Baroness Mobarik:

Moved by Baroness Mobarik

90E: After Clause 1, insert the following new Clause—“Life peerages to be nominated by party groupsOn the day on which this Act is passed, the Prime Minister must recommend to His Majesty the King that—(a) 46 individuals nominated by the Leader of the Conservative Party in the House of Lords,(b) 33 individuals nominated by the House of Lords Appointment Commission to sit on the crossbenches,(c) 4 individuals nominated by the Leader of the Labour Party in the House of Lords, and(d) 4 individuals nominated by the Leader of the Liberal Democrat Party in the House of Lordsbe granted a life peerage under section 1 of the Life Peerages Act 1958.”Member’s explanatory statementThis amendment would require the Prime Minister to give groups in Parliament the ability to nominate individuals to be appointed as life peers to replace the number of hereditary peers in their group. This could include reappointing some hereditary peers as life peers.

My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Foster of Aghadrumsee and Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, for their support.

My amendment proposes the nomination of life peerages equivalent to the number of hereditary Peers, split proportionally between the parties and groups affected. I shall speak to the detail of it shortly. I came to this conclusion after a number of conversations and considerable thought on how to resolve this matter in a way that reflects the disposition of our House: of respect, courtesy and consideration towards our colleagues —something that one should expect in any place of work.

When I spoke at Second Reading, I expressed the view that current hereditary Peers should be awarded life peerages if this Bill removes their ability to sit in this House as hereditary Peers. It was a wish to protect valued and respected colleagues from eviction from this House, prompted, as I said then, by a feeling that there may be an element of discrimination or prejudice at play. I hope, having been sensitive to such things from a young age and from experience, that I will always stand up to prejudice no matter from where it comes or to whom it is directed. It is simply a principle that I wish to uphold.

Having listened carefully to the debates on this Bill over these last weeks, I am still trying to understand why it is being brought forward by the Government when there are so many other more pressing issues for them to address. Nevertheless, if noble Lords will indulge me with their attention for a little longer, I will share some more background to this amendment.

I came to this House just over a decade ago and was introduced by my noble friend Lord Strathclyde, a pre-eminent hereditary Peer and former Leader of this House. I knew my noble friend from serving on the Strathclyde commission, which he so ably chaired, and was hugely honoured that he agreed to be one of my supporters.

During my first few weeks here, my noble friend Lord Younger of Leckie, another hereditary Peer, became my mentor. I do not think there could have been anyone kinder and more conscientious. He did everything he could to ensure that I understood the workings of your Lordships’ House. Several months on, my noble friend Lord Taylor of Holbeach, then Chief Whip, asked whether I would consider being a party Whip. I said yes. My group, or flock as we called them, had something in common—they were all Scots, and a fair number of them were hereditary Peers.

If anyone is concerned about representation of the regions, Scotland is very well represented by our hereditaries. I will mention just a few of those in my old flock. My noble friend Lord Lindsay currently serves on our Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, is president of the Chartered Trading Standards Institute, and has been president of the National Trust of Scotland and Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland. My noble friend Lord Caithness, the chief of Clan Sinclair, currently serves on our procedure committee and the Food, Diet and Obesity Committee. He has also been a Minister of State in no less than five government departments: the Department for Transport, the Home Office, the Department of the Environment, His Majesty’s Treasury and the Foreign Office. My noble friend Lord Dundee is the royal standard-bearer for Scotland. He is a farmer who runs two charitable trusts that he founded, and he has served for many years on the Council of Europe and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe. He has also been a Government Whip and government spokesman for education, Scottish affairs, home affairs and energy. All of them made me feel so welcome and showed me the utmost respect and kindness. I could not have asked for better colleagues looking out for me when I joined this House.

What I am trying to say is that the people affected by this Bill are our friends. Not only that: they are distinguished parliamentarians who contribute so much to this House to which we all belong.

A more recent colleague and friend of mine in this House is my noble friend Lord Minto. He has served as a Minister of State in the Department for Business and Trade and as Minister of State for Defence—both unpaid positions, might I add—and we have regular catch-ups over tea. On our very first meeting, my noble friend and I discovered some common threads: the family of a very close friend of my late father, an eminent gentlemen by the name of Shaharyar Khan, a former ambassador of Pakistan to the United Kingdom, had a strong connection to my noble friend’s grandfather. Historical photographs and information were shared, but that is where the cozy backstory ends.

My noble friend’s grandfather was the viceroy of pre-partition India. I have rather a dim view of empire, as noble Lords would expect, but I do not choose to see my noble friend through the lens of history. When we enter this place, those strange concepts of class and privilege are left outside. We are here as equals—as Peers. The clue is in the name but, to be clear, I do not argue for the hereditary principle. It belongs in the century before last. The point is that if we do not believe that someone should become a Member of this House because of who their parents were, surely it is not right to remove people from this House because of who their parents were. With that in mind, I come to my amendment.

I hope that the noble Baroness the Leader of the House—the Leader of our whole House—knows that I hold her and her Front-Bench team in the highest esteem. She has told us that this Bill is not a cunning attempt at gerrymandering, and we should believe her. My amendment follows on from that understanding. If this Bill is not about gerrymandering then on the day that it passes into law, which it will, as it was a manifesto commitment, the Prime Minister should at that point recommend to His Majesty that life peerages be granted to replace the number of hereditary Peers who are to be lost.

It would be up to the leaders of the parties in the House of Lords or, in the case of the Cross-Bench Peers HOLAC, to replace the hereditary Peers they have lost with life Peers. There would be no back-room deals, a term used more than once during these debates; let us just be transparent. Here are the numbers lost and they should be replaced. If we feel that some, even most, of our hereditary Peers are worthy of being appointed as life Peers, then there really should be no objection; and where there are hereditaries who do not attend the House or who intend to retire, this will be a good opportunity to replace them with fresh talent. Some more women on these Benches would be a good idea.

In all cases, qualification for this House can and should be based on life experience, knowledge, commitment and a quality not often mentioned: wisdom. I really hope that we can overcome the prejudices that I fear I am detecting. We should judge each other on what we do and say, rather than on who we are and where we come from. We should respect the huge contributions that so many hereditary Peers have made over the years. We should allow for a smooth and fair transition to the next stage of our illustrious history, in readiness for the challenges and opportunities of a new and exciting age, by bringing with us the best of our talent and recruiting what more we need. I believe that my amendment addresses all these points, and I beg to move.

My Lords, with regret, I oppose this amendment, despite the fact that I often agree with some of the views of some of its proposers. It seems to me to have at least three quite serious objections.

First, it does absolutely nothing to reduce the numbers in this Chamber—quite the reverse. Together with the numbers already appointed and those likely to be appointed, we will greatly increase the size of this House well beyond the 600 which has often been recommended as desirable.

Secondly and differently, it greatly enhances the influence of party leaders and I really do not want to do that. What if Mr Johnson was the leader of the Conservative Party now? I certainly would not want to give him these unlimited powers.

Lastly, and much the same, it does not address the concerns frequently expressed in this Committee as to the lack of any proper criteria to ensure that the individuals concerned are fit and proper persons or, for that matter, will participate fully in the business of this House. While I can understand the reasons that it is put forward, I think it is a thoroughly bad amendment.

My Lords, I profoundly disagree, almost for the first time, with the noble Viscount. I put my name to this amendment, and I want to say to the Committee that I am concerned, as he clearly is, about the size of the House. We are the second largest second Chamber, apart from China, and 237 Members of this House have attended less than 20% of the time they should, of which 127 have attended less than 10% of that time. We have leave of absence, and one Peer has had 8.5 years of leave of absence, while others have had several years but remain on the list of Peers who could attend at any time. We now have a system for Peers who do not do anything and do not attend: they could be asked to leave. So far, only 16 have been asked to leave, despite the numbers who really do not attend and do not contribute.

For comparison, we can look at the hereditary Peers in your Lordships’ House. Out of the 88 hereditary Peers that we had until yesterday, two only have failed to do more than 20% of attending this House, which if I may say so compares rather well with the other Peers in this House who do not attend. I attend fairly regularly, as your Lordships will know, and I have noticed over the years that I have been here the enormous hard work of the majority of the hereditary Peers. Not only do they play their part by coming and contributing, but they contribute substantially; they play a valuable part in the work of this House. Among many hereditary Peers, two are more hard-working than many others among us.

If the successive efforts of the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, to get rid of elections of hereditary Peers had been successful, there would be no question about the current hereditary Peers remaining. Unfortunately, it was not accepted, and it is disappointing that it was not accepted. I think that the last Government and the Conservative Benches were at fault in not recognising the writing on the wall, because we would not be here if the Grocott proposals had been allowed.

But in recognising the enormous contribution that those Peers make to this House, it would be very sad if this Government did not do what this amendment asks for. What saddens me even more is that this Government, by taking this particular Bill forward, without offering the opportunity to consider those Peers who do not attend and do not contribute, are allowing them to remain technically as Members of the House, and doing nothing about it. Getting rid of those who do the work and leaving in those who do not seems to me something that the Government should really reflect on, and I ask them to look seriously at this amendment.

My Lords, it is a pleasure, privilege and honour to follow the noble and learned Baroness, and I agree with everything that she has had to say in her remarks this afternoon. I also commend the noble Baroness, Lady Mobarik, for gathering together an eclectic bunch to support her in this amendment, which is very worth while considering by the whole House. I have been a non-affiliated Member of this House for just two years and four months, and I am very pleased to be associated with this amendment and be one of the names attached to it.

Since I have come into this House, I have noticed, like the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, that often the expertise, life experience—to use the phrase of the noble Baroness, Lady Mobarik—and wisdom come from members of the hereditary peerage. If noble Lords want to ignore that fact, they should be up front as to why. There is a range of Peers from right across the political spectrum in this House; sometimes I still have a “pinch me” moment that I am sitting here listening to Peers giving of their wisdom and life experience. While that is true across the political spectrum of life Peers, it is also very true of hereditary Peers. I respect the work and commitment of the hereditary Peers in this place, who raise their voices on such a wide range of issues. I want to acknowledge that this afternoon.

I think it is fair to say that even some of the most ardent supporters of reform of this place—in other words, those committed to abolishing the hereditary principle once and for all—would still acknowledge that individual hereditary Peers have made and continue to make a valuable contribution to this House. I made my maiden speech in the same debate as the noble Earl, Lord Minto, who has had an honourable mention today. The noble Baroness, Lady Mobarik, has mentioned a range of Scottish Lords, as one would expect, and as a Northern Ireland Peer I want to mention and celebrate the contribution of Northern Ireland hereditary Peers in this place—men such as Lord Glentoran and of course the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, who still sits in this House today. This amendment is a route to allow, in an elegant and sensible way, the different party-political groupings to acknowledge the contribution that they have made over many years and continue to make.

In many ways, the amendment is not rocket science. Indeed, it has been talked about as far back as 1999 as a possible way forward. It allows active hereditary Peers to become life Peers by the nomination of their party, thereby not changing the composition of the House, as we have been told that that is not what this Bill is about—it is just about dealing with the principle of hereditary peerage. If that is so, individuals who are here by dint of being hereditary Peers could become life Peers under this amendment.

This amendment allows the different groupings to appoint some working hereditary Peers—those making a real contribution to this place—and perhaps to replace those who are not able to contribute as much as they would like or as much as they have done in the past with working Peers from the same affiliation. That awarding of life peerages to those hereditary Peers who contribute to this place in a positive way would give a continuity that should not be underestimated.

If the House were to agree to this amendment, I like to think it would also allow the party leaders and HOLAC, in respect of the Cross-Bench Peers, to reflect the United Kingdom as a whole and not just London. This House needs diversity in all sorts of ways, including geographical diversity. I have been struck by impactful interventions from hereditary Peers from right across the UK—from Scotland, Wales, regions of England such as the south-west and, of course, Northern Ireland. This House benefits from different voices which are here because of the hereditary principle. If that is to go, I would like to think that geographical spread would be acknowledged by the party leaders and HOLAC.

Amendment 90F, which comes after this group, looks at increased representation from Northern Ireland. I am broadly supportive of that: however, I would like Peers from the whole of the UK to be properly heard in this place. I recognise that we are not representatives of where we come from—although in some debates you could be forgiven for thinking that we are on occasions—but having Peers from across the different parts of our country gives this place a different perspective. This amendment would allow party leaders and HOLAC to reflect that. I hope the House can support it.

My Lords, on the face of it, it is utterly illogical and ridiculous for me to have signed this amendment. I want to get rid of the hereditaries and the Bishops—no offence. I want to make this House at least half the size. I agree, a little, on all sorts of things with the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, but let us deal with size in a different place.

Leaders already have quite a lot of power. We have tested these people. That is the whole point. We know the records of the Lords we are getting rid of—we have seen them and heard them. To suggest that they might not be a fit is also illogical. Of course, they do not need the title. I am sure that a lot of us just love being Lords and Ladies, but they do not, because they have been Lords all their lives, so for them it is not a promotion.

This Bill has an element of prejudice—I do not like it. As a working-class person, I loathe privilege and this sort of nonsense, but, at the same time, I also resent separating people into groups where you pick on them —we had an Oral Question on this today. So I very much support this.

I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Mobarik, on putting together an eclectic mix of people to support her—all women. That is interesting, I am not sure she intended that. This has been a painful debate and this amendment would close it. It would be an elegant solution to what has been a terrible amount of drudgery for all of us.

My Lords, I have spoken sparingly on this Bill, wishing to speak only if I had something useful to say—a self-discipline which I note has not been practised universally during the course of the Bill. To summarise my position, the principle of hereditary Peers is unsustainable in 2025; the Bill should not be opposed; but the Bill has consequences for the functionality of this House.

I provided evidence at Second Reading that a hard-working, regularly attending cohort of hereditary Peers was making a valued contribution to this House. The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, confirmed the point eloquently in her contribution. My solution was to convert some of them into life Peers.

If I understand the position of the Government correctly, the valued contribution being made to the House by this hard-working core of hereditaries is not disputed. Nor do the Government seem to refute, in principle, the idea of a conversion to life Peers—according to Labour Back-Benchers, you achieve that by putting the names on a party list and submitting that for approval, as is current practice.

So, if we have agreement on the two main consequences of the Bill, what is the best way of finding a solution when it is this Bill that is creating the consequences? The “prepare a party list for conversion to life Peers” approach has, to me, two obvious failings. It takes no account of the Cross-Benchers, who are very valuable Members of this House precisely because they have no party-political affiliation and have to sign a statement to that effect. They cannot organise a party list. Secondly, surely we owe it to the hard-working hereditaries who have been turning up and doing their share of the heavy lifting to recognise that contribution as a House and offer a House solution to what is a one-off event? This abolition will not recur.

The sensible amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady Mobarik provides just that. That her amendment has drawn support from the noble Baronesses, Lady Foster of Aghadrumsee and Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, speaks volumes for the common-sense desire across the House to find that elegant solution.

I had hoped that by this point conversations would have been taking place through usual channels to progress this solution, but it seems that this process has become constipated. If my noble friend’s amendment, with the authoritative support it has garnered, administers the necessary dose of laxative, it has my unqualified support.

Even the dogs on the street know that we have to come up with a solution. I hope the Government will sense the momentum behind this amendment, will become positive in their reading of the mood of the Committee, and will be prepared to come forward with something constructive.

My Lords, I will not detain the Committee for long. I find myself very much in sympathy with the intention of this amendment and particularly with what the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, said a few moments ago.

Our tradition in this House is evolution, not revolution. We know the outstanding contribution that many of the hereditaries have made to our work. My concern is that in the ongoing work that we do, the sheer thousands of amendments that have been passed because of the detailed work that this House has done—I do not have the figures at hand—sorting out some complex but sometimes misguided Bills that have come to us, have often relied on some of the most expert, established and experienced Members of this House.

This amendment would not undermine the fundamental principle of the Bill. I think everybody in the Committee accepts that it has come because it was part of the election manifesto, and we want to work with that. But this would enable us to draw on the huge expertise and ensure that we can focus our abilities to keep doing our fundamental work. It would be only a temporary phase, and eventually the Bill would achieve what it wants to do. Meanwhile, I hope that His Majesty’s Government will look closely at this to see whether we can find a way through that draws on the best experience we can of the Members of your Lordships’ House as we take our work forward.

My Lords, I very much endorse what the right reverend Prelate said in his—to use a religious word—irenic speech, which I hope will help. I think we all want to address this subject without prejudice and, if we do, I think we will see how strong this amendment is.

By the way, one of the objections to the hereditary Peers remaining in this House is that they are all men, but I notice that four noble Baronesses have put their name to this amendment. If it is good enough for them, it should be good enough for the rest of us.

In my career as an employer, I have sometimes had the misfortune to sack people, and to feel that I had to sack them. I am afraid that one sometimes gets into a situation when one is sacking people when, in order not to hurt their feelings, one keeps telling them how marvellous they are. Sometimes, reasonably enough, they ask, “Well, why are you sacking me, then?”, and it can be difficult to say. Usually, the reason is that actually you do not think they are very marvellous. This amendment teases out the real motive of the Government here. That is what we want to know. We are all agreed, and the Government themselves seem to be agreed, that the hereditary Peers are marvellous as individuals, which is all that is being proposed here—not the hereditary principle but the actual hereditary Peers. So what is it—why do they all have to go? If you press and press, the underlying thought that the Government cannot express is what people used to say in other prejudiced situations. They are saying, “We don’t like your sort”, and that is a bad way to make a law in this House.

My Lords, I have not spoken on the Bill before, but I hope the Committee will forgive me if I do so very briefly now. I do not support the actual wording of this amendment, but I so strongly support the underlying principle behind it, and most particularly what the right reverend Prelate said. Why are we still sitting here? Why are people not sitting down in a room, privately sorting this out?

This amendment would give the Whips the power to decide who they are to choose. It raises the question of the future administration of this House and the numbers after the hereditary Peers have gone, which they undoubtedly will under the Bill. Something far bigger has arisen from the way in which this Bill has been debated—when I have not been in the Chamber, I have been watching it on the screen—and a great many ideas, some of them new to me, have come up about what needs to be done. It is clear that it needs to be major. There needs to be major restructuring, because otherwise we are going to have the power to send people to this House concentrated in one pair of hands, and that cannot be right.

Those Peers currently in the House who wish to remain, who contribute regularly and who are able and willing to continue to do so should, in my view, be offered life peerages. I am told that the number would be nearer to 30 than 90, so we would reduce the size of the House to a degree by just that move. We all come to this House by myriad different routes; sometimes they are strange or unorthodox. We are proposing to remove just those who have come by heredity, and of course the Bill will go through. Very few people, other than Sir Michael Ellis in the other place, would argue that it is wrong to insist on a right to sit in this Parliament because of heredity.

The rest of us came here by a number of different routes. Some have particular expertise that is needed here; some have done outstanding charitable work or have given long-standing political service. Some come as a reward for political donations, as compensation for losing a seat in the Commons, for reasons of celebrity or for no good reason that is apparent to others. I think we could all nominate one or two in that category. This Bill removes just one group: a number of people who have already given good service, some very long service, and valuable contributions to both this House and the Government.

Our present Government currently stand accused of unkindness in relation to a number of their policies, including the one that preceded this debate today, and of fighting the old class war, which belongs in the last century. I hope that in this Bill decency, generosity and acknowledgement of merit, even in those whose political views we may not share, will prevail. We shall see.

My Lords, I too support this amendment, so eloquently presented by the noble Baroness, Lady Mobarik.

I find it a little disingenuous for the Government to claim that the Bill must go through as it honours a manifesto pledge. A manifesto pledge is not in itself a justification for policy, especially when it overturns the cross-party, solemn and binding 1999 agreement. Let us not forget that only 33% of the electorate voted for Labour. That is hardly a clear mandate for such a major change in our constitution. Expelling 88 hereditary Peers en bloc is neither fair nor necessary. It is crude and vindictive and, to me, reeks of aristophobia. Hereditary Peers are acknowledged by everybody, even Ministers, to be hard working, bringing expertise and commitment to public service. Many have served on the Front Bench without pay. They bring geographic, social and rural representation, qualities increasingly rare in our public institutions. They have proven their worth through quiet, consistent commitment to this House.

Is this really how we would like to treat those who have given so much to this institution? What about the younger Peers who entered this House in good faith, expecting to serve with honour and dedication, but who are now being told to leave immediately, with no plan, no time to prepare and no opportunity to build a new career? Where is the justice in that?

If the Government’s real aim is to reduce the size of the House, why have they abandoned the other part of that same manifesto pledge: to introduce a retirement age of 80? That alone would reduce the number of hereditary Peers by 13 through natural attrition, without a mass expulsion, and bring the number of Peers down to 457.

By contrast, removing hereditary Peers would leave us with 748 Members. Let us be honest: this Bill is not about reducing numbers or making the House more effective. This is not reform; it is politics dressed up as reform. True reform is committed, consistent and considered. It does not single out one group for discrimination. The Government argue that hereditary Peers should have accepted a previous deal, but fairness does not expire. If the Grocott solution was fair then, it should still be fair now. Let hereditary Peers retire with dignity. Some are willing to do so, but those who wish to continue serving should be allowed to remain, through a phased transition and by granting them life peerages. That would show fairness, principle and compassion.

This amendment does not stand in the way of reform or seek to preserve the hereditary route into this House. It simply asks that reform be carried out with decency and not, as the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, pointed out, with discrimination. After all, wherever we come from, we are all accidents of birth. This amendment offers a solution and a path forward that ensures that we are all treated equally as Peers. I hope that this Government will consider it, as it would be a good solution.

My Lords, a great and very wise public servant once said that the House of Lords is a disgrace and the enemy of good government. He explained why: it is filled, he said, with people who know what they are talking about. That great servant of the state was, of course, Sir Humphrey.

Our hereditaries have not scratched and scrabbled their way into this House simply for a title. They have already got one—in some cases, several. I doubt that most of them have come here for the occasional 300 quid. By and large, like the rest of us, they have come here to do what they see as their public duty, because they have something to offer—something unique and special. In the words of Sir Humphrey, they do know what they are talking about. I hope that Sir Keir will listen to Sir Humphrey. Sir Keir wants to get his legislation through, and he must, but there is no need to rip this place apart to do so.

My noble friend Lady Mobarik’s amendment is one of many that have been put forward that could bring about a happy solution—the indisputable rights of the Labour Government in harmony with the indubitable duties of this House of Lords. Our hereditary system is coming to an end. That is not in doubt. But our individual hereditary colleagues—our noble friends the Howes, the Kinnoulls, the Strathclydes, the Stansgates and the Addingtons—are not the enemy. They have been, and they are, exceptional public servants.

A very clear mood has emerged around this House this afternoon in almost every speech. I hope that we and the Government will take that into account. There will come a day when we all will have to leave this place. May we go with grace and may we go with the gratitude of our colleagues ringing in our ears. Hereditary Peers deserve no less.

My Lords, I rise to support Amendment 90E in the names of my noble friend Lady Mobarik and her eclectic range of cross-party sponsors. I congratulate her on the eloquent and powerful conviction with which she moved her amendment. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, for her principled and courageous cross-party stance.

As a disabled person, I am quite used to people feeling sorry for me. Today, the people I feel sorry for are the Government, because of the unenviable quandary they find themselves in. There they are with an overwhelming majority in the other place—yet the effect of this Bill will be to undermine your Lordships’ House as the only remaining check within Parliament on their untrammelled power.

That is why I welcome this amendment: because it would help the Government out of their quandary by giving them, and indeed us all, the opportunity to consider the question of our hereditary colleagues from a different, non-discriminatory perspective, one that draws on what unites us and makes us strong as a House of disparate lived experiences, social backgrounds and beliefs, as the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, reminded us. I hope today’s debate will help us all view the question under consideration through the prism of the one theme that I feel has emerged so far and that binds us together: our common commitment to service.

I asked our excellent Library for a few statistics, and I thank it for enabling me to give the numbers a human face—something that is so absent from this clinical Bill. I would like to put the numbers in the context of our hereditary colleagues’ loyal service to your Lordships’ House and to the country. Some 48 of our 87 hereditary colleagues serve as committee members, two as committee chairs. Six of our hereditary colleagues serve as Lord Deputy Speakers: one non-affiliated, one Conservative, three Cross-Bench and one Labour. Eleven of our hereditary colleagues serve on the Opposition or Liberal Democrat Front Benches, or, in the case of the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, as Convenor of the Cross Benches.

If we look at attendance, as the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, reminded us, we can all agree that it is a really useful and important indicator of commitment to your Lordships’ House. In the 2019-24 Parliament, life Peers attended 47% of the time; our hereditary colleagues attended 49%.

Finally, I will mention length of service and dedication to duty. The average length of service of our hereditary colleagues is 23 years, and the longest length of service is 62 years. That alone is impressive.

There is one figure the significance of which puts the whole concept of loyal dedication and service to your Lordships’ House in perspective: 2,080. That is the total years of service given to your Lordships’ House by our 88—now 87—hereditary colleagues, if we include those who were re-elected following the 1999 reforms. The tragedy of this Bill is that it implies that that counts for nothing. Instead, our cherished, dedicated hereditary colleagues are to be cast out. Look at them, my Lords: they sit among us today, continuing to serve loyally while we debate their fate and they languish—politically at least—on death row, awaiting a summary execution. Is this really how they deserve to be treated?

As someone with a background in the charity sector before I came to this House, I saw the best of all parties and none, so I cannot look at this through a party-political lens. I would say that how we treat our hereditary colleagues surely transcends party politics. In fact, I wonder if this is more about us than it is about them. Ultimately, is it not about whether we can look our hereditary colleagues in the eye and then look in the mirror at ourselves?

This amendment enables us to do that. It also enables us to say that service is never an anachronism; rather, it is a bond that unites us as a House, whether we were appointed by King Charles III or by King Charles II. I appreciate that that means that some of our colleagues look remarkably well preserved—I jest, but at stake is surely the integrity of our House.

Yesterday, we were debating mental health. I wonder what consideration we have given to the impact on the mental health of our hereditary colleagues from feeling that they are to be disowned by their colleagues. For what? It is because, as we have already heard, of an accident of birth. We should ask them how it feels, because I fear that we forget that they bleed too. Surely we need a crime that merits such a sentence as the summary expulsion proposed in this Bill, but there is not one, and I suspect that we all know that.

In conclusion, I believe this amendment deserves our support for two reasons. First, as we have already heard, it charts a reasonable and pragmatic way forward that avoids revisiting the battle fought and lost over the hereditary principle. Secondly, it would enable the Government to put you Lordships’ House back together again, so that it can function as one House, and all of us can serve it to the best of our ability for the remainder of our lifetimes. Let us not be divided on this. I hope that we will do right by our hereditary colleagues and by our own conscience, if this amendment comes before the House on Report.

My Lords, like the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, I have not spoken previously in the debate on the Bill. I apologise to the Committee, but I have been sitting, watching and listening carefully, from a distance. From a distance, trying to be a member of the public looking in, I can see why, occasionally, allegations have been made that the House conducts itself in a disgraceful way.

If this amendment is carried, we know perfectly well that it will go to the Commons and be overturned there and not come back, or, if it does come back, that it will be subject to ping-pong. On and on we will keep debating, wasting time and using public money, when we know that, at the end of the day, if we get a deal, it will be a very small deal indeed.

If we do get a small deal, I ask the mover of the amendment this. I am over 80 years old and believe that, after they have dealt with the hereditaries, the Government should move on to deal with the other part of their manifesto: the 80 year-olds. I believe that they should do that because I am a democrat and I believe I am accountable to the people, not just to myself or my party. If it comes to the 80 year-olds, do we then decide who among us work hardest and who are the brightest? Who among us should we retain and who should we kick out? Will the mover of the amendment please say whether she would wish that principle to be applied to that part of the Government’s policy, which has been endorsed in a manifesto by the people of this country?

My Lords, it is always difficult in this debate, which has been difficult for many, to justify some of the arguments on logic alone. The Leader of the House has presented some logical arguments, some of which are not really arguable against. She is right on logic: it is slightly absurd that 740 families provide Members of the legislature—but then, perhaps, is it logical that one family provides the monarchy?

The very small numbers that we have in this House seem fair and reasonable, and appropriate for a country that prides itself on its history and traditions. We have lots of idiosyncrasies in this country. Why do we not plan to knock down this crumbling building and replace it with a vast, super-efficient, open-plan glass and steel structure, with views across the Thames?

Hear, hear!

I am coming to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, in a minute.

Of course, we would not do that. Likewise, I believe we can respect where we come from and recognise our rich fabric of community by allowing people who are proven to be good at their job and represent how democracy came to this country over centuries, as power was wrestled from the monarchy, to be allowed to continue to have a presence here.

As a meritocrat, I accept the argument that the best people should be appointed to this House, and it is not as if we would start from here by appointing new hereditaries—although my mum keeps telling me that she reckons I am up for an earldom, but I think that is unlikely. I hasten to add that, in my view, as the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, said, anyone in this House who does not contribute sufficiently and appropriately should be asked to leave forthwith. This amendment would allow people who are clearly capable, and who have the hugely valuable assets of institutional memory and years of experience, to remain.

I had in my script to say that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, is right—it is not an expression I am used to, but she none the less makes the point that the hereditaries in this House fought to come in, through an election, because they wanted to serve.

If we are totally honest with ourselves, there is, as the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, said, a certain randomness as to why any of us are here. The little that I know about the appointment process has shown me that it is perhaps more random than is generally recognised. I suggest to the Committee that to adopt the amendment is to do the right thing for people who have served us well and continue so to do.

We are told that poll after poll supports the abolition of hereditaries, and that might be true—I am not so sure. Even if it is, I think most people would accept that there is room for a very small percentage of Members of this House to come from a hereditary background and be allowed to serve their time. This amendment is in another fine British tradition: for a suitable compromise to be acceptable.

My Lords, this is an important Bill, and I am sorry not to have spoken on it before, owing to my commitments on the Front Bench at a busy time for the economy. My noble friend Lady Mobarik is right to press the Government on the transitional arrangements. I will focus on two points in that context. The first is the loss of talent and experience that we face, and the damage that that could do to our scrutiny function at a time of great challenge and change in our country. The second is the pressure that will grow for an elected House if all our hereditary Peers disappear overnight, as currently planned.

I have been reading a book called Judgement at Work by Andrew Likierman, a former dean of the London Business School. He defines judgment as

“the combination of personal qualities with relevant knowledge and experience … to make decisions or to form opinions”.

Length of time in a role, or a succession of roles, improves judgment because prior experiences remain accessible sources of knowledge and provide an understanding of success and failure.

We are lucky to have many long servers among our hereditary Peers—280 years of service, in the words of my noble friend Lord Shinkwin. Many also have experience of responsibility outside government and have learned, over time, to cope with complexity and risk, to listen, to work with others and to know who to trust. Those are all ingredients of judgment—soundness of judgment—as well. In view of what the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, said, I should add “hard work” as a very important quality that has been demonstrated by the hereditary Peers.

They also come from across the country. We heard from my noble friend Lady Mobarik about Scotland and from my noble friend Lady Foster of Aghadrumsee about the importance of Northern Ireland representation. They provide a good mix, as we have seen today, with other Members of the House who are often from political backgrounds and very focused on the south-east.

To develop the argument, I will cite three examples. The first is our deputy Conservative leader, my noble friend Lord Howe. He has sat in this House for 40 years and is a master of the art of scrutiny in the most courteous and compelling way. When I arrived, he was a Health Minister and the person whom I and most others chose to model ourselves on—effective at the Dispatch Box, in the tea rooms and in Whitehall. More recently, he steered the difficult legislation on infected blood through the House, working across party to excellent effect. All that experience as a Minister of Agriculture, Health, Defence and at the FCO, and in opposition, is helpful to the Government of the day and to the House as a whole.

My second example is the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, with whom I have had the pleasure of working on amendments to the national insurance contributions Bill. He worked as a foreign correspondent at the start of his career, but he is a serial entrepreneur and was able to produce spreadsheets on the impact of the NICs changes on small businesses he was involved with—which the Treasury unfortunately had refused to provide. It would be a great pity to lose that practical business voice. Some life Peers, including myself, speak in the House with the benefit of business spectacles, but, of course, we get out of date as we cease to be involved with business day to day. Keeping voices such as that of my noble friend Lord Londesborough would help us to reach sound, common-sense judgments from experience.

Thirdly, the noble Lord, Lord Vaux of Harrowden, has an impressive background in finance and he brings that to our debates and committees. The noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, noted the hereditaries’ important role in committees. I highlight the valuable role the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, played in particular as chair of the House’s Finance Committee. He may not thank me for saying so, as the concept probably will not see the light of day, but he suggested to me the brilliant idea of dealing with the restoration of the Palace of Westminster by building a small US-style service tower in one of the courtyards, no doubt in Pugin style, and then concreting in the basement services. This novel idea would reduce the risk of fire and of asbestos contamination during the renovation and, I suspect, would cost much less. The point is that it shows the value of critical thinking—we must not lose that.

That brings me on to my second theme. I think the current mixture of Peers appointed by successive Prime Ministers, especially if there are not too many of them, Bishops and the historic element, just about works, partly because of the mix of views, experience, age and skills that are represented. Without those who are currently hereditaries, it becomes much more difficult to justify a wholly appointed House. Moreover, giving a lot of power to the great and the good on HOLAC would not help at all. I believe that, if we indulge the brutal decapitation of the hereditary Peers later this year, we will rightly face growing demands for an elected House. Noble Lords should reflect on this and on the discussions today around my noble friend’s amendment before they vote on this Bill. In the words of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans, we need evolution, not revolution.

Before the noble Baroness sits down, can I just correct her on regional balance? So far as I am aware, at present we have only one hereditary Peer in the House from Yorkshire. I think the north of England is very underrepresented and there has been, I regret to say, with the hereditary peerage, a tendency for young generations to move to the Home Counties over the years and, of course, to go to school in the Home Counties as well. So the regional representation of the hereditaries is not particularly good.

My Lords, I understand why noble Lords opposite would like to terminate debate, but I think there is a case for going a little bit further. Since noble Lords have allowed themselves some personal reflections, perhaps I can first add one of my own, which is that, when I was introduced to this House, one of my supporters was a Cross-Bench hereditary Peer. I will not mention his name, because I have not told him in advance that I am going to make these remarks. It all went back to the fact that, more than 40 years ago, I used to play bridge with his mother, and when he made his maiden speech shortly after his 21st birthday, I sat with his mother in the Peeresses’ Gallery and listened to him. We remained in touch and so, when I was being introduced, I thought that it was time for some payback. He willingly agreed, adding that he had never in the whole of his time in the House been asked to sponsor anybody at their introduction, so he was very happy to do so.

He has served throughout that time because he survived the Blair cull. He has been committed to the House and he has worked hard. What so many people find unfair—as I said, I have not discussed these remarks with him at all—is that he is to be expelled not because of lack of merit, not because of lack of commitment, not because of lack of expertise, but simply because of the way in which he entered the House. As the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, said, there seems to be an inherent unfairness in that.

I turn to the amendment, which I support. I emphasise that this amendment is not about the hereditary principle. It is about the principle of expulsion. We seem to be taking it for granted that an act of expulsion is sort of okay, whereas, in fact, it is almost entirely without precedent. There is the baleful precedent of Pride’s Purge, and since then the only example of the expulsion of people as a class from Parliament was what happened in 1999. To take that as a precedent so that it becomes, if you like, a normal thing for groups to be expelled from one House of Parliament or another, but more likely from this House, according to—I will not say the whims, but perhaps the vagaries of what might appear in manifestos is a very bad principle indeed. It does not affect only the hereditary Peers; it affects all of us because one can divide and one can create those criteria for expulsion according to, really, anything that fits, and can achieve political and other objectives in doing so.

When we say, “A whole group of us is to be expelled”, we appear to have a precedent for it in 1999, I grant you that, but it is not a good precedent. It is not a precedent that should be repeated. The proposal made by my noble friend Lady Mobarik avoids that and puts that danger at some distance from us. So I think that there are broader reasons for accepting it than simply our admiration of and friendship with the individuals involved in this case. There are broader reasons of principle for accepting it and I urge the Front Bench to consider them on constitutional grounds.

My Lords, I support my noble friend Lady Mobarik’s amendment. It is consistent with the Government’s manifesto pledge, in that it accepts the principle of removing the hereditary Peers. I am not sympathetic to that change and I do not go along with the assumptions on which it is proposed. None the less, I accept that the Government have given their manifesto pledge and they have the right to make this change.

That, however, does not preclude the arrangement proposed by my noble friend. If anything, it should open the way for it. Such a major change in the legislature of this country is a matter of constitutional importance, as is the separation of powers and how we are governed. In these matters, an evolutionary approach is best. This amendment opens the way for retaining the expertise of some of the most experienced, knowledgeable and dedicated Peers.

British political history may have been dramatic during its other periods of constitutional change. None the less, the arrangements—whether extending the franchise in the 19th century, Catholic emancipation, or Irish home rule and then the treaty with Ireland—were evolutionary. They incorporated something of what went before by allowing for a gradual evolution, not a violent upheaval.

Similarly, reform of this House has been gradual and saved something of what went before. This brought Britain political stability, and brought stability to our democracy, unlike in the cases of other friends and neighbours, such as France, which is a unitary power like Britain but did not necessarily follow the evolutionary approach. We see reports that this continues, even to the present day.

This Bill is a Labour Party measure. I have nothing but admiration for the party opposite, which emerged as a main party of government in the early 20th century. It accepted the constitutional conventions and it helped democracy in this country to evolve. It was also helped by the restraint of the Conservative leadership, which refused, as one interwar Prime Minister put it, to “fire the first shot”. This was not because of a desire to appease politically but as the means of enabling Britain’s democracy to evolve gradually—and evolve it did.

Labour won power, first in 1924, again in 1929 and then, dramatically, in 1945. It was given a fair crack of the whip to get on with the manifesto pledge and be judged at the end of the Parliament on the whole package of how well it did in power. Similarly, with this House, there has been an evolutionary, not political, change. There is a settled constitutional way of proceeding, consistent with the manifesto pledge. I hope that the Government will accept this amendment—that they will accept the established and successful way of incorporating something that has gone before. I hope that they will, in this way, signify their respect for the consensual approach to constitutional change, and that they will not fire the first shot.

My Lords—

Noble Lords:

Front Bench!

I shall be brief. I apologise; I have not spoken on this Bill so far. Noble Lords who know me will know that one of the reasons is because my fantastic mother-in-law, Dorothy Ann Bray, started end-of-life care and has now passed away. This is the first time I have spoken since then.

I like this amendment, but I do not agree that it is perfect. I urge the usual channels to find a way to work together to make sure this House can come together behind whatever the final solution is. For me, that is all that matters. I appreciate that the Government have a mandate for change, but my children and my grand- children live in this country and I do not want them to think that we have a petty and vindictive Government. If this is about the principle and not the numbers, they must succeed with the principle but find a way of protecting the actual people who we all live and work with and care about.

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Mobarik for initiating this debate and all those who spoke, notably those formidable Baronesses, the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Foster and Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. I believe that a number of our colleagues who face summary exclusion under this Bill will have been greatly touched by what my noble friend Lady Mobarik said, the perspective from which she said it and the way that she said it. I think that they will also have been touched by much that others said too.

There has been a great deal of talk about respect throughout Committee, which I believe has been thoughtful. Indeed, as the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, said, it has raised important issues touching the House. Our debates have generally reflected great credit on all sides. I am sure that the expressions of respect for our hereditary colleagues are meant by all. I understand that it does not always feel like that when you see a Bill that tells you, as my noble friend Lord Shinkwin pointed out, in a powerful speech—the second he has made in your Lordships’ Committee—that whatever you have done in this accumulation of 2,080 years of public service cannot change one dot or comma of the sentence of expulsion. We all need to contemplate that, and that has been the ask from the Committee in this debate. My noble friend Lord Shinkwin made a Shakespearean allusion, and I have to say:

“The quality of mercy is not strained”.

A sense of magnanimity is in the air.

The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, reminded us of the dedication of so many hereditary Peers and compared them against the service, or lack of service, of many Peers who are not being excluded under the legislation before us. That thought and sentiment was echoed by others in the debate.

How do we go forward? The noble Earl, Lord Devon, who is not in his place, said in an earlier debate that he did not think there should be horse-trading between party leaders inside or outside this House about who should stay. My noble friend Lady Mobarik also said that she did not care for back-room deals. I understand those feelings, but it surely need not be everyone who goes or no one. There is a middle ground and, as my noble friend Lady Mobarik challenged us all, does this Committee as a collective really wish to lose all the good people who she and so many others have referenced in the course of this debate?

As I have said before in your Lordships’ Committee, and as we have heard from all sides in today’s debate, there is another party to this matter, beyond the party-political interests of the two Front Benches—mine or of the party opposite—and beyond even those deep family instincts that surely we all understand across the House drive us in the views that we take, particularly on this type of question, and that in fact make the great political parties what they are—the sense of their tradition and the sense of their aspirations. That other party to this matter beyond our two parties is this great House itself.

The questions put before us by my noble friend and others are: what does your Lordships’ House think about who and what it may be losing and, as my noble friend Lord Moylan put to us, what in the future may be the knock-on effects of singling out and excluding a category of Peers with no transition? I think all noble Lords know where I stand in the ideal world: I believe there should be full transitional arrangements or grandfather rights. That has often been the case in the past, as it was with the Law Lords. I make no secret of the fact that I believe there should be transitional arrangements—evolution, not revolution, as the right reverend Prelate so wisely put it.

I tabled an amendment earlier in Committee that would have had broadly the same effect as that before us set down by my noble friend. I did not move that amendment, not because I do not share the sentiments of my noble friend Lady Mobarik or of many others who have spoken—I do share them—but, as I told the Committee at the outset, I recognise, as do most Peers who have spoken, the mandate of this Government to end the entry of hereditary Peers. The time, as many have said, in which birth gave you a seat in this House has gone, and that is universally recognised. I have also recognised that the Government would wish any transitional arrangement—which again I submit we should have, in equity and justice—to be dampened by retirements and/or other procedural mechanisms to address their concerns about numbers. I made that clear in my opening speech in Committee.

I remain convinced that there is a way forward, and I hope very much, having listened to this impressive debate, that—informed by the spirit of kindness, compromise, understanding and, yes, respect that has informed this very debate—we may find a way in the period between Easter and Whitsun to reach a generous settlement that respects the interests of all, not least the interests of the whole House, which I think have been eloquently expressed by many in this debate. To such an enterprise, in search of such a settlement and in response to such a call, as we heard so eloquently from my noble friend Lady Mobarik and others today, my door is open and my commitment will be full.

I say from the start that I know the noble Baroness, Lady Mobarik, and respect her. Certainly, I welcome her contributions to this House, and many times in debates we have been on the same side, which reflects how this House operates. I had to decide whether in responding I should respond to the amendment or to the debate. I have decided that I will follow the Companion and stick to the amendment.

The noble Baroness’s amendment seeks to compel the Prime Minister to recommend 87 new Peers. The noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, is absolutely right: is that really what we want to do in terms of where we are? I also point out that while the noble Baroness’s amendment says that she wants to mirror the political balance of the outgoing hereditary Peers, there is nothing in it that would guarantee any hereditary Peer remaining in this House, so I am not sure what the last hour has been all about.

Nevertheless, I want to focus. I think the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, summed it up—and I agree with her—when she said that we are a country that takes constitutional change gradually. I recall from the Labour manifesto in 1901—I do not recall it; I remember reading about it—that we were seeking then to abolish the House of Lords. We have changed our mind over time. We have reached a sort of view about it. The hereditary principle was addressed over 25 years ago, and the noble Lord opposite has said that it has gone. We do not support the hereditary principle when it comes to this legislative House.

I say to the noble Lord, Lord True, that the transitional arrangements that were made over 25 years ago are now going to come to an end. We have had 25 years to look at a sensible way of dealing with this issue. My noble friend Lord Grocott has offered many opportunities to do it on a gradual basis which have all been rejected, primarily by noble Lords opposite.

We have now reached the point where we have a manifesto commitment to deal with this issue. I understand why the noble Baroness has made her amendment and understand the nature of the debate, but, as my noble friend the Leader of the House has set out many times before, it is for the Prime Minister to make recommendations to the sovereign on new Peers. In doing so, the Prime Minister invites nominations from party leaders across the House, so, again, I say to the noble Lord, Lord True, that there is nothing stopping him making recommendations to his leader to include hereditary Peers in any new list. Why not do that? Why not offer that transitional arrangement? It is not for us to decide who stays in this House. It is not for us to decide whom the leader of the Conservative Party decides to recommend to the Prime Minister—

Will the noble Lord just explain how that works for the Cross Benches?

I was going to come to that point, but as the noble Lord gives me the opportunity, let me say that my noble friend the Leader has addressed that. She is working in consultation and wants to have further discussions about how we address that issue. Certainly, I am confident that we will be able to do so, because I think the Cross-Benchers play a very important role in this House, and the Convenor of the Cross Benches is a hereditary Peer.

If the noble Lord is prepared to have those discussions with the Cross Benches, what is wrong with the Official Opposition? Why can he not have the same discussions with them?

I repeat: the Prime Minister of this country has made an offer. In terms of the new Peers that we have recently had introduced into this House, the Conservative Party was offered more than Labour was ever offered in previous nominations. It is a very important point: the simple fact is that, if the leader of the Conservative Party wanted to nominate hereditary Peers to life peerages, they can do so. This amendment—

Noble Lords:

Oh!

I do not mind being interrupted, but what is the point?

The Deputy Leader of the House knows that that is not the case. The leader of the Opposition can make nominations when the Prime Minister graciously allows her to do so. It is entirely up to the Prime Minister when and how many.

Correct, and you have just had six; you could have nominated hereditary Peers as life Peers. There was nothing stopping you—nothing. The important point is that we have had opportunities to deal with this issue over the last 25 years and have not done so. As a consequence, Labour put in its manifesto a clear commitment to deal with the hereditary principle once and for all, which is what we have before us in this very short, simple Bill.

Let me just address this point. The Prime Minister also invites the House of Lords Appointments Commission to make nominations to the Cross Benches. In deciding the number of these nominations, the Prime Minister considers a range of factors, of course, including the political balance of the House. Certainly, retirements and other departures mean that new Peers will always be needed to ensure the House has appropriate expertise and, as has been said before, there is no reason why hereditary Peers cannot be nominated in future lists. Political parties have the opportunity to do that. My noble friend the Leader has recognised the special position of Cross-Benchers and committed to discuss it with the relevant parties. That is the commitment she has made.

If the noble Baroness, Lady Mobarik, is concerned with the party balance of the House, I remind your Lordships that even if this Bill is passed the Government Benches will make up 28% of this Chamber, compared to 31% for the party opposite. As my noble friend the Leader has said before to your Lordships, this House functions best when there are roughly equal numbers between the two main parties; I stand by that. As I have said to the noble Baroness, there are many occasions when we operate on a cross-party basis. I do not see that this Bill will change that one bit—far from it. It will bring about a more sensible balance in this House.

With respect to the noble Baroness, Lady Mobarik, this amendment is unnecessary. It is not appropriate for this Bill and I respectfully request that she withdraws it.

The noble Lord has returned to the question of numbers, completely ignoring the points I made about other ways of addressing that. I set that to one side but, as I understood it, his concept was, “Well, you”—I do not think that he can have meant me—“can send some people here if you want to”. The Government are about to expel 44 of our people. Is the noble Lord saying that the leader of the Opposition can name 44 who will come straight back? That appeared to be the logic of his position. Will he answer the specific point on numbers? The Prime Minister decides the numbers; that is the fact.

Certainly I know that is the case, and we found that out the hard way in the past 14 years. But can I just say—and the noble Lord knows this—we are dealing with an imbalance at the moment? He keeps talking about how many Conservative Peers are hereditary, but that is not the question in this Bill. The question in this Bill is about the principle of hereditary Peers, not about whether they are Conservative. In fact, so much of the debate has been about how they are not political and not partisan, but then the noble Lord keeps repeating how many of them are Conservative.

What we have now is a transitional arrangement from over 25 years ago. We have had many opportunities, through the Grocott Bill and others, to see them wither away, which were not taken up. We are now in the position of saying that, after 25 years, the hereditary principle will end. If the noble Lord’s party, when the Prime Minister approaches his leader and says, “We are going to have a new list—here is the number of Peers you can have”—you could have done it with the last six that you got. You could have appointed and nominated a hereditary Peer who has done good service to this House to make sure that they can continue to do good service to this House, not as a hereditary but on the basis of their duty and service as life Peers. That is the answer.

My Lords, first, I thank all those who have participated in this debate and shown their support for the intention behind my amendment. I am disappointed that the noble Lord, Lord Collins of Highbury, decided not to respond to the debate as such. I thought that that was the purpose of Committee stage.

I am hesitant to interrupt the noble Baroness, but there is one hereditary Peer whom I do miss greatly, and that is the Countess of Mar. She would have jumped up many times and said, “Please, your Lordships, speak to the amendment” —and that is what I was trying to do.

Thank you—I shall remember that on the next occasion.

There have been so many notable speeches today, but time does not permit me to mention all of them. I think that this debate has shown that we on these Benches, joined by others across this House, are not trying to hold on to the hereditary principle but want to hold on to our hereditary colleagues. I strongly believe that my amendment would provide a civilised, mannerly and appropriate way in which to manage ourselves, in keeping with the customs and courtesies of our great House.

There is clearly widespread support for some kind of transitional arrangement, and I sincerely hope from the bottom of my heart that the noble Baroness the Leader of the House will reflect on this very carefully and take my noble friend Lord True up on his very fair and reasonable offer before Report. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 90E withdrawn.