House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Debate between Earl of Caithness and Lord Mancroft

3rd reading
Monday 21st July 2025 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Caithness (Con)]

My Lords, I have long supported the abolition of the right of hereditary Peers to sit in your Lordships’ House. I have said it in the House before and I meant it. There were two reasons why I did not like the legislation previously brought forward. The first is that they were Private Members’ Bills. A reform of this nature should be a government Bill, and it is quite right that the Government have got their way on it.

The second reason is that I am disappointed that we hereditaries have failed in one respect. In 1999, the then Lord Chancellor the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, said to me, “One of the reasons we’ve kept you is to ensure that the Labour Party fulfil their manifesto commitment to reform the House of Lords”. Well, we know that that manifesto commitment was not fulfilled, and it must have been quite hard for some noble Lords to have taken part in and listened to some of the excellent speeches and debates we have had on the Bill. I mention just two: my noble friends Lady Mobarik and Lord Shinkwin, who gave speeches about prejudice at Second Reading.

I thank noble Lords opposite for their kind words to me about how sad they will be to see the hereditaries go. I enjoyed those conversations until they petered out when I said, “Well, you could have done something about it”.

I should also thank the noble Lords opposite, particularly the influx of Labour Peers who came here in 1999. When I first took my seat here, I could claim a maximum daily allowance of £4.73, which is worth £105.14 in today’s money. In 2000-01, after numerous attempts to improve our expenses, they suddenly increased hugely. Our maximum daily claimable allowance went up 50% within a year, and the amount that we could claim—we cannot anymore—for our office, secretarial and research costs for non-sitting days nearly doubled. That was a bonus for me. Like many Peers who took their seat on their Front Bench, I took a substantial reduction in my salary, so the increase in expenses was welcome. I am extremely grateful to the Labour Peers who enabled that.

[Lord Mancroft (Con)]

My Lords, when I made a short intervention at an earlier stage in the Bill, the noble Baroness the Leader of the House, in reply, questioned—not seriously, I hope—whether or not I still liked her. The answer is that of course I do. I hold the noble Baroness in the greatest respect and indeed affection, as does the whole House, and that respect and affection is unaltered by the passage of the Bill. We on this side of the House do not bear personal grudges against political opponents merely because they are enacting decisions with which we may disagree. I accept, as do my noble friends, that the Government are fully entitled to get their business through and pass their manifesto legislation, even if I do not like it. The Bill removes the process by which new Peers can join the House by further by-elections. We accept that, albeit reluctantly.

But nowhere in the Labour manifesto did it state that currently sitting Members of the House would be summarily removed, which is an additional measure and sets a bad and, in my view, dangerous precedent whereby the Executive can simply remove Members of the second Chamber by dint of their majority in the first—an unheard-of provision that exists in no other modern democracy. The noble Lord, Lord Grocott, said that it would be absurd to suggest that this precedent would ever be repeated, but I suspect he is wrong, as he and his noble friends may well find out to their discomfort and cost in the not-too-distant future.

As this Bill enters its final stages, I ask the noble Baroness the Leader in turn whether she still likes me, or whether there something I have done that so deeply offends her that I and my noble friends should be thrown out of this House like discarded rubbish? We often talk of the dignity of the House, but I cannot think of anything less dignified for the House than what the Government are now doing in this Bill.

I would like to think that I have done my duty over the past almost 40 years. I certainly believe we have stuck to our side of the deal that we made 25 years ago with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine, on behalf of the Labour Party—not a deal that tied the hands of a future Government, as has been claimed, but on which, to their shame, this Government are now reneging.

The House is currently wrestling with the provisions of the Employment Rights Bill. The Government are concerned with the rights of those on short-term contracts but at the same time apparently care little for those of us who have worked here with no formal contract. Although none of us in this House is technically employed to serve as Members of the House, it would be difficult to argue that this is not a place of work, or even part-time work. I suppose one could argue that our Letters Patent and Writs of Summons, taken together, constitute at least some form of agreement. Either way, we are now to be treated in a way that no one else in employment or in any workplace in Britain can be treated. It is rightly illegal to sack anyone on the basis of their birth, except here in the upper House of this Mother of Parliaments.

Before I go, I would be very grateful if the noble Baroness the Leader could tell me exactly what it is that we have done that is so wrong as to deserve being treated in this way. The noble Lord, Lord Grocott, has repeatedly gone out of his way to say that this is not personal, but he is wrong, because it is very personal to each and every one of us to be treated like this by those we considered our friends and colleagues. It is also deeply offensive. I would simply like to know why. Is that really too much to ask?

Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill [HL]

Debate between Earl of Caithness and Lord Mancroft

3rd reading
Monday 13th December 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Mancroft (Con)]

I start by thanking my noble friend Lord Herbert for taking the trouble to move his amendment today and giving us an opportunity to say a few words in the dying moments of the Bill. I also apologise to your Lordships for my failure to move my amendments last week on Report. As my noble friend on the Front Bench said, I was knocked over by Covid, but whether I jumped up like Lazarus I am not entirely sure. I think the reason that I am back so rapidly is that my wife was sick of having me about the house, but I am awfully glad to be back in your Lordships’ House anyway.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, just said, this Bill introduces the concept of sentience into English law for the first time, despite the fact that it has been the basis for 150 years of very sound animal welfare legislation, so you might wonder why we need to put it on the statute book today. I suggest we probably do not. It also sets up a new animal welfare committee—the animal sentience committee—despite the fact that we have three very good committees looking at animal welfare at the moment, each of which could have fulfilled the tasks set for this committee, so you might wonder why we want this.

As the noble Baroness also said, this is a revising Chamber, except that the Government have chosen to ignore all the suggestions made by Members of this House on all sides, as she said: the noble Lord, Lord Trees, whose knowledge of veterinary science can hardly be equalled; the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, who I do not think is in her place today, but who put forward some very important points; and the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, herself, on the other side of the House, who made very reasoned amendments and suggestions to this House—as everybody did—none of which were politically based at all.

I have done as much research as I can, and I believe that this is the first statutory committee set up by statute which has no statutory terms of reference. The Government recognised this when it was raised in Committee, and so between Committee and Report they introduced 27 pages of terms of reference for the committee that they propose to set up. But they are not statutory; they can be altered by any official or Minister at the stroke of a pen. They have absolutely no basis in law; they are effectively legislatively worthless.

The Government have argued throughout that this is a minor measure of very little significance—in which case, why have your Lordships been bothered with it for four long, paralysingly boring days? I do not think it is a measure of little significance. Like my noble friend Lord Herbert, I think it is a potentially very dangerous measure that will come back to bite this Government—or, more particularly, future Governments—as the years go by. This House will regret the fact that we have passed it without any amendment and have allowed ourselves to be rolled over.

There is little support for this measure on the Government Benches. I have looked very carefully, but I have seen very little support for it on the Opposition Benches. In fact, I have seen very little support for it anywhere except on the Front Benches, where a rather unsavoury deal has been stitched up to allow this to go to the other place without a single amendment, despite the care and attention which your Lordships have given the Bill. It is the tradition in this House that we send Bills to the other place with good will; we wish them a fair wind. I do not wish this Bill a fair wind. I hope the other place does the duty that we should have done and changes it very considerably or, better still, destroys it completely. Failing that, I hope that a sensible Secretary of State in future fails to enact it.

[The Earl of Caithness (Con)]

My Lords, I, too, support what my noble friend Lord Herbert said. I underline a point made by my noble friend Lord Mancroft. This sets a parliamentary precedent in the appointment of statutory committees which could have huge ramifications for future Bills. The Government will be able to say that we do not need to set out the statutory terms of reference for the committee because we already have the precedent of this Bill.

I am sorry that my noble friend Lord Benyon has had to take this Bill through the House. It should have been another Minister. My noble friend was absolutely right when he said that he has had to drive it through the House. He has not looked right; he has not looked straight ahead. He has looked left. He rightly paid tribute to his co-driver, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock.

Finally, I am disappointed that I have not yet received a reply from my noble friend to the questions I posed on Report. I hope that he will expedite those.

Wild Animals in Circuses (No. 2) Bill

Debate between Earl of Caithness and Lord Mancroft

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 3rd July 2019 Grand Committee

[The Earl of Caithness]

I am grateful for what my noble friend said; I am sure that my friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, will be only too pleased that it is now officially on the record. My noble friend has gone further than he did at Second Reading, and it is much better for it to be on the record than just said in a formerly smoke-filled room.

[Lord Mancroft]

My Lords, I am most grateful to all noble Lords who took part in the debate. Although I was not at Second Reading, as I said earlier, I read it carefully, of course, so it is not complete news to me. Of course, I accept fully what the Minister says. However, I have always thought that it is better to put things like this in the Bill rather than in guidance. Apart from anything else, courts like clarity, and something is a great deal clearer in the Bill than in guidance.

I understand too that the object of the Bill is narrowly focused on travelling circuses. I still wrestle with why it is so appalling to be in a travelling circus, but it is perfectly all right to own something or use it for films or TV. Presumably, these animals will have to travel to the TV or film set, just as they do when they are travelling with a circus. I wonder if the zebus or zebras will know whether they are in a circus or part of an educational visit—I wonder whether I would know that.

Nevertheless, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.