House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Debate between Lord Mancroft and Baroness Smith of Basildon

3rd reading
Monday 21st July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Mancroft (Con)]

My Lords, when I made a short intervention at an earlier stage in the Bill, the noble Baroness the Leader of the House, in reply, questioned—not seriously, I hope—whether or not I still liked her. The answer is that of course I do. I hold the noble Baroness in the greatest respect and indeed affection, as does the whole House, and that respect and affection is unaltered by the passage of the Bill. We on this side of the House do not bear personal grudges against political opponents merely because they are enacting decisions with which we may disagree. I accept, as do my noble friends, that the Government are fully entitled to get their business through and pass their manifesto legislation, even if I do not like it. The Bill removes the process by which new Peers can join the House by further by-elections. We accept that, albeit reluctantly.

But nowhere in the Labour manifesto did it state that currently sitting Members of the House would be summarily removed, which is an additional measure and sets a bad and, in my view, dangerous precedent whereby the Executive can simply remove Members of the second Chamber by dint of their majority in the first—an unheard-of provision that exists in no other modern democracy. The noble Lord, Lord Grocott, said that it would be absurd to suggest that this precedent would ever be repeated, but I suspect he is wrong, as he and his noble friends may well find out to their discomfort and cost in the not-too-distant future.

As this Bill enters its final stages, I ask the noble Baroness the Leader in turn whether she still likes me, or whether there something I have done that so deeply offends her that I and my noble friends should be thrown out of this House like discarded rubbish? We often talk of the dignity of the House, but I cannot think of anything less dignified for the House than what the Government are now doing in this Bill.

I would like to think that I have done my duty over the past almost 40 years. I certainly believe we have stuck to our side of the deal that we made 25 years ago with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine, on behalf of the Labour Party—not a deal that tied the hands of a future Government, as has been claimed, but on which, to their shame, this Government are now reneging.

The House is currently wrestling with the provisions of the Employment Rights Bill. The Government are concerned with the rights of those on short-term contracts but at the same time apparently care little for those of us who have worked here with no formal contract. Although none of us in this House is technically employed to serve as Members of the House, it would be difficult to argue that this is not a place of work, or even part-time work. I suppose one could argue that our Letters Patent and Writs of Summons, taken together, constitute at least some form of agreement. Either way, we are now to be treated in a way that no one else in employment or in any workplace in Britain can be treated. It is rightly illegal to sack anyone on the basis of their birth, except here in the upper House of this Mother of Parliaments.

Before I go, I would be very grateful if the noble Baroness the Leader could tell me exactly what it is that we have done that is so wrong as to deserve being treated in this way. The noble Lord, Lord Grocott, has repeatedly gone out of his way to say that this is not personal, but he is wrong, because it is very personal to each and every one of us to be treated like this by those we considered our friends and colleagues. It is also deeply offensive. I would simply like to know why. Is that really too much to ask?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I had not intended to respond at length, and I will not, given that this debate on Third Reading has been quite a long one. I was reminded earlier that yesterday was the anniversary of the moon landing. Apollo 11 took eight days, three hours, 18 minutes and 35 seconds to complete its mission. I think that is just slightly short of the time we have spent debating this Bill throughout its passage.

A number of issues were raised. Yes, I still have a soft spot for the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, and of course this feels personal to those departing hereditary Peers. It felt very personal to me when I lost my seat as a Member of Parliament, with far less notice. He said that this Bill was not in the Labour Party manifesto. It was. He may recall that, when we debated the Grocott Bill, I said, and I wrote in the House magazine, that we should accept it and that we would help to get it through, otherwise we would be in a position where all hereditary Peers would be removed under a Labour Government. So, he was given some notice of that; he may not have listened to me or read anything that I wrote, but it was said and it was in the Labour Party manifesto.

Nothing about the legislation says that we do not value the work of hereditary Peers, or that of any other Member of your Lordships’ House. That has always been the case, but we were quite clear that the hereditary route is not the route into your Lordships’ House that the country or the Labour Party expects.

I will look again at what the noble Lord, Lord True, said, but I think he said that, if we were not to proceed with the Bill in the way it has been drafted, it would unleash a spirit of good will. I hope that was not an indication that carrying out a Bill that is in our manifesto would unleash a spirit of something opposite to good will. I hope that is not what he intended, but that is certainly how it came across.

The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, was concerned that this Bill opens the gates to further reform or change. I have also heard from other noble Lords that, if we finish with this Bill, nothing will ever happen again. Both cannot be true, but I think this House should take more responsibility for what we can do. If we had taken responsibility for the Grocott Bill and managed to get it through, we probably would not be here today.

On the issue about Select Committees, I know the noble Lord would like to go further and faster. I am a great believer in bite-sized chunks and the House taking responsibility. If we can make progress on those two issues and, by implication, the impact on the size of the House, I think good progress can be made. If we show we can take responsibility for the work of our House as a House, cross-party, we can do so again in the future. So I do understand the views that have been expressed. This is a matter of principle. It was flagged for some time. It was a clear manifesto commitment.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Debate between Lord Mancroft and Baroness Smith of Basildon

Report stage
Wednesday 2nd July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

The noble Lord has tabled an amendment and is offering it at this point now, although, had he been in the House when this was debated, I doubt he would have voted differently at the time from the leader of his party, who was very much against it.

[Lord Mancroft (Con)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I will take one more intervention. I have listened with great care to noble Lords and have not intervened on anybody, and I want to respond to those who have spoken. I will take the intervention from the noble Lord because he used to be quite nice to me, but that will be the last intervention that I take. I think it is in the interests of the House for me to wind up the debate.

[Lord Mancroft (Con)]

I am most grateful to the noble Baroness the Leader of the House and I hope I will continue to be nice to her. I just wanted to make the point that, although the opportunity may have been available to the House of Lords to pass the Grocott Bill in the previous Parliament, it would not have gone through because it could not possibly have got through the House of Commons.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Debate between Lord Mancroft and Baroness Smith of Basildon

Committee stage
Monday 3rd March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Mancroft (Con)]

My Lords, I must admit that the thought of the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, representing my noble friend Lord Strathclyde has slightly set me aside for a moment. I was wondering which particular bit he represented. Was it the bit from the neck up, from the waist down or everything in the middle? I am sure we will learn that over time.

The Government explain this Bill on the basis that it fulfils their manifesto commitment to end the right of Peers to sit and vote in this House by dint of an hereditary peerage. That commitment is apparently sacrosanct. In truth, that measure is already clearly set out in Section 1 of the 1999 Act. The principle was accepted then and is accepted now. This Bill neither affects nor improves on it—but is selective. The Labour Party manifesto also included a commitment to implement a retirement age of 80, but the Government have, at least temporarily, resiled from that part of their commitment, because they have quite rightly concluded that most turkeys, particularly those on their own Back Benches, will not vote for Christmas. It seems, therefore, that the manifesto is not sacrosanct after all.

The Bill breaches, as we have heard, the commitment made in honour that my noble friend Lord Howard talked about and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, made with Lord Cranborne in the 1999 Act. It is argued that, with 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 am afraid things just simply are as not 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 stands, so, without the agreement of both parties, it cannot be changed—although, of course, one party can breach it and thus demonstrate its dishonour, as my noble friend Lord Howard suggested. That is the Government’s choice.

I accept that 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 seemed to favour an elected second Chamber, in government he has clearly moved in the opposite direction.

We will debate that in the next amendment, in the name of my noble friend Lord Caithness, and later after Clause 1 in the amendment in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Newby and Lord Wallace of Saltaire, and my noble friend Lord Strathclyde. I will be supporting that, although I am very much looking forward to the Liberal Democrats explaining exactly how supporting a Bill that establishes an appointed House is the best route to achieving an elected House.

If the Government wish to explain what plans they have for the future of this House and even to start to implement those plans, it would be difficult to object to this Bill. But they have not. An alternative, and the simplest way to achieve the Government’s objective, would be, as has been suggested, to enact the measure contained in the various Private Members’ Bills from the noble Lord, Grocott, which, again, the House will examine later in this Committee. Suffice to say that, regardless of the merits or otherwise of that proposal, for some obscure reason the Government believe that the proposal from the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, has passed its sell-by date and can no longer be enacted, although I have been unable to find anyone who can explain 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 is also worth pointing out that, although the Bill from the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, may be familiar to some of us, it 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 my noble friend Lord True, I hope that, rather than spending a long time arguing every point, the Lord Privy Seal and my noble friend might find a way upon which the whole House could agree.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful for the comments that have been made and for the different tone from the noble Lord, Lord True, which I welcome. I will just say one thing. The noble Lord spoke about a passing political Executive. He will know, as I do, that that is actually known as the Government, in all cases. I think it was beneath him to make a comment such as that and I am sorry he did. His other comments were welcome, and I am grateful to him for making them.

The noble Lord’s amendment, as he said, seeks to provide a description of the purpose of the Bill. He will know, as I know, that a similar amendment was debated in the other place. It was rejected by a majority of 277 because it is an unnecessary amendment, as we have seen.

We have heard a couple of repeats of Second Reading speeches. The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, repeated some of his comments from Second Reading, as did the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. I am not going to go into another Second Reading speech, but I will comment on what they have said. I will, of course, clarify the purpose of this legislation, which I think will be helpful.

I spoke at Second Reading—and we have heard from noble Lords opposite—about the agreements put in place by the House of Lords Act 1999, which were then expected to be temporary arrangements for 90 remaining hereditary Peers, with a system of by-elections. There would be 92 in total but by-elections for the 90, with the exceptions being the Earl Marshal and Lord Great Chamberlain. Those arrangements were never expected to still be here a quarter of a century later, but they are.

I looked at the amendments and listened to the comments made by noble Lords. I expect my noble friend Lord Grocott will be possibly delighted but also somewhat dismayed by the sudden conversion of so many noble Lords to a Bill he tried so many times to bring forward. There were numerous debates on those Bills and noble Lords who sat through them will recall them well. In those Bills, my noble friend said that he wanted to bring an end to the system of by-elections but would allow those hereditary Peers among us, particularly those who have contributed to this House, to remain in the House for life as life Peers.

For some reason that I do not understand, those who now say that that was a good Bill and ask why we cannot go back to it put so much effort into destroying that Bill that it never got on to the statute book. Had that Bill been agreed then, we would not be here now. What we would be doing is having the discussions the noble Lord and I have had on other occasions about the other issues in our manifesto and finding a way forward that would benefit the House. However, there was a small number of noble Lords who frustrated the passage of that Bill and got us to this point, and I regret that.

The principle that we should not do anything until we do everything—and, in effect, do nothing—is not an acceptable position to hold. That time has gone. I remind noble Lords that this was a manifesto commitment, but I also say, as noble Lords have heard me say time and again, there is nothing at all that is a barrier to those in your Lordships’ House who are here as hereditary Peers to having life peerages. I have said that time and again. I appreciate that the route for that is different for the Cross-Benchers from how it is for the political parties. I am sorry that has come up again, but I have to make the point that there is no barrier to them returning as life Peers. Therefore, the purpose in the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord True, is not necessary in the Bill.