Gaza: Ceasefire

Lord Grocott Excerpts

Tuesday 18th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords—

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

My Lords—

[Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)]

We will hear from the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, next and then from my noble friend Lord Grocott.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

As I have repeatedly said to the noble Lord in this Chamber, we are committed to building a future where the Palestinian Authority is the authority for all Occupied Territories and it is defended and protected to do its job. There is no role for Hamas in the future of Gaza.

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

My Lords, is not the overwhelming natural reaction to the news that we have heard today to ask: how much longer must this slaughter continue? Let us add the 400 deaths reported so far to the 48,000 that have already taken place—including 11,000 children and several hundred children under the age of 12 months, who presumably were not members of Hamas. If this does not include serious breaches of international humanitarian law, then it is time that someone started rewriting the humanitarian law law book.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I think my noble friend knows that we have considered the risk of breach of humanitarian law and have taken action to mitigate that risk. I also want to stress how we have worked with allies. On 5 March, together with France and Germany, we expressed our deep concern at Israel’s halt on aid to Gaza and urged it to lift restrictions. The Foreign Secretary also made this clear to the Israeli Foreign Minister during their call on 5 March. On 28 January, the then Minister for Development announced a further £17 million of healthcare aid. The situation is no doubt dire. We cannot see the return to the violence we have seen before. We want this ceasefire to hold. We want to see the return of hostages and we are doing everything we can with our allies to ensure that that is the case.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Lord Grocott Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 12th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

My Lords, like a number of noble Lords, I have sat here with Trappist vows avoiding contributions that might prolong the debate further. However, having listened to the whole of our debate on the first group, which took one hour and 10 minutes—and to the noble Lord, Lord Newby, saying in our debate on that first group that we should be careful to ensure that we try to see ourselves in the way we are viewed from outside—I think that we need to reflect on a couple of simple facts.

One is that this is a five-clause Bill. Everyone knows that no organisation is happier than when it is talking about itself. We have been demonstrating this—testing it to destruction, in fact—during our debate on this Bill so far. A simple five-clause Bill would not normally have an attendance such as this on the second day in Committee. So far, up to today, we have discussed 10 groups of amendments. There are 32 groups left to discuss, assuming that there is no further degrouping. We are averaging five groups a day per session. Members can do the maths better than I can but, at this rate of progress, we shall be debating this Bill for Committee day after Committee day.

Some of us will no doubt enjoy ourselves, as we all like talking about our own organisation and how we work, but, in relation to other matters that the Lords should be considering on the Floor of the House, to spend another six, seven, eight or more days on this Bill, as these stats suggest we will do, repeating arguments that have been heard on numerous occasions—as the right reverend Prelate pointed out, 90% of them are, we know, not directly related to the Bill, and some of them will, in any event, come forward at a later time—we really need, if we want to be seen as relevant and persuasive in the eyes of the public, to do better today than debating just five groups of amendments. Bearing in mind that I have spent precisely two minutes and 42 seconds speaking and do not intend to speak again, I hope that we will have the good sense to get through this Committee stage at a dramatically speedier rate than we have managed so far.

[Lord Strathclyde (Con)]

My Lords, can I just reply to the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, on what I thought was a disobliging and wholly unnecessary speech? He said that this is a five-clause Bill and does not therefore need much discussion. Well, I can remember—I expect that the noble Lord can as well—the Maastricht Bill of some years ago, which was four clauses long. The House was full every day and night, and this went on for a great deal of time. It was an important constitutional issue. This, too, is an important constitutional issue. The difference between me and the noble Lord is that he thinks this Bill is about getting rid of the hereditary Peers, while I think it is about creating a wholly appointed House, which we have never had before, with the appointments in the hands of the Prime Minister. That is why many of the amendments taken today and on previous days are so important.

There is no attempt to try to filibuster this debate. The noble Lord, Lord Grocott, cannot point to any individual who has spoken for very long. It is hardly surprising that so many of us want to get involved in this debate. I am sorry that we are not going to hear again from the noble Lord or the rest of the Labour Party, but that is their decision; perhaps they are so horrified by what the noble Lord’s Government are putting forward that they do not want to listen to it anymore. I, for one, am very happy to sit here.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Lord Grocott Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 10th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Moore of Etchingham (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, on the eloquence of her speech. But she put forward a point of view about this House that I think is mistaken when she said that it is supposed to be representative of the people. It absolutely is not and it never has been. It has other purposes, for better or for worse, and we all sit here as representatives of nobody but ourselves. That is particularly true of Cross Benchers and the non-affiliated, but actually it is true of all party Members as well, and there are important reasons for that. We are well placed to bring to bear on the proceedings of Parliament as a whole a disinterested point of view, in the proper sense of “disinterested”: in other words, not representing an interest but trying to think as hard as we can about what is right.

The speech by the noble Lord, Lord Tugendhat, was very important here, because, if we think about the function of this House, we may come to realise that its current composition is not so idiotic. Its function is to scrutinise, and the type of people that want to scrutinise are not the type of people who want to get on in life. The people who want to get on in life are those in the other place who are, as was eloquently pointed out by the noble Lord and others, trying to get the next position, higher marks on social media, more likes and jobs. Most of us have gone beyond that stage of life. That is obviously not true of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, because she is very young, but she disinterestedly and kindly sits here in order to contribute her wisdom.

The trouble with the Bill is that we are not thinking about function but droning on about composition. As long as we think that it is a good thing to have a powerful House of Commons that forms most of the Government of the day, it is perfectly reasonable to have a not-very-strong House of Lords that tries to scrutinise. If we think that that is perfectly reasonable, we might consider that perhaps we should not be mucking around with our composition.

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

My Lords, we have already spent more than an hour on this and I do not intend to prolong that for more than two or three minutes. However, I am getting a bit alarmed by the breadth of the discussion we are having.

I remind the House—maybe the Procedure Committee needs to look at this—that the Bill is the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill. From looking at the amendments, of which this is a particularly bad example, not in the quality of the argument but in the dangers it presents for anyone looking for Lords reform in the future, we can apparently have absolutely any amendment whatever so long as it conceivably, by some long-stretched argument, has some effect on the future composition of the Lords.

A lot of people have been saying that we need to do more things once this Bill has become an Act, but, my word, I have been very much put off thinking that is a good idea having listened to today’s debate, because any one of the other issues—whether it is the age of retirement, the length of service, or the number of Bishops, for example— could apparently lead to precisely the same kind of debate that we have had today on amendments to this Bill. I have to say—and probably anyone could say it about me—that it is very unusual that you hear any new arguments in these debates, of which we have had many in the past.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Lord Grocott Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 3rd March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Strathclyde (Con)]

I am more than happy to agree with the noble Baroness on procedural shenanigans, which I must say I do not recognise at all over the course of the last few months. I am not doing any procedural shenanigans; I am actually replying to the noble Baroness, but I have made the point I wish to make. Are there no procedural shenanigans from anybody in the Labour Party actually engaging in the debate just started by my noble friend Lord True? I certainly give way to the noble Lord, Lord Grocott.

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

Has the noble Lord finished his remarks, because I do not want to encourage him to go on at length? I wish to respond to the point about why Labour Members have not spoken, but is he wishing to get up again? I do not want to intervene on him, I just want to—

[Lord Strathclyde (Con)]

Feel free.

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

Well, I have been waiting to say this for a long time, but I have managed to keep quiet. It was nine years ago that I first brought in a Bill to end the system of by-elections, which, had it been enacted, would have substantially solved the problem—and I think it is a problem—of people coming to this House by means of heredity.

I find it deeply ironic that the now apparently passionate advocates of my Bill include the noble Lords, Lord True and Lord Strathclyde, both of whom were among those who did all within their power to block it; that is not to mention the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, of course. When I brought the Bill in, the majority of hereditary Peers, as far as I could judge, were in favour of it. However, time and again a small group of people, four of five of whom—probably more— are here today, managed to filibuster in ways incredibly similar to those going on today: degrouping amendments, and putting down amendments at the last minute when there is barely time to respond to them. I would just like to know at what point in their political development this Damascene conversion occurred: from doing all within their power to block my Bill—satisfactorily, of course—to now thinking that it is the golden solution to finding consensus between the two sides of the House.

Perhaps, at some stage, the noble Lords could take this opportunity not only to explain why they have completely changed their mind but to apologise to the hereditary Peers who will be removed as a result of this—in the full knowledge that, if they had listened to my earlier Bill and not filibustered it, this debate would not be happening on anything like the scale that we have at the moment.

As we are taking a slight trip down memory lane, I could go even further if I wanted to, but I will stick to just nine years—mind you, I am tempted to go back 31 years, when I first introduced to the House of Commons a Bill to end the right of hereditary Peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords. One of its sponsors was my good and noble friend Lord Foulkes, alongside my noble friend Lord Rooker—we have stayed together over many years—but of course that was not successful either, so there is a certain satisfaction with where we are now.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Howard of Lympne (Con)]

If the noble Lord is correct, why did the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine, use the words “binding in honour”?

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

I cannot possibly interpret at this juncture the views of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine—I know that the noble Lord, Lord Howard, has resurrected him during this debate. I really do not know precisely why he used the wording, but I know the context in which that “agreement” took place. I was working in No. 10 at the time. We were told by the then Chief Whip, my predecessor, that he feared for the whole legislative programme if we did not concede to the 92 hereditary Peers remaining. I do not feel in any way guilty or dishonourable by regarding that as an agreement that is not valid.

[Lord Northbrook (Con)]

I am grateful for the noble Lord giving way. Does he recognise Alastair Campbell’s book when he said that he was very astonished that Viscount Cranborne did the deal and that it was only going to end in tears for him?

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

One person asked me to answer for Viscount Cranborne and I am now expected to answer for Alastair Campbell. The noble Lord needs to ask my good friend Alastair Campbell about that, but I know the facts are precisely as I described. Please do not take my word for it; take it from Viscount Cranborne. We are going to have a long debate, and I know that I have gone on far too long, but I hope that no one will again use that tired, dishonourable excuse that somehow a crucial agreement was reached which was binding to all subsequent Governments, when it was reached under duress.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

I totally understand why the noble Lord cannot be expected to answer for the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine, or anyone else, but perhaps he could answer for himself. He is quite right—magnanimity in victory—that he has got what he was asking for. If he thought that it was in the interests of this House when he introduced his Bill—well known as the Grocott Bill—to end the hereditary principle but to allow the Peers to remain in this House, what has changed? Why has he changed his view?

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

What has changed is that there was a general election, and this was a manifesto commitment. Broadly speaking, it is a good idea to obey manifesto commitments. The longer answer to the noble Lord’s question is that I was not the first to introduce such a Bill; Eric Lubbock was the first Member of this House to propose that there should be no more by-elections. Had it been agreed at the time that the Lubbock Bill, which I will call it, was introduced, there would be only about 25 hereditary Peers left. Due to the constant refusal of people to accept the end of the by-elections, a whole new generation of hereditary Peers has arrived, so that, for the objective of ending the hereditary principle in this House to be concluded, it would take another 40 or 50 years. It is spilt milk. I respect noble Lord, Lord Forsyth: he occasionally made the odd favourable comment towards my Bill, for which I am very grateful; it was an all-party Bill supported by all parties and in huge numbers. But times have changed. It is the time for apologies from Messrs True, Mancroft and Strathclyde to their colleagues for blocking the Bill in the way that they did. Along with the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, who we will have the pleasure of hearing from in the next amendment, they are the ones who have the explaining to do, not me.

[Lord Swire (Con)]

Does the noble Lord, who should be a little more cheerful having achieved what he set out to do, not accept that there were many of us who were not in this House and therefore unable to support his Bill or otherwise?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

I can respond in one sentence. The reason that I caved in on that amendment, on that particular day, is that we had already been rambling on for about an hour and a half on the subject and anything to shorten it was to my advantage. That principle could perhaps be applied to the current Bill.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My noble friend Lord Caithness is right to point out that the effect of this Bill is to make your Lordships’ House a second Chamber almost entirely nominated by the Prime Minister. I say “almost” because his amendment refers only to the Lords temporal; as noble Lords know, the Lords spiritual come here by a different means. As the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, has reminded us, a small number of Cross-Bench Peers have come in through nomination by the House of Lords Appointments Commission and what was at one time called the “people’s Peers” process.

Having served as a political secretary to a former Prime Minister, my noble friend Lady May of Maidenhead, I know that even those recommendations made by the independent commission are laid before the Prime Minister. It is at a time of the Prime Minister’s choosing—not the commission’s choosing—when those nominations are made. The rate and regularity with which those nominations can be made is often a cause of some consternation between the commission and the Government.

When the noble Baroness the Lord Privy Seal stands up, she can perhaps say a little bit about that. I think that the noble and learned Baroness, indeed many of us, would be delighted if there were some commitments on codifying that process a bit more formally, or at least a commitment to the number or regularity—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

My Lords, I will just make a couple of points. First, we are not abolishing hereditary Peers; we are abolishing the right of hereditary Peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords. Secondly, 26 years ago we removed 667 hereditary Peers and as far as I can judge, that has not had a devastating impact on the monarchy; in fact, the monarchy seems to have survived quite well. Thirdly, the fundamental difference between the hereditary principle as applied to sitting and voting here, and the hereditary principle as applied to the monarchy—like my noble friend Lord Brennan, I support the constitutional monarchy very strongly—is that if the monarch started to do what hereditary Peers in this House do, which is to express, as they are quite within their rights to do, detailed arguments in favour of one political party or another, I do not think the monarchy would last very long. There is a fundamental difference between the political role of hereditaries in this House, and the wholly significant and important non-political, head-of-state role of the monarchy at a national level.

[Lord Swire (Con)]

With that in mind, I invite the noble Lord to have a word with those who drafted the Labour manifesto, which says, as a standalone sentence: “Hereditary peers remain indefensible”.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Lord Grocott Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 3rd March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

My Lords, as soon as I knew that Labour had won the general election and was preparing its legislative programme, I knew that it would include the removal of the 92 hereditary Peers, and I knew with stone cold certainty that the noble Lord, Lord True, would introduce an amendment to, in effect, put into law the Bill that he had so consistently and passionately opposed over a long period of time.

One welcomes a sinner who repenteth but, of course, circumstances have changed since I last introduced my Bill. I should perhaps explain to Members who have recently arrived that it was then simply a Bill to end the ridiculous, ludicrous, absurd and indefensible by-elections. I first introduced a Bill to do that nine years ago, although I had raised it in the Commons 31 years ago—so I am at least not a Johnny-come-lately on this issue.

What has changed since I first introduced the Bill in the Lords? Since then, 27 Peers of a new generation have arrived. Had there been no by-elections, there would have been just 34 Peers, who were first elected in 1999. They were not a particularly representative group, I have to say. We have heard quite a bit about the variety of people who come in via the by-elections. What has not been mentioned yet but will be many times, I am sure, in the days to come is that they did not include any women. It has gone backwards. In the first cohort of 1992 there were five women; but, according to the electorates that would, by various mechanisms, bring new people in, that was five too many.

Now, 100% are men, and they have particular characteristics. I mention this only as a matter of observation. Something like half went to Eton; I know some 20 of our Prime Ministers went to Eton, but there is at least the argument that they are not entirely a good cross-section of the electorate.

We have heard a lot about the “cruelty” of removing people from Parliament. I have some experience of this. I was removed from Parliament; as I recall, it was around 3 am. There was no debate or discussion about it. In fact, people were very excited about it; many were cheering in the hall as I was dismissed. To those who expect a tearful farewell, I say: this is what happens. It is called democracy.

I know this place is not democratically elected but neither, in my view, should it be a place where people, irrespective of how much they do or the contribution they make, can expect to be here for ever. I say that particularly—

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

Is the noble Lord going to put forward an argument for an elected House then?

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

The noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, knows well enough that I am not always in tune with my party. No, I am opposed to a directly elected House. The House that I was most proud to be a Member of—it may offend some people here—was the House of Commons. The one thing I did not want—

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)]

Does the noble Lord agree that, although one would have a lot of sympathy for his ejection at 3 am from the other place, that was part of the contract? It is part of what being a democratically elected Member is, which is very different from having an arrangement here about which many reassurances were given. This is not to say that I am taking a partisan position on this—I have not decided, which is why I am listening to the debate very carefully—but there is a profound difference.

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

Of course there is a profound difference. I was not pretending it was an identical comparison, but there is no difference in the sense that, when you are chucked out of Parliament, you are not too thrilled about it. That is the way I can best describe it.

The 34 hereditary Peers who have been here throughout since 1999 have had a pretty good innings. I have a list here, which I will not read out, of the length of service of Members of this House. The top 19 are all hereditary Peers, who have all served more than 40 years in this House. The noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, sitting there, has served 62 years. It is not a bad innings.

[The Earl of Shrewsbury (Con)]

The noble Lord, Lord Grocott, is a good friend. He lives close to where I live in Staffordshire. Out of those 34 hereditary Peers that he mentions, how many are old Etonians? Because I would like to point out to him that I am an old Harrovian.

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

I had not realised we were quite as democratic as that. Obviously, I am sorry for people who enjoyed it here and are going. I dare say it will happen to me before too long. But, really, they cannot complain when they have had an innings of 40-odd years. It is a pretty good deal, especially when they come from a cohort of Peers who have come via the electoral process, of which much has been heard—occasionally with approval, I am amazed to say. People coming via that mechanism can have no complaints if their service comes to a conclusion. I think 40-odd years is a very good innings and there is no reason to weep and wail because it is coming to an end.

I will not go through the rigmarole of asking why on earth the noble Lord, Lord True, has had his change of mind. It is not entirely accurate to say that he was a slavish servant of the Government at the time because, when my Bill was first introduced, unless my memory serves me badly, he was not a member of the Government and, along with the noble Lords, Lord Strathclyde and Lord Trefgarne, and the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, was resolutely opposed to the Bill, just as they were to every attempt to reform this place over the period that they were in power. I am not going to speak any longer, for fear that I will get interrupted.

[Lord True (Con)]

If the noble Lord will allow me, I was strongly in favour of the proposals put forward by the coalition Government and I look forward with interest to the debate launched by the noble Lord. That was my view.

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord True, is talking about the coalition period. He was in favour of the Bill then. I assume that is what he is arguing about, not my Bill. I am talking specifically about my Bill, which he previously opposed in a powerful way and has now tabled an amendment to implement. I have no intention whatever of voting for the amendment, he will not be surprised to hear. Those who have sat it out as hereditary Peers have had a very good, generous innings from a very small electorate. Hereditary Peers on the list who have said that they are available for election have something like a one in 200 chance of becoming a Member of the House of Lords, whereas members of the general public have a one in 75,000 chance of becoming a Member of Parliament—so it has been a pretty privileged group. Many have served well, but the end is nigh and I suppose we will continue to repeat these kinds of assurances.

I will make one more point and then I will sit down for the rest of the evening. We make much of these 92, including many capable people, leaving their position in the Lords. A mere eight months ago, some 220-odd people lost their seats in the Commons and, although most of them were Tories, I am prepared to admit that maybe some of them made a useful contribution while they were Members of Parliament—but you go; you are chucked out; that is what happens. And that is what is likely to happen as soon as this Bill becomes law.

[Baroness Finn (Con)]

My Lords, this House stands as a guardian of scrutiny, a check on power and a safeguard against overreach. We have endured not by resisting change but by shaping it. The hereditary Peers who sit among us today are not anachronisms or relics of another era; they are some of the most committed, capable and dedicated Members of this House. They serve not out of entitlement but out of duty. They have given their time, expertise and judgment to this Chamber, and the record shows that they contribute more than most. They have indeed sought to come here for that specific purpose, as they already had their titles. To remove them overnight would not be reform; it would be a mistake.

Yet to continue their election indefinitely is also unsustainable. The system of hereditary by-elections, however well-intentioned at its inception, is not defensible in the modern age. So we must find a path forward, a middle way, a solution that modernises this House without undermining it and which strengthens the scrutiny rather than weakening it. That would uphold Labour’s manifesto commitments without damaging the integrity of this House.

That is what my noble friend Lord True’s amendment would do, and why I have added my name in support. It would not expel a single hereditary Peer from this House. It would not silence the voices that have enriched our debates and strengthened our scrutiny. Indeed, most Peers who spoke in the various debates on the Bill by the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, commended it precisely because it did not challenge the position or continued participation of those colleagues who were hereditary Peers.

This amendment would simply ensure that in the years ahead, as nature took its course and time moved forward, the system evolved with it—no more by-elections, no more miniature electorates selecting successors from dwindling ranks, but a gradual transition that was orderly, responsible and fair. The amendment offers the best of both worlds. It would deliver Labour’s manifesto commitment but do so with wisdom, not haste. It would ensure that the sitting rights of hereditary Peers were no longer passed down, but it would do so without stripping this House of its experience, independence or vital scrutiny.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, who is not in her place, once described this as a “modest” reform that

“would make change only very slowly”,

as my noble friend Lord True has referred to. More pertinently, she said:

“It would not affect any of our existing Members, whom we look forward to hearing from, I hope, for many, many years”.—[Official Report, 13/3/20; col. 1231.]


She was right then, and she is right now. The amendment would modernise without destabilising, reform without diminishing and strengthen without undermining. It would do what all good constitutional reform should do: it would improve the best and improve the rest.

As for those who argue that the ship has sailed, I remind the Committee of what my noble friend Lord Mancroft has pointed out: more than 150 Members have joined your Lordships’ House since it was last given an opportunity to express a view on the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Grocott. It is rather galling for them to be told that they have missed the boat when they were not even on the jetty.

Let us not be seduced by grand gestures that weaken our institutions under the banner of progress. Let us reform but do so wisely. Let us move forward and do so together. I am encouraged by the positive tone of today’s debate. Let us ensure that this House remains what it has always been: a place of wisdom, scrutiny and service to the nation.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Lord Grocott Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 11th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

My Lords, I think I can be forgiven for reflecting that, in five Sessions of Parliament over a period of eight years, I introduced successive Bills to deal with the outstanding problem of the remaining hereditary Peers. Each time, my Bill was filibustered by half a dozen Peers, some of whom are speaking today, and blocked by successive Conservative Governments. No one so far has explained why they thought that was a good idea. I shall concentrate my remarks on the principal arguments used against this Bill so far and in previous debates.

First, we have been told or reminded already that we cannot legislate to remove the hereditaries because of a deal reached by Conservative and Labour leaders in the Lords a quarter of a century ago. The deal, it is said, guaranteed that 92 hereditaries should remain until some unspecified date in the future. Anyone who uses this argument clearly does not understand the most fundamental principle of the British constitution, namely that no Parliament can bind its successor. It would be ludicrous if it were otherwise. Are the defenders of the 1999 deal really saying that today’s Parliament can legislate on war and peace, can join the EU or leave it and nationalise the railways or privatise them, but the one thing it must never do under any circumstances whatever is to remove the right of hereditary Peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords?

There is a far more damning indictment of the 1999 deal. We now know from no less a source than Lord Cranborne, the Conservative Leader in the Lords at the time, that the Labour Government were forced into retaining the 92 hereditaries because their whole legislative programme was under threat. Viscount Cranborne himself said:

“My whole tactic was to make their flesh creep … I threatened them with the Somme and Passchendaele”.


Viscount Cranborne said he would call off the threat, but only if at least 92 hereditaries were retained. I happened to be working at No. 10 at the time and we did indeed believe that, if we did not concede on the hereditaries, we would be unable to get our manifesto commitments through the Lords, with its huge, huge Tory majority. It was the most flagrant breach by the Tory Opposition of the fundamental convention of this House: namely, that the Lords respects manifesto commitments. It was not a deal; it was blackmail.

The second palpably weak argument against this Bill is that by removing the 92 hereditaries you somehow undermine the constitutional monarchy. The answer to that is simple: 25 years ago, we removed 667 hereditary peers and, quite patently, the monarchy has remained entirely unaffected. The key reason is precisely that , at all costs, the monarch keeps out of party politics and for centuries has taken no part whatever in the process of legislation. The situation of the hereditaries could not be more different. Most of the 92 who have inherited their titles are extensively, and sometimes decisively, involved in party politics and voting on Bills as they pass through Parliament. I should also point out that the removal of the 667 hereditaries has had absolutely no detrimental effect whatever on the operation of this House. If there are any Members here today who think we should never have passed the 1999 Act, it is entirely within their rights to put down amendments to the Bill to reinstate the 667—and good luck with that one.

Thirdly, we have the astonishing party-political argument that has been put forward by the noble Lord, Lord True, and others, that the removal of the hereditaries is grossly unfair to the Tory party, and will put them in an unacceptably weak position in the House. To appreciate the audacity of that claim, just look at the figures. Even when all the hereditaries are removed, the remaining party strengths will be as follows: Tories 228, Labour 182 —a Tory majority over Labour of 46. And listen to this: that figure of 46 is larger than any majority ever held by Labour over the Conservatives in this House. The largest ever Labour majority over the Tories was just 26 in 2010. For any Tory to claim that their party either today or after the departure of the hereditaries, or indeed at any time in the party’s history, has had a raw deal in the House of Lords is simply risible.

That brings me, finally, to the critics of the Bill who say that it is bad because it will lead to some valued Members of the House having to depart. Well, I agree with that. Of course, that is true and it is inevitable. It would be true of any group of people who were given a privileged position in the legislature by virtue of some characteristic acquired by birth. We could reserve 92 places for people with green eyes, or red hair, or—one that I would find quite appealing—92 places reserved for the eldest sons of railwaymen. Whatever random category you select, including hereditary Peers, you will have some who are very good, some who are average and some who are not so good, and one or two maybe who are a complete waste of space. And, no, I am not going to identify which Members fall into which categories.

This Bill is long, long overdue. The whole idea of inheriting the right to legislate is indefensible. The manifesto commitment is clear. The Commons have backed this Bill with an overwhelming majority of 362. So, let us get on with it.

House of Lords Reform

Lord Grocott Excerpts

Tuesday 12th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

My Lords, the subject of this debate is very wide—reform of the House of Lords—but the reason we are having it is extremely narrow. It is, of course, focused specifically on the Bill currently going through the other House about the removal of hereditary Peers. I am a strong supporter of the Bill, but I shall reserve my main arguments in favour of it until Second Reading. I intend to use my time today to make a couple of observations about the Bill that I think are relevant to any future plans for reform of this House.

The current Bill is unfinished business; it is business that should have been completed 25 years ago. At that time, a Labour Government with a huge majority of 179 in the Commons had a clear election mandate to remove all the hereditary Peers. When it came to the House of Lords, the Government found it impossible to fulfil the promise they had made to the electorate. It is a long and strong convention that it is this House’s responsibility to allow the passage, within a reasonable time, of manifesto commitments, but it was not possible back in 1999 for reasons that I will describe at Second Reading. So here we are again, with another Labour Government with another huge majority—this time of 174—and the clearest possible general election mandate to remove the remaining 92 hereditaries from the House.

It is a simple five-clause Bill with the simplest of objectives. It has been carried in the Commons by huge majorities. It is a clear manifesto commitment from a general election held just four months ago. What I conclude from this is that by all precedent and convention—and we have heard a lot about that, particularly from the noble Lord, Lord True—the Bill should have a simple, safe passage through this House. To put it more negatively, it would be very bad indeed for this House and we would make ourselves look ridiculous in the eyes of the public if any behaviour took place that was in any way comparable to that which happened 25 years ago.

I remind the House that the fundamental principle of the 1999 Act is clearly stated in law. Clause 1 of that Act says:

“No-one shall be a member of the House of Lords by virtue of a hereditary peerage”,


or, to put it more colloquially, you cannot inherit the right to legislate. In all my years in this House and in the Commons, I cannot remember many people publicly challenging that principle—although I have to say I recall one Conservative saying to me, I hope in jest, that he did not like constitutional change and in fact was not too keen on the Reform Act 1832—so, for me, unfinished business is a powerful reason for being enthusiastic about the Bill.

The other reason is that it means the end, never to return, of those risible, farcical, indefensible hereditary Peer by-elections. The zenith of absurdity was reached in 2016 when, for a new Liberal Democrat Peer, there were seven candidates and an electorate of three—more than twice as many candidates as electors. The winning candidate got all three votes and the remaining six got none. As they say, you could not make it up. Of all the proposals for Lords reform, I thought that scrapping these by-elections would surely be easy, but I did not at all allow for the determined filibustering of a tiny minority of hereditary Peers—although I believe the majority of hereditary Peers supported the Bill.

I also have to mention the determination of the Conservative Government of the time to block the Bill. During the passage of the current Bill, those who blocked the previous ones can perhaps tell us why they thought it was a good idea to do that and whether they are still of the same opinion.

I take two lessons from my attempts and those of others who have tried to initiate Lords reform since the 1999 Act. First, if we in this House do not deal with the reforms that are clearly necessary then someone else will do the job for us. Secondly, the way to Lords reform is not one that tries to change powers, composition, electoral systems and the relationship with the Commons all in one grandiose scheme. The overwhelming evidence of the last 100 years is that attempts at wholesale reform all in one go will, slowly and inexorably, grind into the sand. The reforms that will succeed are those which are short, simple and focused.

I have one final reminder. We are entertained and fascinated by these issues and happy to spend hours discussing them, as today’s debate with 80 speakers clearly demonstrates. However, it is an enthusiasm that is not shared by the British public. While reform is important—I do not doubt that—other issues are far more important to most people, and far more deserving of debate and parliamentary time. When we debate the hereditary Peers Bill, and indeed any future reforms to the Lords, we need to keep that perspective firmly in mind.

House of Lords: Behaviour and Courtesy

Lord Grocott Excerpts

Monday 14th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, from time to time we see reports in the press or polls are undertaken in response. One that struck me most recently said how little people understood the work we do in this House. That is incumbent on us all, not just in our behaviour but in our explanation about what we do. Perhaps we ought to think a little more, particularly when we have debates on some of our very specialised reports or the detail of legislation, about how we can broadcast that more widely, so that people understand what goes on in this Chamber.

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

My Lords, as this Question is in essence about the powers of the Lord Speaker, it is worth putting that into a bit of context. When the Lord Speaker’s position was introduced, it was in the context of great hostility to us having a Lord Speaker at all. The Speaker was allowed only to sit in the Chamber and was forbidden from speaking under any circumstances; the Lord Speaker was the only person who could not speak.

Since then, a number of small but significant changes have been made, all of which have enhanced the role of the Lord Speaker. In the context of every one of those changes—the Speaker taking over from the clerk in introducing the next Question, and many similar things, such as explaining the business as it comes along—no one suggests now that we should revert to the system that existed without the Lord Speaker. The direction of travel is very much in the direction of the case argued by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely right. I remember the controversy when the first Lord Speaker—the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, who is in her place—was introduced. Every Lord Speaker has done this House proud. Of course, their role is not just one in the Chamber but a wider one of advocacy for the House of Lords. The noble Lord is right that each of those changes—I was the advocate for the last one of announcing next business when we move from Bills to Statements—has been made with the agreement of the House. I always think that is the best way to proceed on these issues.

Anniversary of 7 October Attacks: Middle East

Lord Grocott Excerpts

Tuesday 8th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

The noble Lord is right that Hezbollah is a proscribed organisation. Its views are abhorrent and there is no place for promoting the role or organisation of Hezbollah at all on the streets of London. The Home Secretary has made comments on that, making her views very clear and in a very strong way. People have a right to peaceful protest and we should always respect that—even when I sit in my office and can hear the amplified voices across the road as I work. That is peaceful protest, but when people stray beyond peaceful protest and support terrorism, that is a different matter.

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

My Lords, we all know that, sooner or later, the dreadful violence that has erupted in southern Israel, in Gaza and now in Lebanon will subside. There will then be an uneasy truce and, as sure as night follows day, the violence will occur again until the fundamental problems of the region are addressed. The most fundamental problem, surely, is that there cannot possibly be peace in this part of the Middle East until the Palestinians obtain what the Israelis achieved and love: a state of their own. Until the Palestinians can receive that support, including from this Government, I am afraid that the cycle of violence will just go on and on.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

The noble Lord makes an important point about everybody in the region feeling safe and secure. That is what the two-state solution is: a safe and secure Israel and a strong and viable state of Palestine. There is a lesson on this. At the beginning of his comments, the noble Lord made a really telling remark that, at some point—we want it to be sooner rather than later—violence will subside and we will move towards peace and negotiation. At no time can the countries involved in negotiation, and in trying to reach the two-state solution, take a step back and think, “It’s quietened down now, we can forget about it”. The point he makes is that we need constant vigilance to ensure that, until we can guarantee the security and safety of civilians across the region, we have to remain engaged. I take very seriously the points he made on that.

Business of the House

Lord Grocott Excerpts

Thursday 25th July 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I am slightly concerned about this. I am not a usual channel and the conversations that have taken place with such amity and warmth seem not to have reached me. I was unable, I am afraid, to be present for the debate on an humble Address on Tuesday, but I have read it carefully in Hansard and great attention and sanctification were given to the principle of the rule of law.

We have a statutory obligation to hold these by-elections. To proceed by using standing orders to eviscerate, in effect, that statutory obligation, which is what we are doing, seems to cast a very early question on this commitment to the rule of law that we have heard about. Understanding fully, of course, that this Motion will pass, I ask the Leader of the House why 18 months has been chosen and what that portends for the Government’s legislative timetable in relation to the reforms they wish to bring forward. We have no excuse here as we did before in relation to Covid; we are not in the middle of a major global health emergency, which was what justified the use of standing orders before, so can the noble Baroness explain to us what the Government’s plans are that make 18 months the appropriate time? Why could it not be six months?

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

My Lords, I never quite thought this day would come. We have had endless Private Members’ Bills and numerous discussions on the Floor of the House, and now we have recognition, which I am delighted about, from the usual channels that to hold two further hereditary Peers’ by-elections at a time when Parliament was considering ending such elections would make us even more of a laughing stock than these by-elections do in any case.

I have to say it slowly: this almost certainly means the end of hereditary Peers’ by-elections. That is wonderful as far as I am concerned. It means an end to the clerk having to moonlight as a returning officer; it means an end to me having to give observations on the political significance of a particular by-election as and when it is declared; and of course it means that I shall not fulfil my ambition, which was to become the House’s equivalent of Professor Sir John Curtice in relation to by-elections. I should say as well, just as a general observation, that it means an end to elections that are men-only elections and an end to elections such as one where there was an electorate of three and six candidates—unknown in the western, eastern, northern or southern world, as far as I know.

So the time has come at last, in a puff of smoke on a damp Thursday morning, when these wretched by-elections will come to a conclusion. I simply say to the noble Lord, Lord Moylan: know when it is over.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, that hereditary by-elections are probably now coming to an end. That does not stop this move being illegal; it is against the set-down rules, which is rather strange from a party whose leader was Director of Public Prosecutions and was dedicated to obeying the rule of law. The problem, of course, is that none of us in this House is legitimate; we are all appointed by one body or individual or another, and the only people who are elected by anybody are the hereditaries—so, in many ways, they have a superior right to be here than we do.