House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Lord Gove Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 9th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hacking (Lab)]

My Lords, I am puzzled by the intervention just now by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee. For some time now, if a Member of this House has been posted abroad or for some other reason is unable to attend the House regularly, they apply for a leave of absence. It is as simple as that.

[Lord Gove (Con)]

My Lords, I hesitate to rise in this debate and was not intending to, but since no other Member of this House has spoken in opposition to the amendment from the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, I shall do so very briefly.

I hesitate to do so because when I was Education Secretary, I introduced legislation to deal with persistent absentees, and therefore it might be thought that I was in sympathy with the intent behind this amendment. But one of the reasons why I am very cautious about seeing this amendment go further is this. It is based on a false premise that we hear often, which is that this House has too many Members and new schemes must be found somehow to identify those who should be expunged or removed at any point. If we look at the Division lists in the votes that we have just had, the numbers are lower than one would expect in some of the Divisions in the other place. The suggestion that there are too many Members can often be a means of trying to get rid of those Members whom the Executive or others, for whatever reason, ideologically or otherwise, find inconvenient—a stone in the shoe. We in this House should not be seeking to reduce the range of voices, to limit the number of Members or indeed, potentially, to forfeit expertise.

That takes me to my second point. Many of those Members of this House who will not be here for 10%, 11% or 12% of the time—or whatever arbitrary percentage figure we choose—will be people of eminence who will be occupied outside in deploying their expertise for the public good or who will have achieved eminence in a particular role. They may be, for example, former Prime Ministers. Would it be right if we found that, for example, Theresa May—the noble Baroness, Lady May —had attended this House for only 8% or 9% of Sittings in a given year and should somehow be expelled? That would be an outrage, but that is what would happen if we followed this arbitrary proposal.

That takes me to my third point. I know that this amendment comes from a place of courtesy and consideration and that the Cross Benches are anxious to ensure that this House can accommodate the request for reform that comes from the other place and from outside. That is why I am so cautious in pushing back. But, rather than seeking to bend the operation of our House to those who are not in sympathy with it, we should seek to ensure that it operates effectively in challenging faulty legislation and in making sure that expertise is deployed—not in attempting to regulate our numbers but in attempting to regulate the flow of legislation that comes from the other place which is faulty and which benefits from the expertise here. If we lose a single voice that is expert and authoritative in challenging that Executive, we undermine the case for this place. That is why, with the greatest respect, I oppose this amendment.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, we undermine respect for this House if we continue to have people who do not turn up more than once in each Session. The answer to the point from the noble Lord, Lord Gove, about previous Prime Ministers is that the rule is not absolute, because Section 2(3)(b) of the legislation being amended provides that the House may resolve that the period of attendance should not apply to the particular Peer

“by reason of special circumstances”,

so there is already a statutory provision that allows for exceptions.

My other point in answer to the noble Lord is that we have already accepted the principle. Section 2(1) requires that each Peer must attend at least once during a Session, so we have accepted that people who do not comply with the timing position must go. The only question is whether that is a realistic limit. I entirely agree with the convenor that a once-in-a-Session provision is not an appropriate rule. A much more appropriate rule is to require people to be here 10% of the time.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Lord Gove Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 9th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Gove (Con)]

My Lords, I feel compelled to rise again on the principle that there is no argument so impeccable that it does not deserve to have at least one voice raised in opposition. Among your Lordships, there seems to be a consensus that the House is too large and that a variety of measures should be introduced—new guillotines and new tumbrils—to ensure that the numbers are limited. The arguments, put forward in good faith by many wiser figures than me, deserve to be opposed.

One reason why it is vital that we oppose them—following on from my noble friend Lord Young’s point about Elvis Presley, I suspect that I will find myself “lonesome tonight” in making this case—is that the arguments that have been advanced so far do not stand up to scrutiny. The noble Lord, Lord Butler, talked about the sometimes foolish use of the royal prerogative by Prime Ministers who appoint people to this House who may be ill-qualified or bring it into disrepute. I am not going to mention any names or speculate on whom he might be thinking of. However, if the Prime Minister acts in such a way, the sanction of a general election, the sanction of democracy punishing that Prime Minister—as it punishes any Prime Minister for any act of folly—is the appropriate way of checking any misuse of power or the Executive not behaving in a manner consistent with the dignity of their office or with the public will.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sentamu (CB)]

I thank the noble Lord for giving way. First, was Elizabeth I wrong when she faced a huge Privy Council and said, “It is too large for good governance”, and immediately reduced it to 30? The noble Lord says that numbers do not matter and that what matters is what we do here, but out there they are all saying that we are too large. Sometimes you do not need big bodies to do the job efficiently. Was Queen Elizabeth I right?

Secondly, nobody has said that the Prime Minister could not vote. It is not in this amendment. As I understood it, particularly from the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, these promises and views that we have heard unfortunately have become promissory notes on tissue paper, put into a Trojan horse which also is made of tissue paper.

[Lord Gove (Con)]

I am very grateful to the noble and right reverend Lord for his intervention, but I do not believe that if we reduce the size of the House to meet the criticisms of some, the fundamental opposition of many to the operation of the House would diminish. More importantly, the principal criticism that can be directed at any legislature is not about its size but its effectiveness and the willingness with which it operates to ensure that new laws that come there are properly scrutinised, and the more voices that are capable of being deployed in that debate and the more arguments that are effectively made, the better.

That takes me to my final point. I do not believe that there has ever been a recorded set of votes in this House where when you add a Division’s Contents and Not-Contents, they have been higher than the full composition of the other place. This House is flexible; our constitution is flexible. These attempts to impose external rigidities to meet some Charter 88 rationalist view of what we should be doing is an utterly mistaken course to go down, and I urge your Lordships to reject it.

[Baroness Hayman (CB)]

On the noble Lord’s last quip about some Charter 88, irrational view of the size of the House, I think that if he read the Burns report, he would learn how much thought went into choosing that size as providing enough person power to do exactly the jobs that he has discussed, to which I am as committed as he is. I believe that the size of the House, and the view outside of it, are not the most important factors, but they stand in the way of appreciation of what the House actually does and that it is not defensible to those who have not studied it in any detail.