House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Shaun Davies Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Thursday 4th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

The Liberal Democrats welcome the Bill as a first step to giving the House of Lords a greater democratic mandate and entrenching its valuable role within the constitution and legislature of the United Kingdom. Our democracy relies on a Parliament that equally represents all citizens of the United Kingdom, and that is why the abolition of hereditary privilege in our second Chamber is a long-standing policy of the Liberal Democrats. We have called for this reform for decades and are pleased that the Government are taking steps to address this issue.

For too long, Parliament’s second Chamber has lacked the democratic mandate that would give it real impact within our legislature. Inherited membership of the Lords only weakens our democratic institutions and decreases public trust in our system. Furthermore, it reinforces the gender imbalance in the second Chamber. As I noted in previous debates on this bill, not a single one of the hereditary peers currently sitting in the Lords are women. Actually, I am taking a quick look around and I think I am the only woman here, so it falls to me—[Interruption.] That is apart from Madam Deputy Speaker; I beg your pardon. It falls to me to underline how important the democratic role of women in both our Houses of Parliament is.

I also note that this reform is not about invalidating our traditions, nor discrediting the contributions of many hereditary peers over previous decades. It is about improving democracy and restoring public trust in politics by making Parliament more representative. Many hereditary peers have expertise and skills that they have given to our political system and to our legislative process.

As I turn to today’s Lords amendments, it is disappointing yet perhaps unsurprising that after years of delays and resistance from successive Conservative Governments, they continue to resist meaningful electoral reform. Their proposed amendments would only water down the Bill or waste further time prolonging the existence of a flawed system.

I therefore wish to speak against Lords amendment 1, which would dilute the Bill and continue the system of hereditary peers. Instead of meaningful reform, it opts for an underwhelming ban on by-elections for hereditary peerages. In practice, that would have the effect of leaving all current hereditary peers in place indefinitely, thus continuing this antique system for many years to come. For years, cross-party efforts have attempted to end the by-election system for hereditary peers, despite successive Conservative Governments resisting this vital reform. Now there is an opportunity to end the entire system of hereditary peerages, and the Conservatives once again continue to resist change.

The Bill and the amendments being considered today highlight that the will of Parliament is to end the hereditary system in the Lords. There has been enough delay; it is time to be decisive and to end hereditary peerages in entirety, here and now. We have the will, the power and the means to end this anomaly before us today. There is no need for the amendment.

I also wish to speak against Lords amendment 2. As outlined by Lord True, 14 Conservative Government-appointed unsalaried Ministers and Whips were in the Lords at the end of the previous Parliament, and Commons Library research confirms that since 2015 there have been at least 30 unsalaried Ministers and Whips in the Lords. Today, the very same party that appointed them seeks to champion the end of such appointments, as if they had not had the power to effect this change themselves on many occasions over the past decade.

I draw Members’ attention to the points eloquently raised by my excellent colleague the Lord Wallace of Saltaire in the other place regarding potential anomalies that the amendment could allow. I want to focus on Lord True, who, in introducing the amendment in the other place, said that it would not apply to any existing Member but only to future ministerial appointments in the Lords. Given that all hereditary peers are current Members of the Lords, I fail to understand what relevance the amendment has to the legislation in front of us. Unusually, I happen to agree with Lord True that all Ministers should be properly remunerated, but I struggle to understand why a piece of legislation that aims to scrap the principle of hereditary peers is the appropriate vehicle to enshrine that point. The Lord True spoke movingly of his shame and anger at being unable to provide remuneration to his fellow Conservatives during the last Parliament—I am not sure I completely sympathise. Remuneration of Lords Ministers is an issue for another occasion.

Liberal Democrats believe that the solution to the issue of democratic accountability and proper remuneration of our Ministers does not lie in this poorly drafted amendment. Instead, we must push for wholesale reform of the House of Lords and our democratic system more widely, including devolving powers so that the decisions that affect people’s lives are made closer to the places where they are put into effect. We therefore urge Members to reject the amendment and instead work with the Liberal Democrats to introduce proper reform of the House of Lords and give it the democratic mandate it needs.

I also wish to speak against Lords amendment 3. When the Bill came to the House, it represented an opportunity for a first step towards meaningful reform of the second Chamber. That is why I originally tabled new clause 7, which would have committed the Government to future legislation on reforming the second Chamber, and new clause 8, which would have increased transparency in the second Chamber by strengthening the powers of the House of Lords Appointments Commission. However, the Conservatives have demonstrated no interest in strengthening or improving our democratic and legislative institutions. Instead, their amendment creates yet another type of peerage. It is an unnecessary amendment that does nothing to strengthen democracy or transparency.

Since Lords amendment 3 before us specifically calls for a new type of peerage, it follows that it is not relevant to legislation that specifically and exclusively deals with the legacy of hereditary peers. If the Conservatives have proposals that could meaningfully improve our second Chamber, they should support Liberal Democrat calls for further reform of the House of Lords. I look forward to their support for our calls to change the opaque appointment process for peers and to reduce the inflated size of our second Chamber. If the Government could update us today on their proposals for legislation for further reform of the House of Lords, then the Conservatives could put forward their proposals for new categories of peerages. This House should look to be ambitious on political reform of the second Chamber. They should not look to expand a democratically flawed system with time-wasting amendments. The Liberal Democrats will therefore be voting to reject this amendment.

We welcome Lords amendments 4, 5, 6, 7 and 9, which are modest but important changes that will improve how the House of Lords functions. The amendments aim to support those peers who may lack capacity to fulfil their duties. Lasting power of attorney has been effective in supporting individuals’ freedoms and dignity, and it is only right that peers are not excluded from those freedoms. We welcome those amendments and will support their introduction into this legislation.

Returning to the Bill as a whole, Liberal Democrats welcome its aims. However, we are concerned that by passing this Bill, the Government will believe that their efforts can end here. Let me be clear: this Bill is a welcome step towards a better democracy, but it should not be the final step. The 2017 Burns report recommended a decrease in the size of our second Chamber, which the Liberal Democrats support. The process of prime ministerial appointments entrenches patronage and elitism within our politics, and the Liberal Democrats support moving away from that system. Labour’s own manifesto committed to a retirement age for peers—another change that we would support.

There continue to be so many opportunities to improve the functioning of our democratic institutions. The Government should now look into those further measures, including what is the most overdue and important change when it comes to the Lords: finally giving it a proper democratic mandate.

I urge hon. and right hon. Members to oppose Lords amendments 1, 2 and 3, which would water down the Bill. The Liberal Democrats will support this once-in-a-generation opportunity to fix part of our broken political system and use it to strengthen democracy in our Parliament and begin rebuilding trust in our politics.

[Shaun Davies (Telford) (Lab)]

Lords amendment 1 flies in the face of the intention of the Government and this House to immediately reform the House of Lords by removing the last 91 peers who sit in Parliament based solely on their bloodline entitlement.

I start with the premise that the last 91 hereditary peers sit in the other place as a result of a compromise in 1999, when more than 660 hereditary peers were removed. I take the view that the other place, and indeed this Parliament, is no less effective as a result. The very architect of that compromise, the Marquess of Salisbury, said himself that the arrangement was supposed to last for around six months. The final 91 have had an effective notice period of 26 years already—a notice period that any worker in the real economy would no doubt welcome. It is now time to complete this reform.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gareth Snell]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent point. The work that Lord Grocott did on this in the other place is commendable, but it was sadly blocked time and again by the Conservatives. On my hon. Friend’s point about the youngest hereditary peer and the number of general elections that may have passed before he will have seen himself out, by no longer being a Member of the House of Lords he would regain his right to vote and stand in general elections, so if he wished to return to Parliament, there would be plenty of places in this House that he could try for.

[Shaun Davies]

My hon. Friend makes a valid point. A point that has been made by other Members, including from the Opposition Benches, is that there is nothing stopping the Leader of the Opposition putting forward any hereditary peers for life peerages.

[Paul Holmes]

The hon. Gentleman says that the Leader of the Opposition could give those peerages, but he will be aware that that is organised through the usual channels, in conjunction with the Prime Minister and members of the governing party. We would be a lot more comfortable talking about the replacement of hereditary peers if the Minister had come with any clarity on the conditions that may be set going forward, but we have had none of that. I challenge the Minister to say that hereditary peers can be put in as life peers. We would like some more information on what we are getting.

[Shaun Davies]

The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. This is about priorities and choices. The Leader of the Opposition will be able to nominate people this year and next year—and maybe the year after, if she is still in place. She can make a decision on whether to put forward a hereditary peer or someone else during that spell.

[Gareth Snell]

I am sorry to intervene again, but this is an important point. Since the general election, there have been 21 nominees to the other place. That would have counted for half the entire hereditary peerage group of the Conservative party, had the Leader of the Opposition taken the opportunity to promote them to life peerages. By not doing so, the Conservatives have chosen to keep those hereditary peers out.

[Shaun Davies]

The Leader of the Opposition has a number of tough choices ahead of her, and those choices will no doubt be executed using her good political judgment.

To conclude, to right hon. and hon. Members from different sides of the Chamber who say that we need more reform of Parliament, the House of Lords, the constitution and the way in which the country works, I say—as a moderniser and the MP for an area for which the current system does not work—that I could not agree more. But this modest change—this slender Bill—has taken around 10 hours in this place and 40 in the other place, with more than 180 amendments tabled, so imagine how a larger and more far-reaching Bill would be treated. As the Minister has stated, many Members from across the political spectrum in the other place have called for a cross-party approach, and that is exactly what the Government are doing through the establishment of a Select Committee.

Let me close on this thought. We have heard for many decades the promise of future reforms. I support and will vote with the Government today on the basis that those future reforms will come through. I hope that the Government will be true to their word, and constituents like mine, who have seen themselves locked out of this place for far too long, will have the opportunity to serve it.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

Well, here we are again. The House of Commons and the House of Lords love debating reform of the Lords—we have been doing it for over 120 years. But we have made a bit of progress: at least, after all this time, we seem finally to have killed off the idea that the House of Lords should be elected. That is a great step forward, and I congratulate the Minister on his wisdom in realising that that would just replicate the sort of system that they have in Washington and make it virtually impossible to have coherent government. I say well done; I think that we should give credit where it is due. The poor old Liberals have been dreaming about reform with elections for 100 years, but I am afraid that it is not going to happen.

I will, though, take issue with the Minister for being a bit cruel about the Conservative party when he accused us of having been relentlessly negative for all these years. He seems to have forgotten that in the 1920s—we have heard about 1924—the Conservative party led the debate on making the House of Lords a genuine Parliament of the Commonwealth, and very innovative ideas were coming out of the Conservative party. He blames the Conservatives for endlessly blocking reform, but it was actually the unholy alliance of Michael Foot and Enoch Powell during the Wilson years that blocked the last real attempt at House of Lords reform.