House of Lords Reform Bill [HL]

Lord True Excerpts

Friday 21st October 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Trefgarne]

I hope I may be allowed to explain shortly but clearly why I disagree that this clause should remain in the Bill. Back in 1999, the House consisted of some 700 hereditary Peers and 560 or thereabouts life Peers plus the Bishops and the Law Lords, so the vast majority were hereditary Peers. When the Government Bill came forward, it was to remove all those hereditary Peers, each and every one, all the 700. Never in history, surely, was there a Government seeking to remove more than half of one of the Chambers of Parliament by legislation, but the hereditary Peers recognised that there was a case to be made and in the end an arrangement was reached between, as we have heard, my noble friend, now the Marquess of Salisbury, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg. The hereditary Peers did not have to be persuaded by that argument, but they were. The result was that that Bill passed.

Had that agreement not been reached, the Bill would almost certainly not have passed. Indeed, there were a good many life Peers who were not in favour of it. I believe it would not have passed although it could, no doubt, have been forced through with the Parliament Act. However, there is room for more than one respectable view about whether that was possible. The deal that was then done, the arrangements that were agreed between my noble friend and the noble and learned Lord were to the effect that 90 hereditary Peers would remain, re-elected as necessary as they passed on, and two hereditary Peers—the two great officers of state—would come ex officio, so to speak. That was the arrangement, and the arrangement was to remain in place until House of Lords reform was complete. By no stretch of the imagination does this Bill represent complete House of Lords reform. Therefore, in accordance with the undertaking then reached, this clause ought not to be included, and I hope my noble friend Lord Steel will not insist upon it.

[Lord True]

My Lords, I apologise to your Lordships. If it is any consolation to the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery of Alamein, having to attend a medical appointment is not only a function of what age you are. I apologise to your Lordships that I, too, was attending one this morning.

I trespass on your Lordships’ indulgence simply because when those discussions were taking place in 1999 I was there as a humble agent of the discussions and perhaps I can make some comments from the standpoint of one who was actively involved in some of the official negotiations which were supporting negotiations taking place.

I offer no advice to any noble Lords on the decision that they may or may not want to take on the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood. There has been comment about the statement made from the Dispatch Box by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, about the agreement, which the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, has described quite accurately as being binding in honour. Honour is a very personal matter, and I do not think it is for anyone to say to other people how they should interpret what being bound in honour actually means.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord True]

I am certainly aware of that. As I understand the way in which your Lordships' House operates, the decisions made in it are made by individual Peers reaching a decision on the matters before them. I was hoping to shed some light on the decision that is about to be taken; I am not going to go into the constitutional theory of binding succession.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine, said that the agreement was binding in honour, not on Privy Counsellors—that would be nonsensical—but,

“on all those who have come to give it their assent”.—[Official Report, 30/3/99; col. 207.]

It was passed by overwhelming majorities in both Houses of Parliament on the amendment put forward by the late Lord Weatherill. For my own part, I lent that agreement my assent, although I was not a Member of your Lordships' House, and I therefore consider myself bound in honour.

Why was that agreement made? That has been very clearly expressed. It was made to enable the Labour Government to achieve a long-standing aspiration of the Labour Party to reform your Lordships' House, and I think that most people in your Lordships' House believe that this House is better as a result, although it is arguable whether the Bill would have passed without the Parliament Act had that agreement not been made. It was assented to by the majority of the Peers then in the House, 666 of whom then left the House to enable that legislation to take place, on the legitimate expectation that we would be proceed to—to use the term that was used then—stage two.

Stage two is not defined, and when things are not defined, inconveniences arise, but no one suggested that stage two should be election, or necessarily appointment, or a mixed House. However, everyone in both Houses of Parliament agreed at that time that we would proceed towards stage two. So far as I am concerned, the Bill before us is, as has been said today, in no sense stage two. Stage two could be any of the things I have described, but we have not reached that point, so in those terms I—I cannot speak for others—consider the agreement that was entered into as binding in honour.

I might say to the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, that the nature of the elections can certainly be described by some as being odd. At the time, the Conservative Party and the representatives of the Cross Benches proposed in talks that the arrangements should not be as they are now but should be more akin to a representative peerage and more like some of the other results. Representatives of the Labour Government at that time insisted on the present arrangement, and we, for our part, agreed to that. It was all part of the give and take of the agreement, and we live with the compromise.

Having troubled your Lordships, I will perhaps sit down.

[A noble Lord]

Hear, hear.

[Lord True]

I note as a new Peer the pleasure that that gives to some, but having had that slightly disobliging reaction perhaps I may sit down with a disobliging remark. One of the things that we always have to bear in mind as parliamentarians is the end result of the legislation that we propose to pass. It does not escape my notice that the end result of this clause, if passed, would be, albeit over time, that an all-appointed House of Lords would come into being. As I said in a recent debate on this subject, I believe that that is a perfectly honourable aspiration. I notice a congruity between the many supporters of this legislation and support for the end of an all-appointed House. That would not escape the notice of the country or indeed of another place, and we cannot agree that stage two is an all-appointed House by passing this Bill.

[Lord Lea of Crondall]

My Lords, the noble Lord mentions Lord Weatherill in support of his claim about what happened, but is he not aware that Lord Weatherill subsequently produced a Bill for the suspension of the hereditary by-elections?

[Lord True]

My Lords, I was describing to the House—I could do so at greater length but this is not the place to do it—how Lord Weatherill, as well as the late Earl of Carnarvon and the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, proposed what was set out in 1999 after negotiation. I am referring now to the conditions of 1999 that led to the situation that is now before us, and I believe, as I have said, that I am bound in honour by those negotiations.

[Lord Steel of Aikwood]

My Lords, the Question before the House is that Clause 10 stand part of the Bill. If I may, I will reply to the debate. I think my noble friend Lord Caithness—