House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Committee (1st Day)

Amendment 1

1: Before Clause 1, insert the following new Clause— “PurposeThe purpose of this Act is to end the connection between the possession of a hereditary peerage and obtaining membership of the House of Lords.”

My Lords, the effect of Amendment 1 is to underline the purpose of this Bill as ending entry here by the hereditary principle, but which does not endorse the wholesale removal of colleagues who are already here. There thus falls to me the lamentable duty to open Committee on this Bill, whose purpose is, as my amendment has just declared, to end the hereditary principle as a route of entry to Parliament. Some will find that regrettable; others will rejoice, rejoice. But most of us, however, will have feelings in which the elements are very mixed—where the wish the Bill might be stopped is checked by a proper understanding of the conventions; and, on the other hand, where partisan zeal is leavened with the personal respect owed to familiar and valued colleagues.

I submit that this great House draws its strength from that mixing of elements: from an ancestral, indeed very British, wisdom that does not view every question as black or white or insist that every victory must be total. That moderation is symbolised by the presence of those Cross Benchers, untainted by party. In what sense will culling and cutting those independent ranks ever benefit our House?

It is a paradox little understood outside that most of the myriad improvements we make to Bills are won not in the Division Lobby but through discussion and shared reflection. Our Chamber is unique in the world in conducting its business in order and courtesy without anyone to discipline us. That is possible only because we are a House of consensus, courtesy and compromise, of decency and humanity. I trust those qualities will inform us on this Bill in the weeks ahead, including in how we treat fellow Members.

We will hear that this is a simple Bill that brooks no amendment. Indeed, we are told no amendment will be allowed. Since when did this revising Chamber accept such an instruction from any Executive? It is in fact a Bill of the greatest constitutional significance. It says that a passing political Executive may scoop their hand into your Lordships’ House and chuck out any group of us that is not to the taste or political convenience of the Government of the day. I spoke of this at Second Reading as a very dangerous precedent, and I will address it again on Amendment 9. Once used, it will inevitably—inevitably—be copied.

The third element is the question of numbers. That is not conclusive. The Attlee Government changed Britain while outnumbered here by 10:1. You cannot build a majority here by appointments alone, as the last Parliament showed. My colleagues in another place never seem to understand this basic point. I suspect that the Lord Privy Seal may have the same problem.

However, I recognise the Government’s concern on this, so I can tell the House today that if the Government were to meet us on the second part of this package and permit existing former hereditary Peers in some numbers to continue their service here, consultations with my colleagues suggest that we could come forward with a significant number of voluntary retirements to address concern about numbers. I cannot speak for the Cross Benches, but it may be possible there too. On numbers, we will also consider what might be done on whipping arrangements and look with interest on other amendments tabled on this Bill, including those on participation. Surely, if we are to exclude anyone it should be those who do not take part, not those who do. Many on all sides would agree with that.

The fourth element is the crucial question of the conventions in this House and those between this House and the other place. These were considered by the noble Lord, Lord Cunningham of Felling, in a brilliant report in 2006, but experience of the last Parliament suggests that these need to be polished up. The fundamental principle of our constitution is that the King’s Government must be carried on. Of course, this House should observe the Salisbury convention, though most Governments are wise enough not to die for every last dot and comma of a manifesto.

With respect and good will, I believe that we could go further on conventions. There is too much ping-pong and it goes on too long. We should check its growth. Attempts to seize control of the agenda of the House are undesirable. We could revisit agreements that were reached when Lord Williams of Mostyn was Leader of the House and temper efforts to overload the Order Paper or to force late sittings of the House, which no-one on either side enjoys. We are ready to talk on that. Reinforcing conventions with full protection of the freedoms of the House would do more for business progress, frankly, than the expulsion of 88 Peers and the appointment of many more, however much we welcome our new colleagues. Without consent and convention, this House cannot be managed.

The Government coming clean on the timing and nature of their future plans for the House after this Bill is a necessary component of confidence building. But it is not, as I presently see it, a prior requirement to agree a package along the lines that I propose: acceptance of the ending of the hereditary principle as a route into Parliament; a stay to the enforced expulsion of a whole group of our colleagues; some voluntary retirements, and potentially other measures, to address concern about numbers; and reinforcement of conventions by agreed undertakings given at these Dispatch Boxes on the Floor of the House, to give every Government confidence that their measures will not be unreasonably delayed. This is a package which could bring peace and benefit to your Lordships’ House, and avoid rancour which would last far beyond this Session. I have my party’s authority to negotiate this and to deliver it, and we should seek to do so before Report, at the very least to dispel the doubts in the minds of colleagues facing expulsion. That is the human thing to do.

I am ready to continue the cordial discussions I have been having with the noble Baroness the Lord Privy Seal, whose pragmatism and good sense have been proved over nine years. I appreciated her support when I was Leader, and I support her in other constructive initiatives she has in mind for the House. Indeed, I am ready to meet her or anyone else she suggests, in a bilateral or with an independent mediator, assuming they have the same authority as I have to settle.

Speaking as your Lordships’ former Leader, I firmly believe that these proposals, which would comprise concessions by and advantages for both sides, are in the interests of the Government and the House. We have seen in recent days—

My Lords—

If I may: this is Committee. The noble Lord can come in. I am concluding my remarks, but I will answer him later. We have seen in recent days the nature of negotiation with a big stick. That is not the House of Lords way, nor is it the way in which the noble Baroness leads us. I urge her not to reject these proposals or any part of them when she responds, but to agree to take them away. Let the Government block entry of new hereditary Peers, as my amendment accepts and as the House should accept, but otherwise let us together pursue the path of peace with expedition, and with honour and justice. I beg to move.

My Lords, in considering the purposes of this Bill, it is necessary to remind ourselves of the circumstances in which our hereditary colleagues continue to sit in your Lordships’ House. They are here because of an agreement which was reached in 1999 that they would continue to sit in your Lordships’ House until stage 2 of the projected reform had taken place. The late Lord Irvine said that that agreement was binding in honour; he said it was a guarantee. He gave those undertakings as—