House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Lord Hamilton of Epsom Excerpts

Tuesday 10th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Devon (CB)]

My Lords, given that this is the final time we will consider this Bill, I offer some concluding words as a departing hereditary—as a defender of the indefensible who has long championed our presence in this House and has sought to shine a light on the value of our long period of public service. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, that that is approaching 900 years for some of us.

The passage of this Bill is regrettable. I believe that this House, Parliament and the country more widely will miss us, not as individuals but as an essential, ancient thread in the complex and fragile constitutional fabric that supports our nation. It is ironic that a Government who pride themselves on improving employee rights and enhancing the security of those who work should choose to offer the longer-serving Members of our constitutional workforce a mere seven weeks’ formal notice of termination—notably less than the statutory minimum. His Majesty’s Government will argue that we have been on notice for 27—or, perhaps, over 100 —years. Yet, as every employment lawyer knows, it is one thing to work under threat of redundancy but quite another for that threat to be formalised, as when this Bill receives its Royal Assent.

However, this is not a matter of employment law. If it were, there would be discriminatory concerns, given the regrettable commonality of protected characteristics among our hereditary Peers. Instead, we serve at His Majesty’s pleasure, summoned pursuant to a writ by which we are commanded to attend this Parliament in Westminster and provide counsel. I am concerned that His Majesty, in losing his longest-serving constitutional counsellors, will be left considerably exposed at a vulnerable time for our hereditary monarchy. I repeat my very real worry that his institution may be next, given the treatment meted out to us, his hereditary partners.

I do not wish to be negative. His Majesty’s Government are to be congratulated on the satisfaction of their manifesto commitment. I was never a fan of the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, that was sent back to the other place, which would have converted all hereditary Peers into life Peers, so I am glad we are not seeking to urge that again. I believe we should be proud to sit here as embodiments of the hereditary principle that has served our nation for over a millennium. I also believe we should not use that hereditary privilege to secure for ourselves as individuals life peerages that could and should go to people of a more diverse background who may serve the nation somewhat better.

I do not begrudge the many devoted public servants among us who honourably wish to continue to serve in your Lordships’ House after our hereditary right is abolished. The expertise among many hereditary Members will be sorely missed, but there should have been a better way to determine who remains and who goes than the political arm-wrestling that has taken place behind closed doors, and through the Orwellian usual channels, over the past 18 months. Indeed, is it not yet a further irony that the most transparently selected cohort amongst your Lordships, the elected excepted hereditaries, each of whom has been through a publicly scrutinised albeit idiosyncratic by-election process, will be subsumed into the ever-spreading stain of political patronage that, regrettably, characterises the vast majority of appointments to your Lordships’ House? At a time when the composition of this venerable institution is under scrutiny like never before—as a member of the Conduct Committee, I can vouch for the intensity of the brickbats being deployed—are we right to add yet more opacity to our operations?

As many hereditaries have said throughout the passage of the Bill, we hoped that the promise of the 1999 Weatherill amendment would be fulfilled and that the remaining hereditary Peers would depart this House leaving it better constituted than we found it. Unfortunately, that is not the case. We are being removed out of political expedience, with only the loose promise of a modest further reform through the Retirement and Participation Committee in exchange. I fear that will not be enough to satisfy the critics, but I wish the House well in this vital process.

In closing, I thank the noble Baroness the Leader of the House for her courtesy and patience in dealing with a matter that I know she has found challenging. However, in the week of International Women’s Day, I put in one final plea: that female succession to our hereditary peerages remains on her agenda when we are gone. I note that, when His Majesty’s Government are doing such important work fighting the scourge of violence against women and girls, it is anathema that we reserve roles anywhere within our society solely to men, particularly roles with some cultural prominence. I am sorry to have failed in ridding us of this misogyny, but I hope your Lordships will be willing to take the matter forward once we are gone.

I will miss this place and would of course love to return, but only on merit, not by dint of my hereditary privilege. Your Lordships might think you have heard quite enough of that, and of Devon.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

I echo the sentiments of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, about the noble Lord, Lord Grocott. I did not realise he was ill. It is very sad that he is not with us today, and I know we will all wish him the very best recovery from the problems that he has at the moment. I was a great admirer of the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, because he was one of the few people on the Labour Benches who wanted to leave the EU when almost all his party wanted to remain in it. I thought that was an act of enormous courage.