House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Lord Roberts of Belgravia Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd July 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Roberts of Belgravia]

1: Clause 1, page 1, line 1, at end insert—
“(A1) In section 1 of the House of Lords Act 1999 (exclusion of hereditary peers), at end insert “, except for the Earl Marshal and the Lord Great Chamberlain”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to retain the Earl Marshal and the Lord Great Chamberlain as members of the House of Lords with the right to sit and vote.

[Lord Roberts of Belgravia (Con)]

My Lords, the adjective “historic” is bandied about far too often in politics, covering all sorts of things that are unlikely to detain historians of the future. Football matches, TV shows and any number of announcements in the other place are routinely described as historic when they simply are not. The other day I saw a hamburger described as historic.

Today, however, our debate about the abolition of the hereditary element of our House after its 800 years of service is indeed historic and will be studied by historians in years to come. We should so conduct ourselves, therefore, that, as Andrew Marvell wrote of Charles I at his execution, future historians will say that we

“nothing common did or mean

Upon that memorable scene”.

Yet it strikes me that His Majesty’s Government are indeed about to do something very mean-spirited in including the Earl Marshal and the Lord Great Chamberlain in this legislation, because these two noble Lords undertake totally different roles on behalf of the Crown and state from any other of the hereditary Peers, roles that greatly benefit from their being Members of this House. Excising these two hereditary Peers from the Bill would be an easy and costless way both to show gratitude to them for their hard work in unpaid roles—the quintessence of noblesse oblige—but also, crucially, to allow them to stay in close touch with the Members of your Lordships’ House whom they serve so efficiently.

We all know the history. The office of Lord Great Chamberlain dates back to the Norman Conquest, when William the Conqueror appointed Robert Malet to superintend the improvements of Westminster Palace. He did it on time and under budget, as I am sure will also be the case in the restoration and renewal project. The office was made hereditary by Henry I in 1133, which is more than three-quarters of a century before the barons—statues of whom we see above us here—forced King John to sign Magna Carta.

For some reason, Lords Great Chamberlain had the right in law to demand the clothes worn by the monarch at his or her Coronation. However, James I had just arrived from chilly Edinburgh and did not want to part with them, so he paid £200 in lieu. Similarly, Queen Anne paid £300 to keep her “bottom drawer intact”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I would say no, because the danger is that the issues get wider and wider, and no decision is taken. Looking at these things in bite-size chunks in order to reach a conclusion and make recommendations is helpful to the House. I am not opposed to looking at other issues as well, but if this committee focuses on two specific issues, we can, I hope, make progress. I hope we can make progress quite quickly, too, because I think that is what the House is really looking for.

[Lord Roberts of Belgravia (Con)]

I welcome the assurances given by the Minister and will not seek to test the opinion of the House. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 1 withdrawn.

UK-Mauritius Agreement on the Chagos Archipelago

Lord Roberts of Belgravia Excerpts

Monday 30th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Roberts of Belgravia (Con)]

My Lords, the United Nations Special Committee on Decolonization, which has been a major driving force behind these legal attacks on the British Indian Ocean Territories, was founded in November 1961 and was dedicated to erasing the phenomenon of non-self-governing territories. It had important work to do in the 1960s and 1970s, the period of winds of change, when western colonial powers were decolonising much of the globe.

However, the special committee has utterly failed to recognise that the world has changed, as has the nature of modern colonisation. “The process of decolonisation is not complete”, the special committee threatens on its website, saying that it is dedicated to “completing this mandate”. It then numbers the 17 territories that it has yet to force to decolonise, and these include the Falkland Islands, Gibraltar, the Pitcairn Islands, St Helena, the British Virgin Islands, Monserrat, the Turks and Caicos, Anguilla, Bermuda and the Cayman Islands. The majority of the places in its sights are therefore British; indeed, English is the main language in 14 of them.

Whether the overwhelming majority of people of those territories wish to remain British—which, in vote after vote in places such as Gibraltar and the Falklands, they remind us that they certainly do—is utterly immaterial in the eyes of the UN Special Committee on Decolonization, one of whose three vice-chairs is Cuban and another is from Indonesia, the country that occupies West Papua. There are 29 states represented on the special committee, including such bastions of democracy and human rights as China, Cuba, Iran, Russia, Syria and Venezuela. These are the countries that are denouncing Britain for colonialism in places such as the Chagos Islands, where for over half a century there has been no permanent civilian population.

China, meanwhile, has blocked the classification of Hong Kong, Inner Mongolia, Macao, Tibet and Xinjiang as non-self-governing territories under the terms of reference of the United Nations special committee, even though, of course, they are all effectively run from Beijing. Russia has blocked no fewer than 26 territories, such as Crimea, from being put on the list. Why does Britain put up with this glaring farce? There is effectively an entire bureau of the United Nations dedicated entirely to eradicating British overseas territories such as the Chagos Islands. Once the Chagos are handed over to Mauritius, the special committee will simply justify its own existence by moving on to the next British territory.

This is happening at a time when there are plenty of examples around the world of powers that have genuinely occupied and colonised other countries. I have mentioned Russia, China and Indonesia, but with varying degrees of legality and lethality, Turkey occupies Northern Cyprus, India occupies Kashmir, Armenia occupies parts of Nagorno-Karabakh, and so on. Yet none of these appears on the United Nations committee’s hit list. Imperialism was never solely a western pathology, any more than war or slavery are, yet the only powers that the United Nations Special Committee on Decolonization accuses are western, except for Morocco in the Western Sahara.

In 1965, the United Kingdom split the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius, which never owned it. So, what could be more imperialist today than handing over these islands, against the wishes of their exiled inhabitants, to a foreign power over 1,300 miles away that never ruled them in the past? Could anything be more ruthless and more contemptuous of the principle of self-determination, whatever the utterly egregious United Nations Special Committee on Decolonization might say?

In a recent survey, only 19% of British people said that the British Government stuck up for our national interests. This is shocking, but hardly surprising if the present measure is anything to go by.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Lord Roberts of Belgravia Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 11th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Roberts of Belgravia (Con)]

My Lords, speaking as a historian, it seems to me that severing the link between Parliament and the noble families of Britain, after so many centuries of their service, will damage the prestige of this House. The grandeur of this place is bound up not just with its art, books and architecture but with the connection that these noble houses provide to our national past.

For example, the noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk, and the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, are direct descendants of Lord Mowbray—to whose statue in this Chamber I point noble Lords. He helped force King John to sign Magna Carta, the charter document of the liberties of us all. To pick up on what the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, said, admittedly those Barons were very undiverse—none the less, that is what they did. I know that Peers are not supposed to use props for their speeches, but I thought that noble Lords would forgive me for referring to a 10-foot high, two century-old statue.

Mention of the noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk, prompts me to ask the Leader of the House whether the Government approve of him continuing in his hereditary role as Earl Marshal, an office that his family has held since 1672, and the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, continuing to hold his hereditary role as Lord Great Chamberlain, which has been in continuous existence since 1138. In this fatwa against the hereditary principle, surely the Government should advise the King to throw open these posts to public competition in a transparent process overseen by the DCMS, of course after due advertisement in the Guardian—that will look terrible in Hansard; I hope there is a special font for irony.

One argument repeatedly made in the debate on the Motion to Take Note of Lords reform on 12 November was that, because only Britain and Lesotho have an hereditary element in their constitutions, it is somehow illegitimate and embarrassing. We should not be embarrassed about the exceptionalism of the British constitution, which is born of a quite different historical development from those of other countries. That does not make it better or worse, simply different. Over three and a half centuries, it has been the result of evolution, and not of revolution, war and invasion.

It will damage the prestige of this House to become entirely appointed. The accusation that it was a Prime Minister’s cronies’ Chamber was always vitiated by the fact that it had plenty of cronies of the Stuart, Hanoverian and Saxe-Coburg monarchs too, who are not beholden to anyone living. We ought to cherish that. Furthermore, the Bill will drive up the average age of Members of this House, when we are trying to bring it down. It will also make it more London-centric—although, admittedly, with the title I have chosen, I am in no position to grandstand about that.

A sense of continuity, stability and tradition must be good for Parliament. It is true that we probably would not invent the House if it did not exist, but it none the less does a fine job of revising the occasionally substandard legislation sent over to us by the other place. The House of Lords is thus reminiscent of the old joke about the French post-structuralist philosophy professor at the Sorbonne, who asks his class: “I accept that it works in practice, but does it work in theory?” It is not mere romance, snobbery or reaction that motivates those of us who wish to keep the House of Lords, as Disraeli called it on coming here as Earl of Beaconsfield, “the Elysian fields”.

A tradition of service which holds power in no awe and which sees itself as an ancient council of state rather than a glorified quango is worth defending. When this Bill passes, as, sadly, it will, the hereditary Peers shall, as the Duke of Argyll predicted 130 years ago, “return into the bosom of the people out of which we came, which we have loved so long and served so well”. Those of us who are left and who value selfless, disinterested government will mourn their removal.