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]

Viscount Trenchard Excerpts
Friday 23rd March 2018

(6 years, 8 months ago)

Lords Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Earl of Caithness Portrait The Earl of Caithness
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My Lords, that comes as a wonderful surprise and I welcome what the noble Lord has said. There are further amendments that are also designed to improve the Bill, but I will reserve what I was going to say about the difficulties of an unelected House for a later stage. Meanwhile, I am very happy just to move my amendment.

Viscount Trenchard Portrait Viscount Trenchard (Con)
- Hansard - -

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Caithness is right to propose this amendment because it clarifies the intent and effect of the Bill proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Grocott—

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean Portrait Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My Lords, the proposer of the Bill has accepted the amendment. Why do we need to spend time on it?

Viscount Trenchard Portrait Viscount Trenchard
- Hansard - -

I thank my noble friend for his advice, but the amendment has been moved and I wish to speak to it.

Lord Cormack Portrait Lord Cormack
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

This really is a classic case of wasting the Committee’s time. The noble Lord, Lord Grocott, has made it plain that he accepts the amendment and therefore no further debate needs to be had. My noble friend Lord Trenchard can doubtless read his speech against another amendment.

Viscount Trenchard Portrait Viscount Trenchard
- Hansard - -

The noble Lord, Lord Grocott, has indeed accepted the amendment—

Lord Hamilton of Epsom Portrait Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

When it comes to the question of wasting time, surely voting on a Motion that has been withdrawn is a bigger waste of time than anything.

Viscount Trenchard Portrait Viscount Trenchard
- Hansard - -

That was indeed the point I wished to make, and which my noble friend has made more eloquently than I could. But the noble Lord—

Baroness Smith of Basildon Portrait Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

If I may assist the Committee, the House cannot vote on a Motion that has been withdrawn; it can vote only on a Motion that is before the House. The noble Viscount may have some very wise, erudite and sensible comments that the Committee is longing to hear, but would they not be best made on an amendment before the Committee that has not been accepted by the mover?

Viscount Trenchard Portrait Viscount Trenchard
- Hansard - -

I hear what the noble Baroness says. I noted that the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, accepted the amendment, but I was not aware whether other noble Lords had accepted it.

On the regret Motion, my noble friend Lord Trefgarne sought to withdraw it, but in spite of that it was voted on.

Amendment 1 agreed.
--- Later in debate ---
Earl of Erroll Portrait The Earl of Erroll (CB)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My Lords, I am terribly sorry to intervene but the reason I did not vote on it was exactly the opposite. The Motion actually referred to regret about the Burns report; it would not in fact have prevented the Committee stage or any part of the Bill. It expressed regret that it had not been done, so, having read the Motion, I do not think that it conveyed exactly what people thought.

Viscount Trenchard Portrait Viscount Trenchard
- Hansard - -

My Lords, I shall try again. I support these amendments because, unlike the opinion expressed by other noble Lords, I do not consider that the Bill represents a modest change. It is a very significant change. As my noble friend Lord Hague said in his speech to the Centre for Policy Studies in February 1998,

“The Government is now embarking on what is potentially the most damaging step of all— removing the main independent element in the House of Lords by excluding the hereditary peers. Mr Blair’s justification is his dislike of the hereditary principle, although he sees no contradiction”—

Lord Berkeley of Knighton Portrait Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

If I heard the noble Viscount correctly, he said that this would remove the largest independent sector but I thought the Cross-Bench Peers were independent.

Viscount Trenchard Portrait Viscount Trenchard
- Hansard - -

The noble Lord is correct in saying that the Cross-Benchers are independent of the political parties but they are nevertheless appointed to this House by much the same process as Peers from other parties are nowadays appointed.

Lord Berkeley of Knighton Portrait Lord Berkeley of Knighton
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

That is absolutely not correct. I will tell the noble Viscount how I was appointed to this House: I was asked if I would care to have my name looked at but to do that I, along with 400 other people, had to submit my name to the House of Lords Appointments Commission. There was then a rigorous process of weeding out. I finally went to a long and exhaustive interview before my name was put before the Prime Minister and Her Majesty the Queen.

--- Later in debate ---
Viscount Trenchard Portrait Viscount Trenchard
- Hansard - -

I well understand that the noble Lord is very deserving of his place. I have the highest regard and respect for his contribution to your Lordships’ House and to its proceedings. All I wish to make clear is that hereditary Peers should also be considered an independent element because they do not owe their presence or their right to sit in this House to prime ministerial patronage.

Lord Cormack Portrait Lord Cormack
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I am very grateful to my noble friend. Will he tell me whether he takes the Whip? Will he tell me how many times he has been moved to vote against the Government during his time here?

Viscount Trenchard Portrait Viscount Trenchard
- Hansard - -

As my noble friend is well aware, I take the Whip. I have also voted against the Government on a number of occasions. I think the first time I voted against an amendment was in connection with the War Crimes Bill. At the time the Law Lords were present in your Lordships’ House and, as has been noted today, I also agree that your Lordships’ House has suffered from their removal. I was persuaded by the arguments put forward by several noble Lords at that time that the War Crimes Bill was an inappropriate piece of legislation. That was the first occasion on which I defied the Whip.

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean Portrait Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Does my noble friend not realise that he is insulting some of his colleagues, such as me, by suggesting that because we were appointed by the Prime Minister we do not behave in an independent manner and exercise our judgment? I suggest to him that he ought to declare an interest as someone who has benefited from the by-elections.

Viscount Trenchard Portrait Viscount Trenchard
- Hansard - -

I do not for one minute dispute that. I do not mean to insult my noble friend in any way. I do not believe that he thinks for one minute that I was being insulting. My noble friend knows well that I have great regard for him for the contribution he makes. Indeed, this is one of the very few matters on which I do not share his opinion.

Viscount Astor Portrait Viscount Astor
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Perhaps I can help my noble friend. I voted against the Government for the first time as a rather junior Member of this House, and the following week the Prime Minister rang me up and I joined the Government Whips’ Office. It was a form of promotion.

Viscount Trenchard Portrait Viscount Trenchard
- Hansard - -

If I may continue with the quotation:

“Mr Blair’s justification is his dislike of the hereditary principle although he sees no contradiction in also parading himself”—

Lord Snape Portrait Lord Snape (Lab)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I urge the noble Viscount not to take any more interventions because by doing so he rather underlines the need for the abolition of hereditary peerages. If he sticks to the script, as he does, he will be out of order because he is defying the Companion. Will he address his remarks to the amendment that we are discussing at present rather than indulging in reminiscences with his colleagues?

--- Later in debate ---
Viscount Trenchard Portrait Viscount Trenchard
- Hansard - -

I am not sure that the noble Lord’s remarks were not out of order. I am not sure that anything that I am doing is in breach of the Companion. I was unable to be present at Second Reading, and with your Lordships’ leave, I would like to complete my remarks.

As my noble friend Lord Hague said those years ago,

“Labour’s plans could lead to a House almost entirely composed of nominated peers”—


granted that those who are nominated are very well deserving of that nomination. He continued:

“This would be a huge and dangerous extension of Prime Ministerial power … Understanding the value of inheritance and the way families pass down values and duties from one generation to the next, Conservatives are not surprised that hereditary peers, no longer required or able to represent the landed and property interest, nevertheless make a valuable contribution to the provision of this remarkable service”.


If the Bill before your Lordships’ House today were to reach the statute book it would reduce the legitimacy of your Lordships’ House. Hereditary Peers may offer something distinctive and valuable and provide legitimacy through their link with history and place. If those who support the Bill also support the notion that the House should be a representative body, there is something to be said for retaining a hereditary minority. Nobody can today claim that the House as presently constituted—

Lord Redesdale Portrait Lord Redesdale (LD)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My Lords, I interrupt because I am in an interesting position which many noble Lords are not in. I voted for the abolition of hereditary Peers. I even left the House because my peerage was abolished in 1999, and I was returned by the Liberal Democrats six months later as an appointed Peer, although many in the House believe I am a hereditary Peer, which I obviously do not take as a slight at all.

There would be no real difference if hereditary Peers were made appointed Peers to recognise their position. It does not give legitimacy. The noble Lord said that prime ministerial patronage is being shown. Many hereditary Peers’ ancestors were made up to this place precisely because of prime ministerial patronage at the time, so are we not embedding that patronage through the generations?

Viscount Trenchard Portrait Viscount Trenchard
- Hansard - -

The noble Lord is quite correct that the original creations were due to prime ministerial patronage, but successive holders of the title who have sat in your Lordships’ House were not so obliged and did not owe their presence to the Prime Minister. In that sense, they were independent because they owed it to the random accident of birth. The by-election system is very competitive. It is a combination of random accident of birth, a bit of geographical coverage and competition.

The charge that the House as presently constituted gives these Benches an unfair political advantage—

Lord Grocott Portrait Lord Grocott
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

The noble Viscount is speaking to Amendment 2. Will he remind the House of the wording of Amendment 2 and how his remarks relate to it?

--- Later in debate ---
Viscount Trenchard Portrait Viscount Trenchard
- Hansard - -

The wording of Amendment 2 is as printed on the Marshalled List:

“Page 1, line 2, leave out subsection (1) … The House of Lords Act 1999 is amended as follows”.


Subsection (1) says:

“Section 2 of the House of Lords Act 1999 … is amended as follows”.


Does that satisfy the noble Lord?

Lord Cormack Portrait Lord Cormack
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I would like—

Viscount Trenchard Portrait Viscount Trenchard
- Hansard - -

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

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

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 - -

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.

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock Portrait Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My Lords, if the only woman hereditary, the noble Countess, Lady Mar, had been here now, she would have brandished her copy of the Standing Orders, which say that speeches in Committee should last no longer than 15 minutes, and ask the noble Viscount to sit down. Can I pass on her message?

Viscount Trenchard Portrait Viscount Trenchard
- Hansard - -

I thank the noble Lord for his advice. However, of the 17 minutes for which I have been on my feet, I have been interrupted for more than 50% of the time, although with your Lordships’ leave I would like quickly to move to complete my remarks.

It is very valuable that there is more than one route of entry to the House. I do not think that uniformity of mode of selection, whether by prime ministerial support or meeting the approval of an Appointments Commission, improves the House’s capacity to represent the community. In the Second Reading debate, the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, said:

“Tell us precisely why we continue to replace the 90 hereditary Peers”.—[Official Report, 8/9/17; col. 2153.]


The answer is simple. As my noble friend Lord Trefgarne and others have said, the 1999 agreement is binding in honour on those who gave their assent to it. The noble Lord, Lord Grocott, will say that that no longer applies 19 years on. I disagree. I believe it should still be honoured 100 or 200 years on. Of course, noble Lords have no idea what constitutional arrangements will be in force 100 years from now, but the 1999 agreement—

Baroness Smith of Basildon Portrait Baroness Smith of Basildon
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I apologise for interrupting the noble Viscount, because we are enjoying his speech so much, but is he aware of the principle that one Parliament cannot bind another?

Viscount Trenchard Portrait Viscount Trenchard
- Hansard - -

I am aware of that principle. Nevertheless, at the time, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, gave a commitment binding in honour that this would remain in force until complete reform of the House of Lords was achieved, however long that takes. I think it was well understood that complete reform means the replacement of your Lordships’ House by a wholly or largely elected second Chamber, as envisaged by the Parliament Act 1911, which restricted the powers of your Lordships’ House until such time as it was replaced by a House selected by popular vote.

Lastly, it is a pity that the remit given to the noble Lord, Lord Burns, for his report excluded this question, because it is difficult to consider it in isolation. I agree with my noble friend Lord Trefgarne that a piecemeal approach to reform of your Lordships’ House is wrong and believe that the report of the noble Lord, Lord Burns, should have also considered the question of hereditary membership of the House.

Lord Campbell-Savours Portrait Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My Lords, I just make a procedural observation. There will be tens or hundreds of thousands of people watching our proceedings on television either today or this evening. Are they not entitled to know that most of the people who have spoken in this debate are actually hereditary Peers, defending their interest? I suggest that from now on during this debate, each person who rises to speak who is a hereditary declares that interest so that the public outside know exactly what is happening today in Parliament?