Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay:

Moved by Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay

2: Leave out Clause 1 and insert the following new Clause—“Abolition of by-elections for hereditary peers(1) Section 2 of the House of Lords Act 1999 (exception from section 1) is amended as follows.(2) For subsection (2) substitute—“(2) No more than 87 people at any one time shall be excepted from section 1.” (3) For subsection (4) substitute—“(4) Any vacancy resulting from the death, retirement, resignation or expulsion of an excepted person under subsection (2) after the day on which the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Act 2025 comes into force is not to be filled by further exception.””Member's explanatory statementThis Amendment would amend the House of Lords Act 1999 to abolish the system of by-elections for hereditary peers. This would prevent any new hereditary peers from joining the House, while allowing those who are presently serving in the House to remain. It follows the proposals of the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) (Abolition of By-Elections) Bill.

My Lords, many sensible ways of improving this Bill were discussed in Committee, but perhaps the most sensible was one which has been discussed many times before. Amendment 2, which I am delighted to say is supported by the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, and my noble friend Lady Laing of Elderslie, among many others, seeks to abolish the by-elections through which hereditary Peers may join your Lordships’ House, while allowing those who have come here by that route or who still sit here through the ballot which followed the House of Lords Act 1999 to continue to do so until, like the rest of us, they choose to retire or leave by some other means. The amendment would ensure that, although we all come here by varied routes and for different reasons, we are all treated equally in our moment of departure.

This amendment was debated rather late in the evening in Committee and given slightly short shrift. I can quite understand the frustration of many, particularly on the Benches opposite, who have spent far longer than I have debating this matter, but I felt it was important to bring back on Report, not least because so many of us have not had that opportunity. It also seemed to me that the sudden Opposition to it by those who have previously supported this solution was based on a few false assumptions.

The first assumption or claim is that these by-elections were never intended to be around for so long. In a sense, that is correct, but only because they were intended to ensure that further reform of your Lordships’ House would follow. The preservation of a small number of hereditary Peers, maintained through by-elections, came about as a result of a compromise agreed before Second Reading of what is now the House of Lords Act 1999. Then, as now, a Labour Government had been elected with a large Majority in Another place on a manifesto proposing reform of your Lordships’ House. Then, as now, there was some scepticism about whether they intended to carry out both stages of that reform with equal alacrity, or whether they sought simply to remove a large number of parliamentarians from Benches other than their own.

The Lord Chancellor at the time, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, said that he was not offended by such scepticism. That is why he accepted the comprise proposed by the Convener of the Cross Benches, Lord Weatherill, to keep a small number of hereditary Peers here by way of surety. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine, explained at Second Reading,

“a compromise in these terms would guarantee that stage two would take place, because the Government with their great popular majority and their manifesto pledge would not tolerate 10 per

The noble and learned Lord gave that guarantee from that Dispatch Box.

Noble Lords will note that stage two did not take place. The Labour Government carried on in power for more than a decade, but the only further reform they enacted was the removal of the Lord Chancellor from the Woolsack and the abolition of the Law Lords. In doing so, incidentally, they allowed those judges who had come here under the Appellate Jurisdiction Act 1876 to continue to do so for as long as they wished. That is why we in your Lordships’ House still benefit from the wisdom and experience of the noble and learned Lords, Lord Woolf, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, Lord Mance, Lord Neuberger, Lord Collins of Mapesbury, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hale of Richmond.

Towards the end of his time in office, Gordon Brown proposed in the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act to end the by-elections. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine, predicted, Mr Brown could not tolerate 10% of the hereditary peerage remaining for so long. But the Bill did not contain measures for stage two reforms, so Parliament rejected that part of it shortly before Dissolution in 2010. What we have before us today is a proposal not only to abolish the by-elections, but to remove the remaining hereditary Peers from this House at the end of the current Session, without fulfilling the guarantee the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine, gave. The noble and learned Lord told your Lordships, when he gave it in 1999, that it

“reflects a compromise negotiated between Privy Councillors on Privy Council terms and binding in honour on all those who have come to give it their assent

Whatever else we may think of the Bill before us, we have the opportunity to defend that honour today.

The second claim or assumption is that the by-elections are somehow eccentric, alien or embarrassing to your Lordships’ House. In fact, they are not an unusual feature. Following the Acts of Union in 1707 and 1801, elections were held among Scottish and then Irish Peers to elect representatives of their number to sit in Parliament. When the Irish Free State was established in 1922, the Irish elections were discontinued but those who were already in the House were allowed to stay and continue their work. The Scottish elections continued until 1963, when the Peerage Act permitted all Scottish Peers, male and female, to take their place among the Barons. So apart from a 36-year gap between 1963 and 1999, there have been elected Members of your Lordships’ House for the last 318 years.

Like many other elements of our organic constitution, the by-elections of recent years have been easy to pillory, but so too are by-elections to other legislative chambers. Noble Lords may recall the Haltemprice and Howden By-election of 2008, which attracted 26 candidates, none of them from Labour or the Liberal Democrat parties; or the contest in Fermanagh and South Tyrone in 1981, which attracted just two, the winner being a convicted criminal on hunger strike who died 26 days after his election, provoking a change in the law.

The present leader of the House of Commons was first elected in a by-election with a turnout of 18.2%. The present Foreign Secretary and the Minister of State for Europe were elected at by-elections on a 25% turnout. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Hilary Benn, came to Parliament in a by-election where just 19.9% of the electorate turned out to vote. I am not sure that stands in such stark contrast to the by-election which brought his brother to the Labour Benches of your Lordships’ House.

It is easy to pillory by-elections, but we should not denigrate those who win them under the rules we have collectively devised. Just as no one would question the legitimacy of those members of the Cabinet who came to Parliament in those lacklustre contests, nor does it follow that seeking to end the by-elections to your Lordships’ House should be accompanied by the expulsion of those who have won them.

The public-spirited people from all Benches who put themselves forward for election to your Lordships’ House did not devise the rules by which they were elected. They have served here with distinction and, in many cases, with more conspicuous industry than some who have been appointed. I know that is an uncomfortable thing to say, but we owe it to those colleagues whom the Bill seeks to expel to acknowledge it. I hope through this modest amendment we can applaud their diligence and public service and seek to harness it for the benefit of the nation for a while longer.

The final claim, or assumption, is that it is somehow too late to embrace this solution, and that the opportunity to do so has been squandered by those who have opposed it in the past. That is the argument we were given in Committee. For many years, the Leader of the House supported this solution. She said during the last Parliament that the Government should support it

“when it will undoubtedly come before your Lordships’ House again

I can quite understand her frustration and exasperation that the previous Government did not heed her words, but, when I suggested in Committee that the Government of which she is now part could do so, she said:

“But we are not going to, because that time has passed. The opportunity was there; it was rejected so many times and that is why we had a manifesto commitment”.—[Official Report, 3/3/25; col. 112.]

However, I believe that that, too, is based on a mistaken assumption. There have been many attempts to end these by-elections; they have always faltered because they were not accompanied by the other half of the Minister’s noble and learned friend’s guarantee. The first attempt was made by Lord Wetherill in 2003 through a Private Member’s Bill that sought to end the by-elections and drive progress on further reform, but that did not go beyond First Reading. Other attempts have been made through private Bills brought by Lord Avebury and Lord Steel of Aikwood, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Hayman and Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, among others. Each of those has demonstrated the difficulty and perhaps even the undesirability of trying to deliver constitutional change through Private Members’ Bills. An attempt to end the by-elections and deliver stage 2 reforms was made in a Government Bill brought by the Conservative and Liberal Democrat coalition in 2012, but that did not secure cross-party support, particularly in another place, and foundered.

Most recently, the crusade has been continued, with great tenacity and wit, by the noble Lord, Lord Grocott. The formulation he has proposed in every parliamentary Session since 2016, apart from this one, is exactly the same as we advance today. Just as with noble Lords who proposed private Bills under the last Labour Government, the noble Lord has found it difficult to make progress with his Bills under Conservative Governments. In 2016, his Bill passed Second Reading but ran out of time in Committee. In 2017, it made it to Report but fell there. In 2019 and 2021, it again passed Second Reading but fell awaiting Committee. The most recent attempt in the last Session of the last Parliament is the only occasion on which it did not have a Second Reading.

Therefore, the last time that your Lordships’ House had the opportunity to express an opinion on the solution proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, was in December 2021. On that occasion, the Bill was given a Second Reading without Division, and, while it certainly attracted critical scrutiny from some noble Lords, it won support from all corners of the House, including from my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham, Lord Waverley—who retired from your Lordships’ House just last week—and the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza. It would therefore be wrong to claim that this idea has been repeatedly rejected. Indeed, as the Leader of the House has often pointed out in the past, it has generally been supported in this House: it is the other place where the problems have often come.

I know that she and many noble Lords regret that this idea has not been taken up sooner, but for many of us that was simply not an option. Since these proposals were last debated here, in December 2021, more than 160 Members have joined your Lordships’ House. The last time there was a Division on a Bill to effect these changes was in March 2019. Since that time, 257 new Members have arrived in your Lordships’ House. That is almost a third of the House that has never had the opportunity to vote on this matter. That is why I have tabled this amendment today, along with two of the other relative newcomers to your Lordships’ House. I hope that those who previously supported this proposal will do so again, and that those who have never had the opportunity of doing so take this opportunity—perhaps their first and last—to show their support for it.

Is my noble friend in a position to give an assurance to your Lordships’ House that, if this Amendment were to carry, it would be part of a wider package of reform, some of which is indicated in the amendments and has been touched on by the noble Baroness? Those of us who have doubts about this amendment would be much happier about supporting it if we thought that it was part of a wider package to which the Tory front bench is party.

I think my noble friend’s question is directed more to the Government, who have the opportunity to say what they will do on stage 2 reforms. But I will come to my noble friend’s question in a moment, because it is important. In fact, it reflects a conversation that I had with a wise colleague from the Cross Benches who, when I told him I was intending to move this Amendment, said, “I hope we will see some humility from those who have previously resisted it”. I hope the fact that I stand here at the Opposition Dispatch Box to move this amendment is an expression of that humility.

I remind your Lordships that my noble friend Lord True, along with the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, suggested, as soon as the Government were elected, that the by-elections be discontinued in recognition of the Government’s manifesto commitment and in anticipation of the debates on this Bill. But I can be humbler yet. I say to the Government and to noble Lords in every corner of the House: on this, we give in. We will not hold the present Government to the guarantee, binding in honour, made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg. We yield to the mandate that they won at the ballot box and will take them at their word that further reform will follow. I welcome what the Leader of the House has said about the establishment of a Select Committee to look into some—not all—of the rest of the Government’s manifesto. I note that the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, is in his place. Ohers will remember the royal commission—rather weightier than a Select Committee—that was set up by a previous Labour Government to seek a way forward on stage 2 reforms then. I wish the Select Committee far greater success on this occasion. We will reserve our scepticism and hope to be proved wrong.

But, in return, we urge your Lordships to show the same clemency and generosity afforded to the Law Lords and the Irish representative Peers in days past to our friends and colleagues who sit here by accident of birth and who work just as hard as the rest of us in the service of the country that they love. I beg to move.

My Lords, I added my name in support of this Amendment, which has been so admirably introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay. I agree that the opportunity to adopt this solution should have been seized earlier. Those who tried but failed are right to be frustrated, and the Conservatives deserve the criticism they are getting. But these are not good enough reasons for us to fail to seize this opportunity now.

To begin with, a large number of us never had the chance to vote, as the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, said. As for those who did, it is true that some of them are supporting today what they opposed a few years ago. It is also true that others are opposing today what they supported only a few years ago. Consistency does not serve many well. Everyone is better served by returning to first principles and judging this issue on its merits. This amendment was a good idea when the Bill on which it is modelled was last given a Second Reading in December 2021, and it remains a good idea today.

To put things in some numerical perspective, since December 2021, 13 new hereditary Peers have come to this House through the route of Section 2 of the House of Lords Act 1999. If the proponents of those proposals in 2021 had had their way then, as I wish they had—I was not here—we would have 74 former hereditaries today, instead of 87. The difference is just 13.

It is certainly the case that the party that gained the most from the excepted hereditary route to this House was the Conservative Party, and there is no doubt that the biggest loser was the Labour Party. This is not fair because it has resulted in a political imbalance in favour of the Conservatives. However, as the numbers that I have just mentioned show, this is an imbalance that can be corrected. Indeed, this correction is already under way: 49 new Labour Peers were created since January 2024, with 45 since the election. Importantly, this political imbalance did not become a constitutional imbalance. In spite of the number of Conservative Peers, the House remained very effective at scrutinising legislation and holding the previous Conservative Governments to account.

Since 1911, significant changes to the make-up of this House, and to its legislative conventions defining our role relative to the other place, have generally travelled with the chief Opposition on board. We break this habit at our peril. We have often considered the hypothetical scenario of a Prime Minister coming in and appointing large numbers of new Peers to control this House—Lloyd George was not the only one to be so tempted. What stands between us and this scenario is the fact that we are not an elective dictatorship. We are a representative democracy with a complex system of checks and balances that has made it very difficult for a Prime Minister, even with a large Majority in the other place, to effect a power grab. Each of the three main political parties with experience of government has historically acted as a check and balance. No party leader has ever achieved full control of his or her party. Indeed, a few of them were humiliated by their party—ask Jeremy Corbyn or Liz Truss.

But what if the next Prime Minister is not the leader of one of these political parties with experience of government? What if he is the leader of a movement that he set up and controls? That is the scenario that has to be in our minds for the next election. Reform’s manifesto in 2024 said:

“Replace the crony-filled House of Lords with a much smaller, more democratic second chamber. Structure to be debated”.

I doubt that elections will be Mr Farage’s priority. He will want an upper House that he controls in the way that he controls his party. He will seek to achieve this objective through a mixture of removals, appointments and, perhaps, some elections. If this scenario came to pass, we would have to accept the principle that the party that won the election needs a sufficient number of Peers to govern. But we would also be perfectly entitled—indeed, constitutionally mandated—to insist that there should not be removal of Peers en masse unless there is agreement with the main Opposition on the basis of a clear, fair, principled and transparent approach.

On a different note, one hereditary Peer told me that he was not going to vote because he did not think it right for him to do so. I respectfully urge him and anyone in a similar position to reconsider. The idea that we should not vote on constitutional rules affecting the composition of the House because we belong to the affected category of Peers is wrong and would create a bad precedent. Should Peers over 80 abstain on amendments seeking to impose an age limit of 80? Should Peers who might be excluded by a participation threshold abstain on those amendments? Of course not. In all these situations, Peers should vote on the basis of principle rather than personal interest. If our conscience tells us that our personal interest prevents us from fairly assessing the principle, then we should abstain, but if we are genuinely convinced that the principle is right, it is our duty to vote in a way that upholds that principle.

I went back to the Second Reading speeches. It is clear that many of your Lordships expected that, by now, there would be some compromise on the question of the transitional arrangements for the 87 hereditary Peers. Those who expressed such an expectation included many who were fully supportive of the Bill and deeply critical of the attitude of the main Opposition. The key principle is that the resolution of this issue must be clear, fair and transparent. To say, “Vote for this now and we will see later” is none of those things. We are already being asked to pass the Bill and leave for later fundamental questions about the reform of the House foreshadowed in the Labour manifesto, although I welcome the announcement by the Leader of the House earlier.

We cannot be asked to pass this legislation while remaining blind to the transitional arrangements for the 87 Peers. It would not be a good outcome for this House and its credibility if some of the 87 reappeared on a basis that is neither clear nor transparent and does not reflect any prior consensus. The question of what happens to them must be resolved in this House and before this House. This could have been achieved with a firm assurance on the basis of cross-party agreement. We have received no such assurance. It is now our duty to fix this problem by voting for this amendment.

My Lords, it is an honour and a pleasure to follow the noble Lord. Like him, I have added my name to this Amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, set out very clearly, and with his customary brilliant oratory, the arguments for the amendment and I will not take up the time of the House by repeating them. As he explained, your Lordships often refer to the issue we are discussing in this amendment by the shorthand of “the Grocott Bill”. I appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, persevered with his Bill for many years. I have to tell your Lordships that I go back even further than the first Grocott Bill.

In 2010, Lord Steel of Aikwood, as the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, mentioned, introduced a similar Bill. It passed its stages in your Lordships’ House and when it came to the House of Commons, I, as a little junior Back-Bencher, adopted it as a Private Member’s Bill. I tried to introduce it there, but as is so often the way with these matters, it did not proceed. Your Lordships might recall that at that time, the measures in the Bill were not Conservative Party policy and might wonder what a loyal Conservative such as me was doing supporting the Steel Bill.

I have always been loyal to my party, but I was vehemently opposed to the Liberal Democrat constitutional reforms adopted by the coalition Government. On those matters, I was a rebel, and it is just as well that those of us who were rebels at that time succeeded; otherwise, your Lordships’ House would probably not exist at all, or it would be a faint Shadow of what it is today and a mere mirror image of the House of Commons. So I was glad to be a rebel. I tried to make progress with what was then called the Steel Bill and was referred to as the principle of “withering on the vine”. I always thought that that was a rather sad way to speak about the demise of the hereditary peerage, but it is not quite as sad as that which we are facing today.

We can all understand why noble Lords on the Government Benches wish to stand by the principle in their election manifesto. They are right to do so: the principle that there should be no more hereditary Peers created is a good principle and nobody is disagreeing with it. But this amendment is not about principle; it is about practicality. We are all here—except the hereditary Peers, of course—because somebody in a position of authority made a subjective judgment that our past experience and our future potential made each of us a suitable person to become a Member of your Lordships’ House. When I glance at the Bishops’ Benches, I wonder whether my theory on that is correct, and then I think to myself, yes, it is—even more so; it is just that the subjective judgment in their case was perhaps made by a higher authority than was the case for the rest of us.

We were all invited to become life Peers because, as I said, our past experience and future potential made each of us appear to someone making a subjective judgment to be a suitable person to become a Member of your Lordships’ House and to contribute in some way to the government of our nations. Every one of your Lordships is here by virtue of a subjective judgment.

I am asking your Lordships to make a subjective judgment today. Those among us who were first admitted to your Lordships’ House by virtue of the achievements of their fathers and grandfathers have, over the years—for some, over the decades—by virtue of the contributions they have made to the government of our country and the work of this noble House, earned their places here. They might have come here in the first instance because of the achievements of their fathers and grandfathers but, now, look around and your Lordships will know that they deserve their places because of their own achievements. They have served this House, various Governments and Oppositions and the Cross Benches in roles in which they have worked hard and achieved much.

My argument in favour of this amendment is that, as individuals, they have earned their places here just as noble Lords who are life Peers have earned theirs. Consider for a moment what each of your Lordships individually has done in the past to merit your position as a Peer, then consider our colleagues who face expulsion and ask yourselves, “Is he really less worthy than I am?”. I ask noble Lords to examine their consciences and to consider this as a matter not of principle but of practicality. We have in our midst some excellent parliamentarians. It would diminish your Lordships’ House to lose them. It would be sad to see their experience, dedication and talents lost—not gradually, as they leave the House one by one, but in one fell swoop, diminishing this House immediately and irretrievably.

I implore your Lordships to make a subjective judgment, just as a subjective judgment was made about each of you, and support this amendment.

My Lords, I want briefly to express some concerns about this Amendment. Despite the eloquence of the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, who in the end have advanced a very good argument, the concerns are threefold.

First, if we accepted this amendment, we would entrench numbers. If we want to get this House down to around 600, entrenching the numbers at around 830 would make the task more difficult. Secondly and differently, we have to ask what the perception of the public will be; they will say that this is a self-serving amendment, in that we are looking after our friends, and that in the absence of any other measures we are not serious about proper reform. That takes me to my final point. I will support this amendment, but on the basis that my party is committed to serious, robust reform and will play a full part in any negotiations that take place so that we have a properly reformed House with participation requirements, a fit and proper test, an enhanced HOLAC, maybe term peerages and a retirement age. I want to see a fundamentally reformed House and will support this amendment on the basis that there will be substantial support from my Benches for that.

My Lords, the issue before the House is not the merits of the hereditary Peers or the contribution they make, about which there can be no doubt. The issue is very simple: is it really acceptable in 2025 that, for decades to come, a House of the legislature should continue to consist of a large number of people who are here purely because of who their ancestors were? For me, that is unacceptable.

My Lords, I support the Amendment from my noble friend Lord Parkinson. “Peer” comes from the Latin word par, which means “equal”, and in this House, wherever we sit, we are all equal. We have a shared experience; we are here with a common purpose to scrutinise legislation and serve our country. There may be Peers with whom we disagree or Peers whom we admire, but in the brief time that I have been in this House, I have understood one thing: we are all in this together. Both hereditary and lifetime appointments form a constituent part of the legislative process within the framework of the constitution of the United Kingdom. To abolish the hereditary element is an attack on our constitution, but this has already happened, so I accept reluctantly that there should be no further elections for hereditary Peers.

What I find hard to accept is the spiteful ejection of the existing hard-working hereditary Peers, who across this House bring so much energy and expertise. The unique composition of the House of Lords does not seem rational, but it really works, as Ian Dunt wrote in his book How Westminster Works … and Why It Doesn’t. He is a man of the left, and this was not what he thought he would discover when he began working on this book. But that was his conclusion: this is the one element in our system that works.

The hereditary colleagues in the last Parliament had overall a better attendance record than life Peers, and over half of them serve as members of Select Committees. I declare an interest as my father was a hereditary who was booted out in 1999. He was a retired general who brought all his military experience to the Defence Committee. One of the things I have noticed is that our hereditary colleagues have a greater humility—and perhaps, if I may put it this way, noblesse oblige—than those of us who think we have been placed here because of our wonderful achievements. I really believe that the removal of our colleagues will leave our House worse off, rather than better, and surely the principle of any reform should be improvement, not diminishment.

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, will not be surprised that I do not agree with this Amendment, for the reasons so pithily put by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. There are a number of points with which I could take issue, but I will pick up a couple from the speech by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson. He implied that those of us who supported the “Grocott Bills”, in their various guises, were almost being hypocritical by not voting for this today. The truth was—with all due respect to the noble Lord, Lord Grocott—that the Grocott Bills were second best. They were the best that was on offer, and we saw them as a way of making some progress while believing that what is in this Bill was preferable.

How can the noble Lord possibly argue that it was second best when the Leader of the House has told us that, had we accepted Grocott in the last Parliament, this would not have been necessary?

My Lords, I am explaining to the House what I thought at the time, not what anybody else might think.

The noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, said that the system of by-elections should not be thought to have been eccentric. The noble Lord, Lord Grocott, was very eloquent in pointing out just how eccentric they were, particularly in respect of by-elections for the Liberal Democrats. On one notable occasion, there were seven candidates and three electors, and nobody in the Liberal Democrats knew who half the candidates were. They were truly eccentric. They brought the House into disrepute, certainly in respect of those by-elections, and they were simply not sustainable in any way.

I strongly agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, in pointing out that one consequence of this Amendment would be to maintain over a considerable number of years—unless there was a great increase in the size of the House—a significant Conservative plurality over the Labour Benches. That seems me to be a bad thing, because the inevitable consequence would be that the Government would increase their numbers, and we would have a bloated House. Apparently, everybody agrees that the House is too big, yet this amendment, if agreed, would have that consequence for decades to come.

The noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, said that he was, in his humility, willing to yield to the mandate gained at the ballot box, but the mandate gained at the ballot box is what is in the Bill and not what is in his amendment.

My Lords, I will make two very short points. First, the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, knows the respect in which I hold him, but it is a subtle piece of advocacy to say that the hereditaries sit here purely because of the family they were born into, to use the noble Lord’s phrase. Since 2005, that has not been the case; it is the family plus an election. Indeed, some of them sit here on a firmer basis than many other Members of your Lordships’ House.

Secondly, on the “too late” argument, which seems to be the primary point put by the Government front bench, I have never quite understood why opposing a Private Member’s Bill, with all the legislative hurdles and difficulties that such Bills have, precludes you from later supporting an Amendment to a government Bill which is bound to become law.

My Lords, I am finding it difficult to compute exactly what is going on today, because Friday after Friday, Bill after Bill, to a three-quarters empty House, which is characteristic on a Friday, I have been faced with substantial Opposition, not just from individual Members—not exclusively from the Tory party but overwhelmingly—but from the Government. The Bills got no further.

Here we are now, with a pretty full House, all agreed that these by-elections are farcical. The Amendment gets rid of them; the Bill before the House—which I strongly support—gets rid of them. That was my motive for bringing the whole process in to begin with. Believe it or not, the primary motive was to stop this absurdity which the noble Lord, Lord Newby, described as the most offensive of the lot.

I did not think it would be a problem. I have been around quite a long time, but I thought, “Surely, there is no one in this House who thinks that a By-election to get into this House should be exclusively for men, both the electorate and the candidates, and it is feasible to have an electorate of three when you’ve got seven candidates”. By the way, the noble Lord, Lord Newby, did not mention the last line of that, which is that all three votes went to one of the seven candidates—so there was 100% turnout, with 100% of the vote going to the winning candidate. I mean, North Korea would not dare to do that.

I am flattered, I suppose, to find that everyone suddenly seems to be agreed on this. We could have saved ourselves so much time when I brought it in first in 2016—since when, 27 new hereditaries have come here. To those who say that we might as well do it now, I say a whole new generation has been elected since I first introduced the Bill. But I must be immodest about this—

Will the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, tell us who elected him to come to this House?

As far as I know, although I do not know the intricacies of the mechanism that brought me here, there were probably more than three people who thought that it was okay.

I would be dishonest to the House if I did not admit to being flattered that it seems to be universally described as the “Grocott Bill”. It is lovely to have a Bill named after you, even if it was rejected time after time. It is no longer the “Grocott Bill”. I liked the ring of that, but I very much like the ring of the new, improved Bill before the House today, so I think we ought to call the original one the “House of Lords (Grocott No. 1) Bill” and the one before the House now the “House of Lords (Grocott No. 2) Bill”. Why do I support the “House of Lords (Grocott No. 2) Bill”? It is because it is better, it does the job more effectively and it means that we can move on from this endless debate to discuss other aspects of reform.

However, I really despair at times about the inability of this House to deal with such a simple proposition: a two-Clause Bill. It would have cost nothing—it might have saved money—and upset no one, but time and time again it was rejected. It was filibustered—I will not mention all the Peers who opposed it. In anticipation of this debate, I checked who had spoken against it at Second Reading on its various outings. There were two culprits—I will not embarrass them now—who were worse than any others and who persistently put down 60 or 70 amendments the day before Committee. We are powerless in this place if there are people determined to wreck a Bill in that way. Perhaps they can reflect, in the quietness of their own souls, on what might have been if they had not done that, because I believe that if a Bill like this had been passed —if not mine, then certainly Lord Steel’s Bill—most of the hereditaries now would have peacefully moved on, by whatever mechanism, from membership of this House.

It has been a bit of fun, this somersaulting by sundry Members opposite, but thank heaven that we are removing the hereditary principle as a mechanism for membership of this House. It is long, long, long overdue. It could have been dealt with much earlier, but let us not cry over spilt milk; let us just get on with this and quickly.

My Lords, the noble Lord said that we are now removing the hereditary principle. It is accepted, on this side, that we are removing the hereditary principle. His speeches are very entertaining, mocking the system that was brought in by his own party in government.

My difficulty is that the Leader of the House has repeatedly told us, both publicly and privately, that, had we not opposed what is called the “Grocott Bill”, this would not be necessary. I therefore have to ask: what is the principle that we are discussing? It appears to be that the hereditary principle should be got rid of—that has been accepted. However, I am concerned by the idea that we should pluck out of this House hard-working Members, who are mainly Conservatives. We heard from the Liberal Benches that they are worried about numbers. On my count, 45 new Labour Peers have been appointed since the General Election. That does not strike me as being the activities of a party that is concerned about the size of the House; it strikes me as being a party that is concerned about the number of people who will go through the Lobbies in support of it. Therefore, one is left with a terrible suspicion that what is going on here is taking a group of people out of this House, who happen to have come into it as hereditaries, for party-political reasons. That is a very dangerous—

My Lords—

I will give way in a second.

That is a very dangerous precedent to accept. How soon will it be before people arguing for this precedent argue that other groups of people can be taken out, because they are not convenient?

I am trying not to be too partisan today, so I will appeal to the Government. To put it gently, the Government are in a certain amount of difficulty on a number of issues. The one thing I learned when I was in Government was that having a good and effective Opposition is a really good thing for a Government, because it makes you avoid making the kind of mistakes that Governments make. Therefore, it is very important—especially in this House, where we simply ask the Government to think again and we have no ability to force them to do otherwise by force of argument—to have an effective Opposition.

My Lords—

I will give way to the noble Lord when I have finished my point.

One-third of the Opposition front bench are hereditaries. They are people of enormous experience and dedication. By not accepting this Amendment, the Government are damaging not only the House by creating a terrible precedent but the Opposition, as well as the number of Tory Peers that there are. That is a disgraceful thing to do.

What is the argument? I know that people on the Benches opposite have sought to argue, “Can’t you get other people to sit on your Front Bench?” I say to the Leader of the House: she should try using that argument. It is very hard, especially if they are not paid—I will come to that later—to ask people to give up the time and for them to have the expertise. You can bring in new people, but it takes a very long time to get used to the way this place operates—it has taken me a very long time.

If we do not accept the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, we are talking about disabling the Opposition and gerrymandering the composition of the House. That is a disgraceful thing to do.

I am grateful to the noble Lord for finally giving way. He talks about the disabling of the Opposition. Would he like to explain to the House what his party did in Government from 2010 to last year in terms of the numbers they appointed? I excuse the noble Baroness, Lady May, because she took the issue of the size of this House very seriously but, alas, her predecessors and those who succeeded her did not. As a party, we have put new Members of the House in since the election to try to get ourselves a reasonable balance after the disgraceful approach of so many Conservative Prime Ministers over those years.

There are a lot of things that we did in Government that I would not like to defend. I do not disagree with the noble Lord. I understand why a number of very good and excellent appointments have been made to the Benches opposite. I understand the reason why they wish to make up the numbers. All I am saying is that to argue that the Government are not going to accept the Amendment from my noble friend because they are worried about the size of the House is ridiculous when, at the same time, they are increasing the size of the House. Have a care here for the importance of Parliament, of effective Opposition and of not disabling the ability of this House to carry out its constitutional duties. In the end, it will be to the disadvantage of the Government and the House.

I support my noble friend’s amendment. I am glad that my noble friend Lord Hailsham is going to vote for it, but I do not see any conditionality about it. I am going to support it because it is in the interests of our country, democracy and this splendid institution—the House of Lords—which all of us should hold in the highest regard.

The thing I find odd about the argument just advanced, and, indeed, about the Amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, and the way in which he introduced it—splendid though it was—is the implicit assumption that if his amendment were to pass here, the other place would say, “Goodness, that’s a good idea”, and accept it. Does he really think that would happen? If so, I have a Westminster Bridge to sell to him. If he does not, does he think that the process of ping-pong will be good for the image of this House?

We all know the strength of the contribution that hereditaries have made to our discussions, but if one adopted the phase-out that the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, suggests, we would see the press write not about the contribution that the hereditaries have made but about a last-ditch effort to save the hereditaries. Ping-pong would be disastrous for the image of this House; it would be poison. We really need not to get into that game.

Of course we would like to see many of our hereditary colleagues come back as life Peers, and of course they will. That is in the hands of the parties, and arrangements will no doubt be made to deal with the problem of the Cross Benches. Of course that will happen, and of course we will be sorry to see those go who will not be coming back, but the Government are entitled to say that a manifesto is a mandate. It would be very dangerous for the image of this House for us to be seen to be dragging our feet.

I was very impressed by the speech made at Second Reading by the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington. It was gracious and elegant, and his message was, “Time’s up; let’s go the right way”. We really must avoid being seen by the country as dragging our feet.

My Lords, this is not about ping-pong but about reform, and for reform to be legitimate, it must be principled, proportionate, fair and respectful.

The hereditary Peers currently serving this House entered under a binding cross-party agreement in 1999. They did so in good faith, committing to public service, many without expectation of office or reward. Some are relatively young and gave up successful careers to serve here. To subject them now to mass eviction is not just poor constitutional practice but an act of bad faith. They are not ceremonial relics but active and dedicated parliamentarians, as many have noted. The question is not about reform and whether it should happen—we all agree on that—but about how reform should be done. Can we do it with fairness and decency, or will we allow it to proceed with injustice and haste?

This Amendment would not preserve the hereditary principle, but it would allow those already here to remain until they retire. This is reform done properly and fairly. The Minister will argue that the Bill fulfils a manifesto pledge, but the pledge said nothing about mass eviction. Delivering on a pledge does not justify injustice, particularly when it breaks a binding agreement and when just 34% of the electorate voted for it.

Without this amendment, the Bill amounts to constitutional vandalism. The Bill removes a long-serving group with an age-old sense of duty and responsibility, not for what they perform but for how they arrived. This is why it feels vindictive. It also sets a dangerous precedent, as my noble friend mentioned. Today it is the hereditary Peers; tomorrow it could be the Cross-Benchers or anyone who dares to dissent. This House draws its strengths from its independence and diversity of thought. Let us not mistake destruction for progress. Let us pursue reform the British way: incrementally, inclusively and fairly.

This amendment would allow reform without injustice. It honours service, and it gives the Government the chance to act with principle, not vindictiveness. I urge all noble Lords who value fairness and decency to support this amendment. This is a U-turn worth doing.

My Lords, I shall make a very brief comment on the points of the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, about the image of the House.

We know and accept that hereditary Peers are anomalous, but what about most of the rest of us? Let us be clear about this: we are here—the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, and I—because we crawled so far up the affections of a Prime Minister that we got parking rights. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

As for the idea that this is going to cause a great change in the reputation of this House, I wish that were the case. Meg Russell of the Constitution Unit at University College London has just published a new set of findings, having done some opinion polling on this very point. One point was that you could either limit the number of prime ministerial appointments to this House or get rid of the hereditaries. She said that limiting the number of prime ministerial appointments had by far the highest support among the public. Just 3% of voters chose removing the hereditary Peers without also limiting the number of prime ministerial appointments. We are not in such a bad way as is sometimes suggested.

Does the noble Lord not think it possible to do both—to limit the number of appointees through the prime ministerial structure and to reduce the size of the House in the way that is suggested in this Bill?

I had finished my remarks but will respond to say that I would love that to be the case.

My Lords, I have been waiting for the noble Lord, Lord Burns, to contribute to this debate. He has not done so, so perhaps I might, as a member of the Burns committee, set up by the former Lord Speaker, the noble Lord, Lord Fowler.

We brought before this House a report from the Burns committee with a suggestion of how we could limit the numbers and deal with retirements, but it was based purely on Prime Ministers of the day—and there have been quite a few of them since our report was debated by this House—making sure that they played their part in not sending so many people to the Chamber. As we know, it is only my noble friend Lady May who has kept that bargain and understood why that was important for it to work. Indeed, in subsequent Burns reports that have been available to the House, it was clear that the agreement on retirement was working. We had it within our grasp some years ago, agreed by this House that that was how we would proceed. Had we stuck to that—in particular, had former Prime Ministers stuck to their side of the bargain —I do not think we would be in this position today.

My Lords, noble Lords will remember that I intervened in a debate when we had been going on for hours and went on to actually address the issue in this small Bill. It is not a big Bill and its aims are very clear, but I think we lost the opportunity of concentrating on what the Bill is about. If noble Lords remember, there were many speeches about reforming and about age, and they went on and on. I remember intervening to say that those propositions would go nowhere, because the purpose of the Bill is well defined.

It was with deep regret that I sat in your Lordships’ House and listened to so many speeches, with a lot of hereditaries sitting around, addressing the future as if they were not present. That was the sort of experience I used to have in this country when we were talking about black people. I would be in a meeting where they were talking about black people, and suggesting what would be good for them, but the black people were not being asked what they thought was good for them.

We have got be clear on what the Amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, is about. First, it seeks to abolish the system of by-elections for hereditary Peers. Secondly, it seeks to prevent hereditary Peers joining the House. Thirdly, it would allow

“those who are presently serving in the House to remain”,

but no new hereditary Peers would be made. The problem with this amendment is what the Government would do. They have already tabled a Bill, which we have discussed, and we know where it is going.

In the Select Committee that the Leader of the House intends to set up, will thought be given to what might be done with those of our number who go out under this Bill who wish, if the opportunity is granted, to continue to serve, no longer as hereditaries but as life Peers? Would that question be worth taking up? If it is taken up then the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, has raised an issue which should have been raised, again and again, in those long debates.

Finally, on the question of memory and where we are going, the problem is that any society, church, community, organisation or Parliament that forgets its memory becomes senile. We know where we are going with this Bill but, to prevent senility, it would be quite good to know from the Leader of the House—who told us that she would set up a Select Committee—whether there will be a mechanism to allow those who wish to continue to serve in this place to do so, rather than this Bill being the end of their time here.

We can all change titles. I came into this House in 2005 as a right reverend Primate. That caused me some trouble: why was I a “primate”—I thought primates were certain animals? I came here as a primate, and maybe a vicious one, and when I retired I became a Cross-Bencher. We can all change in ways that do not disrupt the reality of the House.

I have had a fantastic time here. I love everybody here who has given us their wonderful words and thoughts. It will be a very sad day when I look around and see that those who feel that this is still a place where they can do their public service—not everybody will feel that way—cannot be changed from hereditary to life Peers. If it is to happen, there must be a way in which we say that, yes, this Bill triggered a change, and then those speeches which were made about change can be revisited in the future. We need to reflect. I hope that we will not have more and more debates, but will finish this tiny Bill very quickly.

My Lords, I do not wish to still the debate, but perhaps I might, as the noble Baroness did on a wider point in the first group, intervene briefly. As a previous Leader of your Lordships’ House and now as Leader of the Opposition in this House, the remarks I am going to make, I make as Leader of the Conservative Party here and with the full assent of my Right Honourable Friend the leader of the Opposition nationally.

I say, by the way, to the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, that this House should never be cowed from proposing a thought to the other place. Indeed, one of the arguable contentions that we have had on this Bill is that it must have no amendments. I am sure there have been occasions, but it is unusual in our parliamentary proceedings that the expectation should be that a Bill, and certainly one of this constitutional significance, be unamended. Would the proposition that one cannot have a conversation with the House of Commons on this matter apply to a future Bill to remove people over 80, as promised in the Labour manifesto? I hope not. I hope this House would vigorously raise questions on that.

I have been listening carefully to the debate that was initiated very ably by my noble friend Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, brilliantly supported by the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, and my noble friend Lady Laing. They put a proposition that the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, acknowledged he owns and loves, but he is going to vote against it today. It is a proposition that I think many of us know in our heart is the right and balanced way forward. I think many of us know in our heart that if there were not a party whip applying, there would be a Majority in this place to reach a balanced solution. That balanced solution gives the party opposite and the Liberal Democrats what they have legitimately wanted for a long period, which is the end of the hereditary principle as a route of entry into this House, but which does not hurt existing Members or impede the workings of this House in the way my noble friend Lord Forsyth suggested.

In case there is any doubt, I put on record beyond any doubt what those who have been following the debates on the Bill from the outset will already know, which is that my party has no plan, intention or device to block the Bill indefinitely or to delay its passage by the kind of constant ping-pong that the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, referred to. From the very outset, within days of the last General Election, on my initiative and that of the Convenor of the Cross-Bench Peers, the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, we recognised, regret it or not, the Labour Party’s mandate to end the entry of Peers to this place by any preferment of heredity. The convenor and I proposed—and the noble Baroness the Leader of the House graciously accepted and helped to develop—that proposal, that by-elections for hereditary Peers should be suspended. That has been accomplished, and it remains so. It is done. It is not an issue in this debate, even though the word by-elections has featured a great deal. No person has entered this place by reason of election under the 1999 Act since Labour’s victory in the last general election, nor shall one ever do so again.

That is a mighty thing under the eyes of 800 years of service here by hereditary Peers. By the end of this month, a Bill will pass which will permanently end entry here on the grounds of heredity, and if the Government should choose to send it for Royal Assent, it could be law by dawn on the first day of August. That is the position. Whatever may be implied or said to the contrary, we on this side are not arguing for the continuation of the hereditary principle as a route of entry here.

My noble friend’s Amendment would not alter, detract from or frustrate that in any way; in fact, it would enable it. The sole issue before your Lordships in this debate, as my noble friend Lady Laing argued so passionately, is not who comes here in future but who goes now.

As the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, said—I think the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, slightly missed this point—if the Bill successfully affirms that any Government may expel summarily a group of existing Members of our legislature who for whatever reason they do not like, then any future Executive, using what will be the awesome power—unique, actually, in the world—of a Prime Minister to choose who comes here, and now, on this example, who goes, any future Government, of whatever colour, and heaven forfend it should be the example put before us by the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, could use the same arguments—

My Lords—

I will complete my remarks and then I will give way. They could use the same arguments to expel any other group now among us in the future.

My Lords, this is such an absurd, fanciful and imaginative suggestion. By way of evidence, can the noble Lord explain to us how 667 hereditaries being removed overnight in 1999 raised the spectre that he is trying to put before us—that it enabled subsequent Governments to act in the completely arbitrary and brutal way that he has described? It is pure fantasy.

Well, it certainly encouraged the Labour Party, which removed the Law Lords—although allowing those who were here to stay—and are now removing the rest of our hereditary colleagues.

I did not follow the noble Lord’s argument that the ability to change the composition of the House of Lords by legislation, which has been brought forward after a manifesto was provided to the electorate, is the same as the ability of a Prime Minister at the moment to nominate and bring into the House as life Peers any number of people. The arbitrariness comes from the prerogative in terms of how people come in, but we are talking now about the composition of the House and changing it by legislation, and those two are not comparable.

The Prime Minister has no power to exclude. Prime Ministers have the power, by royal prerogative, to recommend appointments to the monarch, but no Prime Minister in the world has the power to exclude. The only other House of Parliament in any way similar to ours is the Senate of Canada, and there is no power for the Prime Minister to exclude a Member or group of Members.

The debate ranged widely, but the decisions that we always make as people who make law must be on the face of the paper before us, the proposed Act of Parliament, and it is the Bill before us that the noble and right reverend Lord raised. In a few minutes, what each of us privately has to decide is not whether entry by heredity is over—it is—but whether we assent to the expulsion of over 80 of our comrades on all Benches. These are people we know and whose worth we know, as no one outside this House knows them. They are people we respect, as no one outside this House respects them, as we have seen them sitting on the Woolsack, on our committees and on the Front Benches, as my noble friend said, in service as Ministers over the decades. They are people we like, although that is a small thing in relation to their service and the holes that their departure will leave in our ranks.

When the Bell goes shortly, we will all rise from our place and we will go this way or that. We can go and say, “Out with you all”—that is what the Bill says—“and you must go for one wrong about which you could do nothing: by whom you happen to have been conceived”. Or else we may, by quiet assent or our active move into the other Lobby, say, “Yes, we agree that we will have no more new hereditary Peers but we do not wish to hurt those who serve now or to hurt our House. We value who you are and what you have done and may yet do for this House, and we should like you to stay, sit with us and serve as our Peers”. That is the choice we will make in a few minutes.

It is not about who comes here. That is settled; it is history. No other hereditary Peer will ever take the oath at this Dispatch Box. The decision we make is about who goes. It is simple and binary, and it is a decision that each of us in this great House of Lords—which, as the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, said, has the right to make this decision about its composition and its future, and to suggest a way forward to the other place —must now make, with our unique sense of this House that we love and the good that the people we are discussing do for it. We must make a decision about those people we know who have been, often for decades, are and, I submit, should continue to be our fellow Peers.

My Lords, we have had a bit of a rehash of a debate that we had previously in Committee on a similar Amendment. Amendment 2 today is almost identical to the previous amendment, seeking to amend Clause 2 and return to what is commonly known as the Grocott Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, possibly alone in the House, has the benefit of consistency on this issue, in that, as I recall, he consistently supported the Grocott Bill as a way forward.

I think I understand the emotion displayed by the noble Lord, Lord True, on this issue, but he will now probably regret not taking up my offer to ensure that the Grocott Bill could have passed all its stages and got through the House as a Private Member’s Bill. I gave him my party’s guarantee that we would do that. The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, frowns at me, but I gave the guarantee of my party that we would support that Bill and do our best to get it through the House. So we could have done that, but the opportunity was lost, and that is a shame, but that is where we are now. We are now debating a manifesto commitment from the Labour Party.

The noble Baroness said that I frowned. The reason I frowned is that I do not really understand the argument that says, “You should have taken my offer but you didn’t, so we’re going to throw all these people out of the House of Lords”. If you thought it was okay for Parliament to continue, having got rid of the hereditary principle, why is it any different now?

My Lords, there was an opportunity for this House. Had we not had the by-elections since 1999, there would have been far fewer hereditary Peers in this House then. Since my noble friend Lord Grocott introduced his Bill, there have been a number of by-elections and there are now 28 hereditary Peers who are here through those by-elections. I think the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, referred in his comments to them being here by an accident of birth.

Does the noble Baroness also recognise that there are 257 of us who have also arrived here since the last time there was a vote on this and who would really like the opportunity to take the offer that was not given to us?

The noble Lord has tabled an Amendment and is offering it at this point now, although, had he been in the House when this was debated, I doubt he would have voted differently at the time from the leader of his party, who was very much against it.

My Lords—

My Lords, I will take one more Intervention. I have listened with great care to noble Lords and have not intervened on anybody, and I want to respond to those who have spoken. I will take the intervention from the noble Lord because he used to be quite nice to me, but that will be the last intervention that I take. I think it is in the interests of the House for me to wind up the debate.

I am most grateful to the noble Baroness the Leader of the House and I hope I will continue to be nice to her. I just wanted to make the point that, although the opportunity may have been available to the House of Lords to pass the Grocott Bill in the previous Parliament, it would not have gone through because it could not possibly have got through the House of Commons.

Members of my party would have supported that Bill in the House of Commons. The noble Lord has little faith in the House of Commons, but I take his point. I think the noble Lord, Lord Newby, made the point in a previous debate —I know the noble Lord has been here for a number of debates on this issue—that when we send amendments to the House of Commons, how it responds to them is a matter for the House of Commons.

I was actually paying the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, a compliment, praising him for his consistency—he should take them while he can.

I want to move on to a number of the issues raised in this debate. The noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, tried to depart from the view of the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, of an accident of birth being the route by which hereditary Peers have moved here. He said it was accident of birth and a By-election. Even taking the Amendment from his front bench today, I think those elections have been discredited.

I know that the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, looked at by-elections in the House of Commons, but I would probably liken the by-elections to this House to those from Dunny-on-the-Wold in “Blackadder”. They brought discredit to the House and Members were embarrassed by them.

The noble Lord, Lord True, said that he and the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, came to me with the proposal to end the by-elections. They did but that was after the manifesto was published and after the King’s Speech. I was grateful to them; I think it was the sensible thing for the House to do, but the by-elections are just suspended, not ended. If the Bill does not become law, we would return to having the by-elections and the House would have to take a separate decision to stop them. They were just suspended—I think the noble Lord was quite keen that they should be suspended—because we do not really have the power in current legislation to end them.

The noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, made the point that we should not be seen to be looking after our friends. There are many hereditary Peers in your Lordships’ House whom I regard as friends; they might not regard me in the same way at the moment, but I have regarded them as friends for a long time. That is not the issue here; it is a matter of principle, which the Labour Party set out clearly before the election. It is not a criticism of any noble Lord in your Lordships’ House. It is a criticism of the system that has been allowed to continue for so long.

I often agree with the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, but I shall take issue with him on a number of things. He said that Labour has brought in 45 new Peers since the General Election; his party have had 21 new Peers since the election. Another statistic that I think is helpful to your Lordships’ House concerns the appointments. Like others, I exclude the noble Baroness, Lady May, from this. When we left office as the previous Labour Government in 2010, the difference between the party of government, as we had been, and the Official Opposition, which then became the Government—the Conservative Party—was fewer than 30 Members. When we came into government in 2024, the difference between the two political parties was over 100.

It is a point made very well by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman. This is not just about exits; all leaders should exercise restraint. I am on record as saying— I stand by it—that this House works at its best when the main government party and the main opposition party have roughly equal numbers and we abide by the conventions of the House. That is when this House does its best work.

The Opposition have 286 Peers but the noble Lord thinks that when the hereditaries leave this House—and, contrary to what a noble Baroness said, they will not be expelled immediately but at the end of this Session of Parliament—his party will not be able to field a Front Bench from the remaining Members. My party had to field an Opposition with far fewer than that—probably about 100 fewer—and I think we were a pretty effective Opposition. It is not always about numbers.

This argument that if the hereditaries leave we will then come for other groups of people is utterly ridiculous. I think the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, made that point. We are talking about legislation that was in the manifesto and trailed by the manifesto. Which other groups are we talking about: everybody with red hair or those who wear the wrong-coloured jacket? It is a nonsense. This was clearly defined. The noble Lord is chuntering at me from a sedentary position. He had a long time to speak but he wants to jump up again.

It is only because the noble Baroness the Leader of the House said that she would take no further interventions. The current government manifesto commits to excluding the over-80s at some point, so we know that this Government intend to remove further Members from your Lordships’ House. The examples given in the debate were about future Governments, of neither of our parties, who might come for more of us for other reasons.

My Lords, that is always in the hands of the electorate when they have the manifesto published before them. But again, on the retirement age, we have set that out as a clearly stated manifesto commitment. I have said, and have been clear, that the House should come to a decision on that as a House. We ought to be taking far more responsibility for, and ownership of, matters that affect the House. We tried to do that under the Grocott Bill but, for various reasons, the party opposite would not support it and we did not get that far.

The noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, raised the issue of Members not speaking on different issues. I have to say to him that all Members of the House, when they are here as Members, are equal and can speak or vote on issues as they wish, and should do so within the Code of Conduct. When Members declare an interest or their interests preclude their participating, that is in the Code of Conduct; otherwise, we are in the same place.

There is a real issue here. We are talking about the principle, established 25 years ago, that the hereditary principle would not be a route into your Lordships’ House. That does not decry any individual Member who has arrived by that route, but the time has come to an end. The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, who I cannot see in his place at the moment, said in an earlier debate that he was surprised it had lasted so long. It was trailed in our manifesto. I said from the Dispatch Box many times, as Leader of the Opposition on the other side, that if the House failed to pass the Bill that my noble friend Lord Grocott was suggesting to end the by-elections, the consequence would be a Bill of this kind.

This is where we are now. It is a chance—the noble Lord, Lord True, is absolutely right. Members of your Lordships’ House have an opportunity today to make a decision. Do they accept the words of the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, about an accident of birth followed by a By-election, as the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, says, or do they think that now this has to end? We are not criticising any individual Member—

Noble Lords:

Oh!

Those are exactly the words I wrote; we can check Hansard later. The noble Lord’s Amendment is a way to slow down the process so that all those Members remain here. I speak to my party’s manifesto commitment, which was made quite clear before the election, and urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness and all who have spoken in this debate. I will not detain the House much longer; we have debated this for many years. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for the interventions she has taken.

Frustratingly, however, today’s debate has rather missed the point. My Amendment 2, like the Bill from the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, is titled

“Abolition of by-elections for hereditary peers”.

If we pass this amendment, those by-elections will be permanently abolished. We have already discontinued them. There will be no new people coming to your Lordships’ House because they have inherited their title and won a hereditary Peers By-election. The noble Baroness takes exception to the phrase “accident of birth”; others have used other phrases. The principle is that, if we pass this amendment, the Government’s manifesto pledge to remove the right of hereditary Peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords can be fulfilled, but it can be fulfilled in a way that is kinder.

I took interventions, so the noble Lord can accept one and be helpful. He is wrong in his premise. Hereditary Peers would remain as hereditary Peers because all that happens in his Amendment is that the by-elections will end permanently.

But we will have ended their right to sit and vote in the Lords and they will leave in the same way as the rest of us, including the over 80s, who at some point, following the recommendations of a Select Committee, may leave your Lordships’ House as well. They will leave in a way that is consistent with the way the Law Lords continue to sit here until they choose to retire or leave through another means. They will leave in a way that is consistent with the way the Irish representative Peers left, after rendering great service to this country. This will be the first time that a category of Peer has been removed with no exceptions and no way back. The proposal is to do it at the end of this Session.

I am happy to continue to call this the Grocott No. 2 Bill, and I was glad that the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, spoke. We saved a space in the list of supporters in case he could be tempted to add his name. I understand why, after many years of campaigning, he is frustrated and has chosen not to. He said that he prefers the No. 2 Bill because it does the job more effectively. The question is: what is that job?

If the job is to expel the remaining hereditary Peers from your Lordships’ House as quickly as possible and to move on from the guarantee given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, in 1999 without any further reminder of it—we heard not a mention of it from the Leader of the House in her winding speech —then the No. 2 Bill does that job better. However, if the job is to improve the standing and function of your Lordships’ House, and to keep some of the expertise—not just on the Opposition front bench but those who serve as Chairmen of Committees and Deputy Speakers on the Woolsack; those who are the custodians of the conventions and kindnesses of this House—then the proposition put forward for many years by the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, and many other noble Lords from all corners of the House, is a better way of doing it.

I was raised to believe that it is never too late to do the right thing. If you are someone who, like the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, is exasperated that we have taken so long, or someone who has previously opposed it and rues that and repents now at leisure or if, like me, you are one of those 257 noble Lords who have never had the opportunity to vote for this kind of modest change that would allow us to say farewell to our colleagues in a more organic way, then I hope you will join me in the Division Lobby and support this Amendment. I would like to test the opinion of the House on this matter; it has been too long since we last had that chance.

Ayes 280, Noes 243.

Amendment 2 agreed.

Amendment 3 not moved.