House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) (Abolition of By-Elections) Bill [HL]
Debate between Lord Grocott and Viscount TrenchardFriday 7th September 2018
(6 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) (Abolition of By-Elections) Bill [HL] 2017-19 View all House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) (Abolition of By-Elections) Bill [HL] 2017-19 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 2-II Second marshalled list for Committee (PDF) - (5 Sep 2018)
House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) (Abolition of By-Elections) Bill [HL]
Debate between Lord Grocott and Viscount Trenchard(6 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Viscount Trenchard
The noble Lord is quite correct that the original creations were due to prime ministerial patronage, but successive holders of the title who have sat in your Lordships’ House were not so obliged and did not owe their presence to the Prime Minister. In that sense, they were independent because they owed it to the random accident of birth. The by-election system is very competitive. It is a combination of random accident of birth, a bit of geographical coverage and competition.
The charge that the House as presently constituted gives these Benches an unfair political advantage—
Lord Grocott
The noble Viscount is speaking to Amendment 2. Will he remind the House of the wording of Amendment 2 and how his remarks relate to it?
House of Lords Act 1999 (Amendment) Bill [HL]
Debate between Lord Grocott and Viscount TrenchardFriday 9th December 2016
(7 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate House of Lords Act 1999 (Amendment) Bill [HL] 2016-17 View all House of Lords Act 1999 (Amendment) Bill [HL] 2016-17 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 11-I(a) Amendment for Committee, supplementary to the marshalled list (PDF, 58KB) - (8 Dec 2016)
Lord Grocott
My view is diametrically opposed to that of the noble Earl, Lord Caithness. I can see no compromise. You cannot half hang a man—you either have the by-elections or you do not. The noble Earl thinks that we should have them. I think that we should not. The Government cannot support the Bill at the moment but I think we could conclude the Committee stage, given that the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, has been given the assurances that he sought from the Government. Therefore, we can conclude these proceedings in 10 minutes through the remaining amendments not being moved. I have been around a long time and I know that in practical terms that means the Bill can proceed no further.
Viscount Trenchard
My Lords, I do not think the noble Lord quite answered the point made by my noble friend Lord Caithness. He asked whether the noble Lord would think it sensible that the House should consider some means of improving the Standing Orders, or changing the Standing Orders which govern the by-election procedure to make them less absurd. The noble Lord has pointed out that an election with an electoral college of two or three is seen as absurd, whereas I think the by-elections for the Conservative Benches and the Cross Benches are somewhat less absurd because there are about 30 electors in both cases. Therefore, the noble Lord did not answer the point made by my noble friend as to whether he would support an improvement in the Standing Orders for the by-election system. My noble friend asked him to state whether he was utterly opposed to the by-election system, however the Standing Orders might be improved to reduce the absurdity of the Liberal Democrat and Labour by-elections.