Lords Chamber

Monday 3rd March 2025

(began 7 months, 3 weeks ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
14:50
14:50
14:51
14:51
14:52
14:52
14:53
14:53
14:55
14:55
14:56
14:56
14:57
14:57
14:58
14:59
14:59
15:00
15:01
15:01
15:02
None Portrait Oral questions: Defending the United Kingdom against hypersonic missiles
-

Second Oral Question. Lord Farmer.
15:02
15:03
15:04
15:05
15:05
15:06
15:06
15:07
15:07
15:08
15:09
15:10
15:10
15:11
15:11
15:12
15:13
15:14
15:14
15:16
15:16
15:17
15:18
15:18
15:20
15:21
15:21
15:22
15:23
15:24
15:24
None Portrait Oral questions: Recent advances by the Sudanese Armed Forces in Khartoum and elsewhere in Sudan
-

Fourth Oral Question Lord Browne of Ladyton full stop
15:24
15:25
15:26
15:27
15:27
15:28
15:29
15:30
15:31
15:32
15:33
15:34
15:34
15:37
15:37
15:38
Lord True Portrait Lord True (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Before clause 1, amendment one,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lord True. My Lords, I beg to move an amendment one. The effect of which is to underline the purpose of this bill as the ending entry here by the hereditary principle, which does not endorse the wholesale removal of colleagues already here. It thus falls to me my Lords, the lamentable duty to open committee stage on this bill, whose purpose is as my amendment has declared to end the hereditary principle is a route of entry to Parliament.

Some will find that regrettable. Others will rejoice, rejoice. But most of us however will have feelings in which the elements are mixed. Where the wish is this bill might be stopped and that is checked by a proper understanding of the conventions. On the other hand where partisan zeal is levelled with the personal respect owed to familiar, valued colleagues. I submit this great house for all its strength to that mixing of elements. From an ancestral and indeed very British wisdom which does not view every question as black or white or incest That moderation is symbolised by the presence of those crossbenchers untainted by party.

I ask in what sense Will Carling and cutting those independent ranks ever benefit our house? It is a paradox little understood outside that most of the myriad improvements we make to bills are one not in the division lobby but by discussion and shared reflection. Our chamber is unique in the world in conducting its business in order and courtesy without anybody to discipline us will stop that is only possible because we are a house of consensus, courtesy and compromise. Of decency and humanity. I trust those qualities will inform us on this bill in the weeks ahead.

Including in how we treat fellow members. We will hear that this is a simple bill that brooks no amendment. We are told no amendment will be allowed. Since when did this revising chamber accept such an instruction from any executive? It is in fact a bill of the greatest constitutional significance. It says that a passing political executive may scoop its hand into this House and throw out any group of us that is not to the taste or political convenience of the government of the day.

I spoke of this at second reading. It is a very dangerous precedent. I will address it again in amendment nine. Once used it will inevitably be copied. The bill is also of the greatest constitutional significance for what it does not say. It launches without any checks on executive power, or the number and nature of appointments, and all appointed temporal house stop by the direction of the Prime Minister of the day of whatever party. At that model fray legislature arrived in some capsule from planet Mars from Elon Musk, we might look askance at Elon Musk, we might look askance at The government in my submission has a duty to set out in detail the plans for the all appointed house.

After all, in 1999, hundreds of Hereditary Peers agreed to leave this place on the understanding said by the then Labour government to be abiding in all of that 92 would remain until a final reform was agreed. Now it is said that was some funny old deal of which we now know nothing. Past its sell by date. Ready to be tossed aside like some embarrassing piece of mouldy cheese we find at the back of the fridge. It is even said that honour is some old-fashioned and even visible concept of centuries past.

I beg to differ. But I do recognise the raw reality of power. I see this new Make about Make about the Make about the week Make about the week but Make about the week but that Make about the week but that does not dispense with the duty of the government to set out its plans and as is normal in constitutional reform, seek some consensus across parties and beyond. No such consensus has been looked at. There are no cross-party discussions as led by Jack Straw in 2006 and 2007.

No draft bill as in 2011. No Joint Committee as in 2002, 2003 or 2011. No Royal Commission as in 1999. Not even a white paper as in 2001, 2007, 2008, 2011. At present your lordships have as clear a sense of what direction is planned for us beyond this bill by Labour as Vikings on a long ship. Becalmed in the middle of the Atlantic without a loan stone. That is no way to treat a house of parliament. I ask the noble Baroness, leader of the house, who always has the interests of this House at heart, if she will share with us at some point in committee stage, need not be today, when we will see a white paper on the future plans beyond this bill.

It should really come before report. Your lordships have a right in considering this bill to ask how the all accounted house will work and how it will be safeguarded. There have been many thoughtful amendments made and some perhaps I am not so fond of but I look forward to all the discussions. Let nobody say they are filibustering. As I said in Second Reading, who will care for the future of this House if we do not? Let me turn from what is left out of the bill which we must explore in committee to the narrow purpose within, addressed in this amendment.

It has been much said about this House what I think of what my party thinks. Let me spell what my party thinks. Let me spell it out again. There are four elements of the central bulk settlement I believe could avert unnecessary conflict and damage to this house. The first is for all of us on this House to accept the government has a mandate to end the hereditary principle as a route of entry here. That is recognised in my amendment. This House should not block this bill.

Though amend it, it may. The second is to address the danger of unilateral political expulsions of members from this House by an executive, with the attendant increase in power of a Prime Minister of patronage. When the Labour government closed the gate into thousand nine, it gave acquired rights to those already here. The same right we all had to stay for life. That show due respect to the valued fellow members and was of great benefit to the house. The government says that is impossible in this case.

It is not. It is perfectly possible. It is a political choice. Actually a choice for this house. Whether to expel all existing members in scope of this existing members in scope of this As I know is her normal instincts, at some point sign my Amendment nine and its present also mutually agreed modified form at a later stage, all manner of resentment and difficulty would at once fall away. The third element is the question of numbers.

That is not conclusive. The Attlee government -- lament Attlee government change that by 10 to one, you can't build a majority hereby you can't build a majority hereby appointments alone for its -- as the last Parliament showed. My colleagues in another place never seem to understand this basic point. I suspect The Lord Privy Seal may have the same problem. However I do recognise the government's concern on this so I can tell the House today that if the government were to meet us on the second part of this package and commit existing former Hereditary Peers in some numbers to continue their service here than consultations with my colleagues suggest we could come forward with a significant number of voluntary retirements to address concern about numbers.

I cannot speak for the crossbenchers it may be possible there as well. Numbers we will also consider what might be done on whipping arrangements and look with interest on other amendments tabled to this bill, including those on participation. If we are to exclude anyone it will be those who don't take part not those who do. Many on all sides would agree with that. The fourth element is that crucial question of the conventions in this House and between this House and the other place. These were considered by Lord Cunningham in a brilliant report in 2006.

With experience the last Parliament suggests the need to be up polished up. The fund mental principle of our constitution is that the Kings government must be carried on. Of course this House should observe the Salisbury Convention, although most governments were wise enough not to die for every last dot and, of a manifesto, but with respect and good well I believe we have to go further on conventions. There is too much ping-pong and it goes on too long. We should check its growth.

Attempts to seize control of the agenda of the House are undesirable. We can revisit regular agreements each for Lord Williams of Mostyn as leader and efforts to overload your Order Paper forced late sittings of the House which no one on either side enjoys. We are ready to talk on that. Reinforcing conventions with full protection of the freedoms the House would frankly do more for business progress than the expulsion of 88 peers and appointments of many more, however much we welcome our new colleagues.

Without consent and convention this House cannot manage might be managed. I do think the government coming clean on the timing and age of its future plans for the House after the bill is a necessary component of confidence building. It is not as I presently see a supply requirement to break up the package along the lines I proposed. Acceptance of the ending of the hereditary principle as a recent Parliament, a state of the forced expulsion of a whole group of our colleagues, some voluntary retirements and potentially other measures to address concern about numbers, and reinforcement of conventions by agreed undertakings given that these Dispatch Boxes on the Floor of the House to give every government confidence this measures will not be unreasonably delayed.

This I think is a package which could bring peace and benefit your ships house and avoid rancour which would last far beyond this session. I have my party's authority to negotiate this and to deliver it. We should seek to do so before report stage, at the very least to dispel the doubts in the minds of colleagues based with expulsion. That is the human thing to do. This I'm ready to continue the cordial discussions I've been having with the noble Baroness Lord Privy Seal whose pragmatism and good sense has been proved over nine years.

I appreciated her support when I was leader and I'm supporting her in other constructive initiatives she has in mind for the House. Indeed I'm ready to meet her or anyone else she suggests in Abiola's role like bilateral with an independent mediator assuming they have the same authority I have to settle. Speaking as your former leader I firmly believe these proposals, which would comprise concessions by both sides, and advantages for both sides are in the interests of both the government and the House.

We have seen in recent days the nature of negotiation with a big stick. That is not the House of Lords way, if I may this is Committee stage, you can come in I am concluding my remarks. I will answer him later. We have seen in recent days the need for -- negotiation with a big stick, that is not the House of Lords way, nor is it the way in which the noble Baroness leads us. I urge the noble Baroness not to reject these proposals or any part of them when she responds but to agree to take them away.

Let the government lock entry of new Hereditary Peers as my Amendment accepts and the government and the House should accept. But otherwise let us together pursue the past peace with expedition and with

**** Possible New Speaker ****

honour and justice. I beg to move. Amendment proposed, before clause 1 insert the new clause as printed... Insert the new clause as printed on the marshalled List.
15:52
Lord Howard of Lympne Portrait Lord Howard of Lympne (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

printed on the marshalled List. In considering the purposes of this bill it's necessary to remind this bill it's necessary to remind ourselves of the circumstances in which our hereditary colleagues continue to sit in your ships house. They are here because of an agreement which was reached 1999, an agreement that they would continue to sit in your Lordships house until stage II of the projected reform that taking place will stop the late Lord Irving said that that agreement was binding in honour.

He said it was a guarantee. Lord Irving gave those undertakings...

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think he said the late Lord Irving Mackay remind him he's not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the late Lord Irving. I do apologise to the House and to his Lordship. I'm delighted to hear that he is still with us. I hear that he is still with us. I most grateful to the leader. Lord Irving gave those undertakings as Irving gave those undertakings as Lord Chancellor. An office which Lord Chancellor. An office which then occupied a rather higher position in our firmament of distinction than it has since. Binding in honour, those with the Binding in honour, those with the words he used.

Now, honour is not to our collective regret a characteristic much associated these days with politicians. Or even with legislators who do not regard themselves as politicians. So it behaves those of us who do regret this lamentable state of affairs to do what we can to remedy it. That means honouring commitments such as those given by Lord Irving. This bill dishonours those solemn assurances. So the conclusion is inescapable as Lord Hanem said at second reading that this is a dishonourable bill.

Now some of your Lordships may argue and we can't continue to be bound by them. But honour is not time-limited. Indeed Lord Irving could have said had that been his intention that his assurances were not intended to last for more than 1/4 of a century. He could have said it, but he didn't. Some of your Lordships may argue that those assurances are trumped, I use the word advisedly, by commitments in an election manifesto. But if that had been his intention Lord Irving could have said so.

He could have said so but he didn't. So there is as I have said no escaping the fact that this is a dishonourable bill, and any votes cast for it are a dishonourable votes. I suggest that your Lordships bare these facts in mind when assessing the purposes of the bill.
15:56
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean Portrait Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Conservative)
-
-
I don't know... Sense of fear and anxiety about the state of the world at the present time and the fact that we are debating ourselves when at the other end of the corridor there considering the issues of security which are so central to our country future and the future of our alliances makes me wonder whether perhaps we have got our priorities wrong in this place. That we should be talking about ourselves and that we should be so divided when we can easily be united as my noble friend Lord True is so clearly set out.

He has offered an opportunity for us to avoid any further conflict dislocation of the great work which this House does. I have to say in recent days the conduct of our affairs as a nation by the Prime Minister has been exemplary. He has shown great courage in dealing with very difficult circumstances. He said he wants to be a bridge between our closest ally, the United States and Europe. I just plead with him and the remainder of the House could they not be a bridge between us and the House of Commons? House of Commons is filled with a large number of Labour MPs who won the election fair and square on a clear manifesto commitment to end the process by which Hereditary Peers take part in legislation.

As my noble friend has said in moving this amendment that is accepted. That is accepted. I look at, no disrespect to many of my colleagues, but I look at these, they are not quite hundreds but dozens of amendments, some of which I think are a little on the absurd side, and I think is this the way in which this House carries out constitutional reform? In this kind of manner? Constitutional reform is my noble friend has said should be done on the basis of consensus, should be carefully considered, the consequences and the unintended consequences of one thing relative to another should be taken account of.

This is no way to deal with this proud and important house which plays a crucial part increasingly crucial part as the Commons has increasingly used timetable motions to avoid doing the work which is to avoid doing the work which is carried out in this place. So I just say to the Leader of the House, he my ways held in the highest regard, is there not a better way? Can we not accept that the hereditary principle instead and can we not recognise that amongst the hereditaries in this House are some of the most talented and able people.

I say that, it may sound like a partisan comment, because quite a lot of them are Tories of course. But are we really going to say goodbye to the convener of the crossbenches? Are we going to say goodbye, forgive me for naming individuals, are we going to say goodbye to Lord Botham serves on my financial services committee and has great expertise and knowledge, he was done great work on the equally intractable problem of restoration and of these buildings? We going to throw out my noble friend Lord Moynihan who is an Olympian with his great experience and knowledge of sport? Are we really going to dispense of the services of my noble friend Earl Howe who can take any issue, no matter how controversial, and how divided and make us all think white and we think of that in the first place? Are we going to throughout people like my noble friend Lord Strathclyde who has led this House such distinction? Has he demonstrated earlier today sometimes Lord Foulkes gets a bit carried away

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We have a duty to try to work together. There has been some together. There has been some criticism of the appointment by the Prime Minister. I understand why the Prime Minister would want a reasonable number of Labour peers in this house. Some people have said, why are we getting these trade why are we getting these trade unionists? These Labour MPs? Some unionists? These Labour MPs? Some even suggested a quota on the number of MPs in this house. Speaking as a of MPs in this house.

Speaking as a former MP, that is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard. And the fact is the response to that is they are being rewarded for their duty in public service and quite right too. Some of my noble friends were hereditary, not all of them, deserve to be recognised for their duty in public service. So I just say is it not possible for the front benches and the leaders of the And work out a deal which will actually provide for what the government wants, the end of the hereditary principle, but which enables those people who have made such a contribution and have much to offer to this House and the ability to continue to contribute by offering them life peerages? Then we As far as I can see it is from 0-88.

I am no great negotiator but I can see 88 will not be realistic. I can see that zero is going to create much rancour. Somewhere in between. Looking at the talent and the abilities needed in this House in order to do our duty, and our duty is to hold the government to account, that includes on all benches. I did when I was on the other benches with the government that existed then, not much to the irritation of some of my noble friends. We have a duty to do that.

I plead with the house, I think this is probably the only amendment I will speak about, the amendment by Mike noble friend, shadow leader of the house, Lord True. His speech offers a way forward. A way forward which can end this wrangling and enable us to apply minds to the important issues facing our country. Goodness me, in all of our lifetimes, maybe not all our lifetimes, certainly mine, I cannot remember greater challenges on the economy, our security, our future as a nation.

So let's get down to the business of reaching an agreement on this and let's move forward with all due speed.
16:03
Lord Newby Portrait Lord Newby (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
It is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord Forsyth because I agree with his starting point. Which is we find ourselves as a nation in a perilous position, more so arguably than in my lifetime. In those circumstances the prospect of this House spending days and days discussing ourselves is immensely unappealing in every possible way. I do however disagree with the noble Lord Forsyth about the extent to which any measure of the House of Lords reform can be dealt with by consensus.

I sat through all the debates ahead of the original proposals. Which led to the removal of the majority of Hereditary Peers. I sat through most of this in the intervening period, dealing with proposals for reform. Consensus there has been none. There will not be consensus. The sooner we accept that, the better. The noble Lord True said that this bill was of the greatest constitutional significance. My Lords, I beg to differ. I do not believe it is of the greatest constitutional significance.

I think it is dealing with an issue that should have been dealt with originally. It is a freestanding bill. It is a simple bill. It should proceed. There are a range of issues the noble Lord True alluded to which do need addressing as well. We need to deal with retirement age. We need to deal with participation levels. There will be consequences for the bishops. There are a raft of other things related to the way in which this House is constituted and operates which need to change.

But we will not change anything if we seek to change everything at once. That is one of the lessons of reform in your Lordships' House. My view is that to change something at this point is better than running the risk of changing nothing. Where I do agree with the noble Lord True if the government does have a manifesto commitment which goes beyond this bill. Not least around the retirement age and participation levels. I think it would benefit the House to know how the government intends to proceed on those things.

I think that the government says that it is very clear in wanting these things to happen. But as we are about to discover when we are about to discover when we debate, there are lots of complications and the sooner we get round to the consultation which will lead to a definitive proposal on those other things, the better. But beyond that, and I cannot see why the government cannot just tell us what is on their mind, that would be extremely helpful, but beyond that, I think at this stage in national affairs, we should deal with this expeditiously.

Frankly, 46 amendments on this bill is ridiculous. The prospect, having spent nine days on the football regulator bill, having a repeat of this argument going on for days and days at this point in national fortunes seems to me to be unacceptable. I hope that all noble lords as we approach these debates will adopt that approach. Certainly let's hear from the government on what they want to do next. But as far as this bill is concerned, let's simply get on with it.
16:07
Earl of Kinnoull Portrait The Earl of Kinnoull (Crossbench)
-
-
It is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, who as ever spoke with a lot of logic and I agree with much of what he said. Not quite everything. I wanted to comment on one or two issues that arose out of Lord True's speech. The genesis of this bill goes to the heart of the noble Lord True's amendment. But I would not want the amendment, quite narrowly drafted, to prevent the House from discussing the bill in the round.

I said it I think at second reading that the House had this opportunity because reform bills come so rarely, and I think it was 10 years since the last one, we do need to discuss these issues in the round and I am aware of the external pressures on the use of our time. I would certainly like us to handle this expeditiously as we go through committee. I will not detain the House long now or elsewhere in committee. What I do think is that the other discussions Lord True referred to are incredibly important.

It is important for the House to be able to settle its own reform package. With due regard to the executive and the most important document in the manifesto and I would like these discussions to come forward rapidly. I have described it as the form because it is causing difficulty in all of our work at the moment and the spirit in which that work is ongoing, and drawing that out is something I think we would really like to do, draw the thorn from the poor.

Can I go on the from the poor. Can I go on the Open the leader's door has been? I have been watching it and I think over 40 people at the last count have been engaged with the leader and the courtesy that has been ongoing in this process is something I value a lot. I think it has been very helpful. The two last things relate first relate first to the propensity for crossbench colleagues to retire. I thought I should think about that.

I have had many conversations in the last two years with many crossbenchers. I do feel it would be possible for a package of reform to set up an environment where a number of crossbenchers might want to retire. I say that knowing that our average age is 73. Rather older than the house. Therefore we have a lot of people over 80 and would consider retiring, I believe. The second thing relates to the crossbench view on reinforcing the conventions and dealing with that trend in ping-pong where more balls are being played where more balls are being played and longer rallies.

That is something that I have not yet met a crossbencher that does not believe that reaffirming these conventions is in the interest of the crossbench and the interest of the House. I think that goes to dealing with the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

ping-pong issue as well. My Lords, I much enjoyed the
16:11
Lord Strathclyde Portrait Lord Strathclyde (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I much enjoyed the speech of my noble friend Lord Forsyth. Particularly when my name was mentioned and the noble Lord Fuchs started murmuring on the backbenches. What is less well known is Lord Fuchs used to represent an important part of Strathclyde. Indeed, for many years, he was my MP. Some people thought for too long but I thought it was just right. And it was a pleasure when he joined this House of and long may he continue.

Less pleasurable was the speech of the noble Lord Newby. Where he said let there be no consensus. No cross-party agreement. Yet I look back and I thought, well, in 1958 there was a consensus. Even in 1998 there was an agreement cross-party to a bill to remove nearly 90% of Hereditary Peers. In 2012, in the Conservative and Liberal Democrat coalition, there was agreement on a bill that was brought before the House of Commons. Unfortunately that was kibosh by the Labour Party.

But there was otherwise a broad cross-party agreement. Again in 2014 on retirement from the House of Lords, and there could be again in 2025. So I say to the noble Lord Newby, there is plenty of room for consensus and cross-party agreement on this bill as there has been on so many others. Nobody is trying to change everything in your Lordships' House. We do want to go on incremental change. I have said before I do not much like this bill.

And I do not. But I understand the political dynamics and the motivation that brings it before us. For that reason I repeat what both my noble friend Lord Forsyth and bite noble friend Lord True said, that I accept the end of hereditary as being a means end of hereditary as being a means of entering the House of Lords. After 800 years of Hereditary Peers in this house, that era is now over and it will not return. This bill is therefore the creation of the wholly appointed house and those appointments in the hands of the Prime Minister.

Which is in itself an odd concept for a government seeking to look modern and dispassionate. As we wave goodbye to those who were not brought here by patronage, we should spare a thought for the small part of the British constitution, around 10% of the House today, which existed through a combination of hereditary and election. My Lords, the government has a choice in bringing this bill forward. To engage constructively with the House and find an equitable, unifying way forward.

Or judge to put their heads down, listen to nobody, and carry on. The noble Earl explained how gracious and generous the noble Baroness the Leader of the House has been in taking advice and trying to reach a consensus. We will now see what happens over the next few weeks. How the noble Baroness the Leader of the House responds will tell us how she means this debate to continue. There is a very difficult route to get this bill into statute.

But there is also an easy one. With full cooperation from all parts of the house. I urge the noble Baroness to choose the latter. It will pay dividends for the reputation of this house. And for all of us in the future. My noble friend Lord True has put forward an extremely thoughtful range of suggestions on the way forward. It accepts the end of hereditary. What it does not accept is the removal of some 45 conservatives and 33 crossbenchers, many of whom have had years of service in this House and to service in this House and to I'm not alone I suspect when I say I find it extraordinary that the convener of the crossbenches himself, chosen by the crossbenches for his intelligence and calmness to represent the crossbenches in the House and beyond has not even been told or signalled formally or informally, officially or unofficially that he might be able to stay on.

Should he lay down his burden as convener now, or simply wait for the executioners below. It seems a cruel way for the government to carry on its business and leaves everyone affected with a deep sense of unease and uncertainty. Nor again as Lord True said is it in keeping with precedent, look at 1922 the removal of the island, when Ireland left United Kingdom the Irish peers were allowed to stay behind, or indeed earlier on this century with indeed earlier on this century with the Law Lords or even 1998 when an agreement was reached between the various parties.

Of course there are going to be retirements from my noble friend's Hereditary Peers, some of whom have held back from doing so while they wait to see what are the government's plans. Over many years the noble Lord Lord Grocott introduced a bill to abolish the by-elections, having spent a lifetime being elected he wanted to spare the rest of us from being so. Welfare enough. But the real reason so many of us objected to his bills was in fact as Lord Howard explained so well to preserve the Labour Party's integrity when it came to the agreement struck in 1998 of honour.

But 25 years has passed from that. And we have a very blank sheet of paper when it comes to seeing what the future lies for this House. No ideas, no white paper or anything else. Grandfather rights are a well understood concept, not just in the commercial world but in the public sector as well. The noble Baroness will need to be very clear as to why she wants to fling out me and my colleagues, many of whom represent a most active part of the House when there are so many members who hardly bother attending at all.

My noble friend Lord Forsyth made a plea, not just to the noble Baroness, but to the whole house that collectively there must be a better way forward. My noble friend Lord True has laid out a carefully thought through plan is how that could be achieved. I very much hope that when the noble Baroness the Leader of the House responds that she will take particular care to reply to the suggestions that have been made in a positive manner so that we can move on in a constructive way and on a cross-party basis.
16:19
16:20
Lord Mancroft Portrait Lord Mancroft (Conservative)
-
-
I would just like to say very

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I would just like to say very quickly... I must admit the thought of Lord Foulkes representing my of Lord Foulkes representing my noble friend Lord Strathclyde has slightly set me aside for a moment, I was wondering which particular bit I was wondering which particular bit he represented, was at the bit from the neck up or the bit from the waist down or everything in the waist down or everything in the middle? I'm sure we will learn that over time.

The government explained over time. The government explained the spell on the basis that it fulfils its manifesto commitment to end the right to sit and vote in this House by dint of hereditary Peer is that commitment is apparently sacrosanct. In truth that measure is orally clearly set out in section 1 of the 1999 act principle was accepted then and it's accepted now. This bill now reflect more improves upon it. But it is selective full stop the Labour Party manifesto also includes the commitment to amend the retirement age at 80 the covenant has at least temporarily resigned from that part of its commitment because it is quite rightly concluding that most turkeys, particularly those on its own backbenchers will not vote for Christmas.

It seems therefore that the manifesto was not sacrosanct after all. The bill breaches the commitment made in honour that my noble friend Lord Howell talked about, and Lord Irving of Lang asked when I passed the 1999 act it was either that or the passage of time this agreement has become obsolete and furthermore that no parliament can bind its successors. But no agreement of this kind does fall away simply by the passage of time, I'm afraid things simply aren't as easy as that, nor did it and nor does it bind a future Parliament.

It was an agreement willingly entered into by both parties and it still into by both parties and it still stands. So without the agreement of both parties it cannot be changed, although of course one party can breach it and thus demonstrate the dishonour, as Lord Howard suggested. That is the government's choice. I accept the obvious solution to the government's dilemma is not easy, but nor is it that complicated either. The condition of that agreement was that Labour would embark on a full second stage reform of this House as we have heard, but despite 14 years in opposition and now seven months in government, Labour does not appear to be able to do that, although in opposition Sir Keir Starmer seem to favour an elected second chamber, in government he has clearly moved in the opposite direction.

Will debate that in the next amendment in the name of my noble friend and later after clause 1 and the amendment in the names of Lord Newby, Lord Wallace of Saltaire and Lord Strathclyde which I will be supporting, but I much looking forward to Liberal Democrats explaining exactly how supporting a bill that establishes an appointed house is the best route to achieving an elected house. So if the government was to explain what plans they have for the future of this House and even start simply meant those plans it will be difficult to object to this bill, but they have not.

An alternative the most simple way to achieve the government's objective words, as has been suggested, to enact the measure contained within Lord Grocott's various Private Members' bills which again the House will examine later on this committee. Suffice to say regards the merits or otherwise of that proposal. Obscure reason the government believes the Lord Grocott's proposal has passed its sell by date and can no longer be enacted. Although I've been unable to find anyone who can explain to me exactly why this is so.

I rather think it merely suits the government's purpose to advance that theory, but it is clearly not the case. It's also worth pointing out that, although the noble Lord Lord Grocott spell may be familiar to some of us, was last debated in this House some four years ago and only got beyond second reading six years ago. Subsequently over 160 new members have joined this House who will never have had the chance to debate, discuss or understand that bill, perhaps it might help the House if they were able to do so now.

This bill seeks to achieve an object that has already been achieved. It is currently divisive, unpleasant and wholly unnecessary. But that could all be avoided. Like Lord True I would hope that, rather than spend a long time arguing every point, the Lord Privy Seal and my noble friend could find a way upon which the whole house could agree.
16:25
Baroness Smith of Basildon Portrait Baroness Smith of Basildon, Leader of the House of Lords and Lord Privy Seal (Labour)
-
-
I'm grateful for the comments made and also for the different toad from Lord True which I welcome in the -- tone, I would say one thing he talked about passing political objective, he will know that is actually known as the government in all cases. I think it was beneath him to make a comment like that and I'm sorry he did that. I think is the comments are welcome and I'm grateful to him for making them. His amendment as he says 60 provide a description of the purpose of the bill, he will know as I know that similar amendment was debated in the other place it was rejected by majority of 277.

Just because it's an unnecessary amendment as we have seen. I don't want to, we've had a couple of repeats of second reading couple of repeats of second reading speeches from some of his comments as if noble Lord Strathclyde, forgive me I'm not going to go into second reading speech but I will make some comments and comment on what they have said. I will of course clarify the purposes of this legislation which I think will be helpful. I said this again a second reading debate, we've heard it from the noble Lords opposite about the agreement that was put in place in the House of Lords Act 99.

But in place which would then expect to be place which would then expect to be a temporary arrangement of the 90 remaining hereditary Peers, the system of by-elections. 92 in total, system by-elections for the 90, exceptions being the old Marshall and the Lord Great Chamberlain. Those arrangements were never expected to still be here 25 years later. But they have. I look at the amendments, listen to the comments made by Lords and I expect Lord Grocott will be possibly delighted but also somewhat dismayed at the sudden conversion of so many noble Lords to a bill he tried so many times to bring forward.

Because what he said in those bills, there were numerous debates and noble Lords who sat through them will recall them well, that he wanted to bring an end to the system of by-elections but would allow those hereditary Peers particularly those who contributed to this House to remain in the House for life in effect as Life Peers. For some reason that I don't understand, those that now say that was a good bill and can we not go back to it took so much effort in destroying that bill so it never got on the statute book.

Had that bill been agreed then we would not be here now. We would be doing is having the discussions that the noble Lord and I have had a mother of occasions talking about the other issues in the manifesto and finding a way forward that would benefit the House. But there are a small number of noble Lords who frustrated the passage of that bill and got us to this point. I regret that. I have to say, to go back to that principle is that we shouldn't do anything until we do everything, in effect do nothing, it's not an acceptable position to hold.

That time has gone. I remind noble Lords this was a manifesto commitment, but I also say noble Lords have heard me say time and time again, there is nothing at all that is a barrier to those in your Lordships house here is hereditary Peers to having life peerages. I said that time and time again. I appreciate the route is different for the crossbenches than it is to the PESCO parties. I'm sorry that we, that that's come up again but I have to make the point there is no barrier to them returning as Life Peers.

-- Political party. The purpose of the amendment proposed by Lord True isn't necessarily on this bill. Just a return to some of the other points made, Lord True's issues he wants to debates. He knows my door is always open for any discussions but I've also said to him, the basis for that discussion has to be a guarantee the government's getting its business 34 he will know how disappointed I have been that some of the tactics been that some of the tactics deployed by the party opposite.

I call them procedural shenanigans and I know he was offended by that comment but I think it is the case. When the list of amendments to this bill was published there were 18 groups of amendments. I think there are probably around nine or 10 different themes that members want to discuss in the bill. When I came in this morning there were 43 groups of amendments. I don't know why members chose to de-group there amendments but it does imply that a amendments but it does imply that a Good faith has to go both ways, discussions need to be in good faith.

We currently have six groups of amendments. Three of them just one amendment, on the commencement procedures, of the bill. That to me isn't a very sensible way to proceed. As the noble Lord suggested, the more sensible way to proceed, I'm happy to have those discussions and I would welcome them. With the tone he said. The noble Lord newbie thought it was possible. He didn't think it wasn't possible. I think you said are somewhat disillusioned, actually about the consensus. I would have liked to have had consensus, we tried that with the Grocott Boyle.

I'm open to discussions with other noble Lord, but the backdrop to that to be a guarantee that this House behaves in a sensible and proper way, when dealing with the legislation and risks respects the existing conventions of this House which are all important. Can I say to not Lord Strathclyde, I have one advantage. It was not a member of your Lordship's House macro. He would be able to vote in elections. He could vote, or against his successor. I appreciate he doesn't want to take that opportunity.

Can I also say he also said about the appointment, the wholly appointed house of the Prime Minister. He knows appointment to go through the Prime Minister. Appointments are made and I think we have shown good faith on this side of the House, when in the last number of appointments, and I will be given to the noble Lord opposite. I spoke to the party opposite. We were not playing games or numbers, have we have a scene from the party opposite, over the last 10 years, etc..

Except in the never Lady etc.. Except in the never Lady Baroness a mate, -- Baroness May. I could be a bit cheeky to say that those that have got hereditary peerage as themselves a form of the patronage of the Prime Minister or the moniker of the time. It is just the way that they were record rewarded. The noble Lord talks about a deal. I am more inclined to talk about the way forward. If he is saying that his party would behave in a different way and not the group amendments and want a proper discussion about this bill.

My door is always open and will remain open. The time being we will continue through the passage of the bill. The time being I would urge them to withdraw this amendment, we will continue to have those further discussions, going forward.
16:33
Lord Moynihan Portrait Lord Moynihan (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, noble Lords with longer memories will recall that might rival in this House was a somewhat unusual. And speaks directly to both parts of my noble friend amendment. As at the then Minister of energy, was taking a bill through a Commons committee, shortly before the 1992 general election and I was summoned by the Chief Whip. We have both learned from the foreign office, but only my hand, my somewhat wayward and much older half brother had died in Manila.

At the time Tony was the holder of the peerage, first awarded to my grandfather, the leading surgeon of his day. There after put to good use by my father as treasurer of the Labour Party, in this House. In his young days, Tony who sat on the liberal benches was a colourful character. On his last day, in this country, he went to Berkeley Square ordered a Bentley at Jack Barclay's, demanded changes to be made by the afternoon. He came to this House to make an impromptu speech that Gibraltar should belong to the Spanish, from the liberal benches.

Returned to Berkeley Square, presented a forged check for the car and is accompanied by his third wife, an Indian belly dancer, for whom he used to play the bongos and nightclubs, evaded a Scotland Yard and drove to Madrid. Where he befriended a young Carlos who later became King. He never legally became King. He never legally returned to these shores. -- Horn Carlos. When I finally arrived following five years of legal proceedings, until the case reached its end in the Moses Room in 1997, memorable and rare sitting of the committee of privileges are finally resolved this matter.

This most protracted of the peerage cases. And it to notable Hereditary Peers, my noble friend, the noble Lords Lord Cranborne and Lord Strathclyde, asked me to take on the responsibility of senior foreign affairs spokesperson. When I had the privilege of shadowing the outstanding Minister, the never Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean. And so began at the honour of serving in your Lordships' House. A few peers have arrived here, with this complicated and colourful back story as my own. The best and the worst of the hereditary principle can be found in my family.

If any one gives my words wait, it should be. I am clear that reform of this House is not only long overdue, it is essential. Indeed I go further, the former Foreign Secretary and second January of NATO, Lord Carrington advocated for an entire re-elected House. I personally fully agree with him, although I would seek a means to offer the finest minds in this country, President of the Royal colleges, obviously a retired senior ambassadors and eminent scientists and artists for example, the opportunity to contribute to our proceedings.

My chief criticism of the bill is the piecemeal and disruptive approach, chosen by government. Let me be clear, to me this bill is a short-term political numbers game. The bill is certainly a long overdue, but it should be about the future role and function of this House. To ensure it is a fit for the 21st century. It should be about this House is a structure...

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order. I always enjoy listening to the noble Lord, he is entertaining is that we are discussing a particular amendment, he is making comments we amendment, he is making comments we will come to you later in other amendments. This is the second reading speech. I don't want to be reading speech. I don't want to be discourteous because he has got a lot of notes that there. I wonder if it was to address the amendments, why there rather than the wider speech. I was talking about the speech.

I was talking about the principle and the removal of principle and the removal of hereditaries. Both essential and I gave my experience, from the point of view, as a hereditary and are now addressing at the key point about this bill being a very narrow in its form, with regard to the future of the hereditaries and my argument is simple and very clear. It should be wider. Because my view is that by narrowing it as much as we have had, it becomes a political numbers game bill.

I am a much more in favour of looking at how best, this House can silly and scrutinise, shape and improve the legislation for the government of the day and challenge the government of the day to think again, when necessary. The point has been made already that this House, operates best, through consensus. Yet the much halted usual channels have become afraid and fractures of late. There must be a way for the leaders of the four main groupings in your Lordships' House, the government, the opposition, the Liberal Democrats and critically the crossbenchers, to consider how the government's objective of numerical majority, for example over his Majesty's opposition, with which I largely agree, could be achieved.

For there is a better way to achieve the outcome of that is sought in this bill. There are many peers, as has been mentioned, who have either announced their intention or willingness to retire. Or, he would do so, if approached on the basis of that if they were made, they would henceforth be required to participate, actively in this House. The latter can be judged by criteria and a bill that addressed a minimum levels of attendance. And contribution. And this would also remove the sitting rights of those many Life Peers, who at the time of the elevation promised their respective leaders and they will be active in this chamber and these committee rooms, but who all too soon became a notable, only by their absence.

So, it is possible, my lord, to achieve the outcome, by combining at the end of the sitting rights of the hereditary peerage, with the implementation of the decision to reduce the size of the tax. And still leave the Government with a majority over the opposition. This solution based on the principle of self-determination is surely better than one which this, in the Prime Minister of the day, the authority to approve each and every member of this House. Creating the worst of all worlds, a second chamber, without democratic legitimacy, built on a short-term present day, political patronage.

But short of the independence, reputation and the authority which it currently enjoys. That is why I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

supported this amendment. I do think it is a little bit of March for the noble Baroness to give March for the noble Baroness to give my noble friend a hard time, for making what she said was a second
16:40
Lord Strathclyde Portrait Lord Strathclyde (Conservative)
-
-
making what she said was a second reading speech. The fact is we had the second reading in nearly 3 months ago. There is no reason for the delay, why weren't we are dealing with this bill in January and February, why has it taken so long. I began to think that the Government had forgotten about this bill or had changed their minds and went taking it forward. The noble Baroness in her reply, herself a reply to a second reading speech.

I didn't really look at the merits of the amendment itself. Which is in connection between the possession of an hereditary peerage and obtaining membership of the House of Lords. And when the noble Baroness says that she is happy for discussions to take place, she says discussions with conditions. This bill has to be passed. It has to be agreed to, in all aspects before they can be a discussion. That is not a sensible or equitable way to have a discussion.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm really, I hate to intervene

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm really, I hate to intervene noble Lords, I do so, because I do not like to be misrepresented by the noble Lord or any other noble Lord in this House. I did not say that you have to pass a bill for discussions. I said it was happy to discussions. I said it was happy to have discussions, ongoing, but I did not want to see any procedural not want to see any procedural shenanigans. I need to see some good faith on behalf of the opposition as faith on behalf of the opposition as well.

I did answer the amendment, to noble Lord true, as it was unnecessary, alongside the bill pretty much anyway. If he is going to suggest, please get it right.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And more than write to agree with the noble Baroness on procedural shenanigans, which I must say I do not recognise at all. Over the not recognise at all. Over the course of the last few months. I'm not doing any procedural shenanigans, and actually so shenanigans, and actually so replying to the noble Baroness. Having made the point I wish to are Having made the point I wish to are there no procedural shenanigans in a nobody from the Labour Party, nobody from the Labour Party, actually engaging in the debate which has just been started by my

**** Possible New Speaker ****

which has just been started by my noble friend, Lord True. I certainly give way to the noble Lord, Lord Grocott. As he finished his remarks? I don't want to encourage him to go on at length. I wish to respond to the point about why Labour members haven't spoken. Is he wishing to get up again? I do not want intervene...
16:43
Lord Grocott Portrait Lord Grocott (Labour)
-
-
I've been waiting to say this for a long time. Just keep quiet. It was nine years ago that I first brought in a bill to end the system of violations, which hadn't been enacted, would have substantially solve the problem. I think it is a problem. Of people coming to this House. I find it deeply ironic, deeply ironic that amongst the passionate advocates now of my bill, apparently, include Lord True, Lord Strathclyde, both of whom were amongst those who are doing all within their power to block my bill, not to mention, of course, Lord Bancroft.

Time and time of when I brought the bill in, the majority of Hereditary Peers, as far as I could judge it were in favour of it. But a small group of people, four or five of whom are here today, probably more if I could look around them, managed to filibuster, in incredibly similar ways that it is going on today, D grouping amendments, putting down amendments at the last minute, where there is barely time to respond to them. I would just like to know what point in their political development this Damascus conversion occurred, from doing all within their power to block my bill, satisfactorily of course, to now thinking it is the golden solution to finding a consensus, between the two, the two sides of the House.

So, perhaps, at some stage, they could take this opportunity, not only of explaining why they have completely changed their mind, but also to apologising to those Hereditary Peers who are going to be removed, as a result of this bill. Apologise to them, in the full knowledge that if they had a listen to the bill and not filibustered it, this would not be happening on anything like the scale that we have got at the moment. And as we are taking a slight trip down memory lane, could go even further, if I wanted to.

I will just stick to 9 years. I am tempted to go back 31 years, when I first introduced it to the House of commons, a bill to end the right of Hereditary Peers, to sit and vote in the House of Commons. One of the sponsors? Good friend, Lord Rooker here, we stayed together over many, many years. That wasn't successful Please, can we not repeat arguments that we have heard at nauseam. The idea that this is a breathtakingly new proposal that may be the Hereditary Peers wasn't the right basis to be in the House of Lords.

Lord True, going through the arguments that somehow or other, the Law Society as well, there were more important things to do. I will speak to the amendment just in case I am in trouble with my leader. The amendment states quite simply that the purpose of this bill is to end the link between Hereditary Peers and the ship of the Lords. Can I just ask him, not now, but at some stage to reply to the question which I have because I agree with him.

That is the purpose of the bill. That is why it is called the Hereditary Peers bill. It is the House of Lords bill. If that is the sole purpose, does he agree with me that amendments that go down all sorts of alleyways and byways, what is the House of Lords who spill what to do, someone explain to me, with the rights or otherwise of bishops to sit in the House of Lords? It seems to me that almost any amendment is possible to this bill, which will no doubt be debated at length.

Many of them were the amendments. I will be voting against them all. There should be no doubt about this. They are not within the title of the bill and I am staggered that we are able to debate this in the way that we are, but I just want to lay to rest one final thing, and I said it so many times in the past. It's trouble when you start getting bored with your own speeches, but this idea that there was some wondrous unprecedented novel occurrence at the time of the 1999 will, where honourable people got together and gave an undertaking and that dishonourable people like me are not prepared to live by it 25 years ago, omit the central fact of that agreement, which is that it was an agreement under duress.

It was an agreement, as I am happy to be able agreement, as I am happy to be able to say, that Viscount Cranborne made and which he has said since, I don't carry his words around with me, but my words, they ring in my ears. He said we threatened the government, he was illustrating the fact that he was planning to wreck the whole of the Labour government's legislative programme. His words, not mine. A government that had the same majority, a huge majority I should say that we have got now, which was of no consequence to him.

There are many lawyers here. Is an agreement on the basis of which future threats were being made to one party to the agreement, is that an honourable agreement? Would that be an agreement in law? I don't know the answer to those questions, but I can pity well guess them... -- But I can pretty well guess them...

**** Possible New Speaker ****

If he is correct, why were the words binding in honour used?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

words binding in honour used? I cannot recall the words of Lord Worthing, but I know the context in Worthing, but I know the context in which the agreement took place. I which the agreement took place. I was working at Number Ten at the time. We were told by the then Chief time. We were told by the then Chief Whip, my predecessor, that it was true, that he feared for the whole legislative programme if it was not, if we did not concede to the 92 Hereditary Peers remaining.

I do not feel in anyway guilty or feel in anyway guilty or

**** Possible New Speaker ****

dishonourable by regarding that as being an agreement which is not valid. Yes, I will give way. Does he recognise in Alastair Campbell's book when he said I was Campbell's book when he said I was very astonished when Lord Cranborne didn't deal with what was only going to end in tears for him.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to end in tears for him. One person asked me to answer for Lord Cranborne, now I'm expected to answer for Alastair Campbell. You will need to ask my good friend Alastair Campbell about that, but I know the facts are precisely as I described. Don't just take my word for it, take Lord Cranborne's word for it. If we can at least put that out, and we are going to have a long debate and I have gone on too long.

I hope that no one again will use that tired, tired dishonourable excuse that somehow or other there was a crucial agreement that was reached, which is binding to all subsequent governments and which was reached under duress.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I totally understand why he can't be expected to answer for anyone else, but perhaps he can answer for himself. He is quite right, and by himself. He is quite right, and by the way, magnanimity in victory, he has got what he was asking for. If he thought it was in the interests of this House when he introduced his bill, to end the Hereditary Peers bill, to end the Hereditary Peers of, but to allow the peers to remain in this House, what has changed and why has he changed his view?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

What has changed is there was a general election and this was a manifesto commitment and broadly speaking, I think it is a good idea speaking, I think it is a good idea to obey manifesto commitments. But to obey manifesto commitments. But the longer answer to his question is that when I first introduced this bill, and I was not the first one. bill, and I was not the first one. Eric Lubbock was the first member of this House who proposed that there this House who proposed that there should be no more...

Had it been agreed at the time that the Lubbock bill will call it was introduced, then there would only be about 25 registries left. What has happened because of the constant refusal of people to accept the end of the by- elections is that a whole new generation of hereditaries have arrived, so that in order for the objective of ending the Hereditary Peers in this House to be concluded, it would take another 40 or 50 years from now. It is spilt milk, and I respect Lord Forsyth.

He occasionally made the unfavourable occasionally made the unfavourable comment was my bill. It was an all- party bill supported by all parties and supported in huge numbers by all parties, but times have changed. The time of apologies for those who block the bill in the way that they did, and the noble Earl who we will hear from in the next Amendment, they are the ones that need the explaining to do, not me.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

He should be a little bit more cheerful having achieved what he set out to do. There were many of us who were not in the House and therefore were not in the House and therefore when unable -- and therefore were unable...

**** Possible New Speaker ****

unable... In terms of the companion, is it not time that Lord True indicated

**** Possible New Speaker ****

not time that Lord True indicated whether or not he was pressing this amendment. At the moment the Prime Minister is on his feet talking about issues of national security and defence of the nation. I do not think our debate holds up terribly well against that. The noble Lord opened it in a moderate and helpful way. If noble Lord is wish to continue debating the amendment, they are at liberty to do so, but I want them to reflect on how the world outside sees the debate.

sees the debate.
16:55
16:56
16:56
Lord True Portrait Lord True (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I think it would be right for me to intervene. I would right for me to intervene. I would say to the noble Lord Lord Grocott, who asked me for an apology, I make no apology for carrying out the policy of my government when I was a Government Minister. The policy of the government was that we should not remove the 92 until a stage II reform came forward. Our government reform came forward. Our government with the coalition in 2011-2012 brought forward a bill which would have led to the removal of Hereditary Peers from your Lordships House, as was said earlier by others, that was frustrated by a group of Conservative backbenchers and the Labour Party in the other place.

So the Conservative Party did address that question and might I say to the noble Lord I will never apologise for carrying out the policy of my government. So far as his other remarks are concerned, there is a difference between this bill and his bill. The difference between his bill and this bill, we have another amendment later, so I don't want to protract the discussion. His bill allowed for the continuation of valued members of this House, indeed it was commended by a number of people who spoke on his bill for that reason.

This bill provides for the total expulsion of provides for the total expulsion of peers who are here under the 99 act. There is a profound difference between those two bills and in the proposals I put forward to the leader of the House, and I am grateful to her for the manner in which she responded and I hope we can return to that conduct of affairs. I did say that part of the discussions we had will have to be discussions we had will have to be dressing what will be in this moment where partisan zeal runs fairly high.

Many people on the other side might accept what I say, but it will be a wound to the House of some of the very skilled and experienced and long serving Hereditary Peers that we have among us if they are excluded. That will be a wound to the House and I think it is right the House addresses that and considers it closely. It certainly goes beyond horse trading between parties about what the future of the members of this House should be.

It is legitimate in Committee stage for us to consider the implications of legislation for the future of the House. I agree, I was grateful for what Lord Newby said. I don't agree with the noble Lord that consensus is impossible and the coalition agreement demonstrates that that is not the case. But I am grateful for his agreement with me which is important, and others said, I think important, and others said, I think the noble Lord can all it will be helpful as we go forward if we can have some understanding about the timing and nature of the government's proposals beyond the bill because they are material to the future of the House.

I have to say to Lord Grocott that the authorities in birth houses considered the kind of amendments that have been put down. I'm not referring to specific amendments, but probing issues such as participation, age limits and the prospect of democratisation of the House, all these things are within scope. It would seem to me utterly incredible there is no opportunity provided to this date that the House of Lords should not consider some of those things. Who better? If there is no White Paper, no Royal, or Joint Committee, who better than members of your Lordships House to bring our collective experience to bear and assist the government in its reflections on how the House should go forward.

My Lords, I agree of course with what the noble Lord Lord Howarth said. I can't agree that honour can be discarded. I was involved in the discussions, admittedly only at an official level admittedly only at an official level Recollections may vary. As to the purport of honour, in those discussions. I'm very grateful and I agree profoundly with what my noble friend, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean has said, not least in what he said about the role of the Prime Minister, in recent days.

I do think that there doesn't need to be and I hope that whether it is the noble, art noble Leader of the House herself, or us collectively, that we can find a way of bridging the difference between this House and the House of Commons, on all these questions, including, I have to say, we will discuss it later on amendment nine, on whether some of those here should be allowed to stay. The fact that the House of Commons has considered the matter, before it came here is not something that is ever deterred the House of Lords from addressing a bill that has come to this place, from the House of Commons.

The House of Lords is perfectly entitled to take a view on a bill that is sent from the House of Commons and the House of Lords is perfectly entitled to ask the House of Commons to think again and that is a perfectly reasonable constitutional principle. I'm grateful to those who welcomed the purport of my remarks. I've always tried to be constructive, when I had the honour of being leader and I enjoyed a constructive partnership, when we were in different places. I do think that consensus is always possible and I hope that in the days and weeks that come, we can get there.

I'm grateful for the support from the noble Earl could be enough, for some of the propositions I put forward, as I said to the noble Baroness. I didn't expect anybody to respond immediately. I know the noble Earl will probably want to reflect on those, as well. He did make a simple human point, my Lord, that I made. Whether you have the view that we have one now and now we can get rid of them, or whether you think that there is still value in keeping people here, these are human beings.

These are our friends and our colleagues, these are great public servants and My Lords, I think we owe it to our friends and our colleagues to come to a clear decision, a clear approach about their future and not wait for months and months, until this bill may become law. I hope we can bring a greater clarity, in a shorter time period, then someone suggested and I think that was very constructive, a point from the noble Earl. With those, I apologise if I have not referred to everybody who spoke, in the debate.

My noble friend Lord Moynihan made precisely the point I made, it was perfectly reasonable for the House to look at the wider matters. And we will have a chance to look at that. Thanking again the noble Baroness, for her constructive remarks, although disagreeing with her that we cannot ask the Commons to think again. I certainly replied myself to work, with her, to seek some form of consensus. The noble Baroness always worries that I'm misinterpreting, I'm not misinterpreting, and end if I have misspoke and I apologise.

What the noble Baroness actually said is the House of Commons has voted on this so there is no point in sending it back to them. I think that is what she said.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It may be a pertain to point, to point out that it was rejected by point out that it was rejected by 277. I never said it was not the ability of this House to send back ability of this House to send back of it chose to do so. I pointed out what happened in the House of Commons. Any Frontbench I've heard Commons. Any Frontbench I've heard say that the House of lords should not pass an amendment bill from the not pass an amendment bill from the House of Commons, was at the noble Lord on the Elections Bill.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lord on the Elections Bill. May I borrow a phrase from a more prominent person than I and say, "Did I really say that? " It is a very wonderfully, the joys of social media and smartphones, My Lords. The reality, nonetheless, I stand corrected by the noble Baroness. The point remains is the resides of great wisdom in this House. There remains, I think, the opportunity to reach an agreement that serves all parties and none, perhaps collectively. I think that if such an agreement and approach were agreed, it would be very easy for someone so formidable and dedicated, as at the noble Baroness, the Lord Privy Seal, to persuade her colleagues in Cabinet that a generous and thoughtful approach, which offers advantage to all parties should be followed.

And that is what I sincerely hope, in the days and weeks ahead. I beg leave to withdraw my moment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is it your Lordships pleasure this amendment be withdrawn? The
17:07
Earl of Caithness Portrait The Earl of Caithness (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

this amendment be withdrawn? The amendment is a buy in. -- The amendment is a by leave with. I beg to move and two. We might

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to move and two. We might think we know what most of the consequences of this bill are for consequences of this bill are for the British Constitution. They are farther clear to anyone who does not take a close interest in these matters. They are not to be found on matters. They are not to be found on the bill before us. The aim of this amendment is to put on the face of the bill was at least one the bill was at least one consequence will be.

The membership of this second chamber of Parliament of this second chamber of Parliament is unique in the world, in the way it is constituted and for how long we serve. It is composed of a relatively small number of Hereditary Peers, while the Lords Spiritual are nominated and the Life Peers are appointed on the recommendation of the Prime Minister to the monarch. Except for the Bishops who must retire at age 70, once one is a member, we have the right to a seat, place and voice, here for our lifetimes.

The most similar appointment system is that of the Canadian Senate. Although there are no hereditary members there, all members are appointed by the Prime Minister. There, the similarities end. There is a fixed size of 105 and a mandatory retirement age of 75. That means that a new senator can only be appointed, when a vacancy arises. New appointments must also be made on a regional basis, with each state holding a fixed number of seats. We will come onto whether similar constraints should apply here, so I make no further comment on that now.

As in Canada, there is a considerable amount of adverse comment on how the appointment system works, in this country. However, this bill is about to make the situation much worse. For the first time ever, the Prime Minister, on his or her a win would have an unprecedented power of control, over all the appointments to the membership of this House. That is a very dangerous extension of Primus to real power. If such environmental change in our Constitution that it needs careful consideration and justification.

I firmly believe it must be really spelt out on the face of legislation. Of course, our Constitution can evolve to meet this Constitution can evolve to meet this new situation, but it has already been clearly demonstrated that the Prime Minister's have a less rigorous appointment process than the House of lords appointment measure, the prime Ministers cap overall. A paper by the London School of Economics, in November 2023 tells us that party leaders are sometimes appointing experts, but sometimes appointing experts, but they are more regularly appoint a loyalist.

It goes on to say that about 1/4 of the appointees to this House over the last decade have been donors to political parties. I cannot agree with the noble Lord, Lord in our Lord Speaker, when in an interview it said that this House is in danger of becoming out of sync with our balance of legislators. He went on to say that this House to follow politicians and former political aides, rather than people with outside experience risk jeopardising the chamber's crucial role in taking a broader view on legislation and a wider national policy.

Those groups should be taken seriously. They were made before this bill takes effect and hands the Prime Minister and channelled power to appoint nights, when he likes. Everyone in the country should know about this. Once us hereditaries are forced out, there will be no screening for the Life Peers to hide behind when the criticism comes thick and fast. Assistance open to abuse cannot last long. My method has a three merits. It is concise, it does not affect the wording or intention of the bill and lastly, My Lords, the principal has already been accepted by the Labour Party.

On 23 March, 2018, I moved a similar amendment to the bill in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, which sought to abolish the hereditary peer by-elections. It was drafted to be before clause 1 and read, " Overview : this act amends section 2 of the House of Lords Act in 1999, to end the process of by-elections of the Hereditary Peers. There by making the House of Lords a holy appointed a second chamber. " It can be found in Hansard, of that date, column 547.

The noble Lord, Lord Grocott interviewed early in the few words I was going to say and told the House, " I am happy to accept this amendment. " That can be found in a column 548. It was indeed accepted by the whole House, including the Labour Party Frontbench. My Lords, head of the noble Lady, the Leader of the House

**** Possible New Speaker ****

will now do the same, I beg to move. Amendment proposed, before clause 1, insert the new clause as printed on the marshalled List.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

on the marshalled List. I read this amendment, with some surprise. Because what was said by
17:13
Baroness Butler-Sloss Portrait Baroness Butler-Sloss (Crossbench)
-
-
surprise. Because what was said by the noble Earl is that everybody is going to be nominated by the Prime Minister. Well I was not nominated by the Prime Minister and there remains, I think it is a 20% of this House and this government has no intention, as far as I know of getting rid of the way in which we are appointed. And as I understand that noble Earl to have said, the wording of the Lord Grocott's bill was different.

Because of course we are appointed. But what he has done is limited to the Prime Minister and to that extent I profoundly disagree with it. And I hope noble Lords will, at least support the crossbenchers. Could I just add that I recognise the manifesto. I recognise that this bill must go through. And I regret that there are so many amendments to slow it down. It is seems to me there are a large number of issues that need to be dealt with.

I'm not at all sure that this is the best place for them to be discussed, when there is a single issue that is really underlying the House. The other thing I would say is I do hope the Government will just look at those whom they are removing. And compare them with several hundred, at least 200 members of this House who are virtually never calm. And the point about the Hereditary Peers and I can speak as someone who is not a hereditary peer, but has been here for quite a long time.

I have observed the enormous work done by Hereditary Peers who have been of invaluable use to the legislation that has been passed and for us to lose them and keep those who do not come and do not work seems to me profoundly wrong. profoundly wrong.
17:15
Earl of Erroll Portrait The Earl of Erroll (Crossbench)
-
-
Very quickly I was going to say on the last amendment say it doesn't need a bit inserted to say also to remove the Prime Minister to have total control. One of the problems, remember the debate were very involved in 1998, 1999, settler bunch of crossbenchers, reporting at the time. The real problem with the whole thing is the Prime Minister having total control of everything is the Prime Minister and Civil Service and therefore the supreme person there is the leader of the majority of the party in the House of Commons and therefore controls that.

Also the judges are no longer separate and are now a Civil Service department, as the Ministry of Justice. Lots of promises. It is no longer 1/3 pillar in our Constitution, the way it was. The House of Lords was not under the promised real control. The whole point was that it was a Privy Council Frontbench, in the south and in the Commons and the Privy Council describes it as binding and honour. We were assured it is that cross Parliament, it cannot bind successive Parliaments.

We were told that a Privy Counsellor word. A Privy Counsellor were all of them, a lot of them should have been bound by their oath on the Frontbench. The whole point about it was we were put here is a poison pill, to ensure further democratic reform of the Lords. It was realised if this House seems to have some democratic, or dozen at the moment, but doesn't get some democratic legitimacy, therefore, in many peoples eyes it should not have legitimacy pass or A democratic authority needs to be injected into this chamber.

As we have just heard, we did put forward poses. The Commons could not agree because the Commons supremacist do not want to take away our residual powers. Those in the other place would like is to be completely democratically elected. The two can't agree and under both propositions the Prime Minister loses power and influence in patronage, which is one of the few patronage, which is one of the few It's good that previous It's good that previous power It's good that previous power has been modified.

We have got no limitation. I'd like to see something going that says in this bill that within a certain amount of time the limiting or removing the powers of the Prime Minister to appoint people to the Lords, it must go towards the majority of us going. If you don't really believe that, you are not democratic. you are not democratic.
17:18
Earl of Dundee Portrait The Earl of Dundee (Conservative)
-
-
Along with others I showed the -- I shared the concerns of my noble I shared the concerns of my noble friend Lord Craig Neff and -- Lord Craig Ness. The continuation of the high standard of legislative government scrutiny is key. It is proposed that within the reformed House of 600 temple members the nonpolitical bench of crossbenchers should be in the majority with 200 members whilst the government in opposition -- was the government and opposition have 150 each.

This formula can protect a high level of scrutiny otherwise threatened and undermined if the government of the day were to be the largest group within a reformed House. Political patronage to... Appoint members of this House is abolished, becoming replaced by two processes. Firstly as already indicated by the appointments commission appointing 200 nonpolitical temporal peers and secondly by in electoral college representing all parts of the United Kingdom, indirectly electing 400 political temporal peers. For the necessary transitional period and as your Lordships are well aware 's indicates a workable system.

This is that in a given year the collective total of Life Peers who retire or die are replaced at 50%. That means that in a natural way I -- way that the natural number of temporal peers the natural number of temporal peers will come down. This will come down quickly if Life Peers were coerced into retiring at 80 or 85, but it will be wiser not to impose that. With a retirement age of 90, the transitional period will be a bit more than five years with the advantage of allowing some new peers in the reformed House when they begin to serve their 15 years to do so alongside the existing Life Peers, which will uphold the skills and democratic efficacy of this House as a revising chamber.
17:21
17:22
Lord Strathclyde Portrait Lord Strathclyde (Conservative)
-
-
On the question of groupings, I understand that the opposition put forward some suggestions for groupings to the government whips office at the end of last week and they were rejected without even looking at them, until the government had put forward their own proposals. That is my own understanding. So I think that the whole question of groupings is important, but we are only on the second amendment of the day. I'm not sure what the noble Lord was

**** Possible New Speaker ****

suggesting this amendment should be grouped with. I'm happy to listen to him. The first four groupings, four

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The first four groupings, four separate amendments, seem to have separate amendments, seem to have natural linkage and their debating could have been done in a group.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

could have been done in a group. Let me carry on with the grouping

**** Possible New Speaker ****

we have.... We are the second amendment of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We are the second amendment of the day. We are on the six speech from Lord Strathclyde. I think we can draw our own conclusions.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I fancy that if this bill dealt with the expulsion of all peers over with the expulsion of all peers over 80, the noble Lord Lord Faulks would be a leading light in opposition of that legislation. So I am simply that legislation. So I am simply carrying out my duty as a member of this House to hold the government to account and ask the questions that need to be asked. The Labour Party need to be asked. The Labour Party choose not to turn up to debate and choose not to turn up to debate and that is entirely up to them.

I also point out that what this bill does is to exclude by law 45 members of the Conservative Party. It excludes for members of the party, you almost certainly will be given life peerages as precedent has demonstrated in the past. So it's hardly surprising that as a group and a party in the House of Lords retake a great deal of interest in what this bill says and what it is attempting to achieve. Now, if I can turn to my noble friend Lord Caithness who made a good point about what this bill does.

It is not just about removing the hair peers, it creates a wholly appointed House. Some noble Lord will take exception to that fact. I know the noble Lord is on my left, the Liberal Democrats would rather see a Democratic House and I have a great deal of sympathy with that. There are other noble lords who are happy to see a wholly appointed House, but that appointment is almost entirely in the hands of the Prime Minister. I know that later on there will be amendments on HOLAC, but they are not directly relevant on the amendments before us.

HOLAC is itself a creature of Executive. There is no statute that has created HOLAC. It is there because the Prime Minister has decreed that it should be so. It could be snuffed out immediately. Therefore it is right when we say that the appointment system is entirely in the hands of system is entirely in the hands of the Prime Minister. Now, HOLAC does reserve for itself a small number of crossbenchers. They are a delightful addition to this House. And what the noble Baroness Lady Butler-Sloss said particularly in respect of Hereditary Peers I very much agree with.

So I do support my noble friend's amendment. I don't know why Lord Grocott accepted his amendment some years ago in a debate on his amendment. It may be that he got so bored of the debate that he thought he should just accept an amendment to make a difference, but I think the noble Lord is trying to get in. I have come to the end of my remarks and I am happy for him to speak if he wishes to do so. he wishes to do so.
17:27
17:27
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay Portrait Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Conservative)
-
-
My noble friend is absolutely right to point out that the effect of this bill is to make your Lordships House a second chamber almost entirely nominated by the Prime Minister. I say almost because his amendment refers only to the Lords Temporal, the Lords Spiritual come here by a different means. As the noble and learned lady Lady Butler-Sloss has reminded us there are a small number of Crossbench Peers who have come in through Peers who have come in through nomination of the House of Lords process.

Even recommendations made by the Independent Commission are laid before the Prime Minister. Is at a time of the Prime Minister's choosing, not the commissions, when the nominations are made. There is often some consternation between the commission and the government about the rate and regularity in which those nominations can be made. Perhaps when the Lord Privy Seal stands up she can comment on that. Perhaps that process can be codified more efficiently.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is the not a case to put HOLAC on

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is the not a case to put HOLAC on

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is the not a case to put HOLAC on the statutory basis, both as to its existence and to its manner of appointment? My noble friend asks a very good question, but is a question for another group. It is worthy of a another group. It is worthy of a debate in a group of its own and if the noble Baroness wants to respond the noble Baroness wants to respond to my noble friend's question when she rises, she can do so, but I can't anticipate the debate we will have on HOLAC, but I did want to say that the noble and learned lady is right about what she pointed out about my noble friend's amendment number two.

He has done the usual service to remind us that what is being proposed in this bill is something that is out of keeping with the history of our Parliament and almost without precedent amongst other legislative bodies around the world. The Canadian Senate is the only comparable example. What is before us today is a bill that will weaken the legislature and strengthened the Executive, tilting the balance of power away from those who believe that power ought to be held very robustly to account.

It will leave those skills unbalance for as long as the government sees fit. There is nothing in this bill to compel it to set those scales right again, or even to fulfil the promises of further reform it made in its most recent manifesto. What we are debating today is an incomplete job. At second reading the noble Baroness the Lord previously spoke at some surprising length about four stop in the government's manifesto. The same punctuation was used in labours 1997 manifesto, the one on which the noble Baroness was first elected to Parliament.

In that instance it made a very. Indeed. The right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords will be ended by statute. We didn't think much about that sentence at the time, but after that, the next sentence promise this will be the first stage in the process of reform to make the House of Lords more democratic and representative. For more than a decade later in that labour government however, they were stuck She was the Parliamentary Secretary to 1 of the prime Ministers in that government, a Minister at the Cabinet office.

Perhaps you can shed more light, than others on why stage II was never brought forward. There are many of us at the worry that the. That she has encouraged us to mark with a highlighter, in the government's recent manifesto will result in a similarly long hiatus. 1/4 of a century after the last Labour government's reforms ended up stranded on a full stop, I think it is only right to leave a legislative reminder, in this bill, this bill represents an unfinished job.

The deal that was done in a 1999, binding and honour as a mineable friend reminded us, in the previous group, left a small number of Hereditary Peers behind, so that they could speak up, here in your Lordships' House and as a reminder that the Government had not fulfilled its manifesto policies, as the noble Earl, Lord Errol has pointed out in his contribution. Now, another Labour government was to rid itself of that inconvenient reminder and repeat the same trick. The noble Lady told us at second reading that to continue to assert the wider reforms must be implemented alongside this bill is a wilful misinterpretation of the manifesto.

Now, she undoubtedly understands, better than most of us what the Labour Party really meant by the word to put in the punctuation input, and is manifesto, but those who are interested in its other commitments and I quote again, to introduce a mandatory retirement age, to introduce a new participation requirement, to reform at the appointments process and to seek to improve the national and seek to improve the national and Don't want to see those plans are scuppered by punctuation and inaction, once again.

I have to say to the noble Lord Grocott, this is the reason why there are so many amendments are down to this bill, because it is entirely silent on all of those other promises. Not just on the detail of them, but when we might expect them. If we had had a white paper, if we had had a draft bill, if we had had even the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

consultations at the Labour manifesto promised, then we will be able to talk about them, rather than have to try and bring it now. Just for clarification, the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Just for clarification, the Government manifesto and to talk about the grammar, where the. Falls. It is worth looking at the latest manifesto, in the same paragraph, where they talk about immediate modernisation of the legislation to remove the right of Hereditary Peers was up it goes on to say, the end of was up it goes on to say, the end of the parliament, at which a member which is 80 years old they will be required to retire from the House of Lords was up is not an add-on, it is Lords was up is not an add-on, it is the same paragraph.

Whether the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

grammar matters or not, these are clearly linked to and that those colleagues that we are going to lose, through these build, who will be kept here as a reminder, to make sure that the deal is follow through, surely we owe it to them so sure, before they are ushered out of your Lordships' House, whether the Government intends to fulfil the rest of its manifesto and what its plans for the future of this House arc? If we cannot have that dignified and elegant reminder, through the presence of a hereditary colleagues, let us write a very clearly on the face of this bill, in words and punctuation which should act as a perpetual reminder that the Government is once again doing us 1/2 baked reform.

And the Limbo, in which it leaves your Lordships is unquestionably worse than the status quo. This bill removes 88 hard- working members, drawn from all of the house, the government's own ventures and the sole power to replace them and appoint the temporal members of this House, in the hands of the Prime Minister. It gives him an unlimited power, with no statutory limitations, not even a modest guidance of the sort that never laws, such as Lord Burns and others suggested would be helpful, when we discussed this at second reading.

Third, through this bill. Open to an annual cap on the number of nominations the Prime Minister can make. What did she think of a formula such as that proposed by the noble Lord Lord Fowler and the noble Lord, Lord Burns and in the Speaker's committee. I was very grateful for the generous words about my former boss at Lady May who me here to one in one out process. As proposed by the Lord Speaker's committee. Subsequent prime Ministers have not, not least the present Prime Minister whom this bill will make even more powerful.

In 2022, so Keir Starmer endorsed proposals from the former Lakefront Minister Gordon Brown to transfer power from Westminster to the British people. He said, I think the House of Lords is indefensible. And said he wanted to abolish the House of Lords and replace it with an elected chamber that has a really strong mission. That reform seal is not fully reflected in the bill before us. Prime Minister in fact has appointed a more tears in his first 200 days, then three prime Ministers, Lady May of Maidenhead, Boris Johnson and Rishi Sunak, put together.

He has appointed more even than Sir Tony Blair who was not known for his restraint when handing out robes. He has already appointed more Labour peers than the number of crossbenchers that this bill will purge from your Lordship's House. And the people he has put forward, though we welcome the more to this House and we do not denigrate the role that they will play, are drawn from a rather narrow card row, instead of the knowledge of nuclear engineering, held by Lord Ravensdale, or Lord Lytton's professional experience as a chartered surveyor or the passionate campaigning for our creative industries from the noble Earl, L- classy, Lord Colville of Kinross, the noble Lords Lord Aberdare and Lord Freyberg.

Since the start of this Parliament...

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It would be interesting to know how this relates to the wording of the amendment?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the amendment? I think very directly, because this, this is an amendment to this, this is an amendment to reminder your Lordship's House my Grad to remind future governments that it gives Prime Minister's that it gives Prime Minister's greater power, than ever before to nominate people to this House and the present Prime Minister, whom the present Prime Minister, whom this will empower and embolden has centres, since he became Prime centres, since he became Prime Minister 18 former Labour MPs, his former chief of staff and he is a director of strategy.

He is entitled to do that and it is no insult to any of them, or to the contribution I know they will make to your Lordship's House to point out that they are unlikely to give the same breadth of independent scrutiny to legislation, as the Crossbench Peers that they outnumber.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Of course, the Speaker's own background is exactly the ones that he is now criticising others for and he is now criticising others for and the answer, he has forgotten the people that Boris Johnson put in. Can we just have a little bit of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can we just have a little bit of humility and what he says. I respond to the noble Lady and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I respond to the noble Lady and then give way. I will draw the noble Lady to my own amendment, which I Lady to my own amendment, which I hope is been brought forward in the spirit of humility suggesting that the cap on the number of special the cap on the number of special advisers that prime Ministers can nominate. The reason I haven't put that amendment and at the one which I see did not find favour from Lord Forsyth of Drumlean about former members of Parliament.

I worry that a bill that empowers prime Ministers to make the sole decision about who scrutinises then and that the government and they lead to, in one of our houses of Parliament ought

**** Possible New Speaker ****

not to give such an open-ended power to them. I give way. We started the debate today on a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We started the debate today on a very conciliatory constructive tone, from the front benches, which I found very optimistic and found very optimistic and encouraging. I fear that things have gone pretty steeply downhill. Since gone pretty steeply downhill. Since that time. They have also gone way that time. They have also gone way off track, from the amendment under discussion. I have a limited 63, I'm beginning to wonder if I'm going to live long enough to ever reach it. But, if I may, for all the shadowboxing and enjoyable eloquence we have had, it seems to me that what this really comes down to is a numbers question.

That is the real horse trading that is needing to go on here. It is a number between zero and 88 and I really wish we can look, the noble Lady, the Leader of the House, the Frontbench leaders and our convener in a room, adjourned for the afternoon to see if they can hammer out that number. If they can, I suspect a lot of these amendments would fall away. If they can't, then battle can

**** Possible New Speaker ****

recommence. I must respectfully disagree with

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I must respectfully disagree with the noble Lord. I think this is a more than about numbers, this is more than about numbers, this is about the constitutional principle and I think it is right, as my noble friend Lord Caithness has done to point out the powers that this bill point out the powers that this bill will give, to the Prime Minister, in the interim and for those averse who remember how long the interim was, remember how long the interim was, after the 1999 reforms, to caution after the 1999 reforms, to caution the House about accepting a promise at the ends with a.

And if there is no more. What the noble Lord says about the spirit of consensus is a very important. And in that spirit I think I shall conclude my remarks are there and allow the noble Baroness to respond to the debate,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

on this group. My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for proposing his noble Lord for proposing his amendment. Too much paper here. If I amendment. Too much paper here. If I may respond, I will come back to the comments made during the course of the debate, as well. It is basically an overview of the bill he seeks to put on the face of the bill. I think the same comments I made to noble the same comments I made to noble Lord true, and happy to provide that overview.

Some repetition in what I say to this amendment and of the last amendment, a point made by the noble Lord Wallace. Yes, this bill seeks to remove the right to Hereditary Peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords. That is why we for this amendment is unnecessary, because that is quite clear. I do dispute is overview, in that I do not think it fairly reflects the situation, neither do I accept the comment by the noble Lord Parkinson on this.

The noble Lord Parkinson and noble Earl aright, for the Lords Temporal, the Life Peerages Act of 1958 is the Prime Minister, as the Kings principal adviser to make recommendations to the sovereign on Life Peers. But the Prime Minister, by convention invites those nominations from other parties so perhaps we saw let alone some prime Ministers on the other side that we have in recent years. It is party
17:43
Baroness Smith of Basildon Portrait Baroness Smith of Basildon, Leader of the House of Lords and Lord Privy Seal (Labour)
-
-
leaders who consider the best place to represent the party in the House of Lords and choose who to nominate. of Lords and choose who to nominate. When we look at appointments, noble Lord Collins and I were both appointed by Sir David Cameron. appointed by Sir David Cameron. Because he happened to be premised at that time. The noble Lady, Baroness Anderson was appointed by Baroness Anderson was appointed by Who was a fairly short lived prime Minister, but still had time to promote my noble friend.

The idea that the Prime Minister had the day has this absolute power which they channel and funnel hundreds of appointments. The number of parties they do, when the Labour Party left office, in 2010, we had around, I think it was 12 appears more than the party opposite. When the party the party opposite. When the party opposite left office, in 2025, 2024. There are over a hundred more Conservative peers at the Labor. So in that degree, the point made by the noble Earl does actually have some merit, because there are times when the Prime Minister with a very few, most prime Ministers have actually behaved and treated that system with the dignity and honour it should be, it can't be said for all of them.

The Prime Minister also invites the House of Lords Appointments Commission to make nominations to the crossbenches. Lady Butler-Sloss made the point about 20%, over 20% of crossbenches. She is absolutely right. That is a fair figure and it was about 23 or so at the moment, I think she is quite right in that. That would not change. The commission then accepted those applications, from across the UK and nominating individuals they believe will bring a depth and merit to the House of Lords.

I take issue with some of the comments made. I think it was the noble Lord Parkinson, I could not move quite quickly enough about the background of the members. It is not just what people have done in the past, it is what they are prepared to do when they are here that really matters and we all want those noble Lords appointed today's displaced play a appointed today's displaced play a full and proper role. The noble Lord amendment and his comments appear to sort of make the point that Hereditary Peers contribute far more and better than Life Peers.

I have never, in anything I have said and I challenge noble Lords who have said otherwise, denigrated any noble Lord, in this House, by whatever route they have come to this House. If we are trying to make a case that somehow some of them it is a better route, because they are more independent, more active was that the average number of speaking contributions, days by peer time, Life Peers 70, Hereditary Peers 48 and a proportion of days attended, Life Peers 18%, Hereditary Peers 14%, judicial 14.

That is 29, 2014 Parliament. There was a really little difference. I think that it is probably disingenuous to stress, there are hard-working Hereditary Peers. There are also those we don't see very often, we might see them a see very often, we might see them a There is a marginal difference in speaking days. Perhaps I should look at the voting record as well and that. By peerage type, Life Peers asked more questions than Hereditary Peers. There are different ways you can look at this.

The point I want to make is I am not going to accept that somehow Life Peers are not as good as their colleagues or play a less active role than their less active role than their colleagues. If I may continue, he read... I'm not going to denigrate any peer. There are questions about amendments, we will deal with that as we go forward, but there is no particular need for this amendment which is not entirely accurate as others have pointed out.

Other quotes are made in the debate. The comments that Hereditary Peers somehow, and I'm not quite sure, the noble Lord Lord Strathclyde has not addressed this. Every member of this House has somehow come here by appointment. It may be in the case of Hereditary Peers it was an ancestor of those and it may be many generations ago, but all peerages started with appointments. The current system of by-elections means there is a very small number of families across the country who have a fast track route to a small number of seats.

I think the noble Earl would be wise to recognise that. The would be wise to recognise that. The is at odd Mackie is at odds Mackie is at odds with some comments made by his party. His proposal does nothing to address that at all. Sorry, his proposal is at odds with what he's members are saying. They are accepting the route through the Prime Minister, crossbench has been different. It is a statement of facts, but an incorrect one.

The noble Lord Lord Parkinson challenge me on a number of issues. I have been really clear and the manifesto is clear. There are three stages to the manifesto. I don't know how many times I will have to say during the course of the bill. The first point is the immediate reform. The noncontroversial part I would have thought is that the principles were established 1/4 of a century ago, that Hereditary Peers would leave the House. There was a deal done at the time for some to remain with the input surety for by-elections.

That is why there is no Green Paper or

**** Possible New Speaker ****

White Paper. It's been debated for many years. Is the leader of the success the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is the leader of the success the arguments from Lord Croker that if his bill had been passed, we would now be left with 25 registries and that would be a decent number and you will not need to get rid of you will not need to get rid of you will not need to get rid of The point the noble Lord is making is had that been accepted at the time, we will not have any hereditary peers in effect because all will be here as Life Peers.

I think that is a point he was making and the numbers would, I don't know if it is an accurate figure, would be a guess. The second part, and I'm noble -- and I and grateful to noble Lord who have engaged with me on this. It would be nice to find a way to find consensus around the issues. Participation and the retirement age. There was consensus around the House we could agree on tighter legislation. I am grateful to those who have engaged with that.

Then there is a longer term proposal, which is also in the manifesto, which says in the longer term look for a way to have a much more representative second chamber. I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

think those three stages are clear. Is that longer term during this Parliament?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Parliament? I do not know. It has to be when the policy is determined, but certainly I would have thought the second part around participation and second part around participation and time is something we can look at quickly. If the House can come to an agreement can be done quickly as well. Can I turn also to the point made by the noble Lord Lord Strathclyde about the groupings of amendments, and Lord Woolley strays this. The normal process is the government suggest groupings, as we did.

The opposition said they had their own groupings. I think the original government groupings were 18. The Official Opposition didn't except that. I think it is 46 group except that. I think it is 46 group 's -- 46 groups. My point was there are a number of themes that run through this legislation and if it was possible to have those debated within groups, it is easier. At the moment, and if that is what the House wishes, I would not deny them the opportunity to have that debate, but we have six groups on the commencement of the bill.

It seems excessive. The government did not deny the Official Opposition the right to have as many groups as they wanted. We were surprised though of how many there were. Lord Cromwell wants to lock me in a room with Lord True.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That is unfair to the leader. I am always open to discussion,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am always open to discussion, but I need assurances that when we see D groupings and Filibustering, we see threats on different things, we see threats on different things, it does not give the confidence that allows me to have those kinds of discussions. To have those discussions I need confidence that the opposition wants to do this in a proper way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

proper way. I am grateful to the noble Lady the leader of the for her reply. I think we have some additional information from her. However, I will take issue with her, just as she will take issue with anyone who tried to misrepresent her in the debate. I did not in anyway infer that the hereditaries were better than the Life Peers or vice versa. Once you get rid of the hereditaries, there is an increased power to the Prime Minister on appointments and nominations to this House.

The element of the Hereditary Peers has gone.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I do not accept at all. There is no change whatsoever in the powers of the Prime Minister at that point. of the Prime Minister at that point. I have explained the process. Think what he is saying is that not everybody in the House, currently I everybody in the House, currently I think there are 88 members who are here on a Hereditary Peers is. Those places will not be there in the places will not be there in the future. -- He rent rebate.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

The House as a result of this bill, there will be a greater percentage appointed by the Prime Minister than there is now. Can I just finish? My point was that this could be abused. I think if I recall rightly, the noble Lady said, and I agree with her, that most prime ministers have behaved very responsibly, but on some occasions it has not been quite as we would have hoped. I am grateful for her support and that.

To the noble Lady Baroness Butler-Sloss, I am grateful for what she did. She would have noted the amendment is carefully noted the amendment is carefully drafted to say nominations. Nominated by the Prime Minister, rather than appointment. I did focus on appointment rather than nomination, but I think I covered the point that she raised. The noble Lord Lord Grocott's memory seems to have failed him. He did say in response to Lord Strathclyde that he wanted to get on with his bill and he was in a hurry to proceed.

It does slightly contradict that a few minutes earlier he had taken the House to a division, appointed Tellers for both the contents and not contents because the amendment had been withdrawn and wasted a considerable amount of time then. I think his memory is not quite as good as it used to be. My Lords, I am grateful to all those who took part in this debate and I beg leave

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to withdraw my amendment. Amendment by leave withdrawn. In

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment by leave withdrawn. In clause 1, amendment three, the Earl

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of Devon. It is a pleasure to speak to amendment three which is in my name. amendment three which is in my name. It is a probing amendment aim to focus upon the Hereditary Peers in general and is ongoing role within our constitution and this Parliament in the context of the sovereign in particular. The Labour Party particular. The Labour Party manifesto asserted that he ready... There should be no places in our Parliament reserved for those from certain families. Likewise the Liberal Democrat state there should be most in a modern democracy for this privilege.

I respectfully disagree, but having listened to earlier contributions today, I am
17:59
Earl of Devon Portrait The Earl of Devon (Crossbench)
-
-
aware that is a rather lonely furrow that I plough. For the purposes of that I plough. For the purposes of this debate and the entirety of this Committee stage I will note my interests as an elected hereditary. I am the 38 Earl of Devon. The I am the 38 Earl of Devon. The feudal role my family has had the privilege of undertaking for some 900 years. On the basis of tenure 900 years. On the basis of tenure and length of service this principle is entirely defensible.

It's a key part of what got us here and is a bright red that colours our rich constitutional tapestry. Rather than replete ancient history on this point, Mayar refer your Lordships to my contributions at second reading and my speech in defence of the indefensible. However this principle is particularly defensible on the is particularly defensible on the basis that it is the principle by which we elect our sovereign Head of State, whose presence in this Parliament is impolite by the mace, to which we all bow, and around whose seat, the throne we are all arrayed.

The concern I wish to raise is that without a head registry present -- without a Hereditary Peers and, the sovereign will be the sole presence. Once the Hereditary Peers who have literally defended our sovereign false entries are removed from your Lordships House, who will stand up for the ongoing monitor? If intellectually we agree there is no place for privilege in a modern democracy, then we must surely become a republic and elect our Head of State just like the United States of America do.

To that point, and in case we need and reminder of the importance of this principle to our global standing and to our international soft power in particular, last week we saw the Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer visit the oval office, wending his knee to the leader of the free world in a brave effort to secure support for the war in Ukraine amongst other things. In that rarefied context. things. In that rarefied context.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I come from a long string of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I come from a long string of parents. Probably following on his land. I was done up for the monarch,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

land. I was done up for the monarch, we all stood up and swore an oath in this House. That is the point of this moment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That is the point of this moment and I look forward to hearing it. From each of our parties repeating From each of our parties repeating exactly the same point. As I said, so Keir Starmer was bending his Anita the leader of the free world, in that rarefied context, he offered the President of the United States are just about the only thing that Donald Trump and his lunar acolytes cannot purchase an invitation from His Majesty to a state visit of Windsor Castle.

Whatever one may think of the complex geopolitics that surrounded that visit and the remarkable events that followed, it is readily apparent that the hereditary principle as embodied by our sovereign head of state, which is exactly the same hereditary principle, by which I find myself here in your Lordship's House is of considering ongoing importance. We weaken and abandon that, at our peril. The observant amongst your Lordships may note that the language of my proposed amendment three does not explicitly address at the hereditary principle is applied to our sovereign himself.

This is because such an amendment falls afoul of the scope and relevant Can I express my huge thanks to the team of the Public bills office who worked so patiently with me to craft an amendment that is admissible, if slightly idiosyncratic. It at least provides a hook upon which to hang this important debate. I am sure that HRH the Prince of Wales, the juice of Sussex and their children will appreciate the opportunity to debate the minutiae of product safety and metrology until the wee small hours with your Lordships

**** Possible New Speaker ****

company. I do trust that the noble Earl is not suggesting that members of the Royal family should participate. That would be wholly

**** Possible New Speaker ****

disastrous. Listening to my, I will clarify that point. I should also note that that point. I should also note that for the record that we do have a recent precedent for a grandchild of recent precedent for a grandchild of the sovereign, seeking to join at your Lordship's House that is a hereditary, as an elected hereditary, as an elected hereditary. In 2018, when I stood for a crossbench vacancy upon the retirement of Lord Walwyn, one of the other 19 Hereditary Peers to stand against me was the second Earl of Snowdon was not previously a Viscount Linley who is a grandson of his Majesty King George VI.

I believe he withdrew his candidacy, before the voting took place. Obviously cowered by the strength of the other candidates. Publicly proper reasoning further his withdrawal was as a member of the Royal family he should not sit in parliament, by convention. A recent which may indeed render my amendment which may indeed render my amendment are dead in the water. This aside, it does indeed remind us that the only members of your Lordship's House that has had any democratic legitimacy, whatsoever happened to be the Hereditary Peers.

While we may indeed be tempted by our hereditary privilege, we have vanquished highly competitive competitors in order to obtain seats. Indeed, I think we fulfil the second sentence in Labour's 1997 manifesto, highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, by increasing the democratic legitimacy of this the democratic legitimacy of this House. It is, I submit a pity that we cannot fill other seats in your Lordships' House, by equivalent means. I look forward to a debate on this topic, I particularly interested to hear the views of the front benches, each of the main political parties, including the noble Baroness the Minister, as this offers an opportunity for them all to clarify more prosperity, exactly how they view the role of the hereditary principle, in the context of our monarch.

How they expect to protect and support His Majesty The King, in this House, once as Hereditary Peers have left the building. In parting, I note that in earlier debates on the bill, both the government and the Liberal Democrats appointed to the Kings legitimacy being based not upon hereditary principle, but upon his popularity. And how well he does his job. This is transparently not the case. The monarch is not a competitor in a reality television show. He is our sovereign head of state.

He is born to his position and anointed, for those with Anglican faith, by God, by the Archbishop of Canterbury. We all watched the coronation and I hope that is in fact we can all agree to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

full stop either to move. Clause 1, page 1, line 1 insert

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Clause 1, page 1, line 1 insert the words on the marshalled List.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the words on the marshalled List. I rose to speak in support of the Earl of Devon's amendment. This bill is not just about the future of Hereditary Peers. The stability of
18:06
Baroness Meyer Portrait Baroness Meyer (Conservative)
-
-
Hereditary Peers. The stability of our entire constitutional order. Hereditary Peers are not relics of feudal privilege, as the government claims, they are a vital link between our past, present and future. Remove them and we take another step towards dismantling the traditions that have kept this country stable, for centuries. Make no mistakes, this bill regards history, weakens of the House of Lords and ultimately paves the way for abolishing the monarchy itself. for abolishing the monarchy itself.

If Hereditary Peers are obsolete, how long before the same argument is made against the Crown? The generations, Hereditary Peers have served the Crown, upholding duty, service and continuity. Strip them away and the Lords become a chamber of political appointees. Once it loses its independence, the monarchy loses its natural defenders. Britain has never been a nation of radical upheavals. We have adapted, not abolished. We have evolved, not revolted. That careful, deliberate reform, has kept our constitutions intact.

Contrast and compare with Russia and France. The two nations of my heritage. Both thought radical change would bring stability, in instead it has suffered instability and disorder. And in Russia's case, it led to a regime, even more oppressive than the one it had overthrown. Including my grandparents. Why, My Lords, would we throw the baby out of the bath water? This bill is ill judged. It overturns of the 1999 constitutional settlement, it ignores consensus and it disrupts the balance that has protected us from political ills.

The path from abolishing Hereditary Peers, to dismantling of the monarchy may not happen overnight, but it will set a precedent. Let us be clear, those who cheer the removal of Hereditary Peers today will be the same voices calling for the end of the monarchy tomorrow. This government reassures us that This government reassures us that this, that they will support the monarchy was that how can we trust them? They can remove Hereditary Peers today, what stops them from targeting the monarchy tomorrow? History teaches us that once safeguards are eroded, they are rarely restored.

The monarchy is not just a symbol of our national unity, but a powerhouse of a soft diplomacy and economic strength. It generates billions for the UK. What better demonstration of its soft power, then when the Prime Minister, presenting the Kings invitation to President Trump. A move that could actually replace Britain, apart from the European Union in negotiations over tariffs. Despite Brexit. This is not outdated tradition, it is a vital asset for our future. We must stand firm against this misguided attack on the traditions that define our nation.

My Lords, this is why this amendment is crucial. It will protect the delicate balance of our Constitution and it will safeguard the stability, continuity and integrity of our institution. This is why I support this amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I would like to support the amendment by the noble Earl, Lord Deben, which I think is a very creative and imaginative. If anybody thinks it is beside the point. I certainly want to press the point, certainly want to press the point, it is rather absurd to suggest that
18:10
Lord Moore of Etchingham Portrait Lord Moore of Etchingham (Non-affiliated)
-
-
it will turn the British Constitution upside down. I think that the point in their is important. It is said by those who call for the abolition of the hereditary, the remaining hereditaries at the hereditary principle is indefensible. That is often said. It is simply stated. If it is indefensible, that must apply to other aspects of the hereditary principle, which the monarchy is the most prevalent. The noble viscount Lord Hailsham said that actually he is mistaken in fact about this, because the present King did make a speech in the House of Lords, when he was Prince of Wales.

He made his maiden speech in the House of Lords and was entitled to do Nothing arising from it. The hereditary is a very important principle. I do agree with the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, this must be quite annoying, because there are so many things flying around. Could it not be grouped? This is the problem with this bill. It raises a very big issue and then it tries to make it very narrow. There are actually masses of issues coming out of this which we do need to think about it and hereditary is one of them.

Hereditary seems to me to be a very important printable alive, both in terms of our monarchy, much respected around the world and here, for reasons at this level Earl said. It is also very largely the principle on which our citizenship is based. And of course, it is also the principle upon which all families are based. What are families other than hereditary? It answers a very important aspect of people's way of thinking about things. It may well be appropriate in modern times to remove that from a parliamentary chamber.

And that is what is very likely to happen. But I do think we need to understand how this may affect badly upon us if we get it wrong. How it may expose this House to lots of questioning about what we really are aware that we deserve to be here? And how it may make people feel that our history and our understanding of ourselves is diminished. Last week I was in Ukraine and I was taken out to Zaporizhzhia by a very nice Ukrainian driver who had previously been a rock star, but at least in a rock band, harder harder times upon him.

As a rock star he said I'm so pleased at the first time I ever met a real Lord. I felt very ashamed, and the Boris creation. Of course I said that to him, but that only made me rise in his estimation. In Ukraine Boris is immensely popular figure. In this snowbound war-torn place, the idea of the Lord means something to an ordinary person. I think it is a universal idea and an idea which is essentially British and retains a certain importance.

Now all of that can be done away with and it probably will be, in legislative terms, but do let's think about the way this is being done and be cautious. Andrew Marvell, the great poet who was a parliamentarian, by the way, not a cavalier wrote a famous poem about Oliver Cromwell's return from Ireland and he warns Oliver Cromwell about the danger of ruining, what he called the great work of time. That, I think it's something we need to think about.

I feel that this bill is Cromwellian and is therefore dangerous.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I have bitten my tongue for the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I have bitten my tongue for the first two or three groups of our first two or three groups of our consideration in committee stage. I feel obliged to say a quick comment in relation to the noble Earl's amendment. And also because my
18:14
18:15
18:17
Lord Grocott Portrait Lord Grocott (Labour)
-
-
We removed 667 Hereditary Peers. As far as I can judge, that hasn't had a devastating impact on the monarchy. In fact the monarchy seems monarchy. In fact the monarchy seems to have survived quite well. The third point I want to make is that the fundamental difference between the Hereditary Peers's is applied to the Hereditary Peers's is applied to sitting and voting here and the sitting and voting here and the principal as applied to the monarchy unlike my noble friend I support the unlike my noble friend I support the constitution of monarchy strongly, the fundamental difference is this.

the fundamental difference is this. If the monarchy started to do what Hereditary Peers in this House do, i.e., express, quite within their rights, detailed arguments in favour of one political party or another, then I don't think that the monarchy would last very long. There is a fundamental difference between the political role of Hereditary Peers in this House and the holy significant and important nonpolitical role, Head of State role of the monarchy at the national

**** Possible New Speaker ****

level. I invite the noble Lord to have a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I invite the noble Lord to have a word with those who drafted the Labour manifesto as it says is a Labour manifesto as it says is a stand-alone sentence Hereditary Peers remain indefensible.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Peers remain indefensible. Can I associate myself both with

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can I associate myself both with the comments of Lord Brennan and those of Mike noble friend. There is not and ever has been the sort of link between the hereditary peers link between the hereditary peers
18:18
Lord Newby Portrait Lord Newby (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
and the monarch, I suspect the noble Earl was suggesting. We have one. Of Earl was suggesting. We have one. Of worked examples of this. I'm afraid it was a little while ago, but in it was a little while ago, but in 1649 when Charles I was condemned, 1649 when Charles I was condemned, he was not just condemned by members of the House of Commons, he was of the House of Commons, he was condemned by the hereditary members condemned by the hereditary members of the House of Lords.

It used to be called the other place because the parliamentarians led in respect of this by Oliver Cromwell recognised the need for a revising chamber, but did not like the concept of hereditary. So they appointed Oliver Cromwell appointed a House of Lords. That House of Lords did not last very long and the hereditary principle came back with Charles Charles II. So it wasn't the case that a hereditary House of Lords meant we were done with monarchy for ever, there were two different things.

Different considerations apply, but the lessons of Charles I, which are still relevant is that kings and queens in this country rule at the end of the day by the consent of the people. If they go out with the conventions, they will find themselves in difficulties again. With the current King, with the Prince of Wales, this seems to be an impossibly unlikely scenario, but it is still a theoretical possibility.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I appreciate that. I will say to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I appreciate that. I will say to Lord Newby that I seem to remember Lord Newby that I seem to remember Lord Newby that I seem to remember that there are only six peers that sat because of the Civil War and purges afterwards. Only two of whom to their lasting shame actually watched the execution of a King and a few days later the House of Lords was abolished the House of Commons was abolished the House of Commons as a useless place.

The other irony was when will produce his own equivalent of the House of Lords, I think there were only about 30
18:21
Lord True Portrait Lord True (Conservative)
-
-
people in it. Presented were relatives of Cromwell or his leading marshals. These things can take you down many funny roads and it was in down many funny roads and it was in fact the House of Lords in 1660 that fact the House of Lords in 1660 that reassembled and recall the House of Commons into being. A significant constitutional moment. Before I go on I'd like to respond to comments on I'd like to respond to comments made about groupings. Of course we should proceed in an orderly fashion.

The difficulties is there is so much left out of this bill which is germane to the future that we do have to discuss and I defend our right to discuss a range of subjects. This group on the Royal Family, I would not personally have put it down, but since it is down it is clearly a subject which needs to be addressed and should be addressed separately. The noble Baroness referred to a set of amendments on commencement, but they are very different.

One proposes a referendum, which I would not support. One wants to move the date earlier and get rid of Hereditary Peers very swiftly. Another is a delaying amendment. One calls for a review before the thing is taken forward and another says there should be no enactment of the act until after stay stupid poses have been produced. They may lock around because of the short nature of the bill, they look around commencement, but they are in fact, the idea of having a referendum on the removal of 90 Hereditary Peers which I frankly think is a nonsensical idea with all due respect to my noble friend.

The idea you would spend tens of millions to have a referendum on whether Hereditary Peers should leave the House of Lords, it's not the case I would argue on Newsnight, put it that way. But they are very different subjects, so we should be careful not to run away. There is a great freedom in this House which peers have to group and the group. I accept I asked my first group to be a stand-alone. It's because I wanted the Leader of the Opposition and former leader of the House to say to Would listen and heed and reflect on.

I didn't want that to be complicated with other discussions. I apologise if it tried the patience of the House, but I did ask for it to be taken separately. On the amendment I appreciate the concerns that many noble lords, starting with the noble Earl have raised. I don't think the concerns needed to be laughed at. They are concerns that some people legitimately have. Equally I totally agree with what the noble Lord Lord Brennan said. The great Labour party has always been unpatriotic part and the overwhelming number of members of the Labour Party, the overwhelming number of members of my party are strong supporters of the monarchy, although there are Republican Conservative members and Republican Labour members.

I hope it can be accomplished and I hope to carry this forward, I would love to see in years to come Lord Brennan and the noble Earl still here arguing the case together for the retention of the monarchy. The last thing I would want is for the monarchy to be brought into the situation that your Lordships House is now in with the hereditary principle is rejected. But the reasoning is different. I do not intend to argue that the removal of hereditary peers from your Lordships House, I say with all due respect to my noble friend Baroness Vere.

I understand absolutely what Vere. I understand absolutely what she said about the consequences bared by the people of France who fought the removal of Hereditary Peers will be a good thing, however as the noble's amendment shows, debate and his concern about the decision to expel Hereditary Peers from the House of Lords and what that might say about the hereditary principle is one of several things that will prompt debate and reflection about the importance of inheritance in wider society.

The noble Lord Lord Moore of Etchingham said that. Every family is inheritance. The instinct that families should be able to pass on what they have to do next generation is deeply imbued in our society. It's part of the route and bedrock. One only has to see the sympathy of so many people for the plight of family farms and family businesses. Many people are responding to that, not because of their particular views about farmers, but because they feel there is something unfair that a family cannot pass on its farm to the next generation because of levies on inheritance.

Frankly you may think I do not have any leisure time, but occasionally I watch that funny, it's not, is a charming BBC programme The Repair Shop. I don't know if anyone looks at that. I'm sure you can imagine me sitting at home with my Marmite sandwich watching it. That program week after week throws up example after moving example of the natural instinct of ordinary people to preserve what their forebears for them and pass that on to their children and grandchildren.

Often it tears and deepest of deepest emotions. The hereditary principle is one of the most basic and honourable of mankind and we should cherish it. And I do understand that this was the instinct I recognise gives birth to the sense of duty and responsibility that the noble Earl displayed in his speech, and indeed does for members of the Royal family. It's vital, I agree with others who have spoken and everyone I think in the House agrees we keep our Head of State hereditary and outside politics.

Our monarchy provides continuity and stability and is unparalleled in any other form of governance. The English monarchy has endured for 1,100 years and the Scottish monarchy close on 1,200 years, whether in countless political storms and societal change, involving into the constitutional monarchy we have. In times of upheaval the monarchy is there as a state, a constant unchanging presence that transcends transient party politics. Secondly, the hereditary nature of the monarchy in Celexa Head of State from partisan struggles of politics that characterises a democratic system and allows harmonics to represent our whole nation serving as a unifying figure, which indeed devise that often stress our society and our councils in your Lordships House.

It plays a crucial role in preserving our national identity, steeped in tradition and the pomp and ceremony around monarchy in which we play our own part here. The noble Baroness opposite and I have both held the cab of maintenance, which is heavier than you might think at the state opening. This sense of ceremony, maintaining these traditions, the monarchy helps to preserve mittens unique character -- preserve written's unique character and ensures its past down to future generations. We absolutely believe in hereditary monarchy and I know the noble Baroness will say the same thing from the point of view of the Labour Party.

It's a powerful symbol of continuity and resilience on the global stage. I was amused when the noble Lord Lord Moore of Etchingham referred to the Maiden speech of His Majesty The King when he was then Prince of Wales. I cannot claim to have been here. There was a kerfuffle about it at the time, a great deal of excitement. It was over 50 years ago. He made a delightful Maiden speech and it was the bout recreation and the importance of sport.

I want to point out to noble Lords that he made Maiden speech that lasted 14 minutes. Whether that would go down well these days, I don't know. One of the things he referred to in of the things he referred to in making his Maiden speech was an occasion nearly 150 years earlier, I think it was in 1829, when three Royal Dukes, I think it was Clarence and Sussex and Cumberland, three Royal Dukes who were brothers. Brothers, my Lords.

His Majesty put it in his speech they got up one after the other and attacked each other so very mentally and you such bad language that the House was shocked into silence. You can never imagine such a thing happening these The response from the second Lord Shepherd, fondly remembered Labour peer who many of us will remember, as Leader of the House was equally delightful, he said I don't recall a speech such character and beautifully delivered. I suspect one will have weight very many years before hearing another of its kind.

Of course, we will never hear another of its kind. The noble Earl is perhaps right to say it is poignant we may never again hear such a speech but those days are gone. Yet when attacking hereditary principle, we are not attacking, I don't concede anyone is directly attacking the monarchy. We must never forget the young comparable role our monarchy fills for our nation and it is precisely because it is hereditary that it is able to perform the role that it does.

--

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Are comparable role. I'm very disappointment -- sorry

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm very disappointment -- sorry to disappoint the noble Lord... Can to disappoint the noble Lord... Can I thank the noble Earl for his amendment and also for his transparency in explaining that we transparency in explaining that we this is a probing amendment. I hope the noble Earl will not take it as a the noble Earl will not take it as a discourtesy if my response is free. Not because the constitutional points raised are not of importance. But because we say with respect, the position is quite straightforward.

In explaining why we do not accept the noble Earls amendment it is important with the respect to this articulate two principles. The first is that since 1999, we have recognised it is no longer appropriate in a modern democracy for direct participation in Parliament to be premised on a generational family entitlement. And this Bill seeks to complete that process in line with our manifesto commitment. And by doing so, will end an anomaly that is only replicated in one other country in the globe.

The second principle is that we are and we shall remain a constitutional monarchy. This is a constitutional monarchy, in contrast to hereditary Parliament, Parliament
18:34
Lord Hermer Portrait Lord Hermer, The Attorney-General (Labour)
-
-
is not a global anomaly that represents a system of governance represents a system of governance replicated in very many countries. Few, if any of whom, require Few, if any of whom, require participation of the children or grandchildren of the monarch in their parliamentary process. And so their parliamentary process. And so I respectfully disagree with the noble Lord more -- Lord Moore. There noble Lord more -- Lord Moore. There is any form of tension, constitutional or otherwise, in constitutional or otherwise, in considering it inappropriate for hereditary entitlement to apply to being able to vote on the laws of the land in Parliament on the one hand, whilst being fully supportive of the role of the Royal family in our constitutional framework on the other.

Our constitutional monarchy has time and time again proved to be the anchor of stability in this country. The Royal family are able to govern as our nation and provide the consistency required for our democratic values to be protected and that this nation to flourish.. The noble Earl asked without the hereditaries who is there in this House to stand up for the monarchy. A point echoed by the noble Lady, Lady Barran S. And my noble friend Lord Brennan answered that he is.

Well my Lords, so MRI and so I anticipate every one of your noble Lords who swore their oaths in this House. -- So am I. As my noble Lords will be aware, all hereditary Peers, including those in the Royal family, lost their automatic right to sit and vote in the House as a result of the 99 act. That did not and has not proved to undermine our model of proved to undermine our model of constitutional monarchy and nor does this Bill.

The purpose of this Bill, no more no less, is about delivering the principle settled by the 99 act and to remove the rights of all hereditary Peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords. There are no exclusions in this. As my noble friend Lord Grocott pointed out, it does not affect hereditary and lands which will continue to be passed down in the normal way. The reform does not relate to the sovereign or to the Royal family. And as I have said, there is a fundamental difference between the position of hereditary Peers in the legislature being able to vote on laws by virtue of their lease -- families and a constitutional monarch who worked as the head of the state, providing as

**** Possible New Speaker ****

His Majesty does, stability and continuity. Thank the noble Lord the Minister for giving way. The noble Lord for giving way. The noble Lord Grocott made the point that monarchy has certainly survived the departure has certainly survived the departure of 600+ hereditary Peers in 98, 99. But does the noble Lord the Minister But does the noble Lord the Minister accept that we are now breaking the link between hereditary Peers in Parliament in its entirety if we get rid of the hereditary Peers now?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes, I do. My point is it does not impact at all on the principle of our constitutional monarchy. It has no bearing on it whatever and it is for those reasons that I respectfully ask the noble Earl considers withdrawing his amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Before the noble and learned Lord sits down, my relics and of 1999 was that the Royal Princes specifically that the Royal Princes specifically indicated they would not wish to sit indicated they would not wish to sit in this House. -- My recollection of 1999. My further recollection is 1999. My further recollection is that in the changing... A very grand that in the changing... A very grand conference for the Prince of Wales and other royal princes which were

**** Possible New Speaker ****

then removed. Can I thank the noble Lord for the little bit of history, very grateful. grateful.
18:37
Earl of Devon Portrait The Earl of Devon (Crossbench)
-
-
You very much to the noble Lord the Minister for his words and for being so brave. I did not mean for this amendment to tribunal chips patients. -- Being so brief. I thank all who contributed to the debate, I think the amendment did deserve the stand-alone and I think the agreement to recompile our commitment to a hereditary monarchy is where the other stand-alone a debate. I did the group this from other amendments, I think they were grouped together because they are in my name, the other two amendments are to be succession of hereditary peerages, which we will come back to on day seven or eight of this committee stage.

Before I close I should admit there is some personal animus in noting the importance about hereditary peerage in support of our sovereign. As it was novel that the peerage was excluded from His Majesty's recent coronation. The writing may be was on the wall at that stage. Having attended almost every coronation since that of Henry II in the 12th century, it felt like the monarchy himself was severing the connection between the hereditary peerage and the coronation. And perhaps was losing touch with his core base.

I am heartened to hear from around the House the resounding support for our hereditary monarchy. Baroness Meyer in particular I think noted a strong connection between hereditary Peers and the monarchy. Lord Moore simile noted how globally people note the importance of our hereditary principle. Viscount Thurso, Lord Grocott and Lord Brennan, thank you very much for all reaffirming the principal I was hoping will be stated from the short debate. And Lord Newby, thank you very much for the history lesson.

You will perhaps recall that the end of that rather disastrous Stuart monarchy, we were able to welcome William of Orange in the glorious Revolution. Of course, he came to dinner with Sir William Courtney and... On his first night on the soil, hereditary Peers was somewhat responsible for that change in monarchy. With the resounding support for the hereditary principle as embodied within the hereditary as embodied within the hereditary peerage, the purpose of my probing amendment has been fulfilled. I don't think we have heard a single Republican voice from across the House.

I gave the Republicans an opportunity to speak but they have not. I therefore beg leave to withdraw my amendment. -- beg leave.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is at your Lordships pleasure that the amendment is withdrawn. The amendment is by Leaver John. Amendment four. -- By leave withdrawn.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

withdrawn. I beg to move amendment number four, a small, a short amendment four, a small, a short amendment come up with a very small impact on two Members of this House. It is two Members of this House. It is less a probing amendment and it is one I very much hope that the front entry will be able to accept. -- entry will be able to accept. -- Front bench. I think at the second reading and other point in the debate it has been mentioned, these Royal officeholders, and said there would be some kind of arrangement to allow them to come into Parliament.

I think they should be treated even more than that. They are obviously... Political members, they do not play a great part in political debate. Wouldn't it be right and proper to allow them to remain as full members of your Lordships' House to carry out their tasks? The Lord Great Chamberlain carries a responsibility for the Royal Parks of the Palace of Westminster, which is the other side of the Prince's Chamber, the Royal Gallery, the roaming rooms and so on, all in that direction.

-- Royal parts. Through Black Rod. And the Duke of Norfolk, as the Marshall, is of course responsible for all the great locations of state, some we have seen, sadly, and some with great celebration over the course of the last three years. Most importantly and mostly effectively in this House, the Earl Marshal, who is responsible for what is the State Opening of Parliament. And the noble Duke forms part of the procession and indeed signals to Black Rod to start a great walk between the House of Lords and the House of Commons.

So, my question, my amendment, simply allows them to continue as being members of the House of Lords. It is a really humble amendment. One or two peers have said to me do I know if the Lord and the Earl Marshal actually want to stay. Whether or not they want to stay is not strictly speaking relevant coal. They don't have to come much, apart from the few occasions they are required to come. And I really hope the noble Baroness or the noble and learned Lord, whoever is going to reply to this, will find favour in this principle.

And even if the amendment is incorrectly drafted, they might come forward with their own at the report stage. I beg to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

move. Clause 1, page 1, line 1, insert the words on the Marshalled List. the words on the Marshalled List.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the words on the Marshalled List. I have also put my name to this amendment. These two great offices of state have been in existence of state have been in existence since I believe 1386 in the case of the Earl Marshal and 1130 in the place of the Lord Great Chamberlain. place of the Lord Great Chamberlain. It is intended not only were they to perform their cultural duties at the state opening of Parliament and state opening of Parliament and other events relating to the sovereign, it was also intended they should be a vital link between the
18:44
Lord Northbrook Portrait Lord Northbrook (Conservative)
-
-
Crown and Parliament. To several this link is the sheer fear challenge to the monarch and deeply regrettable. -- Severe challenge. They should be allowed to remain as members of the House. I have it on members of the House. I have it on reasonable authority that originally the Cabinet Office informed and their positions were safe. Apparently two weeks later, a change Apparently two weeks later, a change of mind was made. I would like to highlight their contributions over the years since I have been in the the years since I have been in the House.

The former Duke of Norfolk and the current Lord Great and the current Lord Great Chamberlain. The Leader of the House, Baroness Smith of Basildon, has issued conflicting messages as to how they will continue to have access to the House of Lords. She concluded at second reading on the specific issues of access to the Almas or an Lord great Chamberlain I completely recognise the access, I written to the commission to ask that they keep the access passes and the usual challenges -- channels have agreed that.

Nothing impedes what they do or their roles in the House. However, in opening the same debate she stated I have already raised this with the Lord Speaker to ensure the necessary arrangements can be made. Quite apart from this clarity as to whether these two officeholders have to rely on the approval of the commission before the Lord Speaker's, what would happen if one of these refuse to give them access? I would therefore propose that if the government cannot agree to this amendment, there should be an alternative one on the face of the Bill to guarantee they have access to the chamber to perform the ceremonial duties.

perform the ceremonial duties.
18:45
18:46
18:46
18:47
Baroness Finn Portrait Baroness Finn (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, it is with reference for our traditions and institutions arise to support the amendment to arise to support the amendment to the name of my noble friend Lord Strathclyde and others and to defend the continued membership in this the continued membership in this House of the old Marshall and the Lord Great Chamberlain. This is not to defend two historic offices but to uphold the enduring wisdom of our constitutional framework, as my constitutional framework, as my noble friend has just pointed out.

The ancient offices of the Earl Marshal and the Lord Great Chamberlain are not relics of a bygone age. They are pillars of our constitutional order, deeply woven into the fabric of our United Kingdom. Their removal from this chamber would not be an act of modernisation but one of heedless vandalism. From the solemnity of a mono funeral to the grand jury of the coronation, the old Marshall is responsible for orchestrating the great state occasions that define our nation's story. The funeral of Her late Majesty The Queen was not only a moment of national mourning but a masterclass in dignity and order.

This was in no small part due to the office of the El Marshall and his own tireless efforts to ensure it was so. Indeed as my noble friend Lord Strathclyde has reminded us the Earl Marshal also sees the state opening of Parliament in this place. There has been an unbroken minds of Lord Great Chamberlain from 1138 to the present day. The office has changed over time but for hundreds of years they have attended this House with the right to sit and vote.

The Lord Chamberlain ensures this very palace functions with the decorum and tradition that befits the mother of Parliaments. Together, they are not many witnesses to history but actors within it. Together, ensure the solemnity and dignity of our state endure beyond the politics of the moment. Together, they have active responsibilities that demand knowledge, experience and deep engagement with the institutions of the state. They are as noble friend says, a vital link between them or and Parliament. To excel these offices from this chamber is to diminish the ability to discharge the duties, effectively.

And yet, this bill would remove them from this chamber as if there roles could be executed in absentia as if the knowledge and service could be distilled into a parliamentary pass and a seat in the public gallery. The noble Baroness The Lord Privy Seal has assured us this bill will not affect their ability to carry out their functions, stating there is no legal or procedural requirement for either officeholder to be a member of this House in order to be able to carry out their functions.

There is a profound difference between what is legally permissible and what is constitutionally sound. The statute may not require that presence here, president wisdom and good governance do. These offices are not purely symbolic, they require ongoing engagement with the legislative process to ensure the seamless operation of state functions. Without a seat in this House they will be unable to continue, contribute their unique expertise to debates on matters directly affecting their responsibilities, the Crown and Parliament, a point reinforced by noble friend Lord Houchen.

Would we insist that the Lord Chief Justice never enter a court from? The Archbishop of Canterbury conduct his duties from a debut, the Speaker of the Commons be heard in the corridors? Both holders of these offices have a range of functions. I will not detain the House by setting these out in full but I will set out just two examples to demonstrate why their presence in your Lordship's House is both useful and important. The Lord Great Chamberlain isn't trusted with custody of the Palace of Westminster -- is interested.

And he's one of the three keyholders, who decide who may address both Houses of Parliament in Westminster Hall. The others being the Speaker of the Commons and the Lord Speaker. These decisions have been high-profile with international significance in the past. Would it not be odd for decisions about this Parliament to be made by appear who is not a member of either House? Turning to the Earl Marshal, in addition to his duties at funerals and correlations, he oversees the College of arts, the college is the organisation responsible to heraldry, occasionally issues do come up in your Lordship's House, most recently during the committee stage of the Football Governance Bill during which my noble friend Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay expertly argued that the government had made an error in the drafting.

We know the noble Duke the Duke of Norfolk was following the debate closely as was the college itself. There is something to be said for retaining the person responsible for overseeing our heraldry in the House, so we can draw their knowledge and experience in the future. This artificial separation risks creating a situation where those responsible for key constitutional duties are sidelined from the very discussions that shape them, diminishing the effectiveness of both their roles and this chamber. The argument for reform is often cloaked in the language of modernisation.

But modernisation must not be pursued at the cost of effective governance. These Hereditary, officers play a crucial role in the functioning of our state, and their direct experience, knowledge and responsibilities make their presence in this House a matter of practical good sense. The Earl Marshal and Lord Great Chamberlain do not just inherit their positions, they assume great responsibilities that require them to be familiar with traditions and mechanisms of governance. The offices are defined by responsible to, not mere title, and that responsible of the shall not be saluted by Seaton's house.

Let us not acknowledge president the sets. Reform... What is dismissed as a minor adjustment today becomes the justification for wholesale structuring tomorrow. We must be wary of any postal that makes our institutions less effective, less informed and less rooted in the traditions that give them strength. Beyond our domestic affairs there is also Britain's international standing, our constitutional system is admired worldwide, precisely because it lets continuity with progress. Our state occasions, the coronation, the Royal weddings, funerals of heads of state, watched by billions across the globe.

They're not just moments of ceremony, they are demonstrations of national unit and the continuity of the state. The Marshall is responsible for ensuring these responsible for ensuring these moments are executed flawlessly. Reinforcing buttons 'soft power' and global influence. Denying him a seat in this House would not just be a symbolic loss, it would strip him of the access, authority and inside and enabled him to enable his role at the highest level, weakening the very institution he is tasked with upholding on the world stage.

-- World stage. The Lord Great Chamberlain and the El Marshall must retain their places in this House. Let us not mistake removal for reform and let us not diminish this House. Those who have served this nation is highest traditions shall not be dismissed but upheld, valued and entrusted to continue their vital work. For in preserving the place we preserve the dignity, continuity and wisdom that have long guided by this House and this nation.
18:54
Baroness Smith of Basildon Portrait Baroness Smith of Basildon, Leader of the House of Lords and Lord Privy Seal (Labour)
-
-
I'm grateful to the noble Lords for the amendments and for the comments that have been made. I can offer some insurance that is sought, certainly in response to the noble Lady Finn, we do respect the work they do and we have no wish to hamper that. A second reading I did address some of the concerns raised, I don't know if there is any contradiction, I did, I have spoken with the Lord Speaker as a courtesy to do so, given the role he plays.

And I have written to the commission as well, since spoken with them as well. Can I clarify that the bill will not affect the offices themselves and neither does it affect the ability of the holders to fulfil their important functions. I have gained the agreement of the commission and I have written to both, the noble Earl and the noble Lord to confirm that they will have access. I can assure the noble Lord, it will not be a case of seeking permission from the commission.

That permission has been granted, they will have full access to the Palace in order to carry out their functions. So there won't be an issue. I have written to them both

**** Possible New Speaker ****

today. Noble Lord sums in... I think they should have it by

**** Possible New Speaker ****

right, not by permission. If agreed by the House it will be a right they have to-do so. Can I say to, there has been some misunderstandings the only way they can fulfil their functions is by being a member of this House and being a member of this House and having the right to speak and vote in the chamber. That is not the in the chamber. That is not the case. If we go back in time, they have been... Neither officeholder have largely been a member of your Lordship's House, Peter Bell was the Lord Great Chamberlain from 1781 to 1820, but he wasn't APR until 1796.

But more recently William Legge was a Lord Great Chamberlain from 1928 until 1936. But only inherited his title at the end of his time, in 1936. And he performed the office of Lord Great Chamberlain from 1966 in his father's ill-health, and he succeeded his father's period. The current El Marshall took leave of absence from your Lordship's House from the 18 January 2021 for the remainder of that Parliamentary session and we know that was a very important parliamentary session in terms of the monarchy.

I am confident that both noble Lords will be treated with the respect they deserve and have earned, and they are the officeholders will be granted access to your Lordship's House and won't in anyway impinge on their responsibilities and duties. I respectfully ask noble Lords to withdraw the amendments. withdraw the amendments.
18:58
Lord Strathclyde Portrait Lord Strathclyde (Conservative)
-
-
I like to thank my noble friend Lady Finn, who I thought spoke with great authority and skill. And the more she spoke, the more convinced I was that I was right to have moved the amendment in the first place. And her knowledge of history in this matter is a country. I'm also grateful to the noble Lords who signed the amendment, Lord Houchen, noble friend Lord Northbrook, and for what they raise, and the question that mine noble friend Lord Howard of Rising race.

There does seem to be something little absurd that these great officers who have a role in parliament, will only come into the House when they go to the pass office and ask for their past which is no doubt countersigned.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

They're not going to have you got to the pass office and get a daily to the pass office and get a daily pass that they stick on them. They will have the access is required for the House. All members of house will the House. All members of house will want to show the respect but to argue they need to be new Lordship's House to take part in debates, to be here, and vote, that's the only loss here, and vote, that's the only loss they will be.

It will not be in the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

they will be. It will not be in the chamber to participate in the proceedings of the House. I'm reminded of the debate that took place many years ago on the future of the Lord Chancellor when he was removed from your Lordship's House. And it was the law of unintended and there was much work undertaken to try and keep all of that. And I predict the same will happen again. But I think the new Baroness Harris heard what we have had to say and no doubt she will consider with the clerk of the Parliaments exactly what he is to put in their in-place in order that these two great officeholders can continue to do the work that they

**** Possible New Speaker ****

are required to do in parliament, and on that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Is it your lordships' pleasure

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is it your lordships' pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn? The amendment is by leave withdrawn. amendment is by leave withdrawn. Amendment five, clause 1, page 1,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

line 1. I beg to move the amendment in my

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to move the amendment in my
19:00
Lord Soames of Fletching Portrait Lord Soames of Fletching (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to move the amendment in my May I say first ball, without sounding too much like Lord Cotter, sounding too much like Lord Cotter, what a great privilege it is to take part in this debate and having listened to two in particular magnificent speeches from my noble friend Lord True and from Lord Forsyth. -- First of all. These matters are not events and things just to be trifled with. They do matter. As my noble friend Lord Strathclyde said, English legislation in particular is bedevilled with the loss of unintended consequences.

So these things do matter. I don't want to detain the House unduly and there will be, I have no doubt, that there will be... Noble Lords who wish to say a few words. But this is really, what I wanted to put down was just to urge the House to recognise the extraordinary service that has been given, and I absolutely accept the Leader of the House said about not differentiating between life peers and hereditary Peers, both of them make a very important contribution to the House.

But if you look at the Frontbench, the opposition front bench today, of the 33 his currently serving on the opposition frontbench, nine or 27 % are hereditary Peers. -- Peers. Of the 24 Deputy Speakers currently serving, Viscount Stansgate, Lord Ashton of Hyde, Viscount Colville, Lord Russell and Geddis, there are many more who have served as Deputy Speakers in the past. And I would suggest that that more than... It is a very staunch reminder of what a very significant contribution to hereditary Peers make to this House.

There has been a lot of talk about hereditaries and life Peers, I am not quite sure how I got here, what list I was on, Prime Minister, because I was fired by the Prime Minister who I thought had promoted me to this House. But whatever it was, I am very fortunately made my way, I was lucky to be here, but I way, I was lucky to be here, but I do recognise the extraordinary role hereditaries play considering their numbers.

This is a bill, if I may say so, I don't wish to sound controversial, but I do think this is a constitutional bill, obviously of the first importance, but it is also a mean bill. And I think that meanness can be are levelled by my amendment. Which will particularly cover the question Lord Forsyth made and Lord True made about honour and justice. I believe, as someone said at the beginning of this, Lord Forsyth said, the world is falling about our ears and here we are, debating reform of the House of debating reform of the House of Lords.

With a sense of certainty and tradition is now, in my view, more important than ever. And that is represented in this House in a very meaningful and formidable way by the Lords, the hereditary Peers. I beg to move.
19:04
Lord Blencathra Portrait Lord Blencathra (Conservative)
-
-
Amendment proposed, clause 1, page 1, line 1, at the end insert the words as printed on the Marshalled List.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to support my noble friend and I agree with everything he said, particularly his praise for the two excellent speeches we had at the beginning. We are removing the 88 hereditaries but the Government in hereditaries but the Government in the first 240 their date of its existence the Prime Minister has created 45 life peers and that creates a record and in this Bill, we are removing some of the hardest we are removing some of the hardest working Members of the House.

Because hereditaries have a better attendance record then we life piers, hereditaries have a better turnout record Activision's and we turnout record Activision's and we life Peers and dissipate fully in all aspects of the work of the House. -- Participate fully. I think it is time, if the House will permit me, just to briefly name names. Who would we be checking out? According to my noble friends amendment and I'm grateful to the library for producing this for me at short notice, we will be chucking out my noble friend Lord Ashton of Hyde.

My noble friend Lord Bethell, my noble friend the Viscount Camrose who is a minister as well, my noble friend Viscount Colville of Culross, Dipti Speaker, my noble friend Lord de Mauley, committee chair and a former minister, my noble friend Khartoum, the deputy chief whip since 2016, the noble Lord the Earl of Kinnoull, Deputy Speaker and convener of the Crossbench Peers and a committee chair. My noble friend Earl of Minto, former minister, my noble friend law Guinness, a Dipti Speaker, my noble friend...

The current whip. Mike Deputy Speaker. A former Chief Whip and a former minister. And my noble friend Earl Howe, currently a deputy leader. And he is being almost continuously a minister on the Frontbench since 1991. I don't know if Noble peers remember the great Raymond Baxter, who used to be the best ever commentator at the Royal British Legion Festival of remembrance. And I can imagine him saying, as he will talk about the Chelsea pensioners and introduce the Chelsea pensioner and if the Earl Howe was there he would say, "And now we have a grade Earl Howe, known to his mate by Freddie and 34 years with the...

$$join " That is what the great Earl Howe has done. And my noble friend Lord Inglewood, committee chair and former minister. And of course, my noble friend the Earl Peel, Lord Chamberlain of the House for almost 20 years and a superb Lord Chamberlain he was. My noble friend Lord Roborough, the shadow minister, the Lord Bassam of Liverpool, Deputy Speaker and of course the Viscount Stansgate, Deputy Speaker who graced us with his presence for the last hour. A course my noble friend Lord Trefgarne, committee chair and former minister.

And my noble friend Lord Morrow, committee chair and the former finance committee chair, did a superb job there. My noble friend Viscount Younger of Leckie, a minister and almost continuous ministerial office since 2013. And of course, my noble friend Earl of Effingham... And last but not least, my noble friend Lord Strathclyde, Water Minister and Leader of the House. And as minister he was absolutely superb, junior environment minister under my command, I would like to say I taught him all he knows but...

That would not be the case. Those are the colleagues, those are the peers, the hereditaries who would be slung out by the Government in the amendment of my noble friend... Very briefly, that is not the full story. I don't think the amendment goes far enough because there are many other hereditaries who do a superb job sharing other committees of this House and doing other work you are not included in my noble friends amendment. The House will permit the to run through the briefly I will not use time as my noble friend or noble Lord I will simply release the names the library have kindly supplied in a superb Excel spreadsheet.

Those peers are the Lord Aberdare, the Lord Altrincham, the Earl of Arran, the Lord Murray, Viscount Bridgeman, della Kincardie, Lord Colgrain, the Earl of Cork and IRA, nor Krath, Lord Cromwell and Lord Cromwell I know was in Georgia heading up the OSC delegation, observe the elections, I was with the Council of Europe delegation and he did a superb job there and of course Earl of Devon, also chairing committees. In the main, these are colleagues who have chaired or have certain committees or are currently serving on them.

My noble friend Earl of Dundee, who said many years on the Council of Europe as well and did a superb job. Viscount Eccles,... Lord glenarthur, Lord Grantchester, Lord Hacking, Lord Hampton, the Viscount Hanworth... Hampton, the Viscount Hanworth... Halfway through, my Lords. But I think it is worth knowing the names of all those hereditaries who have been working their socks off in this place for years and will be thrown out. Earl of Leicester, the Earl of Lindsay, and of long despair, Lord Lucas, Earl of Lytton, Lord Bangor,...

Duke of montrose,... Lord moynihan, I see in his face to be and who has already been rightly praised. And, Lord Reid, the Earl Russell, Lord Sanders, L Steer, Lord Morrow, the Viscount Thurso himself who has already spoken and I think welcome his own demise. Lord Trefgarne, also a former minister, Viscount Trenchard, Lord Oates Lee, Lord Trebek and Oaksey, Lord Vaux of Harrowden and finally, the Duke of Wellington. I make no apologies for reading out those names, I have not taken very long to do so, less than six minutes but I think if the House is going to go ahead with rejecting hereditaries we simply need to know all of those colleagues and the work they have been doing in this House and that is the expertise we will lose.

We will not only lose their expertise we are doing them a disservice, rejecting all the work they have done over the last years by saying just an hereditary you can now be slung out and I think that is an insult to the hard work they have been doing.
19:10
19:11
Baroness Finn Portrait Baroness Finn (Conservative)
-
-
Walter Bagehot once observed that the British constitution derives its strength not from rigid design but from its adaptability. Its value lies in its ability to preserve what is valuable while reforming what is necessary. It is in that spirit and not in defiance of reform that in defensive wisdom that I rise to support the amendment five in this room in the name of my noble friend, Lord Soames. We are debating the fate of those who have committed themselves to the service of this House, as my noble friend Lord Blencathra has just pointed out so brilliantly, and who have earned their place not by entitlement but by endeavour.

The amendment before us does not seek to entrain privilege, it seeks to preserve expertise. It does not defend hereditary peerages as principle, it defends the experience of those who, having risen above the circumstances of their birth, had dedicated their careers to the betterment of our legislative process. Some would have us believe the mere fact of hereditary Peer holding office is an anachronism. But I ask what is more outdated, a chamber that recognises merit in all its forms or one that would dismiss its most dedicated servants on the basis of an ideological formula? The numbers tell their own story, despite composing only 12 % of this House in the last Parliament, hereditary Peers held 20 % of government roles and 26 % of Deputy Speaker ships.

This is not a symbol of idleness, it is a testament to diligence. To those who believe that experience and institutional memory can SIPRI be swept away and replaced that will I would say look at history. When institutions strip themselves of wisdom, when they discard those help master their craft, they do not modernise, they wither. There is a reason we do not end the judiciary of its most seasoned jurors nor the military of its most pattern hearted commanders, -- battle hardened commanders, why should we purge this House of those who approve the wedding government and scrutiny and debate? We do not strengthen Parliament by weakening its collective intelligence.

Those who propose the indiscriminate removal of hereditary Peers do so in the name of reform that reform must be guided by the principle that what work should be proposed and what else should be improved. The amendment before us today embodies that principle. It does not seek to halt the tide of change but to channel it wisely. It recognises that Ministers, Deputy Speakers, convenience and committee chairs are not relics of the past but pillars of the present. To discard those who have upheld the dignity and function of your Lordships' House is not...

It is amputation. Let us keep the best of what we have rather than discard it blindly. Let us not mistake destruction for progress. This amendment supports the very principles that had kept this House a vital force in British public life.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

At risk of repeating what I said at second reading, I have always been totally confused as to why for some reason we who are appointed some reason we who are appointed peers are somehow superior to peers are somehow superior to hereditary Peers who let's face it, they may as the Lord Grocott has never failed to point out, be never failed to point out, be elected by a very small electric if they happened to be Labour peers or Liberal Democrat peers, but they are Liberal Democrat peers, but they are at least elected.

That is not something any of us who are appointed can actually say about ourselves at all. We are put here
19:15
Lord Hamilton of Epsom Portrait Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Conservative)
-
-
ourselves at all. We are put here because the leader of our party or because the Prime Minister of the day put our names forward. Does that make us superior to hereditary Peers? Who have, let's face it, been elected by their own number, they have been chosen to be the best people that they can choose at the time. And that must give them an edge, I would have thought, over us who are appointed to this House. Because at least they have gone through the process of election.

As has been said by my noble friend, these people have on the whole dedicated themselves more to our house and the collection of appointed peers like me have done. So I would have thought it is extraordinary we have to pick on these people in this extraordinary way. I would just go back to the point I was making about the link now been broken, if this Bill passes and we get rid of all hereditary Peers, there will be no link between the hereditary principle.

This was the critical thing about the monarchy. The monarchy is hereditary and having hereditary Peers in your Lordships' House certainly gives a link between the hereditary principle and the monarchy. And I think this is something we should certainly value. I think it is extraordinary we have picked out this group of people who in my view have more legitimacy in your Lordships' House than appointed peers and decided to get rid of them, although it is quite clear that they have given much more their time and effort and skills to the effectiveness of your Lordships' House than the great majority of us who have been appointed to it has
19:17
19:18
Lord Newby Portrait Lord Newby (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
I think this amendment shows the problem with discussing earlier, because we have been discussing along with this amendment, amendment nine, in the name of the noble Lord and they both deal with the question about the future of those military's who play a major part in your Lordship's House. In respect of Lord Hamilton, and what he finds is extraordinary, I think the vast majority of the country would find it extraordinary if they realised it at 10% of the legislature derives from fewer than 800 families in the country.

I think most people don't really realise that. If they did, they would be very surprised and most of them frankly would be appalled. If you look at the trees, as a group, -- the hereditaries, which I did one wet afternoon, I divided them into not sheep and goats but into three, and those who were active, those of them who were partially active, those of them who were inactive. And for Lord Blencathra's list of those who were very active, I could but won't read out the House a list of equal length if not longer of hereditaries who are virtually totally inactive.

This isn't a criticism of them more than it is of any other group, but some are very respected but others frankly are not and therefore if we are looking to what happened next and whether we should seek to retain some of the expertise the hereditaries have surely the way to do it is not as proposed by the noble Lord Lord Soames, nor by the noble Lord Lord True, but to encourage the parties to appoint those hereditaries who are very active and imminent in the groups to life peerages as those numbers come up.

I hope very much we will do so in respect of the Liberal Democrats. We have fewer hereditaries than some of the other groups. But that seems to me to be the logical way of doing it. It's what we did to certain extent in our party, after the vast bulk of hereditaries left in 1999. And I think that that is the president that we should be seeking to follow now rather than to have a broader either category of extensions as the noble Lord suggests or a complete continuation of Grocott lines which the noble Lord Lord True is about to suggest.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Could I correct him on one fact, quite inadvertently, according to quite inadvertently, according to the library list leaving aside the the library list leaving aside the error, the library list shows that there are fewer than 20 hereditaries who are not participating in the who are not participating in the work of the House or are doing nothing, as he said. The vast majority have served the House and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

are working the House of committees or helping ministries. If I could reply to that. If the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

If I could reply to that. If the noble Lord looks down the list, they may be some people who come twice a year, and vote three times a year but I did not include those in people who I consider to be active. Happy to go down the list with him. I didn't do it with an intention to prove anything. I want to satisfy myself as the true position.
19:22
19:22
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar Portrait Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Conservative)
-
-
on this one and I speak to amendment five, in the name of my noble friend Lord Soames of Fletching, from these benches, and in speaking to this amendment I want to take the opportunity to recognise the significant and invaluable contribution that Hereditary Peers have made to your Lordship's House, and with respect to Lord Newby this amendment is a different point conceptually. From amendment nine. In the name of my noble friend Lord True which is essentially if I can put it without disrespect, the Grocott approach.

As my noble friend Lord True said earlier this evening, if we are to exclude anyone from this House, it should be those who don't contribute rather than those who have contributed and do contribute. And I say that I can introduce a personal perspective, as someone who makes every effort to play a proper part in the business of your Lordship's House, while at the same time, maintaining a full practice at the bar. And that sometimes means I miss the old vote.

May I record in Hansard for posterity my entirely sycophantic and appallingly oleaginous thanks to my whip for his constant understanding. But mostly, that cuts into my downtime. I don't really have any downtime because of my work at the bar and my obligations here. That means that if I can use this rather demotic phrase, it does hack me off when some people don't contribute at all. I therefore share the concern of my noble friend Lord Soames that we are moving people therefore who actually contribute while leaving people who play very little, if any, part in the House.

The key to a sensible approach, I would suggest, while recognising that the hereditary principle has come to an end, like noble Lord Lord Brennan, I also enjoyed tomorrow's world in its day, what was innovative then is commonplace now. But what we should do is to retain those who have demonstrated over many years their commitment to public service and duty to the House and I therefore respect fully agree, she's no longer in her place, but without the noble and learned Lady Baroness Butler-Sloss said in an earlier group, when she invited expressed in the government to look, just look, I think was her phrase, at those whom the government are moving.

And she said that the approach in this bill which removes the fully involved and that truly indolent alike, was " profoundly wrong. ". And she's right about that. Turning to the text of this amendment, there are many ways the noble Lord scan contribute to the business of this House but those who currently or have previously served as ministers and whips, deputy speakers, chairs and committees, convener of the crossbench peer's have made a determined and determinable contribution. And their institutional knowledge and dedication to public service has made them indispensable, I would suggest, to the functioning of this House and thus to the functioning of Parliament.

Those positions which they have undertaken in this House have been earned through merit and service. And to remove these noble Lords would be to discard a wealth of experience that simply cannot be replaced. I therefore agree with the points made by noble friend Baroness Finn in that regard. We have had some stats thrown at a. Let me try and identify what the position actually is. During the 2019 /2024 Parliament, hundred 68 members had professional roles. This includes government and opposition ministerial posts as well as parliamentary positions such as the Lord Speaker and deputy speakers.

143 of these roles were filled with Life Peers, 23 with Hereditary Peers and two with bishops. About 18% of Life Peers served in an official role, compared to 26% of hereditary peers. And despite making up only 12% of the total membership of the House, in the last session, Hereditary Peers made up 20% of government posts, 26% of deputy speakers. I noble friend Lord Hamilton of Epsom made the point, and he's right, that Hereditary Peers is a group of contributed very significantly.

-- Have contributed. I'm not going to read my own Excel spreadsheet out but do we really want, I ask rhetorically, to lose people such as the Earl of Courtown, the Earl Howe, who as your Lordship's House, has provided simply incredible service to this House. Lord Strathclyde who serves as a chair of our Constitution Committee, was a former leader of the house, a former Chief Whip, served as a minister of the four departments, Lord Ashton of Hyde, serving deputy speaker, Deputy Chairmen of Committees, and reads for several pages.

I'm not sufficiently brave to stand for much longer between your Lordships and your Lordships dinners. So I will not refer to every hereditary Peer. But I do trust that noble Lords recognise the expertise, experience and dedication that those individuals are brought to our Parliamentary system. And one final point, some years ago, the House removed, I think the noble Lord Lord Grocott gave us the correct figure and I may be missed remembering, 667? I was listening. I always do to the noble Lord, indeed to all noble Lords, especially the noble Lord Lord Grocott.

606 to 7 peers. It might be said, does removing the final 88, 87, make any difference? Of course the difference goes to the heart of this amendment. Because those who remained some years ago were chosen wholly or in the vast majority because they were contributing. That's why those were the ones who remained. That's what this amendment seeks to do. They were actually elected. They weren't chosen.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I was using the word chosen as a shortfall for elected. But when the elections took place, my elections took place, my understanding is that the electorate was keen to ensure that experience was keen to ensure that experience was not lost. And this is exactly the point of this amendment, to retain those who have contributed, retain those who have contributed, are contributing, and will undoubtedly contribute more in the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

future. My Lords, I'm grateful for this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I'm grateful for this debate. And I'm grateful for the noble Lord of raising these issues. One of the things that concerns me is that I don't think anyone in this chamber would deny the valuable work of individual contributions. Particularly of Hereditary Peers. I think the problem with the debate is that it is selecting people for congratulations for their hard work. And I think it diminishes perhaps the work of some of the others.

The noble Lord on the front bench talked about the period from 2019 to 2024 where of all the officeholders that where of all the officeholders that the noble Lord Lord Soames books about, 143 were Life Peers and 23 were hereditaries. So actually a huge amount of the work that kept this House going was undertaken by I think it is important to understand that those people that came into this House from other occupations, we have had nurses coming today, doctors, solicitors, trade unionists, a whole range of people have come in as life Peers with huge life experience.

I am not denying the experience of hereditary Peers and the offices they have held. In fact, many noble Lords I have sat on committees with them. But they have not always... Those offices have not always been held I hereditary is. And I must admit, even the list the noble Lord points out to, it could be that if someone served on the Frontbench of the Labour opposition for 12 years, their experience would not be considered appropriate for be maintained if they were hereditary.

So I think there is something sort of partisan about how these have been selected. The simple fact is though, no one can deny, and we have gone from a debate about the principle of hereditaries to a debate about specific contributions of lords, no one can deny that the Government has a clear mandate to deliver this Bill through its manifesto commitment. To remove the right of hereditary Peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords. And that means all hereditary Peers.

That is what the manifesto commitment did. So, to concede this amendment would be in breach of that manifesto commitment. And would certainly retain dozens of peers who would severely undermine the intention of the Bill. The work of the Lords won't be diminished by...

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Most grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Manifesto commitment as he is just quoted is to move the right of the hereditary peers to sit right of the hereditary peers to sit and vote in this House. -- Remove the right. That right was removed in 1999. But what we are discussing 1999. But what we are discussing this evening is removing not the right but removing hereditary Peers right but removing hereditary Peers from this House. And the noble Lord has quite rightly said there is not has quite rightly said there is not a lot of difference in working between one hereditary Peer and another or one hereditary Peer and a life Peer but there is one crucial difference.

Life Peers can't just be thrown out. We are just about to be thrown out.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Of course the principal was established in 1990 and now that we are dealing with is that remaining are dealing with is that remaining temporary arrangement that seems to have gone on for 25 years or longer. -- Established in 1999. That is the -- Established in 1999. That is the reality and no one can deny that remaining element, that sort of temporary arrangement, is specifically addressed in the Labour manifesto for the last general manifesto for the last general election.

It specifically addressed it in the way that this Bill seeks to implement it. So there can be no doubt about that.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm sorry to intervene on the noble Lord he is making much about the manifesto but the manifesto also says that Peers who reached the age says that Peers who reached the age of over 80 by the end of this Parliament should also be sidelined. Does the noble Lord think that is really going to happen?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

really going to happen? Well, as the noble Lady the Leader of the House has reminded me, Leader of the House has reminded me, she will be consulting on that and looking at ways that that will be implemented. Well, she is already doing so, as she replied to me. I think the fact of the matter is that we have a clear commitment, the Government has a right to determine when and how it implements its commitments. And the noble Lord knows that.

I have heard speeches from him telling me that we should not be pushing amendments because there is a democratic house that has laid down this and the manifesto, so, he has made these points to me in the past over the last 12 years. So it does not really wash with me. I think the simple fact is that we established that there hereditary Peers simple in 99 -- hereditary Peers of 99 would no longer align,... We have now addressed that in our manifesto.

There have been and there were solutions, as the noble Lord has made, in terms of in 99. And I would say to the noble Earl his contribution is well known. Leaders know it, certainly I would assume the leader of his party knows the contribution he has made both outside Parliament and inside Parliament. Why would he not be considered worthy for a life peerage? I do not see why not. And I think it is really important that we can establish a principle...



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm grateful for the kind things the noble Lord said to me but the fact of the matter is I don't know fact of the matter is I don't know any of the leaders of my passing. I don't know David Cameron, I don't don't know David Cameron, I don't know any of his successors. I simply would not be able to get a life would not be able to get a life peerage, they don't know me, I'm not known... None of the special known...

None of the special

**** Possible New Speaker ****

advisers know me, I am nowhere. I don't accept that for one moment. You are well-known, your contributions are well-known and I think your contributions are valued, don't undersell yourself. I think the important thing is though that there is an opportunity, there was an opportunity in 99, when people let this House because of being hereditary Peers, for some to be made life Peers. And I think that certainly is the case in relation to this last act which is contained in our manifesto, to ensure that the temporary arrangements agreed 25 years ago no longer continue.

I don't think people would understand this amendment reaching -- breaching that commitment in the outside

**** Possible New Speaker ****

world. But I do think it is wrong... The noble Lord keeps mentioning

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The noble Lord keeps mentioning the manifesto. Would he agree, if I had a pound for every promise that had a pound for every promise that has been in a manifesto from the Labour Party and the Conservative party, I would be a millionaire?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

party, I would be a millionaire? I thought he was. Well, the one

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thought he was. Well, the one thing I would say to the noble Lord, he must be at least happy that there is one manifesto commitment that is being kept and it is this one. So we will deliver on that. I want to
19:39
19:39
Lord Soames of Fletching Portrait Lord Soames of Fletching (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

deliver on. My Lords, may I thank my noble friend, Lord Wilson, and the noble Lord Collins for their contributions this evening. May I particular express my thanks to another wonderful speech from my noble friend Lady Finn, to my mind, absolutely nailed it. Can I thank Lord Blencathra in particular for his encyclopedic knowledge of the committees and the very important points that he made. I would also like to, and delighted to support... To be party to the support for Lord Astor's job application and will do what I can to help and Lord Attlee I would say make yourself known to Lord Hamilton, who acts as a marriage agency in these matters, and would be delighted to introduce you to all the former leaders of my party, it may take some time.

My Lords, I think it has been... It is an important matter. And there is no point in pretending that manifesto or no manifesto we are cutting out great reservoir of expertise, knowledge, steadiness, experience and guardians of the traditions and principles of this House. And there principles of this House. And there is a good way to make that... There is no question about that argument, the argument is dead and buried, it is gone, it is going to happen. But there is a way to make it happen in a less aggressive and disagreeable manner.

I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is at your Lordships leisure that the amendment be withdrawn.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the amendment be withdrawn. Amendment is finally withdrawn. -- Lordships pleasure. Data me the House will be resumed, will then move to consider the statement, we will not return to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the Bill before 8:20 PM. The question is the House be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is the House be resumed until at least 8:20 PM. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not "Content". Of the contrary, "Not I I will I will allow I will allow a I will allow a pause I will allow a pause for I will allow a pause for one I will allow a pause for one minute just so people can move around in My My Lords, My Lords, will My Lords, will now My Lords, will now move My Lords, will now move to My Lords, will now move to next business.

Question on a statement made in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 25th February, warm home discount.
19:42
Lord Offord of Garvel Portrait Lord Offord of Garvel (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, the government have announced an expansion of the warm home discount, a change that will see more low income households receive a £150 payment to help them heat their homes. However, this payment is likely to be inconsequential for many households when compared to the increased in the energy price. The change to the warm home discount is only a temporary fix, ultimately, energy bills for both the British consumer and British businesses are far too high, something which I'm sure noble Lords benches will agree upon.

The Government must look to prioritise cheap energy if it is to protect the most vulnerable households. But instead they have chosen an approach driven by ideology and it will be the British people who pay the price. The rush to ramp up renewables to meet their own clean power unilateral target appeal my Clean Power 2030 will push prices up and increase energy bills further and the network costs of people's bills will be increased as the Government races to build twice as much grid in the next five years as has been built in the last decade.

Additionally, environmental levies will increase from 12 billion to 14 billion by 2030, driven considerably by the hidden costs of renewables. This too will end up on consumers energy bills and a close look at the energy consumer bills demonstrate the half of that... Half of the bills are now accounted for by subsidies and network charges. Despite the promise to cut bills by Despite the promise to cut bills by £300, again during the general election pledge, it is plainly clear that the government had chosen to put a political dividing line before any approach that would reduce the cost of energy.

It is their decision to shut down the North Sea. This is an industry which generates billions in tax revenue and supports 200,000 British workers and produces homegrown energy. But instead the government have opted for a tunnel vision approach on renewables, which relies on coal power technology imported from China. This is not going to decrease energy bills by £300 as promised and I remind the House that the Prime Minister said at that I stand by everything in our manifesto and one of the things I made clear in the election campaign is I would not make a single promise or commitment I did not think we could deliver in government.

So to conclude, I wish to ask the noble Lord the Minister to confirm how much energy bills will rise by before households do see this £300 as promised? And will the noble Lord the Minister confirm whether the government intends to produce a full system cost analysis of the impact of this clean power target of 2013 and what impact that will have on consumer energy bills? And finally the noble Lord the Minister townhouse how much the Government expects levies to increase over the next five years? -- Tell the House.
19:45
Earl Russell Portrait Earl Russell (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
I write welcome the statement, particularly the clear commitment to provide a one of payment the next winter. These payments will help we continued rising energy costs as energy price cap has risen again by 6.4 %. Until we break our dependence on gas for 30 to 40 % of our electricity generation and 80 % of our home heating, will remain at the mercy of the volatile international markets. Households are set to pay over £800 more per year for the energy compared to the winter of 2020 / 21.

77 % increase. The UK has spent 140 billion in the international gas market since the war in Ukraine started for no long- term energy security or reduction in the energy bills been paid. That is 10 times the total GB Energy budget 10 times the total GB Energy budget today. We have 6 million households living in fuel poverty today and most of them. Time. We have some of the worst insulative homes in Europe and some of the highest energy bills. Hi energy bills our continued legacy issue and are in part a direct result of the last government failure to do more to transition to renewable energy earlier.

Progress is being made on the transition and we welcome this. The Climate Change Committee is absolutely clear and unequivocal. Politicians who oppose action on net zero will make their constituents poorer by driving up We asked the Minister to go further and introduce much-needed help now to provide help he needed now and not make people wait until next winter. We call on the government to scrap this energy price hike for the nearly 10 million pensioners who lost their Winter Fuel Payment and to provide more help to other vulnerable groups, particularly those with disabilities.

The estimated cost is about 130 million. We also call on the government to ensure all energy companies sign up to a single social tariff to provide long term stable mechanism for helping to reduce fuel poverty. We need to do more to smooth the energy price cost as we drive over the energy transition speed bump in the road ahead. We have called for an emergency home insulation programme. Domestic home heating is still 77% gas powered. We need a huge and urgent increase in the number of heat pumps installed.

Finally, I want to ask about the long-term reforms and for some clarity on the direction of travel on measures to reduce our energy bills, particularly about electricity market reform. It feels like an idea whose time has come. Does the Minister agree? And when can we expect progress? Our electricity prices are linked to the global fossil fuels market. Natural gas prices thus set the UK market electricity price. Will this government be looking at the option for decoupling market structure so we have one rate for gas and one for an activity? Is it not time to stop the artificial inflation of the price of a home generated renewed electricity so that the savings can be passed on to our bill players.

Will the government be publishing reports on these matters and will the government also look at reform to the Contracts for Difference? I'm disappointed we don't have consensus on climate change and my hope is that we could have consensus on electricity market reform as a measure to help save bill payers money. money.
19:49
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Portrait Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, Minister of State (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero) (Labour)
-
-
Could I thank both noble Lords for their comments on the statement in relation to the Warm Home Discount and of course it is right that this comes as there is an increase in the energy price cap. And of course in a sense, we repeat the debates that we have had over the last few months. And the fact is that as far as the government is concerned, noble Lord Lord Offord talked about as having an ideology but it's not an ideology.

It's about the start facts of climate change. The impact going to have on us. The lessons we learned from the incursion of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. The impact that had on our energy security. And we believe that the way to proceed is to move to home-grown clean power energy as soon as we possibly can. And it is interesting for me to see the change in stance of the opposition because it was, after all, the noble Lord's party who took legislation through, enshrining net zero by 2050, and a look at the work of Lord Deben as chair of the Climate Change Committee for 10-year plan, with great distinction, or the work that the government did in relation to the COP26 in Glasgow.

Or indeed the growth of the green economy which occurred in the last few years. And I think it is a pity that we seem to have lost this consensus. As far as the issue about, noble Lord will know that governments never speculate on future prices for energy. But on the £300, we have said that we are determined to cut bills as far and as fast as we can, at the meeting of up to £100 by 2030 remains our objective. In terms of levies, I think the point of levies is that of course, policy cost on bills are expected to increase over time, and clearly the last government used levies extensively.

But as the carbon capacity expands, renewables, CCUS, Eugene Heiden, those costs will drive reductions in a trusty wholesale prices. It is worth reflecting on the advice that we have just received the Committee on Climate Change in relation to carbon budget seven. Although there are some initial clear upfront investment costs, in time, the benefits of having cheap renewable energy will come to the four in terms of costs that have to be borne, and by businesses. The noble Earl Lord Russell, I obviously very much agree with him in relation to the policies that we take forward in relation to net zero.

He is absolutely right, in relation to the challenge we face in our housing stock, and the requirements to do everything we can to help transform that stock. He will know that we have the Warm Homes Plan. We have already kickstarted delivery of this plan and initial 3.4 billion over the next three years towards heat decarbonisation and household energy efficiency. We published a consultation in February 2025 this year on improving the energy performance of privately homes and we have announced a raft of policy support heat pump uptake.

My Lords, there is a long way to go and it represents a major challenge. On the question of a social tariff, we did, we are working closely with other government departments to unlock data that will enable us to target support more effectively to those who need help with their energy bills. And the Minister for consumer, my honourable friends, is leading the working group with Energy UK and other stakeholders to see how we can take further sustained action on improving affordability and accessibility on energy.

In terms of energy market reform, his point is well taken. First of all, we are actually launching a comprehensive review of the energy regulator, off gem, we want to establish off gem as a strong consumer champion driving up standards for households and business consumers, both new and as energy use involved in smart and clean technology. I should say that should not be taken as criticism of off gem. More that we see future potential to develop off gem's role.

On reform of that market more generally, we are considering two key reform options to enhance the efficiency of the lectures to market by strengthening location on price signals to better map supply and demand. Either reform national price model also will pricing, this work is being undertaken. I take his point about the relationship between electricity and and of course we are looking at that issue. But in the long run, in terms of the overall position of price to business, price to consumers, we must charge on with our aim to get clean power as quickly as we possibly can.

That is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

way to get long-term stability. Can I welcome the Minister's

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can I welcome the Minister's statement to vote, the measures the government is taking to help our depressed families keep warm and to alleviate fuel poverty. Just two points, on the HST market reform, I
19:56
Baroness Young of Old Scone Portrait Baroness Young of Old Scone (Labour)
-
-
points, on the HST market reform, I would press the point made by the noble Lord ill Russell. Government has been talking about the Christian market for over two years and I think the link with the gas market has become so dysfunctional that I must press the Minister for some urgency. But perhaps also to raise the question that is not covered by the statement but is a vital part of that, assuring that people don't remain in fuel poverty, and that the question of newbuild homes.

They're going to build a number of newbuild homes and the future homes standard 2025 is about to be introduced on a serial basis. But it does rather miss the opportunity of going further, which is that all new homes should not just have the pumps and improved ventilation and insulation, but also come fully equipped with solar panels, a battery will, and electric vehicle charger. Because putting those in at the beginning may be a small increase in house price, trying to retrofit them immediately afterwards is a big sum for many households stop so can the Minister give us some assurances, pressing on electricity for and during home standards.

And, advise the Minister not to be upset when the housebuilders making Sundance about it because they made a huge Sundance in the middle of the last decade about energy-efficient and zero carbon homes a huge song and dance. The government seemed to be about to ignore that and the housebuilders were getting ready for zero carbon homes. And at the last minute George Osborne pulled the rug out from underneath it. I think this government can perhaps do rather better on facing up to the reality of needing these homes built to the highest possible standards.

highest possible standards.
19:58
19:59
None Portrait House Adjourned Until 20:20
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

House House heard House heard she House heard she is House heard she is Bill.
20:21
20:21
Lord Lucas Portrait Lord Lucas (Conservative)
-
-
"Not content". The contents have it. Clause 1, amendment six, Lord Lucas.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to move amendment six, to speak at the same time to my speak at the same time to my amendment seven. My objective in this amendment and indeed for all mothers is to improve the bill and mothers is to improve the bill and not upset it. I am not intending to immerse myself in the argument as to immerse myself in the argument as to whether we should be Grocott or garrotte. This amendment is written as if it was Grocott but it works just as well if we follow the government's intentions and we all leave at once.

What I'm interested in in this amendment is the opportunity that this bill presents to improve the House going forward without Hereditary Peers. The history of Lords reform shows that this opportunity will not be back in any short order. In the time that I have been in this House, there have been opportunities for reform in 1992, which didn't come about because of the election in 1999, when we were promised stage II and it didn't happen, and 20 2012, when the coalition's bill did not go through.

Opportunities to reform, along once a decade. And there never is a stage II. Because this is a really hard sort of reform to do. There's no because that Tshanzu for it, other than getting rid of the regular three from, but reform, there's no big constituency for it, it never finds time with those in charge of Parliamentary time. Why do you think we as a government never performed the Lord's? Because there are always better things to do, and the same is going to be true of this government, and that silence of the noble Baroness The Lord Privy Seal, is testament to that.

There is no work type proposal for how the Lord should be reformed. There's a thought that there may be discussions in the future, everything we know about Lords reforms says that this will come to nothing. So we really need to use this bill to see how we can improve the House. And what amendment success is, don't throw away by reductions. We can use them to improve the House they are a system that works. Look at the flow of talented, hard-working peers that have come in over the last 25 years through by-elections.

None of us expected things to go on anything expected things to go on anything like this long, but the noble Baroness and her colleagues are quite right that it is ridiculous how long they have gone on. Nonetheless they have resulted in the acquisition in this House of some very excellent peers. And that was no mean feat, given the small pool in which we had to fish. As my noble friend Lord Hamilton of Epsom said, we were a set of voters who cared.

We cared for the House. We didn't want to bring people in here who would not come up to scratch. Perhaps we also cared a good deal for ourselves. We didn't want to be seen to be bringing rubbish into this place. So we did well. Absolutely no reason why the House as a whole wouldn't do just as well if it had this mechanism open to it. So amendment six throws open the doors, anyone can apply to be in this House.

We get round the problem of the aversion to hairdressers, which has plagued the crossbenches, but anyway this is political peers. This is not for the crossbenches. This is for politicians. The 90 or so places that are currently occupied by Hereditary Peers would be shared among the political part, would form a different way of becoming chosen to be in the House of Lords, other than the patronage of the political leaders of the time. And we can see, from my benches, that this is not destructive of the force of a political party.

We have been able to absorb a continued flow of independent minded Hereditary Peers within the Conservative Party on these benches, and it has not harmed our performance, indeed many of my colleagues have been chosen to serve on the frontbench. It has been a success from that point of view. And by having another source of recommendations than the party leadership, we get some diversity in views and outlook and background. Which can be quite hard when you are operating from within Westminster bubble.

And if we keep the by- elections going, we should have the ability to set the rewards for whom we wish to apply, to experiment with them, to let them evolve, to learn how we can become a more open house. I think that something along these lines lays the ground in a controllable way for the sort of ambitions that the Liberal Democrats have in the amendment 11. They would like to see a much wider franchise for getting into this House.

But with added legitimacy. That didn't work in 2012, I don't think it's going to work in the foreseeable future. But we can reach towards it by using the mechanism of by- by using the mechanism of by- elections. Amendment seven service may be six is a bit wide, maybe throwing it open to everybody something which should actually be quite hard to operate. But we have a government ambition to give a voice to the Council of the nations and the regions.

Through re-purpose in the by-elections, we have the chance to do that straightaway. We don't have to wait for this whole thing to grind through a set of legislative machinery, we can just re-purpose what we have got. And I and members of the council to nominate people to this place subject to us being the people we choose in the way that by-elections work at the moment. And that, I think, will allow us again to experiment, to find out how this works, to find out what the right questions are to ask of the political nominated like that so we get a flow of people who really work in this place.

And we will achieve the government's ambition, I think, an ambition which will otherwise have to wait for the next reform, in a decade was not time. And we can combine the by-elections with other improvements, it might work quite well with having a 15 year term in this place, and other proposals that we reach later on in this bill. So my proposal is that we be realistic, my proposal is that we be realistic, we recognise that we are not going to get another bill.

We are not going to get further reform from this government. Maybe not from the next one. We need to use this bill to give ourselves the opportunity to improve the House as it goes forward, and not just, which is something I noble friend Lord True soss, we all accept and not just to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

say goodbye to the Hereditary Peers. I beg to move. Amendment proposed, leave out

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed, leave out clause 1 and insert the following clause, as printed on the marshalled

**** Possible New Speaker ****

clause, as printed on the marshalled list. Amendment seven as an amendment to amendment six, Lord Lucas already spoken to. I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to move. The question, the amendment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question, the amendment proposed, subsection 3, insert in subsection 4, after stand, insert, if they have been recommended in accordance with procedures to be accordance with procedures to be determined by the House of Lords by a member of the Council of the nations and the regions.
20:30
Viscount Trenchard Portrait Viscount Trenchard (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Lucas on introducing his amendment six. First I would say that today of all days, it is an immense privilege to be able to speak in your Lordship's House. I feel like the noble Lords have said, a little bit different about talking about ourselves when so many more important affairs, international, important affairs, international, But this is the way the business has been tabled and so I am following that.

I would remind your Lordships that the acceptance of the weather all amendment to allow 92 hereditary Peers to remain, described by Lord Crabbe Byrne, as he was at the time, as the sand in the shoe, to ensure that the government really would move to stage II. Which would involve a move to a wholly or partially elect house. Indeed, the Parliament act of 1911 envisaged the eventual replacement of the House of Lords, as then constituted, with our house elected on a popular instead of a hereditary basis.

And I would stress that although I fully accept that many life Peers are extremely popular, the act clearly meant the introduction of at least a significant elected element. I would remind the noble Baroness, The Lord Privy Seal, that not only the noble and learned Lord Irving of lag but many other Ministers at the time made clear their commitment that stage II really would happen. I understand that the by-elections which have been held for 26 years cannot in any sense be regarded as democratic but they have certainly been competitive.

I was evicted from this place in 1999 and had to contest the by-election against 36 candidates in 2004, which was certainly competitive. The amendment has been successful in avoiding what many noble Lords on all sides house thought at the time would be a most undesirable outcome. The establishment of a wholly appointed house. However much noble Lords on house. However much noble Lords on other benches have ridiculed the system for replacing hereditary Peers through by-elections, the existence of any kind of elected part of Lordships' House has been valuable because it has maintained 92 independent peers who do not owe their membership or to appointment almost entirely by a Prime Minister.

My noble friend Lord Lucas has demonstrated a stroke of genius by tabling his amendment six, which seeks to retain this valuable independent element but removes the connection to hereditary Peers edges. The valuable independent element is made much more open. -- Hereditary peerages. The noble Baroness The Lord Privy Seal should welcome this amendment because it ends the remaining connection between hereditary peerage and membership of the House of Lords that retains an independent section of peers who would be a let by members of your Lordships' House.

-- Would be elected. Many would say that the Lucas peers, if I could call them that, would be no more democratic than the Weatherall peers but we recognised in 2025 there are many that believe that possession of a hereditary peerage should no longer have a connection with becoming a member of the House of Lords, as acknowledged by my noble friend Lord True in his amendment one, which I also strongly support. However, the Lucas peers with the equally independent of the government of the day and under amendment six, any member of the public may stand.

I believe there is public may stand. I believe there is a possibility that a very large number of members of the public might stand for election. And it is unlikely the electorate, the current members of your Lordships' House, would have any reliable criteria on which to make a judgement. I think, therefore, that it would be sensible to incorporate Are to restrict the number who would stand as candidates to a manageable number. -- incorporate a bar. Lord Lucas suggests this should depend on procedures imposed by a council of procedures imposed by a council of the nation of the regions of the nation.

I'm not as confident as my honourable friend that the council will become an appropriate body to determine such procedures. As of today, the House of Commons website states that it is not yet clear how the councils of the nations and regions will fit into the existing system of intergovernmental relations which would -- which was established in 1822. As an alternative and perhaps better way to restrict the number of would-be Lucas peers to a manageable number, my amendment eight restricts applicants to those who have three years or more experience of serving as a member of either House of Parliament or as a member of a devolved legislature or as a member of a principal counsel.

This would of course provide an opportunity for those threatened with exclusion by the Bill but who wish to continue the work they do in this place, to seek all noble Lords endorsements to enable some of them to do so. The eligibility of members of the devolved legislatures and councils would also encourage the continuation of a less Metropolitan section of the membership of your Lordships' House. But in a more democratic way than the present hereditary Peers alone provide.

As drafted, amendment six provides that the Weatherall peers are gradually replaced by the Lucas peers. It is of course also possible to replace them all in one big bag, perhaps at the end of the parliamentary session. In either case, suitable standing orders could be drawn up which could ensure that the proportions of the Lucas peers representing each party would eventually determine by the average of the numbers of votes cast in the last three general elections. Whilst retaining 20 % for the crossbenches.

In a similar manner as proposed in my noble friend Lord Strathclyde in his amendment 90 A, which will be debated later. The existence of the Lucas peers should continue until Lucas peers should continue until and unless real constitutional takes place, as envisaged in the Parliament act 1911. And in the House of Lords Act 1999. This is stage IA of the House of Lords Act 1999. It does not qualify as stage II but it satisfies those who wish the hereditary principle to end whilst retaining and -- an independent section appears to continue to act as the sand in the continue to act as the sand in the shoe.

-- Of peers to continue to act as the sand in the shoe, ensuring that one day the House will change into one that has a significant directly or indirectly element. directly or indirectly element. I rise to speak in favour of my noble friend Lord Lucas is amendment
20:39
Lord Strathcarron Portrait Lord Strathcarron (Conservative)
-
-
six, to open up the by-elections to registered voters in fact I will take it even further than that but first to correct the wrong impression of by-elections held by many noble Lords. Who have never had many noble Lords. Who have never had first-hand experience of them. The concept of by-elections to your Lordships' House has been dismissed Lordships' House has been dismissed because of the singular nature of because of the singular nature of the candidates if the candidature is broadened as envisioned by this amendment, the idea suddenly becomes amendment, the idea suddenly becomes much more attractive.

To succeed in a by-election is no easy task. To have succeeded proves the candidate worthy of this electorate involved in choosing him or in future her. Firstly the candidate has to show real determination to sit in your Lordships' House. Library research shows that on average and hereditary stand for election or times before being successful and as elections are held on average once a year on the death or retirement of an existing member, this means committing to typically a four year election campaign to succeed.

-- Stand for four elections. There are 14 candidates for each vacancy and only one successful candidate as a time, so one year. There is no reason to suggest why the by- election process for registered voters as imagined by Lord Lucas is amendment six would be any less rigorous than the hereditary by- election process that has existed until very recently. First there are hustings, where candidates hone their skills in political public speaking. Followed by some very pointed and topical questions by members of the selectman's, who only want the brightest and best to join them.

Then the voting process itself could hardly democratic, being a secret ballot, conducted under proportional representation. There is a lot to be said for scaling this up, not just for vacancy filled by registered voters as in this amendment as a form of appointment to the whole house. Many amendments have called for a democratically elected house but the reality is this would mean the House of Commons agreed to lose primacy and this is something to which they will never agree.

I content this is simply never going to happen. -- I contender. We could have a democratically elected house if new peers were elected by Members of this House. This is after all how political parties at least partially elect their leaders in the other place. As ever, there is sub- devil in the detail, but it can't be beyond the whips sitting peers to devise an election process based on the one that has worked so well for selecting only the very best hereditaries standing for election.
20:42
Lord Moylan Portrait Lord Moylan (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I'm not sure... in support, general support, of the amendment proposed by my noble friend, Lord Lucas. I say it is a preliminary but I'm somewhat horrified to hear from his remarks that there is an aversion on the crossbenches to hairdressers, I had not heard that before. I can't imagine why there would be an aversion to hairdressers as members of your Lordships' House on the crossbenches or elsewhere. And I hope there would be an opportunity for at least one member of the crossbenches to rise for this short debate concludes in order to put my noble friend right about that, to give us all a proper egal Terry and assurance.

Mike egal Terry and assurance. If I could just remind noble Lords of my general position, I said at second reading that in any 21st-century democracy there was always going to be a case that the legislature should be elected. That legislature should be elected. That must surely be the default position and it must apply to both Houses. And all those who say you can't have two elected houses are ignorant of the vast majority of functioning democracies which do have two elected Houses, though different in their composition, offered in their method of election.

But of course it is perfectly possible to have two elected houses who work together to generate effective legislation. That is what I find so frustrating about large part of the debate and I have sat in much of the debate during the course of this evening and the course of today. My noble friend makes a... I don't intend to go into the detail of whether it should be an open candidates list, a close candidates list, vetted candidates list or the other tunes that can be played on this particular theme.

I simply say that he puts his finger on something insane that a House which is entirely appointed in a 21st-century democracy, with the exception of the bishops, house that is entirely appointed is mildly ludicrous. -- He puts his finger on something saying. And is indefensible as a long-term position. Which is why presumably the Labour Party in its manifesto put forward a package of reforms to be delivered at different times, some immediately and some full consultation for enactment later, that is a clear distinction in the manifesto.

And why it is such a frustration the noble Baroness, The Lord Privy Seal, seems to be restricted that there is some sort of Filibustering knowing on. If there were a filibuster, I wish someone had told me about it, I would like to have taken part. This is the first time... This is the first time I have spoken in this debate and the two bills I have been involved in, sitting on the Frontbench and speaking transport, have gone through your Lordships' House in record time.

The buses bill ended on its third day of committee when it had full days allocated to it. -- Four days. I find it mildly offensive to hear there is Filibustering going on when many of us are working to see the Houses business is dispatched with reasonable efficiency. I will say if the noble Baroness is frustrated by what she sees, I think wrongly, as a filibuster on this or on other bills, I think she has to understand in all candour, how frustrated many of us are on our side of the House, that she is utterly silent about the bringing forward of the further measures which the Labour Party had measures which the Labour Party had Why no timetable is given.

Why no undertaking even to issue a white paper or consultation document has come forward. We simply, I don't wish to sound in any sense offensive, and I don't wish to impugn in anyway the honour of that noble Baroness or her colleagues in the frontbench. But she will understand in the light of history why many of us find it difficult to believe that the government is going to find time in the current parliament to bring forward legislation implied by its manifesto beyond this bill.

And so the source of assurances that we are looking for in terms of timetabling likely content, consultation measures, all of that, would actually take a lot of the sting out of this. But we heard nothing at all of it. That is why I support my noble friend's amendment because it brings just little glimmer of democracy, as he says, a controllable element of democracy, into your Lordship's House, on a limited basis. I'd like to go further, I like to see a larger element of democracy in your Lordship's House, if we are going to make change at all.

But I will go with what my noble friend Lord Lucas is proposing, precisely because it opens that door. And I really wish to hear from the noble Baroness on the frontbench, why that is such a bad idea, why a glimmer of democracy is not possible. And a little bit more than we have had so far in terms of that program, which in every attempt to raise it, she has just brought down the shutters.
20:48
Lord Wallace of Saltaire Portrait Lord Wallace of Saltaire (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
If we are talking about what's been in manifestoes, it was a very clear pledge in the 2019 Conservative manifesto to set up a commission on the Constitution, to examine some of the underlying difficulties the British structure of government and I recall a number of occasions defending from the government frontbench why nothing had happened on that. Constitutional matters get easily put off, and once put off, we tend not to get back to them. We are now beginning with these amendments to talk about, so where do we go from here? The legal house will recognise we do or want to hear more about, so where do we go after this next? This is a rather ingenious proposal from the noble Lord Lord Lucas, I'm not entirely sure that as an electorate, this House is the best place, there might be a certain tendency in our current composition, to over select people who have been to the same school as we have, or people who are very like us, were naturally some of the people who are not like us are particularly good.

If you would ask me to vote for a ballerina, for example, on first impression, I would have thought, totally the wrong person. I regard ballerinas as one of the most valued members of the House, a great and wonderful surprise. If you asked me to fruitful oddball, or Lord Bird, I might not have thought he was a good person -- if you asked me to vote for Lord Paul. But that is the way the selecting of the elites does tend to go for the sake people like them, and that's not necessarily ideal.

But may I make a few wider remarks about where we go from here? remarks about where we go from here? I have my shelves a full shelf of reports on Lords reform and previous bills. The 2012 scheme, which I had the duty of trying to move in this House, was relatively clear. Agreed by the coalition partners, although it was Conservative backbenchers as much as the Labour Party who let down that scheme. Let's agree to differ on it. The Gordon Brown proposals are out there.

And there are a range of other matters which we could begin to pull together very quickly, we don't need to start again. The reference to the gas of lesions and nations I find interesting, I have a question about how precisely the new Council of nations is going to fit in to our constitutional arrangements because I'm not at all sure that I understand, and I'm not sure the government understands how it will fit in. We do need to level up the way our politics is one.

At the present moment I speak as someone who spends most of his physical life in Yorkshire, we now have a situation in Scotland, Wales and Ireland, having some voice in Ireland, having some voice in London, but the English regions, and the English principal councillors do not and I'm not entirely sure that mayors elected and perhaps 29 or 30% of the vote and 29% turnout will have that much legitimacy to represent their areas. The question is of how far the second chamber should be constituted so as to strengthen the areas outside of London, and the centralised governance of this country, is a governance of this country, is a very important one.

So we need to move on to that. And again we shall say from these benches, several times, to the government frontbench, we do need some assurance before we clear this bill is to where we go from here, and when we might start to move from here. This I think is an interesting, slightly idiosyncratic set of proposals, but is one that perhaps we would throw into the mix.
20:53
Lord Murray of Blidworth Portrait Lord Murray of Blidworth (Conservative)
-
-
I agree with the noble Lord Lord Wallace that this is an ingenious but perhaps, it -- points in radical solution. It does address one of the more eccentric features of the by- election teacher. Not least the use of single transferable vote, which of course was the only members of the UK Parliament elected by single transferable vote were the elections and I'm not sure whether appraisal for these particular by- elections. I speak of the nature of the electorate, this electorate for the by-elections which under the present 92 reforms, are largely elected by the Hereditary Peers of each party in group, and save for the 15 places that were occupied by the 15 places that were occupied by deputy speakers in 1999, one of course the vote was four or is of the House and doesn't understand the proposal, it will be the deputy speaker solution that's proposed for these by-elections.

I must say, as a sideline I physically enjoy voting in one of those by-elections were House attitudes between the noble Lord Earl Russel and the noble Lord and Lloyd George. I don't think I'm breaking any confidences by saying voted for the noble Lord Lord Lloyd George. Beyond that as it may, this amendment highlights the core of the mischief of this bill, in that it means that one of the few avenues of getting into this House that is not controlled by the selection of the banister, whereby everybody in this House has to be sharp elbowed enough to catch the eye of the Prime Minister, that one avenue is being closed.

And I commend a noble friend Lord Lucas for proposing a solution which keeps open another avenue into this House. this House.
20:55
Lord Strathclyde Portrait Lord Strathclyde (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I have listened to parts of this debate, and I understand what the noble Lord Lord Wallace of Saltaire was saying, this takes this debate down a different course, that we are now discussing the what if, the what could happen. I think it shows something quite serious about the government's thinking, not on this bill but in the manifesto it talks about other things, the plan for the future. And yet there is no white paper and even no Green Paper, of thoughts by the government of that nature of the House of Lords that they want.

So all we are being offered is what is in the bill, and that's it. There is no promise of anything in the future, no careful thought, no publication of a white paper. Not even a timetable for those things. No promise indeed that anything will be published before the next general election, so we could through the whole of this Parliament, those of you who will still be here of course, wondering when the next stage of reform is going to take place.

And there doesn't need to be anything because noble Baroness, the leader of the, has not yet convinced her colleagues that they should explore their thoughts and perhaps study the noble Lord Lord Wallace of Saltaire's bookshelves to look at what has happened in the past, and come forward with those proposals. I noble friend Lord Lucas, I think, has tried valiantly to build on what is existing, in other words the existing by-elections, if I can continue to call them that, but for them to be fulfilled by members of the public and noble friend Lord Trenchard and my noble friend Lord Lucas himself has thought about alternatives.

I don't expect the noble Baroness to accept any of these amendments in any shape or form. But when it comes to democracy, I know that we have got an amendment later on to be moved by the noble Lord Lord Newby, and noble Lord Lord Wallace of Saltaire which I am supporting. And so I will keep my more general comments about a more democratic mandate which very much follows the preamble to the 1911 act which the government, for the time being, seems to have turned its face against, which I very much regret.

regret.
20:58
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay Portrait Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I'm grateful to my noble friend Lord Lucas and Lord Trenchard for the amendments in this group, and the ingenious way they have tried to build on what we currently have in this House, to propose some suggestions. The amendments in this group would continue the by-elections which provide for by the 1999 act, and thereby are a reminder that those by-elections have been discontinued by cross-party agreement. And that is no longer possible to join your Lordship's House by inheriting a period, that the primary objective of the government's reform has already been achieved.

And that is the amendments and the discussion that a lot of noble Lords have been having so far in this committee show, there's a great deal of interest in the stage II in stage III, as the noble Baroness The Lord Privy Seal petite earlier. And a lot of unanswered questions about those. My noble friend Lord Lucas 's amendment six which leads the group, suggests that anybody on the register of electors anywhere in the United Kingdom may stand in the by- elections that are provided for through the 99 act.

But as he acknowledged is a large number of people, more than 48 million at the last count, and I don't think there is a ballot paper or a computer screen big enough to satisfy the process which is amendment six is -- envisages. It may be a bit wide. But here my noble friend Lord Trenchard have tried to narrow that down a little bit. His amendment seven suggests that it could be somebody who has been nominated by member of the Council of the nations and regions, and if the noble Baroness were to delight my noble friend by accepting this amendment I think it would be the first amendment, the first mention of the statutory book of the new body, which was created by the new government when it came to power and comprises the Prime Minister, First Ministers of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and 12 English mayors.

There was an attempt to mention the Council of the nations and regions in the Passenger Railway Services Bill to the amendment proposed but regrettably not one that was The Council of the nation of regions is interesting and in many ways a welcome innovation. It is already established in our constitutional settlement, and one member of your Lordships House has been sent here in part for her work as the Prime Minister Special Envoy to the Council of Nations and Regions.

I don't know if the noble Baroness can tell us if the new Special Envoy has been appointed in succession to her? Amendment eight, from Lord Trenchard suggests a further way of narrowing suggests a further way of narrowing down the 48 million potential candidates by suggesting it be restricted to those who have served as a member of parliament, a member of your Lordships House already, one of the devolved Administration's, or a principled council which I assume he means an upper tier local authority for three years or more.

That does give us a reasonably broad base and I was attracted by what he set out what is motivation for ensuring that we have a less metropolitan voice in your Lordships House. But it is still a relatively narrow group of people. Even accounting for the greater number of independent representatives that we often see in local government. It is inevitably slanted towards the party political, or those who have picked up the bad habits as well as the undoubted virtues of electoral politics.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire in his contribution, I agreed that elites tend to favour those who look and sound rather like themselves. That is why many of us are so troubled by investing so much power in the hands of one person, the prime minister, in leaving this as a house appointed by him. I'm glad he has seen voting for ballerinas, and I agree with anything he says about the contribution the noble Lady makes this house. I think noble Lords earlier slipped out and saw an enjoyable recital which the Lord Speaker very kindly allowed and my noble friend a governor of the school arranged.

It was a reminder as well as the wonderful power of music and those talented young students that the late noble Lords was a member of your Lordships House. And I would like to see a great deal more cultural figures sitting on our crossbenches contributing to our debates. For the practical barriers which have been set out by a number of lords including by noble friends who set out these inventive amendments, I think they are, more work would be needed on them.

I'm grateful to them and the noble Lords who have spoken I look forward to seeing what The Lord Privy Seal has to say.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Does not feel there is a problem because these people are elected by a separate mandate, they will feel they have greater legitimacy than they have greater legitimacy than other appointed members of this house and won't adhere to the conventions of the house?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

conventions of the house? I think certainly the question of conflicting mandates is one I think conflicting mandates is one I think will be uppermost in our minds when we debate about a wholly elected house. I think if we introduce an element of election, in particular of proportional election, there were certainly those who favour different voting systems and say that one method of election is greater than another. But I think it is a debate for later reading.

for later reading.
21:04
Baroness Smith of Basildon Portrait Baroness Smith of Basildon, Leader of the House of Lords and Lord Privy Seal (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, they have been an interesting group of amendments and I praise the ingenuity of noble Lord Lucas and Lord Trenchard for coming up with the proposals they do. I want to say at the beginning, I refer to the noble Lords who spoke to the amendments before us. I think Lord Moylan spoke about more of a second reading and wider debates about other issues.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm very happy... But I have only

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm very happy... But I have only spoken once so far today, she wants me to speak a second time, that is me to speak a second time, that is another matter. I think I spoke another matter. I think I spoke clearly to what Lord Lucas said which is the introduction of an element of democracy. An important of doing that in the context with of doing that in the context with which it sat, all of that was very pertinent to the amendment and I'm sorry the noble Baroness feels she has to disagree with me and rebuke me.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

The noble Lord is very sensitive. It was not and rebuke it was more of an observation. His comments were an observation. His comments were wider. And I think it was about what comes next, I think he accused me of comes next, I think he accused me of being silent, I made some notes for comments he made. It was something that I had nothing to say and brought the shutters down. I will brought the shutters down. I will talk to the amendment.

But I have been very clear from the beginning of the many debates we already had of the many debates we already had on this issue that there is a process, this is the first stage. It is not surprising that so many times talks and discussions about Lords reform has driven into the ground and got nowhere. Focusing on what is in front of us and what can be achieved by a single bill I think is very important. And wanting to talk about what comes next and what comes after that.

There are other amendments later on which address some of these issues. I have to say to noble Lords there was a bill before us with specific amendments and I will address my comments mainly to those. It does not mean what comes next does not matter I can think of no other area of policy, manifesto commitments, with the Minister proposing it is constantly demanding what comes next, what order will you do things in. I have been quite clear from the beginning that this is the first stage.

It was in the manifesto and there are two stages following that.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lord Strathclyde cannot help himself, I'm going to love the sound of his voice. I hope noble Baroness does not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I hope noble Baroness does not feel I have spoken at length. I have spoken many times on short points to spoken many times on short points to make and perhaps I can make another one now I have mentioned before. I don't think any of us would be putting forward amendment and what next if the government had not next if the government had not themselves mentioned ideas for themselves mentioned ideas for what's next in the manifesto. If they had published a white paper or even a Green Paper, it would make life so much easier.

And would allow the noble Baroness not to answer these questions.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The noble Lords, I think he labours the point a bit. I will address the amendments before us today and, in due course, as we move on, there will be other issues discussed as well. I'm not shying discussed as well. I'm not shying away in any way from the manifesto commitments, they are made and they stand. Those noble Lords who stand. Those noble Lords who discussed details of those, I have been grateful for their suggestions been grateful for their suggestions and ideas to move forward.

Look at the specific amendments. I think I the specific amendments. I think I said they were quite an ingenious way of looking at things. I must admit, I interpreted one of the amendment differently to how he did. It might have caused some confusion. He is seeking to continue with by- elections but instead of replacing them with Hereditary Peers, it will be members of the public, any member of the public on the register in the United Kingdom, I assume that means overseas voters who are on the register in the UK as well.

And they could stand as a member of the house and the electorate would be members of your Lordships House. So the by- elections would consider. Anyone who one one of those elections must then be recommended for a peerage by the Prime Minister. And then Lord Trenchard looked to amend and have a criteria for potential candidates, and the process and procedures on that. They are creative. It does raise an interesting and I think a useful point about looking at how we can get some of the best people into your Lordships House who wish to contribute to the work of Lordships house.

I sometimes think we look too much at what people have done in the past are not always what they will do in the future when they are here as well. I did take some issue with his comments that there Hereditary Peers are, by virtue of being hereditary, always more independent minded. There are other amendments on the order papers of which we have heard already about the number of members on the frontbench who hold official positions and should be able to continue in your Lordships House.

Being a Hereditary Peers does not guarantee the independence of any member, and members across the house who are hereditary are affiliated to Political parties which does not render them to be called independent. It may be only the cross-party hereditaries who could claim to have that independence. I think he will understand why I can't accept his amendment today because it does, it removes clause 1 of the bill which is the crucial part. In one of the crucial parts of it.

And therefore for a Hereditary Peers to continue to sit in your Lordships House, and a bit like the Grocott amendment, it is any member of the public. I do have some sympathy about looking to how to get the best people to represent the house. Lord Murray represent the house. Lord Murray commented that, in not having Hereditary Peers by-elections and avenues closed, this would open up another avenue in which to bring members into your Lordships House. I have to say it is such an exclusive electorate, does not really open it up in a way that I think members of the public could put themselves forward would be happy with.

But I do think the commitments in our manifesto are quite clear. One of those was to reform the appointments process, and part of that is to look at the quality of candidates coming forward, balance in the national regional balancing of the second chamber. Members may have noticed in the last list of peers that was announced by the prime minister, not all appointed by the prime minister, all had a citation of why they had been appointed to the house.

That is the first time that has happened, and I'm at the Saint your Lordships House, back in the second reading, it was something I was very keen to see because previously the only information given about somebody appointed to your house was just a line, not saying anything about them at all. Now there is at least information being made public. A small change by think an important small change by think an important one. My Lords, we are looking at other ways on the appointments process.

We have already had discussions about moving forward on the other issues, the second part looking at retirement and dissipation. Both of those will move ahead and this is a particular amendment. And whilst I understand the motivation for bringing it forward, he will understand why I'm not able to accept it was I would not able to accept it was I would urge him to withdraw.
21:13
Lord Lucas Portrait Lord Lucas (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I'm very grateful to all who have spoken today, particularly my noble friend Lord Trenchard and his amendment which I think is a very useful contribution to considering how to take this idea forward. I think my noble friend is quite right that the elections process produces candidates who have staying power, who have determination over time. And brings us closer to something, closer to democracy is not a huge amount closer to democracy but at least it is a move in the right direction.

And I share Lord Moylan's wish to be much more radical in that. But nothing in my experience of the house suggests that we will actually get there. It never seems to appeal to our colleagues down the other end. As to Lord Wallace of Saltaire, asking if we would vote for a ballerina, I think the noble Lord needs to look at the background of the Hereditary Peers that we have elected. We have artists, we have some producers, we have a number of others whose heart is very much in the arts.

And there is a notorious propensity for Hereditary Peers to marry ballerinas. So I don't believe that there is any prejudice inherent in us against that particular in us against that particular profession. My noble friend...

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I cannot resist, apart from my curiosity, to point out that my great-great-grandmother was a ballerina.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

ballerina. And there we have it. And a very

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And there we have it. And a very And grateful for support from my And grateful for support from my noble friend who said if we are to believe that the government, as a whole, is determined on giving us another House of Lords Bill, within this Parliament or the next, then Green Paper would be the least of expectations. Get the proposals out there for discussion, let's get this process on the road. Without that, all that history says is that this runs into the sand.

Those, who like me, who have tried through governments of both colours, to move changes to this House and have never succeeded, we know just how hard it is. It really is extremely difficult to get the machinery of government to spend time contemplating what should be done with the House of Lords. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lord Privy Seal, for what she said. I think it is... Citations are a significant improvement. I hope that we will see other advances in the appointment process and, indeed, in things like retirement and participation, that all areas which would make a difference to this House, I would like to see a way forward.

I think, the one thing that the election process has, and, as I said at the beginning, yes, this is drafted but we could be garrotted, there is no... You could get rid of us all and still run a form of election process, as we have run. What the election process has demonstrated is that it works, it produces a good flow of good peers and that is not a mechanism that we should lay on one side and this we are really confident that we are going to get something else in its place.

I look forward to returning to this issue at report with something rather more precisely

**** Possible New Speaker ****

drafted, but for now, I vaguely to withdraw my amendment. Amendment seven, amendment by

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment seven, amendment by leave withdrawn. Amendment eight, leave withdrawn. Amendment eight, not moved. Amendment six, not moved. not moved. Amendment six, not moved. We now therefore... We now come to the group of amendments beginning with amendment nine, clause 1, amendment nine...
21:18
Lord True Portrait Lord True (Conservative)
-
-
I beg to move amendment nine standing in my name and in the last recess I visited the tomb and, as always, it was covered with ballet shoes. I wonder whether one was put there on behalf of your great- grandmother, I will not know. I must make clear, I have no intention of testing the opinion of the House at Committee, or any other amendment in my name that will go down, as I offer the amendments I put forward as a basis for open discussion.

I believe potential improvement of a Bill that will pass. As I said earlier. This amendment is based on ideas put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Grocott. Which he used to love, but we heard earlier, he absolutely loathes and condemns. And would never vote for. It has the same effect as his Bill. Ending the by- elections provided for under the 1999 House of Lords Act, something I think we all agreed on. In light of the mandate.

It amends the present bill to leave out what was added to the Grocott Bill, the wholesale expulsion of 88 or 89 amendments, one of them on the fed absence at the moment. It would allow existing colleagues, we have heard from all sides how much they are valued, the possibility to continue here. On the same basis the rest of us came here and served here, for life. I believe that to be fair, I believe it to be reasonable, I believe it to be in accordance with the practice of this House.

That is what happened, as we were told earlier, in 1922 when Irish peers left the House. It is thousand nine, the Supreme Court was set up and the Lords of Appeal were abolished by the Labour government, existing Lords were allowed to stay. They were given, in effect, grandfather rights, acquired rights, whatever you want to call them. That's how noble and learned Lords were sitting with us... Are sitting with us. It is how we benefited, for so long, from the memorable wisdom of noble and learned Lords.

It is how noble and learned Lords, Baroness Hale and Lord Neuberger, sit here. 23 people in all, when the old laws were abolished, were given these grandfather rights. Retaining the required right to sit. Did that damaged the House? Does that damaged the House? My Lords, I suggest continued presence and use of that experience does precisely the opposite. Why should it be different, with those friends we have among us? As enacted hereditary Peers.

When I say friends, I mean friends on all sides, including the party opposite. People that we know, and sit with, and learn from, and share service with every day. Were they being effectively given summary dismissal under this bill? That is what it is, that is what it says. In law, summary dismissal is only acceptable in cases of gross misconduct, such as physical violence, racism, sexual harassment, theft, or deliberate disclosure of sensitive information. I am not sure that the noble goals noble earls have ever been guilty of any of those.

I am told there is another ground for summary dismissal, which might appeal more to some in government and that is serious insubordination in the workplace. Perhaps some of my colleagues at Lake -- are guilty of that? It is serious, I spoke on amendment one about a four-part plan that I believe would be a good destination for this House whilst giving greater security about the legislative program and also what it wishes, namely ending any influence to the House based on the hereditary Peers.

That is something that Keir Starmer can take to the party conference. .1 of my proposals was that we recognise the mandate to end the flow, this amendment does not challenge that. After the election last summer, and was not popular with all of my members and colleagues, I and the convener of the Crossbench Peers went to the noble Baroness, the Leader of the House, to suggest the suspension of by-elections in recognition of the direction the government wished to go.

We recognised the government go. We recognised the government mandate. It was Ernest of our wish to work in a constructive way with the lead of House, who we respect, in finding the best way forward for the whole House. That is still my wish. I know the lead of the House and her commitment to the whole House, which she has displayed over nine years as Leader of her party. I am sure, if an absolute position is kept in the wings, we can find a way forward.

Based on the trust that I have in her good sense and present. There has to be give and take. We accept the shutting of the door. We cannot back the full-scale purge. There is a stakeholder, far larger than my party, or indeed the party opposite, and that is the House itself. The House might have if you on whether it wants make a view on whether it wants to lose these colleagues. It is not in the interest of the House either in practice or as President to have some of the most effective members excluded.

I say again, what I fear in my heart, what is done once will inevitably happen again when another party holds the reins. The Conservative party has never included members of other parties and I hope it never will. And I can imagine others around who might not have the same scruples. A precedent of dumping summary exclusion might be in the interest of the House. In my speech earlier, I suggest there should be a state on wholesale exclusion, some agreed approached numbers.

I would as this also for reflection. In the purest practical terms, both presentation of the and constitutionally, it is easier to keep existing members that address numbers by retirement from the ranks and other members -- measures, rather than throw everybody out and then have the premise to bring significant numbers back. By creating new Life Peerages Act in the most public of all forums. For years, the party opposite supported the bill brought forward by Lord Grocott to end by-elections.

That was never our policy, except in the context of a stage II bill, such as we brought forward in 2011/12. Even the coalition agreement, May 2010, so the issue of existing peers is something that must be respected. I look back to the coalition agreement and it said they would be a grandfathering system for current peers. My amendment follows past precedents and has the same effect. It ends new entry, but keep those now here. Just as Labour did with the law Lords.

Why should government be against it now? When ending of elections was discussed on 13 March 2020, here, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, who was in her place earlier, said it would not affect any of our existing members. Whom we look forward to hearing from for many years. On 3 December 2021, the noble Baroness doubled down on this, saying, and I quote, this modest measure would make change gradually. We are not seeking to say farewell to any hereditary already here, indeed, we look forward to their contributions for many more years.

Whilst that's not a wise and humane decision? For the Liberal Democrats, speaking to the same bill, the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, said no existing member of the House, and I accept we have some very excellent hereditary members, should feel threatened. What has changed? Why is exclusion of these 88 people so essential? If it is about ideology, we can do little but oppose it. And this seems to be some of that might who I would wish to restrain.

If it is about numbers, we should rule no options out, but sit down to discuss it, keeping in mind at all times the best interest of the whole House. If we want to get to a destination, and I think there is scope for an agreement on a destination we need to be open about the potential routes. Let us keep all options on the table. On 7 September 2020, the Leader of the House said, all Members of the Lords House are welcomed.

In fact, most of us do not know who are the Life Peers and who are the hereditary Peers. How sad it is that this Bill and this provision is driving a wedge. What the noble Baroness said then was the best of the noble Baroness, the best of our Leader, a Leader we all know and respect. How she said then is as it should be and how it should stay. We are all one and stronger as one. I beg to move.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed, leave out clause 1 and insert the new clause as printed on the Marshalled list.
21:30
Lord Grocott Portrait Lord Grocott (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

As soon as I knew that Labour had won the general election and it was won the general election and it was preparing its legislative program, I knew that, of course, it would include the removal of the 92 hereditary Peers. And I knew, for absolute stone cold certainty, that Lord True would introduce an amendment that effectively put into law the Bill that he had consistently and passionately imposed over a number -- very long period of time. One welcomes a net that repentance but of course, circumstances have changed since I Perhaps I should explain to members who have recently arrived it was a bill to end the ridiculous, ludicrous, absurd, indefensible by- elections.

At the time when I first introduced a bill to do that, it was nine years ago, although I raised this in the Commons 31 years ago. At least I'm not on this issue a Jonny Come Lately. What has changed since I introduced the bill? Since then, 27 new peers have arrived. The new generation. If there had been no by-elections, it would be just 34 original peers here who were first elected in 1999.

They were not a particularly representative group I have to say. We have heard quite a bit about the variety of people that come in via the by-elections. It has not been mentioned yet but it will be many times I'm sure in the days to come, they did not include any women. In fact it has gone back in the first cohort of 1992 there were five women, and that, according to the electorate, by various mechanisms any new people in, it was five too many.

There are now 100% men. And they have particular characteristics. I only mention this as a matter of observation, something like half went to Eton. A good number of our prime ministers went to Eton but there is at least the argument that they are not entirely a good cross-section of the electorate. But I will say this as well, we have heard a lot about the cruelty of somehow or other removing people from Parliament. I have got some experience of this my Lords.

I was removed from Parliament roughly as far as I recall at 3 AM, and there was no debate about it for discussion. In fact people were very excited about it and many were cheering in the hall as I was dismissed. This tearful farewell that we expect, this is what happened. It is called democracy. I know this place is not democratically elected, but neither in my view should it be a place where people irrespective of how much they do and the contribution they make can expect to be here

**** Possible New Speaker ****

assist Is this an argument for an elected house?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lord Hamilton knows well enough I'm not always in tune with my I'm not always in tune with my party. No, I'm opposed to a directly elected house because the house I elected house because the house I was most proud to be a member of, it may offend some people here, was to be a member of the House of Commons.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

be a member of the House of Commons. The one thing I did not want. I wonder if the noble Lords would

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I wonder if the noble Lords would agree that one might have a lot of simply for his ejection at 3 AM from the other place, that that was part of the contract. It is part of being what a democratically elected member is which is very different from having a different arrangement here about which many reassurances were given. This is not to say that I'm taking a partisan position on this, I have not decided which is why I'm listening to the debate carefully.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

But there is a profound difference. Of course there is a profound

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Of course there is a profound difference, I was not pretending it was identical comparison. But there was identical comparison. But there is no difference that when you are chucked out of Parliament you are not too thrilled about it, is how I can best describe it. I should say that of the 34 Hereditary Peers who were, who are the same ones who have were, who are the same ones who have been here throughout since 1999, they have had a pretty good innings.

I have a list here but I won't read out the length of service of members of this House. The top 19 I think in terms of length of service are all Hereditary Peers. And they have all served more than 40 years in this house. The noble Lord sitting there I noticed has served 62 years. It is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

not abandoning. He's a good friend lived close to where I live in Staffordshire. Out where I live in Staffordshire. Out of those 34 peers he mentions, paralyses, how many of them are older Tony and because I would like older Tony and because I would like to point out that I am from elsewhere.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

elsewhere. Had not realised we are quite as

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Had not realised we are quite as democratic as that. All I would say, or see I'm sorry for people who or see I'm sorry for people who enjoyed it here and are going. But really you can't complain when you have had an innings of 40 odd years, it is a pretty good deal. Especially when you come from a cohort of peers who have come via the electoral process, which I'm amazed to say hastily with approval. If you come by that mechanism, then you can have no complaints really if the period comes when your services have come to a conclusion.

I think 41 years is a very good innings and really know reason to weep and wail because it is coming to an end. So do say to Lord True, I won't go through the whole rigmarole of asking why on earth he has had his change of mind. It is not entirely accurate to say that he was a slavish servant of the government at the time because when my bill was first introduced, my memory serves me, he wasn't a member of the government at that stage.

Ann was still along with Lord Strathclyde and Lord Caithness, all resolutely opposed to the bill, just as they were to every attempt to reform this place over the period that they were in power. So I'm not going to speak any longer for fear

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that I will be interrupted. I was strongly in favour of the proposals put forward by the proposals put forward by the coalition government. And I look forward with interest to the debate

**** Possible New Speaker ****

forward with interest to the debate launched by the noble Lord. So that is my view. I'm sure that Lord True is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm sure that Lord True is talking about the coalition period and was in favour of the bill then. Not Michael. I'm talking Not Michael. I'm talking specifically about my bill which he previously opposed in very powerful previously opposed in very powerful ways, and now has an amendment down to implement my bill. I have no intention of voting the amendment he won't be surprised to hear. I would say that those who have sat it out as Hereditary Peers have had very good generous innings from a very very small electorate.

Something like a one in 200 chance of becoming a member of the House of Lords if you are Hereditary Peers on the list of Hereditary Peers who say they are available for election. As a general member of the public you have a one in 75,000 chance of becoming a Member of Parliament. So it has been a pretty privileged group. Many have served well but the end is nigh. And served well but the end is nigh. And I suppose we will continue to repeat these kinds of assurances, I will make one more point and that I will sit for the rest of the evening.

Which is, we make much of the 92 including many capable people, a mere eight months ago, some 220 people lost their seats in the Commons. Although most of them were Tories, I'm prepared to admit that some of them did make a useful contribution while they were Members of Parliament. But you get chucked out, that is what happens and that is what is likely to be happening as is what is likely to be happening as

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Unisys bill becomes law. This house stands as a guardian of scrutiny and a safeguard against
21:41
Baroness Finn Portrait Baroness Finn (Conservative)
-
-
of scrutiny and a safeguard against an overreach. So we have insured not by resisting change that by shaping it. The Hereditary Peers who sit amongst us today a lot of anachronisms. Do not relics of another era and they are some of the most capable and most dedicated members of the South. They do not serve out of entitlement. They serve out of duty, they have given their time, their expertise, their judgement in this chamber. The record shows they contribute more than most.

They have indeed sought to come here for that specific purpose as they already have their title. To remove them overnight, it would be a mistake. And yet to continue their election indefinitely is also unsustainable. The system with hereditary by-elections, however well-intentioned at its inception is not defensible in the modern age. And so we must find a path forward, a middle way. Solution that modernises this house without undermining it. And strengthens scrutiny rather than reading it. This upholds Labour's manifesto is commitment without damaging the integrity of this house.

This is what Lord True's amendment does. It does not expel a single Hereditary Peers from this house. It does not silence the voices that have enriched our debate and strengthened our scrutiny. Indeed, a number of peers, most peers who spoke in the bill commended it precisely because it did not challenge the position or the continued participation of those colleagues who were Hereditary Peers. This amendment simply ensures that the years ahead, as nature takes its course, as time moves forward, the system evolves with it.

No more by-elections, no more miniature electorate seeking to choose successes from the ranks. A gradual transition that is orderly and responsible and fair. This amendment offers the best of both worlds. It delivers Labour's manifesto commitment and does so with wisdom not haste. It ensures that the sitting rights of Hereditary Peers are no longer passed down but does so without stripping this house of its experience, its independence, and it's vital scrutiny. The noble Baroness Baroness Hayter, who is not in her place sadly, once described this as a modest reform which would make change only very slowly.

I noble Friend Lord True has referred to it. More pertinently she said it would not affect any of our existing members we look forward to hearing from I hope for many many years. She was right then and she is right now. This amendment modernises without destabilising. It reforms without diminishing, and it strengthens without undermining. It does what all good constitutional reforms to do, it improves the best and improves the rest. To those who argue that the ship has sailed, I remind the house what Lord Mancroft has pointed out, more than 150 members have joined your Lordships House since it was last given an opportunity to express a view on Lord Grocott's bill.

It is rather galling for them to be told they have missed the boat they were not even on the jetty. So let us not be seduced by grand gestures that we can at institutions under the banner of progress. Let us reform but reform wisely. Let us move forward and do so together. I'm encouraged by the positive tone of today's debate let us ensure that this house remains what it has always been, a place of wisdom, scrutiny, and a service to the nation.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I was not intending to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I was not intending to address this amendment but I find Lord Grocott's speech rather
21:45
21:47
Lord Shinkwin Portrait Lord Shinkwin (Conservative)
-
-
Can I just say, the damage we are doing to ourselves as a House through this divisive Bill, or the attitude underpinning it, my Lords, attitude underpinning it, my Lords, on my way to the House, I post myself derogatory comments, on account of my disparity. Sticks and stones may break my bones, and they do, but words will always hurt more. They hurt because they are informed by discrimination. Discrimination against difference.

How I looked, how I sounded, in my days, because of my disability, I am not saying I experienced discrimination in your lodge's House, at least not directly, what I am saying is I am a reluctant expert on discrimination. My life experience tells me I know what discrimination looks like, what it feels like to feel invalidated and devalued. My Lords, I see discolouration in this Bill. I support this amendment because it would go some way to mitigate.

Without this amendment, hereditary members are effectively being told, contrary to what the noble Lord has said, been told that their contributions are invalid and valueless. By virtue of their being valueless. By virtue of their being the wrong type of peer. If their contributions are valid and valuable today, why not tomorrow? Why not, as this amendment implicitly... Implies, why not for the rest of their lives? Which is the basis on which the vast majority of us were appointed.

This amendment provides a middle way. As you have heard, whereby the government can honour part of the Manifesto whilst we acknowledge, respect and honour what are, in many cases, huge, selfless contributions from the noble Lord who happened to be hereditary Peers. My Lords, that is not to detract from the equally important service, as Lord Collins of Highbury has reminded us, of non-hereditary members of the lodge House. But it is to state a.

The contribution of hereditary Peers adds value. Rather than undermines your logic test, as this Bill implies. My Lords, the principles of this House had made in really big impression of me from day one of my joining it, almost 10 years ago, was that equality and sense of equality among members. I come from a modest background, I was not born with a silver spoon in my mouth, I was spent much of my childhood in hospital. I say this not full sympathy but to demonstrate that there is no innate reason why I should support this amendment.

But I do so. Because the privilege, I see prodigious artwork in this Bill. To the detriment of this House. And it crucial ability to carry out its heavy responsibility of upholding the government of the day to account. By contrast, what unites rather than divides us is success, a privilege. I doubt any of us can be taught a single -- can recall a single Maiden speech that does not refer to a sense of privilege that all of us feel when we first speak in this.

The overwhelming feeling is common to us all, hereditary and nonhereditary. I know, speaking for myself, it has been one of the greatest privileges of my life. To serve with the amazing hereditary Peers of all parties. This amendment goes some way to recognising the most extraordinary debt that we O2 are hereditary members and values that I think we all associate with this place. Decency, and crucially, mutual respect. And equality. As a self regulated House, surely we have a duty to defend those timeless values.

My Lords, I hope that we can come together, as one House, United in those values, and give this amendment the support that it deserves, if and when the option arises.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

When I spoke to amendment five, I
21:53
Lord Newby Portrait Lord Newby (Liberal Democrat)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

When I spoke to amendment five, I dealt with a number of issues which I thought were comments that amendment and this amendment and I amendment and this amendment and I will not repeat them. Could I begin by saying how much I enjoyed the speech of Lord True. For years, we listened to him with great passion, denouncing your Lord Grocott and everything in his bill, tonight, with equal passion, we had him advocating it. I think it was truly a great performance.

I have two questions for him and one for ligament. The first, is a bit of an explanation, if he wouldn't mind, in winding up, about how he believes that if we end by-elections, there will be another point at which groups in your logic has will be excluded en bloc? It is a chilling suggestion that this will happen, is he suggesting the Conservatives might do it, and what has he got in mind? I feel slightly worried, he has not always been my greatest supporter, is he suggesting the Labour Party will cut a huge swathes at random? If not, just what is it? This process is a legitimate process via a bill and it is difficult to me to imagine circumstances that he was putting forward.

I am sorry for my understanding is lacking. Secondly, I suggested that the logical way of dealing with this is that they should have returned to your Lordships House as Life Peers. I mentioned this happened in 1999, with somebody like Lord Rees jail, who came back as a life peer. The noble Lord said he rejected the idea of bringing people back as Life Peers, I just wonder, that seems strange to me. If the noble Baroness strange to me.

If the noble Baroness were to suggest to him, in the negotiations, that additional places might be brought forward for the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Conservatives... The time estate, he is going down

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The time estate, he is going down a trail that does not exist. I did not say that I reject that, I said we should keep all route to a we should keep all route to a destination open, what I did say, practically, constitution, it is practically, constitution, it is easier to keep the people here who are here than it should have a whole are here than it should have a whole lot out. It is something that we can discuss, do not impute to me that I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

discuss, do not impute to me that I have rejected that. I look forward to reading Hansard because I wrote down the word reject. If the noble Lord did not use it, I apologise profusely because that is what I heard. My question to the government relates to crossbenchers, what I suggest might happen can easily happen in respect of my party and the Conservative party if a number of additional Life Peers are made available, we can decide as a party how to allocate them.

But this does not apply to crossbenchers, if the government will say we will give 10, 15, Life Peers to crossbenchers, the government will have to decide who they are, are they not? Or are they going to suggest another process by which the crossbenchers of I have sympathy to the extent that I think we do need to be teasing out some of these next stages, this is one area where I think that the passage of the bill would be helpful if the government could be clearer about the mechanism that they might have got if we were to retain some of the most outstanding hereditary Peers who are crossbenchers.

who are crossbenchers.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, it has been an discussion, it feels like a lesson in failure. A failure Lord Grocott in failure. A failure Lord Grocott was not able to get the bill through the House previously, a failure on my part, having persuaded my party my part, having persuaded my party that the Grocott Bill... If it was to go through, we would support it through the stages, and ensure it through the stages, and ensure it was on the statute books, having got that from my party, I was unable to persuade the party opposite that they should accept the Grocott Bill.

It was a failure for those members of the House, who are headed, who said to me and my colleagues that they wanted the Bill to go through, they weren't able to persuade the party that it should. For those reasons, for those failures, we are here today, discussing this amendment. And I get the point that the noble Lord said, he could not go against his party policy, which is against the Grocott Bill, trying to get me to go against my party policy.

I understand that, but what a shame, we would not be here today having that discussion. Our colleagues who, at that point, or any point in the last nine years, who had been hereditary Peers, could be here now, as Life Peers, having the by-elections ended, we would not be in this place. I wrote an article for the House magazine around five years ago now. When I said that if the party opposite, the then government, Conservative Party, continued with the by-elections, continued bringing significant numbers of new peers in to be ministers, and when making appointments in greater proportion for their own party against my party, the disparity in numbers, over 100 when we took office.

If all of those things kept happening, really, the only recommendation was to say, you have to in the right for hereditary Peers to sit in the House. All of the warnings were there, we tried to avoid that and the party opposite refused to accept that. That is why we are here now. I have said, it's the most common is a shame, I recognise the value and the contributions that hereditary Peers have made to this House, he shakes his head at me...

Otherwise we would not have bothered even trying to support and getting my party's support for the Grocott Bill and helping it through. We offered to do that. What a shame the offer was not I appreciate the way that the noble Lord has brought this amendment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

forward today but we could have done this a number of years ago. But we can do it now. What does

**** Possible New Speaker ****

But we can do it now. What does the noble Baroness say to the more than 150 peers who have arrived who,
22:01
Baroness Smith of Basildon Portrait Baroness Smith of Basildon, Leader of the House of Lords and Lord Privy Seal (Labour)
-
-
than 150 peers who have arrived who, since Lord Grocott last had the opportunity to give his bill a second reading, as many have said, there are more than 150 members of your Lordships House have not had the opportunity to express an opinion on that bill. The noble Lord Lord Grocott reminding the committee of his earlier, pointed out to those who have arrived recently, 3 1/2 years, 150 peers we could do it now.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

But we are not going to because the time is past. The opportunity was there but it was rejected so was there but it was rejected so many times. That is why we had a manifesto commitment and it wasn't just to end the by-elections, it said as a first step we will do this. The noble Lord said he could this. The noble Lord said he could not go against his party at the time because that was the policy. We have that policy now.

That policy came about because of the intransigence about because of the intransigence of the party opposite. The noble Lord may be aware how many Hereditary Peers from his party and Hereditary Peers from his party and other parties say can't you get them to accept this. And we tried. And we have to admit failure. So I understand why the noble Lord says that but it did not come forward, support from the party opposite, until there was an alternative proposal that was in a manifesto.

I will give way one more time. I think members want to hear my response. She lets me sit down before she starts speaking.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That was then and we are where we are now.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

are now. She makes the exact point. We want to evict a lot of people

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We want to evict a lot of people that your party admits are doing good things. Just like this, isn't that too cruel?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that too cruel? There are times in life where you have to seize opportunities to make have to seize opportunities to make things happen and sometimes if you fail to take that opportunity, the time passes. The party opposite is only suggesting this now because an alternative proposal came forward. Had the noble Lord come forward before a manifesto I would have bitten his hand off. It is a shame he did not. Looking at other points that were made, the...

He was one of those who had lots of amendments I recall. He had lots of amendments to the Grocott bill. It is a shame. I stopped coming to the chamber to listen to the debate because it was the same thing again and again and again. There were so many amendments. So here we are now because 25 years ago, the principal was established that Hereditary Peers would no longer have the right to sit and vote in the House of Lords.

To answer some of the questions that were made, Baroness Finn talked about some of the characteristics of peers and the work they do. But the same can apply to Life Peers. I'm sure she would readily admit on there. There's always been scrutiny of this house not just of Hereditary Peers but from across the South. This house is always discharge its duties and will always discharge its duties and will continue to do so. The noble Lord asked Lord True for his response which he received.

I have always said that there is no barrier to members of your Lordships House who have hereditary peerages receiving
This debate has concluded
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page