Hereditary Peers

Debate between Lord Hanson of Flint and Mark Pritchard

Tuesday 28th March 2017 Westminster Hall

[Mr Hanson]

The hon. Gentleman is seven minutes ahead of me in my speech. That is a very good point. I do not see this as a party political argument; I see it as a matter of central democracy. I will return to that point later.

Lord Colgrain, who won the election last week, won with 143 votes and will take his seat in the House of Lords in due course. The turnout was 346, and as I have said, the total electorate is 803. The winning share of the total vote was 17%, and the turnout—even in this election, among such highly tuned political minds as the electorate of the House of Lords—was only 43%.

Lord Colgrain is a Conservative peer; I hold no objection to that. His peerage comes from the 1st Baron Colgrain, who died in 1954. I have no objection to him having a grandfather who worked for a bank and was president of the British Bankers’ Association, director of the National Provincial Bank and involved in London Assurance. I have no objection to that being his ancestor; that is a matter for him and his family. What I have an objection to is him being allowed to be on the ballot paper in an election in which only 27 people could participate as nominators and only 346 people ultimately voted to give him a seat in this Parliament.

Lord Colgrain has said that he wants to bring his experience of farming and finance to his membership of the Lords—fine. He is a governor at £34,000-a-year Sevenoaks School—fine. However, if we look at the hereditary peers, they are not drawn from the range of society that we might want reflected in this great, diverse Parliament that we have here today. That might seem ludicrous, but let me look at Lord Thurso, who was elected last year. Members will also know him as John Thurso. He served as a Member of this House for 14 years. He got elected when he was thrown out of the House of Lords with Labour’s first tranche of hereditary peers in 1999. He had a miraculous blood transfusion and removed his blue blood to stand as an ordinary mortal, and he got elected. At the last general election, he lost his seat in Parliament to a member of the Scottish National party. He was ejected from this House, yet Lord Thurso could stand at the first opportunity in a hereditary peer by-election.

The electorate in that case was a massive three electors—the three other Liberal Democrat hereditary peers. The election was due to the terrible death of Lord Avebury, whose work I had a lot of admiration for. The three electors for this post in Parliament were the Earl of Oxford and Asquith, the relative of the former Prime Minister; the Earl of Glasgow; and Lord Addington. There were six other candidates for this three-vote election: Earl Lloyd-George of Dwyfor, the great grandson of a former Prime Minister; Lord Calverley; the Earl of Carlisle; Lord Kennet; Earl Russell; and Lord Somerleyton. I have no objection to any of those individuals per se, but they obviously did not have the weight to carry the three voters, because in an election with 100% turnout, Lord Thurso got elected with 100% of the vote.

I put it to the Minister that if we were in a foreign democracy, staring across the vast ocean and looking at the United Kingdom in the 21st century, and said, “Here we have an election where only people whose great-great-great-great grandparents or other relatives were peers can stand. Here we have an election where only three people can vote, and here we have an election where 100% of those three people voted to put one person into the House of Lords,” we might look on with ridicule. If it were a foreign country, we might be looking at representations in the United Nations, sanctions for lack of democracy or pressure on that Government.

It is well and good, I hear you say. We removed in 1999 all but 92 hereditary peers from the House of Lords, and those 92 remained as a guarantee for the second stage of Lords reform. The Minister will know that the second stage of Lords reform is a long time coming. Irrespective of that, we have an opportunity to look at what we can do now.

If we look at this from outside, coldly, we see that of the 92 hereditary peers, 91 are male and only one is female. Again, I have no objection to their belonging to certain political parties, but 48 are Conservatives, 32 are Cross Benchers, four are Labour, four are Liberal Democrats, two are non-affiliated and one represents the UK Independence party. That is hardly diverse. What do they bring, in terms of diversity, to our society, apart from their accident of birth and their status?

How do these hereditary peers get their titles? I will give but three examples. Lord Abingdon’s ancestor, James Bertie, was awarded the title of Earl of Abingdon for his loyalty to the royalists during the English civil war. His father had the title of 2nd Earl of Lindsey, which he would have inherited if it was not for King James II. Lord Fairfax of Cameron is an ancestor of Thomas Fairfax, who was granted his title because he was one of the first Englishmen to go to Scotland to swear allegiance to the new King James I. I do not know about you, Mr Pritchard, but I happen to think that in the 21st century, we owe more to our democracy than to give a seat in Parliament and a vote on my constituents’ issues to someone whose ancestor happened to be the quickest person to get to Scotland from London at that time.

Lord Thurlow’s ancestor, Edward Thurlow, was granted his title in 1792. He was a Tory MP for Tamworth and Solicitor General in the Government of Lord North. That might be fine. When Lord North was in power, we had only just lost America, and yet today I believe the Minister will stand and defend—I may be wrong, and I hope I am—the idea that the ancestor of someone who was given their peerage just after we lost America should be able to make decisions that affect the people I represent. I have fought elections since 1987, winning some and losing some, to get a seat in this Parliament, and yet on the basis of a handful of votes, Lord Thurlow can sit here.

Perhaps the worst example of all, which cuts me to the quick, is the current Conservative peer Earl Attlee. He inherited his peerage as the grandson of one of the greatest Prime Ministers of all time, Clement Attlee, who fought for a Labour Government and for massive social change. Now, through the hereditary peerage, his grandson, Earl Attlee, sits in the other place and votes in a way that I know his grandfather, although I never had the privilege of meeting him, would not approve of or endorse. He would not want his grandson to vote in that way, yet under the ludicrous system that we have, that is what happens.

Following the general election, there were five by-elections before the one last week, so this is happening all the time. I say to the Minister in the four or so minutes in which I will continue to speak before handing over to him that the Government have a choice. As in all things, the Government have a choice. They could allow this to continue. They could say, “We are going to wait until we have reform of the House of Lords. We will not do anything until we get wholesale reform of the Lords.” I suspect that that is what the Minister may say today. We could, however, adopt one of two other solutions.

The noble Lord Grocott, who sits in the House of Lords as a life peer and who sat in this House for many years as your neighbouring Member of Parliament, Mr Pritchard, in Tamworth—

[Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)]

Telford.

[Mr Hanson]

Yes. Bruce Grocott was the Member for Lichfield and Tamworth originally and then came back as the Member for Telford in due course. Lord Grocott has introduced in the other place the House of Lords Act 1999 (Amendment) Bill, which says that we should stop the elections for hereditary peers now. It is a reasonable measure. Had it been implemented in 2015, the five by-elections to which I referred, plus last week’s by-election, would not have happened. This point relates to the conclusion of the hon. Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter): these peers could perhaps die off or retire and not be replaced. Lord Grocott has a live Bill in the other place. It has been discussed and debated and, surprisingly, hereditary peers tried to talk it out, but it is an option for the Minister to consider.

The Minister will know that I have in this House tabled a formal Bill, the House of Lords (Exclusion of Hereditary Peers) Bill, which adopts Lord Grocott’s proposal to allow an end to hereditary peer elections now, and includes a sunset clause date for when the hereditaries will be removed from the other place. I have given them notice that on a day in two and a half to three years’ time they will cease to be Members of that place—of the Houses of Parliament.

The Minister therefore has three choices. He could certainly leave the situation as it is, but he could also look at just stopping the by-elections or at using a sunset clause. There may be other options that I have not thought of, because those two seem to me very sensible and logical.

To go back to the contention of the hon. Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich, if the Government have decided that there will be fewer Members of Parliament—some 600—after the next election, which it is in the Government’s gift to do, but there are now some 843 Members of the House of Lords, of whom 92 are there because of their ancestors, not because of their own intrinsic merits, I think that it is time for change, and there is the potential for change there. I am talking about removing the peers and reducing the House of Lords membership. As I said in my opening comments, without abolishing the Lords, changing the method of election, touching the bishops or doing anything else, we could remove 92 peers in a very simple way by accepting Lord Grocott’s Bill or, indeed, my own.

I pray in aid the Lord Speaker, Lord Fowler, who said in The House magazine that reform had been

“hanging over the House like a cloud”.

He insisted that there was no way the Lords could defend its current size of more than 800 peers when the Prime Minister was set to reduce the size of the Commons to 600 MPs:

“I don’t think that we can justify a situation where you have over 800 peers at the same time as you’re bringing down the Commons to 600 MPs.”

He said:

“What we have to do first is to literally decide ‘what’s the number?’”

I want today to help the Minister, the Lord Speaker and the Houses of Parliament; the number could be, at the very least, 92 fewer by removing the hereditary peers or giving them notice and stopping their election, or, if the Minister wishes to maintain that policy, keeping them as they are.

As I said, the Minister is a historian. He has the chance today to make history. If he does not make history today, he will wake up one day and find himself on the wrong side of history. He should take the chance now, grab it, make a name for himself and remove hereditary peers from the House of Lords.

Immigration Bill

Debate between Lord Hanson of Flint and Mark Pritchard

Thursday 30th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hanson]

Lots of things are learned by experience, but this is an extremely serious issue. If the hon. Gentleman sees merit in our manuscript amendments (a) and (b), he should, between now and 4 o’clock, discuss that with those on his Front Bench, because I do not want to divide the House on such serious issues concerning the rights of individuals and the protection of people in the UK. I just think there is an issue here: this matter was brought to our attention late, and we want to ensure judicial oversight. I hope we can deal properly with the issue in another place, with full support and after full consultation. Let us discuss this matter genuinely.

[Mark Pritchard]

The shadow Minister is entitled to ask legitimate questions about the Bill, but does he agree with the principle of new clause 18, without necessarily knowing all the details at this stage?

[Mr Hanson]

The principle is the deprivation of the citizenship of individuals who are naturalised, and that might be a positive thing, but we would need to consider it in detail. We have only had 24 hours. I want to consider the legal implications, as well as the issues raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras. We need to look at judicial oversight and when and how notice should be given. We also need to look at what rights individuals have to appeal and what happens if someone is in another state when the decision is taken. What should be the responsibility and response of that other state? What should happen to the family? These are important issues which we need to cogitate and reflect on, and to return to in another place.