House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Lord Grocott Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 11th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

My Lords, I think I can be forgiven for reflecting that, in five Sessions of Parliament over a period of eight years, I introduced successive Bills to deal with the outstanding problem of the remaining hereditary Peers. Each time, my Bill was filibustered by half a dozen Peers, some of whom are speaking today, and blocked by successive Conservative Governments. No one so far has explained why they thought that was a good idea. I shall concentrate my remarks on the principal arguments used against this Bill so far and in previous debates.

First, we have been told or reminded already that we cannot legislate to remove the hereditaries because of a deal reached by Conservative and Labour leaders in the Lords a quarter of a century ago. The deal, it is said, guaranteed that 92 hereditaries should remain until some unspecified date in the future. Anyone who uses this argument clearly does not understand the most fundamental principle of the British constitution, namely that no Parliament can bind its successor. It would be ludicrous if it were otherwise. Are the defenders of the 1999 deal really saying that today’s Parliament can legislate on war and peace, can join the EU or leave it and nationalise the railways or privatise them, but the one thing it must never do under any circumstances whatever is to remove the right of hereditary Peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords?

There is a far more damning indictment of the 1999 deal. We now know from no less a source than Lord Cranborne, the Conservative Leader in the Lords at the time, that the Labour Government were forced into retaining the 92 hereditaries because their whole legislative programme was under threat. Viscount Cranborne himself said:

“My whole tactic was to make their flesh creep … I threatened them with the Somme and Passchendaele”.


Viscount Cranborne said he would call off the threat, but only if at least 92 hereditaries were retained. I happened to be working at No. 10 at the time and we did indeed believe that, if we did not concede on the hereditaries, we would be unable to get our manifesto commitments through the Lords, with its huge, huge Tory majority. It was the most flagrant breach by the Tory Opposition of the fundamental convention of this House: namely, that the Lords respects manifesto commitments. It was not a deal; it was blackmail.

The second palpably weak argument against this Bill is that by removing the 92 hereditaries you somehow undermine the constitutional monarchy. The answer to that is simple: 25 years ago, we removed 667 hereditary peers and, quite patently, the monarchy has remained entirely unaffected. The key reason is precisely that , at all costs, the monarch keeps out of party politics and for centuries has taken no part whatever in the process of legislation. The situation of the hereditaries could not be more different. Most of the 92 who have inherited their titles are extensively, and sometimes decisively, involved in party politics and voting on Bills as they pass through Parliament. I should also point out that the removal of the 667 hereditaries has had absolutely no detrimental effect whatever on the operation of this House. If there are any Members here today who think we should never have passed the 1999 Act, it is entirely within their rights to put down amendments to the Bill to reinstate the 667—and good luck with that one.

Thirdly, we have the astonishing party-political argument that has been put forward by the noble Lord, Lord True, and others, that the removal of the hereditaries is grossly unfair to the Tory party, and will put them in an unacceptably weak position in the House. To appreciate the audacity of that claim, just look at the figures. Even when all the hereditaries are removed, the remaining party strengths will be as follows: Tories 228, Labour 182 —a Tory majority over Labour of 46. And listen to this: that figure of 46 is larger than any majority ever held by Labour over the Conservatives in this House. The largest ever Labour majority over the Tories was just 26 in 2010. For any Tory to claim that their party either today or after the departure of the hereditaries, or indeed at any time in the party’s history, has had a raw deal in the House of Lords is simply risible.

That brings me, finally, to the critics of the Bill who say that it is bad because it will lead to some valued Members of the House having to depart. Well, I agree with that. Of course, that is true and it is inevitable. It would be true of any group of people who were given a privileged position in the legislature by virtue of some characteristic acquired by birth. We could reserve 92 places for people with green eyes, or red hair, or—one that I would find quite appealing—92 places reserved for the eldest sons of railwaymen. Whatever random category you select, including hereditary Peers, you will have some who are very good, some who are average and some who are not so good, and one or two maybe who are a complete waste of space. And, no, I am not going to identify which Members fall into which categories.

This Bill is long, long overdue. The whole idea of inheriting the right to legislate is indefensible. The manifesto commitment is clear. The Commons have backed this Bill with an overwhelming majority of 362. So, let us get on with it.

House of Lords Reform

Lord Grocott Excerpts

Tuesday 12th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

My Lords, the subject of this debate is very wide—reform of the House of Lords—but the reason we are having it is extremely narrow. It is, of course, focused specifically on the Bill currently going through the other House about the removal of hereditary Peers. I am a strong supporter of the Bill, but I shall reserve my main arguments in favour of it until Second Reading. I intend to use my time today to make a couple of observations about the Bill that I think are relevant to any future plans for reform of this House.

The current Bill is unfinished business; it is business that should have been completed 25 years ago. At that time, a Labour Government with a huge majority of 179 in the Commons had a clear election mandate to remove all the hereditary Peers. When it came to the House of Lords, the Government found it impossible to fulfil the promise they had made to the electorate. It is a long and strong convention that it is this House’s responsibility to allow the passage, within a reasonable time, of manifesto commitments, but it was not possible back in 1999 for reasons that I will describe at Second Reading. So here we are again, with another Labour Government with another huge majority—this time of 174—and the clearest possible general election mandate to remove the remaining 92 hereditaries from the House.

It is a simple five-clause Bill with the simplest of objectives. It has been carried in the Commons by huge majorities. It is a clear manifesto commitment from a general election held just four months ago. What I conclude from this is that by all precedent and convention—and we have heard a lot about that, particularly from the noble Lord, Lord True—the Bill should have a simple, safe passage through this House. To put it more negatively, it would be very bad indeed for this House and we would make ourselves look ridiculous in the eyes of the public if any behaviour took place that was in any way comparable to that which happened 25 years ago.

I remind the House that the fundamental principle of the 1999 Act is clearly stated in law. Clause 1 of that Act says:

“No-one shall be a member of the House of Lords by virtue of a hereditary peerage”,


or, to put it more colloquially, you cannot inherit the right to legislate. In all my years in this House and in the Commons, I cannot remember many people publicly challenging that principle—although I have to say I recall one Conservative saying to me, I hope in jest, that he did not like constitutional change and in fact was not too keen on the Reform Act 1832—so, for me, unfinished business is a powerful reason for being enthusiastic about the Bill.

The other reason is that it means the end, never to return, of those risible, farcical, indefensible hereditary Peer by-elections. The zenith of absurdity was reached in 2016 when, for a new Liberal Democrat Peer, there were seven candidates and an electorate of three—more than twice as many candidates as electors. The winning candidate got all three votes and the remaining six got none. As they say, you could not make it up. Of all the proposals for Lords reform, I thought that scrapping these by-elections would surely be easy, but I did not at all allow for the determined filibustering of a tiny minority of hereditary Peers—although I believe the majority of hereditary Peers supported the Bill.

I also have to mention the determination of the Conservative Government of the time to block the Bill. During the passage of the current Bill, those who blocked the previous ones can perhaps tell us why they thought it was a good idea to do that and whether they are still of the same opinion.

I take two lessons from my attempts and those of others who have tried to initiate Lords reform since the 1999 Act. First, if we in this House do not deal with the reforms that are clearly necessary then someone else will do the job for us. Secondly, the way to Lords reform is not one that tries to change powers, composition, electoral systems and the relationship with the Commons all in one grandiose scheme. The overwhelming evidence of the last 100 years is that attempts at wholesale reform all in one go will, slowly and inexorably, grind into the sand. The reforms that will succeed are those which are short, simple and focused.

I have one final reminder. We are entertained and fascinated by these issues and happy to spend hours discussing them, as today’s debate with 80 speakers clearly demonstrates. However, it is an enthusiasm that is not shared by the British public. While reform is important—I do not doubt that—other issues are far more important to most people, and far more deserving of debate and parliamentary time. When we debate the hereditary Peers Bill, and indeed any future reforms to the Lords, we need to keep that perspective firmly in mind.

House of Lords: Behaviour and Courtesy

Lord Grocott Excerpts

Monday 14th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, from time to time we see reports in the press or polls are undertaken in response. One that struck me most recently said how little people understood the work we do in this House. That is incumbent on us all, not just in our behaviour but in our explanation about what we do. Perhaps we ought to think a little more, particularly when we have debates on some of our very specialised reports or the detail of legislation, about how we can broadcast that more widely, so that people understand what goes on in this Chamber.

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

My Lords, as this Question is in essence about the powers of the Lord Speaker, it is worth putting that into a bit of context. When the Lord Speaker’s position was introduced, it was in the context of great hostility to us having a Lord Speaker at all. The Speaker was allowed only to sit in the Chamber and was forbidden from speaking under any circumstances; the Lord Speaker was the only person who could not speak.

Since then, a number of small but significant changes have been made, all of which have enhanced the role of the Lord Speaker. In the context of every one of those changes—the Speaker taking over from the clerk in introducing the next Question, and many similar things, such as explaining the business as it comes along—no one suggests now that we should revert to the system that existed without the Lord Speaker. The direction of travel is very much in the direction of the case argued by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely right. I remember the controversy when the first Lord Speaker—the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, who is in her place—was introduced. Every Lord Speaker has done this House proud. Of course, their role is not just one in the Chamber but a wider one of advocacy for the House of Lords. The noble Lord is right that each of those changes—I was the advocate for the last one of announcing next business when we move from Bills to Statements—has been made with the agreement of the House. I always think that is the best way to proceed on these issues.

Anniversary of 7 October Attacks: Middle East

Lord Grocott Excerpts

Tuesday 8th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

The noble Lord is right that Hezbollah is a proscribed organisation. Its views are abhorrent and there is no place for promoting the role or organisation of Hezbollah at all on the streets of London. The Home Secretary has made comments on that, making her views very clear and in a very strong way. People have a right to peaceful protest and we should always respect that—even when I sit in my office and can hear the amplified voices across the road as I work. That is peaceful protest, but when people stray beyond peaceful protest and support terrorism, that is a different matter.

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

My Lords, we all know that, sooner or later, the dreadful violence that has erupted in southern Israel, in Gaza and now in Lebanon will subside. There will then be an uneasy truce and, as sure as night follows day, the violence will occur again until the fundamental problems of the region are addressed. The most fundamental problem, surely, is that there cannot possibly be peace in this part of the Middle East until the Palestinians obtain what the Israelis achieved and love: a state of their own. Until the Palestinians can receive that support, including from this Government, I am afraid that the cycle of violence will just go on and on.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

The noble Lord makes an important point about everybody in the region feeling safe and secure. That is what the two-state solution is: a safe and secure Israel and a strong and viable state of Palestine. There is a lesson on this. At the beginning of his comments, the noble Lord made a really telling remark that, at some point—we want it to be sooner rather than later—violence will subside and we will move towards peace and negotiation. At no time can the countries involved in negotiation, and in trying to reach the two-state solution, take a step back and think, “It’s quietened down now, we can forget about it”. The point he makes is that we need constant vigilance to ensure that, until we can guarantee the security and safety of civilians across the region, we have to remain engaged. I take very seriously the points he made on that.

Business of the House

Lord Grocott Excerpts

Thursday 25th July 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I am slightly concerned about this. I am not a usual channel and the conversations that have taken place with such amity and warmth seem not to have reached me. I was unable, I am afraid, to be present for the debate on an humble Address on Tuesday, but I have read it carefully in Hansard and great attention and sanctification were given to the principle of the rule of law.

We have a statutory obligation to hold these by-elections. To proceed by using standing orders to eviscerate, in effect, that statutory obligation, which is what we are doing, seems to cast a very early question on this commitment to the rule of law that we have heard about. Understanding fully, of course, that this Motion will pass, I ask the Leader of the House why 18 months has been chosen and what that portends for the Government’s legislative timetable in relation to the reforms they wish to bring forward. We have no excuse here as we did before in relation to Covid; we are not in the middle of a major global health emergency, which was what justified the use of standing orders before, so can the noble Baroness explain to us what the Government’s plans are that make 18 months the appropriate time? Why could it not be six months?

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

My Lords, I never quite thought this day would come. We have had endless Private Members’ Bills and numerous discussions on the Floor of the House, and now we have recognition, which I am delighted about, from the usual channels that to hold two further hereditary Peers’ by-elections at a time when Parliament was considering ending such elections would make us even more of a laughing stock than these by-elections do in any case.

I have to say it slowly: this almost certainly means the end of hereditary Peers’ by-elections. That is wonderful as far as I am concerned. It means an end to the clerk having to moonlight as a returning officer; it means an end to me having to give observations on the political significance of a particular by-election as and when it is declared; and of course it means that I shall not fulfil my ambition, which was to become the House’s equivalent of Professor Sir John Curtice in relation to by-elections. I should say as well, just as a general observation, that it means an end to elections that are men-only elections and an end to elections such as one where there was an electorate of three and six candidates—unknown in the western, eastern, northern or southern world, as far as I know.

So the time has come at last, in a puff of smoke on a damp Thursday morning, when these wretched by-elections will come to a conclusion. I simply say to the noble Lord, Lord Moylan: know when it is over.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, that hereditary by-elections are probably now coming to an end. That does not stop this move being illegal; it is against the set-down rules, which is rather strange from a party whose leader was Director of Public Prosecutions and was dedicated to obeying the rule of law. The problem, of course, is that none of us in this House is legitimate; we are all appointed by one body or individual or another, and the only people who are elected by anybody are the hereditaries—so, in many ways, they have a superior right to be here than we do.