Barnsley, Doncaster, Rotherham and Sheffield Combined Authority (Election of Mayor) (Amendment) Order 2017

Lord Cormack Excerpts

Thursday 16th March 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham (Lab)]

My Lords, will the Minister accept that the biggest single obstacle to the devolution deal in areas outside big cities is the requirement to have an elected mayor, which most of the authorities do not want? For example, in Norfolk and Suffolk, we have an effective LEP arrangement between authorities without an elected mayor. The proposition for a devolution deal for Norfolk and Suffolk fell because of the requirement to have an elected mayor over two counties—most of which is rural, some of which is urban; most of which is Conservative, some of which is Labour, with UKIP and Green councillors making up the mix. The result was that there could be no agreement about what would be a rurally based elected mayor in perpetuity over the two counties of Norfolk and Suffolk, where the economic drivers for those authorities are the cities: Norwich, Ipswich and so on. If the Government were to detach the elected mayor from devolution so that where authorities wish it and they have a combined agenda, a combined outlook and perhaps a combined urban authority, doing so might be perfectly fine and make very good sense. But where there are the disparities that I have suggested in largely rural areas, such devolution deals will fall if one person is asked to be responsible for an area that is 120 miles long. Will the Minister consider detaching the requirement to have a mayor where authorities do not wish it but none the less need the powers of devolution, particularly on transport connectivity, to make their areas even more economically productive?

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, I am inspired by those words of the noble Baroness to say that she makes an extremely good point and one that would be warmly echoed in Lincolnshire where there has been a decision not to have a directly elected mayor because it is not felt suitable in such a large county and for a largely rural area. This obsession with elected mayors is frankly ridiculous. It may be appropriate in certain urban areas, although to me it is inimical to the British tradition of local government, but that is my prejudice and I readily admit it. It frankly does not sit happily in largely rural areas. For the Government to say, “You cannot have your devolution unless you have a mayor”, is a thoroughly unreasonable ultimatum.

Shortly after Mrs May became Prime Minister, I was greatly encouraged when it was noised abroad that she is not wedded to this idea. That is one divorce which I hope she will expedite because it is not a good idea in rural areas, it should not be persisted with and I hope my noble friend, while possibly rebuking the noble Baroness and me for talking about areas which are not the subject of this order, will take the message that is coming from both sides of the House and all political parties that in rural areas this is something up with which we should not need to put.

[Lord Blunkett (Lab)]

My Lords, I have a great deal of sympathy with the points just put by my noble friend Lady Hollis and the noble Lord, Lord Cormack. I shall address the order before us in relation to the Sheffield City Region. I obviously have no objection whatever to the order that is being laid. It makes sense in the light of the decision of Derbyshire County Council to take the judicial review. In this case, with some reluctance, the combined authority has agreed to an elected mayor and Chesterfield Borough Council wished to join the city region, as did Bassetlaw. Unfortunately North East Derbyshire District Council does not appear to have taken the same decision, even though travel to work, travel to leisure and the whole synergy of economic, social and cultural life would lead to the conclusion that it might in the future. Although I understand Derbyshire County Council’s desire not to see its bailiwick confined, my concern this morning is to seek confirmation from the Minister, who I have known for a very long time, that the Government will continue providing the necessary support, encouragement and facilitation for the combined authority to be able to get on with the job, both with those aspects that have been devolved and those which would follow through from a mayoral election for the city region in 2018.

There are two reasons for this. First, it is really important that the vision strategy that was published on 17 February this year should be carried into fruition rather than languish on a shelf. Secondly, as some of us east of the Pennines have recognised, the difficulty that the Leeds City Region has been having with progression means that the north of England, Greater Manchester and to some extent Merseyside are now taking the lead on what the Government came to pronounce as the northern powerhouse.

There was a great deal going on before the northern powerhouse was “invented”, including One North and combined activity on transport and economic development. But there is a real danger that having the north-west of England as the driving force—even though it is clearly welcome and flows from very sensible bottom-up drivers, particularly from Greater Manchester—will imbalance the north of England. Yorkshire has a population slightly greater than Scotland, yet because we do not have a devolved block grant, its investment from national government is confined. It is really important that the inevitable delay spelled out in this order should not preclude government working with the city region to ensure that the driving force of not just economic change but also social change is encouraged and supported rather than being held back by the inevitable delays spelled out in the order.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Cormack]

I am deeply grateful to my noble friend—he is a friend in every sense—but does he really think that one man or woman can adequately know and relate to the sort of area to which the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, referred, or to Lincolnshire, or for that matter to this extraordinary collection of towns and cities? How can one person—an elected Gauleiter—really relate?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I would put a different question to my noble friend. Given that we are going to have combined authorities—and I think that there is agreement that that is a good idea—is it better to have one elected mayor as the accountable person or what we used to have with the old metropolitan areas, where there was much less accountability than you would have with an elected mayor? As we have seen in London, an elected mayor increases accountability over and above the other alternatives that you could have in those areas.

I turn to the other specific questions that have been raised, as we are obviously not going to get agreement on that one. The noble Lord, Lord Scriven, will understand that, although I do not want to get involved in a dispute between two local authorities—it is always regrettable when there is such a dispute, as it costs taxpayers money—I hope that what we have seen in this case is a one-off, and we do not have similar problems in future. In its judgment, the court did not quash the consultation, and what is needed now is an additional consultation on Bassetlaw and Chesterfield becoming part of the area of the Sheffield City Region Combined Authority. The noble Lord asked a number of questions. It is really for local people to come to a judgment on who has let their electorate down and who has not, rather than for Ministers to pontificate from the Dispatch Box. Local leaders are accountable to local people through the ballot box and, ultimately, it will be for their electorate to judge them.

The question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, and other noble Lords—and I am grateful for what he said—was whether Sheffield City Region will still get its funding up front despite this hiccup in the process. The answer is yes. The combined authority is already in existence, and gain share funding, which is the name I understand has now been given to this pot of money, of £30 million a year can be paid to the combined authority once the consultation has been undertaken and it is clear that the councils are committed to the deal and an assurance framework agreed with government is in place. That can take place before the postponed elections of the mayor.

I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, was suggesting that Derbyshire County Council should have a veto on whether Chesterfield should join. I am glad that she shakes her head, because I do not think that it would be right for a county council to prevent a constituent district from joining a combined authority if that is what was wanted.

Then we had the point which was reinforced by my noble friend Lord Cormack about whether a mayor could represent such a diverse area. I was around when the Greater London Council was started, which included bits of Middlesex and Surrey. London is very diverse, yet we have a Mayor of London. So I am not sure that I would buy the argument that it is impossible for a mayor to represent an area that has a diversity in it.

Higher Education and Research Bill

Lord Cormack Excerpts

Report: 3rd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 13th March 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bradley (Lab)]

I strongly support Amendment 150, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, and others. The noble Lord rightly posed the question, “Why should we bother?”. As a former associate vice-president of the University of Manchester and now an honorary special adviser to that university, I am well aware of the huge benefit of international students to it and to the city of Manchester and of why they should not be treated as long-term economic migrants to the UK. As we have heard, there are currently 437,000 international students studying in the United Kingdom, including 125,000 from the EU. There are currently nearly 11,000 international students studying at the University of Manchester and a further 2,500 EU students. As we have heard, the Government’s international education strategy, published in 2013, estimated that international students brought £13.6 billion into the economy in 2011. For Manchester, direct income from international students—for fees alone—will be £200 million in 2016-17. Furthermore, Universities UK estimates that international students lead to the creation of over 170,000 jobs across the United Kingdom. Independent analysis undertaken by Viewforth Consulting found that the University of Manchester’s international students created over 1,100 jobs in the local Manchester economy.

International students allow UK students to appreciate diversity and develop a global perspective. They also act as great ambassadors for Manchester and the United Kingdom when they return to their home countries. Manchester has contact with over 400,000 alumni, of whom 25% are based outside the UK, including many in leading positions in business, government and universities. I have been proud to visit Manchester alumni in Hong Kong, China, South Korea and many other parts of the world. A recent poll before the last general election indicated that 91% of the British public think that international students should be able to stay and work for a period after their graduation. We should do nothing to further undermine the attractiveness of British universities for such international students. As we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, and others, the arguments are unanswerable. Please will the Government at last recognise the value of such students to Britain and accept Amendment 150?

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, I support the amendment moved so ably by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay. I was not able to speak to his amendment in Committee, but I supported a similar one moved by my noble friend Lord Lucas. We have an ideal amendment before the House tonight. I declare an interest as a senior associate member for over 20 years of St Anthony’s College, Oxford. It is a wonderful example of an international postgraduate college, bringing in people from all over the world, many of whom go back to their native countries to occupy positions of influence and leadership. We must do nothing to deter that.

If we want evidence of the fragile state of feeling in our universities and academic circles, we need do no more than pick up this morning’s Times in which there is a letter signed by the vice-chancellor of Oxford University and the heads of 35 colleges. You may say—and you may be right—that some of their fears are exaggerated and misplaced. I sincerely hope they are, but they are nevertheless real. Anything that we can do, at this difficult stage, to reinforce confidence in academic circles must be helpful.

I do not doubt for a moment what my noble friend Lord Younger has often said. I have a high regard for him: he is a man of utter probity and integrity. However, it is not good enough repeatedly to say that there is no bar on students—that they can come as often and in as many numbers as they like—but then say, as other Ministers do, “But of course we have to look at immigration figures”. Those coming to this country as students conflate those two statements and believe that there is a risk. This evening, we can, to coin a phrase, prove at a stroke that there is not a risk by saying that they will be separately counted and not part of the overall figures. We should do no less. I very much hope that we will pass the amendment tonight and indicate to those in another place that we would like them to examine it. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, does not claim any exclusive rights to the wording of his amendment but we want to see something, in one form or another, that echoes it to be incorporated in the Bill before it becomes an Act of Parliament.

[Lord Smith of Finsbury (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 150. At Pembroke College, Cambridge, where I have the honour of being Master, some 10% of our undergraduates and 30% of our postgraduates are international students from beyond the EU. They add enormously to the well-being and distinction of the college. The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, made the financial case very clearly; the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, made the soft power case very clearly; the noble Lord, Lord Broers, made the industrial case very clearly. I would add that there is a very strong educational case as well.

Having international students among the mix of students at our university adds enormously to the quality of the students’ educational experience. They share with each other, learn from each other, associate with each other and hear from people of different backgrounds with different experiences and from different parts of the world. The education that comes from the ability to do that and from that richness could not be replicated by the best teaching. It comes only from being among, and sharing with, students from very different national backgrounds. That is an enormously important part of the value of our higher education in this country. Let us make sure that we keep that. This amendment is one way of doing it.

Voter Registration

Lord Cormack Excerpts

Wednesday 25th January 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham]

My Lords, there were three questions there. On the first, I am all in favour of what is called the nudge, so that when people get notified of their national insurance number they are also encouraged to vote. As for Sheffield, two weeks ago, on the Higher Education and Research Bill, we had a very good debate on the Sheffield initiative, which was part-funded by the Government. We are in the process of analysing that initiative to learn the lessons from it, and when we have done that we will be in touch with other further and higher education institutions to see whether that is the right model for them, or whether there are other models that might work even better. We are determined to do all we can to ensure that no individual is left behind and no community is unregistered to vote.

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, I ask my noble friend a question that I have asked his predecessors many times. What is the logical case against compulsory registration, particularly bearing in mind that it is technically an offence if you do not register?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I understand that, technically, it is not an offence if you do not register. It is an offence if you do not reply to some correspondence from the electoral registration officer. I am sorry to disappoint my noble friend, but I will give him exactly the same answer that he received from my noble friend at the Dispatch Box a few weeks ago. We have no plans to introduce compulsory registration.

House of Lords Act 1999 (Amendment) Bill [HL]

Lord Cormack Excerpts

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Friday 9th December 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Trefgarne]

My Lords, Amendment 1 appears on the Marshalled List in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Caithness. The reason why my noble friend and I, particularly myself—again, I must not speak for him—have such strong views on the Bill relates to what happened in 1999. At that time the House of Lords Bill, as it then was, came to your Lordships. It had no provision for hereditary Peers’ by-elections or temporary membership at all. It just removed the hereditary Peers in one fell swoop. After a lot of discussion, it was agreed there would be a remaining number of hereditary Peers and they would remain by virtue of the by-elections, which are now the subject of the Bill. To secure that, we had to make it clear that we would have had grave difficulty with the Bill had it not had those changes made to it.

The terms on which those changes were made were confirmed by the then noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to be “binding in honour” on those who gave their assent to them until such time as House of Lords reform is complete. That was the undertaking given at that time. I agree with those undertakings. When the House of Lords Reform Bill came before Parliament three or four years ago for a largely elected House, I was not opposed to it and would not have sought to object to it, at least not in principle. That is not what happened. That Bill foundered in the other place, as your Lordships will recall. That is why we are very much not in favour of this Bill—in fact, we are wholly opposed to it—because it is piecemeal reform, to which we profoundly disagree.

The number of hereditary Peers was set at 92 back in 1999. It has remained 92 ever since. Since then, the number of life Peers has increased beyond all recognition, but that is another matter. In the meantime, I beg to move the amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper.

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, last Friday we had a debate introduced by the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury that saw this House at its best. On Monday we had a debate on aspects of the future of your Lordships’ House that again saw this House at its best. There is a real danger that this House is going to look absurd today.

We have some 60 amendments. Those who decided to put them down have clearly not agreed to their being grouped. That means we will have debate after debate. And to what purpose? At the end of the Second Reading on 9 September, my noble friend Lady Chisholm of Owlpen made it abundantly plain that this was not a Bill that the Government could support. I personally regretted that. I know the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, regretted it deeply. After all, he was not seeking to remove anyone from your Lordships’ House. He sought to bring to an end a system of by-elections, where we had, just prior to that, had the ludicrous spectacle of three electors choosing from seven candidates—something that could hardly reflect great credit on your Lordships’ House.

This is not an attack on hereditary Peers, many of whom have given staunch and sterling service to your Lordships’ House. Among the Ministers on the Front Bench at the moment—not at this precise moment, although we have one of them—are a number of hereditary Peers who give public service of the highest quality and excellence. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Trefgarne himself has been a distinguished Minister and is at the moment chairman of an important committee. He surely cannot wish this House to look ridiculous.

There is a case for saying that what was agreed in 1999 should remain. I accept that it is a strong case. I believe that there are things that could be done to make it less absurd. For instance, if a retiring or deceased Peer had been an officer of the House, everyone could have a vote. We could turn the House into an electoral college or, more sensibly perhaps, all the Members of the various groups, be they Cross Bench, Labour, Liberal Democrat or Conservative, could vote for vacancies. At least then you would have a three-figure electorate. To approach it in the way being suggested this morning can do nothing other than risk making this House look ridiculous. There is a real debate to be had and there are real points that can be made, but some of the amendments down today would certainly qualify for a parliamentary entry in Trivial Pursuit.

I do not intend to detain your Lordships long, but I urge the House to have a mind to its reputation. We are concerned about that. Those of us who believe passionately in the role of this House, as many of us tried to spell out on Monday of this week, do not wish to see our reputation trashed, least of all trashed from within. I hope that we can come to a reasonably speedy conclusion today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I apologise for intervening, but I had a small walk-on part—not as distinguished as that of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt—in 1999 and remember well the statesmanlike endeavour undertaken by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine, and the then Lord Cranborne, now the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury. They effected an extremely difficult compromise, which did not give satisfaction on all sides, to enable an important piece of constitutional reform to go forward. It was a distinguished piece of statesmanship, a compromise was made and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine, said at the time in this House that it would remain “binding in honour” on all those who had taken any part in it. When I first came to this House, I was told that the one thing that a Member of your Lordships’ House had to do was to stand on his or her honour. I would therefore find it extremely difficult, short of the final reform of this House, to accept the removal and breaking of that compromise which enabled a great piece of legislation to be passed by the party opposite.

It is disappointing that a mugging party has arisen attacking my noble friend even before we have entered fully into the debate on this subject. It is not much of a filibuster by my noble friend, who spoke for just two minutes. I have heard more effective filibusters in my time.

I would hope that a sensible spirit of compromise could emerge. I discussed these matters with the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, and I understand that people opposed to the hereditary principle want to see it removed from the House. Most hereditary Peers I speak to—I should make it clear to those who are not aware that I am certainly not a hereditary Peer— do not object to the principle being removed from the House. The question is how, when and in what circumstances.

I concede that another reason why you might wish to remove hereditary Peers—I know that the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, does not have this purpose—is to secure some party advantage. Clearly, these Benches and the Cross-Benches have more to lose from the removal of the hereditary Peers than the Labour Party or the Liberals. There is a party political issue that needs to be discussed. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, would consider that, but it is another matter to be considered.

I am pleased that the Government said—if it is what they said—that this Bill should not go forward. This chip needs to remain on the table. Of course, the ultimate intention of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine, and my noble friend Lord Salisbury at the time was that we would get to a place where the House would be reformed.

My noble friend Lord Cormack is a rather more regular speaker than I am, so perhaps he will allow me some comment on this subject. He said what a scandal it is that some Peers are here on only three votes but I am here on the vote of one person, by patronage. We should be a bit more cautious in being high and mighty about the methods by which certain noble Lords get here, when each one of us was happy enough to catch the eye of a selector, be it Tony Blair, Mr Ashdown, Mr Cameron or whoever it might have been.

The hereditary system we have now is a funny one but I have only one amendment tabled and that is to draw attention to the disproportionate representation of the very Benches that said, “Hear, hear”, when my noble friend Lord Cormack said that it was pretty odd that the hereditary Peers are here. I think it is pretty odd that there are a hundred of those chaps over there.

[Lord Cormack]

I said no such thing. I did not say that it was odd that they were here. I paid particular tribute to what they do. The Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, does not make any of them leave. I am concerned about the reputation of the House and the method by which they are selected. Also, I made it quite plain that the Government said the Bill would not pass, so why the worry?

[Lord True]

My Lords, I am responding to three speeches that said it was quite unnecessary for my noble friend Lord Trefgarne to do what he is doing. I will bring my remarks to a conclusion. I will leave the point of honour before the House. I will leave the point of selection by patronage before the House. I will leave the point that by pushing hereditary Peers out of the House, you will not end the House of Lords question. All that will happen is that we lose the successors of some very effective people in this House.

I just add one other thing. I have here before me what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine, said on 30 March 1999. I agreed strongly with it then and agree with it now. One of the things we discussed in the official group was how the hereditary Peers should be replaced while this compromise continued. The noble and learned Lord, and the Government, said they were not prepared to accept a system whereby Members of this House would choose who stayed and who came in, in what he described as “rather invidious” club rules. In fact, he spoke of,

“The rather invidious proposition that life Peers should have a vote in these elections and pass judgment on the comparative merits of their … colleagues”.—[Official Report, 30/3/1999; col. 207.]

Many of those who wish to end the election of hereditary Peers under the system we have now are the very same people who want a system where life Peers in this place pass judgment on who should stay—where the awkward squad and those who are independent minded might be pushed out. As this debate goes forward, that proposition deserves every bit as much scrutiny as the role and place of hereditary Peers in this House.

To conclude, I will stand on the point of honour. I have only one amendment and have not made a filibuster but made points that I believe are of great importance and which remain as valid today as they did in 1999.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen]

I have nothing to add to what I said earlier.

[Lord Cormack]

My Lords, in the 46 years I have been in this building, no Private Member’s Bill has ever got on to the statute book if the Government were opposed to it. We should bring these proceedings to a close.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach (Con)]

My Lords, I believe that the following business is tabled for two o’clock. Does the noble Lord agree that the House should adjourn and that the debate on this Bill should be concluded?

Franchise: British Citizens Abroad

Lord Cormack Excerpts

Thursday 20th October 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen]

My Lords, the noble Lord has slightly got me on that one. I will have to write to him.

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, has it occurred to my noble friend that, had we given due priority to this manifesto commitment, British history might be a little different?

[Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen]

This has nothing to do with the EU referendum. That was run under the Westminster franchise. This is a completely different set of rules, and the idea is to bring it in with primary and secondary legislation.

Electoral Fraud

Lord Cormack Excerpts

Monday 12th September 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen]

I think there were two questions there. Sir Eric, as the anticorruption champion and as a former Minister for communities and local government, is the ideal person for the job. He has taken a close interest in election fraud for many years and noble Lords who have read the report will surely agree that it has been conducted in a completely independent way. On the second question, there are indeed vulnerable people who are not on the register; that is why the Government have funded civil society organisations to engage with groups which are known to be reluctant to register. In fact, the Cabinet Office is supporting an innovative research project in Grampian, which is looking into how trusted data sources can be used to target canvassing activity more effectively. We are also exploring ways to limit the number of frequent home movers who drop off the register, particularly those in the private rental sector, by piloting ways effectively to move your home address on to the electoral register when using local authority services, such as council tax.

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, I ask my noble friend yet again: what is the logical argument against compulsory registration? There are penalties for those who do not register; surely it is right to make this compulsory.

[Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen]

We do not plan to make registration compulsory.

House of Lords Act 1999 (Amendment) Bill [HL]

Lord Cormack Excerpts

Friday 9th September 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, I am delighted to welcome the Bill, which has been introduced this morning very ably and succinctly by the noble Lord, Lord Grocott. He is a regular attender at the Campaign for an Effective Second Chamber meetings, which I have the honour of chairing and to which the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, referred. For a long time we have felt that this House does need significant reform. But we all believe very strongly in an appointed, non-elected second Chamber; one that will not challenge what I call the unambiguous democratic mandate of the House of Commons.

When something becomes ridiculous, it can no longer command respect. I cannot help but look back to the days when I used to teach 19th-century history and, in order to emphasise the need for the Great Reform Act 1832, one always cited the rotten boroughs, the rottenest of which was Old Sarum—which, ironically, is not a million miles from Avebury, from which the late Lord, or his forebear, took his title. The late Lord Avebury was a great servant of this House. Sarum was a rotten borough, electing two Members of Parliament with a tiny handful of electors, and, only a little while ago, Lord Avebury’s sad death led to that completely ridiculous election to which the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, referred.

I did not go along with much of what the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, said, but he referred to the election of my noble friend the Duke of Wellington, who is already making a significant contribution to this House. Again, the votes came to about 30, of which he got 21.

We have to address matters that make us look faintly ridiculous. I want to see the time—I hope it will not be long distant—when the wishes and views of the Campaign for an Effective Second Chamber come to pass and we address the issues of the numbers in and appointments to this House and deal with the issues encompassed in the first Bill introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood. That Bill was significantly watered down—it had to be because there was no appetite for it—and my noble friends Lord Trefgarne and Lord Caithness took a prominent part in ensuring that the part of the Steel Bill that referred to the hereditary by-elections was removed. In order to get something through, those of us who had been involved in drawing up that Bill and helping the noble Lord, Lord Steel, agreed that we would get through the retirement provision and divest the Bill of all other provisions. That retirement provision has already brought some benefit to your Lordships’ House and will doubtless bring further benefit in the future.

We then had the further incremental reform in the Bill introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, in the previous Session or the Session before, which enables your Lordships’ House to expel Members who have behaved in a way which is incompatible with the standards and dignity of this House.

Incremental reform is good and this Bill is yet another episode of it. The best thing about the Bill is that it does not challenge the position or the continued participation of those of our colleagues who are hereditary Peers, many of whom, including my noble friend Lord Trefgarne, make a significant contribution. My noble friend Lord Trefgarne chairs an important committee of your Lordships’ House. He can continue doing that. His position is in no danger or jeopardy if this Bill is passed.

The only thing I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, is that we need to separate the 90 from the two. We live in a hereditary monarchy and we have two hereditary officers of state who attend your Lordships’ House to perform their official functions. Neither of them play a part in debates because they do not believe that that is their duty. They should be separated and the Bill should concentrate on the 90, the future of each one of whom—whether here since the passage of the 1999 Act, like my noble friend Lord Elton, or having joined subsequently as a result of a by-election—is secure in your Lordships’ House until the individual Peer decides to retire or, sadly, dies.

We have already, in effect, abolished the hereditary principle because none of those men or women will be succeeded by a son or a daughter. The preposterous by-election system to which we have referred—with its tiny handful of electors and, in the case of the most recent, with significantly more candidates than electors—needs to go. I sincerely hope that the work of the Campaign for an Effective Second Chamber, supported, as the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, said, by some 300 Members of both Houses, will continue—and we are determined to continue—to bring other suggestions for reform before your Lordships’ House.

We hope soon to concentrate on the issue of numbers. We believe passionately that there should be a cap on numbers and that this House should not be larger than the other place. We believe that no party political group—those receiving the whip of a political party—should ever be able to have an overall majority in your Lordships’ House. We believe that there should always be 20%, at least, of Cross-Bench Peers. These are our principles. This is what we stand for. I hope that we will move in that direction very soon indeed.

[Lord Elton]

Perhaps my noble friend will allow me to make it clear that I entirely subscribe to all those beliefs. I am merely saying that until they are achieved, we are here to see that nothing less powerful succeeds.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Cormack]

I am sorry to disagree with my noble friend on this small issue because he is a most valuable member of the campaign. He regularly attends our meetings and speaks in support of many of the things to which I have just referred. However, in his speech, it was as if it was the hereditary Peers who were securing the independence of the House of Lords. They play a valuable part in it but that is taking it a bit too far. Of course, his own position is entirely secure. He can remain in your Lordships’ House until he retires or is summoned by his Maker. There is no danger to his position or to anyone else’s.

The noble Lord, Lord Grocott, has introduced a modest measure. My noble friend Lord Norton made a brief but precise speech. He, of course, acts as the convenor of the Campaign for an Effective Second Chamber. We formed it together in 2001 because we wanted to see off attempts to replace your Lordships’ House with a pale imitation of the House of Commons and a Chamber which could only, if it were elected, have within it the seeds for gridlock and the frustration of the constitutional will of this country.

We strongly believe in the function of scrutiny, which your Lordships’ House performs with great effectiveness. We have within it people with vastly varied expertise and experience who can bring to debates on issues of foreign affairs and others a new perspective which is far different from the other end of the Corridor but never challenges the supremacy of the elected House.

That is our belief. I hope it is shared by most noble Lords and that the House will see the modest measure introduced today by the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, as a step in the right direction.

Record Copies of Acts of Parliament

Lord Cormack Excerpts

Monday 11th July 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bridges of Headley]

I gently say again that this is a matter for both Houses. It is a matter for the committee of this House and the committee of the other House to come to some agreement on. I am delighted, though, that the Labour Party is now looking to save money; this is a great turn up for the books. As I say, this is not a matter for government. We have made an offer but it is up to the Houses to decide.

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, may I, for once, cross swords with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt? Will my noble friend take very carefully into account what the other place has so very sensibly decided? Should this not have a united parliamentary response, whereby we acknowledge the supremacy of the elected House?

[Lord Bridges of Headley]

As I say, that is very much the position. The position is as I have just said, and we have to await the outcome of the committee this afternoon.

Electoral Status: Online Access

Lord Cormack Excerpts

Wednesday 15th June 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bridges of Headley]

The noble Lord makes a good, practical point. I have had conversations with other agencies across government about precisely that, and we are actively considering how we can use the regular communications that government undertakes with individuals. However, I am told that, where this has been piloted in the past, there has been a problem with mixed messages—in other words, a call to action to do one thing can be confused with a call to action to do another. But the noble Lord is absolutely right and it is a matter that I continue to look at.

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, I return yet again to the subject of compulsory registration. There are penalties for not registering. What conceivable logic is there in not having compulsory registration? It is not the same as compulsory voting, even though some of us might think that there is merit in that. Can we please look at this again?

[Lord Bridges of Headley]

I am sure that we will continue to discuss and debate this matter, but the Government believe that active engagement on registering to vote is preferable. The success of the new individual electoral registration system shows that it is making it easier to register to vote. Between the unfortunate downtime at 10 pm last Tuesday and the close of the registration period on Thursday night, for example, there were more than 453,000 applications.

Queen’s Speech

Lord Cormack Excerpts

Tuesday 24th May 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, it is a great honour and pleasure to follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, and his extremely perceptive speech.

The sentence that has now been quoted several times bears repetition:

“My Ministers will uphold the sovereignty of Parliament and the primacy of the House of Commons”.

No one in your Lordships’ House would dissent from that. So what do they really mean? We had an inkling from my noble friend Lord Faulks when he opened the debate. He made passing reference to the Strathclyde review and talked about the three Select Committee reports, but did not expand on that. Three Select Committees of your Lordships’ House, each of them chaired by a senior member of the government party, said in effect that my noble friend Lord Strathclyde had got it wrong, that there was no case for legislation but that the House should address the issues. Of course, the fundamental problem was that, in a fit of pique, my noble friend Lord Strathclyde was asked by the Executive to sort out the Lords. Now, that really is not the job of the Executive.

I have said many times in this House, but it bears repetition, that the Government are answerable to Parliament and Parliament is not answerable to the Government. Our duty is not to make life convenient for the Government but to examine critically and scrutinise minutely the legislation they place before us. During this past year, some mildly imperfect legislation has been placed before us. We had—in the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, though I have used the expression myself—Christmas tree Bills, where the baubles are hung on. We had preparation for a whole series of Henry VIII clauses, giving extra executive power to Ministers, and therefore negating to a degree our job. Our job is not to make life easy or convenient for the Government, on whatever side they sit, but to try to ensure that the imperfect measures they send us are made a little less imperfect. The housing Bill and Trade Union Bill were not particularly brilliant Bills, but they left your Lordships’ House in a far better state. I say to my noble friends on the Front Bench that nothing was lost. The Government got their business through. On the notorious case of tax credits, the Government dropped their business there because they decided they did not want to pursue that.

The balance must be redressed between Parliament and the Executive. The noble Lord, Lord Butler, made the point in his brilliant speech that this is not just a question of Parliament and the Executive but also concerns the relations between the two Houses. I make a plea to my noble friends on the Front Bench—particularly to my noble friend Lord Bridges who will reply to the debate—that they say to the Leader of the House, who seemed to dismiss the idea when we had a debate on the Strathclyde review, that three Select Committees of your Lordships’ House talked about the virtues of a Joint Committee of both Houses. The noble Lord, Lord Richard, made reference to this. We need a committee composed of Members of both Houses to look at the whole issue of secondary legislation.

If this House is to have any point or purpose at all—I believe it has both—then it must have the ability, in all matters legislative, both primary and secondary, to say to the other place and through it to the Government, “You must think again”. Of course, at the end of the day, the will of the elected House must prevail. The elected House, in these unexceptional words, is indeed supreme. We acknowledge that, but that does not mean that we do not have a real role, purpose and duty to look at legislation. We must look at it in a way that enables us to say, “Think again”, and to improve that legislation. Let us move forward in a constructive manner between the two Houses, with the Government acknowledging that they are answerable to Parliament—to both Houses of Parliament, especially to the Commons but also to this House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bridges of Headley]

The noble Lord, as always, makes a very incisive point. All I can say right now is that the Government are working on their response and will respond in due course to all these points. The eloquence with which he and the noble Lords, Lord Kakkar and Lord Butler, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, have spoken shows that when, in due course, this happens, we will have a passionate and well-informed debate on the issue.

[Lord Cormack]

May I gently ask, is “in due course” expected to be soon?

[Lord Bridges of Headley]

Ah, I am told by a noble friend that it will be “shortly”; let us see. I know that it is being awaited with avid anticipation. Before I leave the subject, I would like to talk about the point raised by a number of noble Lords about the need to tackle the size and composition of the House of Lords. Obviously, these are important questions, which is why my noble friend the Leader of the House has convened cross-party talks regarding the way forward. Those talks have been constructive and there are plenty of ideas around, as we heard tonight.