Procedure and Privileges

Lord Northbrook Excerpts

Monday 22nd February 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Northbrook (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I listened carefully to the introduction from the noble Lord, Lord McFall, and his summary of the reasons of the Procedure and Privileges Committee, but I found them unsatisfactory. The committee’s recommended delay in reinstating these by-elections has gone on long enough. Whatever some noble Lords may think of them, even some of their fiercest critics, such as my noble friend Lady Noakes, believe that, as long as they are clearly set down in statute, they should still be held. There are now four vacancies and thus four seats in the House unfilled for no apparent reason, while the number of new life Peers—as the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock, wisely said—has expanded much more proportionately.

Last month, local council elections were reinstated for May, so there is no reason why we cannot go ahead with our by-elections in a Covid-secure way. With respect, I disagree with the Procedure Committee and the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, about their views on holding them, but first I congratulate the noble Lord on reaching his 80th birthday last November. He said, in last December’s debate:

“How on earth do you arrange Covid-safe hustings with 27 candidates and a potential audience of 800?”—[Official Report, 14/12/20; col. 1427.]


There is no requirement for hustings in the legislation, the House of Lords Act 1999. Each candidate could quite easily present himself on Zoom; the hustings have never had an audience of 800. Even if all the audience could not hear them at once, the proceedings could still be recorded. In summary, technology could easily be used to solve the problem of hustings and the voting system could be made entirely postal. At his young age, the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, still has plenty of time to pursue his abolition Bill.

If the Procedure Committee continues to recommend unnecessary delay, I see no reason why legal advice should not be taken on statute law being broken—namely, Section 2 of the House of Lords Act 1999.

Finally, I fully support the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, on revision to the consideration of Commons amendments.