Queen’s Speech

Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury Excerpts

Tuesday 10th May 2022 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury]

That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty as follows: “Most Gracious Sovereign—We, Your Majesty’s most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, beg leave to thank Your Majesty for the most gracious Speech which was addressed to both Houses of Parliament”.

[Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury (Con)]

My Lords, it is a privilege—and in this year of all years, the year of the Platinum Jubilee, it is a great privilege—to move this Motion for an humble Address on behalf of your Lordships’ House. Although Her Majesty was not present to deliver the Speech in person, it gives us the opportunity in this House to thank Her Majesty for seven decades of steadfast and dedicated service to all parts of the United Kingdom and to the Commonwealth. Throughout a period of huge change, and with all its ups and downs, the Queen has been, and remains, a rock of stability in our nation.

My noble friend Lady Jenkin of Kennington, along with many other noble Baronesses, has long encouraged and campaigned for more women to enter Parliament and enter public life. It is worth reminding ourselves that, during the last 185 years, there has been a woman on the Throne for 133 of them. The monarchy has done more on this than any other institution.

We are also grateful to Their Royal Highnesses the Prince of Wales, the Duchess of Cornwall and the Duke of Cambridge for their presence today. His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales has carved out for himself a substantial role as Prince of Wales without parallel in our history, and is deeply committed, hard-working and on so many issues ahead of the times. It is these qualities which, through the Prince’s Trust and other ventures, have changed the lives of thousands of young people from all backgrounds, and we thank him for it.

At the end of the last Session, we had to endure many late nights and multiple voting in order to clear the decks so we could get here today, but we did it. I therefore hope the House will not think it controversial if I fleetingly thank my noble friends the Leader of the House and the Government Chief Whip for steering us here successfully. Of course, I also acknowledge the important role of the usual channels.

Her Majesty delivered her first Speech from the Throne in November 1952. Today’s Speech carries many echoes of that Speech of 70 years ago. In 1952, the gracious Speech spoke about the need to maintain economic stability and to place the national economy on a sound foundation and it emphasised the need for

“measures to curb inflation and to reduce the heavy load of Government expenditure.”

Some things never change. In 1952, the Motion for an humble Address was moved by the noble Lord Mancroft, the father of my noble friend. His observations of 70 years ago may strike a chord today, especially on the Benches opposite. He lamented the fact that

“we have been … over-legislated in this country. We have been glutted, filled, stuffed and stifled with legislation, most of it incompletely conceived and most of it … ill-digested.”—[Official Report, 4/11/1952; cols. 4-9.]

I think those words might find an echo on the Benches opposite.

Inflation was then, as it is now, rearing its ugly head—today triggered by the worldwide soaring price of energy, which is hitting millions of household budgets. This rather puts me in mind of Mrs Thatcher, who always saw the running of the national economy as akin to running a household. One bitterly cold December evening, she had invited newly elected MPs to Chequers, one of whom was Michael Portillo, who had just been put on the committee looking at the privatisation of the gas industry. As Mrs Thatcher worked the room, she asked Michael what was most preoccupying him at the moment, to which he said, “The gas Bill”, to which she replied, “Don’t I know? Chequers costs a fortune to heat.”

When I worked for Mrs Thatcher in Downing Street as political secretary, my responsibilities included her political speeches and, of course, the party conference speech. One year, the Liberal Democrats, through sheer bad timing, launched their new logo of a soaring dove just as their poll ratings had started to nosedive. So, it was put to Mrs Thatcher that she should include in her conference speech the dead parrot sketch from “Monty Python”. She had never seen the sketch; she had never heard of John Cleese. Nevertheless, after much persuasion but with considerable nervousness, she agreed to include it. However, just minutes before she was due to deliver the speech, she said, “I am still worried about the dead parrot sketch.” Someone said, “Don’t worry, Prime Minister, it’ll be fine. Everybody knows it word for word.” “No, no”, she said, “it’s not that. This Monty Python—is he one of us?” To which there was only one reply: “Prime Minister, he’s one of your strongest supporters.”

This coming 12 months will be a year of difficulty and hardship for many households, with challenges that would test a Government of any colour. Of course, the day-to-day thrust of political debate must and will go on—it is an essential part of our democracy—but our fellow citizens will be looking to our political leaders for something much more. They will be looking for practical and effective help to ease and improve the daily lives of individuals, families and businesses. That is why I welcome so many of the proposals in today’s gracious Speech: measures to enhance the security of energy supplies and so help to ease energy bills, reform of planning laws, support for the police, and preventing dangerous and illegal channel crossings. I also welcome the increased investment in the National Health Service and the much-needed support for mental health services.

Billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money is being invested in our public services. As important as any is the investment in defence—the defence needed to support the NATO alliance and keep our nation safe. People sometimes ask, “Can we afford to spend so much on defence?” Events in Ukraine have shown all too graphically that we cannot afford not to. The unprovoked attack on Ukraine and the further land grab by Putin, redolent of Hitler, show that we can never be complacent about threats to national security. How often have we made that mistake before? The First World War was supposed to be the war to end all wars: not so, as we saw in the 1930s. Then there was the new world order that was supposed to follow the collapse of the Communist world. Yet today, again we see in Europe brutal and unprovoked aggression. We should be proud of the leadership the United Kingdom has shown in supporting the courageous people of Ukraine, and proud of the cross-party support this commands. I hope and believe that the Government will strain every sinew to expedite the safe admission of refugees from Ukraine.

As we look around the world today, what do we see in so many places? Conflict and war, famine, ethnic cleansing, dictatorship, autocracy, the suppression of democracy and free speech, the denial of freedom under the law. In this year, the year of the Platinum Jubilee, all this should make us pause and reflect, not in a self-congratulatory way but to remind ourselves: are we not blessed to live in this country? It is in this spirit that I beg to move the Motion for an humble Address to Her Majesty.

Elections Bill

Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury Excerpts

Lords Hansard - Part 1 & Committee stage
Monday 28th March 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Quin (Lab)]

None the less, while they are Members of this House, it seems rather odd that they are allowed to vote in parliamentary elections. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, leads me on to the second point, which is that we are able these days to take retirement from the House of Lords, and many people have done that. I am sorry that I do not know the answer to this, but is it possible for those who are no longer active Members, and are not able to speak or vote in the House, to vote in parliamentary elections? If not, that is surely an anomaly that needs correcting. The Government should look at this issue again, in the light not only of the speech by my noble friend Lord Dubs but of the anomalies that exist and seem odd in the current situation.

[Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury (Con)]

My Lords, I support the noble Lords, Lord Dubs and Lord Rennard. I am not going to repeat the arguments; I support them, and the House has heard them. This anomaly can be dealt with without opening the Pandora’s box of reform of the House of Lords. I spoke in support of the Private Member’s Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, and I heard the then Minister’s answer. I do not want to be too presumptuous, but I think I can hear the Minister’s response already, with all the same arguments rolled out. I simply ask him one question: what is the practical downside of accepting this amendment? What is the danger? What is the risk?

[Lord Redesdale (LD)]

My Lords, I also apologise for not speaking on Second Reading; I was unable to. I was not planning on speaking in this debate, but the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, raised the point of some of us being here permanently. I have been here a mere 30 years, but I cannot actually see the fact that I have been here 30 years as a legislator making that much difference to the country. I would love to say that being a Back-Bench Liberal Democrat is the bedrock of our whole system, but I cannot really put that forward. When I came here, it was the mantra that only Lords, lunatics and criminals could not vote, but that is no longer the case—though it depends on what bracket you put us in.

I have one question for the Minister. I am standing as a candidate in the local election, and my wife is standing as the agent for the Liberal Democrats in Islington. The complexity of the forms you have to fill in, with the understanding of the minutiae and detail, is incredibly difficult. What is the cost to the country of us being taken off the electoral register? Everybody has to be trained; it has to go through the whole system; it has to be part of the process. The cost is not insignificant for 800 people to be treated in a different category. Of course, it goes into a number of different areas. If the Minister could give us an indication of just how much our privilege of being taken off the register, so we can carry on with this view that we are a permanent part of the process, would cost, and whether that is worth it, I would be very interested.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, has just informed me that MPs are paid during Prorogation. So even when they vote in a general election, they are in fact still being paid as MPs.

[Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury (Con)]

I just want to say to my noble friend Lord Cormack that, if a Member of Parliament is in a constituency that they do not represent but is on the register, they can vote for that constituency in a by-election even though they are still an MP.

Extension of Franchise (House of Lords) Bill [HL]

Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords & 2nd reading (Hansard)
Friday 7th February 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, who speaks on this issue with a powerful voice, as he does on so many issues. I too congratulate my noble friend Lord Naseby on bringing forward this Bill again. A similar Bill was debated on 19 July last year. The Minister who replied to that debate was my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham, who I see is in his new place today. He gave a less than positive response last July. Of course, he was speaking on behalf of the then Government. Five days later we had a new Government and today we have a different Minister, so dare we hope for a more positive response?

I have just reread the speech my noble friend made last year. As noble Lords would expect, it was delivered in the most mellifluous and elegant way. But even that could not disguise the shallowness of the Government’s arguments. How could we quarrel, he argued, with the principle enunciated in 1699, which he quoted from the Commons Journal of that year:

“That no Peer of this Kingdom hath any Right to give his vote”?


If that was good enough for us 300 years ago then surely, he implied, it is good enough today. He went on. The principle was justified by the

“ancient, immemorial law of England.”—[Official Report, 5/7/1858; col. 928.].

Here the Minister was quoting admiringly the Lord Chief Justice in 1858. And then, lest we had forgotten, he prayed in aid cases and judgments from 1872. It is a strange line of reasoning which asserts that if that is what the law said in 1699, 1858 and 1872, then that is what the law should say in 2020.

In my speech last year, I said that I supported this Bill for many reasons, but for one fundamental reason, which is taxation. I argued that while everyone in this House pays tax—income tax, VAT, excise duties and no doubt many others—we have no say whatever on taxation. That is decided by Members of the House of Commons, for whom we cannot vote.

How did the Minister try to justify the anomaly that Members of this House who pay taxes are not allowed to vote for the MPs who impose taxes? He said that taxation is

“not connected to democratic representation in the UK”,

and, as if to prove the point, he said:

“An American or Japanese citizen of voting age who works and pays taxes in the UK does not have the right to vote in parliamentary elections”.—[Official Report, 19/7/19; col. 486.]


Well, of course they do not, for the rather obvious reason that they are not UK citizens. Members of this House are UK citizens, so that argument just does not stand up. By the way, the so-called principle that a Member of the legislature, because they are a lawmaker, should not be allowed to vote for an MP, does not apply to MPs. A sitting MP who, for example, is a registered elector in a seat that he or she does not represent is entitled to vote in a parliamentary by-election in that constituency. If Members of the Commons have the right to vote in parliamentary elections while they are MPs, why should Members of the Lords not have that right?

When he replies, will my noble friend the Minister tell the House what it is about this Bill—you could not wish for a more modest Bill, as my noble friend Lord Naseby said—that worries the Government? What is the worst thing that could happen if Peers were given the vote? What is the downside? What is the danger? What precisely are the terrible consequences that would flow if this Bill were to pass?

The truth is that there are no robust arguments against giving Members of this House the vote. The only argument that the Government have left is that they are opposed to piecemeal reform, and no doubt we will hear that this proposal would best be done as part of a wider and more comprehensive reform of the House of Lords. But if we had set our face against piecemeal reforms we would never have had life Peers or women Peers. It would be much better if the Government stopped trying to argue the unarguable and were a little more honest with the House and just said to my noble friend Lord Naseby, “You’ve made a good case. Logic is on your side. Let’s talk.”

Early Parliamentary General Election Bill

Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury Excerpts

2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 30th October 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury (Con)]

My Lords, I strongly support the Bill. Parliament is currently deadlocked; we need to break free from this political paralysis. The country—and above all, business—needs stability and certainty. By the way, to echo the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, I hope that the Bill sounds the death knell for the Fixed-term Parliaments Act. Above all, and this is the main point I want to make this afternoon, I hope that this election will restore confidence in representative parliamentary democracy. We had a Scottish referendum in 2014, a general election in 2015, a European referendum in 2016 and another general election in 2017. And the result? Paralysis, uncertainty and at times a very toxic political atmosphere. I see this election as a real opportunity to clear the air.

We have to understand that this election will not be a single-issue election. No election ever is or can be. It is voters who decide what an election is about, not the politicians. All of us who have trodden the streets and knocked on doors know that there are a thousand reasons and more why people vote for a particular party or candidate. For example, there will no doubt be some natural Labour supporters who will vote Lib Dem or Conservative just to keep Jeremy Corbyn out of Downing Street—there may be quite a lot of them. There may also be strong remainers who will, in the end, vote Conservative because they want Boris Johnson to be Prime Minister. Only the voter knows why he or she voted the way they did; nobody else really does, and we should not pretend to know.

I say this because occasionally some noble Lords try to reinterpret an election result by saying, “I know that’s how people voted, but you know, they didn’t really vote for this to happen, or that to happen”. The only evidence of what people voted for will be the election result itself and the MPs who are elected. It is then the job of each Member of Parliament to honour their election promises and to represent the interests of their constituents: the voters will have delegated to their MP the responsibility for taking these complicated decisions. This is how effective parliamentary representative government works, and if that is what we want—and I believe it is—then it is goodbye to referendums. Please, no more referendums.

European Union (Referendum) Bill

Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury Excerpts

Friday 31st January 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lea of Crondall (Lab)]

My Lords, it is incumbent on this occasion—it was not done with the previous group of amendments—that we have some substantive replies from the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Turnbull, and subsequent speakers. It is of vital importance that the British people have information and that they do not vote in ignorance of the consequences of the different potential results of the referendum. It may well be that as part of the noble Lord’s cunning plot, if I can use that expression, the Daily Mail, the Sun and the Daily Telegraph—indeed, all the press bar a couple of numerically small exceptions—would be very happy to provide all the information that the British people need, but it would not exactly be balanced.

When Harold Wilson decided to have a referendum in 1975, most noble Lords in this House will remember very clearly that there was information of exactly the type that the noble Lord, Lord Turnbull, referred to. Therefore in reply, it is incumbent on the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, to remove any impression that the people who want the referendum do so with the motive of making sure that we get out. They are not interested in having a referendum on a level playing field; that does not motivate the movers of the Bill. Perhaps when the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, comes to reply, he can respond to the question: what can possibly be said in support of the idea that no such assessment should be placed before the British people if there is a referendum?

[Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury (Con)]

My Lords, I will intervene very briefly in response to my noble friend Lord Shipley, who had called in aid the Electoral Commission’s report on the importance of providing information to voters. It is very important that information is provided, but the commission did not say that it should be given before the Act comes into force. It could have said that, but it did not.

[Lord Shipley]

My Lords, I did not say that it did; the point is important because the Electoral Commission made it absolutely clear that information must be provided. That is why this amendment is so important. I made the point that we need to get this right at this stage of the Bill, otherwise we will have a bad Bill.