PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill - 4 September 2025 (Commons/Commons Chamber)

I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.

With this it will be convenient to discuss:

Lords amendment 2, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 3, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 8, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendments 4 to 7 and 9.

This House sent the second Chamber a Bill that had a simple and direct objective outlined in this Government’s manifesto, but I have to report to the House that something very strange has happened since then. People said that the Conservatives were in some sort of hibernation since the general election, but it would appear they have found an issue that has awakened them from their slumber. On the order of their Whips, some hundreds of Conservative politicians, finally mustering the strength to make their mark in Parliament and ready to take action for what the 2025 Conservative party believes in, have found their crusade. What is it? Keeping hereditary Lords in the jobs they accessed by accident of birth. I have to say that it is a tale as old as time—the Tories blocking progress. Who knew it?

This is an opportune moment for me to mention my summer reading list and the first Labour Government in 1924. Even at that time, there was talk about reform of the House of Lords, so this is very much a tale as old as time itself. In fact, looking back in historical Hansard, it goes much further back than 1924, so is it not good that this Labour Government are finally getting on with dealing with it?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Whether we go back to 1924 or even further back—and I will during my speech—we find Conservatives in this House protecting their friends born into positions of power. This Bill will finally remove such an archaic right. Just as the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) —he is overseas at the moment, I understand—wants to send people, certainly in Wales, back down the coalmines, the Leader of the Opposition is stuck in the politics of the past.

Before I turn to the amendments sent back from the other place, I want to draw attention to comments made by the noble Lord Strathclyde. He said of this Bill that

“inevitably, there will be repercussions. They”—

the Government—

“are storing up huge problems for themselves.”

The Conservatives have not only complained that the Government are removing hereditary peers while offering “nothing in return”; more sinisterly, they have threatened to use delaying tactics on this Government’s agenda. We only have to look at their behaviour in debates in the upper House, to see that they have been trying to hold the Government hostage on the Football Governance Bill, the Employment Rights Bill and the Renters’ Rights Bill—all to protect the hereditary principle. We know that the Conservative party is in no fit state to take action on very much, but where is their energy being directed at present? It is being directed at the self-preservation of hereditary peers in the House of Lords. That is unacceptable and, frankly, it deserves to be highlighted.

As I say, the Bill has returned to the House amended by the other place. Most of the amendments serve to undermine the core purpose of the Bill, or go well beyond the Bill’s intended remit. Lords amendment 1 has to be read with its consequential amendment—Lords amendment 8. It seeks to end the system of hereditary peer by-elections while retaining the current cohort of hereditary peers. The Government cannot endorse those amendments, which fundamentally undermine the core purpose of the Bill. The Government have a manifesto commitment to bring about an immediate reform by removing the right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords. Lords amendment 1 would allow existing hereditary peers, the youngest of whom is 39, to remain in the other place for decades to come. That therefore blocks an immediate reform.

The Minister will be aware that the reason hereditaries still sit in the House of Lords was the deal done in 1999. The promise made by the then Labour Government was that hereditaries would remain until the House of Lords was properly reformed. The Minister is aware that he is removing the hereditaries but giving no assurance about when full reform of the House of Lords will take place. What assurance can he give this Chamber about when the Government will make proper proposals to reform the upper Chamber?

As the Leader of the House of Lords has set out in the other place, immediately this Bill is on the statute book a Select Committee will be created to look at those issues of retirement and participation. The hon. Gentleman is talking about politics as they stood in 1999. This Government were elected on a manifesto that delivered 411 MPs in 2024, and this Government are following that manifesto.

Across both this House and the other place, there has been broad consensus that the hereditary route to the House of Lords should end. I also make it clear, as Ministers have from this Dispatch Box and Labour peers have in the other place, that this is not a judgment on individuals. It is not a judgment on the work and contribution of individual hereditary peers; it is a judgment on the principle. Let me also say that there is no barrier to any hereditary peers—in the case of the Conservative party, through a party list—being nominated as life peers, should the Leader of the Opposition, for example, wish to do that.

The hon. Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) mentioned the very long period of time that his party has been anxious for and agitating about reform of the House of Lords. Is the creation of a future Select Committee really the sum of all that anger and agitation? As my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) has said, we could have seen a full picture of a modernised, reformed and accountable House of Lords that works to deliver bicameral scrutiny, but we do not have that. The Minister is asking us to vest hope in the creation of a Select Committee, with no timeframe attached to when it would report and no promise of future legislation. Surely, he must be as disappointed and unhappy with that situation as I am.

It is great to see that the hon. Gentleman is disappointed that House of Lords reform is not going far enough. If he wants to talk about the 20th century and the length of time that his party was in power, I would say that it had every opportunity to bring about full reform of the House of Lords. Not only did the Conservatives bring about minimal reform, at best, but they blocked every attempt at major reform. It is difficult, therefore, to take their 2025 position seriously.

The point about the Select Committee is that we have had on the one hand accusations that the Government are acting in a party political way and, on the other, requests for the Government to do things cross-party. That is precisely what the Select Committee will do: it will give the opportunity to consider issues such as retirement age and participation. The debate in the upper House covered those matters across different parties. The Select Committee will be established within three months of Royal Assent. The hon. Gentleman asked about deadlines, and I can tell him that the Committee will issue its findings by next summer.

I, for one, am perplexed. We have heard Opposition Members say that they want us to go faster and further in reforming the House of Lords, and we have heard them chuntering about the divine right of whoever and whatever in that place. Does the Minister agree that the Opposition seem to be rather confused about this, which perhaps stands as testament to the ability of the Leader of the Opposition to lead her party?

The word “confused” sums up the Opposition, whether on this Bill or any other.

I do not purport to speak on behalf of my party, but rather as an individual who has long had an interest in the positive role that the Lords play in revising legislation, which any elected and strongly whipped House would not be able to do. The Minister partly anticipated the point I want to make, when he mentioned the ability to appoint some of what would otherwise be outgoing hereditary peers to life peerages. That may be a way forward for people of good will to pursue, but given the quite high number of people who find themselves in quite responsible positions in the Lords, what sort of numbers does he have in mind to allow the parties that will lose a large number of hereditary peers to appoint as life peers?

The right hon. Gentleman always makes an individual contribution, to his great credit, not only in this debate but in others. I will not be drawn on numbers, which are always a matter for the Prime Minister and the usual channels. As in every Parliament, the Leader of the Opposition of whatever party will have the opportunity to nominate. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will make a persuasive case to her about some Members of the upper House.

I do not expect the Minister to be specific about numbers, but can he at least tell the House whether he accepts the principle that a considerably larger one-off tranche would be needed to cater for this unique situation?

There will be the usual periods in this Parliament when there will be an opportunity, and I repeat that there is no barrier to someone who serves as a hereditary peer being appointed as a life peer.

Opposition Members seem to want lots of reassurances for the people who feel they are born to rule. Can the Minister tell me what reassurances the Government can give my constituents and young people in Kinson and West Howe that they will have equal right to be part of this legislative body?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. She speaks powerfully about her constituents, and I want my constituents in Blaenavon, Pontypool and Cwmbran to be able to aspire to be Members of Parliament, including in the upper House, and that places are not reserved for people through accident of birth—[Interruption.] The shadow Minister chunters from a sedentary position. If he is in favour of the hereditary position, let him tell us, instead of hiding behind the smokescreen of pretending he is in favour of full reform. Let us hear him say from the Dispatch Box that he believes in the hereditary principle, if he does.

We have said from the outset that we wanted this Bill on the statute book before turning to the next phase of reform. Delaying this legislation means delaying the establishment of the Select Committee and delaying further reforms. As my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) mentioned, the reality is that since we last reformed the Lords, the outside world has changed. Our Parliament should always be a place where talents are recognised and merit counts. It should never be a gallery of old boys’ networks, nor a place where titles, many of which were handed out centuries ago, hold veto power over the will of the people.

Does the Minister recognise the irony that, given these issues were discussed in 1924, we are probably now discussing the hereditary peers who are the grandchildren of the hereditary peers they were talking about getting rid of 100 years ago?

My hon. Friend is right. One would think that the 1924 debate about bloodlines and pedigree as a basis for participation would no longer have any advocates, but it appears that a number of such advocates are left, a century later.

From the Parliament Act 1911 to the House of Lords Act 1999, the history of Lords reform is littered with examples of individual Members straining every sinew and making every different argument to try to resist reform. In 1911, Lord Curzon coined the term “the ditchers”—the Unionist peers who were to fight into the last ditch over the then Parliament Bill and whose efforts have acted as an effective block on further change. Today’s ditchers all sit on the Opposition Benches—

Will the Minister give way?

I will give way to hear from one of the 2025 ditchers.

I guarantee to the Minister that, as a council estate boy from Lewisham, I am not someone who ever thought that my bloodline would get into the House of Lords—[Interruption.] One day!

I want to challenge the Minister about the points he has made about future reform. His party has a majority of 170, and we know that it won the general election. Why is he claiming that we are trying to block reform, which is completely untrue, while the Government are so lacking in ambition and do not have the courage or political will to bring a full package of reform to the House, which the Opposition might well support? What we are asking is why he is tinkering at the edges and then attacking us for not being in favour of reform, when he has refused to bring reform in the first place.

In respect of the hon. Gentleman’s bloodline getting to the House of Lords, I am sure it is only a matter of time before we see that.

In terms of the antics of the Opposition, I do not know whether the Conservative parliamentary party in the Commons speaks to peers, but it should talk to them about their behaviour on the Bill and other Bills that they have blocked and blocked and blocked. I understand that the Leader of the Opposition is apparently spending time to come up with credible policies—no one will believe that the Conservative party is in favour of wholesale reform of the House of Lords.

It has been more than 25 years since Parliament agreed to end the hereditary route, with a supposedly temporary arrangement to retain 92 hereditary peers. It is almost 200 years since the Great Reform Act 1832, which took away the hold of the great aristocratic families, opening up the franchise and taking their presence in electoral politics from monopoly to anomaly. Nonetheless, the hereditary principle remains in our Parliament: sometimes as symbol of tradition, sometimes as obstacle to real reform—as Conservative peers have recently demonstrated.

There is a real opportunity today for the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. He has protested several times about newly found passion for wholesale Lords reform—

No I haven’t.

I am glad to hear that—there is the real voice of the Conservative party.

We have also therefore heard a lot of protestations that there is no attempt from the Conservative party to block this—we will see in the voting Lobby in due course whether the Conservatives actually seek to block further progress again. We talk about history and nostalgia, but this has in a real sense been used in the upper House to block Bills with a democratic mandate since last year.

For the completeness of history, it is 115 years since the Labour party promised to abolish the House of Lords, and I think we will be waiting another 100 before it even gets close to that. The Minister is absolutely right that the public cannot stand the hereditaries—it is something they are bitterly opposed to—but they are also opposed to prime ministerial patronage. It is almost as unpopular as the House of Lords. Now, 57 new peers have gone into the House of Lords since Labour came to power, and The Guardian has reported that dozens more are set to follow. Are we just going to be replacing the old nobility with new Labour nobility?

Absolutely not, because the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom is a Member of Parliament who enjoys the confidence of this House. That is entirely different from the situation of having places in the House of Lords on the basis of an accident of birth.

I should say, though, because I do not want to just criticise the Conservative party today, that I do appreciate that should the hereditary Lords finally be given leave, the title of “the most ancient and outdated relic” will then be awarded to the modern-day Conservative party, so I guess self-preservation is the Conservatives’ real motive. The hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes) spoke about our majority—we will not allow the Conservative party to block this change.

If the hereditary principle is so wrong, where does that leave the principle of an hereditary monarchy, which has infinitely more influence than any hereditary peer?

We have a modern constitutional monarchy that enjoys very wide popular support. It is a completely different matter. I do not think a monarch has blocked an Act of Parliament since Queen Anne in 1714, so I would say that the monarchy plays a very different role in our constitution from that of the hereditary peers in the House of Lords.

The Government are determined to deliver this reform to rectify this historic wrong and move us closer to a fairer, more equitable Parliament. I therefore urge the House to reject Lords amendments 1 and 8.

I do need to deal with other amendments now. Lords amendment 2 would prohibit future unpaid Ministers from being eligible for membership of the House of Lords. I understand the strength of feeling expressed in the debate on this amendment in the other place, and I should make it clear that I am proud of the work of all Ministers across Government—I know that ministerial colleagues in the other place work incredibly hard. In this House, both Ministers and shadow Ministers are able to focus on our departmental portfolio—with the honourable exception of the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who, as far as I can make out, seems to be about a third of the shadow Cabinet with his various roles. In fairness, he carries out his public duties, as ever, with great dedication. In fact, the situation that the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster finds himself in is quite regular in the House of Lords, where Front Benchers cover a number of different portfolios, which they do with skill and dedication.

However, I have to say that although I understand the motive behind this amendment, it would do little to address the problem it seeks to resolve. It would not result in all current Lords Ministers receiving a salary, and would instead mean that the number of Lords Ministers would in future be reduced. Ministerial salaries are determined by the Ministerial and Other Salaries Act 1975, which sets a maximum of 109 ministerial posts across both Houses, and the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975, which limits the number of Ministers in the House of Commons—paid or unpaid—to 95. The reality is that any meaningful change to the number of Ministers or ministerial salaries would have to amend that legislation.

It is for the Prime Minister of the day to advise the sovereign on the appointment, dismissal and acceptance of resignation of other Ministers in line with those legislative limits. The amendment would therefore have the effect of placing a further restriction on that prerogative power and reducing the ability of the Prime Minister to choose the best people to serve in their Government. The Bill should clearly not be used as a vehicle to address changes to those Acts, and I therefore urge the House to reject Lords amendment 2.

Lords amendment 3 would create a new form of statutory life peerage and seeks to create a two-tier peerage system that distinguishes between the honour of a peerage and membership of the House of Lords. Under this system, individuals could receive the title of a peerage but not be entitled to sit and vote in the House of Lords.

I wonder whether the Minister could help me out, because I feel that I might be having a dream about some strange alternative reality where the hill that the modern Conservative party is prepared to die on is giving unelected peers who are no longer peers the name and title Lord, as if that is the most important issue of the day in 2025. Can he help me—is that actually what is happening? Am I awake or not at this point?

I can help the hon. Gentleman out on one issue: I can reassure him that he is most definitely awake; this is most definitely reality. Where I am afraid I will fail is in explaining the priorities on the Conservative Benches. The hon. Gentleman is quite right to draw attention to that.

I thank the Minister genuinely for giving way again; he is courteous and gentlemanly in doing so. I promise that this will be my last intervention. Could I just ask him about the difference between the problems he is discussing and what the Bill will enact, where a hereditary peer is not given membership of the House of Lords, but is still given the title and privilege of being a peer of the realm?

Quite simply, the amendment is trying to create the title as an honour without the actual membership. That is the difference. I had an exchange earlier about there being no barriers to life peerage; that is not saying no barrier to the title. The life peerage, if granted, obviously confers both the title and the participation. That is the difference between the two.

On the point about the amendment being unnecessary, as my noble Friend Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent stated in the other place—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] Family connections exist on the Government Benches, as well. The UK already has an extensive and long-standing honours system, which recognises and promotes the outstanding contributions made by individuals the length and breadth of the country and from all sections of society.

As has been said, being appointed as a peer is an honour, but it also brings the responsibility to contribute to the work of the second Chamber. The Government have a manifesto commitment to introduce a participation requirement to ensure that all peers contribute to the work of the other place—an approach that has received widespread support from peers. I certainly do not think that creating another layer to that system to provide for the statutory creation of non-sitting peers is in keeping with the mood of either House. I therefore urge the House to reject Lords amendment 3.

I turn finally to an issue on which I hope there will be cross-party consensus, which is resignation by power of attorney. Lords amendments 4, 5, 6, 7 and 9 would allow the House of Lords to set out arrangements for resignation from the other place where a peer lacks capacity, including when someone is acting under a lasting power of attorney. During the passage of the Bill in the other place, it became clear that there was considerable support to address in legislation the long-standing concern that Members who lack capacity were unable to resign from the House of Lords, and the Government have listened and acted. Following discussions with peers across the House of Lords, the Leader of the House of Lords brought forward these amendments to address the matter. What they make clear is that a notice to resign from the other place may be given and signed by a person acting on behalf of a peer who lacks capacity, providing that it is done in accordance with the Standing Orders of the House.

The amendments relating to resignation would come into force on Royal Assent to ensure that families who wish to avail themselves of these new arrangements do not have to wait until the end of a parliamentary Session to do so. It seeks to provide certainty to peers who have raised this issue. It is a solution that has received unanimous cross-party support in the other place, and I hope that the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will confirm the support for that amendment.

This a short and focused Bill. It delivers on a manifesto commitment to immediately remove the right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords. It is not personal, and nor is it a comment on the contribution that hereditary peers have made. The Government are grateful for their service in the other place, and I stress again that there are no bars on them returning as life peers if their party leaders wish to nominate them. However, the time has now come to deliver this immediate reform, so that we can move on to further reform of the other place, as set out in our manifesto, and deliver on what was promised in July last year. I therefore urge the House to support the Government’s position.

I call the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

It is a pleasure to debate this historic piece of legislation on an historic day; my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Jack Rankin) reminds me that it is the 1,100th anniversary of Athelstan being crowned King at Kingston, and I know there are a great many celebrations going on there today. The monarchy lives on—even if His Majesty’s Government are making changes to our ancient Parliament.

The Paymaster General accused the Conservatives of having been in hibernation, but it must be the Paymaster General who has been in hibernation, for he seems to have forgotten the fact that we are fighting a desperate rearguard action against the disastrous decisions that his Government have made—against the enormous damage that his party has done to our country in the short months it has been in power, and the worst Budget that we have seen in a very long time, which has caused 30-year borrowing to be at a higher rate than it ever was under the previous Government, or indeed the Government before. It is a truly terrible state of affairs, and economic experts say that we are heading towards an economic crash. It is already costing jobs in the constituencies of all the hon. Gentlemen across the Chamber every month. It is a serious issue—one that this Opposition called out at the Budget and will continue to call out. I hope that the Government see sense before disaster strikes.

Before I move on to the specifics of the Bill, I want to pay tribute to the quality of debate, first in this Chamber at the outset of the legislation and then the sheer quality of debate in the Lords. It reflects just how significant our upper House is to our constitution in its ability to strengthen legislation through scrutiny. I particularly want to pay tribute to my noble Friend Lord True, who has done so much to hold the Government to account as they have pushed these measures through. The Paymaster General has talked about the Conservatives seeking to block legislation in the Lords. I am absolutely delighted that we have been trying to block their terrible legislation, and I am very pleased that the Lords have sent the Bill back with a number of improving amendments that speak of the decent scrutiny that is being done in the other place.

I agree with the Paymaster General at the outset that we accept the Government’s concession on powers of attorney. It is a sensible change, and I am glad that there is at least one issue on which we can find agreement. We are pleased that during the course of the debate the Labour party has made a number of significant and historic clarifications to its positions. It seems finally that the Labour party has agreed that an elected upper House would be a bad idea. I personally welcome that; I think an elected upper Chamber would totally disrupt the balance of our constitution. It would take away from the primacy of this House and often lead to constitutional deadlock. It has taken the Labour party about 100 years to reach that conclusion, but I welcome it joining the side of right.

I am also very pleased that Gordon Brown’s disastrous plans for constitutional reform, which were published during the last Parliament, have been done away with. They would have caused utter mayhem had they been pushed through by this Government, so I commend those on the Front Bench for kicking Gordon Brown’s terrible ideas into touch.

I was pleased to see that the Government have reneged on their manifesto commitment to kick out peers who are over 80. It was a terrible idea, and I am very pleased that they have seen good sense. There are a lot of excellent peers who are over 80, such as Lord Dubs and, by the end of this Parliament, Lord Blunkett, Lord Clarke, and Lord Heseltine—people who have added to the richness of the House, who bring their experience and who should not be barred on the grounds of age. I congratulate the Labour Government on having admitted their terrible mistake.

This is a fascinating return to the ’90s—like much about the Conservative party—but I think the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has missed the fact that there was an election last year in which the Labour party clearly won a mandate to deliver the removal of hereditary peers. What may or may not have been discussed in the 1990s is for the birds. There was an election. We won that election. We said we were going to do this. Let’s get on with it.

I fully accept that the Labour party has changed its mind, but in doing so it has reneged on the deal that it struck in the late ’90s. Let us be clear about what is happening. The Labour Government are now seeking to remove a whole group of public servants who have done nothing wrong—

Will the hon. Member give way?

Sit down. Those public servants are in the Lords because the last Labour Government put them there as part of the deal that it struck on long-term constitutional change.

I obviously declare an interest as my wife is a Member of the House of Lords—and a salaried Minister, for good fortune. The shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster recognises that the Labour party won an election but is talking about deals that go back further. Does he not realise that he risks undermining the Salisbury-Addison convention, which says that manifesto commitments should pass through the other place without hindrance? I know that the hon. Gentleman aspires to be back in government one day. Does he not recognise that by doing down that convention, he risks his own future legislative programme should the Conservatives ever get back into power in future?

The hon. Gentleman will understand that this legislation is not being blocked but improved. That is what Parliament does, and that is how the process of scrutiny works. He will see very clearly that the amendments make significant improvements to the faulty legislation that his party brought forward.

I thank the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster for his indulgence. He says that Lords amendment 1 makes a significant improvement to the Bill. Why, then, when it was brought forward in the other place by Lord Grocott as a private Member’s Bill and in this place by David, now Lord, Hanson, did the Conservatives block it and say that it was a terrible idea?

I do not recall us saying that it was a terrible idea. I distinctly remember many Conservative peers speaking in favour of it actually, but that is part of the joy of the independence of the upper House, which, as I will shortly explain, risks being undermined by this legislation.

What the Government are now trying to do is remove a group of public servants who have done nothing wrong and who have simply served their country and continue to do so. The reason they are being removed is very clear: the Government cannot rely on their votes. Consequently, they are attempting to take a group of opponents out of Parliament by Act of Parliament. This is simply Cromwellian. I am not suggesting that the Prime Minister is a second Cromwell. Cromwell was a great man—a “brave, bad man” as Clarendon said—while the Prime Minister is just a man.

I do not believe that the Government have Cromwellian intent. They are doing something clumsy and foolish, but—I mean this seriously—what they are doing will set a precedent. I do not believe it is a route that the Paymaster General would follow, but the people who come after him may be much more like Cromwell than he. [Interruption.] There is laughter from behind the Paymaster General, but I want us to think seriously about what future Parliaments might look like. If the precedent is set that political opponents can be removed by Act of Parliament, someone in the future, even if maybe not tomorrow, in two years or in 10 years, will point back to this—I guarantee it. It does not need to happen this way.

We have a group of people already in the House of Lords and already doing a job. Take Viscount Stansgate, who is an excellent Member of the House of Lords and Deputy Speaker. As I am sure hon. Members know, there are 65 hereditary peers who sit on parliamentary Committees, so this change will be enormously and unnecessarily disruptive to the working of the House. It would be much better to leave them in place and let them do their jobs.

On that point, I think of peers such as Patrick Courtown, the Opposition Deputy Chief Whip, who has served in the other House since 1975 in a number of ministerial capacities. That is because of where he was born, but there is a risk in seeing Members laugh about rich and privileged hereditary peers. This is not “Downton Abbey” any more, and many of these people have given their life to this Parliament. Does my hon. Friend agree that should the Government get their way this afternoon, there needs to be an urgent conversation about support for those hereditary peers who may suffer after losing their positions in the other House? The Minister raises his eyebrows, but many peers in that House are not stately home owners but people who have given their life and position to this Parliament, and they will need support going forward.

I am interested in my hon. Friend’s excellent point, and I hope the Minister will respond to that in his closing remarks.

What we will see is the removal of a group of public servants to make way for Labour placemen and Labour stooges—a huge act of patronage. I do not think anybody here believes that will improve scrutiny. It is just a numbers game. It is simply an attempt to give the Government a more compliant majority in the House of Lords, which they do not need. The Government will be able to get their business through the House of Lords anyway, so this is an unnecessary change that, despite the comments of the Paymaster General, belittles the contribution of the peers who already sit. It belittles their service, and it does not need to be done.

I turn to Lords amendment 2, on pay. I was interested by the Paymaster General’s response and listened closely to the detail he set out. There is an important principle here. We ask people to serve as Ministers of the Crown, and I think most of our constituents would agree that those Ministers should be paid. Members of the House of Lords are on no salary. They can collect their £361 a day if they turn up, but let us assume that one such Member is an unpaid Minister in the Home Office. They will find that on many working days they will be expected to travel—perhaps to Northern Ireland, Scotland or the north of England—and they will not be able to collect their allowance. On top of that, for taking on that important, unpaid job, they will also, for understandable reasons, have to give up their outside interests.

That means simply that many people in the House of Lords can afford to take ministerial jobs only if they are already of considerable means. I just do not think that the Paymaster General, in his heart of hearts, wants to see the perpetuation of that. If he does not agree with the Lords amendment, will he confirm whether the Government intend to bring forward comprehensive plans on that?

I will correct the Paymaster General on one small point of fact. He said that if Ministers in the House of Lords were paid, we would need to reduce the number of Ministers in the House of Lords as only a certain number of Ministers can be paid.

I will let the Paymaster General intervene if he wants to provide clarity on that technical point.

It is a consequence of the interaction between the existing statute and this statute. I was not arguing for that; I was saying that that would be the effect of the Lords amendment.

With the amendment, what the Government could do is reduce the number of paid Ministers in the Commons and have more paid Ministers in the Lords. That would be possible under the Lords amendment.

Does the shadow Minister honestly think that I could go back to my constituents in Lichfield, Burntwood and the villages and say that by supporting the amendment, as he is encouraging me to do, there would be more Ministers from the other place and fewer from the Commons? How does he think that would go down on a doorstep? I have been punched in the face, and it is not great.

I am not sure whether his voters would be that impressed by the Ministers in the Commons at the moment, to be honest. The point of principle still stands: if somebody is a Minister of the Crown, it is perfectly reasonable that they should be paid for doing that job. I would be interested to know what the Government’s plans are to right that wrong.

Finally, on Lords amendment 3, which covers a new status of peers, it was unfortunate to hear some hon. Members belittle the idea, including the sleepy, dreamy hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mr Reynolds) from the Liberal Democrats. [Hon. Members: “Dreamy?”] I appreciate how that came out, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I do not wish—[Interruption.]

If the shadow Minister wishes to correct the record, please, feel free. [Laughter.]

Well, I don’t know—he looks like he has made an effort today, and he is looking at me in a particular sort of way.

There is a suggestion that everyone is busting a gut to create a new status of peerage when it is unnecessary. Let us put it this way. I think a lot of people in our country recognise that getting a peerage is one of the highest recognitions for service to the country, but there are also a good many people whom I came across when I was a Minister dealing with the honours process who are either late in age—in their 80s or 90s—or infirm and would not want to commit to serving on the red Benches because of that. It seems a bit silly that such a small change should deny them the opportunity of recognition, which costs no one anything but enables us to reward good people who have done the right things by their country.

Does the shadow Minister think that the Order of the Garter, the Order of the Thistle and the Order of the British Empire are not sufficient to recognise such people? The House of Lords should be a working Chamber shaping our public life.

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point—there are other types of honour—but we already have peers who have stood down, and they get to keep their titles. They are called Members of the Lords but do not sit in the Lords, so the disjuncture already exists. [Interruption.] Would the Paymaster General mind passing me the water? I have got a terrible throat.

We already have peerages that work the other way round. We are suggesting that it ought to be possible for somebody who is perhaps in advanced years or not well to accept a peerage without feeling that they are under an obligation to go and sit on the red Benches. That is a perfectly reasonable request.

Go on—one more time.

I thank the shadow Minister for giving way to me for a third time. I presume what he is suggesting is more about the title and the style than about a seat in the legislature. He will know that under the 2011 royal warrant that granted the justices of the Supreme Court the style and title of Lord, that did not come with any connection whatsoever to the legislature. So there is a way of doing what he suggests that does not require the Lords amendment: it can be done via royal warrant through an Order in Council.

The hon. Gentleman is very well informed, and he is exactly right. This amendment, as was discussed in the Lords, would add clarity to the process and mean that it would become more routine than occasional. In that, however, he is entirely right.

I will conclude by saying that good amendments have been sent back by their Lordships; amendments that improve this Bill in more ways than one and which would keep the considerable skill and expertise of the hereditary peers on the red Benches for a little time longer. They would not prevent the Labour Government from bringing in more peers if they wanted to and they also raise important questions about ministerial pay and how we use our titles. I am very pleased that we have reached common ground on the issue of advocate powers, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

Lords amendment 1 seeks to gradually reduce to zero the number of excepted hereditary peers in the other place by ending the elections by which they are replaced. Our rich constitutional democracy has benefited from centuries of gradual evolution, and our democracy has thrived because power is not concentrated in the hands of too few people, which has mitigated the risk of overreach. Even though frustrations are frequently expressed, our parliamentary system is rightly admired around the world.

Several current excepted hereditary peers reside in my constituency. Along with other excepted hereditary peers, they make a valuable contribution and are motivated by public service. When I stood for election to this place and promised I would campaign for local jobs, I was not thinking about the hereditary peers of Mid Derbyshire necessarily, but here we are today.

Reform of the House of Lords has been on the agenda for a very long time and there is broad consensus that it should happen. Indeed, it is telling that the last Conservative Government did not seek to undo the reforms made by the previous Labour Government in 1999. From its origins in the 11th century, the House of Lords has undergone numerous changes, including a period when the Lords Spiritual were removed between 1642 and 1661 and the 11 years during which the other place was abolished altogether, from 1649 until the restoration of the monarchy in 1660. More changes followed, including when legislation was passed in 1958 to create life peerages for people with specific skills and expertise to enhance our democratic processes, and that included admitting women for the first time. That spirit of reform was furthered by the last Labour Government in 1999 when the number of hereditary peers was limited to 92, freeing seats for people with a range of different experiences and expertise, regardless of their lineage.

The principle of the reforms the Government are pushing through today is not necessarily controversial, and Lords amendment 1 does not seek to block the principle of ending the involvement of excepted hereditary peers. Instead, it asks for the conclusion of their participation to be undertaken more gradually, and I believe there is some small merit in what that amendment seeks to do.

I have been lucky to work with some exceptional excepted hereditary peers on joint Committees and all-party parliamentary groups. To end their involvement at the end of the Session, rather than perhaps at the end of the Parliament, risks destabilising some of the good work that is ongoing through some of those parliamentary vehicles. Will the Minister therefore explain in his summing up whether he has considered different ways of managing that transition? For instance, we could seek to end the involvement of the excepted hereditary peers at the end of this Parliament, rather than just ahead of the next King’s speech. That might ensure that the professional relationships we have fostered with our colleagues in the other place, and the pieces of work we conduct together with them, continue to be fruitful, concluding with a natural cadence at the end of the Parliament.

Although I know the Bill has been tightly drafted to deal with the role of excepted hereditary peers only, the Government have plans for wider constitutional reform of the House of Lords, which may come before us at a later stage. I warmly welcome the Government’s commitment to introducing a participation requirement. It is not right that people should use the other place as a social club or a facility that they can use. It is a working Chamber, and people should be in there doing the job to which they have been appointed.

The Government have also said that they seek to replace the House of Lords with an alternative second Chamber that is more representative of the regions and nations. Even though it is key that the other place represents the rich social and geographical diversity of the United Kingdom, it is also essential that the House of Commons remains the principal forum where issues are considered through the lens of locality. The House of Lords, certainly since the introduction of life peerages in the 1950s, has been a vehicle to include the voices and perspectives of experts across a wide range of fields, rather than a focus on locality. I encourage my colleagues to reflect before introducing such a fundamental change to that relationship.

The manifesto that the Government and I were elected on includes a commitment to introducing mandatory retirement from the House of Lords at the age of 80. I would welcome clarification from the Dispatch Box as to whether that remains the case. Although it is necessary to get more younger voices into the House of Lords to enhance its ability to represent and serve the nation, the proposal that peers should retire at 80 would mean we would lose the contributions of Lord Kinnock, who is 83, Lord Dubs, who is 92, and Baroness Beckett, who was given a peerage by this Government aged 81.

A peer may reach their 80th birthday while working on a piece of essential legislation or leading a Committee. The House could therefore benefit from further clarity, if we are to pursue this, about how a mandatory retirement age could affect disruption to business and risk losing essential knowledge and expertise. Will the Minister also share any information, either in his summing up or in the very near future, about how the Government’s plans for constitutional reform sees the future of the Lords Spiritual, one of whom is also my constituent, in any further shake up of the other place?

My advice to the Government, as they rightly seek to make the House of Lords more representative and effective, is that they should tread carefully to avoid unintended consequences. Our precious democracy deserves no less.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Father of the House mentions Conservative party policy in the 1920s and 1960s. Maybe he can recall better than me, but I do not believe there was any mention of House of Lords reform in the Conservative party general election manifesto last year. Will he illuminate the House on Conservative policy on reforming the other place?

Our policy is very sensible: gradual evolution and reform. That is what the Conservative party is all about.

This is an historic day, and it is a rather sad one. After the Crown, the House of Lords is the most ancient part of Parliament, and the hereditary peers are the most ancient part of the House of Lords Chamber. One can laugh at history and say, “This is all old hat,” but history is important. This all evolved from the Magnum Concilium, or Great Council, of England. The coming together of England into a single realm was through the witans assembled by the King, comprising nobles and prelates. Bishops, abbots, ealdormen and thegns came from across the land. It was not just their privilege but their feudal duty—it was all about duty—to give the King counsel and consent.

It slowly evolved so that some peers sat in Parliament by their office, such as the Bishop of Lincoln, or by their hereditary title, such as the Earl of Arundel. I repeat this point: I cannot understand the contempt and hatred for people just because they have their office by virtue of heredity. The hereditary peers are the only people in the House of Lords who are actually elected by anybody.

This is not about individuals; it is about the principle. Does the Father of the House agree that it is the principle we should be talking about today, not the individuals, however good they may be at serving in the other place?

Frankly, I do not agree with that principle. As I said in an intervention on the Minister, this will leave the monarchy wholly exposed as the only person who holds his office by reason of hereditary principle.

Will the Father of the House give way?

I will make a bit of progress.

I know the Minister will say that the monarchy is popular—which it is—and that it does not have political power, but it has infinitely more influence than any hereditary peer. I do not think we should accept that the hereditary principle is entirely wrong. Even if we accept that and say it is quite wrong that somebody should be called an hereditary peer, which I suspect is a lot of the problem, why do we not just make all the existing hereditary peers—who, as we have heard, are not stately home owners; they are dedicated public servants, with scores of them having worked in Parliament for years—life peers? Given that they are dedicated public servants, if we hate the fact that they are called hereditary peers, why not have an evolutionary form and call them life peers? But we are not doing that.

Lords amendment 1, tabled by my party in the other place, is entirely sensible. Rather than kicking people out in a flash, the hereditary peers—which we could now call life peers, if it is the name that makes people unhappy—could simply fade away. There is a lot of merit in old people gradually fading away rather than dying.

Declare an interest!

I do not declare an interest.

In a sense, that is already the case, as the Lords have suspended hereditary peer by-elections by amending the Standing Orders of their Chamber. Evolution rather than revolution—bending instead of breaking—is the usual method of British constitutional change. It has worked very well in the past, and I do not see why it should not work now. It is far wiser than overnight change.

There is also the matter of optics and fairness. This, of course, is a partisan point by its very nature, but of the 86 remaining hereditary peers, 48 are members of Opposition parties—Conservative or Liberal—31 are independent Cross Benchers, and two are totally non-affiliated. Britons pride themselves on the spirit of fair play. It is not, frankly, cricket for a governing party to expel Opposition Members from the national legislature. As Lord Strathclyde pointed out, if any other country were doing this—expelling Members of Parliament primarily because they were from Opposition parties—we would be launching petitions against it.

I thank the Father of the House for giving way. He makes a compelling point about other countries. Would he care to name some other countries that have people sitting in their legislature, able to introduce and vote on legislation, entirely by dint of their parentage? For the life of me, I cannot think of many examples.

Of course, nothing in our constitution is perfect. We would not be starting here—we accept that. We are just saying that this is a group of dedicated public servants who have done nothing wrong, and we are simply asking that they should be allowed to carry on their work, rather than be kicked out primarily because they are from Opposition parties.

Will the Father of the House give way?

No. The hon. Gentleman is a very good chap, but he has had a lot of turns.

We all know that the real reason behind all of this is that the Government want to make space for more of their donors and cronies to enter the House of Lords, and that is entirely understandable. By the way, I think that there are sensible reforms that could be made in the House of Lords and that there has been a lot of abuse. I think that too many people have been appointed to the House of Lords—this is where the SNP has a good point—who are donors and cronies.

I commend the Father of the House for everything he is saying; he sums everything up perfectly. This is constitutional vandalism, and it is destroying the continuity that has made this place so effective and so special for so many centuries. This is clearly being done with a political motivation, which I think is thoroughly wrong. If we make a constitutional reform, at very least the British people should have a say in a referendum.

Well, the Whip is looking at me. He wants me to sit down. My hon. Friend has made the point brilliantly, and I shall now sit down.

I rise to speak to all the Lords amendments, but I will go into more detail on Lords amendments 1, 2, 3 and 8. I am pleased that the Bill is making progress, and I look forward to seeing it on the statute book as soon as possible. We are one step closer to fulfilling yet another manifesto pledge.

I welcome Lords amendments 4, 5, 6, 7 and 9 for the reasons already set out. They will allow Members of the other place who lose capacity to retire with the dignity that they deserve. It is clearly a sensitive and complex problem, and I congratulate the Government on finding a solution that received unanimous cross-party support in the other place. I hope it will receive the same cross-party unanimous support in this place today.

We have already discussed Lords amendments 1 and 8, which propose to stop hereditary peer by-elections and stop any vacancies being filled, although they would still allow current hereditary peers to stay in the Lords, allowing their numbers to grow smaller and smaller as they gradually begin to leave. If passed, the amendments would leave the current crop of hereditary peers in the Second Chamber for years and years—indeed, in some cases, as we have heard, for decades—but the entire purpose of the Bill is to remove them immediately, because of the principle that underpins our decision to make this change.

I count a great many hereditary peers among my friends, and I know that they do excellent jobs. However, Britain stands, alongside Lesotho, as a complete anomaly in the 21st century by preserving legislative roles based on lineage. Serving in this House, as in any other, is a privilege of the highest order. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that our legislators should be there on the basis of merit rather than DNA?

I congratulate the hon. Lady for having so many friends in the other place. I could not agree with her more—it is almost as if she has read my speech and hence made her timely intervention.

If the hon. Gentleman agrees that the hereditary principle is wrong and that no one should be in this Parliament by dint of DNA, surely he is saying that we should abolish the monarchy. The Crown is part of this Parliament and Royal Assent is part of the legislative process. If we go by his principle, the hon. Gentleman is basically saying that the monarchy itself is no longer relevant. Is that what he is saying?

All I would say is, “Long live the King.” What we do with our hereditary peers today does not affect what we do with our monarchy. As I was saying, no one should serve in the other place and make our laws simply because of the family that they were born into. No one should—not them, not me, not my children and not theirs. That is a basic principle that I hope we can all get behind.

The hon. Gentleman’s case, in essence, is that the only form of legitimacy in the exercise of power is democratic legitimacy, but that does not square with the exercise of power in all kinds of other ways, does it? We do not elect our judges—some countries do, but we do not. We do not elect all kinds of people who exercise fundamental powers. Many kinds of legitimacy are not democratic legitimacy. Surely he acknowledges that, had the Government come forward with a proposal that allowed the hereditary peerage to wither on the vine, it would be hard for anyone in the House to disagree, given that the Government had a manifesto commitment.

The principle I am talking about applies specifically to the two Chambers that make and scrutinise our laws, submit amendments and so on. The idea that some people should be allowed a say in that process because of the family they were born into is alien to me. The House of Lords should have been abolished years ago. I am glad that the Government are finally taking the steps to remove that principle.

I am certain that decent arguments can be made for the contributions of hereditary peers being good ones, often with the nuance and expertise that comes with dedicated service in the other place. I have no doubt that we will hear such arguments today, but the same is true of those who are appointed as life peers—at least when political parties fulfil their responsibilities and choose appropriate people for the roles. Life peers, too, will go on to make excellent contributions and scrutinise our laws carefully using their relevant expertise and knowledge—given that they are often selected because of their expertise and knowledge, and not in the cynical way that the shadow Front Bench and others were suggesting earlier. Even if they do not, it is a life appointment, not one based on blood that they can pass down to the next generation, so I think that the system of life peerages is the better way to go. If Opposition Members genuinely believe that the hereditary peers who will lose their places because of this legislation should still be in the other place, they can ensure that the Leader of the Opposition, whoever that is, submits their names to make them a life peer.

The hon. Gentleman makes the point extremely well, and I think that people with a mind to compromise would like to go down that road, but does he recognise that the usual handful of allocations will not be enough on this one-off occasion to meet the requirement that he has so ably outlined?

More than 20 positions are available already and, as time goes on, more will become available. It will be up to the Leader of the Opposition to make that decision.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Labour party manifesto stated clearly that we will abolish hereditary peers? Were we not to do so, the people of this country would simply be bewildered.

My hon. Friend made the point extremely well. I have had to deal with this on a number of issues, including introducing VAT on private schools, for example, where Members came to this place, argued the point and said that we had no right to do it—yet it was in our manifesto, so we have a moral obligation to pass this legislation. I hope that Opposition Members will join us in the lobbies as we do so. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) chunters from a sedentary position, but I am more than happy to take an intervention, if he wishes to make one.

If the hon. Gentleman believes that the Labour party has a moral obligation to implement every part of its manifesto, how does he feel about the bits that it has already ditched?

The Labour party has a moral obligation to fulfil our manifesto pledges, and I am confident that during our five-year term we will make great progress on everything that we set out in that document.

I have argued that Lords amendment 1 undermines the core purpose of the Bill and is entirely inconsistent with our commitment to remove hereditary peers from the other place. Lords amendment 2 is an attempt to ensure that in future all Ministers who sit in the House of Lords are paid a salary. Having read Lords Hansard, I know that this is a well-intentioned amendment and I can see why the Lords have submitted it. However, ministerial salaries are determined by the Ministerial and Other Salaries Act 1975, so any proposals to change them should be made through amendments to that Act rather than through this Bill. This Bill is specific, narrow and focused. If we want to have a conversation about those salaries, we need to allocate far more time to that and consider separate legislation, so I will not be supporting Lords amendment 2.

I had to do quite a bit of reading around the subject to understand Lords amendment 3. I understand that Lord True, the leader of the Opposition in the House of Lords, wanted to clarify the power of the monarch to confer a life peerage that is granted without a right to a seat in the House of Lords. The creation of a new form of life peerage without any kind of parliamentary responsibility is unnecessary—I will take interventions, as I am happy to have this point clarified—because, quite simply, the King already has that power. He used it when he granted his brother, Prince Edward, the title of Duke of Edinburgh. Therefore, the power already exists and the need to clarify that power is unnecessary.

Lord True mentioned that the newly clarified power could be used to honour people without swelling the ranks of the House of Lords. However, as we have already heard, if we want to recognise special contributions to public life, there are already plenty of ways to do that, such as knighthoods, damehoods, OBEs, CBEs and so on. I maintain that life peerages should be reserved for those who actively participate in the work of the House of Lords, and I therefore urge the House to disagree with Lords amendment 3.

Speaking about Lords reform more broadly, which has come up during the debate, I was pleased to read in Lords Hansard that Baroness Smith has suggested that a Select Committee, set up in the other place, could be used to examine a mandatory retirement age and minimum participation requirements, which I know many Members in this House support. The suggestion included a timeframe: set the Committee up within three months of the Bill receiving Royal Assent and it will report back next year, so we can make real progress on the other commitments. I wholeheartedly endorse that approach and look forward to the outcome of this work.

The hon. Gentleman is being generous with his time. I am inclined to agree with him about the appointment of life peers who do not sit. I do not know the view of Members on the Government Front Bench on that, but the hon. Gentleman makes a good and valid argument. If people do not attend, it is sensible that they should not retain their right to do so. If people are appointed to the House of Lords and then never turn up, there is a good argument that there should be a point at which they should be told that they no longer have that title. However, on the matter of retirement on the grounds of age, this is a very dicey business, given that we have legislation that prohibits discrimination on the basis of age.

The right hon. Gentleman’s point is well made and I will be following the work of the Select Committee closely. We have already heard names mentioned of people who are over the age of 80 and still making great contributions, so I will follow the Committee’s work closely before making a final judgment on the issue.

More broadly than the work that the Committee will undertake, once this Bill has become law, I will continue to advocate for a second Chamber that is more representative of our nations and regions.

The hon. Gentleman chunters from a sedentary position. When it comes to Scotland, the figure is about 2% or 3%—I cannot recall the actual figures, but I will check.

The point remains that we have to make the House of Lords more representative of our nations and regions. We could address this issue in a piecemeal way, in the same way that we have addressed the hereditary issue over many decades. We could slowly introduce reform after reform on who gets appointed, where they come from, what proportion have to come from Yorkshire and so on, but I am not a fan of that approach. We should be as bold as possible and do the difficult work now, because we were elected to do the difficult work in this term and set out an ambitious plan for the wholesale replacement of the other Chamber, ready to be made up of people from all our nations and regions. It should be a truly democratic body that draws on the same golden thread that should always exist between the people we serve in this place and those who should sit in a second elected Chamber. [Interruption.] Hon. Members chunter that this point is off topic; I probably agree, because the Bill does not cover that.

I will draw my remarks to a close. The Bill in front of us will remove the archaic right of somebody to sit in Parliament because of the family they were born into; I find that principle very hard to disagree with. The Bill shows our determination to make our democracy stronger and more representative, and it should be just the start of our commitment to reform the other place and improve our ability to do what we were all sent here to do: serve the public.

I find this to be quite a curious debate thus far. There is not any great energy among Members on the Conservative Benches; I fully expected and anticipated that they would be down here in great numbers to defend their noble colleagues. I think there is only one Conservative speaker left—I look forward to the remarks of the hon. Member for Windsor (Jack Rankin). There was not the usual energy in the speech of the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart); I just do not know what was missing. There is a sense that they cannot be bothered defending this issue any more, which is a good thing. I am also beginning to detect a little bit of a drift between noble Lords in the Conservative party in the House of Lords and Conservative Members here.

I want to inject some energy. Let me tell the hon. Gentleman why I am energetic about this matter. It is preposterous to abolish the hereditary peers in the House of Lords, on the basis that they give good service that, as I have already described, legitimately can be derived from a variety of sources. Many of them are disproportionately active in that Chamber. I accept that there is a manifesto commitment, but this could be done in a much more measured, sensible and moderate way. Is that enough energy for him?

That is the way to do it. I hope the rest of the Members on the Conservative Benches are paying close attention, because that is how they defend the indefensible Conservative peers.

I have detected one other thing in this debate. There seems to be a concession that there will not be a democratic second Chamber—I have not heard that properly yet, so perhaps the Minister can clarify in his summing up. That was implied and suggested, and I have not heard anything thus far that contradicts it. Perhaps we could hear the Minister say that that idea is now gone, because I do not think that there will be any more reform than this. I think this is it; I said in the earlier stages of the Bill that this is as far as Lords reform goes in this Parliament. The great, Gordon Brownian vision of a senate of the nations and regions is totally for the birds. It is some sort of fever dream; it is not going to happen. This Bill is all that this House will do about Lords reform.

I find the amendments to be a snivelling, contemptuous bunch of amendments. They demonstrate the Lords’ contempt for parliamentary democracy and for the democratic will of this House—us, the Members of Parliament who are democratically elected to represent the people of this country. This House passed the Bill with a large majority, and for all its faults, this Government said that they would pass it. It was a manifesto commitment, so they should be allowed to get on with it, but since then, the Lords have done everything possible to thwart the Bill. Barely had we finished voting before the Conservatives in the House of Lords commenced their “save the aristocrat” campaign. For them, the principle of democracy through birthright was something that had to be defended and protected.

Since the Bill went down the corridor, those peers have tried to delay it through filibustering, keeping the Lords up half the night and stacking the Bill full of amendments. It only has two pages, but they spent 52 hours and 10 minutes debating it; it only has four clauses, but 154 amendments were tabled to it. Defending the hereditaries was much more important to the House of Lords than addressing things like poverty, growing the economy or global conflict. I paid real attention to its Hansard, and some of the contributions were truly bizarre. The oozing sense of entitlement from our upper and ruling classes was simply extraordinary.

The thing that got me was when those contributions started to get a little threatening—I think the Minister implied this. The noble Lord True warned that if the purge went ahead, we would face very aggressive procedural action, which could involve filibustering, wrecking amendments and, even worse, the parliamentary nuclear option of more ping-pong. He said that this toff rebellion would only be stood down if a goodly number of the hereditaries were to remain. I do not know about you, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I am positively quaking in my oiky boots. The prospect of a be-ermined banshee charging me with a vintage claret jug and snuff box practically terrifies me half to death.

The thing is, these peers really do believe that they were born to rule—that their role in our legislature through birthright is a gift that we should be eternally grateful for. They have now returned the Bill with these amendments, with the main one being to keep the aristocrats in place until death or retirement by rewarding them with a life peerage. That is not getting rid of the hereditaries; it is giving them a retirement plan. After seeing these amendments, I just wish that we could introduce even more amendments ourselves. I would table an amendment that would get them out tomorrow. I would also be thinking about stripping them of their lands and titles. [Interruption.] I have got more—maybe a little bit of re-education, such as a couple of shifts in Aldi or Lidl, living on the living wage for a week or, even worse, having them speak in regional accents just for a day. Given that these peers have made this about public contribution—given that that is so important to them—how about handing over some of their mansions and castles for social housing? There is a suggestion for how they could be publicly useful.

I know that I am being a little bit comical, Madam Deputy Speaker, but what this does is endorse the view that the House of Lords is the most embarrassing, bizarre legislature anywhere in the world. This weird assortment of aristocrats, be-cassocked bishops, party donors, cronies and placemen feel that they can continue with impunity, and they are probably right in that assumption. The aristocrats will soon be gone—I do not think there is any real desire to defend them any more—but the other members of that circus will continue unabashed. They will continue to develop, grow and thrive. The House of Lords is increasingly going to become a House of patronage—a plaything for Prime Ministers.

Order. Mr Wishart, we are debating the amendments, not your vision for the future of the House of Lords. Perhaps you should stick to the amendments.

Sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am getting a little bit carried away.

The amendments would ensure that the aristocrats remain in the other place, but they will not succeed in that aim—I think we have all sort of agreed on that; it looks like they are gone—but the rest of the strange assortment of people who we find in the House of Lords will still be there. It will become a House of patronage from the Prime Minister, and we are already beginning to see that. Some 57 new Labour peers have been introduced to the House of Lords since the last general election, and we have heard from The Guardian that dozens of new Labour peers are about to be introduced. That does not seem like a Government who are keen on even more House of Lords reform; it seems like a Government who want to create a new set of Labour Lords at the expense of the hereditaries, and the public are thoroughly and utterly sick of it. Only 21% of the British public approve of the House of Lords in its current condition. Most want to see it abolished. Certainly nearly everybody wants to see the hereditaries gone, and I support them in that vision. The Labour party promised, 115 years ago, to abolish the House of Lords. I think it will take at least another 115 years before we see the next set of reforms.

I will start by setting out some context for why the Bill, though small, is so important and why I am delighted to be speaking in its support. I will then address Lords amendments 1, 3 and 8 directly. As has been mentioned in the debate, in 2024, Labour promised to end the right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the other place. In 2025, that is exactly what the Government are delivering, and not a moment too soon. The principle at stake here is simple, and it is about the principle, not the process. No one should make laws for the British people, claim a daily allowance or influence the future of this country purely on the basis of who their great-great-grandfather was. In my estimation, that idea belongs in the history books, not in a modern democracy. It is incompatible with the Labour party’s values and anathema to the values of the British people in 2025.

Of course, the Conservative party will resist. We have already heard diversionary tactics today, with talk about the Blair Government’s reforms in 1999, when we all know that previous Governments do not bind the hands of future ones. We have heard about next steps and whether a statutory Committee or a Select Committee is the right thing to do. Having asked the Opposition about their official policy, I am still unaware what it is. Indeed, we heard from the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) about his concerns that this is all a numbers game. I remind him that UCL’s constitution unit has done the maths. In fact, were the changes to come into effect, the Conservative peers would still be the largest group of all the parties in the other place—larger even than the Cross Benchers. The Conservatives would see a minor reduction in composition from 34% to 32%.

The Father of the House, the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) mentioned that he is not supportive of an elected upper Chamber. I am still at a loss about exactly what a gradual change in the composition of the upper House means.

My hon. Friend mentions gradual change, which was apparently the policy of the Conservative party. Does he agree that a six-month temporary arrangement that takes a quarter of a century to overturn is the epitome of gradual?

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. That is exactly the concern that I and many Members on the Government Benches have. Long-standing reform is well overdue. We also heard about the principle of monarchy, and mention was made of constitutional monarchies.

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, was it right to say to me that I was going off topic when it came to a small Bill with a number of Lords amendments, when it seems like the hon. Gentleman is doing exactly the same thing? From what I recall, practically everybody else has done that, too.

Just to be entirely clear, it was the property rights element of the hon. Member’s contribution that I thought was beyond scope. I think all Members—the House will be conscious that I have not been in the Chair very long—might like to stick to the scope of the amendments and what we are actually debating this afternoon.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will come to the amendments very shortly.

Mention was made of constitutional monarchies. A number of European countries have constitutional monarchies that have a hereditary principle, but none of them has hereditary Members in their Parliaments. Mention was also made of the hereditary principle for parliamentarians being somewhat unique, and of the principle of mandatory retirement at a certain age—indeed, the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) mentioned it. Of course, that principle also exists in the judiciary, and I do not see any objection there from a human rights perspective.

UCL’s constitution unit found that a clear majority of the public—60%—want hereditary peers gone for good. Who can blame them? The record speaks for itself: not a single female hereditary peer has been elected in 66 years, over a third of hereditary peers are concentrated in London and the south-east, and by-elections are so farcical that they verge on satire. By-elections are in scope of Lords amendment 1, which I will come to shortly.

My electorate in Bolton West is about 76,000 electors. In July last year, 17,363 people voted to elect me as their MP in order to give them a voice in this Chamber. But in 2018 one hereditary peer was elected with a dozen votes—fewer than it takes to become a parish councillor.

As my hon. Friend was giving his eloquent and excellent speech, I was reminded of a comedy series called “Blackadder”, in which such bizarre electoral practices happened on our television screens. It is a shame that they seem to be happening even today.

My hon. Friend makes a very good point; indeed, he talks of one of my all-time favourite comedies. It speaks to the need for drastic reform of the other place, which is long overdue.

In a Tory by-election in the other place, another peer asserted that fellow Members should vote for him because he

“races on the Solent and gardens enthusiastically”.

The electorate for that vote were a grand total of 43. These are not truly democratic contests. They do not seek to promote those with the very best talent and expertise to serve this country. Such by-elections lack the fundamentals of what should be at the heart of this mother of Parliaments: transparency, accountability and scrutiny.

Since 1999, there have been over 30 of these bizarre contests, all with vanishingly small electorates—a process that is, frankly, long overdue reform. They have all produced lawmakers by accident of birth, and that is the principle to which I and many Members on the Labour Benches object. That is why I will be voting against the Lords amendments today.

Just to refresh my memory, which Government instituted the arrangement whereby a certain number of hereditaries stayed and the kind of election that the hon. Gentleman describes was introduced? Was it a Tory Government, or was it a Labour Government?

The right hon. Member will have heard me mention previously that previous Governments do not bind the hands of future Governments, and that this Bill was a manifesto commitment last year.

That leads me on to the amendments that have come back from the other place. Lords amendments 1 and 8, tabled by the noble Lord Parkinson, propose ending the by-elections for hereditaries but retaining the current cohort. The amendments would hollow out the Bill and perpetuate the very problem that we are trying to fix. I urge colleagues in the other House to respect the Salisbury convention, which has already been mentioned today: this House has primacy on election-winning manifesto pledges. Conservative colleagues have ample opportunity this afternoon to confirm that they respect that constitutional convention, and I wait with bated breath to hear them speak to that, but we cannot scrap only the by-election process. As I say, it is the principle of hereditary peers that is so objectionable, which is why I will be voting to make sure that this Bill gets on to the statute book.

Many hereditary peers have made valuable contributions —I have worked alongside some already in the short amount of time I have spent in this place—but those who want to continue serving can and should do so on merit. They can stand for elected office, they can be nominated for life peerages, and HOLAC can continue to recommend strong Cross-Bench candidates. This Bill is not an attack on individuals; it is an attack on the medieval principle of privilege by birth. No one should sit in our Parliament because of the deeds of their ancestors centuries ago. Lords amendments 1 and 8 are not about accountability and they are not about democracy. They are patronage dressed up as Parliament, and the Conservatives, in 14 years in office, did absolutely nothing to change the hereditary principle.

Lords amendment 3, from the noble Lord True, is about so-called non-sitting peerages. Let us be clear: peerages should not be sinecures. If the idea is simply to allow hereditary peers to retain their titles without sitting, what social value does this amendment provide? If we want to honour people’s contributions, we already have a system for that—the honours process, with knighthoods, CBEs and MBEs—as the Paymaster General stressed. This amendment looks less like reform, and more like a way of preserving influence. We have already seen the pattern with titles handed out as bargaining chips or rewards for party donations. This debate has been quite good-humoured, but I do have to flag the Conservative party’s tradition of ennobling its treasurers. I take no pleasure in quoting this, but as one former Conservative party chairman admitted in 2021:

“Once you pay your £3 million, you get your peerage.”

That is not public service; it is politics for sale, and it is exactly what the public are fed up with.

In summary—

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

I will give way on that final point.

Yes, there are of course some appalling practices with the Conservatives rewarding their donors with peerages, but does the hon. Member not remember cash for honours? There was a police investigation, and Tony Blair was actually questioned by the police. This goes on in all parties, and each of them is a disgrace.

In summary, this Bill is about rebuilding trust in politics. It is about ending practices that belong to the 18th century, not the 21st. It is about showing the British people that Parliament works for them, not the privileged few. Let me also say that this Bill is just the beginning, and I am committed to wider reform of the second Chamber: to improving its national and regional balance; to introducing, yes, a mandatory retirement age; to requiring meaningful participation; and, ultimately, to replacing it with a more modern second Chamber fit for the 21st century. That is the path to a fairer, more accountable and more democratic politics. It is what Labour promised, which is why I am proud to see the Government delivering on it.

I rise to speak to Lords amendments 1 and 8, and therefore against the motion, in two minds. I say in two minds because I find the unilateral removal of the hereditary peers without seeking consensus, which is what a rejection of Lords amendment 1 would mean, both regrettable and exciting. I would like to take each of these two polarising mindsets in turn.

My first emotion is regret. Britain has something of a Schrödinger’s cat constitution. We are simultaneously a modern, plural and open democracy, and a kind of autocratic theocracy. Our national motto, “Dieu and mon droit”—God and my right—points to the hereditary monarch being appointed by and accountable only to God. We have a state religion in England and Scotland, and in England the divinely appointed monarch is the Supreme Governor of the Church. The bishops, whom the King appoints, sit in our legislature, as do hereditary peers, who are the focus of the amendment. The King appoints the judiciary and is the commander of the armed forces. On paper, as Labour Members have pointed out, the country with which we have most in common is the demonic Islamic Republic, but unlike Iran we have simultaneously free and fair elections, broad debate in a free press, and freedom of religious and belief, and we are an open member of the international order.

The point is that we would never design our tapestry of a constitution. In many ways it is absurd, but it is organic. It is rooted in the millennia of history. In two years’ time, we will celebrate the 1100th birthday of England, the most remarkable nation on earth, which a majority of us in this place are fortunate to have won the lottery of life to be born in. We should be respectful of that evolution, because that evolving constitutional order has empirically served us well. It is how it works in practice that matters, not how it looks on the ideological grand planner’s piece of paper.

I am not surprised that my hon. Friend is making the speech that he is, because he understands that, essentially, our system is an organic one. Constitutions are not written from a blueprint—they can be, but they are not in this country—and what he is describing is a blend of democratic legitimacy and the other forms of the exercise of power. What the Government are proposing is not a democratic House of Lords, but an appointed House. That in itself contradicts some of the speeches made by Labour Members.

My right hon. Friend is right. Our national story has brought us to a place where this House is rightfully dominant among the three parts of Parliament in exercising the sovereignty of the King in Parliament, but we should be careful of the wholesale execution of one of those arms. Let us be clear: that is what the unilateral removal of the hereditary peers would do. The other place without them is no more a House of Lords than my terraced house in Sunninghill is. A Cromwellian purge, it would leave that place the preserve of political cronies and failed advisers. Is that what we want? Is that progress?

The House of Lords today is difficult to justify, but it works. This place has the attention span of a TikTok-addled teenager, as we jump to half-hourly news cycles driven by Twitter and rolling news.

My hon. Friend is making the correct argument. The hereditary peerage in the House of Lords represents continuity in our country and wisdom throughout the ages. Most of the House of Lords is appointed, but that hereditary element is vital as part of the mix of our very successful parliamentary constitution.

My hon. Friend’s point is right, and I thank him for it.

We walk through the Division lobbies, directed by the Whips, often having had no time, because of the impossible juggling act, to develop real knowledge of the topic in question or to think through properly the implications. Some of the stuff that leaves this place with a massive majority might have well been written in crayon. Thank God for the other place. Do not remove long-serving public servants and outstanding legislators. Do not pick at the threads of our constitution. The other place is one of the parts of our constitution which works best. We should retain Lords amendment 1 and 8.

I talked of a tension, a conflict in my thinking. I have tried to articulate a deeply conservative instinct, but I also feel excitement, as I will explain. My view is that the British state is way off course, dangerously off course. It needs deep and radical change. To take one issue, immigration, almost nothing is now too radical to consider. Whether we look at the asylum system or legal migration, the radical change that the country needs will be of significant scale. None of that will be possible in the Blairite constitutional straitjacket that is at direct odds with our historic constitution.

That is a fascinating argument. The hon. Gentleman has argued in favour of the Lords for their restraint, and now he is arguing in favour of the Lords because they allow radicalism. That does not make any sense.

That is the tension that I am trying to bring out. Who would seek to frustrate such an agenda—the Lords might, in their current form. I find it exciting—and this is a warning—that a majority in this House, gained from 33.7% of the vote on a 59.7% turnout, which is almost exactly 20% of the adults in this country, can remove their opposition from the other place. Labour Members may not agree with the hereditary principle, but who else does not get elected in the other place and cannot be removed by elections? It is the life peers. I say honestly, the lack of respect you might have for a millennia-old principle, I have for a lot of the backgrounds—

I reassure the hon. Gentleman that I have plenty of respect for it.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The point I am trying to make to those on the Government Benches is that if a Government can expel their political opponents from the other place because the majority in this place says they are not elected, while placing no limit on the Prime Minister’s patronage, so can a new Government—so take the compromise. Be careful what you wish for.

Our constitution is indeed a very curious beast. Nobody starting from scratch would come anywhere near designing what we have for this country—perhaps apart from the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart), and some of those on the Benches behind him. It has evolved over the centuries in response to the political pressures that arise from time to time, and today is part of that evolution. As the constitution has changed, our traditions have remained. I for one love a bit of tradition in this place, especially when it tells the story of how we have come to be where we are; whether it is Royal Assent being signified in Norman French or the doors of this Chamber being shut on the entry of Black Rod, it all tells a story. However, when tradition holds us back from the work we are sent here to do, it becomes a barrier.

Just to get Cromwell right: it was Cromwell, rather like Boris Johnson, who ended the Long Parliament by walking into this Chamber, so the parallel is probably closer than the hon. Gentleman would like to suggest.

Cromwell was a tyrant, really, in all kinds of other ways, who wanted his son to succeed him, so he believed in the hereditary principle.

On the point of substance, the point about the House of Lords is that it is a check on the power of this place, and that is a helpful thing for Governments, actually, as sometimes Governments benefit from having to think again. The continuity that is being argued for from the Conservative Benches is part of a healthy constitutional settlement. If we sacrifice that settlement, I think we will get less good, rather than better, government.

I agree wholeheartedly with the principle of a check on this place. However, that check must come with due wisdom and expertise. We have heard from the Conservative Benches about those centuries of wisdom, but wisdom cannot simply be passed down genetically to people in the other place today. Surely we need people in the other place who have expertise and are there on merit, not because of who their ancestors were.

Lords amendment 1 seeks to amend the 1999 compromise of by-elections to replace vacant hereditary peers by allowing the cohort of hereditary seats to gradually reduce by natural departure. As my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General has said, that amendment would effectively delay our manifesto commitment to end the hereditary element in the other place for many years to come.

As I said earlier, this is about not individuals or personalities but ensuring that our institutions reflect the values of our modern democracy. I have seen at first hand the important role of the second Chamber in scrutinising legislation and improving the quality of lawmaking, but that role must be based on merit and public service, not on birthright. If anyone watching today’s debate is a hereditary peer—I see none up in the Gallery—and is dismayed at the prospect of no longer being able to contribute to the work of the other place, I say to them: do not be downhearted. Anyone in principle, including ex-hereditary peers, should have the ability to serve as a parliamentarian if they are willing and able to do the necessary work—and work is the point here.

Doing the necessary work brings me to Lords amendment 3, which would effectively bring about a new tradition of creating life peerages as honours in name only, with no work involved. What on earth is the use of that? There are plenty of other honours, as we have heard, that His Majesty can bestow that would show due public recognition for services rendered to this country. The other place is not and should not be used as an honours board. It should be a working and effective part of our legislature—our Parliament.

I believe that any parliamentarian comes to this building to do the work, to hold or be held to account, to raise issues that matter to the wider country and to pass good and workable laws. When I was elected on that expectation by my constituents in Stevenage, that was the pledge I promised to uphold. Although Members of the other place do not have expectations from constituents, I believe there is an expectation from the public as a whole that they are there to do the work of good parliamentarians. An empty life peerage title would only take away from that public expectation.

These amendments complicate what is and should be a simple task before us: to deliver—finally—on ending the principle of hereditary peerages and ensure that the other place is a working place in a Parliament that works for all the people.

This has been a suitably fascinating debate. I do not plan to speak for too long, because the points have already been well made. We have had 10 hours here and 52 flippin’ hours in the House of Lords on this concise, four-clause Bill, and now we have a number of amendments. I will address Lords amendments 1 and 2.

Lords amendment 1 is fairly straightforward up and down. We know what it is. It is a wrecking amendment, pure and simple. It is nothing more than an amendment designed to preserve the hereditary principle in the House of Lords—a principle that is an outdated anachronism that has no place in 2025 or any modern democracy. The only other comparable democracy is Lesotho. I do not know much about Lesotho, but I would quite like not to share this unenviable record with the good people of Lesotho for any longer.

The point has been made that if we do not want the hereditary principle in the House of Lords, perhaps that means that we no longer want the monarchy. Nothing could be further from the truth. As all Members in this place did, I swore an oath of allegiance to the King. I have not always been ardent monarchist, but I support a constitutional monarchy, and one of the many reasons I do is because the monarch has absolutely no role in introducing laws, in amending laws or in voting on laws. The monarch’s role is quite clear and simple: Royal Assent. They do not obstruct the work of this place—rightly so—and yet we have heard so many times today about the guerilla warfare that is being led in the other place against numerous pieces of legislation in retribution against this simple removal of an anachronism.

That is not what the King does. Frankly, it is when monarchs have sought to obstruct this House that references to Cromwell are relevant. That is not what the Bill does; it is about removing the hereditary principle from the legislature that develops, scrutinises and delivers legislation. The King may sign it—that is his role.

The point has been repeatedly made from the Government Benches that this is a matter of principle and that hereditary power is unacceptable. Now, the hon. Member is right that the King has no role in introducing legislation, and so on and so forth, but the King does have immense political influence. Which Labour Back Bencher meets the Prime Minister weekly to discuss the affairs of state?

Madam Deputy Speaker, the king of Stoke!

Which Labour Back Bencher receives a regular report from the Whips on the proceedings of this House? That is what the King has. The King rightly has powers, and he derives his power by birth.

I delighted to inform the right hon. Member about the parliamentary Labour party’s Back-Bench committee, which meets the Prime Minister weekly when Parliament is sitting. I see at least one of my hon. Friends from the committee here—[Interruption.] In fact, there are two here. Staffordshire is well represented at the moment on the committee, and that is quite right—oatcakes all round for them, and of course for the Prime Minister.

I will happily take a point in a second from my hon. Friend, which I presume will be on the Lords amendment and not on oatcakes, but I wish to respond fully to the point made by the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) before I got so distracted. I apologise for that self-distraction, Madam Deputy Speaker.

The role of the Lords in our legislature is quite clear, as is the role of the monarch. In fact, I spoke this morning to students from Emmanuel college in my constituency about the three distinct parts of our Parliament: this place, the other place and, of course, the monarch. But the principle under discussion is the ability to introduce, amend or vote on legislation. The King does none of those, so I see no contradiction on that important point of principle.

I will now happily accept an intervention.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, although the moment has passed slightly. I wanted to thank him for acknowledging the work of the PLP Back-Bench committee. I will happily bring him some oatcakes from home on Monday morning.

I thank my hon. Friend, although I do not think that will help me with my diet. However, I am doing the great north run on Sunday so I will probably need the calories.

I am happy that we are having the debate, but I am somewhat surprised by its tenor, which runs contrary to the Salisbury convention—its correct name, of course, is the Salisbury-Addison convention; we too often neglect the Labour Member of that important duopoly. It has been surprising—particularly so on Second Reading, when the former Deputy Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Hertsmere (Sir Oliver Dowden), led for the Opposition—that there has not been a more straightforward argument from the Opposition in favour of the hereditary principle, because it seems fairly clear that that is what they are arguing for.

I dare say there is a—probably dwindling—proportion of the electorate who wish to see the hereditary principle enshrined within those crucial aspects of our legislature in the scope of our discussions, but no Opposition Members appear willing to make that argument. I am afraid it is an act of constitutional contortion for them to say they merely wish to allow some people to serve out their time. If that is the case, why do we have elections? Many wonderful public servants on both sides of the House lost their seats at the last election; but in this place we believe that, at the will of the people, any of us could be gone—and that is quite right.

The hon. Member is making the point that any of us should be able to go, and I agree. Should that not be the case for all parliamentarians and not just those in this House?

My long-standing views on reform of our Parliament can be looked up by any Member if they so wish. I very much welcomed, both on Second Reading and from the Front Bench today, the comments on the future reform of the Lords and what that might look like. However, I dare say to the hon. Gentleman that we might agree on some specific aspects more than he imagines.

There has not been much discussion of Lords amendment 2, on Ministers’ pay. I welcome the Conservative party’s stout defence of working people and of ensuring that people are paid what they are owed. We have also heard references to equalities law from the Opposition Benches, and I welcome that. I just think it is such as a shame that it is only being applied specifically and uniquely to hereditary peers.

As Conservative Members well know, there is a limit on the number of Ministers who can be paid. I think that is right and I do not believe that now is the right time to expand the cost of our politics with more paid Ministers. However, if the Conservative party believes, genuinely and deep down in its soul, that it needed to have more paid Ministers, it had 14 years of Government in which it could have done that, rather than tacking it on as a distraction from the issue at hand here, which is incrementally but crucially reforming our constitution.

I support the Government’s position on all the amendments. Let us get on with this. We have had 62 hours of debate—and counting. Let us crack on. It has been 1,100 years; I think it is time to cut it short.

I draw attention to my interest on two fronts, in that my wife is a life peer in the House of Lords and a salaried Minister.

And a very good one at that.

Yes, she is very good. I thank my hon. Friend for that.

I want to start by addressing some of the points that the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) made—he has left. His characterisation of the House of Lords is grossly unfair. He characterised everybody who is a Member as being some sort of pocket-stuffing hanger-on. I think that exposes more about his particular brand of petty grievance politics than it does about the actual calibre of the individuals down at the end of the corridor. Regardless of party affiliation or whether they are independent or bishops, the Members I have come across—in Committee or Joint Committee work, or in delegations when I was previously in the House are—good people who want to see the nation benefit and our country thrive and see good politics and good governance. The characterisation is often unfair and the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire belittles his own position as a Member of this House.

I intervene merely because my hon. Friend is not here to defend himself, so I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving way. There are a number of fine people in the House of Lords and I have worked with them in a number of ways. However, democratic accountability should be at the heart. Labour promised to scrap the House of Lords in the first ever manifesto it produced over a century ago, so although his hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead Central and Whickham (Mark Ferguson) might have been waiting 1,100 years, we have been waiting 110 years for Labour to fulfil its commitment to electing and giving them that democratic mandate.

Without getting drawn into the debate on the rights and wrongs, I will say that if the Scottish National party had wanted an elected second Chamber, it could have had one in the Scottish Parliament but chose not to. There are things about the way in which our democracy works that mean the SNP Members come down here simply to have a pop at this place for their grievance politics in Scotland. Frankly, if the SNP spent more time thinking about how it could help the nation rather than its petty nationalism, we might be in a better place as a country and things would be better in Scotland.

In a point relating to amendment 1, as my hon. Friend the Member for Telford (Shaun Davies) rightly pointed out, Lord Grocott has proposed this Bill in the House of Lords numerous times over the past 20 years. He has tried to get to the point when there could have been an opportunity over the past two decades for Members who are here by virtue of the hereditary principle to be phased out over time. At every opportunity, it was blocked by the Conservative party; at every opportunity, it was talked out.

When the Bill was introduced in this place, first by David Hanson and then by John Spellar, the Conservative party opposed it, saying that the principle was wrong and there was not enough reform. I therefore feel that it is slightly disingenuous now to propose something that the Conservatives have opposed for the past two decades as their solution to the problem that they themselves created by not accepting it in the first place. It is slightly unfair, and it is a categorisation of their own politics that they seek to find ways to frustrate the Bill because they have no option for themselves.

On the somewhat spuriously suggestion that this is a way of neutering opposition in the other place, the number of Conservative peers, even after the expulsion of the hereditaries, will still make them the largest party in the House of Lords, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) pointed out. The Labour party is currently the third largest party in the House of Lords, after the Cross Benchers. Even after the removal of some of the Cross Benchers who sit by virtue of a hereditary peerage, they will still only be slightly behind the Labour party. The idea that this will remove any form of opposition in the upper House is simply incorrect—it does not hold water.

The other idea that good scrutiny of legislation in the House of Lords can somehow happen only by virtue of the application of the minds of the hereditary peers is equally incorrect. Some of the best challenges to Government in this Parliament have come from Members of the House of Lords who have been appointed. It does not necessarily mean they are less likely to be independent because they are not there by virtue of a hereditary peerage. I genuinely do not see that for myself. The times when I have sat and watched the House of Lords, because their sitting hours are later, I have seen that the challenges that come from the bishops, the Cross Benchers and the members of the Conservative and Liberal parties, regardless of how they reached there, have been thoughtful and well considered, and long may that continue. I do not think that is diminished by virtue of the fact that we say to a small group of those who have a right in the House of Lords, “Your route into this place was an irregularity, and we are seeking to sort that.”

The shadow Paymaster General, the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart), disputed my figure. There have been 21 appointments to the House of Lords who have had the Conservative Whip. I appreciate that some of those have been resignation honours from previous Prime Ministers—and there were a few to get through because of the way their party operated—but there have been 21. At any point, the former Prime Ministers could have said, “We would like to consider giving those to members of the hereditary group who are not able to continue.” There have been a number of appointees who were not part of a resignation honours list, and again, the Conservative party did not take the opportunity to say to Earl Howe, “We are going to make sure that you can continue.”

The hon. Gentleman is making a good speech. Does he think that, given the policy they have embarked on, the Government should have a duty to protect Cross Benchers who have no party representation in this House? The hereditary peers who are Cross Benchers will otherwise go by the wayside. Would he at least support his Government doing that?

It is hard to overestimate the valuable contribution that the Cross-Bench peers make to the House of Lords, not least the number of retired members of the judiciary who come in to fulfil certain judicial or pseudo-judicial responsibilities. The hon. Gentleman probably has an element of a point that I would almost agree with: there is a conversation to be had about how we ensure that the Cross Benchers continue to have representation that reflects the breadth of the country and the skills that Parliament needs. Obviously, there is a role for the House of Lords Appointments Commission, which can make recommendations for new Cross-Bench peers. How that works going forward I am sure is something that will be considered.

Again, there will still be 151 Cross-Bench peers even after the number of hereditary peers have been expelled from the House. That is a large number of peers, all of whom bring an expertise to the House that should be looked at. If there are new Cross-Bench peers to come in, I am sure that the commission will make that recommendation.

The idea that the House of Lords will somehow cease to function by virtue of the immediate abolition of hereditary peers does not hold water or make sense. We should simply say, “We are going to have a clean break. Thank you very much for your service—we appreciate it. If you wish to come back to politics or to Parliament, you can be nominated to the House of Lords for a life peerage, or you can seek election to this House.” If the Conservative party really wanted to ensure that some of those hereditary peers were able to come back to this place, they could say, “We’re going to make sure you are our candidates” for the 25 safest Conservative seats—if there are 25 safe seats for any party these days. It could say, “You can make a valuable contribution to politics in a way that gives you a seat in one of the two legislatures.” There are ways of doing it that simply do not allow for the withering of the situation that we have.

What I am puzzled about is this: how does the abolition of these great people who have come to this place with a duty of service that they have inherited and served the country benefit the people of Stoke-on-Trent? How will our constituents benefit by this change to our constitution? Does the hon. Member really think that this country will be so much better for having got rid of our hereditary peers, who have such a great duty of service to our country?

The hon. Gentleman poses a fair question. I would argue that having a ringfenced number of seats reserved almost exclusively for white men sends the wrong message to my constituents. I fully accept that there are Members of the House of Lords at whom my constituents can look and think, “They have done something spectacular with their lives.” [Interruption.] Before the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire jumps up, there are Members who have come in through the by-election process after making good contributions in their careers, and their being there does bring something, but I do not believe that my constituents would be diminished or harmed by their expulsion. I cannot see any justification for keeping 92 people in this legislature by virtue of appointments made many decades ago.

It is a small element.

It is a small element, as the hon. Gentleman says, but by that same logic, the removal of that small element will not have a big impact. We are grasping at straws.

Let me address the suggestion that this is an attack on the hereditary principle. The hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) is probably one Member of the House who understands quite well the role of the Earl Marshal. He will continue to be an officer of the House of Lords, and the role will still be intrinsically linked to the families of the Duke of Norfolk, but he will simply not be able to vote in Divisions or participate in debates. I do not believe therefore that this is necessarily an attack on the hereditary principle per se; it is simply about saying that there is no place for the hereditary principle in a modern-day democracy.

I will move on the point about giving out titles as rewards. I do not believe that the amendment is necessary to achieve the Conservative party’s aims, not least because the monarch, as the font of all honour, can create whatever titles and styles he likes, with whatever caveats he likes, through letters patent. It does not immediately mean that one has to become a Member of the House of Lords by virtue of having a life peerage if the letters patent say something different. I am sure that the shadow Paymaster General is well read up on the Wensleydale decision of 1856, when a life peerage was created for Sir James Parke but it was specified that he could not be a Member of the House of Lords. The principle of establishing titles and styles for reward and recognition without tying them to seats in the Lords already exists, so the amendment is entirely unnecessary.

My final point, which has not been the subject of much discussion—as it is not a party knockabout issue—relates to Lords amendment 4, on the capacity of colleagues in the House of Lords. It is clear that many Members of the House of Lords have served our country and their communities well, but some find themselves in old age and declining health. They deserve the dignity of being allowed to retire from that place without it becoming a story of capacity. The amendment, which was accepted by the Government and the Opposition in the Lords, is an important way of recognising that we can make small changes every day to the House of Lords, as the previous Government did on the ability to retire and take a leave of absence. This Government are ensuring that resignation can be granted for Members subject to power of attorney—that is an important change and I hope that it gets cross-party support.

To summarise what my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead Central and Whickham (Mark Ferguson) said, this legislation has been a long time coming and is part of the evolution of the House of Lords. The Opposition amendments do nothing to improve the Bill; they would simply slow the pace of reform and add bits that do nothing more than frustrate the passage of the Bill when it goes back to the other place. I urge the House to reject the Opposition amendments and to support the Government in bringing dignity to those who need to retire with capacity issues, so that we can progress with building a more modern and successful democracy.

With the leave of the House, I will close the debate, and it is a privilege to close this wide-ranging and well-natured debate. The shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart), has been treated somewhat unfairly in the course of the debate. The hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) accused him of a lack of energy, but he was completely wrong. The contribution from the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster may have been ill-judged, but it was certainly energetic; we can give him that. His contribution was, in some ways, brave—some would even say it had a chutzpah about it—when he accused me of trashing precedent while simultaneously trashing precedent himself.

We are under no obligation to support Government legislation in the Commons.

Let me just repeat that point to the hon. Gentleman, because it is important. He claims to respect precedent and the rights of Parliament, but the position he takes in supporting Lords amendment 1 runs a coach and horses through that.

This is the Commons—we are not obliged to support you.

Fine, let me put it this way: the hon. Gentleman is supporting the position that his peers are taking, which is in breach of that convention.

I will give the hon. Gentleman another chance, because he is trying to put a defence up on that particular precedent. He supported the closing down of Parliament in 2019, and now he sits here lecturing me on precedent. I think it is best not to take any lectures from the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on that.

There was an opportunity for the Opposition this afternoon. They did not have to join in with the filibustering tactics that have been used, with tens of hours of debate on this very narrow Bill. The shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster could today have not joined in, but he will lead his troops through the Lobby to continue to try to block these reforms. That is what this is all about. It is not, as he pretended, about trying to improve the Bill. It is not that those on the Tory Front Bench are secretly in favour of radical reform, and this is not radical enough for them. They are trying to wreck this Bill, and that is exactly what he will do as he goes through the Lobby with his troops later.

The Minister may remember that at the beginning of the debate, I asked him to bear in mind the circumstances of some of the people who have given their life to this place over the last 25 or 30 years and are not in the best financial health. We are not in “Downton Abbey”—the film had its premiere last night. If he makes the decision to get rid of hereditary peers immediately, what support will be put in place by the House authorities, which I know he would want to work with, and the Government to ensure that those people are looked after? May I push him to consider the more practical proposal of waiting until the end of the Session, rather than immediately getting rid of the hereditary peers?

It is not my decision; it was the decision of the British people at the last general election in supporting our manifesto. If the Bill gets on to the statute book, hereditary peers will leave at the end of this parliamentary Session. I repeat the point we have heard throughout the debate: there is no barrier to them becoming life peers. Indeed, there is no barrier to them standing to become Members of this House if they wish to continue their public service.

Will the Minister give way?

I will give way, then I need to make some progress.

I thank the Minister for his generosity. He frequently cites the Labour party manifesto, which did include this provision in relation to the abolition of hereditary peers. However, it also included a provision in relation to a mandatory retirement age. Why has he chosen to bring forward the abolition of hereditary peers but not wait until he has resolved the position in relation to the retirement age? Surely there is only one reason for that, which is that it benefits the Labour party politically to remove Conservative hereditary peers immediately, and it is of less political benefit to the Labour party to have a mandatory 80-year-old retirement age.

The manifesto was clear that the reform would be staged, and that this would be the immediate first step. The Government remain in favour of a House of Lords that is more representative of the nations and regions, and this is the first step. As the Leader of the House of Lords announced, a Select Committee will then look at retirement age, and indeed at participation.

My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Jonathan Davies) made the point, which I repeated, that this is not a personal issue but an issue of principle. I know the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), welcomes the Bill as a first step, and she also spoke about the appointment process. Indeed, over recent months the Government have ensured that when people are selected for a place in the House of Lords there is now an explanation or citation. We always had a citation when people were awarded honours, but we did not have one for those nominated for a place in the House of Lords. That has now been changed.

My hon. Friend the Member for Telford (Shaun Davies) set out powerfully that Lords amendment 1, which concerns the abolition of hereditary by-elections, has been put forward time and again by Lord Grocott, and on every single occasion it was blocked by the Conservatives. The right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), a regular sparring partner of mine, accused me of being a bit unfair to the Conservatives in the 20th century. Life peerages were of course introduced in the late 1950s, but it is certainly the case that the Conservatives have blocked every opportunity to abolish the hereditary principle, and that is exactly what they are doing again.

My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South West and Morley (Mark Sewards) made a powerful speech about the central purpose of the Bill and the Government’s position on the amendments. The hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire made his characteristic contribution to the debate, and I would agree with the point he made about filibustering in the other place on this Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) made well the point that even after this change, the Conservatives will still be the largest single party in the House of Lords. I then come to the speech by the hon. Member for Windsor (Jack Rankin) who seemed, I think, to be simultaneously arguing for maintaining the hereditary peers and for radical reform. When he talked about a parliamentarian with the “attention span” of a TikTok video, I thought he meant the shadow Justice Secretary for a minute. We have heard the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) make a comparison with North Korea, but the hon. Member for Windsor made a comparison with Iran. This Bill is quintessentially British. It is about British democracy. It is about putting an argument to the electorate last July, and then putting that into practice.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Kevin Bonavia) made the powerful case that this is about principle, and about there not being a series of places in our legislature that are reserved for people by accident of birth. My hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead Central and Whickham (Mark Ferguson), who I am sure the whole House will wish well for the Great North Run, made a powerful case for the abolition of the hereditary principle and the position of the Bill. I also say a real “thank you” to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell), who has made a powerful case for change throughout every stage of the passage of the Bill through the House of Commons.

This has been a perfectly reasonable debate—

Before I conclude my remarks I will certainly give way.

I am grateful to the Paymaster General for giving way, as I feel that he is drawing to the end of his comments. One thing he has not discussed in his round-up of the debate is ministerial pay. I appreciate the remarks that he made at the start, and that he does not believe this is the right way or place to do that, but does he accept in principle that in future the Government should find a legal mechanism for ensuring that all Ministers of the Crown, regardless of the House in which they sit, are paid?

I will just come to the other points that we are raising. I have made clear that Lords amendment 1 guts the purpose of the Bill, which is why the Government oppose it.

On the other amendments, first I am pleased with and thank the hon. Gentleman for his support on amendment 4, on the introduction of the power of attorney. I think that the whole House accepts that there are people who wish to retire, and that is a dignity that we should give them. We all appreciate that. On the other two points, I do not regard the creation of a new, separate honour as necessary or worthwhile—I had this exchange earlier with the hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes). We already have an honours system that recognises outstanding contributions to our society. I think that we should maintain that link between the title and doing work in our legislature.

I understand the point that the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar has made a couple of times about ministerial pay and Ministers carrying out roles. The point that I would make to him, however, is that that requires an amendment. If he wants to make that argument and have a debate, he is perfectly entitled to do that, but the mechanism in the Bill will not have the impact that I think he is seeking to have in that respect.

To conclude—I am concluding not just this afternoon’s debate, but tens of hours of debate in the other place—we are moving towards a House of Lords that is fair, open and truly representative of the nation it serves, a House where expertise is recognised and not inherited, where policy is shaped by merit and not by bloodlines. I commend the Government’s position to the House.

Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.