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

Full Debate: Read Full Debate
Department: Cabinet Office

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

Lord Reid of Cardowan Excerpts
Friday 23rd March 2018

(6 years, 8 months ago)

Lords Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Viscount Trenchard Portrait Viscount Trenchard
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My noble friend has already interrupted me once. I would like to continue.

Lord Reid of Cardowan Portrait Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)
- Hansard - -

I am very grateful. If I could be generous in my advice, I would invite my noble colleague to remember the old Denis Healey phrase, “When in a hole, stop digging”, because the longer he goes on, the more the tenor of this House is going to move forward from a small but reasonable amendment to some radical thoughts across these Benches. I know he would not want to contribute to that, so will he answer the question that has just been asked of him: how do his comments relate to the amendment that he has just read out? We now know he can read. Can he just explain to us how what he is saying relates to that amendment?

Viscount Trenchard Portrait Viscount Trenchard
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

As the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, pointed out, the amendments have the effect of damaging the Bill, ensuring that it would not be effective. As I have sympathy with that purpose, I think that my remarks are very closely related to the amendments tabled.

--- Later in debate ---
I support Amendment 59 and counsel your Lordships against aligning themselves with a Bill that would produce an all-appointed House without the consent of the people.
Lord Reid of Cardowan Portrait Lord Reid of Cardowan
- Hansard - -

I have listened very carefully to the noble Lord, Lord True. His speech was probably the most substantial criticism so far of the Bill—which I support. Does he notice the apparent contradiction at the centre of his arguments? Up until now, the main argument against the Bill is the independence and independent authority of the hereditaries. In his closing remarks, the noble Lord made the opposite argument: the reduction in hereditaries was important because it affected the party-political balance, as the hereditaries had an overwhelming party-political role in the numbers of the Conservative Party. Does he see the apparent conflict in those two arguments?

Lord True Portrait Lord True
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My Lords, I do not see any distinction at all, though I am always grateful for a compliment from the noble Lord, whom I esteem highly. I do not particularly follow the argument about independence. It is true that hereditary Peers come here by a different route, but I have never made that argument. As was said in a challenge to the noble Viscount, it is an objective fact. They come here through election by a political college and they take a political place. I therefore have some doubt about the argument. There are nuances in all these things.