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

Lord Grocott Excerpts

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

Moved by

[Lord Grocott]

That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.

[Lord Trefgarne (Con)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Caithness]

My Lords, the whole situation in which we were going to discuss the Bill has changed as a result of the useful debate that we had on Monday. We did not all agree but at least we were able to express our views without some of the intolerance that is creeping into the Chamber today. Indeed, as my noble friend Lord Strathclyde said, there is a committee looking at this in the other place.

Mention has been made of the system of appointing hereditary Peers, and we have tabled amendments. The noble Lord, Lord Grocott, said at Second Reading—I apologise to him and to the House for not being able to be here for that—that the appointments system was beyond ludicrous. There is a very good argument for saying that, but we have amendments to make it considerably less ludicrous.

[Lord Grocott]

My Lords, the noble Earl was not here at Second Reading and he may not have read Hansard. I did not say that the appointments system was beyond ludicrous, I said that the current system of by-elections for hereditary Peers was beyond ludicrous.

[The Earl of Caithness]

My Lords, I did read Hansard, and in fact I have it beside me—which is no surprise to the noble Lord because he knew that I would. Yes, he said that the succession system was beyond ludicrous. We have amendments down to make it less so and I hope that he will be able to accept them.

I am also against what the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, proposes because of what happened in 1999. I have spoken and written to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, who was Lord Chancellor at the time—it was really his amendment rather than Weatherill’s. He had said:

“The amendment reflects a compromise negotiated between Privy Councillors on Privy Council terms and binding in honour on all those who have come to give it their assent”.—[Official Report, 30/3/1999; col. 207.]

My last letter to the noble and learned Lord was on 31 March 2014, when I wrote seeking elucidation as to what those words meant. I spoke to him afterwards and he said, “You’re not going to get an answer from me”, so I had to interpret them myself. I believe that those words “binding in honour” apply to all the 308 Peers who are still in the Chamber and were here during the debate in 1999, and they also apply to the 109 former MPs who were in the House of Commons when that debate took place and are now in this House. I believe that because they are binding in honour and the agreement was on Privy Council terms, it is not for me to break that agreement. Others may—that is up to them and their consciences—but for me it is a point of principle. What the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, wishes to do is a major constitutional change and I believe that major constitutional change should be undertaken by the Government, not by Back-Benchers.

This House has had an elected element for 273 out of the last 309 years. There was a gap between 1963 and 1999. Removing the hereditaries, which is the inevitable result of removing the succession to them, would leave a solely appointed House. That is not what the public want. The latest opinion poll that I could find shows that 60% of the public want an elected House. Those figures replicate earlier opinion polls.

An appointed House is not what the House of Commons wants either. It voted against it on 4 February 2003 by a majority of 78. There was an even larger majority on 7 March 2007 of 179. The Commons also voted for an elected Chamber. I know that did not come to pass in the 2012 Bill, but if that Bill had come to this House, I would have supported it because I have said in this House before that I am a firm believer in having an elected second Chamber and have voted for that. I support what the House of Commons said. Yes, let us remove all us hereditaries, but only on the condition that all the life Peers go too. Do not remove one without the other. I believe that keeping the hereditaries will help us to achieve a democratic, elected House sooner rather than later.

I discussed this with the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, over breakfast downstairs. He is entitled to his view, and he has been a firm and totally consistent advocate of an appointed House. I take a different view. I want an elected House, and I think that the retention of the hereditaries will bring that about sooner rather than later.

The appointment system has been criticised. If we remove the hereditaries with this Bill, we will be left with an appointment system. In 1999, my now noble friend Lord Cormack said:

“We are witnessing a crude exercise of patronage”.—[Official Report, Commons, 10/11/1999; col. 1200.]

If that was true in 1999, how much more true is it today?

The appointment system was condemned by many during our debate on Monday. Since 1997, 25% of those appointed to this House have been ex-MPs, and a further 7% have been affiliated to parties either by working in them or by taking party positions. That is more than 30%. I have tabled Amendment 45A, which seeks to draw attention to this. In order to help the House, I shall speak to it now.

I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, would ever accept an amendment that restricted the appointment system to such a disproportionate percentage of former MPs. We have become the dumping ground for MPs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen (Con)]

My Lords, I start by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, for steering his Bill, which has provoked an interesting and engaging debate, into Committee. The whole House recognises his understanding of Parliament and his commitment to ensuring its work continues to be relevant. Given the number of amendments before us, many of which are related, if not grouped together, it may be for the convenience of the House if I set out the Government’s position at this point. I do not intend to comment on subsequent amendments, solely because I would be repeating myself.

As we have seen in the past, if reform of this House is to succeed, we must be able to work constructively together to make progress. It is clear from the Second Reading debate and comments from noble Lords today that this is an issue on which there are strong feelings on both sides, and no clear consensus as to the way forward. With that in mind, and as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and my noble friend Lord Strathclyde said, with so many other pressing legislative priorities to deliver over this Parliament, noble Lords will perhaps not be surprised to hear that as a Government we express reservations about this Bill.

Yet that does not mean we should simply set ourselves in aspic. As my noble friend the Leader made clear in the debate earlier this week, we want to work constructively with noble Lords to look at pragmatic ideas for change that can command broad consensus, just as we did in the last Parliament. Then, we worked with noble Lords to introduce some focused, important reforms. With government support, the Bill sponsored in this House by the noble Lord, Lord Steel, now the House of Lords Reform Act 2014, enabled Peers to retire permanently for the first time—54 Members so far have done so—and provided for Peers to be disqualified when they do not attend or are convicted of serious offences. The following year, through what is now the House of Lords (Expulsion and Suspension) Act 2015, we supported the Bill of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, which provided this House with the power to expel Members in cases of serious misconduct. Both were important reforms that have made tangible changes to the culture of this House.

We must now bring that same spirit—of pragmatic, incremental, consensual progress—to discussions in the coming weeks and months, keeping in mind the need for any further reform to both enhance our role as a Chamber of scrutiny and revision and enable us to continue to draw on a wealth of expertise and experience. We must do so together as a House, building on the sense of real partnership that the debate earlier this week demonstrated. Although there might not be consensus on this Bill, I look forward to the discussions we have to come in order to identify where that consensus might be found.

I finish by observing, as my noble friends Lord Cormack and Lord Strathclyde said, that the debate in the House on Monday on the size of the House was conducted in a friendly and constructive spirit, whatever the differences between noble Lords in their views on the right way forward. Monday showed this House at its best, and I am sure we will continue in that spirit today.

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

My Lords, it has been a varied debate, although the one thing that has united everyone who spoke, including the mover of the amendment, is that no one spoke to the amendment. I do not make a criticism on those grounds, but we have essentially had a Second Reading debate, and I fear that we would have that on all 60 amendments should we proceed. I shall be brief as I also note that this first group has taken an hour, and there are 60 amendments. Most of them were put down yesterday, which makes them quite difficult to deal with, and all of them have been degrouped, so we have to have nearly 60 separate debates. I think 60 hours on this would be a bit much and try the patience of all of us—quite apart from how we would appear to the world outside.

The first amendment simply removes Clause 1(1), and basically wrecks the Bill. It certainly does when considered with all the other amendments of that type. The noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, has put down amendments to remove subsections (1), (2), (3), (4), (5) et cetera. He is perfectly entitled to do that. We are a Parliament with parliamentary procedures, and he is entitled to put down as many amendments as he likes, but he acknowledged in his opening remarks that he is totally opposed to the Bill. That again is a perfectly legitimate and honourable position to adopt, but if he wants to adopt that position, he either should have voted against the Second Reading or should vote against the Third Reading. He has another opportunity to do that, but instead he has just put down huge numbers of amendments, which I do not think he would be too proud of if they were read out one by one—as I have already mentioned, he did not actually move the first amendment. Seven or eight amendments simply vary the date at which the Bill comes into operation: one month, two months, three months. Let us have a serious debate on serious amendments if we are going to, but of course the problem that the noble Lord, and the House, face is that this is such a narrow and specific Bill. It is a two-clause Bill, dealing with a very specific problem, and it is almost impossible to amend sensibly. However, of course your Lordships can reject it. You either support the end of the hereditary by-election system or you do not, and I hope that the House will come rapidly to a decision on that.

Since everyone else has made something close to a Second Reading speech, I will just remind the House what my Bill does. It was motivated by a general feeling of unease, but was precipitated by the by-election on 18 April this year—I know most Liberal Democrats feel just the same about this as I do—where there were seven candidates and an electorate of three. That must be a world record. Of the seven candidates, six did not get any votes, and the seventh got all three votes—100%, which, as I said at the time, beats North Korea. That is not sustainable. It is so easy to get a laugh out of this, because the present system is laughable. Whatever the motives or arguments over why it came into operation, and we can rehearse those again and again, it is what has happened as a result of the decisions made in 1999 and the resulting section of the 1999 Act that has resulted in this by-election system, which has now been going on for 17 years and has led to 30 new Members being brought in via this mechanism.

The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, thinks that somehow the 92 hereditaries are precipitating a major reform of the House. “It is a long time coming”, is all I can say to that, and he did not offer a timescale on which he expected that to be achieved. So the objective has not worked. We have had all these by-elections, and they will go on in perpetuity. If the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, is straightforward with the House about this, as I am sure he will be, he will acknowledge that if the Bill fails the by-elections will continue and we will end up at the stage where the grandchildren of the Peers who were first exempted find themselves in the House of Lords via this bizarre mechanism.

I repeat that my Bill hurts no one. I was mildly concerned about the comment from the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell; I am not trying to bribe anyone at all. I know many hereditary Peers who support what I am doing. I make no criticism whatever of the hereditary Peers in this House. The reason why they are excluded from the Bill is not that I am looking for their votes in passing it; frankly, I probably do not need them. It is because many of them, such as—it seems invidious to mention any of them, but I shall mention one—the noble Earl, Lord Howe, make a tremendous contribution to the work of this House.

So the Bill is nothing to do with that point. It is simply saying that any honest, straightforward person looking objectively at the system that exists would say, “Let’s get rid of it with a clean break”. Then, admittedly, over a period of 30 or 40 years, there would no longer be any hereditary Peers in the House. That is not the objective of the Bill but a consequence of it, and I do not think it is a revolutionary consequence. The noble Lord, Lord True, who I know very well, mentioned that it might result in a change in the party balance. I think 10 Tories have been elected so far under the by-election system over a period of 17 years. I know we move slowly in this place, but that does not strike me as a revolutionary overnight change. This is incremental reform in the best traditions of the group chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, which I have supported over many years. I am often criticised for that; I am called a “constitutional conservative”, and I can live with that. It is common-sense incremental reform to a system that to want to sustain is, frankly, pretty indefensible.

The indications I have are that there is very strong support for this in the House. I would much prefer it if we could just acknowledge that, complete Committee stage and see what happens to the Bill. The worst of all solutions would be if we had hour after hour after hour of debate on amendments that, frankly, I do not think the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, or the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, would be terribly proud of if their biographies were to be written. That would not bring the House into disrepute but would not leave it looking very good, particularly after the splendid debate on Monday—I can say that as I did not take part in it, though I listened to most of it—when it was clear that the wish of the House was that it should be smaller. It must be pretty well a first in the world for an organisation to say, “We want fewer of us”. I cannot think of any other organisation that I have had anything to do with that would say that. So the House realises that its size affects its performance and reputation, and that we should look for ways of reducing its numbers. Here is a way that would reduce its numbers over a period of 30 years to the tune of 92.

I make this appeal to the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, and I think I speak for most people here, whatever they feel about the Bill: I ask him not to persist with the remaining 59 amendments, most of which are in his name. I ask the noble Lord to acknowledge that when he stands up to speak.

We have had a good debate. We need to come to a conclusion on this amendment, which would remove subsection (1), which, as I have said, would wreck the Bill. The House needs to decide whether it wants to do that, and I hope the noble Lord tests the opinion of the House. Most of all, I would like to hear him acknowledge that we should move on and have a Report stage in due course, and formally move the rest of the amendments.

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, the noble Lord said we should wait and see what happens to the Bill. We know what is going to happen to it. It has no prospect whatever of becoming law, so why is he bothering to continue with it?

[Lord Grocott]

The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, has been around longer than me. It is not me who is bothering to continue with today’s proceedings. For the previous three months, since the Second Reading debate on 9 September, I have looked with joy to check how many amendments were being tabled. Until Tuesday of this week there were six, one of which was mine. Then, lo and behold, inspiration clearly struck two or three of our Members and 60 amendments were tabled overnight. I am sure they were considered—no, it is best not to be sarcastic. I will put it as neutrally as I can: I do not think they were done with the intention of improving the Bill. It is up to those who tabled them. The impetus today has not come from me. It has come from those who want to hold us here for hours discussing largely meaningless amendments, and I call on the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, to acknowledge that.

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, the noble Lord did not answer the point that I made in my short contribution. Since he started this process, it has excited interest from the House of Commons. We are all being consulted by the Commons on what we think the future make-up of the House of Lords should be. The Government have said they are not going to support the Bill. He says it is not in his hands, but it is entirely in his hands; if he said he was happy to withdraw the Bill, I am sure my noble friend Lord Trefgarne would be very happy with that.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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 ---

[Lord Grocott]

My Lords, the Government have stated their position, which has been consistent throughout. I never thought that they would throw their weight behind this Bill. However, I am frankly surprised at their reasoning. I do not think that the fact that they are having to sort out the economy and Brexit is a good reason for opposing a two-clause Bill, which I think has pretty universal support and would improve the workings of this House. However, the Minister’s reassurance may be enough for the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, to not ask the opinion of the House on the amendment that he has just moved, and thereafter not to move his further amendments, so that we get through the Committee stage of this Bill and then proceed to Report, if that is permitted. I do not think the Bill is likely to proceed to Report, and that is not something I feel pressed to pursue. However, I obviously regret the fact that it is unlikely to proceed further if the Government say so. Bearing in mind the knowledge of the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, in relation to the high death rate of Private Members’ Bills, from whichever House they emerge, I think that the ball is now in the court of the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne.

[The Earl of Caithness]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, on putting in all four Tellers on the first amendment. He was, of course, beautifully educated by the late Walter Harrison, one of the great Whips of the Labour minority Government of the 1970s, and he must have learned at Mr Harrison’s knee. Indeed, there is an extremely good play, which I recommend to all your Lordships, in which this is portrayed. The noble Lord has learned the arts of government extremely well, as indeed he did when he was PPS to a former Prime Minister. That was complemented by his excellent term as Chief Whip in this House. Therefore, we have a lot to learn from the noble Lord on handling parliamentary procedure. Is he prepared to accept any amendments to his Bill to improve the way that hereditary Peers are elected? In other words, is he set in his view that the banning of succession is the only thing that matters, not trying to get the system to work better?

[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.