House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Lord True Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 9th July 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord True]

13: After Clause 1, insert the following new Clause—
“Unsalaried MinistersNo one who is a Minister of the Crown shall be eligible for membership of the House of Lords unless they are in receipt of, or have been offered, a salary under the Ministerial and Other Salaries Act 1975.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would mean that unpaid Ministers would not be eligible for membership of the House, effectively requiring all Lords Ministers to be paid.

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, before speaking to Amendment 13, I should explain that I have tabled Amendment 13A on the supplementary list to put beyond doubt a point that may have been an unintended effect of the original drafting of Amendment 13. Amendment 13A ensures that the proposal in Amendment 13 would not apply to any existing Member of this House, but only to future ministerial appointments of new life Peers. After all, we on this side do not favour the forced expulsion of any Member of your Lordships’ House, and indeed your Lordships voted to support that important constitutional principle only last week. It has been agreed in the usual channels that, if the clarifying Amendment 13A is supported in a Division, Amendment 13 will be accepted as a consequential, so there will be only one vote on this issue.

The purpose of this is to send a clear message to the other place and to all Governments—I emphasise “all Governments”, and will come back to that—that service as a Minister in your Lordships’ House should be properly remunerated. There are other issues that need to be addressed, including pension and severance pay, but this amendment is about pay.

I spoke at some length on this in Committee, and I do not need to repeat all the arguments here, but let me set out three firm principles on which surely we across this House should all stand. The first is a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work; the second is equal treatment for Ministers in both Houses; and the third is that no Member of this House should be prevented from serving their party, their House and their country for the lack of private means to do so. That is an unfairness that should have ceased to exist in the 18th century, let alone now in the second quarter of the 21st century. None of those basic principles that I have set out currently applies to Lords Ministers’ pay. Surely all Government Ministers in the House of Lords, whichever party is in office, should be paid. If they wish to renounce that pay, or any part of it, that is all well and good, but that does not affect the basic underlying principles.

In Committee, I spoke very frankly of my sense of shame—and, I might have added, anger—that I was unable to resolve this issue while I was Leader of the House because of, frankly, opposition at the top of both major parties. I exclude the noble Baroness opposite from this, who was extremely helpful and constructive in our discussions. I need not repeat those points today.

Towards the end of the last Government, 14 Ministers and Whips in this House were expected to work unpaid. The unpaid Ministers included my noble friends Lord Howe, Lord Minto, Lord Camrose and Lord Roborough. It is richly ironic that their public service and self-sacrifice then will now be rewarded by this Bill, as originally drafted, excluding them from our House.

As I said in Committee, I felt particularly keenly that it was a disgrace that my noble friend Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon, a consummate and internationally respected servant of his country, lost out doubly as being unpaid and unable to claim an allowance because he was so often unable to attend the House because of his duties overseas. Such things should not happen.

Today, the Downing Street website tells us—I take it directly from there—that the noble Baroness, Lady Gustafsson, of Chesterton, and the noble Lords, Lord Hanson of Flint, Lord Timpson and Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill, all work as Ministers of State unpaid. The noble Lords, Lord Moraes, Lord Wilson of Sedgefield, Lord Katz and Lord Leong, and the noble Baroness, Lady Blake of Leeds, all work as Government Whips unpaid, according to the government website this morning.

Perhaps only those of us in this House understand the immense burden and workload that falls on Whips in your Lordships’ House. It is quite different from what happens in the Commons. We admire them all greatly, and each of those Ministers I named are greatly admired and respected by their colleagues on this side of the House.

But no one should be required to do all that work without pay. No one in any other workplace would tolerate that as a fair way to treat labour. Where is the clause in the massive Employment Rights Bill to right the wrong that is done not just to those individuals but, frankly, to the dignity of this House?

I take nothing away from the sense of public duty. I admire it tremendously because it has led noble Lords under successive Governments to give public service here without reward. But not everyone in this place has the means to do that. That is an unfairness and an injustice, and it should end.

The problem results from two 50 year-old statutes: the Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975 limits the total number of paid Ministers to 109, and the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 allows for up to 95 Ministers in the House of Commons. If the Commons takes up its full allocation of 95 ministerial places, the effective, legal statutory limit for paid Ministers in your Lordships’ House under that limit of 109 is just 14. Clearly, that is not enough. The system must be changed. Of course, it could be changed by a simple Bill agreed across the parties to amend paragraph 2 of Part V of Schedule 1 to the Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975 Act. I am sure we could agree that very swiftly.

The self-sacrifice and sense of duty of those who serve for nothing should be respected. However, it need not for ever be repeated. We cannot neglect this issue, I submit, for the dignity and effectiveness of this House. This amendment would force the hand of all future Governments and all parties in the other place to address the issue. Now that the Bill has now been amended and is going back to the other place, I hope we may agree to send this important message down the Corridor.

On the basis of my experience and my sense of the rightness and fairness of this House, it is high time to open up the opportunity to every one of us here who may wish to serve their party and country as Ministers or Whips in this place but cannot afford to do so without pay to have that chance.

On our side, we will work across the House to agree and expedite a fuller solution going beyond this initial step, which will redress the balance between Commons and Lords Ministers. In the interim, I commend this first step to the House, with the firm belief that if no message is ever sent, the same experience that I and former Leaders of the House have had will go on recurring and people here will be asked to work for nothing.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

My Lords—

Amendment 13A (to Amendment 13)

Moved by

[Lord True]

13A: At end insert—
“(2) This section does not apply to Ministers of the Crown appointed before the day on which this section comes into effect.”

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, as explained, I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

I apologise for jumping the gun, but the enthusiasm I feel for this amendment from my noble friend goes back to the previous Parliament: I pay tribute to the Leader of the House and to my noble friend for the efforts that were made in the last Parliament to right this wrong. Perhaps I could just make a few punchy points.

There is a limit, as my noble friend has explained, on the total number of Ministers. I was very indebted, in the last Parliament, to my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham, who pointed out that there seems to be an increasingly inflationary effect on the number of Ministers who are needed to run this country. When I was Secretary of State, pre-devolution, we were responsible for everything, not just the devolutionary matters in Scotland, and we did it with one Secretary of State, four Ministers and two law officers. There are now 29 Ministers in the Scottish Parliament.

I am looking at my noble friend Lord Clarke. He and my noble friend Lord Fowler ran the Department for Transport in 1979 with two Ministers, and in 1979, that department was responsible for British Airways, the ports and the National Freight Corporation, none of which applies to the present or the previous Government’s Department for Transport, just to show that I am being non-partisan. In 1979, there were two Ministers, but by 2023 there were five Ministers in the Department for Transport, with much less to do.

The same was true of the DHSS, which had five Ministers in 1979. The DHSS was then split into two departments: the Department of Health and the DWP. The DHSS had five Ministers in 1979, but the two departments between them had 12 Ministers. You could argue that things have got more complicated, but there does seem to be an inflationary effect which even beats the Bank of England in the ability to create this kind of growth.

I think that it is very important that the principle that my noble friend has enunciated should be upheld: no one should be unable to be a Minister because they do not have the private means to do so. But just to follow up on my point, it looks to me suspiciously as though ministerial appointments in the other place were being used as a means of patronage by the previous Government to make sure that people would go through the Lobbies.

This Government do not really need much patronage —until recently, at least, they had a huge and loyal majority—but it looks as if that is what is happening. If we add to that the appointment of people who act as trade envoys and so on, it looks as if appointments are being used to increase the power of the Executive at the expense of the elected Chamber and this House. I think that my noble friend’s amendment and this principle is very important, because it goes to the heart of the ability of Parliament to hold the Executive to account.

This is not the only anomaly in the way this House is treated in respect of remuneration. Our Select Committees, if they go and do their work outside the House, can claim only half a day’s attendance, yet if people participate in our Questions remotely, they can claim a full day’s attendance allowance. I am sick to death of reading in the newspapers how we in this House are paid £371 for just turning up. No one points out that, out of that £371, people are expected to make a contribution to their overnight allowance and expected to cover their own secretarial and research costs. I point out that in the other place, the allowance for secretarial and other support can go up to £250,000 and the housing allowance up to £25,000.

Yes, MPs have constituents but, in this House, we often sit long after the other place has gone because we are clearing up the mess which is left when Bills have not been properly considered. Ministers in this House—God bless them—are expected to stand at the Dispatch Box, although they do not always do so, and answer questions not only on behalf of their departments but for the whole of the Government. This is an onerous task, and the idea that people should be expected to do that unpaid is, frankly, utterly outrageous.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

The noble Lord makes an interesting point. I know the draft Bill under the last Government that he refers to. We were never approached about that draft Bill—I am not aware of any discussion. The noble Lord, Lord True, spoke to me about it, but, as a party in the other place, we were never approached about it and it was never discussed.

There are two ways of dealing with this: an overall increase in the number of Ministers, or some way to ring-fence the number of Lords Ministers within the total number of Ministers. The noble Lord made an important point when he said that the number of Ministers overall in government is growing and asked whether that is necessary. A discussion could take place around those two issues—that is the better way—but we want to secure, for this House, the right number of Ministers to do the work that is required of us.

Having said that, this amendment is not a way to achieve this. It would not take us any further forward. The noble Lord’s suggestion is actually better, and I would be happy to take that forward. I urge the noble Lord, Lord True, to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all those who spoke in this short debate. I have been struck above all by one thing: absolutely nobody who spoke has disagreed with the principle behind this amendment. It has had universal support. We had a startling intervention from the Liberal Democrat Benches, to say that they supported the principle but would vote against the amendment.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

The noble Lord said his amendment has universal support, but it does not. I talked about the principle of supporting our Lords Ministers, and said that I preferred the way forward suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth. I do not support the amendment, but I do not think anyone disagrees with the principle of ensuring that we have the right support for our Ministers.

[Lord True (Con)]

That was exactly my point, and the noble Baroness has reiterated it.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

If I may also correct the noble Lord, I pointed out that the consequence of this would be a reduction in the number of Ministers in the Lords, which would be extremely bad for this House.

[Lord True (Con)]

That was also incorrect; it need not necessarily do that at all. I must say that I was surprised when I heard the strictures from the Liberal Democrat Benches—“We cannot support this because this is a very narrow Bill”. Were those not the Benches that pressed two Divisions on the Bill to redesign the House on a democratic basis? They have the gall to now come forward and say that your Lordships should not ask that our Ministers be paid. The intervention was even more startling having heard the explanation from the Liberal Democrat Benches.

The intervention from the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, who is universally respected in this House, was germane, and I thank him too. I had not realised that he was also on the list of unpaid Ministers, which would have been 10 up until a few weeks ago. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, immediately and skilfully picked up the key point that he made. He said that there is never going to be a Bill that comes along to deal with this. Frankly, as I said, we have had the Employment Rights Bill—

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I served as Whip on the Bill in 1999 and I was present for every session. I keep the flame that, one day, we will deal with these issues in a substantive way. I still stick to my point that we will make no progress in this area whatever. I know that the Leader may not agree with me but the idea that a Government would bring forward a Bill to say that we are going to increase the number of paid Ministers is completely naive. That is why, in the end, we should get down to the real business of sorting out what this place should really be for.

[Lord True (Con)]

The noble Lord absolutely makes my point for me. When an opportunity arises, let us put aside all the ardour of this and that, and whether or not we like hereditary Peers. We have a Bill that concerns our House and the better workings of this House. As the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said, if there is a mischief that might be addressed, let us use this opportunity to address it. The Bill has already been amended. It is not a Bill that is intacta. It is not a Bill that is not going back to the House of Commons.

Under successive Governments, for all the striving of the noble Baroness opposite, the House of Commons has continued, and will continue, to ignore the voice of the House of Lords in respect of our request. If we support my amendment, it will force the House of Commons to consider this point and to consider whether there should be a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work in the House of Lords. It will force the House of Commons to consider whether meritocracy should apply and whether the absence of wealth should not deny one the opportunity to serve one’s country in Parliament. It will force the House of Commons to consider the principle that no one should be prevented from serving their party or this House for the lack of private means. Those are critical principles that should be laid before the House of Commons. This amendment would enable that to be done.

I beg Peers from all sides to stand up for their fellows—perhaps silent fellows—in this House who secretly would like to come forward and serve but, as we have heard from these Benches and the Benches opposite, have to look at their bank balances and say that they cannot. Yes, we can. I beg leave to test the opinion of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord True]

17: After Clause 1, insert the following new Clause—
“Rights of life peers to sit in the House of Lords(1) Section 1 of the Life Peerages Act 1958 (power to confer life peerages) is amended as follows.(2) At the end of subsection (1) insert “, and, as the case may be, the incidents specified in subsection (2A) of this section”.(3) Omit from “and” in subsection (2)(a) to the end of subsection (2)(b).(4) After subsection (2), insert—“(2A) A peerage conferred under this section may, if the letters patent so state, during the life of the person on whom it is conferred, entitle him, subject to subsection (4) of this section, to receive writs of summons to attend the House of Lords and sit and vote therein accordingly, and shall expire on his death.””Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would make it possible to create a life peerage without a seat in parliament under the Life Peerages Act 1958.

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, in preface, I thank the noble Baroness the Leader of the House for her readiness on that amendment. We have reached a good point as a result of that discussion, and I thank her for that—though there is no doubt in my mind that there is a matter to resolve.

Amendment 17, in my name, seeks to amend the Life Peerages Act to place absolutely beyond doubt what I and many others consider probably is beyond doubt: the untrammelled power of the Crown to create a peerage that does not bring with it a summons to attend your Lordships’ House.

Throughout the passage of this Bill and over many years, if not decades, we have heard arguments about the size of the House, complaints about people who take peerages and then do not attend the House, reference to people who accept a peerage and then very swiftly retire, and on many occasions criticism of previous Prime Ministers’ extensive peerage creations. This one is not doing too badly, and I have no complaint—it was perfectly reasonable, to my mind, that the Labour Party should create more Peers in this House. That has always been my position, and I stand by what I said when I was in government and at this Dispatch Box. We welcomed all these new Peers in the good spirit that is customary in our House.

However, we all know that not all who receive the supreme honour and dignity of a peerage for life in many walks of service—business, the Armed Forces, the arts or even sport, and many others—want to be working Peers in this place, or even feel that they may be equipped to do so. Some come and then swiftly retire. Some very rarely pass those brass gates but, in the statistics, they still count among our number. Neither of those things serves the interest of the House as a whole.

This is one of many reasons why I submit to your Lordships that there is an overwhelming case for a modernising reform of our system of peerages, so that those who are worthy of being honoured in this way for their services to public life, with this extraordinary high degree of honour, but who do not want or may not be able to fulfil the obligations to attend here, may receive a peerage for life without being required to take a seat here.

He is not in his place, but I have often heard the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock, make this point and I have always agreed with him. My noble friend Lord Lucas argued it very ably in Committee, and I was pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, supported the sentiment in Committee. He argued that

“separating the honour from the obligation is an important part of how we should be moving forward”.—[Official Report, 12/3/25; col. 796.]

I agree with him, and I hope that now the Bill is going back to the other place he will be as good as his word and support what he called this important part of moving forward—though, having heard earlier that the Liberal Democrats’ policy on the Bill is to vote against principles they support, I wish I could be more confident that he would follow me if I chose to divide the House. I will obviously listen carefully to the debate.

As I argued in Committee, it is probable that the right to create a life peerage of this type already exists. Indeed, such a life peerage was created as recently as 2023 in the case of the present Duke of Edinburgh, and there are many historical precedents, as I explained in Committee. When we hear a new Peer introduced in the House, we hear our clerk intone these words every time, after the reference to the Life Peerages Act:

“And of all other powers in that behalf us enabling”.


These affirm the undoubted and full range of powers inherent in the monarch to bestow peerages and other honours.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Rooker (Lab)]

I have just a practical question, really. There is a Peer who came into this House and did not make a maiden speech for 10 years because he considered the peerage an honour. Then, one day, the Prime Minister said to that person, “By the way, with your experience, I’ve got a bit of a job I want you to do”. That Peer came in and made his maiden speech and worked inside the Government. That would not be possible with this kind of amendment.

[Lord True (Con)]

It would. If such a rare case applied, a second, life peerage under the 1958 Act could be conferred—it would be very simple.

Like much constructive reform, this may not be a great innovation. It is an extension of a principle that exists under the royal prerogative, an extension to the 1958 Act so that non-sitting life Peers may be created through a statutory process as well. This would be helpful to Prime Ministers who wish to honour distinguished men and women but not necessarily to swell the ranks of this House.

There are many Peers who currently do not have the right to sit in your Lordships’ House, and I found the arguments put against this proposition in Committee faintly risible. A clear and unequivocal reform, enabling the creation of non-sitting life Peers under the 1958 Act, would be no more or less confusing than the current position, but it would relieve us of the potential difficulties both for individual Peers and for the House, to which I have referred. It might save some future Peers, and indeed your Lordships’ House, from the unnecessary embarrassment of including people who do not want to be here or to stay here for very long. I cannot think for the life of me why any Government would wish to resist it.

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

My Lords, I will risk the possibility of being called risible by the noble Lord, Lord True, for disagreeing with him, but I think he has failed to spell out precisely one point that he should have done. He prayed in aid various people, including my noble friend Lord Foulkes as someone who thought we should separate membership of this House from the peerage. I agree with that—it is a very good idea—but there are of course two ways of doing it.

One way is to say that you do not require a peerage to be in this House, nor do you need a title—we could be called Members of the upper House. That deals with the problem just as effectively as the problem he has constructed, which I do not think is a serious one, to create a new category of Peer. This is the last thing we want to be doing in a Bill of this sort, which tries to simplify and clarify membership of this House, however far from that we have strayed.

According to my reckoning, if we were to make the mistake of following the advice of the noble Lord, Lord True, we would then have six categories of membership of this House. We would have hereditary Peers here for at least another 40 years, maybe longer, due to the amendment we have carried; some Law Lords remaining from the previous legislation; Bishops; life Peers; and we would still have—though not as Members of the Lords—hereditary Peers, who are not able to sit in the Lords. He is adding a further category of life Peers who are not able to sit in the Lords.

If he tried to explain that in “Understanding the House of Lords” to the average 18 year-old studying the British constitution at the moment—or the average anybody—it would sound like the ultimate in making a mountain out of a molehill. We do not need additional categories of membership of this House; we need fewer.

[Lord True (Con)]

I am not proposing an additional category of Members of this House; the whole point of this amendment is that those people should not be Members of this House. By the way, any life Peer who retires from this House is still a life Peer and a Lord, so is the noble Lord confused by that?

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

If the noble Lord, Lord True, cannot see the difference in category between a life Peer who can sit in here and legislate and a life Peer who cannot, then we are going to have considerable difficulty in having a sensible discussion. They are obviously fundamentally different, just as there is a fundamental difference between a hereditary Peer who cannot sit in this House because he is not one of the favoured 92, and a hereditary Peer who can. Believe me, they know the difference—and I am sure the life Peers would, as well.

--- Later in debate ---

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

My Lords, Amendment 17 is identical to Amendment 35 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, in Committee. There was a lively debate on this proposal in Committee, as we have also seen today. However, I would point to our extensive, comprehensive and long-standing honours system that seeks to recognise and promote the outstanding contributions made by individuals from the length and breadth of the country, and all sections of society. With the sovereign as the fount of honour, honours are awarded based on merit, regardless of background, for those who give service above and beyond to better the lives of others. I would have thought that this was an answer to the apparent problems suggested by the noble Lord, Lord True.

Many of your Lordships will agree that it is an honour to be appointed as a Peer, but that quite rightly brings with it responsibilities to the work of your Lordships’ House. Peers are appointed in recognition of their skills and expertise, and how they can be put to the service of your Lordships’ House. As my noble friend the Leader of the House said last week, party leaders should be mindful of this when making nominations.

The Government do not support the decoupling of a life peerage conferred under the Life Peerages Act 1958 from membership of your Lordships’ House. We have a manifesto commitment to introduce a participation requirement, to ensure that all Peers contribute to the work of the House, which many noble Lords have been clear that they support. I do not think that creating another layer to the system, to provide for the creation of non-active Peers, is in keeping with the mood of the House.

The noble Lord, Lord True, and others, have consistently advocated for a thoughtful and measured approach when implementing constitutional changes, to avoid unintended consequences. It is not clear how this new honorific peerage would work in practice. It is not clear what HOLAC’s role would be in this two-tier system, whether there would be a role for another honours committee, whether such a system would necessitate the need for additional governance structures or who would remove such a title if we got to that point.

In addition, to create a new class of Peers with the same titles as the ones who sit and vote would exacerbate the confusion that already exists amongst the public regarding the difference between honours and peerages. In essence, this amendment raises further questions that have not been given due consideration, especially when we already have an established and much respected honours system to recognise excellence. I therefore respectfully request that the noble Lord withdraws his amendment.

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I am disappointed by the response from the party opposite. Is this not the great reformist party? Is this not the party that speaks about its accomplishments in changing Britain?

We have heard from the Front Bench opposite that they cannot support the idea that anybody could be a Peer and not have to come and swell the ranks in your Lordships’ House. That is not the way that your Lordships’ House, in its evolving thinking, has been going. We have an important and interesting debate which is being put to us later by the noble Lord, Lord Burns. The feeling of the House is that we should find ways to reduce the numbers, and one way of reducing the numbers is by reducing unnecessary entries by people who have no intention of being working Peers.

I agree with what the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, said. As a matter of fact, if you google me, you will find that I have repeatedly, over many years, proposed this reform, and have even done so from the Dispatch Box opposite.

[Baroness Hayman (CB)]

Perhaps I was not clear enough. The proposition to which I have always given support is that there should be a complete separation of honours and titles from membership of your Lordships’ House. For that, I have not had support from the noble Lord’s Benches.

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, the amendment includes a separation.

Do we have such a low view of the public that we think they cannot tell one person from another? In a previous debate, the Attorney-General offered the argument that it was so confusing. Does he think that the public could not tell an Attorney-General from a major-general? Are they so confused?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

A constant argument of the Conservatives against any changes to our electoral system has been that the public would be unable to understand a voting system in which one put “1”, “2”, “3” and “4”, rather than simply “X”. If that is the Conservative view of the public in relation to voting, I think the noble Lord would find it hard to argue that, without much more complicated citizenship education, the public would be expected to understand the distinctions he is making.

[Lord True (Con)]

I am again startled, as always, by an intervention from those Benches. The noble Lord may remember that we had a referendum on proportional representation; the public well understood the proposition being put to them and they rejected it. For the noble Lord to say that the public would not understand this, he is digging a bigger hole for himself. As for the Lib Dems, I love the Lib Dems. One of the most beautiful things about Britain is its eccentricities, and we love the Lib Dems’ charming eccentricities. All we ask is that they are always charming—which is not always the case, although they have been today.

Let me return to the case in point. My noble friend Lord Blencathra skewered it when he pointed out, very fairly and properly, that this matter was put to the Burns committee. It is in tenor with the way the House is going in trying to find ways not to swell our ranks artificially. It is therefore an extraordinary idea—we have heard it already—that the Government support something but cannot support it today, and yet they might support it sometime in future. That is a nonsensical argument, as is the argument that the public might be confused.

I remind the House that this is not an unheard-of thought; many people have argued for it over a period of years. It would be a useful addition to the honours system. It would prevent the House being burdened and embarrassed by those who, frankly, do not want to come here but who deserve a high honour. I beg leave to test the opinion of the House.