Hereditary Peers By-election

Debate between Lord Grocott and Lord Robathan

Wednesday 20th September 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

There is always the possibility.

My Lords, that was the result of a Cross-Bench hereditary Peers by-election. It could only happen in this place; try explaining it to anyone outside this House. Try it on the schools programme as an A-level level question: “Describe the constitutional significance of the Cross-Bench hereditary Peers by-elections”. We have a long way to go before that will make sense to anyone outside this place, and I doubt whether, as much as we are proud of our constitution, anyone would want to copy it anywhere else.

In the past, the Cross-Benchers produced the most thrilling by-election result in this whole 20-year saga. I will just remind the House of the by-election result that took place just a year ago. There were 21 valid votes; the winning candidate got 11 votes and the runner-up 10. It does not get more exciting than that; it is the most marginal seat. However, I cannot give any more detail about this by-election because of the same old problem. It is not the clerk’s fault, but we should get a bit more information about these by-elections to go in Hansard when the results come out. We should have some figures. We want subsequent generations to be able to read it and ponder what on earth it was all about.

However, I can say a couple of things. First, at this by-election there was an electorate of 32, all men. The turnout, as we have just been told, was 23, so there was about a 75% turnout. There were 13 candidates, all men. I will make just a couple of observations about some of the candidates, who never cease to provide material. One of them has been trying now for 13 years to be successful in one of these elections; this is his 16th attempt. The last attempt he made a couple of years ago did not result in him getting any votes. I have nothing but admiration for that. If you have lost as many elections as I have over the years, to keep going for 13 years and 16 attempts is terrific. Another candidate has been trying for just 10 years—this was his seventh attempt. However, there is a remarkable little history here: of those seven attempts, one was to be a Cross-Bencher, one to be a Conservative and one to be a Lib Dem. Presumably he is now waiting for a Labour vacancy.

I like to end on a happy note, and I have some really good news for the 11 candidates who were unsuccessful in this by-election. There are two more by-elections in the pipeline, and they have to be held within three months—that is the maximum time allowed. So, with a fair wind, a couple of the losers today could be with us by Christmas.

[Lord Robathan (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lords, Lord Meston and Lord De Clifford, and hope they contribute well to this House, notwithstanding the excellent and amusing comments of the noble Lord Grocott. I will also say—I am not a hereditary Peer myself—that the hereditary element in this House, elected now in some quaint way, in fact contributes a great deal more than many of us life Peers.

Hereditary Peers By-election

Debate between Lord Grocott and Lord Robathan

Wednesday 28th November 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

My Lords, as has become the tradition on these occasions, I should like to say a couple of words. I thank the clerk for giving us the result, or at least for naming the successful candidate. He now has a burgeoning career as a returning officer because another one is due in January. However, I am afraid that, as far as I am concerned, there is not enough information, despite the improvements we have seen.

It is worth saying that in this by-election there were 31 electors, which is about par for the course. There were 11 candidates, two of whom did not submit election addresses, and this is the 35th by-election held under a system established 19 years ago as a short-term, interim measure.

I ought to avoid being churlish by saying to the clerk, the authorities and the usual channels that they have improved these by-elections—or, at least, the procedures for them—in two respects. For the first time ever, thanks to various requests, the fact that the result was to be announced appeared on today’s Order Paper. It was, admittedly, in the smallest print discoverable, but it at least told us that there was a hereditary Peers’ by-election result today, the first time that has happened—normally they are smuggled in secretly. It also appeared on the annunciator, so I am grateful for those two small improvements.

However, I should like to see us go a little further. I certainly think we need more information than just the name of the winning candidate. I would like to know what his or her—it will be his, because all those on the list are male, bar one—majority was. Most returning officers give the number of votes cast for each candidate. I would also like a little of the sunshine of publicity on this. I have asked, without success, several questions suggesting that the media should be there to record the count, as they are in all other by-elections. Only a camera could capture the drama of the occasion—the ballot papers piled up on the trestle tables until the winning line is passed and the 16 votes obtained. I suggest that for future occasions.

Finally, and seriously, this House has decided that we should reduce its size to around 600 Members. That seems to have near-universal approval across the House. We shall have great difficulty doing that unless something happens. So far this year, the life Peers—if I may put it in those terms—have been reduced on the basis of two out, one in, which seems a pretty sensible, gentle way of reducing the size of the House. The principle for the hereditary Peers this year has been three out, three in. This clearly undermines the House’s objective of trying to reduce its size in reasonable time. There is a mechanism for dealing with this in a painless way—a Private Member’s Bill whose sponsor modesty prevents me mentioning. Anyone who was present on Friday will know that that Bill passed Committee by acclamation, with overwhelming support. For the good sense of the House, the sooner this Bill is on the statute book, the better.

[Lord Robathan (Con)]

I am most interested in what the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, says. I have much in common with him on many issues, but not on this. I think the whole House could agree that the by-election system is rather quirky and unusual, but it was put in place by a fellow called Tony Blair, whom I think the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, knew pretty well. Rather than arguing the toss on this, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Carrington. I am sure he will be a great addition to the House.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Lord Grocott and Lord Robathan

Monday 18th June 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak very briefly because, like everyone else, I want to watch a football game later this evening. I hope I am not alone in the House in saying that, while it may be true that we would stand a greater chance against Brazil and others if we joined a European football team and abandoned the England one, I would not be in favour of that course of action. The reason I want to speak very briefly was hearing the noble Lord, Lord Newby, suggest that everyone needed a lecture on the constitution—I am certainly not averse to that—and, in particular, a lecture on the use of ping-pong. He also suggested that this Bill is like any other Bill and is being treated in exactly the same way: it is at that point that I have to disagree with him, on at least two grounds.

The first is that it is certainly not like any other Bill in terms of the amount of scrutiny it has been given; 12 days in Committee, six days on Report and several nights, as my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition maintained. It has had extensive scrutiny, entirely in line with the best traditions of this House, but not exactly like the scrutiny that every other Bill gets. Of course, there is another crucial difference between the way that this Bill has to be considered and the way that any other Bill has to be considered. I am not averse to ping-pong. I seem to remember occasions when a Bill has gone backwards and forwards six times. That can happen, indeed it can. However this Bill is not like any other Bill, because it is a direct and unavoidable consequence of a referendum, which this House voted for without opposition, to give the decision about our future membership of the European Union to the British people. This, we properly did, and they properly gave us their verdict. But it is not just the fact that the British people have told us that we need to pass the enabling legislation to facilitate Brexit, because this House made that decision as well—as did the House of Commons—when both Houses voted in favour of the implementation of Article 50. We all know that, having the referendum and the votes of both Houses on Article 50 as our guide, we absolutely have to pass this Bill into law, otherwise there will undoubtedly be a cliff edge. There is a lot of hyperbole about cliff edges but it is not hyperbole to talk about a legal cliff edge if this House does not pass the Bill in good time.

My view of our constitution is this: this is an exceptional Bill, which has had exceptional scrutiny. We have asked the Commons to think again, and it has thought again and decided that it preferred most of the Bill in the way that it was sent to us a couple of months ago. Now we need to expedite this. I, for one, am not minded to support any proposals which will further prolong the Bill, the decisions having already been made, according to our constitution—and, I might say, in the best traditions of this House.

[Lord Robathan (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Newby, has offered a tutorial in the constitution. I am a relatively new Member of this House—some people have been here far too long, I agree—but I understood that something called the Salisbury convention meant that the opposition parties would agree with those things put forward in the manifesto of a governing party. Perhaps somebody could explain to me why, when the Conservative manifesto said that we would leave the customs union, opposition parties—and, I regret to say, some of my noble friends—have determined that we shall not. Surely if it is in the manifesto, it has been agreed by the people of this country and we should accept the Salisbury convention. Perhaps at some point the noble Lord, Lord Newby, or the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, might explain what happened to the Salisbury convention and why it is being ignored left, right and centre.