Hereditary Peers: By-elections

Lord Trefgarne Excerpts

Tuesday 15th May 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I am not sure who put the Equality Act 2010 on the statute book, but it does not extend to the hereditary peerage—that answers the first question. On the second, the House of Lords Reform Act went on to the statute book in 1999. The Labour Government had 11 years with substantial majorities in another place in which they could have addressed this anomaly. It is a little unfair to criticise this Government for not making it a priority.

[Lord Trefgarne (Con)]

My Lords, while there is room for more than one point of view as to the merits of the Bill introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, would it not be better to wait for the outcome of the proposals from the noble Lord, Lord Burns, before we decide how to proceed in this matter? In the meantime, I agree with the suggestion that the by-elections should be made all-House by-elections, not narrowly defined ones as at present.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

As I said in response to an earlier question, the latter issue raised by my noble friend would be a matter for the House and does not require legislation. The Burns commission looked at this issue, but because it requires legislation did not directly address it. However, the Burns report did point out that, without action, the hereditaries would account for a growing proportion of a smaller House and that it would pre-empt the ability, particularly of my party but also of the Cross-Benchers, to nominate new Peers if spaces were occupied by the winners of hereditary by-elections.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) (Abolition of By-Elections) Bill [HL]

Lord Trefgarne Excerpts

Friday 23rd March 2018 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Trefgarne]

At end to insert “but regrets that the bill is proceeding notwithstanding that the recommendations set out in the report of the Lord Speaker’s committee on the size of the House have not yet been implemented.”

[Lord Trefgarne (Con)]

My Lords, this is the second Bill that the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, has introduced on this matter. Neither has ever found favour with the Government, who have consistently said that they will not give time for the Bill in the other place—that is, if it manages to pass through your Lordships’ House. No new arguments have been made in favour of the Bill, although the debate on who should sit in the House has moved forward with the thoughtful contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Burns, yet the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, has not found it possible to adjust his Bill at all.

I should add that I have come here not to stop further debate on the Bill; I am here to play a part in the Committee stage, but I have put forward this amendment to ask the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, whether he might reconsider his Bill rather than continue with it today. It would be unfortunate to do so, as it would be better to continue by agreement and give the noble Lord the opportunity to think again. If he does not wish to reconsider, we will no doubt press on with the amendments tabled for the Committee stage.

To add to my point that we have discussed this Bill many times since the debate at Second Reading, we have had the report of the noble Lord, Lord Burns. His is an important contribution to the overall debate about who should sit in this House. As your Lordships may know, in the long term I am actually in favour of the rather unfashionable idea of electing our representatives to Parliament, but I know that many Members of your Lordships’ House profoundly disagree with that—some, no doubt, think that they are better themselves.

Be that as it may, there are many ways into this House. First, there is the traditional route. Since the start of the century there has been a massive increase in political patronage by party leaders. That is the most straightforward way to become a Member of your Lordships’ House. Next, we have what used to be called “the people’s Peers”, selected by a small but outstanding group of individuals chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar. Those selected make a useful contribution and sit on the Cross Benches. We also have the spiritual Peers—the Bishops and Archbishops—who grace our Benches and make such a difference to our debates.

We used to have the Law Lords, and I am sorry that they have gone, but there was an excellent suggestion in the Burns report that the Justices of the Supreme Court should be given seats in the Lords. If we ever had an 80% elected House, I would support the judges being part of the other 20%. Not only do they help to improve the quality of legislation but, as judges, they see very clearly some of the compromises that parliamentarians wrestle with every day and, ultimately, have to make. This better understanding of the legislative process is good for them as the most senior members of the judiciary and good for us as legislators as we hear their views.

Then there are the remaining hereditary Peers—92 Members of your Lordships’ House, or about 12% of the total—who are entitled to sit here by statute passed as recently as 1999. That legislation was, incidentally, agreed across the parties in both Houses as a useful compromise in passing what was then termed “modernisation” of our constitutional arrangements.

When we debated this Bill last year, my noble friend Lord Strathclyde explained the genesis of the current number of hereditary Peers and the by-elections tied to them—the so-called Weatherill amendment, which was passed in the House of Lords Act. The by-elections that we are discussing today were an integral part of that overall deal, which in part was designed to win over those Peers and MPs who did not favour a wholly appointed House and believed that in the longer term the only practical way forward was to have an elected second Chamber but accepted that that might take some time.

[Lord Steel of Aikwood (LD)]

Perhaps I may ask the noble Lord a question. He is presumably very proud to be a Member of this House, as we all are, but does he not accept that the amendment he has just referred to was supposed to last for a few months? As the Government are not going to legislate on House of Lords reform, the present arrangements will go on until at least 2021. Is he really proud of the fact that, by blocking this Bill and by blocking, as he did, the same provisions in my Bill in 2014, he is bringing the House into disrepute by sustaining for over 20 years a system which cannot be justified?

[Lord Trefgarne]

My Lords, I do not agree with that. I am in favour of House of Lords reform. Indeed, I would have supported the Bill introduced back in 2012, for a largely elected House, which of course did not even manage to get through the House of Commons.

However, the by-elections do serve a purpose, beyond helping the Government to get their Bill though Parliament in 1999. First, they are a strong link with the past—a golden thread that links us with the ancient Parliaments stretching back for generations. Secondly, they are a reminder that we have come from a House that was, only recently, entirely hereditary. Thirdly, and this is a point that I would like to expand upon, by-elections provide a different way into this House—a way which is not dependent upon prime ministerial patronage.

The noble Lord, Lord Grocott, has often said that his Bill is not personal, yet his mocking tone, and the use of the word “laughable” in his recent article in the House magazine, creates a very different impression. In his article, the noble Lord mocked the Liberal Democrats who recently voted in a by-election for the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, to rejoin this House after a spell as an elected Member in the House of Commons. I was pleased to see the noble Viscount back in his place—he makes a valuable contribution to our debates. However, that is apparently not sufficient for the noble Lord, Lord Grocott. He described that by-election as “indefensible” and “laughable”.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

My Lords, far be it from me to come to the defence of the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, but I read the article. What he said was that having almost two and half times as many candidates as electors, and an electorate of only three, was laughable. He in no way impugned the authority or the contribution that the noble Viscount makes to this House.

[Lord Trefgarne]

I have already endorsed my admiration of the noble Viscount and continue to do so. I agree that there are some idiosyncrasies. That is why I have suggested that all hereditary Peer by-elections might be conducted as the one which we conduct for so-called officeholders, in which all noble Lords have a vote to select a new Member when a vacancy in that group occurs.

I do not have much more to say in favour of the propositions that I have made, but I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, will reflect again on the relevance of the by-elections in the context which I have described.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to everyone who has spoken, all of whom have spoken in favour of the Bill. We are simply debating an amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, that regrets the fact that the Bill will be considered in Committee. I need to remind the House, and maybe even the noble Lord, what he had to say about the timing of the consideration of my Bill when it had its Second Reading in September. He said that the Bill is “untimely”. The reason he gave was that the noble Lord, Lord Burns, was,

“chairing a Speaker’s Committee to examine the size of the House, which will … have a bearing”,—[Official Report, 8/9/17; col. 2155.]

on my Bill. He is now suggesting that we should not consider the Bill because not all the recommendations of the Burns committee have been met yet. I tend to get the feeling that the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, would not be in favour of the Bill going into Committee whatever the circumstances of the Burns committee or any other. But he was absolutely right in one respect when he said that the Burns committee would have an effect on this Bill. It does indeed: it makes the case for it even more powerful.

I remind the House that the principal recommendation of the Burns committee, which has overwhelmingly found favour in all parts of this House, is that the House should reduce its size over time to 600 Members. One of the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne—I have to keep a straight face as I say this—suggests that we should delay any further consideration on the Bill until the House has been reduced to 600 Members. He is saying that the whole of the House can start reducing itself, apart from the 92 hereditary Peers. I hope, in the course of his response, he will explain the logic behind that argument, because it escapes me.

I am a chap of generally sunny disposition, but I am strained at the moment because I fear the tabled amendments do not try to improve the Bill, which is the point of Committee; they are designed to wreck the Bill and/or delay it indefinitely until some time in the future. Nothing has changed in the noble Lord’s approach, or that of the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, come to that, since we last discussed the Bill, but lots of other things have changed, including the Burns report. The noble Lords have tabled a large number of amendments—I think they put their name to 57 on a two-clause Bill. There are 13 groups, so they have at least reduced the number of groups that were considered last time. Normally a two-clause Bill should be able to get through Committee in two and a half hours, which is roughly the time we will have to deal with it today. Their position will be tested on whether they agree to see the Bill through its Committee stage in the time left to it.

I feel very strongly that it is important that the House has an opportunity to express its view on the approach of the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, to the Bill. He is asking us to delay it. My feeling is that the overwhelming view of Members of this House, on all sides—including, my guess is, a majority of the hereditaries, many of whom have come to me and said that they support the Bill, notably including the noble Countess, Lady Mar, who cannot be here today, who is the only woman among the 92 hereditaries—is that they want us to get on with the Bill. It might be that the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, is right that he has a lot of support here, but I think it is something he would want to test so that he and I can both judge the strength of feeling there is on this piece of legislation. I hope the noble Lord will stand up now and seek the opinion of the House.

[Lord Trefgarne]

My Lords, I am grateful for the point of view of all noble Lords who have spoken, not many of whom have agreed with me, I fear. Be that as it may, I am clear that we now ought to proceed to Committee. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Some Lords objected to the request for leave to withdraw the amendment, so it was not granted.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Trefgarne]

2: Clause 1, page 1, line 2, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
“(1) The House of Lords Act 1999 is amended as follows.”

[Lord Trefgarne]

My Lords, this amendment is in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Caithness. I do not intend to trouble your Lordships with any detailed explanation. It is all fairly obvious and I beg to move.

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)]

My Lords, this is the first opportunity I have to comment on what has recently taken place. If it is a question of trying to avoid the idea that this House is not—what should I say?—economical in the way it moves, the business of having a vote against the withdrawal is extraordinary. One of the consequences is that the two Tellers who voted for the Motion were doing so against their judgment. In my respectful submission to your Lordships, it does not do any good for the rationality of the processes of this House that that kind of thing should happen. I am here to acknowledge fully that it was not the leadership of the Opposition nor, I think, the Liberal Democrats who did that. It is undesirable and I hope we will now proceed rather smartly. I am entirely in favour of this Bill but I was not very happy with what happened at the beginning of these proceedings. That is the reason that I did not take part in the vote; I did not think that it should have happened.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Grocott]

My Lords, the noble Lord, of all people, should know that we will debate Amendment 33A when we reach it. If I start responding to amendments we have not even reached, we will go on even longer.

[Lord Trefgarne]

My Lords, when I moved Amendment 2 a little while ago, I should have said that I was speaking at the same time to Amendments 5, 24, 31, 35, 52, 53 and 59. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 2.

Amendment 2 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Trefgarne]

6: Clause 1, page 1, line 4, leave out subsections (2) and (3) and insert—
“(2) In section 2, after subsection (4) insert—“(4A) Standing Orders relating to the filling of vacancies must provide that any party or group specified in the Standing Orders need not take up its entitlement to fill any vacancy among the people excepted from section 1, and that in this event the vacancy will be allocated to one of the other parties or groups specified in the Standing Orders, by a method specified in the Standing Orders, for that party or group to fill.””

[Lord Trefgarne]

I beg to move.

[The Earl of Caithness]

My Lords, I shall speak to this group of amendments. I also resent the accusation that I have been using delaying tactics. After the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, intervened to accept my Amendment 1, I immediately sat down so that progress could be made.

The noble Lord has presented his arguments under two headings. The first is that he has this prejudice against hereditary Peers and their succession. This is part of Labour policy, I fully understand that, and I fear that there is also probably resentment at being out-argued by my noble friends Lord Cranborne and Lord Strathclyde in 1999. The Prime Minister at the time is not the first person to have been out-argued by a Cecil, and doubtless will not be the last. That is well known in history.

The second flank of the noble Lord’s argument is about the by-elections. He has made some very witty speeches and written witty articles on this subject. These amendments deal with the by-elections. I wish to address in particular Amendment 10 in this group. The noble Lord has pointed out, at Second Reading last year and before that, that some circumstances in which certain by-elections are conducted are not entirely compatible with modern thinking on how they should take place. He has a point. However, the point of these amendments is to retain the by-elections but give the noble Lord what he wants: namely, a change in how they are constituted.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Caithness]

Well, some survived that too and doubtless some of us will survive this onslaught against us. My noble friend Lord Deben, the then Mr Gummer, also said what a good thing it was to have some hereditaries here because:

“A society is better run when, even if it is not entirely rational, power is spread a bit, with the opportunity for different people to make different comments about different things.—[Official Report, Commons, 10/11/99; col. 1173.]


All I am asking is that the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, consider that we amend the way by-elections take place at the moment to make them for the whole House rather than just individual parties, and that we revisit this when, as I said earlier, there is greater implementation of the report of the noble Lord, Lord Burns.

[Lord Trefgarne]

In this short intervention I support the proposition to which I referred earlier that the by-elections should be conducted on an all-House basis.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

For the benefit of the public, will the noble Lord declare an interest?

[Lord Trefgarne]

My Lords, there are arrangements for declaring interests set out in Standing Orders. I do not think that what the noble Lord proposes is required by Standing Orders. If he would like to arrange for the Standing Orders to be changed, that, of course, would be another matter.

As I was saying, I believe there is a powerful argument for running all by-elections on an all-House basis, as those for the so-called officeholders are at present. Also, the list of candidates for hereditary Peer by-elections has, I think, only one female on it. I have a Private Member’s Bill waiting in the list behind the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, to change all that. I hope your Lordships will support it.

[The Earl of Erroll]

My Lords, this is all about the by-election process. If the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, would like to declare how he got here and what he did to get here, I would be very happy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Shinkwin]

I do not accept that point, because if one looks at the appointments to this House, one can argue that if we were all to agree today that in future by-elections we would prioritise the election of disabled hereditaries, we could make quite significant progress on improving the composition.

I will close with the following point, on which I hope we can all agree. We recently marked the centenary of women aged 30 and above being given the vote. Would it not be wonderful if, to complement our commitment to reform from within through by-elections, we also gave our support to this country’s second woman Prime Minister should the majority of people whom she recommends that Her Majesty send to your Lordships’ House be women, with a significant proportion of them from BAME backgrounds? Both measures, taken together, would do more to strengthen the legitimacy of your Lordships’ House than any reduction in our numbers, important though that is. The retention of by-elections is therefore a crucial part of the organic process of reform from within. For that reason I support Amendment 25.

[Lord Trefgarne]

My Lords, I am grateful for all the contributions we have just heard, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 6 withdrawn.

Carillion

Lord Trefgarne Excerpts

Monday 15th January 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham]

The noble Lord asks a very good question—so good that I asked it myself when I met officials earlier today. It is a serious issue that there may be circumstances where Carillion has been paid but the money has not filtered down the supply chain. I have made inquiries about this. The priority of the official receiver is to maintain continuity of service and I gather that there is provision within the resources available to the receiver, in the circumstances that the noble Lord has just mentioned, for the payments that have not filtered through to be made, in order to ensure that continuity of service is provided.

[Lord Trefgarne (Con)]

My Lords, I am aware that the Ministry of Defence had important business with Carillion. Can the Minister say how that will be affected?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

The Government have been in touch with a range of government departments which have an interest, including the Ministry of Defence. The top priority is to make sure that the catering, cleaning and maintenance services provided by Carillion continue to run effectively, and I have been assured that the contingency planning carried out by the ministry means that there will be minimal impact on service personnel and their families as a result of what has happened today.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) (Abolition of By-Elections) Bill [HL]

Lord Trefgarne Excerpts

2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Friday 8th September 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Trefgarne (Con)]

My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, has said, this Bill is very similar, if not identical, to the one he introduced about a year ago, which eventually did not pass. I am afraid that my position on this Bill is very much the same as it was on the last one, so I apologise if what I now say is something of a repetition of what I said last year.

All this goes back to the House of Lords Act 1999. At that time, your Lordships’ House was some 1,200-strong: split roughly half and half between hereditary Peers and life Peers. The Bill of that year, as originally introduced, simply removed all hereditary Peers from your Lordships’ House without any qualification. That proposed Bill inevitably met serious opposition in your Lordships’ House. Indeed, given the political numbers of that time, doubtless the Opposition could have rejected the Bill outright. However, Lord Weatherill, assisted by Lord Cranborne—now the Marquess of Salisbury—and my noble friend Lord Strathclyde, was able to persuade the then Government that a deal needed to be done, which it was, to the effect that 92 hereditary Peers would remain, topped up as necessary through by-elections until such time as House of Lords reform was complete.

The then Lord Chancellor, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine, declared that agreement to be,

“binding in honour on those who gave their assent to it”.—[Official Report, 30/3/99; col. 205.]

Your Lordships may ask what was meant by “complete” House of Lords reform. I would say that the Bill introduced back in 2012 by the then coalition Government was indeed just that. Had that Bill reached the statute book, it would have been the end of the 1999 agreement. Unfortunately, that Bill did not pass through the other place and no further attempts of that nature have been made since.

There is now talk of further reform, for example along the lines proposed by my noble friends Lord Cormack and Lord Norton, which I would not necessarily oppose—not in principle, anyway. In addition to these ideas, as the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, has pointed out, the noble Lord, Lord Burns, is now chairing a Speaker’s Committee to examine the size of the House, which will surely have a bearing on the matter. I regret that that Committee does not include a hereditary Peer; but the noble Lord was good enough to agree that I and a couple of my hereditary colleagues could give evidence to his Committee, which we did. We look forward to his report.

[Lord Howarth of Newport (Lab)]

My Lords, I have noticed that the most ardent defenders of the status quo are certain noble Lords whose hereditary peerages are of the least antiquity. Is that because they hope that the effluxion of time will clothe them as legislators in some flimsy legitimacy?

[Lord Trefgarne]

I would have to reflect on that question before I answered it.

My Lords, against the background I have described, I have to say that the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, is inappropriate and untimely. I shall do my best to persuade your Lordships accordingly.

House of Lords Reform Bill [HL]

Lord Trefgarne Excerpts

Friday 3rd February 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Trefgarne (Con)]

My Lords, I apologise for not putting my name on the list of speakers; I will detain your Lordships only for a few moments. I am not opposed to reform of your Lordships’ House in principle, nor am I necessarily opposed to some form of election to membership of the House, but I rather think that this Bill suffers from a number of shortcomings, laudable though its objectives may be. Those shortcomings can no doubt be directed and considered at further stages, but I suspect that this Bill will not find its way on to the statute book, which the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, no doubt regrets.

House of Lords Act 1999 (Amendment) Bill [HL]

Lord Trefgarne Excerpts

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Friday 9th December 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Grocott]

That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.

[Lord Trefgarne (Con)]

My Lords—

[Noble Lords]

Order!

[Lord Trefgarne]

I had intended to speak to the Motion that the House do now resolve itself into Committee, but if your Lordships wish otherwise I will not do so.

[A noble Lord]

It is in order.

[Lord Trefgarne]

As your Lordships will be aware, my noble friend Lord Caithness and I have a number of amendments to the Bill, which we have in mind to move in a little while. I certainly have no intention of opposing the Motion that Committee stage do now commence, but I should explain—I have been asked to do so—that I and, I believe, my noble friend Lord Caithness, but he will speak for himself, do not oppose the principles of House of Lords reform—

[Noble Lords]

Order!

[A noble Lord]

You can say that later.

[Lord Trefgarne]

It would appear I do not have the overwhelming approval of your Lordships. I will keep my remarks for later.

Motion agreed.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Trefgarne]

1: Clause 1, page 1, line 2, leave out subsection (1)

[Lord Trefgarne]

My Lords, Amendment 1 appears on the Marshalled List in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Caithness. The reason why my noble friend and I, particularly myself—again, I must not speak for him—have such strong views on the Bill relates to what happened in 1999. At that time the House of Lords Bill, as it then was, came to your Lordships. It had no provision for hereditary Peers’ by-elections or temporary membership at all. It just removed the hereditary Peers in one fell swoop. After a lot of discussion, it was agreed there would be a remaining number of hereditary Peers and they would remain by virtue of the by-elections, which are now the subject of the Bill. To secure that, we had to make it clear that we would have had grave difficulty with the Bill had it not had those changes made to it.

The terms on which those changes were made were confirmed by the then noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to be “binding in honour” on those who gave their assent to them until such time as House of Lords reform is complete. That was the undertaking given at that time. I agree with those undertakings. When the House of Lords Reform Bill came before Parliament three or four years ago for a largely elected House, I was not opposed to it and would not have sought to object to it, at least not in principle. That is not what happened. That Bill foundered in the other place, as your Lordships will recall. That is why we are very much not in favour of this Bill—in fact, we are wholly opposed to it—because it is piecemeal reform, to which we profoundly disagree.

The number of hereditary Peers was set at 92 back in 1999. It has remained 92 ever since. Since then, the number of life Peers has increased beyond all recognition, but that is another matter. In the meantime, I beg to move the amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper.

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, last Friday we had a debate introduced by the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury that saw this House at its best. On Monday we had a debate on aspects of the future of your Lordships’ House that again saw this House at its best. There is a real danger that this House is going to look absurd today.

We have some 60 amendments. Those who decided to put them down have clearly not agreed to their being grouped. That means we will have debate after debate. And to what purpose? At the end of the Second Reading on 9 September, my noble friend Lady Chisholm of Owlpen made it abundantly plain that this was not a Bill that the Government could support. I personally regretted that. I know the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, regretted it deeply. After all, he was not seeking to remove anyone from your Lordships’ House. He sought to bring to an end a system of by-elections, where we had, just prior to that, had the ludicrous spectacle of three electors choosing from seven candidates—something that could hardly reflect great credit on your Lordships’ House.

This is not an attack on hereditary Peers, many of whom have given staunch and sterling service to your Lordships’ House. Among the Ministers on the Front Bench at the moment—not at this precise moment, although we have one of them—are a number of hereditary Peers who give public service of the highest quality and excellence. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Trefgarne himself has been a distinguished Minister and is at the moment chairman of an important committee. He surely cannot wish this House to look ridiculous.

There is a case for saying that what was agreed in 1999 should remain. I accept that it is a strong case. I believe that there are things that could be done to make it less absurd. For instance, if a retiring or deceased Peer had been an officer of the House, everyone could have a vote. We could turn the House into an electoral college or, more sensibly perhaps, all the Members of the various groups, be they Cross Bench, Labour, Liberal Democrat or Conservative, could vote for vacancies. At least then you would have a three-figure electorate. To approach it in the way being suggested this morning can do nothing other than risk making this House look ridiculous. There is a real debate to be had and there are real points that can be made, but some of the amendments down today would certainly qualify for a parliamentary entry in Trivial Pursuit.

I do not intend to detain your Lordships long, but I urge the House to have a mind to its reputation. We are concerned about that. Those of us who believe passionately in the role of this House, as many of us tried to spell out on Monday of this week, do not wish to see our reputation trashed, least of all trashed from within. I hope that we can come to a reasonably speedy conclusion today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Grocott]

I really do not want to prolong this, but the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, suggests I have powers that I do not possess. The debate in the House of Commons started in April this year, when a 10-minute rule Bill was unanimously passed at First Reading that would remove all hereditary Peers. That is the view of the House of Commons and it predates anything that I have done here. Let us get the chronology right.

[Lord Trefgarne]

My Lords, I start again with the position that I am not opposed to House of Lords reform. If the Bill that was introduced by the coalition Government three or four years ago had reached your Lordships’ House, I would not have opposed it, and that would have been the end of the hereditary Peers. They were not provided for especially as far as that Bill was concerned, although they could of course have stood for election had they chosen to do so.

The future of this Bill is not for me to decide. If I can be assured that it is not going to reach the statute book, I may take a different view on the rest of the amendments before your Lordships. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Some Lords objected to the request for leave to withdraw the amendment, so it was not granted.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Trefgarne]

2: Clause 1, page 1, line 3, leave out subsection (2)

[Lord Trefgarne]

My Lords, the arguments in favour of this amendment are very similar to those which we deployed at some length on the previous one. I again make it clear that I am not opposing reform. I refer back to the speech of my noble friend Lord Cormack, who drew attention to what he saw as some of the shortcomings of the existing by-election arrangements, but not objections in principle.

If the Bill was simply amending or improving by-elections and there was scope to do that, that would have been a different matter—we could have moved amendments for that purpose—but that would have been outside the scope of the Bill, because that is entirely clear in the Long Title: it is to stop the by-elections, no more and no less. Had we sought simply to improve the by-elections through the Bill, that would not have been allowed, and it is for that reason that we have opposed the Bill in principle.

Again, if I could be assured that the Bill will not reach the statute book, I might take a different view, but that is not the present position, it would seem.

[Lord Grocott]

My Lords, I hope that the House will reject the amendment, should the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, put it to the vote.

[Lord Trefgarne]

My Lords, I shall not withdraw this amendment. Apparently, the assurances that I seek are not available. The Government are not prepared to give an assurance, although I understand why that should be so. In that case, I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Trefgarne]

5: Clause 1, page 1, line 3, leave out subsections (2) and (3) and insert—
“( ) In section 2, after subsection (4) insert—“(4A) Standing Orders must provide that vacancies amongst the 90 excepted hereditary peers which are reserved for a political party must be filled by a method which increases the representation of the party which is most under-represented in the House comparing the proportion of politically affiliated Members of the House who are members of that party with the proportion of votes cast for that party at the most recent general election.””

[Lord Snape (Lab)]

The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, is being a bit negative about proceedings this morning. After all, if we look at the result of the two Divisions, we can see that the persuasive powers of the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, are enormous—he has doubled the number of noble Lords in his Lobby. If we go on like this with a few amendments, he could well carry the day. Then of course his colleague, the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, who has 500 years of heritage and favours to repay, also deserves another crack at it. I am not sure about the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, because his father was of course a Labour Peer. Maybe it is our fault that he is here. I do not want to class him as an arriviste—

[Lord Trefgarne]

My Lords—

[Lord Snape]

I will come to the noble Lord in a moment, if I may. I do not want to sound offensive at all or to call him an arriviste, but compared to his noble friend the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, it is difficult to find any other description for him. Comparatively speaking, he has been here only five minutes, yet he is anxious to destroy my noble friend’s innocuous piece of legislation. I shall give way to him now.

[Lord Trefgarne]

Just to correct the noble Lord, my late noble father was actually a member of the Liberal Party.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Strathclyde for what he said. At this point, I feel it is important for me to say as a point of clarity that the Government cannot support this Bill. I have made the Government’s position clear and I hope that all noble Lords will find other ways of resolving the issues, particularly following the very successful debates that we had on Monday. This is not the way we should be doing things.

[Lord Trefgarne]

My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 5 withdrawn.

Moved by

[Lord Trefgarne]

6: Clause 1, page 1, line 3, leave out subsections (2) and (3) and insert—
“( ) In section 2, after subsection (4) insert—“(4A) Standing Orders must provide that in any by-election to fill a vacancy for a specified party or group, the electorate shall consist of any hereditary peer (whether or not excepted under this section) who has registered with the Clerk of the Parliaments as a member or supporter of that group.””

[Lord Trefgarne]

I do not intend to detain your Lordships. I am slightly reassured, and assisted, by the most recent remarks of my noble friend the Minister, when she said that this Bill does not have government support. Can she assure me, therefore, that the Bill will be objected to in the Commons by the Government, when and if it were to go there? I beg to move.

[The Earl of Erroll (CB)]

My Lords, I wish to make a quick point and not detain noble Lords. This series of amendments—from Amendment 5 onwards—is about trying to modify the electoral system to make it more sensible. That is something I do not object to at all. If one wants to have a debate about the hereditary Peers election system, one should probably at some point do something. I am not sure that this Bill is the right place to do it but there is an effort here to have a more sensible system. The reason I voted previously in the way that I did was because until we remove the power of the head of the Executive—in other words, the Prime Minister—to appoint everyone, either directly or indirectly, to the Chamber that is passing laws to control that process, I think we must resist any reform. If you change the powers of the Prime Minister to appoint people to the Lords, then I am with you and we can move forward as a democracy.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Lord Trefgarne]

My Lords, I am minded to withdraw this amendment. I do so on the assumption, first, that the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, will not ask for a Report stage of the Bill and, secondly, when the Bill gets to the House of Commons—if it does by some accident—the Government will not support it. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 6 withdrawn.

House of Lords Bill [HL]

Lord Trefgarne Excerpts

2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Friday 21st October 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Trefgarne (Con)]

My Lords, I do not intend to detain your Lordships for more than a very few moments. During the course of the debate this morning I have learned a number of possible difficulties with the Bill proposed by my noble friend, which he will no doubt take into account. If the Bill is to proceed I suspect that it will need a fairly massive Committee stage. Whether that proves to be possible remains to be seen. I was particularly struck by the observations of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cullen, who felt that much that is in the Explanatory Notes ought to be put into the Bill. I rather agree with that. I also agree about some of the difficulties that have been described over Peers who have come to this House for a comparatively short period and then find themselves unelected.

The other point that occurs to me is that the Bill does cut across the famous undertaking given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine, back in 1999, about the position of the hereditary Peers, who would remain here, topped up by by-elections as necessary, until House of Lords reform was complete. If my noble friend believes that his Bill is in that position he will, perhaps, tell us. I would not have said so and I remain of the view that the undertakings given in 1999 ought to be honoured. I hope that they will be and that the Bill will not cut across that.

House of Lords Act 1999 (Amendment) Bill [HL]

Lord Trefgarne Excerpts

Friday 9th September 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Trefgarne (Con)]

My Lords, I do not intend to detain your Lordships very long but the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, and the rest of your Lordships will not be surprised to hear that I do not agree with the Bill that he proposes, and very much hope that it will not reach the statute book. The reason is simple: when the 1999 Act came before your Lordships, it was not going to pass through your Lordships’ House unless either the Parliament Act was used or your Lordships acquiesced in its passage, which they did not do until the deal that was negotiated came into being.

When the Bill first arrived in your Lordships’ House, there was no provision for by-elections at all; it sought just to remove every single hereditary Peer there and then without any provision for any exceptions except the two statutory exceptions to which the noble Lord referred. An undertaking was then given in the terms the noble Lord described—namely, that there would be 90 hereditary Peers plus the two exceptions, who would be topped up by by-elections as necessary, together with the 15 who are elected by all Members of your Lordships’ House. That undertaking was given to secure the passage of that Bill. It was an undertaking, in the words of the noble and learned Lord of the time,

“binding in honour on all those”,—[Official Report, 30/3/1999; col. 207.]

who gave their assent to it. I consider that that undertaking is still in place and will remain in place until such time as House of Lords reform is complete, when of course a wholly different circumstance will arise. Against that background, I am afraid I cannot agree to the Bill proposed by the noble Lord.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, this has been a fascinating and educative debate for me, having heard from at least two of the people who contributed to that early 1999 agreement which we are debating. It is a great pleasure to congratulate my noble friend Lord Grocott on his Bill, and particularly on his introduction of it. On behalf of the Opposition, I give it the very warmest of welcomes. There are a thousand reasons for supporting it, not least the 1,000 sons of earlier honoured men who have in the past taken their seats here, not because of their own attributes, but because of those of their forebears. Today, there are none such in that the hereditaries now here, although they do indeed have to have honoured forebears, had also to be elected, or selected, by their peers in order to take or retain their seats.

Despite the fact that hereditaries are now elected, I am certain that in the 21st century there can be few who think that in future our legislators should be chosen by virtue of the deeds of their grandfathers—sometimes their great-grandfathers or great-great-grandfathers—rather than for what they themselves bring to the House. As has been said, the overwhelming majority of today’s hereditaries have shown their value to the House, and many would be here anyway as life Peers, given their accomplishments, so the time has come, not to say farewell to any of them, but simply to say that when they leave us, due to retirement or a higher calling, they should not be replaced.

The question asked was interesting because they would not necessarily—or at least it would be very unlikely—be replaced by their own son but by the son of another hereditary Peer. There would be a by-election and it would be someone else’s son who would select them, even though their son would be eligible to be put into the mix.

A number of speakers have said that we are too big and that our size must be reduced. Sadly, that plea fell on the very deaf ears of the former Prime Minister but as the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, and my noble friend Lord Anderson reminded us, that plea has now been repeated by the Lord Speaker, who referred to the shame of the unelected House being larger than the democratically elected one. We see that trend is continuing as the Government seem intent on further reducing the size of the other House while increasing the size of this one. That has led to Charles Walker, the chair of the Procedure Committee in the other place, saying that the planned reduction of 50 MPs is unjustified,

“while the Lords continues to gorge itself on new arrivals”.—[Official Report, Commons, 8/9/16; col. 502.]

That view was echoed by the noble Lord, Lord Robathan. Of course, it is not we who are gorging ourselves; someone else is feeding the beak.

As my noble friend Lord Anderson and, in another way, my noble friend Lady Smith said, a seat in this noble House is a job, not an honour. We should do everything possible to make that clear to the Prime Minister as well as to the public. Surely as part of that call for a reduction in size, we should do something about this ourselves by taking this very modest measure to very slightly and slowly reduce our numbers.

Peers on this side of the House and other noble Lords who have spoken today would prefer greater changes discussed via a constitutional convention rather than by piecemeal measures, but the Government have obviously turned their face from this approach, so we believe the current Bill is appropriate. It is a tidy and measured reasonable step. As the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, said, it is incremental, and my noble friend Lord Haskel said that it is a small step to help this House more fully reflect today’s politics and today’s population.

We have heard different views. Some people say that incremental change is the way that this country works best, but others say that incremental change is the last thing we want. I guess I am with the conservatives. I like those small incremental stages, so I will take this Bill.

As my noble friend Lord Anderson said, we will, I assume, be moving to the QEII Centre. Surely we should not be asking the taxpayer to fund the move of more than 800 of us to that new venue. This is surely the time for us to take this small step.

I shall speak briefly on two further things. The first is the conversation—if I may put it that way—that took place between the noble Lord, Lord Elton, and the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, about the role of this House as an independent voice against the Government. It is for that reason that I—and I think I am probably standing to the side of the Front Bench—do not support an elected House. My reason for supporting an appointed House is the one the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, enunciated, although, as I think I heard from behind me, I think that all life Peers take that responsibility very seriously. It is not just the hereditaries.

As the first woman in today’s debate, I shall make a little plea about women because it is not, on the whole, us who appear this way. The Minister has far more noble blood in her veins than I have, but I am certain that she is delighted that she is here because of her own abilities rather than because of anything else, and that is the way I hope anyone should take their seat here.

We wish this Bill well. We hope very much that the Government are not going to have a knee-jerk reaction and say, “It’s not the time. We’ve got Brexit and other things. It’s just not a priority”. If they say that, change will never happen, so I urge them to think very carefully and give time to allow this Bill to proceed.

[Lord Trefgarne]

My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, will she confirm that the Labour Party no longer honours the undertaking given in 1999?

European Union Referendum (Voter Registration) Regulations 2016

Lord Trefgarne Excerpts

Thursday 9th June 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Maxton (Lab)]

My Lords, I will be brief, although I am tempted to go into a long diatribe about compulsory registration, which I think ought to be the case, as people would automatically be registered and would have to take themselves off the register rather than the other way round. That would be the best way of doing it.

What I am concerned about now, however, is registration for the postal vote. We ought to be extending it in the same way, to the end of tomorrow, because the original deadline to ask for a postal vote was 24 hours after closure of the registration process. Now there will be at least a full 24 hours—that is, today—when no one will be able to apply for a postal vote. I think that that is wrong and I hope that the Government will look at it again and consider whether we might have postal voting for those who apply for registration today.

[Lord Trefgarne (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to support the Motion proposed by my noble friend. As your Lordships may be aware, although this is not set out in the Standing Orders, it is normal practice for your Lordships’ Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, of which I have the honour to be chairman, to report on incidents such as this before they are considered by your Lordships. Clearly that was not possible on this occasion, but I have taken the opportunity to consult as many of the members of my committee as possible. None has raised any objection. I am therefore happy to say to my noble friend that I approve of what he proposes and that my committee has given its informal approval for that process. These are what, in other contexts, we have come to call exceptional circumstances. They clearly apply in this case, and I approve of my noble friend’s proposal.

[Lord Rennard (LD)]

My Lords, first, I thank the Minister for his kind words yesterday about my knowledge and interest in this area. I also ask him to convey my thanks to the Minister for Constitutional Reform for his most helpful recent letter which was also copied to my fellow officers of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Democratic Participation. As the Minister will know, we are discussing with his colleagues our recent Missing Millions report, trying to tackle some of the longer-term problems which have been highlighted this week.

I want to say from these Benches how grateful we are to the Government for acting so expeditiously and properly to ensure that the problems with online registration did not result in people being disenfranchised. Today’s Daily Express headline suggesting that allowing people to vote is somehow “rigging the system” is at least as ridiculous as any of its conspiracy theories concerning the late Diana, Princess of Wales.

Some 242,000 people applied to register to vote yesterday, and more will do so by midnight tonight. But the problem that I raised with the Minister yesterday is that these people were not able to find out easily whether they were already registered, and many of them were. The problems of trying to get people registered at the last minute are the problems that arise from the weaknesses in the system, which have led to the general problem of under-registration. Yesterday, the Minister responded to my point that we really need an online system in which people can easily check whether or not they are already registered. He expressed concern about the creation of a national database to facilitate this. He said that,

“we must guard any solution which results in whole swathes of data unnecessarily being held centrally”.—[Official Report, 8/6/16; col. 751.]

But does he not have concerns that all the major political parties, including his own, already have such a database? All the political parties are entitled to copies of the electoral register in electronic format and they can either aggregate that information or work with any of the credit agencies which also legally have full access to the electoral register. So there are already national databases showing exactly who is on the electoral register.

While there may be some confusion over addresses appearing on those registers in different formats, it should not be hard, for example, for someone to supply their name, postcode, national insurance number or other identification to see whether they are already registered. I raised this issue today with the Electoral Commission. I quote briefly from its email, which is most helpful on this issue. On the question of an online register and checking whether someone is already registered, it says:

“This is a recommendation that we continue to make to Government, including in our February 2016 report, after we received feedback from Electoral Registration Officers, and from electors themselves, that this would be a helpful service. You might already be aware that similar facilities are already offered to voters in other comparable democracies, including Australia and New Zealand”.

Therefore, it seems to me that it would not be too difficult a problem for us to address. We know that in total there may be around 7 million people missing from the registers, and 4 million of them may be young people. I asked in a recent debate why we do not make the electoral registration process part of the student enrolment process. The Minister said that it had been piloted successfully in Sheffield and Cardiff. As it has been piloted successfully there, why can we not roll it out across the whole country? We could make it a universal provision. I have also been pressing, as have many Members of the House, for us to adopt the Northern Ireland model of registering 16 and 17 year-olds as part of citizenship classes at school. The Minister told me that many electoral registration officers are already working with local schools and colleges in their area—but why not all of them? The excuse that Northern Ireland does not yet have online registration is no reason at all for not spreading successful good practice in registering young people across Great Britain.

Finally, I ask the Minister to clarify an issue in the Explanatory Memorandum to this statutory instrument. It states that,

“the Law Commission is currently undertaking a review of electoral law in the United Kingdom and expects to present its recommendations to Government in 2016”.

However, the Law Commission published its interim report on 4 February and made many sensible recommendations for tidying up and modernising our election laws. I have since then been asking for the Government’s response to what the Law Commission said, as the next stages require the Government, instructing parliamentary counsel, to draft the Bill required. The Electoral Commission, I might add, is also extremely keen that this happens. So, what is the Government response to the Law Commission’s report?

Succession to Peerages Bill [HL]

Lord Trefgarne Excerpts

Friday 11th September 2015 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Trefgarne]

That the Bill be now read a second time.

[Lord Trefgarne (Con)]

My Lords, this Bill has nothing whatever to do with membership of your Lordships’ House. It concerns only the arrangements for succession to hereditary peerages, which Peers may, or may not, wish to come to your Lordships’ House. It intends only to bring the succession arrangements into the 21st century.

Noble Lords will be aware that most hereditary peerages can descend only through the male line. Thus it follows that in some cases, where there is no male heir, sadly therefore the peerage usually dies out. There are a few peerages, mostly Scottish ones or very ancient ones, which can descend through the female line and there are a very small number of other peerages where the letters patent specifically allow descent through a woman. My noble friend Lord Fellowes, when he comes to speak, will explain from his position of special knowledge some further details on this matter.

There are two other points that I would like to make. First, a number of your Lordships asked me why I do not propose that hereditary peerages simply descend through the oldest child, come what may. Speaking personally, I would have no particular objection to such an arrangement. But the plain fact is that that proposition has been before Parliament on several occasions and has on each of those occasions failed to attract your Lordships’ support. I therefore propose a more modest arrangement. Modernisation of the hereditary peerage should now begin and it is for that reason that I bring this modest proposal before your Lordships. Thus it is that the purpose of the Bill is to authorise succession through the female line in those circumstances where the peerage would otherwise disappear. I hope that your Lordships will agree that this proposition is right and proper in the present circumstances and will agree to the Bill.

I make just one further final point. A peerage is not the only hereditary title within our system. There are also baronetcies and one or two other more obscure hereditary titles, mostly within Scotland. I have received several representations from those representing baronets who would like their titles, too, which like peerages descend only through the male line, to be the subject of this Bill. Again, I would have no objection to widening my Bill in that way, but I fear that any such amendments may be said to be outside the scope of the Long Title and therefore out of order. That is a matter for the clerks rather than for me and I make no further observations.

There is a difference between abeyance of a peerage and extinction of a peerage. It is a highly technical difference and I would not claim to be an expert on it, save to say that abeyance generally applies to the very oldest peerages and may therefore come within the scope of this Bill. I have nothing more to say in connection with this measure and I hope that it will find favour with your Lordships. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Trefgarne]

My Lords, I am grateful to every noble Lord and noble Baroness who has contributed to this debate, and particularly grateful to my noble friend the Minister for his lengthy, interesting and detailed reply. I am reminded that back in 1956 a case came before Parliament relating to a peerage that had gone into abeyance in 1302—so there is some complexity in these matters.

I have an open mind on many of the issues that have been raised during the debate, and I shall be happy to consider amendments that might correct the anomalies referred to, particularly the one referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and repeated by others.

Bill read a second time and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.