House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Debate between Lord Jackson of Peterborough and Viscount Thurso

Report stage
Wednesday 2nd July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Thurso (LD)]

My Lords, I support my noble friends on the Front Bench in Amendment 5, to which I have added my name. I say in passing to the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, that the theory of good chaps in government was a wonderful theory of the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, whom we do not see now as much as we used to, which depends on the fact that we all actually like to do the right thing. Unfortunately, as I think he said, we have discovered that we do not always do the right thing.

I support my noble friend on the Front Bench exactly because some check and balance on probity is required. The desire for probity in public life has been there as long as people have been in public life, but the desire to codify it began with the cash for questions scandal. It has grown over the years and today we have the Committee on Standards in Public Life and the Seven Principles of Public Life. If you stand for and are appointed to a public body, as I was in Scotland, you are required to indicate that you know what these are and agree to uphold them.

My noble friend’s amendment simply ensures that, where HOLAC has made a recommendation to the Prime Minister by informing him that it does not think someone has that required probity, the Prime Minister should not make the appointment. In this I rather disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell, although I have the greatest respect for him. Under his argument, if a Prime Minister decides that the ultimate rogue on the planet should get a life peerage, he should get it. I disagree fundamentally with that. There should be a check and balance.

I regard this amendment as a negative rather than an affirmative instrument. The other amendments are more affirmative instruments, which I disagree with. Under this amendment, the Prime Minister puts forward a name and HOLAC looks at it—I think, generally, we can accept that they are people of good will, as good as we get in terms of neutrality in this House—says whether there is a fairly major problem and advises the Prime Minister of it. The idea that HOLAC is overridden on the person it has considered—Lord knows what they might have done; they could have fiddled their taxes or done all sorts of things—and the Prime Minister goes ahead is wrong.

This happens already. The Honours Committee receives nominations and goes through the probity. If the person it looks at is not thought, for whatever reason, to be fit, the recommendation does not go forward. This is very much in that vein. I will happily support my noble friend in his amendment because it is a simple, small buttress for probity in public life.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, I oppose Amendments 5, 6 and 31. Noble Lords will probably realise that we are reprising the very excellent debate we had on 14 March about my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth’s Private Member’s Bill, which essentially sought to put HOLAC on a statutory footing.

This debate prompts us to address Tony Benn’s five questions about power, because this debate is about power and putting Members into the upper House of the UK legislature, and it is a very important issue. His five questions are: what power have you got? Where did you get it from? In whose interest do you exercise it? To whom are you accountable? How can we get rid of you? In some respects, these questions are unanswerable, because the effect of the amendments is to put HOLAC on a statutory footing. I believe that would embed semi-permanently an already closed and opaque system of appointment.

Electoral Registration and Administration Bill

Debate between Lord Jackson of Peterborough and Viscount Thurso

Tuesday 29th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[John Thurso]

I disagree with that. I went through the Lords Hansard and underlined the names of all the Cross Benchers I could see in each of the voting lists. There were slightly more of them in one list than the other, but there were quite a number in support of this amendment. I remember that one of the great dictums of their lordships’ House is that all peers are equal, so I would look to the result, which was 300 on one side and 69 or so fewer—231—on the other side.

[Mr Stewart Jackson]

The hon. Gentleman is an experienced parliamentarian, so he will know that it has hitherto been the practice of the other place not to amend secondary legislation substantially—or, indeed, at all—even on some very contentious subjects and Bills over the past few Parliaments. Why, therefore, has this happened on this particular occasion?

[John Thurso]

I recall very well that, when I and others were given their P45s and left that place, one of the discussions that we had was about why on earth we in the other place should not register dissent on secondary legislation. Indeed, that has occasionally happened, which serves to demonstrate that there is a changing dynamic. Because of that changing dynamic, we need to look at the constitutional arrangements in the round, and that topic will form the substantive element of the last part of my argument.

Charging for Access to Parliament

Debate between Lord Jackson of Peterborough and Viscount Thurso

Thursday 15th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jackson]

I will not give way, if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me.

We must keep that access free, because it sends an important message. If we do not, we could find that only the wealthy, the well connected and businesses will have access to the mother of Parliaments. That would be a sad day, and a tragedy for democracy. It would further undermine people’s faith and trust in us. Let us imagine that a husband and wife and their two children get on the train in my constituency of Peterborough and pay £90 return each to come to London. Why should they have to pay £15 each to visit the Clock Tower? Why should we charge them an extra tax to visit part of the political and historical heritage of this country, one of the most famous buildings in the world? I do not believe that that would be right.

We need to explore the governance that has led to this proposal, because it has not involved ordinary elected Members. This feels like the script for “The Da Vinci Code”, because it is not open and transparent; far from it. I also reject the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso). His remarks have been erudite and eloquent, as ever, but I nevertheless smell an establishment stitch-up.

[John Thurso]

May I tell the hon. Gentleman that on this occasion his sense of smell is a touch out? What he should be smelling is a desperate attempt—if I can put it like that—by those of us who are in charge of these things to seek to accommodate the views being expressed. I put it to him, to the hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) and to his other hon. Friends that I really am seeking to arrive at where they want to go.

[Mr Jackson]

I take on board the hon. Gentleman’s comments, but one of the points of the Backbench Business Committee, if it is not to become the nobbled shih tzu of the Executive, is to ensure that the emphatic will and opinion of the House is sought on certain matters. We voted on such matters on Monday. Today we are looking at the thin end of a wedge; a precedent could be set that would result in our constituents being effectively excluded from part of the precincts of the Palace of Westminster. If the House divides on the motion, we must be emphatic in making it clear that we are not minded to enter into any kind of long-drawn-out scenario of kicking this matter into the long grass, and that we need to make a decision now. We need to set our own precedent. This is the people’s Parliament; they have paid for it through their taxes and they should have free rein here. We represent them, and we should be mindful of their opinions. We should keep the status quo.