Procedure and Privileges Committee

Debate between Lord Young of Cookham and Lord Grocott

Tuesday 5th July 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, my amendment will not take a moment to explain and is very simple. It is relevant only if the House decides to change the sitting hours by rejecting the amendments moved by my noble friends Lord Forsyth and Lord Taylor. My proposition is that, before committing itself to the change as proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner, the House should simply do what it has done on previous occasions when considering far less radical changes to its procedures. In those cases, the House has piloted the changes first and then decided whether they should be made permanent in the light of experience, rather than taking a leap in the dark.

The House trialled adding explanatory statements to amendments in 2018, and that was made permanent in 2019. In 2015 it piloted a new process for allocating Questions by ballot in the recess, and that was made permanent with minor changes a year later. Earlier, we trialled a new procedure for repeating Urgent Questions, and that was made permanent after a year. Those changes are all trivial compared with the proposition before us today, with all the implications that have been set out so clearly in the speeches we have heard and are going to hear.

When I was in the other place and voted on similar changes to the sitting hours in 2005, the changes were agreed to on an experimental basis. I do not need to tell your Lordships that changes to the sitting times have a far more dramatic effect on your Lordships’ House than on the other place, because although we are a full-time House, we have part-time Members. One of the strengths of your Lordships’ House is that expertise, and the changes could have an impact on the availability of that expertise.

Therefore, before taking the plunge—the Motion does not even call for a review—we should simply do what we have done before. I believe this to be best practice: we should pilot the changes for up to four months. We should then decide whether to make it permanent, and with a measure that is potentially as divisive as this one is, I believe that a pilot is the best way to resolve the conflicting views on the impact of change. We will then have evidence which we do not have at the moment. I am cautious about the binary approach we are presented with; I prefer a dress rehearsal before the curtain goes up.

Finally, I hope that my amendment will be supported not just by those who are fearful of change but by those in favour. If they believe the change to be beneficial, they have nothing to fear. Therefore, if the earlier amendments are defeated at the appropriate time, I will move my amendment.

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

My Lords, just to try for a moment to inject a sense of proportion into this debate, we are discussing in essence whether on two days of the week instead of finishing at 10 pm we should finish at 8.30 pm, with corresponding earlier starts on those two days. It is not the red revolution; it is a minor procedural change.

I would like to inject something that is rarely injected into these kinds of debates and offer to the House one or two facts—not opinions; these are facts. When I was Chief Whip, in the long reaches of the night—you never leave the building when you are Chief Whip, as I know people who have filled the post will confirm— I would occasionally get bored waiting for the place to finish. You walked round the Palace of Westminster—this was after the Commons had changed their hours—and the place was like the “Mary Celeste”. The only place where there was a sign of life between 9 pm and 10 pm was in this Chamber—I have no reason to believe that it has changed.

I took the step of carrying out an independent piece of research to record the number of people in the Chamber between 9 pm and 10 pm, not including of course the people who had to be here: that is, the staff; the person in the chair, who is a Member; usually two on the Government Front Bench; two on the Opposition Front Bench; two on the Liberal Front Bench and maybe one on the Cross Benches. Therefore, six or seven people have to be there—if you like, it is their job. However, the numbers I was interested in were of the people who were there by choice, who as Back-Benchers chose to come in. I had to give a wry smile at the comment from the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, that the current arrangement enables us to “draw on the talents” across the House. All I can say is that it draws on a very small number of talents across the House between nine o’clock and 10 o’clock at night. These are the figures—I do not mind putting them in the record. I have all the facts here: it is one of those things that you very nearly throw out of your filing cabinet time and again.

This was from 2003, but it has not really changed much. Attendance of Back-Benchers between 9 pm and 10 pm: 10 February, Courts Bill, six; 17 February, Community Care (Delayed Discharges etc.) Bill, six; 24 February, Licensing Bill, six; 25 February, Crime (International Co-operation) Bill, three; 24 March, five; 31 March, 12; 7 April, seven; 10 April, two; 18 May, three. Those are the people participating in the procedures of the House between nine and 10 o’clock at night who have the choice whether to participate or not.

Elections Bill

Debate between Lord Young of Cookham and Lord Grocott

Report stage
Monday 25th April 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I will make three brief points in support of the amendments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge. The first follows a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, who has just made a forceful speech. As my noble friend Lord Cormack mentioned in an earlier debate, I was my party’s spokesman and I was in the shadow Cabinet of William Hague, now my noble friend Lord Hague, when the Bill establishing the Electoral Commission went through. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, implied, had the Blair Government sought to include these two clauses in that Bill, my party would have strongly opposed that. They conflict with the recommendation of the Neill commission’s report that

“An Election Commission in a democracy like ours could not function properly, or indeed at all, unless it were scrupulously impartial and believed to be so by everyone seriously involved and by the public at large.”


If it was right for my party to oppose those clauses then, it is right to oppose them today.

Secondly, I respectfully disagree with the argument in defence of the Government’s position put forward by my noble friend the Minister on March 10:

“It is entirely appropriate for the Government and Parliament to provide a steer on electoral policy … By increasing policy emphasis on electoral integrity … the Government are seeking to prevent interference in our democracy from fraud, foreign money and hostile state actors.”—[Official Report, 10/3/22; col. 1643.]


It is not the Electoral Commission that requires a steer, for example, on the importance of protecting our democracy from foreign money; it is the Government. The steer that my noble friend described—the statutory requirement to

“have regard to the statement”—

should be in precisely the opposite direction to the one in the Bill.

My third and final reason is related to the first. I have left the Government five times, which is more than anyone else in the Chamber—even the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett. Once was at the request of the electorate in 1997 and three times were, sadly, at the request of the then Prime Minister, but the last was of my own volition, one month after the current Prime Minister took office, when he illegally prorogued Parliament. That was the first of a number of steps that injure out democratic institutions—in that case the House of Commons. It was followed by the failure to defend the judiciary from the “Enemies of the People” attack by the Daily Mail, the attempted interference with the verdict on Owen Paterson, the resignation of the Prime Minister’s independent adviser Alex Allan—instead of the Home Secretary—and the evident disregard, shown from time to time, for the role of your Lordships’ House and the Ministerial Code. These clauses are another step in the same direction; they are disrespectful of the ground rules of our constitution, and they should not be in the Bill.

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

My Lords, we have heard three splendid speeches, and I intend to be very brief. I will pick up on a comment made by my noble friend Lord Blunkett, who is of course quite right that the public will not be interested or involved in the details of this legislation. But I have no doubt whatever that they have an acute sense of fairness. In Committee, I suggested that, for the Government to give instructions to the Electoral Commission is akin to a party in a football match—one of the two teams—giving instructions and guidance to the referee prior to the match. I do not think that anyone in Britain would think that that was a fair situation. I do not think that anyone could seriously contend that that is not what would happen if these two clauses become law.

What I find particularly persuasive is that this letter from the Electoral Commission, which many of us have, is, unsurprisingly, signed by every single member bar the Conservative nominee—I make no criticism of the fact that he did not sign it, but it was signed by everyone else. It argues against these two clauses. As they say,

“It is our firm and shared view that the introduction of a Strategy and Policy Statement – enabling the Government to guide the work of the Commission – is inconsistent with the role”


of an “independent electoral commission”. If anyone is wavering on this, just substitute the words “Conservative Party” for “Government”. It is nothing to be ashamed of, and I strongly support political parties; I have been in one all my life and I would go as far as to say that they are the lifeblood of our democracy. I do not regard as superior human beings those people who have not joined political parties. If we substitute the word “Government” with “Conservative Party”—because of course Governments consist, in the main, of one political party—it reads as follows: “It is our firm and shared view that the introduction of a Strategy and Policy Statement – enabling the Conservative Party to guide the work of the Commission – is inconsistent with the role of an independent electoral commission.” Is there anyone here who could possibly dispute that statement? Forgetting about the Government for a moment, for one political party in a contested situation—which is precisely what elections are, which is why they can get fraught and need adjudicators—to give an instruction to the referee, or the Electoral Commission in this case, is clearly inconsistent and unacceptable as part of our electoral procedures. I urge everyone to see the fairness of that argument and to support the amendment from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge.