Lord Young of Cookham (Con)

My Lords, Amendments 107 and 113 in my name seek to postpone the removal of the hereditary Peers to the end of the next Session, rather than the end of this one. For the record, I have never sought to have my amendments degrouped from any others. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, earlier on today, this is the first time I have spoken on the Bill, though I have, of course, followed the proceedings. I support other amendments that would postpone the removal of the hereditary Peers, but I believe mine has the best chance of getting the support of other parties, because the postponement is relatively modest and so does the least injury to the haste with which the Government have committed themselves in their manifesto. The real criticism of this Bill is not that it is gerrymandering or prosecuting a class war. There are perfectly respectable arguments for removing the hereditaries. The substantial criticism of the Bill is that it will undermine the capacity of the House of Lords to hold the Government to account by removing some of its most active Members—that is its Achilles heel. The House of Lords is not a place where sheep may safely graze. It is a key part of our constitution, improving the quality of legislation and giving the other place an opportunity to think again. We have repeatedly heard of the disproportionate amount of heavy lifting done by the hereditary Peers; I will not repeat those arguments, but not only have they gone unchallenged but Government Ministers have gone out of their way to heap praise upon the hereditaries for the work they do. The Government’s public response to this criticism is to say that it is an insult to the rest of us to imply that we cannot backfill the void. But in their hearts, they know that the House will be weaker. I believe they plan to do something about it, but they will not acknowledge this publicly, or begin to discuss what their response might be, until the Bill is safely on the statute book. My amendment seeks to allow more space for that discussion and more space for the subsequent response than is provided for at the moment by postponing their departure until the end of the next Session. It would give more time for ranks to be replenished and capacity to be retained, possibly by the retention of some of those due to leave. As we have heard, many hereditary Peers sit on Select Committees, the work of which goes on from one Session to the next. We heard from my noble friend Lord Forsyth about the five Deputy Speakers. We need a longer transition if the work of the House is not to be disrupted. The amendment is perfectly consistent with the manifesto, and it actually addresses the weakness in the Government’s defence. I believe there is a further argument for more time: we should treat fairly those who have given up careers outside and give them more time to adjust. I note what the noble Lord, Lord Burns, said on Second Reading on 11 December: “My first reservation is the implication that all excepted hereditary Peers should be required to retire once the Bill becomes law”. He went on to say: “Often, they have given up alternative careers to join this House”.—[Official Report, 11/12/24; col. 1736.] I was relieved to hear that the Government will not support Amendment 103, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter. Here, I will refer to what happened last time. In June 1993, the Labour Party committed itself to a two-stage process of reform, removing the hereditaries in the first stage. After the election in 1997, they actually left in 1999—six years after the commitment and two years after the election. By contrast, there has been dramatically less notice this time. There had been reports in the last Parliament that, following the publication of the Brown report in 2022, the House of Lords would be abolished and replaced with a form of regional representation. In February 2024, it was reported that wholesale reform would not be a priority for the first term; then there were reports that a Labour Government would confine themselves to implementing the Grocott Bill. It was not until 13 June last year that the Labour Party committed itself to the abolition of the hereditary Peers, leaving some 18 months before removal. The Government sometimes point to the contrast with MPs, who lose their job overnight. But there is an important difference. Every MP knows that there will be a day of reckoning every five years or less: that is the deal. But it is not the case with Peers. Also, for every MP who is removed, a new one takes his or her place—an important distinction. In 1997, there was a key difference. The two groups of Peers principally affected, the Conservatives and the Cross-Benchers, were allowed to choose their share of the 92 remaining. That meant that the capacity of the House to hold the Government to account was affected only marginally. There is no such safety net this time round, and the time in which to rebuild that capacity, as in the Bill, is much less. I end with a final reason. It is important to avoid the ungracious way in which the hereditary Peers were made to depart in 1997: “Thank you and goodbye”, with T-shirts celebrating their departure. There was an absence of generosity of spirit last time, which I know the current Administration are anxious to avoid. This amendment is moderate and sensible. It deserves serious consideration from the Lib Dems and Cross Benches, on whom its fate will depend.