House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 2nd July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Trenchard (Con)]

My Lords, I agree entirely with what my noble friend Lord Lucas has just said. I support in principle Amendment 8, in the name of the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, but I think he is rather timid. If he believes in substantive reform of your Lordships’ House, he should table an amendment to achieve that now. Surely he knows that, as my noble friend Lord Lucas has just suggested, there is no real chance of further reform of your Lordships’ House being seriously proposed during the current Parliament.

I do not want to irritate the Minister but, however many times I read the Labour Party manifesto, I do not believe that it suggests there will be three stages of Lords reform—as the noble Baroness has argued on several occasions. I am afraid that I do not agree that it was quite clear in the manifesto that there would be three stages. Any rational person reading the Labour Party manifesto would understand that it proposes two stages. This Bill seeks to achieve only one of six measures which the manifesto proposed as part of a single “action to modernise” your Lordships’ House. Those words I repeat from the manifesto.

If the Labour Party had clearly stated in its manifesto that there would be three stages of reform, of which the first would be the removal of all those who entered the House as hereditary Peers, and nothing else, it would have been strongly criticised across the media. It would have been seen as discriminatory to treat some members of a body of people doing the same job with the same rights in a different manner from others.

I am most surprised that the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, for whom I have always had the highest regard, believes that the amendment to which she has added her name would lead to further substantive reform. If she really believes in a more democratic House, which has been the firm policy of her party for decades, her best chance of achieving it would be to work together with others to amend the Bill. I had hoped that the noble Baroness might see the value in tabling an amendment similar to Amendment 6, tabled by my noble friend Lord Lucas in Committee, and Amendment 8, which I tabled, to retain 90 Peers who are elected in some sense but to “de-hereditise” them. We could thereby avoid moving to an all-appointed House. We could retain the sand in the shoe, but on a more open and democratic basis. I would suggest 20 for the Cross Benches and 70 for the principal party blocs, to be allocated based on the average number of votes cast in the last three general elections.

[Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)]

My Lords, can the noble Viscount confirm which amendment in this group he is addressing?

[Viscount Trenchard (Con)]

I am addressing Amendment 8 and addressing the general debate on the group. I am about to conclude my remarks, if the noble Baroness will allow me.

It would have been a nod to PR and, in terms of numbers, it would benefit the Liberal Democrats and the Labour Party, but it would be less devastating to these Benches than the effects of the Bill as it stands at present. Leaving aside the complications that are presented by the national parties of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland—which can of course be solved—the “three elections’ average votes” formula would produce 29 Conservatives, 27 Labour, eight Liberal Democrats and three each for Reform and the Greens.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

My Lords, I will be brief, because this is the fifth time I have spoken on this topic. The first time I spoke, when I advanced the proposition that the Lord Chancellor should come back to this House, Lord Judge—whom I think we all miss very much—inquired in that very gentle way of his whether I was making a job application on the Floor of the House of Lords. I confirmed that I was not and I declare the same non-interest in this speech today.

As my noble and learned friend Lord Keen of Elie has made clear, the position of Lord Chancellor occupies a distinct role in our constitution. The Lord Chancellor is still the only Cabinet Minister who takes a distinct oath to uphold the rule of law, and while the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General and I have had some interesting debates about what is and what is not constituted within the term “the rule of law”, it is an important—indeed, a fundamental—part of our constitution, and I think it is undeniable that in moving the Lord Chancellor away from this House and allowing the position of Lord Chancellor to be held by a Member of the House of Commons, for whom, as my noble and learned friend indicated, it might be an intermediate station stop on a ministerial career, rather than a grand terminus, I think we have lost something.

We have also changed the position of Lord Chief Justice, because while formerly the Lord Chancellor was the person who would speak up for judges, that role now falls to the Lord—or now the Lady—Chief Justice. While there have been some excellent holders of that post—the current holder is particularly excellent —it is unfortunate that we have, in part, turned that post into something of a shop steward for the judges, whereas in the past they had a member of the Cabinet around the Cabinet table, speaking up for judges, for justice and for the rule of law.

I also think, finally, that there is considerable merit in what my noble and learned friend said about the Lord Chancellor heading a small but focused department. One could even call it the Department for Constitutional Affairs: I seem to remember that name being used in the past. That department could have responsibility for the rule of law, for devolution, for civil liberties, for treaties and for human rights—the very things that keep our society the sort of society that we want it to be. These things should not change; they should not come and go with Governments. Frankly, under the last Government as well, we had too many Secretaries of State for Justice, because it was treated as a Cabinet position like any other, but the reason it is treated as a Cabinet position like any other is because that is essentially what the 2005 Act did.

I do not want to go back. We cannot go back to the status quo ante, or to a situation where the Lord Chancellor was a Cabinet Minister and a judge and occupied the Woolsack here; but we can identify that there is something about the role of the Lord Chancellor that is different from all other Cabinet Ministers. For those reasons, I have put my name to this amendment, and I support it.

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

My Lords, it may be helpful if I inform your Lordships’ House that my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General also took an oath to uphold the rule of law when he took office.

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

The point I was trying to make is that I think—the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General may correct me—that he took an oath because he wanted to. I think the only one that is based in statute is the Lord Chancellor’s. That is the point I was making.

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

That is correct, but I think it is important to note that my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General chose to because he views that as part of his role.

Amendment 10, tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, seeks to ensure that the Lord Chancellor is always a Member of the House of Lords rather than of the other place. It is the same amendment tabled previously by the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, who, as ever, made an effective and articulate argument for the change, but, with the greatest respect, as my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General said in the previous debate on this matter, the amendment is more focused on unpicking the constitutional settlement agreed in the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 and recasting the role of Lord Chancellor as it currently stands than it is on the principle of the Bill before us. The noble and learned Lord made his case with his customary eloquence, but the Government are not persuaded of the constitutional or policy rationale for a return to the 2005 decision.

The 2005 Act rightly ended the mixing of the Executive and the judiciary, and this is not something that this Government wish to reverse. The amendment would, in effect, bind the hands of the Prime Minister over whom he can appoint to be Lord Chancellor, excluding Members of the other place from holding this role. This is unnecessarily restrictive. It would also have the practical effect of forcing the Prime Minister to appoint a new Lord Chancellor, either by appointing a new Peer to this place, choosing an existing Peer or triggering a by-election so as to appoint the present Lord Chancellor to your Lordships’ House.

As my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General said in Committee, the Constitution Committee noted that

“character, intellect and a commitment to the rule of law”

are the most important qualities of a Lord Chancellor. My right honourable friend the Lord Chancellor demonstrates these qualities in abundance, and the House she sits in does not hinder her from discharging her duties as Lord Chancellor. This amendment does nothing to safeguard such qualities in the role of the Lord Chancellor.

I am surprised that the Official Opposition have raised the creation of a department for constitutional affairs; they had 14 years in which to create such a department if they had chosen to do so, yet they did not. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, said that the Lord Chancellor should be in charge of a department for constitutional affairs. Such machinery of government changes are of course a matter for the Prime Minister, not for this Bill. Since the creation of the Ministry of Justice in 2007, different Government departments have seen value in a single officeholder having a more holistic oversight of the justice system, by virtue of their responsibility for prisons and probation, as well as for courts and tribunals.

I therefore respectfully request that the noble Lord withdraws his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

My Lords, this is a short but focused amendment, which rightly addresses the issue of standards and trust in our House. Ultimately, this House rests on its integrity and reputation.

As my noble friend mentioned, the Labour Party’s manifesto committed to

“ensure all peers meet the high standards the public expect of them”,

and went on to say that they would do that by,

“strengthening the circumstances in which disgraced Members can be removed”.

During the debate we had on 12 November last year, my noble and learned friend Lord Keen of Elie asked the noble Baroness the Lord Privy Seal why the Government were delaying their manifesto commitment to strengthen the circumstances in which disgraced Members could be removed. I have to say that a good reason was not provided. The only reason provided was the oft-repeated statement that the only way reform will be achieved is to do it in pieces. Obviously, we have heard that a number of times.

Although I accept that the precise way this House works is not the common currency in the Dog and Duck, and that people do not talk about it around the country, I suspect that the one thing people everywhere around the country would expect is that lawbreakers should not be lawmakers, and that if you break the law and you are convicted, you should not continue to sit in Parliament. That is the short point at the heart of this amendment. It is already the case, of course, that if you are convicted and you have your liberty taken away from you then you lose your right to be here. To that extent, this amendment is only therefore an extension of that principle.

I accept that there were discussions across the Dispatch Box and there was a general understanding that some complexities were involved; the noble Baroness also told us that there would be “further dialogue”. As it is now just after midnight and we come to the end of the first day on Report, can the Lord Privy Seal update us on the extent of that further dialogue and what the Government’s plans are in this regard? If the Government do not have anything really focused in this area, having thought about it, it might well be that my noble friend’s amendment is the way to go.

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

To reassure noble Lords, the Government remain committed to strengthening the circumstances in which disgraced Members can be removed. Our position on this amendment has not changed, not least given that it is not a matter for the Bill.

It may be helpful to the House if I briefly set out the current arrangements regarding expulsion. There are two routes of suspension. At the moment, under the House of Lords Reform Act 2014, a Member of the House ceases to be a Member if the Lord Speaker certifies that they are convicted of a serious offence—that is, they are convicted of a criminal offence and given a non-suspended prison sentence of more than a year.

Where a Member receives a prison sentence but not one long enough to engage the 2014 Act, the provisions of the House of Lords (Expulsion and Suspension) Act 2015 and Standing Orders will be engaged. Under these, a Member who has received a prison sentence of any length is deemed to have breached the Code of Conduct and may be referred to the Conduct Committee, which in turn may recommend a sanction up to and including expulsion from the House. The current statutory framework is a tightly bound one, where only Peers who have been sentenced to a period of imprisonment can be subject to the sanction of suspension, either on an automatic basis or by engaging the 2015 Act and the provisions in Standing Orders.

The noble Lord’s amendment, in setting the threshold at indictment, would have the effect of bringing into scope a much wider array of offences with significantly varying degrees of seriousness and sentencing. I would question whether that is necessarily the appropriate threshold for expulsion and whether this sanction should not be reserved for the most serious of offences.

The Government are committed to ensuring that those who work in public life maintain high standards of ethics and propriety, not just in this House, but across all public servants and officeholders.

As the House will be aware, the Conduct Committee has only recently concluded its review of the Code of Conduct, which made several recommendations relating to the process following a Peer being convicted of a criminal offence. Therefore, it would be right for the House to allow these changes to bed in before considering what further changes may be needed. But we are open to the idea of pursuing this further in the Conduct Committee.

Given that the hour is late, I plan on finishing my comments there, but I am happy to continue discussions outside your Lordships’ House on this area. I therefore respectfully request that the noble Lord withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

I do not think the Minister answered the question of my noble friend. What do the Government have in mind when they talk about strengthening the ways of getting rid of disgraced Members? What sort of offences would those be?

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

My Lords, I am ever so sorry: I thought I had answered the question. We are working with the Conduct Committee to bed in what has just been changed and to see if further change is required after we have seen whether the most recent changes have worked.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

I am grateful to the Minister for her response. In view of what she has said, let us hope that the changes that the Conduct Committee has proposed are effective. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.