Business of the House

Debate between Lord True and Lord Forsyth of Drumlean

Wednesday 4th September 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

I know what the noble Baroness is doing. We referred to the debate we had on the Cooper-Letwin Bill earlier this year, in which she gave an undertaking—now broken—that they would not take control of the business of this House and we would proceed as we always have by agreement between the usual channels. Not only has she done that today but she has added to it, bringing forward a guillotine procedure. That is an absolute outrage.

[Lord True (Con)]

Having also been involved at the time, I know that this certainly is the breaking of an undertaking. Many of us agreed to facilitate the passage of Cooper-Boles on the basis that this would not happen again in your Lordships’ House. There will be a lot of debating and a fundamental amendment will come forward from the Cross Benches about the very principle of the guillotine, which we can discuss. However, as I take it, the purpose of a Committee discussion—which perhaps could be confined to a short part of this—is that the person who is proposing unprecedented action in this House, the Leader of the Opposition, should be required to answer for that in the same way a Minister of the Crown is required to answer to the House. I put this to my noble friend as just one example, and I will have others later: did he hear the noble Baroness say that every Bill from the Commons should be dealt with? Does that mean immediately? How are we going to find out these things unless my noble friend’s Motion is passed and we have a proper Committee discussion and interrogation?

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

My noble friend makes a really important point. We need to remember that we are dealing with private Members’ legislation because the procedures in the other place have been subverted and its Standing Orders undermined. The proposition here is that private business, which may or may not come to this House, should be dealt with using a guillotine procedure. These are revolutionary changes being proposed by the noble Baroness. As my noble friend says, she really ought to account to this place, if we are in Committee, for many of the issues which will arise.

I return to my point about the other place sending us vast quantities of legislation that has not been properly scrutinised and the establishment of a precedent that we can have a guillotine procedure in this House, which will be used by Governments of all parties. There were no guillotines, other than in exceptional circumstances and subject to exceptional rules, until Tony Blair became Prime Minister in 1997, and now everything in the other place is guillotined and not properly considered. All of us in this House know in our heart of hearts how damaging that has been to the good conduct of government and the provision of legislation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord True]

“Yes”, we hear from the putative Government of the future; this is what they will give us.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

Does my noble friend not think that for the Liberal Chief Whip to call a closure after only one speech had been made is one of the most disgraceful acts we have seen in this House?

[Lord True]

My Lords, I was coming to the Liberal Democrat Chief Whip. As the Liberal Democrats know, I am one of their greatest fans in the world, but my noble friend has of course made the point: the Liberal Democrat—democrat—Chief Whip, from a sedentary position, without even the courtesy to stand up to address the House—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

Why does my noble friend think that, when a closure is moved, our procedures require the Chair to remind people that this should be an exceptional procedure and invite the person concerned to revise their view? Why does he think that procedure is there, and what does he think about what has happened so far today?

[Lord True]

I do not want to be disobliging to my noble friend, whom I admire very much, but I say again what I said to the noble Lord opposite. I have been trying to make that point, and I am grateful to him for reinforcing it. It is the fundamental issue which I believe noble Lords should be allowed to wrestle with. Do we want to be the sort of House that we have just been, where we have voted by that large number—288 Peers—to close down, at the behest of a Peer, without any debate? I would like to have heard other Members from the Cross Benches responding to and commenting, from the viewpoint of their experience, on the noble Baroness’s speech. As I said at the start, I would like to have heard my noble friends Lord Naseby and Lord Cormack, who wished to speak.

I have tried to explain to the noble Lord opposite that my amendment addresses the same issue. Sometimes in life you get a second chance. This amendment offers the House a second chance to address and hear a little about why this great principle of freedom of debate should be cast aside, but on a more limited scale. I do not ask, as the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, did in her powerful speech, that the House should reject the principle of a guillotine. I put before your Lordships a proposition relating to any Bill that has been allowed only one day’s consideration in the House of Commons —we have not got this Bill yet, so it may be this Bill, but it could be any Bill—and we are discussing the principle here. This is an issue of principle about the guillotine. Surely any Bill that has been allowed only one day’s consideration in the House of Commons should receive full and unfettered consideration in your Lordship’s House.

I come back to the central point: what is this Chamber for if not to revise, consider, scrutinise and debate? I submit that there should not be curtailment of consideration on a Bill which is not an emergency Bill. There should not be a guillotine imposed in both Houses on legislation of this sort.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord True]

Here is a reversal of roles. I spent about 13 years—I hesitate to say it—drafting the odd amendment for the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. Here is the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, suggesting there might be a flaw. I was really seeking a prop to inquire how the Opposition see all these legal actions—I believe some of them are not too far away—impacting on these proceedings and whether they think it is prudent to put the House of Lords through all this before awaiting an outcome of what is before the courts.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

I am uniquely disadvantaged as well, because I am not a lawyer, but I always understood that the courts did not get involved in proceedings in Parliament. That would seem to be what has happened in Scotland today: the matter before them was considered to be not judiciable.

We ought to pay tribute to Gina Miller. Had it not been for her, we would not have been forced to ensure that Parliament passed the requirement for us to leave the European Union by a huge majority.

[Lord True]

My noble friend makes that point extremely well. I think all of us on this side feel very grateful for that and I fully endorse what he has said.

Business of the House

Debate between Lord True and Lord Forsyth of Drumlean

Thursday 4th April 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

Following the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, I say that it is perfectly true that the Cross Benches do not take a collective view. It is also true that the two previous closure Motions were moved by Cross-Benchers and quite a large number of them voted for them.

[Lord True]

On these things, people have to stand up and be counted. I reflect that having made my speech last week against a strong Whip from my party saying that we should obey Standing Orders, I did not regret it and I asked myself whether I should intervene in this debate—I have intervened only on the Standing Order and the procedural point—and do it again. I felt that I must because not only is the pace so extraordinary but it is so odd that 227 Members of the House of Lords— your Lordships’ House, the revising Chamber—voted to close off, after a few minutes, discussion of whether your Lordships should allow yourselves more than one day to discuss a Bill of such importance and such significance. I think that was a sad reflection on our love of our procedures which I confess are part of our freedom. Our freedoms were won by Parliament. They are held by Parliament and we in this place have a part in that, irrespective of where we stand on the debates on Europe. One thing I agree with my noble friend Lady Evans on is that we have heard a lot, but surely on this business of how we conduct ourselves we can rise above the debates that we are having later and consider whether this House wishes to embark down this road. I submit that when I suggested to my noble friend on the Front Bench last week that the Government should listen and adhere to Standing Orders, they did listen. They adjourned the House and we had the debate the next day. I now submit to the noble Baroness that she should show the same grace and that she should accept the proposition that we hear one stage today and have time to reflect on the later stages of the Bill on another day. That is not an unreasonable provision. I put that submission in conclusion to the noble Baroness.

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

Debate between Lord True and Lord Forsyth of Drumlean

Friday 23rd March 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord True]

My Lords, perhaps I could briefly intervene and declare an interest as not being a hereditary Peer. I doubt that I would ever catch the eye of the selectors, even if there were such a provision.

The noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, referred to the late Ivor Richard. Having been present at those times, I add my appreciation to the great service that Lord Richard did to his country, his party and this House. It was an honour to deal with him, albeit briefly. The misunderstanding in what the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, said was that the late noble Lord did not support an all-appointed House, which this Bill would produce. I heard many times in those days and since that Lord Richard supported the principle of a two-thirds elected House—believing that the public should be entitled to elect their politicians to both Chambers of this Parliament—and a one-third appointed House. That was his provision, and he was summarily dismissed in 1998 and further and different arrangements were made. My view on the future of this House, to follow on from the noble Earl who spoke, is rather akin to that of the late Lord Richard. I do not see in the longer term why the public should not elect the politicians to both Chambers of this House.

Apart from the point of honour, which is a personal point, and which, having been involved, I do hold, I accept that that will not count for other Peers, and I respect that and do not expect to bind them to that—but that is something that moves me in this respect, as well as my feeling that it is an objective fact and truth, however much we may protest otherwise, that the longer-term effect of this Bill would be to create an all-appointed House by stealth, bit by bit and stage by stage. That is the inevitable result of your Lordships agreeing to this legislation and, if it went down there, the other place agreeing to it.

I personally believe that such a proposition of the creation of an all-appointed Chamber permanently as part of our legislature in the 21st century should be brought before Parliament in a serious and major Bill by a Government in future. Yes, if the Labour Party or the Liberal Democrats or even our party succeeds in winning an election, and it is our view that we wish to present a Bill for the abolition of the hereditary peerage and creation of an all-appointed Chamber, that is the proper way in which to proceed in a democracy: to secure a mandate from the public before the election for such a great proposition, and to go forward. In my submission, we should not, in a hole-in-the-wall piece of legislation, move bit by bit towards that end. I detect a certain eagerness, exemplified on the Benches on my side, to push this Bill forward. It has not escaped my notice that some of the most eager are those who wish to create an all-appointed House in the longer term.

I have sympathy with those hereditary Peers who have spoken. I do not believe that we should start challenging the right by which one sits here. As has been said, that would be a difficult and uncomfortable place for some of us to go to. While we are all here, we are all equal. We are all Peers and should be allowed to be heard. I would not follow my noble friend Lord Hamilton entirely, but having sat through many hours on the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, the minority sometimes feels it has to hear a lot from the majority. I do not particularly care for majorities ganging up on minorities. I support Amendment 59, and if it is pressed I will vote for it.

I will make some other brief points. As my noble friend Lord Caithness said, the argument about gender within the peerage is strong and valid, but that matter needs to be addressed by wider legislation on the peerage. If the noble Baroness wishes to attempt that, she can bring legislation forward.

So far as binding the Parliament’s successor is concerned, the original deal had two parts. The first was that, until the end of that Parliament, hereditary Peers who departed—the proper English word is died—would be replaced by ones on the list of those who had been put forward at the election. It was not conceived at the time that this arrangement would continue, but provision was made by Parliament for it to continue in successive Parliaments. That is the process we have now, which came into effect after the 2001 election. So provision was made specifically for this to last until such time as your Lordships’ House is finally reformed.

The noble Lord, Lord Steel, who is no longer in his place, referred to his Bill. A serious mistake was made in that Bill—which I did not support—requiring that a hereditary Peer who retires should be replaced. Under the original arrangements, when there was no retirement system, a hereditary Peer who took leave of absence would not be replaced. In the Bill introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Steel, it was your Lordships, in your wisdom, who made the deliberate decision to extend to retired Peers the privilege of being replaced.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

The noble Lord, Lord Steel, included that provision in order to avoid the kind of exercise we are seeing from some hereditaries today.

[Lord True]

I do not know about that but, having heard what other hereditary Members of the House have said today, I doubt that would have been the case. At the time, I thought it was a very odd decision, but there it is. That is why retirement is there, and if an amendment comes forward to remove it I will support it, irrespective of the wider provisions.

The proportion of hereditary Peers is now lower now than it was in 1999, when there were 666 of us. I do not believe that that is a conclusive argument either way: I simply note the fact. I found unattractive the appeal to self-interest of my noble friend Lord Cormack, who said: “You will not be affected, so do not worry, you can come along with us”. That exemplified the eagerness to beguile noble Lords into accepting a long-term result. No one in this House, including my noble friend, should feel they have to act upon self-interest, even if that were the case.