House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Earl of Kinnoull Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 9th July 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[The Earl of Kinnoull]

18: After Clause 1, insert the following new Clause—
“Non-attendanceIn section 2 of the House of Lords Reform Act 2014 (non-attendance)—(a) in subsection (1), after the second “Lords”, insert “for 10% or more of sitting days”; (b) in subsection (2), after “Lords”, insert “for 10% or more of sitting days”;(c) in subsection (2)(a), leave out “at no time during the Session attended the House” and insert “attended the House for fewer than 10% of sitting days during the Session”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment will ensure that Peers would be required to sit at a minimum for more than 10% of the House’s sitting days in order to maintain their membership of this House.

[The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)]

My Lords, each of us receives, on appointment and at the start of each subsequent Parliament, a Writ of Summons. The writ says:

“We strictly enjoining command you upon the faith and allegiance by which you are bound to Us that considering the difficulty of the said affairs and dangers impending (waiving all excuses) you be personally present at Our aforesaid Parliament … to treat and give your counsel upon the affairs aforesaid”.


These words have a natural meaning, and everyone who is in the Chamber tonight is living up to their writ. I have observed in the various debates, starting in November last year, that those Peers who are in our House only very rarely are not living up to the words or the spirit of their Writ of Summons. Legally speaking, the minimum attendance is governed by Section 2 of the House of Lords Reform Act 2014. This provides that every Peer must attend at least once during a Session that lasts more than six months, or they cease to be a Member going forward.

There have been quite a lot of statistics on attendance during the passage of this Bill. I am, as I think many are, very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, for his work in this area. I have run a few fresh statistics for this current Session. Up to last Friday, 122 of our 834 Members had attended less than 10% of the time. Looking at how close people of the 122 are to the 10% line, at the whole-House level, it is entirely reasonable to think that, were this amendment to be enacted, 83 Peers, or 10% of the House, might choose a retirement option.

I have looked very carefully at the Cross-Bench position once again; the 10% hurdle is one that would allow a very important part of the Cross Benches to continue their valuable work in the House without threat. Examples of this cadre would be senior lawyers still in practice and senior academics. Having looked at the statistics for this session, which I did not have available in Committee when I made a similar point, I can say that nothing has changed. I feel the 10% hurdle is set with the interests of the House in mind. I believe this is the correct level to move participation to, from that set in 2014 of just one day.

I further note that, thanks to the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, we were able to debate this at some length in Committee. I am very sorry, I have the wrong draft in front of me, but I think my point is made. We have been able to debate this a number of times. I can say, having been present at every single one of the debates, that throughout the House there has been general agreement about people who do come and do not fulfil their obligations under the Writ of Summons, which is a very serious document. There was not a single person who did not feel that this was wrong. The only real debate was how high the bar should be set.

I made the point that, in the selfish interests of the Cross Benches, we have a number of people who are not able to come more than 10% of the time, or significantly more, and so, for us, we would want a lower bar. However, it is the case that we would have a haircut of a number of Members. A lot of us feel that there are too many Members of this House. Certainly, with the facilities that we enjoy—the number of offices and desks and the sheer cramming when I go to buy a sandwich in the River restaurant downstairs at lunchtime —that would be a benefit.

Anyway, I hope this will be a very interesting debate. The Leader and I have discussed this over many months, and I am very grateful. In fact, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, and I have also discussed it, as well as various other interesting ways around. In the meantime, I beg to move.

[Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)]

My Lords, I tried to deal with this problem when I was convenor in 2018. In that year my noble friend Lord Burns produced his report, which received quite a lot of support across the House, and I was persuaded that it was one of my duties as convenor to see whether I could persuade some Members on the Cross Benches to retire so that we would achieve the balance that my noble friend was seeking. What I did—it was my own choice—was to choose a 10% level, which the noble Earl has chosen in his amendment. I was conscious that the only way I could deal with this was by writing letters to people who were below the 10% bar, suggesting to them that it might be better for them to retire if they were not really able to make use of their privilege of membership of the House.

I received a mixed response—I do not think I was particularly popular in making that suggestion. But some of them responded, and a number decided to retire. The result was that I was able to achieve the balance that my noble friend Lord Burns was proposing, and I was able to maintain it during the rest of my tenure as convenor into 2019. I was greatly helped by the fact that the Prime Minister at the time was the noble Baroness, Lady May, who had very little interest in proposing new Members of the House, certainly as far as the Cross Benches were concerned, so the balance was quite easy for me to achieve.

Looking back, I am conscious of two problems. The first was the lack of authority. I really had no authority whatever, particularly as convenor; the convenor is much respected, but he does not have any authority among the Cross-Benchers. Just because I said it was time to retire, that was not necessarily something that they should follow—it was merely advice. Therefore, if we are to follow this suggestion that attendance is to be a qualification, we need the backing of something to enable the proposal to be enforced. Whether that is by legislation or by standing order is a different matter, but some kind of backing is necessary if the noble Lord and his successors are to be able to maintain the idea that attendance below 10% is not acceptable any more, and therefore people should retire.

The other problem—I am anticipating what my noble friend Lord Burns will tell us in the debate on Amendment 23—is the balance being upset by new Peers coming in whose number exceeds that of those who are retiring. That is a different issue, which we will come back to on Amendment 23.

My main point in support of the noble Earl is, first, that the 10% figure was one that I had decided was the right one in my time—we may want to debate it, but it seemed a sensible one—and, secondly, that we need some kind of authority across all the Benches seeking to enforce the idea. I offer my support for that.

I have just one footnote. One of the people to whom I wrote and who decided to retire was an academic who did not live in London and had very good reasons for finding it very difficult to get here to attend. Looking back, I thought it was a shame that he retired because if he had been a little more active, he would have made a major contribution. His attendance was at only 1%, and I thought, “Well, okay, it’s not really a margin”. If he had been at 9%, I might have said, “Look, let’s just drop it and try a little harder”, but his attendance was so far below that I felt there was no chance. If we have a cliff edge at 10%, there is the question of some people dropping over the edge of the cliff who really should not do so, and the committee should probably discuss that quite carefully.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)]

My Lords, this is the fourth time we have had a very similar debate on this topic in the last nine months. As ever, it has been of high quality, and I am very grateful to those who have participated.

I referred earlier to the many meetings that I have had with the Leader. I know how busy she is, and she has been very helpful on this topic. In those meetings we have talked about the committee and whether it could go a bit wider and deeper. I suspect that, when we come to the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Burns, the subject of the committee will be raised again, as it has this issue within it.

I have had extensive discussions with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, around what Standing Orders could do within the House. Many noble Lords will not be that familiar with Standing Orders, but Standing Order 2 regulates the minimum age for being in the House. The minimum age of 21 is nothing to do with statute but is in the Standing Order. That is an example of how powerful the Standing Orders can be. However, they cannot strike down primary legislation. They could never strike down Section 2 of the House of Lords Reform Act 2014, but they could be added on top of it, as long as they are consistent with the Act itself. I am of course a hopeless lawyer, but the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, is not, and it did seem that there is considerable promise in the Standing Order route.

That route brings another difficulty. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, looked at the statistics some years ago. I have now looked at lots of statistics and we have come to the same answer. I take comfort in that. However, putting 10% in statute would mean that, if it turned out that 10% was the wrong number and that it should have been 9.2%, it would be very difficult to move that around. If it was a Standing Order, it would be rather better.

That might sound as if I am not for my own amendment. Of course I am, as anyone would be. My feeling is that the words “personally present” and

“treat and give your counsel”

from our Writ of Summons are simply not taken seriously enough by a large number of fellow Members of the House.

At the end of all of that, and after an awful lot of discussion and thought, I have decided that I should beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 18 withdrawn.