House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Lord Moore of Etchingham Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Tuesday 10th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, as a relatively new Member of your Lordships’ House, I was the Liberal Democrat Bill Whip on the House of Lords Bill in 1999. I therefore had my apprenticeship in how legislation goes through under the tutelage of the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer. I am, therefore—along with the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, I think—one of only two people who have sat through not only all the debates on that Bill but every debate on this second Bill dealing with the hereditary Peers.

My principal emotion this evening, therefore, is one of relief. I believe this Bill is long overdue; it is not, of course, the wholesale reform which members of my party and I wish to see, but is, in our view, a welcome and necessary change. I am also pleased that the proceedings are to end with a whimper rather than a bang. When we voted on whether all hereditaries should be given a life peerage, the majority was 37. The number of Conservative hereditaries who voted was 41. They made the difference. It was, to put it mildly and diplomatically, not a good look. I am relieved that there is no possibility of the same thing happening again this evening.

I am pleased that some hard-working Conservative and Cross-Bench hereditary Peers are to get life peerages. Noble Lords will have seen that, as far as these Benches are concerned, we decided to use some of our regular intake of new Peers to give life peerages to my noble friends Lord Addington and Lord Russell, who have made such valuable contributions to our work over some time. That is out of a mere six new Lib Dem Peers since the election. The Conservatives have had 24 and some of those places could have been for hereditary Peers; only the noble Lord, Lord True, and his leader in another place know why this course was not followed. It seems to me that that was an opportunity missed.

I greatly welcome the Government’s decision to ensure that all Ministers in your Lordships’ House are salaried. I associate this change particularly with my late colleague Baroness Randerson. When she was Wales Minister and Northern Ireland spokesman in the coalition Government, not only did she not receive a salary, but on days on which she visited Wales or Northern Ireland, she did not receive an attendance allowance either. This was scandalous, and I am pleased that this injustice will not be visited on any future Lords Ministers.

Finally, I wish to thank outgoing hereditary Peers for their contributions to the work of your Lordships’ House. They have been valued Members and, in some cases, have worked tirelessly on behalf of the House for many years. It is, however, now time for a change. As I said at the start, I am relieved that, with today’s debate, we are able to bring this particular chapter in our parliamentary history to an end. We now look forward to the results of the committee looking at retirement age and participation. That is the next stage in making our House a better functioning and more credible institution, which I am sure everybody wants to see.

[Lord Moore of Etchingham (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I much admired the speech by the noble Earl, Lord Devon, but I must say that I did not agree with him. He spoke with his wonderful customary elegance and idiosyncrasy, but I did not agree with him when he criticised the nature of the deal that has been done. This House should thank the Leader of the House and the Leader of the Opposition for bringing this together and getting on with it. Nevertheless, it is a sad moment, and anyone with a sense of history would have to feel that.

Before we gathered for this debate, I walked down the Royal Gallery and looked at the plaques for noble Lords and their heirs who were killed in the two World Wars. I noticed that I was reading names all of which are represented in this House and very shortly will not be: Ponsonby, on both sides of this House; Stonor—this is the family name, not the title; Vane; Wellington; Berry; Colville; Goschen; Trenchard; and, of course, Wedgwood Benn. That is a small reminder of something which is very valuable about this House, which is continuity, and from continuity comes a certain sort of wisdom.

I have a little theory about your Lordships’ House. Once you feel you lack legitimacy, or your legitimacy is in question, you behave a bit better because you are a little doubtful about whether you should be there and so are on your best behaviour. I think the House of Lords has been better since 1911, and better since 1958, than when it really was powerful, because it feels that it needs to be careful. Over those years since 1958, a very good balance was struck between the hereditaries and the life Peers. That meant that ill feeling against the House of Lords was incredibly rare in the second half of the 20th century—it was hardly an issue at all. It is rather noticeable that, since the Blair reforms of 1999, the reputation of this House has become more and more contested, and people have got crosser and crosser.

This presents a challenge to us. The danger is that, rather than recovering legitimacy in the public mind by what is happening, we are actually hollowed out in people’s minds—we have some trappings but are not the real thing and are not something else. I was walking down into the Peers’ entrance the other day and noticed no fewer than 10 of those red boxes containing Letters Patent, which seemed quite a lot. I am sure they are all most welcome additions to your Lordships’ House, but it reminded me of the responsibility. People are going to go on saying, “Why are you here? What right have you to be here?” I hope that we will have an answer.

We can learn from the hereditary Peers at least two important things. One is that we must maintain courtesy in our dealings, and the other is that concern for the public good is the big motivator. The prevailing tendency after this will be that the spirit of party becomes stronger and the public spirit becomes weaker. It is very much our duty to make sure that does not happen.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords for their comments and particularly to the noble Lord, Lord True, and the noble Earl, Lord Kinoull, for their warm reception for the way forward. I am also grateful to the noble Lord from the Liberal Democrat Benches—