anyone asks, “Am I in your book?”, he assents to the fact that they are, meaning they all rush out and buy it. What he did not realise is, being perfidious politicians, everyone will go to see if they are in the index; if not, they will not buy the book. I was sorry to miss the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Quin, because I understand it to have been a great speech. She and I crossed in the other place, and we both variously served as Ministers of State, not least in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. We have that in common, and I wish her a well-earned retirement. But if there was any speech that impressed me most—perhaps not unexpectedly—it was that of the Convenor of the Cross Benches, the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, this morning. He gave an extraordinarily interesting, intelligent and measured speech, as one would expect. There was much in it on which we would do well to reflect. There will be opportunity enough in Committee to probe the Government closer on many of the points that we have heard often today. To avoid repetition, and with your Lordships’ indulgence, my comments will range wider than the narrow confines of this rather unsatisfactory Bill. I genuinely believe that the Government are missing a trick. Instead of nibbling around the edges of our fragile and rather well-balanced constitution, we should call for a royal commission on how this country is governed, not unlike the commission that produced the Kilbrandon report between 1969 and 1973. Since devolution, and since Brexit when we lost our MEPs, we have had no serious cross-party discussion about how we wish this country to be administered and governed. I agree with my noble friend Lord Horam that more than half the problem of the system not working must be due to what is going on in the House of Commons. We need urgently to review the role of Members of Parliament, how many of them we want, their pay and conditions, and to try to get them to behave as Members of Parliament. I regret to say that it was, I believe, the Liberal Democrats who rather skewered the behaviour of MPs. As a Member of Parliament I often found myself doing the job of a local councillor because that was what was expected of one, since that was what the Liberal Democrats were doing, rather than holding the Executive to account. We also need to look at how our regional Governments are working, or not. Is it really desirable or justifiable that the House of Commons has 650 seats and an average of 105,000 electors per constituency, whereas the Scottish Parliament has 129 seats which, on average, each represents only 42,000 electors? The Senedd in Wales currently has 60 seats—although I see it is demanding to increase that number to 96—which, on average, each represents only 52,000 electors. The Northern Ireland Assembly has 90 seats which each represents only 21,000 electors. Do the differing systems of elections we have make sense anymore? The United Kingdom Parliament uses the first past the post system; the Scottish Parliament uses the additional member system, the Welsh Senedd similarly; and the Northern Ireland Assembly uses the single transferable vote. What about voting ages? Is it really sensible that in United Kingdom general elections, the voting age is 18; in Scotland, it is 16; in Wales, it is 16; and in Northern Ireland, it is 18? What is the rationale? What is the justification? Of course, there are some good reasons behind the differences, not least in Northern Ireland, where the Assembly is designed to ensure a power-sharing agreement. In 2016 and 2017, power to reform the electoral system, the electoral franchise and the size of the devolved legislatures was devolved to Scotland and Wales, subject to the support of two-thirds of membership. There is an idea: the requirement of two-thirds of membership to alter them. The Northern Ireland Assembly cannot reform its own electoral system. Yet here we are, now debating the removal of one small grouping from this House, who are legitimately here, without addressing the bigger pictures and anomalies that persist. Not least is the fact that, as has been mentioned, we have Bishops, but no other faith leaders, by right, to represent other faith communities. We have no one from the SNP, we have no one from Sinn Féin, and more ludicrously, given their current standing in the polls, we have no one from Reform. This House is not currently representative of anything, let alone the electorate. So by all means let us embrace change, but let us do so with an eye on the bigger picture. Let us convene this commission in partnership with the devolved Parliaments and, while we are at it, let us discuss the funding formula, which is ludicrously out of date; even Lord Barnett accepted that, shortly before his death. Then we can see what role a second Chamber can play, who it should be composed of and how many people should be in it—even, indeed, whether we need a bicameral system at all. I have just recently seen that I have been invited—and I imagine other noble Lords had been invited too—by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, to a meeting next week to discuss what is termed English devolution. I imagine this will be a further look at local government reform—

My Lords, I hate to interrupt my noble friend, but I wonder if he has seen the flashing light.

I am most grateful—I have reached the advisory time and I shall take your Lordships’ advice and begin my wind-up immediately. I imagine the meeting will be a look at local government, not the regional assemblies championed by Gordon Brown and Lord Prescott. We need to look at where want to have unitaries, district councils or county councils. Let us look at all this, but let us also look at a bigger review. The Government should look at Lords reform in a wider sense when we look at constitutional reform. It should not be done piecemeal, and I hope that they will rise to this occasion.

19:48:00

My Lords, I support this Bill as a useful step towards a reformed second Chamber. This further step towards reform has been a long time coming, notwithstanding the remarks from the Conservative Benches about the fact it has been produced in haste. I count myself very fortunate to have joined your Lordships’ House in 1998, when the hereditary Peers were still here en masse. In 1999, I took part in the passage of the House of Lords Reform Bill and was surprised that the Conservative Opposition Front Bench, almost all hereditary Peers, sat with their feet up on the Dispatch Box, red socks ablaze. Surely it cannot have been mere bad manners, so I presume it was a mark of disapproval towards the Bill and the Government. I wonder what form that disapproval will take, beyond the remarks we have heard this time round. Early on, I learned that some hereditary Peers make a substantial contribution to this House. I particularly remember those who became friends: the Earl of Selborne, who chaired the Select Committee I was on, with his wise contributions on the environment and agriculture; the Countess of Mar, exceptional for being a female hereditary and in how seriously she took the role we all have in keeping the House properly self-regulated; and my late noble friend Earl Russell, whose forensic knowledge of history and the constitution was counterbalanced by his sense of humour. However, for the reasons so ably laid out by my noble friends Lord Newby and Lord Rennard, the time has come to end the right to sit in this House because you were born into a certain lineage. With that end in mind, the logical next step is to reform the titles of those who sit in the second Chamber and the name of the Chamber itself. The noble Lord, Lord Northbrook, and others have mentioned the term “Senate”, which is well understood by the public. There are lots of problems associated with having a title such as “Lord” or “Baroness”. Most importantly, for me, having that title means that many people feel automatically distanced from you when you are trying to talk to them about the work and issues here. The noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, explained it so well, saying that titles and ermine distract from the nature of what we actually work on. One of the more amusing moments over my title came at the Gramercy Park Hotel, in New York. The receptionist, on seeing my passport, said: “‘Baroness’, that’s a cute name. What do they call you for short, ‘Nessie’?” It was perfectly understandable in a country where “The Dukes of Hazzard” was showing on TV. There is a more invidious reason: the fact, as others have mentioned, including the noble Lords, Lord Birt and Lord Foulkes, that some people want a title but do not want to take part in the legislative process. Those people make a fat donation to their party, get the title and then barely show their faces. The argument must be made to have titles as honours but to divorce them from the job we do here as a legislature. I wish this modest step of reform well and hope that the next steps are not long in being brought forward by the Government.

19:52:00

My Lords, as I have listened to today’s debate, I have been wondering what I or anybody else can usefully add to what has been said, but after almost 48 years in your Lordships’ House, I feel compelled to speak briefly. First, I echo those who have suggested that constitutional change must be brought about only if fully considered and if there is good reason for it. If it is not necessary to change, it is necessary not to change. This Bill attempts to fulfil an ambition of the Labour Party which it claims fulfils its ambitions laid out in the 1999 Act. As my noble friend Lord Murray of Blidworth said, it is not thought-through. My next point, which was eloquently made by my noble friend a few minutes ago, relates to history. I greatly appreciate that inheritance provided my opportunity 48 years ago to play a part here—ultimately, with eight years on the Front Bench. To remove that opportunity from the remaining rump of the elected hereditary peerage currently here, or their successors who might wish to take it up if it were open to them, is another snapping of the threads, as my noble friend Lord Murray referred to, which have helped hold our constitution together for years. What good will this Bill do? Something will be lost should the hereditary element leave your Lordships’ House—something perhaps indefinable but, once lost, impossible or at least impracticable to replace. Dwelling on the past is one aspect of this. The other point, as has been well made, is that the Government have no clue what they want to do to reform your Lordships’ House. They seem to appreciate neither the complexities of the relationship between another place and this House nor the delicate balance of the constitution, so well described by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull. Great minds have worked on this for years; my noble friend Lord Wakeham’s royal commission was but one. Each attempt has failed, and I doubt that agreement will ever be reached. This is a spiteful Bill which, in the great scheme of things, will achieve nothing to improve this House, as my noble friend Lord Eccles hinted a few minutes ago. Yet over the years, before and after 1999, the House of Lords has done its job, helped by its hereditary Members with great diligence and loyalty to whatever party they belonged or none, but particularly to the House as a whole and what it is here to try to achieve. The noble Baroness the Leader of the House and others have paid a degree of commendation towards hereditary Peers over the years. I hope she will recall that, in various forms, their predecessors have been part of our legislature for about 1,000 years, going back as far as the Magnum Concilium in the early 11th century. These historical aspects have been well ventilated and thoroughly explained by my noble friend Lord Roberts of Belgravia. They may not be well known or even seem relevant, but they should not be glossed over. If, as a Parliament, we throw away elements of our constitutional history on the whim of political expediency, without any agreed alternative, and all on the altar of so-called democratic opinion—which, in any case, cannot apply to your Lordships’ House, because it will be wholly appointed—and to which the Government have shown no alternative either to your Lordships or the country at large, we risk impoverishing the constitutional aspects that have helped bind together elements that the United Kingdom has stood for over many generations.

19:57:00

My Lords, given the late hour, your Lordships may appreciate that I will not reprise my previous history lessons offered in defence of the indefensible—Hansard has those—but I note to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, who is not in his seat, that the hereditary principle is defended. He might recall our discussion on Radio 4’s “Today” programme. I remind the House of my interests as the Earl of Devon—a condemned hereditary. I accept that this Bill will likely pass. It was a manifesto commitment and mine remains one of the minority of voices supporting our continued presence here. I still consider us an important bulwark against the short-term tyranny of politics. Parliament will miss our indelible links to the past, our connections to the regions and our passion for the long-term sustainable future of this island. I will use my few minutes to pose five questions to the noble Baroness the Leader of the House. First, why do this now? On what possible basis is it essential that this happens as a priority? Other than offering Sir Keir’s stuttering premiership a much-needed legislative rosette, this has the hallmarks of a cheap political coup aimed to even numbers. Where is the public demand? This is a time of tyrannous politics: elections in America see right-wing nativism returned to the White House; moderate Governments in France and Germany are assaulted from left and right; the Middle East is ablaze and Ukraine is on her knees; meanwhile, Reform’s popularity grows and extremist views are normalised. With mainland Europe so fragile, is it sensible to discard our real link to Waterloo and the post-Napoleonic settlement? With the eastern Mediterranean in tatters, do we not increase our collective amnesia by removing our link to the last emperors of Constantinople, the Frankish kings of Jerusalem and the crusading counts of Edessa, whence HTS heralds? By abolishing hereditaries, I worry that we will forget our historic responsibilities in the pursuit of modernisation. I never received an answer to why Lords reform is an appropriate response to the ghastly riots of last summer. Are the Government aware of how many members of the public earnestly believe that Article 61 of the Magna Carta remains in force? They write to me. Under that provision, citizens exercise their ancient right to pledge allegiance to a committee of barons when their sovereign no longer represents their interests. Removal of hereditary barons from your Lordships’ House can only inflame their insecurities. Secondly, as many others have commented, why not complete the wholesale reform of the Lords that Labour has so long desired? The Government have a clear mandate and a massive majority. If they really wanted to use their political capital to worthwhile effect, they should complete a proper reform of this House and honour the Weatherill deal that was struck 25 years ago. If we are to be abolished, I would rather leave this House in a better state, but I fear that, instead, it will be worse. No headlines critique the conduct of hereditary Peers; rather, recent column inches are devoted to the abuse of patronage in the appointment of life Peers and the conduct of the Lords spiritual in wrestling with the demons of historic child abuse. Are those not more urgent issues? Thirdly, if the hereditary principle is indeed indefensible, then hereditary privilege, logically, can play no role within our constitution. The Government state: “In the 21st century, there should not be places in our Parliament … reserved for those who were born into certain families”.—[Official Report, Commons, 15/10/24; col. 719.] As we sit in this Chamber, there is a most notable and gilded place reserved solely for one person, born into one family—the Throne. The Liberal Democrats agree, asserting that there is no “space in a modern democracy for hereditary privilege”.—[Official Report, Commons, 12/11/24; col. 691.] Despite protestations to the contrary, the abolition of the hereditary peerage is a significant step towards the removal of our hereditary monarch. A republic is the inevitable intellectual conclusion, and a principled Government would admit this. Does the Minister agree? The Government state that the monarchy remains popular, so its removal is not on the agenda. The noble Lord, Lord Newby, claimed that the King’s rule is dependent upon not hereditary principle but how well he does his job. This is wrong: it conflates democratic legitimacy—which does indeed require popularity—with the hereditary principle of duty and public service. To claim something different might result in a reality television star becoming our Head of State. Fourthly, the Government argue that there should not be seats effectively reserved only for men. I hoped I had done enough to expose the fallacy of this discriminatory argument. The fact that the hereditaries are all men is not our fault but that of successive Governments refusing to legislate for female succession. I am grateful to the Public Bill Office for considering my efforts to amend this legislation to permit female succession, but I understand that it falls outside the test of “relevance”. However, noble Lords should note that the Bill not only removes hereditary Peers but strips from your Lordships the right to determine claims to hereditary peerages too. On removing such a power, it is surely appropriate to investigate how such claims will be determined in the future and to place some non-discriminatory guard-rails around the exercise of that power by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, which will inherit the jurisdiction. The Leader of the House has engaged positively with me on this, and I believe that this Parliament, given its sovereignty, can ensure that all future successions to hereditary peerages occur in a manner that is non-gender discriminatory. Finally, many noble Lords have referenced the retention of certain hereditaries via life peerages, and I understand that such discussions may be taking place in the context of threats against the Government’s legislative programme. This is regrettable and should not happen. The privilege and honour of our hereditary seats in Parliament should not be sullied by horse-trading. If the democratic process requires our abolition, we must not frustrate that process. Parliament does not need to retain any more upper-class, middle-aged, white, male Old Etonians. We should accept that our time has come and should leave with grace. Those who covet a seat in this House can apply, like everyone else, to be an angel of HOLAC, or perhaps they might purchase the Prime Minister some suits. Personally, I look forward to a return to the bosom of Devon, and I hope that any space afforded by my abolition might be filled by someone perhaps new to this country, preferably female, with expertise and an apolitical passion for public service. I fervently wish that we could leave this House a better place and better suited to its essential constitutional role, with our heads held high—not in an executioner’s basket—and with pride and gratitude for our 900 years of service.

20:04:00

My Lords, in February 1987, nearly 38 years ago, I had the good fortune to be appointed chief executive of a public company at the age of 31. It was a terrifying prospect for me, the shareholders and the employees. It was an engineering and manufacturing company, employing 1,000 people. I also had the good fortune to be friendly with a wise union leader. Perhaps the noble Baroness the Leader of the House is in a similar position now. My friend taught me a lesson about redundancies: the fear of redundancies is more stressful than the reality. Who will go? Will we all go? These are the questions in the minds of the victims. He taught me that morale would improve when the facts were clear, as any suggestion that the managers or CEO knew more about the business than the shop floor workers was a mistake. One of the many changes in HR law since that date is that it is clearly illegal to choose the candidates for redundancies by political differences. Can this Bill pass the same test? I know that we are not employees here; we are different, and our terms are different, but the Labour Party has often preached that an individual should behave with a generosity of spirit towards his staff, as shown in the best of other organisations. I gather that hereditary Peers show up for work in the Chamber rather more frequently than other Peers. Do the civil servants in Whitehall and around the country show the same dedication to their employers? I was elected in 2013, in an election of the whole House: an electorate of about 700 Peers, of whom about 400 voted, as I remember. There are MPs in another place, chosen to stand in a safe party seat by an executive committee smaller than that. However, my biggest problem is with the mean-spirited way in which the Bill has been drafted. That attitude shows up the differences between this Bill and its nearest equivalent, that proposed by the generous noble Lord, Lord Grocott. His Bill granted life peerages to sitting hereditary Peers, a course of action available to the Starmer Government if they were not, as rumoured, labouring under the self-imposed ambition to gain an overall majority in this House by appointing about 200 Labour Peers. The Labour manifesto is clear that the reforms that they would like to propose include the abolition of Peers who have reached the age of 80 at the end of the Parliament after reaching this landmark. Personally, I believe that people age at different rates, so a better plan would be to introduce health checks at the age of 80, which might reasonably lead to voluntary retirement. This Bill has the abolition of elected hereditary Peers at the end of this Session, perhaps four years earlier than those over-80s, and I can foresee amendments proposed to equalise that date by delaying the date of execution of hereditaries to the end of the Parliament. I can also expect amendments addressing the subject of the Church of England Bishops, whose presence is an institution older than the majority of hereditary peerages. But why should we not widen the franchise, so to speak, by including bishops of other faiths, such as Catholics, imams and rabbis? If Catholic bishops would not be willing to take their place, perhaps Catholic theologians should be appointed. Either that, or all clerics should depart with the elected hereditary Peers. In summary, my problem is with the bold statement in the Labour Party manifesto that hereditary peerages in the House of Lords are “indefensible”. I believe that there are several features in our constitution which are wrong in theory but right in practice. The monarchy leaps to mind; an unelected second Chamber is another. To take action because something offends your theory of government is not only unwise but rather petty. The reason to amend or reject this Bill is that the existing system works—do not redecorate with a bulldozer. We accept that the Labour Party won by a landslide—congratulations. Now build a good peace; do not sow the soil with salt.

20:09:00

My Lords, on their excellent speeches, I join your Lordships in congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Quin, and my noble friend Lord Brady of Altrincham. Regarding directions and measures taken and adopted after this Bill, and hence caused by the Bill if it should become an Act, I will briefly focus on three aspects: first, the priority that this House should persist as an effective revising Chamber; if so, and secondly, certain pitfalls to be avoided and prescriptions to be encouraged; and thirdly, how Lords reform, if properly thought through and completed, can enhance regional and national democracy, both in the United Kingdom and, by example, elsewhere. Irrespective of the political allegiance of the Government of the day, all your Lordships will be very proud of our cross-party usefulness in this House. As has been said, it is this which persuades Governments to think again. For greatly improving proposed legislation before it reaches the statute book, in any given year a large number of House of Lords-tabled amendments are always accepted by the Government and their parliamentary majority in another place. The evidence of that pattern has been constant, whether during the years of Thatcher, Major, Cameron and Johnson or during those of Blair, Brown and now Starmer. There is also our convincing record as a think tank House of Parliament, through many debates and Motions over a wide range of subjects, all the time providing innovative thoughts and constructive suggestions. This is, in my experience, similar to the think tank achievements of the 46-states affiliation of the Council of Europe and its Parliament in Strasbourg. The United Kingdom remains a prominent member, and I am a recent chairman of the Council of Europe’s committee on education and culture. In his 2012 paper, Lord Steel of Aikwood correctly argues against elections to this House—the disadvantages being conflict between two elected Houses, territorial Peers threatening the purpose of constituency MPs and the huge expense of further national elections and of full-time salaried Peers. Does the noble Baroness the Leader of the House therefore consider that instead of providing remedies, elections to this House by universal suffrage would simply throw up more difficulties and anomalies? On appointments to this House, as many have urged, there is a pressing need for a rather obvious and long-overdue shift, switching these to be made by a statutory appointments commission, replacing political patronage. Nevertheless, the Government and Opposition would, of course, continue to confer non-parliamentary peerages and other honours, which are distinct and separate from parliamentary appointments. Yet the irony is that as soon as an appointments commission might adopt this new role, the Government, in spite of their manifesto commitments, would still be tempted to rest on their laurels, wrongly alleging that, thereby, enough Lords reform had then been carried out. However, that would not be the case. This is since, although an appointments commission would function wisely and honourably, beyond London and this part of England, it is perceived as an establishment organisation behind closed doors, insufficiently comprehending and being in touch with the rest of the country. By contrast, the expedients proposed by Lord Steel are able to win the support and confidence of the United Kingdom’s different regions and localities, for his suggested formula, which even if its details may require some amending, is ingenious, highly relevant and workable. Voting would not be by universal suffrage. Instead, an electoral college would consist of parliamentarians from the House of Commons and the three devolved legislatures: the national assembly for Wales, the Scottish Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly. On the usual party-political basis, this college would then choose or elect the majority of the membership of the senate or reformed House of Lords. Does the noble Baroness the Leader of the House agree with Lord Steel that not only is this arrangement, as he puts it: “Simple, inexpensive, and probably likely to produce a less London-centric Chamber than at present” but, being consistent, as it is, with the necessary relationship between this House and another place, far more acceptable than others as a measure of prudent Lords reform, since, as he further comments: “Such a fundamental democratically reformed Upper Chamber would maintain the existing revising role, be part-time and unpaid”.? In addition, does she concur that, once up and running, this same formula would make significant further contributions on a much wider front; for example, improving the quality of political devolution within the United Kingdom, this arising from the new and regular structural links, as already indicated, between United Kingdom regional Parliaments and membership of a reformed House of Lords? Then there is the opportunity for building up cross-party teamwork among regional and Westminster parliamentarians together to check and rein in over-powerful central UK Governments and Executives, these in turn reflecting, and to which my noble friend Lady Laing of Elderslie referred, the slippery-slope tendency of our own version of parliamentary democracy, most aptly described by Quintin Hailsham, the father of my noble friend Lord Hailsham, as “ elective dictatorship”. Thereby, in these respects, we would not least inspire any modern democracy to adopt much better practice, to the obvious advantage of this country in the first place yet also by example to that of international colleagues, many of whom, still regarding this House and another place as the mother of parliaments, are ever ready to be influenced and guided by our United Kingdom procedures and their appropriate adjustments. A reformed version of this House must maintain an ecumenical balance as well, therefore within its membership ever including the leaders and representatives of different faiths, while keeping our traditional Bench of Bishops to add to the wisdom of debates and to lead the House in prayer. As has already been emphasised, in 1999 we were promised full Lords reform. Since then, this process has dithered and prevaricated. If the present Government now claim to grasp the nettle, they have to act accordingly in a timely manner. Over the next 12 months, and for appointments to this House, they should empower a statutory appointments commission to take over from political patronage. Yet if they stop there, they will have only tinkered at the edges, undermined expectations and tarnished their own reputation. Therefore, before the next general election, the Government should have already embarked on the type of formula advocated by Lord Steel of Aikwood. If they do that, then both here and abroad they will have earned the respect of democratic legislatures, their regions and communities.

20:16:00

My Lords, it is always a joy to follow a couple of Earls, except possibly into battle. It was a great pleasure to hail the noble Lord, Lord Brady of Altrincham, and bid farewell to the noble Baroness, Lady Quin. I enjoyed both their speeches very much. I spoke at length in the debate on the reform of the House of Lords, so I will stick to the Bill. At first reading, I was reminded of the words of the popular music group Bananarama when they sang “Na na na na Na na na na Hey hey hey Goodbye”, for is a very simple Bill, somewhat terminal for some of us. I was tempted to draft an amendment adding the words “except for my friends and me”, but I did not think that the Public Bill Office would wear that one. We have a problem: people like their hereditaries. We are house-trained, hard-working—we turn up. Considering this problem, I had one of those lovely conversations you have in the House of Lords. Walking down the corridor, I met a Peeress whom I knew by sight, and we got talking. We started talking about the hereditary peerage and she said, “The problem is, you have to separate principle from the people”. That is what we have to do here. How do we separate the emotion from the legislation? As ever, we can learn from the American military. In his very fine book, “The Men Who Stare at Goats”, Jon Ronson talks about how American special forces trained. They had a kennel of dogs; they would take a dog, shoot it with a bolt gun, then train one of their men to give it a wound dressing as if it had been shot. The trouble was that, after a while, people got too attached to the dogs and could not do it. After a lot of experimentation, the American military discovered that no human can form an attachment to a goat, so the Americans now train on goats. Noble Lords need to start thinking of the hereditary Peers as goats. My father served in your Lordships’ House for 25 years, retiring in 1999, when the House was dominated by hereditary Peers with perhaps a less diligent approach to turning up. When he was asked whether it worked, he tended to say, “Yeah, pretty well. The only time it gets weird is when there are debates on horseracing or fly-fishing and suddenly you get groups of men around the place who have no idea where the lavatories are”” When this is all over and the hereditaries have been moved out of the House, if noble Lords ever think of me, I hope they will think of me sitting quietly at home with my wife, with the butler ironing my copy of the Times Educational Supplement—or perhaps on a crisp morning riding to hounds on Hackney marshes. If they think of me at all, I hope they will think, “Ah, Hampton—he knew where the lavatories were”.

20:20:00

My Lords, it is difficult to follow the noble Lord, Lord Hampton. Now, as a goat, I am sure that he will be a hero to my sons, who will make great use of that as a joke. I am the 76th speaker in this debate and we are going into the seventh hour. I hope that noble Lords will feel slightly sorry for me, as pretty much everything I wanted to say in my speech has not only been said by other noble Lords but has been said many times and a great deal better than I would ever have said it in the first place. I hope your Lordships will be pleased to hear that I propose to throw away the first half of my speech and concentrate on the second. The workings of this House are opaque to those outside it: indeed, they are sometimes pretty opaque to some of us within it, too. In truth, most people are not remotely interested in who we are or what we do—goat or no goat. However, when it is explained that the removal of the hereditaries will also remove the considerable representation of the private sector experience of your Lordships’ House, interest picks up. Hereditaries, after all, have an almost exclusively private sector background. When it is explained that, in the other place, there is not one person on the current Government Front Bench who has had a career in the private sector—and that there is only a small minority in this House—there is disquiet. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Watkins, I have asked the Lords Library to help identify from where recent appointments have been made, to see whether there is a chance that this imbalance can be redressed. During the last eight years or so, in which I have been privileged to attend your Lordships’ House, 217 new Members have been appointed. Of those, 96 had held public office, as an MP, MEP, local councillor or Member of a devolved Assembly. In addition, 17 further appointments were of special advisers or those who had had a Downing Street role, and a further four had senior party roles—ample evidence of a heavy public sector weighting. During the same time, only nine appointments were made through HOLAC. The recent Budget has shown a heavy bias against the private sector: after all, the rise in NI did not apply to the public sector. There will be even fewer voices to champion the private sector when the hereditaries are expelled. Without comprehensive—as opposed to piecemeal—reform, HOLAC will never be given the priority that it needs, and that this House deserves, to remedy this imbalance. The quality of debate in your Lordships’ House never ceases to impress. The degree of scrutiny that it applies to legislation sent from the other place, particularly given that it is increasingly poorly drafted there, is where hereditaries are able to apply their particular commercial expertise. It is rumoured that the Government are proposing the appointment, as Peers, of yet another raft of ex-MPs, local councillors and trade union officials —your Lordships were somewhat surprised to be saluted as “Comrades” by the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, in a recent Oral Question. So I respectfully ask the Leader of the House to abide by Lord Irving’s binding-in-honour pledge and review the role of HOLAC before rushing pell-mell towards the dissolution of the hereditaries and making such an imbalanced constitutional reform.

20:24:00

My Lords, if you thought number 76 was difficult, here goes number 77. I first congratulate my noble friends Lady Quin and Lord Vaizey on their speeches earlier this evening. Many who have spoken in support of the Bill have acknowledged that a number of working Peers are very important to us. They are dedicated in the way they come to this House and deal with our debates. Many have been here for many years, making contributions to all our debates, and I acknowledge freely that they have enriched those debates with their widespread expertise, knowledge and—yes—their sheer hard work. I have not heard many Members in this debate acknowledge what I believe to be one of the fundamental flaws in the hereditary peerage and its continuation here. Apart from some of the Scottish titles, all hereditary Peers are men. They have hereditary titles that pass down the male groups in their family. They pass down to sons and, if there are no sons, to nephews or other younger men in their families. They are never passed to daughters or nieces. If they have no sons or nephews, they go into a difficult position in how to move forward. It is very straightforward and there is not a nice word for it: it is sexual discrimination and it is practised in that part of the peerage. When the Prince and Princess of Wales became engaged to be married, this House voted—unanimously, I think—that their first-born child, irrespective of gender, would inherit the Throne. Surely, what is good enough for the Throne is good enough in this House for younger people who are the offspring of the hereditary peerage. It is wrong that they do not have that entitlement. It is sexual discrimination. In this country—one of the most long-standing democracies in the world—we do everything we can to encourage the emerging democracies to support the rights of women, and that includes women in public life. We are the upholders of equality between the sexes, so our second Chamber cannot create this exclusive and significant breach in what most of us would consider to be proper equality for men and women. The hereditary Peers need to be reformed in that respect and I do not think that any of us should forget that.

20:27:00

My Lords, I thank very much the noble Baroness for her kind words on the hard work and diligence of hereditary Peers. I strongly support the sentiments she expressed about the gender inequality in the hereditary peerage. I ask her to support the succession to peerages and baronetcies Bill proposed by my noble friend Lord Northbrook earlier this year. It is an important Bill and it is a shame that it has not had time in the House. I strongly support it, as I am sure she does as well. I absolutely love the House of Lords and I always have done. I was greatly inspired by my great-great grandfather and my father, both of whom worked as reformers—a Liberal reformer in my great-great grandfather’s case—and people of immense public service. I am not so attracted by the pomp and the honour of this place; it really is the opportunity to serve that has always inspired me. So it was absolutely fantastic to hear the valedictory speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Quin, who exemplifies those values enormously. I particularly value and support her campaign in the war on osteoporosis, which, as I saw in the Daily Mail last week, she is still working incredibly hard on—it is impressive to see that. I am also very pleased to see the incredible diligence of the uber Back-Bencher, my noble friend Lord Brady of Altrincham. My goodness, his inspirational talk about the work of the Back Benches, in both the Commons and the Lords, is exactly the kind of spirit of diligence and selfless public service that exemplifies the values of the House of Lords and what I love so much about this place. That is why it is with such sadness that I have sat here for so many hours listening to this debate. The Bill is nothing to do with public service, diligence or the actual effectiveness of the people who are here. It is a Bill about a performance. It is a performative Bill that addresses form over substance, as the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, rightly pointed out. It has created a tone in this Chamber of a nature that I have never seen before. I have felt extremely uncomfortable here, being singled out among Peers, people whom I would normally regard as being on the same level in every way, as a member of a distinct group which has attracted quite a lot of negative comment. I was very disappointed by the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Grocott. He normally goes around this business with such care, but his trying to single out certain Peers as being a waste of space I found extremely regretful and hurtful. The word “indefensibles” really jars in this Chamber. There are plenty of things that are indefensible going on in this Chamber. There is hardly any noble Lord who has not got a story behind how they were appointed. However, to single out a particular group of Members for some kind of special status is extremely disappointing. What is particularly disappointing is that there are so many opportunities, which have been articulated so clearly by so many Members, to improve this place that I love very much indeed. It is a shame that the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, is not here because I am going to come behind him and support his words, something that I have not done many times in this Chamber. He was absolutely right: the reform of the Appointments Commission is a big priority, reflecting the age limit and looking at ways to make that a workable solution. The elevation of judges, a seemingly arcane point, is very important indeed. There is the support that Peers have; I have worked in three Parliaments during my career, and this is one where legislators are given minimal support. That is why I am going to support the kinds of amendments that have been discussed so thoughtfully by so many Peers. They are to improve this Bill—not to drag it out, not to wreck it, not to veer it off course but because this should be a platform for improving an institution that already does a good job and could be doing a better job if time were given to those kinds of improvements. The one that has stuck out, which has come up again and again in this debate, is the weird situation of a group—a group committed to this Chamber, who have sought out this appointment and who are demonstrating their commitment by sitting on committees, by attendance, and by participating in Front-Bench commitments—being signalled out and chased out while the people who do not turn up, do not participate and do not attend are protected and defended. That strikes me as particularly odd. The noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, put that very well and my noble friend Lord Blencathra came up with a very good solution. I urge the Minister to take those suggestions seriously. We have all inherited election manifesto promises that have been the product of political strategists and have had to try to turn them into effective policy during debate and the process through Parliament. I urge her to take that opportunity.

20:33:00

My Lords, we need to consider the context in which this Bill comes forward. I am sorry to say that this House is not well liked or well respected in this country. There are various criticisms; we have heard some of them today. The principal one is that some people are here only because of their family connections. People regard that as indefensible, and so do I. The noble Lord, Lord Bethell, found that word offensive. It is about not the people but the principle and whether it can be intellectually defended. Most people who have spoken today have said that they are not sure that they can defend it and that the only justification really is of distant history. The noble Baroness, Lady Symons, made the point that the indirect consequence is that those who are here by that method are all white males—not their fault but it is the consequence, and therefore very unrepresentative of this country. As we are talking about hereditary principles, I mention my own background. I was born into the slums of Sheffield, the illegitimate son of a steelworker, to an incredible woman who was unmarried at the time. I mention it because it speaks to my pride at being here. I guess that hereditary Peers will feel exactly the same. They will be proud, quite rightly, of their own families. However, it says nothing about whether I should be here. We should all take that very seriously because people from the outside look and consider these issues very carefully. Earlier, someone mentioned that surveys have shown that only 2% of our population generally support the present constitution of this House. The same survey said that the most supported option was to have an elected House. That is not the direct proposal at the moment, but it shows that any Government will have to consider radical changes to improve the trust in this House. It is said that expelling hereditary Peers is unfair and rushed, given the contribution of some of them. It is not rushed from 1999. It was considered in the election, and it is hardly unfair given that hereditary Peers have been able to speak in this debate today and can, if they choose, vote on the amendments and any Bill. Many people affected directly by this sort of legislation would not have had that opportunity or would choose not to take that right. Therefore, it cannot be said to be an unfair process that does not take some account of what they believe. We have heard other criticisms today, such as that the House is too large—behind China the second largest. France has a second Chamber of about 375 but the rest have around 100. Even America, with 350 million people, has a second House of about 100. Some people have said that we need over 400 just to service the committees. That is an argument for fewer committees, not to have more people here. We probably could be a little more efficient in how we organise those things. My view is that the Bill should pass unamended, but there are some serious issues that have been raised today that need to be considered, including whether people contribute when they are here, and whether they continue to contribute over the term of their being here. I would aim not to have an age discriminator but a term discriminator that reflects the amount of time people spend here, because outside this place age discrimination is illegal. In fact, this place passed that Act, but apparently age discrimination would be okay in here. I do not know if that is fair. Judges may be subject to that, but I do not think age should be a discriminator; it should be about the contribution someone can make and their ability to make it. One of the things I could say against myself is that I could become a roaring dinosaur about policing—in fact, I often am—but, to be fair, after 15 years would I have as much to contribute, or could newer colleagues come along and talk better and with more power and relevance? We all need to consider that. We all believe we have that wisdom that only our experience can bring, but it fails us at times and we need new people to challenge us and bring new ideas and new ways of thinking about things. For everybody here who is excellent and fantastic, there is always somebody behind us who will be better; we just have not met them yet. There is always someone who will come along and put us to shame and make us realise just how little we have delivered as opposed to how much. My final point is directed at His Majesty’s Opposition. I understand why these things happen, but I honestly think that filibustering appears to the outside to be a childish mechanism. All parties have done it—nobody can sit here and say they have never done it—but I wonder how people react to that sort of operating, even from people of their own side. I talked to someone who used to be a Minister and he was tired out earlier this week. It is not a nice process. It does not add much to the wisdom of the process either, and I would charge that it is probably better avoided. I support this government Bill. It should pass unamended, and if there are any other issues, a commission can consider them over a timetabled period in the future.

20:38:00

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe. I congratulate my noble friend Lord Brady of Altrincham on an outstanding maiden speech and the noble Baroness, Lady Quin, on her valedictory speech. Turning to the Bill, I keep asking myself why: why are the Government doing this? Others have asked why too. The only answer we have been given from the noble Baroness the Leader of the House or from Labour Ministers in the other place is that it was in their manifesto. But for such major constitutional reform, Parliament has a right to understand why it was in their manifesto. Why are the Government saying that the House needs reform at all? Do they not believe that it performs its role in Parliament well enough? We are already representative of country, region, occupation and background. From barristers to publishers, artists to farmers, scientists to soldiers, titans of industry to start-up entrepreneurs, former parliamentarians from the other place and our spiritual colleagues, I cannot think of a sector that is not represented in your Lordships’ House. Can noble Lords think of another legislature with such a breadth of knowledge or experience? As an illustration, can you think of another Chamber, assembly or Government where in a six-month timeframe a Member was on the Front Bench during a pre-election wash-up, was placed top in the Army Reserve’s platoon commanders’ battle course in Brecon and won an award for project managing the restoration of a 17th-century house? But that is precisely it: what makes your Lordships’ House so unique is that I am not; every one of us—life Peer, hereditary Peer or Lord spiritual—brings something to the table. Yes, it is eccentric and, in a way, Britishly so, but it works. So why do the Government want to destroy this ecosystem? Removing hereditary Peers will not improve the House’s discharge of its duties. The House already does its duty with exceptional scrutiny, commitment and dedication from Peers of all sides and backgrounds. If the House loses some of its most committed and hard-working Members, how will that improve the House’s role in scrutinising legislation and in holding the Government to account? Constitutional reform must be enacted only with cross-party support after pre-legislative scrutiny and reaching a consensual outcome. For the reasons I have explained, I am afraid the Bill is not about serious reform of the House; it is about damaging the Government’s opposition as severely as possible while infecting collateral damage on the Cross Benches. Since the Labour manifesto’s age restriction measures and proposal to exclude the Bishops—both measures I oppose—were dropped in place of just the expulsion of hereditary Peers, we have had no official documentation about what the next stage of reform would be and when it would happen. Yet what I find most cruel and shameful about the Bill is that it has disrupted the of unity this House. Yes, we have had our differences on legislation, we have debated vigorously, but we have always remained one House, working together and compromising when necessary for the good of the country. The Bill destroys that unity. It has poisoned the well, sown discord and created a rift amongst Peers. The Bill literally seeks to expel a category of Peers from membership in the House because of how they were born. Can you imagine if a Government sought to expel Members because of other characteristics, such as ethnicity or religion? There would rightly be uproar. So where are workers’ rights? Those who are supporters of the Bill—and I will not forget the gloating and howls of delight from the government Benches when this Second Reading debate began—should be careful what they wish for. Before long, noble Lords might find themselves in a category of Peer that the Executive no longer find useful to their cause and might face deletion and unplanned obsolescence. If Parliament is a garment, an ermine robe perhaps, hereditary Peers are the thread that binds it together. Our removal will without doubt start the unravelling of the House of Lords and, I fear, the destabilising of our democracy. I urge the Government to think again.

20:44:00

My Lords, this Bill is specifically and ostensibly about the membership of the excepted hereditary Peers in this House—I must declare at the outset that I am one of them—but it is also, and I think much more importantly, a part of a wider debate about the future of our country’s second Chamber of Parliament and our constitution more widely. That is more important. Not much has been said about the volatile state of the world we are in. Domestically, politics is looking very much as if it is evolving in a rather startling manner that was not anticipated even a few months ago. Internationally, we have seen all kinds of change that was not anticipated over the past three or four years. In talking about our constitution, we need to remember that if the world changes dramatically, perhaps some of our ideas may need to change dramatically too. My understanding of the Government’s position is that they see this proposed variant of Pride’s Purge of 1648 as the first step on a journey. A journey has to have a destination. All journeys go somewhere. I slightly feel that, as described by the Leader of the House, we are on a bit of a mystery tour. I do not think that the Government know exactly where they are going. I do not think I know either. I was on national television just after the general election when Jonathan Ashworth conceded that in fact there was not a worked-up plan when the Labour Party manifesto was drafted, which seems to me a bit careless, a bit foolish and slightly reminiscent of the days of the South Sea bubble, but—and this is the important thing—I think the merit or lack of merit of the Bill we are considering very much depends upon the answers and the responses to these wider, longer-term implications rather than simply the detail of what is being proposed. From all that I have heard this evening, I think there is general agreement around the House that change, which may well include a reduction in numbers, is required. Against that wider context, I think we must try to see ourselves as others see us. I, and, I think, most noble Lords, believe as a generalisation that we conscientiously fulfil our wider role, but, as the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, asked: is that the general perception across the country? Noble Lords need only look at the tabloid newspapers and the media more generally to see an almost prurient interest in and sometimes ersatz horrified surprise about how people become Members of this House. Getting a Writ of Summons, the basis of our membership, appears very often to depend, at least partly, on luck or chance. Clearly, that is absolutely true for hereditary Peers, although I must confess that I have sometimes wondered whether it was good luck or bad luck, but that is for others to decide. Equally, in the case of a large number of other people here, the same principle applies. What it boils down to is that what in the Middle Ages was known as Fortune probably plays a decisive part in everyone’s life at some stage. I am concerned that, if we are not careful, this House could become perceived in the wider world as a kind of political mates club writ large. Indeed, I think some of those who disparage us may already think that is the case. If that becomes a widely held view, the integrity and robustness of our constitutional arrangements and our place here in it would be severely impugned. The Westminster bubble, in which we are all sitting, is not, in fact, all that favourably viewed outside the M25. It is perceived as being too self-regarding, too introverted and out of touch with much of the country, which in turn devalues the perceived worth of the work done within it, taking the UK as a whole. As a number of Peers have already said, we cannot allow this second Chamber of which we are part to become too metropolitan and south-east focused in either its concerns or its membership, because that devalues its impact, value and importance for the country as a whole. I add my tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Quin, who has been a doughty champion of the north of England, where I come from. The way I look at it is that what the Government are proposing in this legislation is to send a platoon comprising the excepted hereditaries over the top in the first wave, leaving the others behind, at least for now. In circumstances like that, somebody has got to be in the first wave. Normally being at the front of the queue is thought to be a good thing. I am also conscious that greater love hath no man than to lay down his life for his friends, but I think it would be not unreasonable for those of us who may be going over the top to be a bit clearer about what the longer-term plan actually is and how it will make our country a better place.

20:49:00

My Lords, there is one insuperable objection to the Bill, and it is not to do with the qualities of our hereditary colleagues, which have been referred to many times in this debate, most recently by my noble friend Lord Bethell. It is absolutely true that they do the unthanked, workaday, unremunerated jobs—they serve as Whips and sit on all the dull committees that make the place work—but I do not expect that to be as persuasive an argument on the Government Benches as on these Benches. Seeing my noble friend Lord Remnant, I rather had this fantasy that he might be the very last hereditary Peer. That would have been an enormously suitable thing, but, again, I do not expect it to be a convincing argument. It is not, by the way, the fact that we are removing the only elected element from the Chamber. Yes, they are elected by a tiny group of people but, none the less, that is more of a mandate than the rest of us have. We are here by the whim of the Executive. If you think about what a legislative Chamber exists to do and has existed to do since Magna Carta, we have been here to hold the Executive in check. On the idea of having one of our two legislative Chambers wholly appointed by the Prime Minister, if that were happening in Zimbabwe or somewhere, we would all say that it was shockingly undemocratic. Being beneficiaries of it does not make it any less so. It is not even the breaking of the link back to Magna Carta, which my noble friends spoke of earlier. Look around at the architecture of this room: it was in the minds of Barry and Pugin to recreate the idea of a medieval King taking counsel of his bishops and barons. You take the hereditaries out of it and it is very difficult to see how we can remain being a House of Lords—the idea of our having titles will become absurd once we have snapped that thread with history. Finally, it is not about the Government’s failure to build consensus behind this major constitutional change—and it is major, not a tiny tidying-up measure. Imagine if Olaf Scholz decided to remove 10% of the members of the German Bundesrat, or if Emmanuel Macron decided fundamentally to change the composition of the French Senate. It could not be done without a major constitutional process. There was an opportunity to build consensus, but the Government have a mandate, and there is no rule that says that a Government with a mandate need to be wise or consensual—we are all allowed to be immoderate and mistaken. That is how the system works. I would make a defence not of the hereditary principle, which everyone says is indefensible, but of the hereditary practice that we see around us and which seems very defensible. We see it from high streets—every time we see a sign saying “Williams and Son Butchers”—right up to the Throne, and people do not seem to find that at all indefensible. But none of that is going to persuade the Government Benches. Frankly, I am a supporter of an elected House. It always sounds transgressive to say that here, and I always feel slightly guilty doing it, even though it is, I think, the position of every party represented at the other end, from the Greens to Reform. I do not know why it is such an odd position. The fundamental, insuperable objection to this legislation is simply that it breaks a deal. That was conceded by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, in her opening remarks, when she said that the mechanism for hereditary by-elections was never expected to be used. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, confirmed at the time in the late 1990s, this was because he expected the second stage of reform to have come into effect before the first by-election took place. There was a bargain, in effect, between the hereditaries and the Labour Party, and the bargain was that the hereditaries would not hold up Tony Blair’s 1998 legislation in exchange for the remaining reprieved 92. To say that it is indefensible or irrational or does not make sense is utterly beside the point: the 92, if you like, were there precisely to be the pebble in the shoe, the reminder that the second stage of reform had not been delivered and that we were not going to remain with a Zimbabwean system of the Executive appointing half the legislature. This Bill taps that pebble from the shoe without delivering the rest of the bargain and moving to a democratic upper House. Fundamentally, that is what is wrong. It is dishonest and dishonourable. To claim that the only reason that this cannot be done is because it is a delaying tactic and that, unless we all agree on everything until it is all agreed, nothing will happen, simply does not apply when you have just won 411 seats at the other end. The Government are perfectly capable, if they want to, of having a democratic upper House. They are refusing to do so for the same reason that every previous Government have: they like to have the patronage powers and to be able to move people out of the way. I remind the party opposite that it has been its commitment since 1902 to have a democratic upper House, and they entered into an explicit bargain in 1998. The hereditaries delivered their side; the Labour Party should deliver its side. Pacta sunt servanda.

20:55:00

My Lords, we have reached that point in the debate when pretty much everything that can be said has been said, but not yet by me. I will confine myself to one observation and one suggestion but, before I do that, I offer my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Brady. I served with him on the Treasury Select Committee in another place. Of course, he has gone on to great things as a hirer and firer of Prime Ministers, while I just sort of went on. I also pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Quin, for her exemplary valedictory. Lastly, I thank the Leader of the House for her courteous tone and the way in which she introduced the debate. I hope to follow her example. The Bill is rather small, containing five clauses, or four if you leave out the one about the short title. It has to be said that rarely can so much have been said by so many about so few clauses. It is a remarkably simple Bill that has at the heart of it one basic proposition, which is the removal of us hereditaries. Since I have spent my whole time talking about reform of this House from the point of view of a wholly elected House, it would be odd if I had to oppose that principle, so I will not. However, equally pernicious as the hereditary principle is the principle of life tenure. We need to confront that and come up with some way in which terms are limited, and I will come to that in my suggestion. Frankly, I never expected to arrive in your Lordships’ House, because my father assured me that reform would have taken place before it came to me. Unfortunately, 29 years ago he died, and I arrived here having never had any interest in politics as something I should do. I came to enjoy and respect what happened, but I also learned how much the reform of this House could add to the strength of Parliament, a theme that I have spoken about on many occasions. So in 1999 I was happy to go, by which time Lord Maclennan had persuaded me that I should try for the other House. I duly ended up as the elected Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross, and I had a very happy 14 years when I got more job satisfaction after looking after my constituents and doing other things, such as sitting on the Treasury Select Committee, than I have had in many other walks of life. I never expected to come back here because I thought the job would have been done by then but, lo and behold, there was an election and I got back here in 2016. Now I am off again, adding to my remarkable collection of political P45s. My observation from that is that House of Lords reform does not happen, or, rather, it happens in very small chunks with large amounts of time between them. That leads me to my suggestion, based on something in the report by the noble Lord, Lord Burns: to look at introducing term limits, not for anyone who is in the House at the moment but by a simple amendment in the Bill to the 1958 Act saying that anyone coming in the future would be limited to a term. It could be 15 years or 20, I do not really mind; it is simply about the principle that people should not be here for their life. That would be a modest and simple thing to do. I am trying desperately not to cut across the desire of my leader, my noble friend Lord Newby, not to create a Christmas tree, but I think this would be a very small bauble that would have no great effect on the other major events but would have a strong effect on the future of the House. That is my observation and my suggestion. Above all, as I said in our debate on 12 November, I am a parliamentarian and I believe in the strength of Parliament. We need a strong second Chamber that is legitimate in the eyes of all its stakeholders so that it strengthens Parliament, in order that Parliament can continue to hold the Executive to account. The threat we face of a public who are becoming ever more disconnected from the parliamentary process would be reduced by a stronger Parliament.

20:59:00

My Lords, I declare an interest as an excepted hereditary Peer. I wish to expand on some of the themes in my contribution to the earlier debate on Lords reform. I stand here for the third time in a row on the graveyard shift. However, fortunately, this affords me the opportunity to be surrounded by the great and the good of this House, basking in their reflected glory. What a way to go. It is exceptionally difficult to be novel at the back end of such a long and thorough debate, but the very strength of this debate is that common threads have been woven throughout it. In the previous debate and this one, it has been clear that many of your Lordships rightly have significant concerns with the reasoning behind bringing this specific Bill forward and in this form. At that time, I asked your Lordships to bring this back to first principles and consider what the purpose of this House is to be. Are we to hold the Government to account as part of an effective process of checks and balances, at the same time able to scrutinise legislation in more detail and with more diligence than the other place can? If one of the aims of this House is to hold the Executive, led by the Prime Minister, to account, having a wholly elected second Chamber that reflects the composition of the other place would hand the power of this House wholly to that very Executive, headed by the Prime Minister. That is not check and balance. In much the same way, if the House is wholly or partly appointed by the Prime Minister, that hands power over it back to the political patronage of the Prime Minister. That is not check and balance. We see direct parallels with these issues in the US system, where, if the President, as will be the case with President Trump, has control of the Senate and the House of Representatives, and effective control of the judiciary in the form of the Supreme Court, as well as a politicised civil service, he will have untrammelled and unfettered power, without effective check and balance. That is a heady and highly attractive mix for any leader to contemplate. The only way to ensure that the second Chamber is able to carry out an effective check and balance on the Executive is, in my view, to have a substantially appointed House, with an elected element but—this is crucial—one free from the untrammelled power of political patronage of the Prime Minister. Decisions on its membership would be vested in an appointments commission with the power to appoint, free from political influence—in short, a House of Lords appointments commission, but this time with teeth. In addition, in order to preserve deep corporate memory, term limits should not be less than 25 years, subject to five-year reviews to ensure that all appointees are carrying their weight through attendance and contribution. Why 25 years? Quite simply, that is the accepted length of a generation, and quite enough time for someone to give effectively and fully to the House. Composition of the House should be structured according to a weighted average of the composition of the parties in the other place over that same period. In short, if you are in government for longer, you will have more Peers appointed. “But hang on a minute”, I hear your Lordships thinking, “Isn’t that what already happens?” The only difference is that most of your Lordships propose that these appointments should not be dependent on the Prime Minister’s political patronage. Unfortunately, this is what His Majesty’s Government seems to be trying to engineer by getting rid of a large part of their opposition from right across the House—and, we have to assume, as no alternative has been offered, filling in the gaps created with their own appointees. By summarily dismissing 90 hereditaries in one fell swoop, mid-term, as well as the expressed intention to impose a retirement age, this is ungracious, and creates a huge void that we assume the Government will want to fill. The concern of many of your Lordships is that this would be done with people appointed by the Prime Minister—deeply ironic, as this would rely on the very patronage that the Government will, we are told, seek to prevent with any supposed further reform of the House. My question of this House is: why are we doing this to these active, committed Peers who make a valuable contribution to the House, rather than weeding out those who hardly come? Is there not an easier way of working, cross-party, to reduce the size of the House, rather than expelling some of the most active and senior Peers? If I may be so bold, as one of the younger—at the age of over 50, that is difficult to say—and more recent entrants to the House, to offer some advice to the Leader of the House. In the spirit of good will, particularly in this festive season, please do not treat your Lordships as if they are turkeys voting for Christmas; it is much easier if you consider them as wise men, and occasionally women, and then encourage them to vote for Christmas. You will likely get a somewhat different response.

21:05:00

My Lords, as we come to the end of a debate with many fine speeches—I mention in particular the contributions of my noble friend Lord Brady of Altrincham, whom I welcome, and the noble Baroness, Lady Quin, whom I wish a long, happy and healthy retirement—I begin with a declaration of non-interest and a declaration of interest. First, I declare the non-interest. Unlike my noble friend who it is a pleasure to follow, I am not a hereditary Peer. Although I am the fourth Lord Wolfson in this House, I do not think I am related to any of the other three, despite sharing a forename with the late Lord Wolfson of Sunningdale and having enjoyed a long and close friendship with his son, my noble friend Lord Simon Wolfson of Aspley Guise, the CEO of Next—and they both arrived here as life Peers. “Wolfson” followed by an “S” and “Wolfson” followed by a “D” are next to each other on the keyboard, so when it comes to parliamentary emails, he often receives emails asking for advice on points of law and I get emails complaining that trousers do not fit. Secondly, I declare the interest. Even a few years back, I do not think I would have believed that I would be uttering these words, but I now confess that some of my best friends are hereditary Peers. But that is not why I am opposing this short, focused and very partisan Bill. The fact that I—I think this goes for everybody in this House—have friends who are hereditary Peers is not a good enough reason to oppose the Bill; nor is the fact that the hereditary Peers, as a group, comprise many of the most talented and hard-working Peers, or that the House would miss both them and their contribution. All of that is true—as we have heard today, the evidence supporting those propositions is unanswerable—but that is not why I am opposing the Bill. I oppose the Bill for a simple reason. To explain why, I quote the Labour manifesto on which the Government fought and won the election: “Although Labour recognises the good work of many peers who scrutinise the government and improve the quality of legislation passed in Parliament, reform is long over-due and essential. Too many peers do not play a proper role in our democracy. Hereditary peers remain indefensible. And because appointments are for life, the second chamber of Parliament has become too big”. So here we have three points: too many play no part; hereditary Peers are indefensible; and there are too many Peers, which is what led to the age limit of 80. There are three points, but we do not have a three-clause Bill; we have a one-clause Bill, for material purposes. Indeed, if you take out the explanatory parentheses, you have a 10-word Bill—removed if not quite in one stroke of the pen then certainly with one flourish on the word processor. My question, and the reason I oppose this Bill, is: why? Let me explain. On Monday, my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition asked the noble Baroness the Leader of the House when the Government would be bringing forward the other two parts of their manifesto commitment: the participation requirement and the age limit. The answer he got—I have paraphrased, but not, I hope, unfairly—was that it is a matter for the Government to decide when to bring forward their manifesto promises. I respectfully agree with the Leader about that. That is absolutely right. I am not asking when, I am asking her to deal with why. That is the point that has been unanswered throughout this debate. What is the answer to the question of why? Why are the Government bringing forward only this slice of their triple-decker package of reform, leaving to some indefinite, unplanned, unscheduled future moment of parliamentary time the other two parts? The only answer we have had so far from the Leader of the House is that it all rests on the full stop, and you have to read the manifesto in a particular way. She warned this morning of, “a wilful misinterpretation of the manifesto”, which is why I read out what it actually says. The Lords spiritual, who have been sadly mute today, I have noticed, might be the experts here as to how many angels can dance on the head of a pin; but it seems that the Lords temporal on the Government Benches are now experts on how many manifesto commitments can dangle on the head of a full stop. I respectfully suggest to the Leader of the House—for whom, as she knows, I have deep personal respect—that, just as in the law courts, if the best answer one has is to seek refuge in punctuation, it is because the case has been punctured. There is not, and there cannot possibly be, any answer to the question of why the Bill does not also deal with the age point, which would fulfil an express manifesto commitment, or the participation point, which plainly commands wide support across the House. If the Government were to bring forward a Bill that truly encompassed their manifesto commitments, they would have an argument that deserved the conventional respect—and also the respect for conventions—which this House gives to such Bills. This is not such a Bill, and for that reason, I will be opposing it.

21:11:00

My Lords, it is a privilege to be appointed to your Lordships’ House and to be given the opportunity to serve here. It is, perhaps, also a privilege to be speaker number 86 in this profoundly important debate, especially as I came into your Lordships’ House by filling in a form and applying to HOLAC. I think that my noble friend Lord Devon referred to us as HOLAC’s angels. There can be no doubt that many of our noble colleagues who hold hereditary peerages have made great contributions over the years. I have always found them thoughtful and courteous and have valued their contributions, just as I have had the same experience with regard to other Members of your Lordships’ House. There is a great sense of duty and a desire to serve here right across the House. Despite that, membership of the House of Lords by virtue of heredity is a reality which cannot continue to apply in a modern democracy. The concerns about how people become Members extend beyond those who come in by virtue of heredity. The process by which large party donors become Peers, and the appointment of party members and advisors without explanation are very questionable. I speak here of process, not individuals. There can be no doubt that the way in which appointments are made, the regularity with which your Lordships call for the reduction in the numbers of the House, and the equal regularity with which further appointments are made to the House, bring your Lordships’ House into disrepute. The Labour Party has said that the House has become too big; yet, with respect, the size of the House has been determined by the two major parties. Since the beginning of 2023, 66 of our number have died, retired or ceased to be Members, but we have had 69 new Members. I do not think the numbers are actually the issue here, because we know that 45% of us attend on the days we are entitled to attend. We do not get paid unless we attend, which is very relevant. Moreover, many Members can be seen to attend on days when the business of the House engages their particular expertise. That gives the House the advantage of access to significant expertise, while not having to pay the salaries and allowances at the level that is applicable in the Commons. There are very few occasions when we cannot get a seat in your Lordship’ Chamber apart from during Questions. Noble Lords are right to draw attention to the actual work of the Lords. The scrutiny and revising role of your Lordships’ House is fundamental to improving legislation and to drawing to government attention nuances and complexities affecting what is proposed in a particular measure. It does not always work. Last year’s passing of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act was a travesty that caused great trauma and distress, and huge sums have had to be spent successfully challenging it. On how many occasions have your Lordships been faced with a Bill that has been passed by the Commons without any examination of the content of significant parts of the Bill in question? To call for an elected House in place of your Lordships’ House is under-standable. However, even a cursory examination of the proposal does not pass muster in the absence of root-and-branch reform of the House of Commons as well. For example, we have a convention, though that is all it is, that we do not reject but should only amend and improve a measure that has been passed in the Commons. Were the House to be elected, that convention would no longer apply and it is not inconceivable that an elected lower Chamber might have a very different composition from an elected upper Chamber, making the passage of legislation, on occasion, almost impossible. We have seen that in other jurisdictions. As has been said, the way forward lies in putting the HOLAC appointments process on a statutory basis; requiring the justification of future appointments by reference to the need for greater diversity, including addressing the fact that only 30% of your Lordships’ House are women; and by reference to the need for particular expertise and experience. We will lose significant expertise and experience when our hereditary Peers leave us. There should be a cap on the size of the House. The simplest way to reduce our numbers significantly would be by legislating to enhance the arrangements to remove those who do not play an active role. In concluding, I simply thank the many hereditary Peers whom I have come to know during my time here for all that they have done for this country.

21:15:00

My Lords, I rise to speak in the gap because there was a clerical error. My name should have been on the list and was not, so the remarks about Bishops being strangely mute are perhaps unmerited. I too congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Brady, on his maiden speech. All I can say to the noble Baroness, Lady Quin, is that the end is now more nigh than when this debate began, but I wish her well in the future. We heard Jesus quoted earlier: “Greater love hath no man than this, than to lay down his life for his friends”. Your Lordships will remember that Jeremy Thorpe famously said of Macmillan, after the night of the long knives: “Greater love hath no man than this, that he lay down his friends for his life”. That might provide another lens through which to see this debate. I have heard the observations about the Lords spiritual. I listened carefully to them and there were few surprises. But if we are going to look at reform in any way, we have to be a bit cannier about some of the facts. It has been said here today that we are all Peers. The Lords spiritual are not Peers; we are Lords of Parliament and that is different. If your Lordships do not know what that means, it is legitimacy for being here. The Lords spiritual have no illusions about the need for changes. We are behind that, but we need to be wiser about the nature of what we are doing. We do not see our establishment as privilege but as obligation to serve. My life would be considerably easier if I did not have to do the day job, which is demanding enough, and this is an obligation to serve. The Lords spiritual were not born in dog collars, so we bring other stuff as well. In my own case, it was Soviet military intelligence as a multilinguist at GCHQ. That is not a reason for not kicking us out, but let us be a bit more nuanced about what we say. We bring experience and expertise. We are also regional. We have heard a lot about the need to represent regions. Probably some of the best connected people in this country are diocesan bishops who oversee and engage with the whole of civil society, at just about every level in the regions. We are not whipped; we are independently minded, which is why we vote in different directions. Most importantly, as the current Government will find, we retire at the age of 70, so what one or two noble Lords have asked for is guaranteed: a turnover to bring in fresh blood. For one part of the House, that seems to me to be quite helpful. The major thing I want to say is that I agree with what was said earlier—I cannot remember who said it now—about form following function. That is an important principle and I wonder if we have got the questions in the wrong order. If this reform is to go through, and no doubt it will, we have to look at how we guarantee the basic functions that this House is here to fulfil—and then what expertise and qualifications we need to enable the House to function properly. We will otherwise be left with the law of unintended consequences, where you pick at one bit and then the whole lot comes apart. I am an advocate for wholesale change, not piecemeal. My fear is that you cannot look at reform of the House of Lords without looking at the whole picture of the constitution. I know that this has been rubbished in the course of this debate as the way of putting off any change, and that you have to start and do it bit by bit. I ask the noble Baroness the Leader of the House in her response to address the question of whether, if this is going to go ahead piecemeal—one element which might be approved or disapproved of by many—can it be in the context of the Government establishing a constitutional commission to look at the whole picture? Even as this element is being looked at, it should form part of a greater whole that then gives the assurance that there is a sense of direction in which all the different elements that have been raised here today can be looked at. Then we can have the confidence that the further changes will be rational, properly thought through and credible.

21:20:00

My Lords, I am very grateful to the two Front Benches in the Whips’ Office for allowing me to speak at this very late stage. I have been given a very strict time limit and I will stick to it exactly. I give my salutations to the noble Baroness, Lady Quin, and congratulations to my noble friend Lord Brady. Will the noble Baroness the Leader of the House allow me to address her directly now with an appeal to put aside, just for a minute, hereditary versus life Peers, the over-80s, participation rates et cetera and look at the broader context of the Bill in British politics today? Everyone agrees that there is a general demoralisation. All polls show that the British people think things have “got worse” in the last five years and will not get any better in the next five years. Maybe that is just about money, the cost of living and so on, or maybe there is more to it. Maybe people do not like it when Governments keep breaking their promises on immigration, tax, the NHS et cetera. Maybe they do not like having to wait five years until the next election before somebody will listen to what they say. In their manifesto, as we have heard many times, the Government made a promise of “modernisation”. It is a good word. I looked it up. It means development, renewal and upgrade. I would like to help the noble Baroness the Leader of the House to deliver on that good promise of modernisation. An obvious way to demonstrate modernisation is to do something modern. How about some new technology? Would it not be wonderful if our House would lead the way with new technology to invite people to participate a little more with questions, discussion and conversation about what we do here—what the noble Lord the Lord Speaker himself has called a “direct connection” between Westminster and the people—to overcome what my noble friend Lady Stowell calls “the democratic deficit”? ChatGPT now speaks to 280 million people a week. With a little help from our friends in OpenAI and Microsoft, we could easily create our own parliamentary version of ChatGPT, which we can very happily call ChatLords. The noble Baroness the Leader of the House may wonder why she should take any advice from me, of all people. After all, Professor David Butler, the master of the history of British general elections, told me directly that I was “personally responsible”—I am quoting his words—for “ruining British politics”. I asked how I had done that, and he explained that it was by, “Turning all British general elections into negative campaigning”. I defended myself by pointing out that nine of the 10 commandments are negative. He was not impressed. I will end. The noble Baroness the Leader of the House is rightly proud of her party’s electoral success, built on its reputation for caring about the people. If that promise too is not to be broken, I hope she might consider taking forward this proposal for a more participative form of democracy led by your Lordships’ House.

21:24:00

My Lords, in spite of the fireworks we have occasionally had from the Conservative Benches, this long debate has shown some elements of agreement about where we go from here, and I hope we will pick those up and take them further. I will be very sorry to lose the noble Baroness, Lady Quin, with whom I have worked on many things for many years. I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Brady, who may remember that we first met 20 years ago, when the temperature was dropping from minus 10 towards minus 20. He had not brought a hat with him, and I lent him mine. We look forward to cross-party working with him, as we all do here. When I was appointed to this House three years before the 1999 reforms, it was in many ways a club. The Conservatives were the dominant party, and the hereditaries were the dominant element within the Conservative group. One Tory life Peer told me that his hereditary colleagues referred to their lifers as “the day boys”. Public school people will know exactly what that means. It has changed a lot since then; it has become much more serious. The Cross-Benchers work infinitely harder than they did then—so do we all. It has become much more clearly a working House, and there is now clearly a consensus that Peers are expected to pull their weight, and that those who drop in only occasionally do not deserve their place in the House. However, its reputation outside remains poor and its work is little understood there. We on these Benches are disappointed at the modesty of the Bill. We want to hear from the Lord Privy Seal what the Government plan to do next. What we most wish to hear from her is a commitment that, within this Parliament, there will be further measures along the lines agreed across the House, and that those will be carried through. That will make the passage of this very modest Bill much easier. I am astonished at the obstinacy and self-denial—and occasional hysteria—on the Conservative Benches. There is constructive opposition, and there is obstructive opposition. I fear that we are faced with what may easily slip into very obstructive opposition. The Conservative manifesto of 2010, nearly 15 years ago, said: “We plan to work to build a consensus for a mainly-elected second chamber to replace the … House of Lords”. We have not got very far with that. After cross-party negotiations had successfully been agreed in 1999, the White Paper stated that “For the transitional House, the Government will ensure that no one political party commands a majority in the Lords. The Government presently plans to seek only broad parity with the Conservatives”. As has been remarked, the number of Labour Peers did not pass that of the Conservatives until 2005. The elephant in the Chamber is that there are now over 100 more Conservative Peers than Labour, and I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, as she winds up for the Conservative side, will at least address that elephant and recognise that it is there, and that it is one of the underlying motivations for doing this first and only before we move on to other things. We know why: Boris Johnson, as Prime Minister, broke the 1999 agreement. Let us be clear when we are talking about who broke what. Indeed, the last Conservative Government broke a whole host of constitutional conventions. You have only to read Tim Shipman or Anthony Seldon to know just how bad it was. Conservative Ministers in that Government have to take responsibility for what went wrong. The noble Lord, Lord True, was a Minister of State in the Cabinet Office for the first two years, and thereafter was a Minister in the Cabinet. To call now for consensus, when the Conservatives did not pursue consensus in any way in the last five years, is, to say the least, a little odd. Conservatives must take responsibility for what went wrong and recognise that, if we are talking about rebuilding public confidence in our constitution, they have to start from where they were. The noble Lord, Lord Swire, called for a constitutional convention. The 2019 Conservative manifesto promised us as a convention on the constitution, to explore “the broader aspects of our constitution”. I remember that the noble Lord, Lord True, tried to explain to us on a number of occasions in the years since why the Conservative Government had not actually done anything about that. Now they are out of office, they would like the Labour Party to do it instead. Perhaps there will be consultations in which we will reach some agreement as to where we go ahead. I remind the Conservatives that in this election they received 23.7% of the vote and that they have only 121 MPs in the other Chamber. That does make it difficult to justify a Lords group getting on to 40% larger than their group in the Commons. The language in this debate has been quite extraordinary. The noble Lord, Lord True, talked about class war; the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, talked about political assassination. We had “sheer vindictiveness”, “political spite”, “despicable, intemperate and reckless”, comparisons to Pride’s Purge in the midst of the Civil War, to Animal Farm, and even to communist dictatorship. Above all, we had “gerrymandering”. I am not quite sure what that means, I think it means fixing the election, in this case, for your advantage. The fixing that went on was to add the extra 100 Peers in the last Parliament. We are going to unfix that, so let us all discuss it and have some consultations. Of course, consultations require compromise on all sides; they do not simply require the rest of us moving towards the Conservative position. We have heard quite a lot about the romantic image of the hereditary peerage. Those of us who have watched “Wolf Hall” have heard about the Courtenays causing trouble for Henry VIII. I am sure they caused trouble for Elizabeth I and James I as well. As I have looked around at hereditary peerages, I discovered that a Camoys commanded the left flank at Agincourt, and that the first Lord de Clifford was killed at Bannockburn. I wish I could say that it was a Wallace who was responsible for that, but unfortunately the most distinguished Wallace was killed by the English nine years before. Since the end of the 17th century, and certainly since 1714, all hereditary peerages, and now life peerages, have been a matter of prime ministerial patronage. As Prime Minister, Walpole produced so many new peerages that the first Bill to cap the size of the House of Lords was introduced in 1719—it did not get very far. Under Gladstone and Disraeli, two-thirds of those appointed to the upper House were former Members of the lower House. That is, again, political patronage. In the House of 1958, the clear majority had been appointed since 1900. The difference between the lifers and the hereditaries is that the lifers were appointed by the current Prime Minister under patronage, while the hereditaries were appointed by a previous Prime Minister’s patronage: that of Lloyd George, Churchill, Attlee or Eden. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, whose grandfather was appointed by Anthony Eden, was one of the last hereditaries. Had the noble Lord’s grandfather been appointed to the House of Lords five years later, he would probably have been made a life Peer. We would have been deprived of the wonderful lectures that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, has given us over the years on the importance of the House not standing up to a Conservative Government when there are a Conservative Government in power. The noble Lord, Lord Moore, said that the Lords has been ridiculed more since 1958 than before. I recommend that he reads Lloyd George’s speeches of 1910-11, or even Lord Rosebery’s speeches of 1894-95, when he was proposing the abolition of the House of Lords. We are asking the Government to move forward with the next stage of reform and to consult us on what it should be. The consensus in the House is fairly strong. We want to talk about term limits or age limits. I am older than President Biden, so I think that age limits might be a good thing. Biden clearly went on for too long, just as Gladstone, who was Prime Minister into his 80s, went on for too long—he should not have done. There should be a separation of appointments to the second Chamber from honours; HOLAC should have much greater powers to disapprove of nominations; there should be agreement on a formula for the balance of new appointments, and there should be something on improving the regional and national balance. Above all, we have to remember how we look to the outside, as the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, and the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, have said. How do we look to our disillusioned public? All the opinion polls show that the British public are more disillusioned with national politics than any other democratic country except the United States. They also show, as my noble friend Lord Newby pointed out, that a clear majority believe that an elected House would be preferable to the current one. Only 25% of Conservative voters have a positive view of the Lords as it is now. For Labour, Liberal Democrat and Reform voters, the figure is much lower. Everything we do on this Bill—and how long we spend on it—has to take the broader public issue into account. We and the Commons have to regain the public’s trust. That means being not a club but a working House. We have a job to do, and we should pursue our reform in that constructive context, with constructive opposition on all sides.

21:36:00

My Lords, this has been an excellent and constructive debate on the composition of your Lordships’ House and the Government’s proposals for reform. I thank the Lord Privy Seal for her measured and courteous introduction. I apologise that I will not be able to address all the points raised. I congratulate my noble friend Lord Brady of Altrincham on his maiden speech. His thoughtful contribution reminds us of the diversity of thought and expertise that this House nurtures and I welcome him to his place. It was also a privilege to hear the heart-warming valedictory speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Quin. Her record of public service is long and enviable. I hope I speak for the whole House in wishing her well for the future; the people of Newcastle are lucky to benefit from her continued service. Reform of this House is no simple task. History bears this out. As many noble Lords have pointed out, successive Governments, including those of my party, have struggled to achieve lasting change. When the coalition Government attempted to pass their House of Lords Reform Bill, it was the Labour Party that blocked its progress. If we have learned anything, it is that meaningful reform demands consensus, respect for precedent and an understanding of what makes this House effective. This Bill does not meet that standard. It is piecemeal, short-sighted and damaging to the institutional integrity of this House. Let me be clear: the hereditary principle is unsustainable. The House of Lords Act 1999 abolished the automatic right of hereditary Peers to sit here. What remains today is not hereditary privilege but a carefully constructed compromise that was agreed by both Houses of Parliament. This Bill abandons that compromise. It seeks to exclude a group of Peers who currently have the right to sit and vote in this House— the 92 excepted Peers who remained Members of your Lordships’ House after they were elected to remain under the terms of the House of Lords Act 1999. That Act is clear, as I have said, that: “No-one shall be a member of the House of Lords by virtue of a hereditary peerage”. That is the law. No Member of this House sits by right of inheritance and I make no argument to the contrary. However, the 92 excepted Peers were retained on the explicit understanding that they would stay until comprehensive, second-stage reform was enacted. The Government may wish to argue that this Bill fulfils a manifesto commitment, at least up until the full stop in their manifesto, and that we on these Benches should not seek to prevent them from delivering their manifesto commitments. Yet this Bill remains silent on retirement age, an express commitment in the same paragraph of their manifesto. It is similarly silent on participation requirements and HOLAC reform. I am struck by how many noble Lords today have expressed support for such measures. The Government have in fact already achieved the removal of hereditary Peers from this House, as by-elections for the election of new excepted Peers have been suspended by agreement. On Monday, I read that a senior government official had briefed the press that “This Bill is focused on completing what was started 25 years ago”. Yet this Bill is a naked breach of what was promised 25 years ago. In 1999, the then Lord Chancellor, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, said the retention of the hereditary Peers until the second stage of House of Lords reform had taken place was “binding in honour”, a point reinforced by my noble friends Lord Strathclyde and Lord Mancroft, and my noble and learned friend Lord Bellamy. Removing the excepted Peers without the promised second-stage reform is a breach of that promise, as my noble friend Lord Hannan so eloquently argued. It is not completing a process, as many have claimed today. It is betraying an agreement; it is removing the keystone of a constitutional bridge while leaving the structure incomplete. Without a clear plan for second-stage reform, the Bill risks becoming not a fulfilment of promises, but their abandonment. I therefore ask the Lord Privy Seal whether she can provide us with certainty that the second stage of reform will come before we proceed with the exclusion of any excepted Peers. Do the Government intend to fulfil those parts of their manifesto promises—the parts that followed the full stop that she was so keen to point out—in this Parliament? Our challenge to the Government is rooted in the need for an effective upper House, one that scrutinises legislation rigorously, holds the Executive to account and brings vast depths of knowledge and experience to Parliament. This House, as with so much of our unwritten constitution, is both unique and the product of the history of these isles, as my noble friend Lord Roberts so beautifully observed. Nobody designing a modern constitution from scratch would conceive of such a Chamber playing a role, a point made by my noble friends Lady Laing and Lady Meyer, but through organic, historical evolution, it is no exaggeration to say that this House is the highest policy-revising chamber in the world. The House brings together some of the most accomplished and dedicated individuals who apply their skills, insights and expertise to scrutinising legislation and holding the Executive to account. All constitutional reforms have profound and far-reaching consequences, whether intended or not. The legitimacy of this House derives not from democratic consent but from its ability to act as a positive constitutional force in lawmaking and governmental accountability. This legitimacy is grounded in the capabilities and dedication of our Members. The question, therefore, is: will the Bill enhance or hinder the capacity of this House to scrutinise the Government and draft Bills effectively? I would aver, as would many noble Lords who have spoken today, including the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, and my noble friends Lord Reay and Lord Bethell, that, judged against this test, the Bill fails. It threatens to remove some of the most active, knowledgeable and experienced Members of this House, individuals whose contributions have been vital to its effectiveness. Many noble Lords, including my noble friends Lord Strathcarron and Lady Goldie, pointed out that excepted Peers have higher average attendance and participation in Divisions than life Peers. Moreover, a quarter of them served in government, opposition, or formal parliamentary roles in the previous Parliament. Take my noble friend Lord Howe, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, whose expertise in defence and health is unparalleled, or the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, the Convenor of the Cross Benches, whose leadership has been instrumental in maintaining this Chamber’s independence. Consider also my noble friend Lord Strathclyde, a former Leader of the House; the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, whose work on secondary legislation is exemplary; and the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, whose insight on European and environmental matters is invaluable. The excepted noble Lords are not relics of privilege; they are contributors who have enriched this House. Their expertise spans finance, regulation, law and governance, areas where their insights are indispensable. These Members and other noble Lords have brought unparalleled insight to our deliberations. Can we truly claim that dismissing such colleagues will improve the quality of lawmaking in this House? Will the removal of noble Lords such as the noble Lords, Lord Vaux of Harrowden, Lord Cromwell and Lord Remnant—who have tackled complex financial and regulatory issues—enhance scrutiny? Will losing contributions from noble Lords such as my noble friends Lord Roborough, Lord Harlech and Lord Ravensdale on apprenticeships, Welsh affairs and environmental policy be in the public interest? The legal acumen of my noble friend Lord Sandhurst has been a beacon in navigating difficult questions of law, while my noble friend Lord Courtown not only has the difficult job of being my Whip but has served on the Front Bench with distinction over many years. I ask, therefore, whether the Bill is about improving the House’s effectiveness or is a mechanism to create space for the Government to nominate their own loyalists. If it is the size of the House that concerns the Government, why does the Bill target the excepted Peers who have actively stepped up to serve? As my noble friend Lord Leigh points out, it was certainly not in pursuit of a title. There are many other groups of Peers whom the Government might look to remove. Several noble Lords, including the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, and my noble friend Lord Astor as well as my noble and learned friend Lord Keen of Elie, spoke of those Peers who rarely attend and rarely contribute to debates in your Lordships’ House. Other Lords, such as the noble Lords, Lord Birt and Lord Foulkes, mentioned the Lords spiritual. The report produced by the noble Lord, Lord Burns, recommended an agreed approach between all parties to encourage Peers who may wish to retire to do so. There are 22 Peers currently on leave of absence, some of whom have been so for many years. Retirements by agreement, removing Peers who do not participate or have long been absent from your Lordships’ House—such approaches must be considered in the first instance if the goal truly is to reduce numbers. We are not merely losing Members with this Bill, we are losing wisdom, institutional memory and the dedication of those who continue to serve with distinction. These Peers have much more to offer, and their removal will diminish, not enhance, the effectiveness of this Chamber. However, the Bill goes beyond practical flaws. It raises serious constitutional concerns; its impact will be to weaken the Cross Benches and the Opposition disproportionately, while leaving the Government Benches almost untouched. The result would be a consolidation of Executive power in this place. I understand that the Lord Privy Seal may have told an all-Peers meeting that the Cross-Bench Peers should remain at around 20% of the size of the House. That implies that excepted Cross-Bench Peers could remain in the House as life Peers. That was also mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell. I was not at that meeting, so I ask the Leader to clarify whether this was the case. I am sure that I was not the only one perturbed by the comment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, that it will be a matter for the Prime Minister to decide which Cross-Bench hereditaries might be brought back as life Peers. Can the Lord Privy Seal confirm that that will be the case?

I believe the noble Baroness just quoted me as saying something about the number of Cross-Benchers. I did not say any such thing; I just said that I hope that some useful hereditary Members would be retained as life Peers. That is all I said.

I thank the noble Lord. I said that I understood the noble Lord’s understanding to be that there would be some Cross-Bench Peers who could be converted to life Peers.

I hope that there will be some; I did not give any number, I believe.

I thank the noble Lord. If the Government accept that some excepted Peers deserve to stay, why not extend that principle to all those who have contributed so much to the work of this House? Does the Lord Privy Seal accept that an unwillingness on the part of the Government to make such a concession gives rise to the impression that the motivations for presenting the Bill are not as principled as the Government would wish us to accept? If the Bill passes in its current form, the result will be a disproportionate reduction in the number of Cross-Bench and Opposition Peers. We will say goodbye to over 80 noble Lords who come here to scrutinise the Government’s legislation, while the Executive will lose just four of their Peers in this House. If the Bill were seeking to remove any other group of Peers, everyone would see it for what it is. So does the Lord Privy Seal accept that it would be altogether better for the Government to offer life peerages to all those excepted Peers who wish to continue to serve, as my noble friend Lady Goldie has suggested, rather than cherry-pick excepted Peers who may receive life Peerages after the passage of the Bill? Such an approach would, at the very least, help assuage concerns that many of us have about the Government’s motivations for presenting the Bill. Let us not pretend otherwise: this is not neutral reform. This is about neutering the ability of this House to hold the Government to account, a concern raised by my noble friend Lord Parkinson in relation to the passage of the Football Governance Bill. The constitutional role of this House can be justified only by the quality of the contribution that we, collectively, are able to make to public life. In the absence of any electoral mandate, we must justify our work through the care with which assist, oppose, scrutinise and amend. Excluding an entire category of Members is profound and fundamentally alters the balance and collective experience of the House. The Bill proposes the removal of many dedicated noble Lords based not on the quality of their contributions but on their collective legal status. It places far greater power for the Prime Minister alone to determine the legislature, a point made by my noble and learned friend Lord Keen of Elie, my noble friend Lord Murray, the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and the noble Lord, Lord Burns. Judged by legal status alone, none of us can be secure that our future in this place will not be cut short at the whim of the Executive. This Bill does not honour the past, nor does it secure the future. It weakens this House, betrays constitutional commitments and serves no public good. Reform is necessary, but it must be principled and founded in consultation and consensus. Reform must strengthen Parliament, not diminish it. A Government who fear scrutiny are not strong; they are insecure. A House that loses its independence is not modern; it is diminished. I urge this House and this Government to reflect on the path we are taking. Let us find a better way forward that respects our history, honours our promises and secures the integrity of this Chamber for generations to come.

21:51:00

My Lords, in closing this debate, I first pay tribute to my noble friend Lady Quin for her excellent valedictory speech. We are sorry to see her go, but we also admire her reasons for doing so. Some may know of her interest in Newcastle, which she spoke about, and the tours she does, which are strongly recommended, but Members may not be aware that she is also a local historian. Her two books about important and influential women in the north-east are not to be missed, and I thank her for the work that she has done on them. The noble Lord, Lord Brady, has already proved that he will be a welcome addition to your Lordships’ House. In his past roles, he has not been unknown to some controversy, and I am sure he will navigate his way with his usual charm and diplomacy. A range of views have been expressed today, and I am grateful to those who have engaged in what has been, in many cases, a very thoughtful and constructive manner. However, I have been somewhat surprised and disappointed at some of the language that we have heard in the Chamber today, and it is important that we bear in mind the need to approach our discussions in the tone that the public expect of us. Hearing references to guillotines, assassinations, executions, cleansing and rough passages does not reflect the House at its best. The other place has sent us a Bill to scrutinise and review that completes the work of the 1999 Act. In the other place, amendments to the Bill were considered and voted on, but none was agreed. I will concentrate briefly on how manifesto commitments are recognised by your Lordships’ House. I note the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord True, the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, to look again at the conventions of the House. I am happy to see that in a positive light, but the conventions of this House, particularly the Salisbury/Addison convention—I am grateful to the convenor, in particular, for the work he has done on them—are fundamental to our relationship with the other place as the primary and elected Chamber. The Bill alters neither that nor the primacy of the other place. Those conventions survived the 1999 Act and other legislation. It was suggested by a couple of noble Lords that, somehow, the conventions do not apply because this is a constitutional issue. Yet that argument, rightly, was never advanced during the debate about leaving the European Union, which was also a constitutional issue. To assert that somehow this Bill has a special status that allows the House to ignore convention and embark on a different path is not one that has any credibility. The Salisbury/Addison convention does not prevent the scrutiny of legislation. I turn to the points raised by the noble Lords, Lord Hamilton of Epsom and Lord Brady, and the noble Baroness, Lady Laing, about the possibility of the Bill negatively affecting the way the House can scrutinise legislation and hold the Government to account. I have already spoken about the balance of the House following the departure of the hereditary Peers and how this Bill does not really move the needle at all in terms of the representation of each party. But I have to say, without in any way denigrating the work of hereditary Peers, that the notion that life Peers are unable to hold the Government to account is just nonsense. Peers on this side of the House have been holding the Government to account for the last 14 years. I do not think that they have done a terribly bad job of it. The claim that hereditary Peers are more independent is probably news to those who have served on the Front Bench and as Ministers. As Chief Whip, my noble friend Lord Kennedy would be amazed at the idea that life Peers are not showing independence when it comes to following his instructions. The noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, is back on the Front Bench; he was on the Back Benches earlier. He said he had seen the future in the form of the Football Governance Bill. He compared that Bill with previous Bills and quoted the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill and the Online Safety Bill. I have to say to him that both those Bills were considerably longer than the Football Governance Bill. The Football Governance Bill has about 100 clauses. There were 223 clauses in the levelling-up Bill and 262 clauses in the Online Safety Bill. I have no objection to proper scrutiny of legislation. However, I do not think it is always necessary to de-group quite as many amendments as has been done on that particular Bill. However, I repeat that I welcome constructive engagement across the whole legislative programme—a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe. By-elections have been mentioned as well. These have not been ended. They have been paused during the passage of this Bill. If this Bill is not passed, we will return to the by-elections, because they are paused under the Standing Orders of the House. However, as I said in my opening remarks, this House has had numerous opportunities to end the practice of hereditary Peer by-elections. That would have allowed those remaining hereditary Peers to remain here for life, since without by-elections they would have been life Peers. My noble friend Lord Grocott introduced five Private Members’ Bills to do just that. Those Bills were repeatedly blocked and delayed by a small cohort of Conservative Peers. I said to the then Government, “We will help you to get this through, we will help you to get it on the statute book”. If that had happened on any of those occasions, I very much doubt we would be dealing with this Bill today. The opportunity was there and it was not taken. Noble Lords opposite may groan, but the facts speak for themselves. That Bill was there and we could have helped to get it on to the statute book, but that was ignored by the then Government. I have to say that it is a little disingenuous to claim that the existence of by-elections means that hereditary Peers in the House today have a different status from their status before the 1999 Act or, as some have said, have a greater mandate than life Peers because they are elected. I have to say that the claim that this brings an element of democracy to your Lordships’ House is not one that withstands proper scrutiny. In the Labour case, for example, it is very easy, as happens on a number of occasions across the House, for there to be more candidates standing for election than people able to vote for them, given that only other Peers can vote. The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, was amusing and very entertaining on his interest in punctuation in the Labour Party manifesto. I am not relying only on punctuation, but I did smile and laugh at his comments. Perhaps I can recommend to him a book that is on my bookshelves at home. If he does not have one, I will buy him a copy. It is called Eats, Shoots and Leaves. It makes the point that punctuation is quite important. However, I am not relying just on punctuation but the entirety of the manifesto commitment that was put forward by my party at the last election. The manifesto committed to immediate reform by removing the right of hereditary Peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords. I have heard the suggestion that we should just stop, stay where we are now and just proceed with no further new Peers coming in. That happened with the Irish Peers. That legislation went through in 1922 and the last Irish Peer to leave the House was in 1961. If that approach were adopted today, as my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer identified, it would take some 47 years to complete the process. In a spirit of co-operation, many noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, and the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, expressed a desire for the outgoing hereditary Peers to be treated with respect, and I wholeheartedly agree with that. Part of this will involve finding the appropriate arrangements for access rights for departing Members, and for support as they leave. I have already engaged with the Lord Speaker on that point. But that is an issue for anyone who retires from your Lordships’ House. I have spoken on this before and I look forward to having constructive dialogue about retirement from the House generally. On the specific issue of access rights for the Earl Marshal and the Lord Great Chamberlain, I completely recognise that they need access. I have written to the commission to ask that they keep their access passes, and the usual channels have agreed that. I am grateful to them for their support on this matter. There is nothing that impedes the work they do or their roles in this House. I turn to the comments that have been made on life peerages. I want to be absolutely clear: no one has been offered a life peerage in order to support the passage of the Bill. There have been no aside-comments or dodgy deals whatever. I have said, and continue to say, that it is possible for departing hereditary Peers to be nominated in future peerage lists. Political parties of course have the opportunity to do that. I am sure the noble Lord is talking to his party leader about that as well. I also recognise the importance of maintaining the special position of the Cross-Benchers. Concerns were raised by some noble Lords—the noble Lords, Lord True, Lord Strathclyde, Lord Parkinson, Lord Howard of Rising and Lord Moylan, the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, and the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen—that the Government were embarking on a piecemeal approach without setting out in detail what the plans are for future reform. The manifesto—punctuation and all—should provide a sufficient guide to understand the direction of travel and how this will work out. The overall objective is to have a smaller Chamber and one that is more active. The point about participation has been made. Some noble Lords have said they want an immediate timetable for these reforms, they want them in the Bill and it should happen now. Other noble Lords have been very clear in saying that they do not want that now and that they would rather proceed with discussion and debate before we bring forward legislation to try to find—the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Finn —some agreement across the House. I think that, on the balance of debate, Members do want further discussion. I cannot do both of those things at the same time. On this issue, the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, asked “Why?” The principle has already been established about hereditary peerages but we have not had the debate on issues such as retirement and leave of absence. We have not had those debates and I think the House should have those debates first. If we can find consensus, I am happy to do so and will listen to the various suggestions on how we can implement the measures in our manifesto. I hope I have a helpful response to the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, about moving forward by the end of this Parliament. I have already undertaken some 50 meetings with Members of your Lordships’ House to gauge the opinion and views on those issues. The noble Lord, Lord Swire, made some interesting points in his speech that were not directly relevant to the Bill. I take those on board. I have to say that the manifesto is enough to be going on with, but the points he made should be addressed. The noble Lords, Lord Newby, Lord Foulkes, Lord Parkinson, Lord Burns, Lord Beith, Lord Norton and Lord Lucas, the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, all suggested a greater role for the House of Lords Appointments Commission, and one of the issues raised was assessing the suitability of nominees to your Lordships’ House. We have talked a lot about prime ministerial patronage and it being for the Prime Minister to make recommendations to the sovereign. The Prime Minister does so on behalf of other political parties, of course. As noble Lords know, it is not the Prime Minister who puts forward all the names. It is for party leaders to do more to consider who is best placed to represent their party and to take responsibility for those whom they nominate. HOLAC should have a role perhaps in seeking assurances from political parties specifically around—and I take this very seriously—issues of participation and suitability; it can check how and whether that is done. However, individuals should be appointed to your Lordships’ House on their own merits. We talk a lot about their experience and expertise, but it is also about their commitment to contributing to the future work of this House, which I think is essential. Several noble Lords referred to the fact that we announced last week that, when people are nominated, there must be a citation that will be published on a nominee’s successful appointment so that the public can better understand why an individual has been nominated to the House. It is a fairly straightforward and simple change, but one that I think is important. It gives greater clarity to the public on why someone is nominated. I am sure we will return to this issue during the passage of the Bill. A number of noble Lords noted the importance of ensuring that any reduction in the size of the House can be maintained. I said in the debate last month that there is little point in the House reducing its size by whatever means if that is not a sustainable position to hold—if there is almost an arms race in appointments. I cannot remember which noble Lord it was, but someone said that we are about to appoint 200 Labour Peers to try to seek an overall majority. I assure the House that that is absolutely not the case. I have said before, and I stand by this, that I think this House works best when there are roughly equal numbers in the government party and the main opposition party. It is a sadness to me that, under the last few Prime Ministers, we saw an explosion in what were then the government ranks to over 100 more than the Official Opposition. That does not allow the House to do its best work. It is not about winning votes—I think that is a secondary role in many ways—but about Members contributing in proper dialogue and engagement, which is what we do best. I turn to what I call second-stage issues around participation, retirement et cetera. The noble Lord, Lord True—who is in a conversation at the moment—and others spoke in support of clarifying the expectation on Members to ensure active participation. I think that we all accept that this is a serious issue, and I hope that we can make progress on it. My sense is that we have all got a pretty instinctive understanding of what participation means, but that can reasonably change from one person to another. The current attendance rules require Peers, subject to exceptions, to attend the House just once per Session, otherwise a Peer ceases to be a Member of this House. Those rules have been in place since 2014 and just 16 members have been auto-retired. My sense is that we all feel that those arrangements are inadequate. As part of this, I agree with those who said that we should consider our rules on leave of absence, in particular for those who repeatedly renew it. The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, raised this with me in the House earlier this week; I have previously raised this in the Procedure Committee—it did not find favour with his party at the time, but now I am Leader of the House, I am keen to pursue that matter. I recognise there are very good reasons why some Members take leave of absence, and I would not want to deny that, but repeated leave of absence when people do not intend to come back is an issue. I would like to make some progress on that and am in active discussions at present. I think we want a policy that is robust but also proportionate. There is also the matter, which I think he mentioned, of those who are unable to take up or play a full role in the House; I am conscious of that, and we will have further discussions on that as well. The noble Baroness opposite rested her case for not supporting this Bill on the basis that, a quarter of a century ago, it was said that if the by-elections were in place, they should be in place until there was further reform. It was never expected, anticipated or thought that, 25 years later, no progress at all would have been made.

Oh!

The noble Lords who are heckling should let me answer the question raised. I have to go back to this point: to those who say that they do not want piecemeal reform, if people only want this big bang kind of reform, the consequence is that people say, “We cannot do anything unless we do everything, but we do not know what everything is, so we are going to do nothing”. That is not a sustainable or acceptable position in this House. There is nothing in the Bill before us that means we cannot work as effectively as a scrutinising and revising Chamber in this legislature. This Bill will deliver the first part of the manifesto commitment, which takes the hereditary element away from the second Chamber. It is long overdue. The point made by my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer was that, in the 21st century, to reserve 10% of places in the House of Lords, part of our Parliament, just for those who are members of 726 families is not a position that can continue. I recognise, however, that this will result in the removal of valued Members of this House. I understand the strength of feeling of noble Lords, who will be sad to see them go. That is not confined to those opposing the Bill: many of those supporting the Bill feel exactly the same on that. There will be time for further debate and scrutiny of the legislation, and rightly so, but, today, the message I take back from your Lordships’ House is that we must make progress on the Bill. It is a small reform, one that is necessary and was committed to. I look forward to the further debates and to scrutiny in a sensible and genuine way.

Bill read a second time and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

House adjourned at 10.12 pm.