House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Lord Grocott Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 2nd July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

My Lords, I will make two very short points. First, the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, knows the respect in which I hold him, but it is a subtle piece of advocacy to say that the hereditaries sit here purely because of the family they were born into, to use the noble Lord’s phrase. Since 2005, that has not been the case; it is the family plus an election. Indeed, some of them sit here on a firmer basis than many other Members of your Lordships’ House.

Secondly, on the “too late” argument, which seems to be the primary point put by the Government Front Bench, I have never quite understood why opposing a Private Member’s Bill, with all the legislative hurdles and difficulties that such Bills have, precludes you from later supporting an amendment to a government Bill which is bound to become law.

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

My Lords, I am finding it difficult to compute exactly what is going on today, because Friday after Friday, Bill after Bill, to a three-quarters empty House, which is characteristic on a Friday, I have been faced with substantial opposition, not just from individual Members—not exclusively from the Tory party but overwhelmingly—but from the Government. The Bills got no further.

Here we are now, with a pretty full House, all agreed that these by-elections are farcical. The amendment gets rid of them; the Bill before the House—which I strongly support—gets rid of them. That was my motive for bringing the whole process in to begin with. Believe it or not, the primary motive was to stop this absurdity which the noble Lord, Lord Newby, described as the most offensive of the lot.

I did not think it would be a problem. I have been around quite a long time, but I thought, “Surely, there is no one in this House who thinks that a by-election to get into this House should be exclusively for men, both the electorate and the candidates, and it is feasible to have an electorate of three when you’ve got seven candidates”. By the way, the noble Lord, Lord Newby, did not mention the last line of that, which is that all three votes went to one of the seven candidates—so there was 100% turnout, with 100% of the vote going to the winning candidate. I mean, North Korea would not dare to do that.

I am flattered, I suppose, to find that everyone suddenly seems to be agreed on this. We could have saved ourselves so much time when I brought it in first in 2016—since when, 27 new hereditaries have come here. To those who say that we might as well do it now, I say a whole new generation has been elected since I first introduced the Bill. But I must be immodest about this—

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

Will the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, tell us who elected him to come to this House?

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

As far as I know, although I do not know the intricacies of the mechanism that brought me here, there were probably more than three people who thought that it was okay.

I would be dishonest to the House if I did not admit to being flattered that it seems to be universally described as the “Grocott Bill”. It is lovely to have a Bill named after you, even if it was rejected time after time. It is no longer the “Grocott Bill”. I liked the ring of that, but I very much like the ring of the new, improved Bill before the House today, so I think we ought to call the original one the “House of Lords (Grocott No. 1) Bill” and the one before the House now the “House of Lords (Grocott No. 2) Bill”. Why do I support the “House of Lords (Grocott No. 2) Bill”? It is because it is better, it does the job more effectively and it means that we can move on from this endless debate to discuss other aspects of reform.

However, I really despair at times about the inability of this House to deal with such a simple proposition: a two-clause Bill. It would have cost nothing—it might have saved money—and upset no one, but time and time again it was rejected. It was filibustered—I will not mention all the Peers who opposed it. In anticipation of this debate, I checked who had spoken against it at Second Reading on its various outings. There were two culprits—I will not embarrass them now—who were worse than any others and who persistently put down 60 or 70 amendments the day before Committee. We are powerless in this place if there are people determined to wreck a Bill in that way. Perhaps they can reflect, in the quietness of their own souls, on what might have been if they had not done that, because I believe that if a Bill like this had been passed —if not mine, then certainly Lord Steel’s Bill—most of the hereditaries now would have peacefully moved on, by whatever mechanism, from membership of this House.

It has been a bit of fun, this somersaulting by sundry Members opposite, but thank heaven that we are removing the hereditary principle as a mechanism for membership of this House. It is long, long, long overdue. It could have been dealt with much earlier, but let us not cry over spilt milk; let us just get on with this and quickly.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Lord said that we are now removing the hereditary principle. It is accepted, on this side, that we are removing the hereditary principle. His speeches are very entertaining, mocking the system that was brought in by his own party in government.

My difficulty is that the Leader of the House has repeatedly told us, both publicly and privately, that, had we not opposed what is called the “Grocott Bill”, this would not be necessary. I therefore have to ask: what is the principle that we are discussing? It appears to be that the hereditary principle should be got rid of—that has been accepted. However, I am concerned by the idea that we should pluck out of this House hard-working Members, who are mainly Conservatives. We heard from the Liberal Benches that they are worried about numbers. On my count, 45 new Labour Peers have been appointed since the general election. That does not strike me as being the activities of a party that is concerned about the size of the House; it strikes me as being a party that is concerned about the number of people who will go through the Lobbies in support of it. Therefore, one is left with a terrible suspicion that what is going on here is taking a group of people out of this House, who happen to have come into it as hereditaries, for party-political reasons. That is a very dangerous—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I do not wish to still the debate, but perhaps I might, as the noble Baroness did on a wider point in the first group, intervene briefly. As a previous Leader of your Lordships’ House and now as Leader of the Opposition in this House, the remarks I am going to make, I make as Leader of the Conservative Party here and with the full assent of my right honourable friend the leader of the Opposition nationally.

I say, by the way, to the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, that this House should never be cowed from proposing a thought to the other place. Indeed, one of the arguable contentions that we have had on this Bill is that it must have no amendments. I am sure there have been occasions, but it is unusual in our parliamentary proceedings that the expectation should be that a Bill, and certainly one of this constitutional significance, be unamended. Would the proposition that one cannot have a conversation with the House of Commons on this matter apply to a future Bill to remove people over 80, as promised in the Labour manifesto? I hope not. I hope this House would vigorously raise questions on that.

I have been listening carefully to the debate that was initiated very ably by my noble friend Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, brilliantly supported by the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, and my noble friend Lady Laing. They put a proposition that the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, acknowledged he owns and loves, but he is going to vote against it today. It is a proposition that I think many of us know in our heart is the right and balanced way forward. I think many of us know in our heart that if there were not a party whip applying, there would be a majority in this place to reach a balanced solution. That balanced solution gives the party opposite and the Liberal Democrats what they have legitimately wanted for a long period, which is the end of the hereditary principle as a route of entry into this House, but which does not hurt existing Members or impede the workings of this House in the way my noble friend Lord Forsyth suggested.

In case there is any doubt, I put on record beyond any doubt what those who have been following the debates on the Bill from the outset will already know, which is that my party has no plan, intention or device to block the Bill indefinitely or to delay its passage by the kind of constant ping-pong that the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, referred to. From the very outset, within days of the last general election, on my initiative and that of the Convenor of the Cross-Bench Peers, the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, we recognised, regret it or not, the Labour Party’s mandate to end the entry of Peers to this place by any preferment of heredity. The convenor and I proposed—and the noble Baroness the Leader of the House graciously accepted and helped to develop—that proposal, that by-elections for hereditary Peers should be suspended. That has been accomplished, and it remains so. It is done. It is not an issue in this debate, even though the word by-elections has featured a great deal. No person has entered this place by reason of election under the 1999 Act since Labour’s victory in the last general election, nor shall one ever do so again.

That is a mighty thing under the eyes of 800 years of service here by hereditary Peers. By the end of this month, a Bill will pass which will permanently end entry here on the grounds of heredity, and if the Government should choose to send it for Royal Assent, it could be law by dawn on the first day of August. That is the position. Whatever may be implied or said to the contrary, we on this side are not arguing for the continuation of the hereditary principle as a route of entry here.

My noble friend’s amendment would not alter, detract from or frustrate that in any way; in fact, it would enable it. The sole issue before your Lordships in this debate, as my noble friend Lady Laing argued so passionately, is not who comes here in future but who goes now.

As the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, said—I think the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, slightly missed this point—if the Bill successfully affirms that any Government may expel summarily a group of existing Members of our legislature who for whatever reason they do not like, then any future Executive, using what will be the awesome power—unique, actually, in the world—of a Prime Minister to choose who comes here, and now, on this example, who goes, any future Government, of whatever colour, and heaven forfend it should be the example put before us by the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, could use the same arguments—

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

My Lords—

[Lord True (Con)]

I will complete my remarks and then I will give way. They could use the same arguments to expel any other group now among us in the future.

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

My Lords, this is such an absurd, fanciful and imaginative suggestion. By way of evidence, can the noble Lord explain to us how 667 hereditaries being removed overnight in 1999 raised the spectre that he is trying to put before us—that it enabled subsequent Governments to act in the completely arbitrary and brutal way that he has described? It is pure fantasy.

[Lord True (Con)]

Well, it certainly encouraged the Labour Party, which removed the Law Lords—although allowing those who were here to stay—and are now removing the rest of our hereditary colleagues.

UK-Mauritius Agreement on the Chagos Archipelago

Lord Grocott Excerpts

Monday 30th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

My Lords, I have been here quite a long time, but it is a first for me to find myself following both a maiden speech and a valedictory speech by father and daughter. If I were to do justice to the two speeches, I would use up most of the time allocated for me to talk about the Chagos Islands. It is very easy to say that the contribution from the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Prentis, was easy on the ear—which is not always the case with lawyers. It was fluent and persuasive. It is easy to say to her, as I do, that we look forward to further contributions from her.

As far as the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, is concerned, again, it is very easy to pay tribute to his long career here. We have overlapped from time to time. In both Houses and on both sides of both Houses, he has been highly respected: he is modest, understated, thorough and fluent. He has a political career of which he can be proud, and while we will miss him not being there, my word, he has earned his retirement.

Now, to the Chagos Islands. The central proposition in today’s debate—namely, that sovereignty of the Chagos Islands should be transferred from the UK to Mauritius—is one that I strongly support. It should have been done years ago, back in the 1960s, when no fewer than 11 countries in Africa achieved their independence. It is strange that the remarks by the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, sounded as though we were doing people a favour by giving them their independence, as though we were still good old Britain ruling the waves. Each year of delay in the transfer of sovereignty has made the problem of the Chagos Islands and the base ever more complex and I congratulate the Government on finally dealing with the challenge.

I particularly welcome the fact that the treaty in its preamble acknowledges the importance of

“Recognising the wrongs of the past”.


It goes on to say that we should be

“Conscious that past treatment of Chagossians has left a deeply regrettable legacy”.


In these few words there is contained a lot of human misery and, frankly, a shameful episode in British colonial history. I therefore make no apology for spending some moments reminding the House of the extent of the injustice that was perpetrated on the Chagossians and which is now acknowledged in the treaty.

The context, as ever, is important. The 1960s were a period when the dangers of the Cold War were probably at their most acute—it was, after all, the decade of the Cuban missile crisis. So it is perhaps not surprising that, in 1966, the UK and the US signed an agreement to develop a base on the strategically valuable island of Diego Garcia. What happened next is barely believable. In short, the native Chagossians were expelled from their own country, never to return. The cruelty—there is no other word for it—began in 1967, when a number of Chagossians, who had left their island temporarily for holidays or medical treatment, were simply barred from returning home. By 1973, all 1,700 of them had been expelled and relocated. This was a profound injustice perpetrated by a British Government, not on some date back in the mists of time but in the lifetime of many of us here today. Although I am happy with what is in the treaty, I am sorry that it does not do more to right the wrongs of the past.

The failure to do this is laid out clearly in Article 6, which says:

“In the exercise of its sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago, Mauritius is free to implement a programme of resettlement on the islands … other than Diego Garcia”.


The message of Article 6 to the ousted people and their descendants who lived on Diego Garcia is this: you can go back to any of the islands but you cannot go back for a 100 years at least to the island from which you were so brutally expelled.

While we all understand the importance of the base to our military and defence, can the Minister say if there is really no way at all for, say, a number of Chagossians who might wish to be employed on Diego Garcia to be allowed back to live there? I know it is not a perfect solution, but at least it would be a step in the right direction. It is a question I asked the Minister, my honourable friend Stephen Doughty, during the committee meeting two weeks ago. He said in reply:

“It is a question I have often been asked, but it is impossible for that to take place on Diego Garcia operationally. It is not suitable or appropriate”.


To say that a course of action is “not suitable or appropriate” is pretty thin gruel by way of answer to a question.

I know, of course, that there are many good reasons for Ministers to be circumspect when it comes to matters of national security, but when my noble friend on the Front Bench replies, can he provide more information about why the base is not suitable or appropriate? Is it really not possible to provide some accommodation on part of Diego Garcia to enable those Chagossians—probably a small number—who wish to return home, perhaps to access civilian employment on the base, to do so? If we are told that it is not suitable for security reasons for civilians to live close to a sensitive military installation, the answer is surely that it happens in Britain and in many parts of the world—all over the world, in fact—that civilians and the military live in close proximity, to their mutual advantage and with no problems whatever.

I welcome that the issue of sovereignty is at last being addressed, but it is surely possible for more to be done to go some way towards compensating for the injustices of the past in the way that I have suggested, much of which is contained in a long letter to the Foreign Secretary from the International Relations and Defence Committee. At the very least, given that we will be involved with these islands for at least 99 more years, I hope that a continuous dialogue can take place with the Chagossians, for their benefit and for ours.

Middle East

Lord Grocott Excerpts

Tuesday 24th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I totally agree with the noble Lord that we need to make our streets safer. Iran’s destabilisation of the Middle East, human rights violations and nuclear escalation also include threats to people in the UK. All these actions are absolutely abhorrent, and we will not hesitate to take the most effective measures against the regime and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. We are working at pace to identify further ways to deal with state threats, including those from the IRGC. On 4 March, we announced that we will place the Iranian state, including its intelligence services and the IRGC, on the enhanced tier of the new foreign influence registration scheme. As the Home Secretary announced to Parliament on Monday 19 May, the review of Jonathan Hall KC delivers a suite of recommendations to tackle state threats, and we are committed to taking them forward, including the creation of a new state threats proscription tool. I hope that the noble Lord will understand that we are focused on dealing with that threat.

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

My Lords, I welcome and admire the way my noble friend the Minister has presented the case for the Government today, in his calm and measured way—in stark contrast to the belligerence of the Opposition spokesman. I am glad that my noble friend is in charge of these things and not the Opposition spokesman.

I ask my noble friend to reflect with me—and, I hope, come to the same conclusion—that western intervention in the affairs of the Middle East rarely seems to end happily, whether it is drawing boundaries, supplying arms or changing Governments. Can he assure me that the watchword of this Government—going forward on this series of crises, with new things happening every day—will be one of extreme caution? It is so much easier to get embroiled in a conflict there than it is to get out of one.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I appreciate my noble friend’s comments. I reassure the House that I am absolutely committed to working with all sides, including shadow Ministers opposite, to ensure that we put the security of this country first. There is no partisanship here; we want to work together to ensure the security of this country. My noble friend is right that, in a situation that can escalate so quickly, caution is absolutely essential. The key element here is how we work with our allies, not just those across the Atlantic but particularly those in the region. The noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, has not been provoked yet to ask me a question, but he has been absolutely right in his past contributions, particularly as Minister for the Middle East and North Africa, when he focused on building strong alliances with our allies. This Government and I are determined to follow in those footsteps.

Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories

Lord Grocott Excerpts

Monday 9th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

The only word my noble friend uses that I disagree with is “fundamentally”. We have been working with all UN agencies and with NGOs to ensure that Hamas does not interfere with distribution. We have made that absolutely clear, and we have strongly condemned such interference. But the simple fact is that we know that the delivery of aid via private companies is dangerous for civilians and for aid workers and cannot possibly deliver aid to all who need it. That is why we continue to press the Government of Israel to permit the full and unhindered resumption of aid flow into Gaza, and that should take place immediately. By far the most effective way to meet the desperate needs of the Gazan people at the speed and scale that is needed is via overland routes, with the UN agencies and NGOs that we have supported delivering that aid.

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

My Lords, for as long as most of us can remember, Ministers such as my noble friend have been talking about the two-state solution as the holy grail that gets us all out of the difficulties. But is it not now time to recognise that the simple truth—which I ask him to confirm—is that the present Government in Israel, and indeed almost any reconfiguration that we could imagine, are implacably opposed in principle to any suggestion of a Palestinian state? Indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Pickles, helpfully reminded us, there is no boundary that could be seen to provide one at the moment.

We need to try to unlock that hopeless position of the Israelis vetoing any independence whatsoever for the people of the West Bank or east Jerusalem, and take the opportunity of the Saudi Arabian and French initiative to make some movement towards breaking the logjam by saying that, yes, we—the UK Government with allies—will recognise a Palestinian state. Until everyone, including the Israelis, recognise the imperative requirement of that, there will be no peace.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Lord Grocott Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 1st April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Seccombe (Con)]

My Lords, I feel almost ashamed to speak to this amendment, as doing so gives it credibility. I speak in sadness, as I cannot believe that any Member of this House would wish ill on our hereditary colleagues, as is suggested by the wording of this amendment. Its timing certainly favours booting out our colleagues and friends as soon as possible—it is nasty and brutal.

Our colleagues and their forebears have served this House for generations. I shall never forget the former Lord Montagu of Beaulieu telling me on his last day here that it was his duty. He could hardly speak but he thought it was his duty to attend whenever he was able. Duty was his motivation and it remains the motivation of our hereditary friends. Yet the noble Baroness wants to drive them out in this manner. I hope that all noble Lords will take this amendment and the ill intent behind it very seriously and, if there is a Division at another stage, vote against it to show respect and gratitude for what our colleagues and their ancestors have given to this House, and indeed our country, over centuries.

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

My Lords, it has been an effort not to speak for the previous several hours, but flesh and blood can take only so much. I have listened to virtually all the debates that have taken place, including numerous Second Reading debates that took place on the first group of amendments today, with Members, kindly enough, pointing out to us that they had not had the opportunity to speak so far. We are on the fifth day in Committee and they did not speak on Second Reading, but they thought it was their duty to, in effect, give us a Second Reading speech today. They have since departed. I am sorry that they seem to have all gone somewhere else now and their interest in the Bill seems to have finished.

On my noble friend’s amendment, it is difficult for me not to repeat things. We are talking about 88 people who have known for a quarter of a century—if they know anything about these things or follow them—that this House has decided that the hereditary principle should not apply to legislators. Now, they are apparently faced with some gross injustice that will cause them great pain. As I have pointed out before, I have been summarily thrown out of Parliament, as has the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth. I got over it pretty quickly, to be honest.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

Yes, we were both thrown out by the electorate, but we were given some resource to enable us to deal with staffing and other issues. We were supported in that process.

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

The decision to remove the hereditaries means they are being removed by the electorate —the electorate that elected a Labour Government with this manifesto commitment. The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, will not know, because I departed rather before he did, that there was none of the kind of soft landings in quite that degree when I lost, but I do not complain about that. Man up. Man up is about the right phrase for a men-only section of the House of Lords. Plenty of notice is being given. My noble friend says it should be on Royal Assent. I think someone suggested it should be at the end of the Parliament in four and a half or five years, or at the end of this Session. When is the end of this Session? We do not know. It could be in a few weeks.

The fact is that there will be a date, there will be plenty of time to address it, and no great injustice is being done by following the result of a general election. Great kindness and support are being shown. We have all said, or many of us have said, that there are some very able hereditaries, but the most amusing of the comments I have heard is, “How will we cope with all this talent being lost to the House? Maybe we should set up a review after a year to see what damage has been done to our democracy by these people departing”.

I simply say to that, “Don’t bother”. We have done it; we had a review. Twenty-five years ago, 668—I think that was the figure—hereditary Peers were removed. We are talking about 87 now. We have had a template to see the damage that results from the departure of hereditary Peers. As far as I can make out, in the period since the 668 departed, the earth has still revolved around the sun in much the same way as it did before. The British people have taken it all very calmly and in their stride. I do not recall any demonstrations against it. I have not heard a tangible argument from anyone specifically spelling out what damage was done to the work of this House by the departure of that group of people. I have nothing against them. There may have been an Einstein among them as far as I am concerned, but this House is bigger than it will be when a certain number of people depart for whatever reason. It is suggested that if you throw a group of people out like this, all sorts of other groups will feel threatened. Well, if they do feel threatened, they will get around 25 years’ notice if precedent is anything to go by.

I want to put one final test—I slightly realise the risks I am taking by speaking at all—to people, mainly those on the other Benches. I have to take it at face value, although I have my doubts, that they are desperate for further reform of this House. They are urging the Government at the earliest possible opportunity to bring forward a series of reforms. I have never noticed them arguing for that other than in the present circumstances, but that is their argument, to which I say that if I were advising the Government now, in the light of this debate—where a very narrow, well-publicised, well-rehearsed, well-anticipated reform is taking place and has allowed this Committee over five long days and bits of nights to discuss everything from attendance to statutory commissions, the role of the Bishops and everything under the sun—my advice to them would be to think twice before they bring in any piece of reform legislation whatever because all this stuff was able to be debated this time, apparently legitimately, so they would be running a grave risk to their legislative programme if the same amount of time was given to any further reforms.

The real test will be this. Let us get on with the rest of this Committee. Let us get on with Report. I think three days should be the absolute maximum after five days in Committee.

[The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Smith of Basildon) (Lab)]

It is two and a half days.

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

My Leader says two and a half days, and I always bow to her suggestions. And let us put some perspective into this. The image we present through the discussions that we have been, and are still, having—that this is the single most important issue facing this House this Session, and that we need to debate it at huge length, which we do not give to every other subject that comes along—is not the best of public relations as far as this House is concerned. I shall not be tempted to get up again, but I did want to inject a bit of realism into our debate.

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

My Lords, the nature of this amendment has been clearly set out by my noble friends Lord Forsyth and Lady Seccombe. My noble friend Lord Forsyth explained what the amendment actually does, and he made us confront the reality of what the amendment purports to do. I heard my noble friend Lady Seccombe say that she was ashamed to have to speak to the amendment, because it is so brutal—and brutal it is.

Therefore, one wonders why this amendment has been brought forward by the noble Baroness. The reason she gave was an odd one. The reason she gave was that, when the House adjourned at 10 pm, as it customarily does, light descended on her and she just had to put down this amendment.

I have not been here as long as the noble Baroness, but my understanding is that the House generally adjourns at 10 pm unless there is an arrangement between the usual channels for a later sitting. I understand that there was no such arrangement and that was why the House came to an end and adjourned at 10 pm. In any event, the idea that that is a reason to go further than the Government’s own Bill in respect of the date by which the hereditaries leave this place is, as a reason, not a reason at all. It is a fig leaf. There must be else something behind it. One wonders, what is that something else? I look forward, as I always do, to the words of the Leader, but especially on this, because this amendment contravenes, in terms, the Bill. It goes well beyond the Bill.

We have been hearing this evening that, when the Front Bench responds to amendments, the Minister should respond to the amendment and not to the debate. Therefore, I look forward to the Leader saying in unequivocal terms that she is opposed to this amendment. Otherwise, there will be a concern that—in a series of groups where very few people have spoken, and very few amendments have been put forward, from the government Benches—this amendment and this speech have been singled out above all else to be made and to be said.

We of course oppose this amendment, for the reasons already set out. However, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, who spoke in this House on one of the various Private Members’ Bills put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Grocott. I see that he got in early with the Government’s excuse as to why they cannot do second-stage reform: because it will be so amended and will take up so much time. That was very useful. I do that when I am in court. If I think that point is going to come up in six months’ time, I just put down a “sleeper”, as I call it. That was a good, old-fashioned sleeper as an excuse for no second-stage reform. But I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, who said in your Lordships’ House on 3 December 2021:

“We are not seeking to say farewell to any hereditary already here; indeed, we look forward to their contributions for many more years”.—[Official Report, 3/12/21; col. 1569.]


What has changed to make the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, not content with her own Government’s Bill but seek to accelerate the expulsion of the hereditaries? There seems to be no reason for it at all. I do hope that the Leader of the House will join me in our forthright opposition to this amendment.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Lord Grocott Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 25th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I am very grateful to my noble friend for his intervention, and I very much hope there was such an understanding—but I am afraid I cannot find a trace of that agreement.

Turning to the answer given to a question put to Jack Straw on this question in January 2009, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, asked him about the future of the justices of the Supreme Court. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, noted that the Law Lords performed an important function in the legislative process and asked the then Lord Chancellor what the position would be once they had retired, along the lines outlined by my noble friend—thus suggesting that there was an informal agreement that this would be what would occur. The then Lord Chancellor’s answer was:

“Of course, that was one of the arguments against change and … I can see the case”.


He then said that

“it crucially depends on whether we continue with an all appointed House of Lords”.

So the answer was that they just parked the issue, saying that it was all dependent on what was going to happen in future to the House of Lords. The Lord Chancellor goes on to say that

“if we go to a 20% appointed chamber”,

which was one of the things then being considered, the number of noble Lords would be “fewer”. That was why he refused to commit at that point in answer to that question.

The issue was raised again in July 2009 in a question from the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and it was answered by the noble Lord, Lord Bach, the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice. He said:

“My Lords, justices of the Supreme Court who are appointed after October 2009 will not automatically become Members of the second Chamber on retirement, but could be considered for appointment by the Appointments Commission. It is right to say that former Law Lords will be able to take up their places again … on retirement from the Supreme Court, and it is right that this House needs a lot of expertise, particularly in that field”.—[Official Report, 20/7/09; col. 1375.]


Of course, he was right in that respect. But the reality is that that has not happened. If one looks at the appointments that have been made by HOLAC, one sees that former justices of the Supreme Court have not numbered highly among the appointments. This has been a very significant omission and now is the moment, I suggest to your Lordships, to rectify that error.

At the very least, the Wolfson-Elie compromise of giving peerages to the President and Deputy President of the Supreme Court should be strongly considered by the Government, but I would suggest it should go more widely than that: every member of the 12-member court should receive life peerages on appointment. That should be the convention. There would then be no need for these courtesy titles. When they retire, they would then hopefully become engaged and active Members of your Lordships’ House.

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

My Lords, I will make one brief contribution to this debate, which is likely to go on for some time. I enjoyed listening to the contributions entirely from lawyers except for the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. They had one thing clearly in common: none of them had any reference whatsoever to the subject of hereditary Peers being removed from this House. They are entitled to have made their amendments because of some ruling, which came from somewhere that I have not yet discovered, that under remote circumstances hereditary Peer membership could relate to other parts of the constitution. I accept that this might be the case in some remote circumstances. However, it is very difficult for me to understand, in any sensible conversation, what relevance adding, through these amendments, 25 protected places in the House of Lords has to the subject of this Bill.

I do not want to prolong it because I do not want to promote debate. However, with such a loose definition of what is included and what is not, on the same logic if you had a Bill to reduce class sizes in infant classes it would be entirely within the scope of the Bill to discuss university admissions processes—because, obviously, if you reduce class sizes, that gives an opportunity for children to develop more effectively and stand a better chance of getting into university. Lawyers can do that but, in the interests of common sense and as a general principle, if an amendment has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject of the Bill, it would be a good idea to determine that it is out of order.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness (LD)]

My Lords, I want to speak to my Amendments 58A and 59B. I have a lot of sympathy for what the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, has just said. I tabled these amendments against a background of also aspiring to a wholly elected House, where appointments would not come into it.

What prompted my amendments was that Amendment 57 recommends that

“the Lord Chief Justice, Master of the Rolls and Lord President of the Court of Session be granted a life peerage”.

In the interests of the union, we should not forget one part of the United Kingdom, and that is why I have sought to add the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland. I do not know the present Lady Chief Justice, Dame Siobhan Keegan, but I know her predecessor, Sir Declan Morgan, who would make excellent contributions to your Lordships’ House—and may yet do so for all that I know. If we are passing legislation for some parts of the United Kingdom, there is no logic at all to why Northern Ireland should be omitted.

Gaza: Ceasefire

Lord Grocott Excerpts

Tuesday 18th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords—

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

My Lords—

[Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)]

We will hear from the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, next and then from my noble friend Lord Grocott.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

As I have repeatedly said to the noble Lord in this Chamber, we are committed to building a future where the Palestinian Authority is the authority for all Occupied Territories and it is defended and protected to do its job. There is no role for Hamas in the future of Gaza.

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

My Lords, is not the overwhelming natural reaction to the news that we have heard today to ask: how much longer must this slaughter continue? Let us add the 400 deaths reported so far to the 48,000 that have already taken place—including 11,000 children and several hundred children under the age of 12 months, who presumably were not members of Hamas. If this does not include serious breaches of international humanitarian law, then it is time that someone started rewriting the humanitarian law law book.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I think my noble friend knows that we have considered the risk of breach of humanitarian law and have taken action to mitigate that risk. I also want to stress how we have worked with allies. On 5 March, together with France and Germany, we expressed our deep concern at Israel’s halt on aid to Gaza and urged it to lift restrictions. The Foreign Secretary also made this clear to the Israeli Foreign Minister during their call on 5 March. On 28 January, the then Minister for Development announced a further £17 million of healthcare aid. The situation is no doubt dire. We cannot see the return to the violence we have seen before. We want this ceasefire to hold. We want to see the return of hostages and we are doing everything we can with our allies to ensure that that is the case.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Lord Grocott Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 12th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

My Lords, like a number of noble Lords, I have sat here with Trappist vows avoiding contributions that might prolong the debate further. However, having listened to the whole of our debate on the first group, which took one hour and 10 minutes—and to the noble Lord, Lord Newby, saying in our debate on that first group that we should be careful to ensure that we try to see ourselves in the way we are viewed from outside—I think that we need to reflect on a couple of simple facts.

One is that this is a five-clause Bill. Everyone knows that no organisation is happier than when it is talking about itself. We have been demonstrating this—testing it to destruction, in fact—during our debate on this Bill so far. A simple five-clause Bill would not normally have an attendance such as this on the second day in Committee. So far, up to today, we have discussed 10 groups of amendments. There are 32 groups left to discuss, assuming that there is no further degrouping. We are averaging five groups a day per session. Members can do the maths better than I can but, at this rate of progress, we shall be debating this Bill for Committee day after Committee day.

Some of us will no doubt enjoy ourselves, as we all like talking about our own organisation and how we work, but, in relation to other matters that the Lords should be considering on the Floor of the House, to spend another six, seven, eight or more days on this Bill, as these stats suggest we will do, repeating arguments that have been heard on numerous occasions—as the right reverend Prelate pointed out, 90% of them are, we know, not directly related to the Bill, and some of them will, in any event, come forward at a later time—we really need, if we want to be seen as relevant and persuasive in the eyes of the public, to do better today than debating just five groups of amendments. Bearing in mind that I have spent precisely two minutes and 42 seconds speaking and do not intend to speak again, I hope that we will have the good sense to get through this Committee stage at a dramatically speedier rate than we have managed so far.

[Lord Strathclyde (Con)]

My Lords, can I just reply to the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, on what I thought was a disobliging and wholly unnecessary speech? He said that this is a five-clause Bill and does not therefore need much discussion. Well, I can remember—I expect that the noble Lord can as well—the Maastricht Bill of some years ago, which was four clauses long. The House was full every day and night, and this went on for a great deal of time. It was an important constitutional issue. This, too, is an important constitutional issue. The difference between me and the noble Lord is that he thinks this Bill is about getting rid of the hereditary Peers, while I think it is about creating a wholly appointed House, which we have never had before, with the appointments in the hands of the Prime Minister. That is why many of the amendments taken today and on previous days are so important.

There is no attempt to try to filibuster this debate. The noble Lord, Lord Grocott, cannot point to any individual who has spoken for very long. It is hardly surprising that so many of us want to get involved in this debate. I am sorry that we are not going to hear again from the noble Lord or the rest of the Labour Party, but that is their decision; perhaps they are so horrified by what the noble Lord’s Government are putting forward that they do not want to listen to it anymore. I, for one, am very happy to sit here.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Lord Grocott Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 10th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Moore of Etchingham (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, on the eloquence of her speech. But she put forward a point of view about this House that I think is mistaken when she said that it is supposed to be representative of the people. It absolutely is not and it never has been. It has other purposes, for better or for worse, and we all sit here as representatives of nobody but ourselves. That is particularly true of Cross Benchers and the non-affiliated, but actually it is true of all party Members as well, and there are important reasons for that. We are well placed to bring to bear on the proceedings of Parliament as a whole a disinterested point of view, in the proper sense of “disinterested”: in other words, not representing an interest but trying to think as hard as we can about what is right.

The speech by the noble Lord, Lord Tugendhat, was very important here, because, if we think about the function of this House, we may come to realise that its current composition is not so idiotic. Its function is to scrutinise, and the type of people that want to scrutinise are not the type of people who want to get on in life. The people who want to get on in life are those in the other place who are, as was eloquently pointed out by the noble Lord and others, trying to get the next position, higher marks on social media, more likes and jobs. Most of us have gone beyond that stage of life. That is obviously not true of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, because she is very young, but she disinterestedly and kindly sits here in order to contribute her wisdom.

The trouble with the Bill is that we are not thinking about function but droning on about composition. As long as we think that it is a good thing to have a powerful House of Commons that forms most of the Government of the day, it is perfectly reasonable to have a not-very-strong House of Lords that tries to scrutinise. If we think that that is perfectly reasonable, we might consider that perhaps we should not be mucking around with our composition.

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

My Lords, we have already spent more than an hour on this and I do not intend to prolong that for more than two or three minutes. However, I am getting a bit alarmed by the breadth of the discussion we are having.

I remind the House—maybe the Procedure Committee needs to look at this—that the Bill is the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill. From looking at the amendments, of which this is a particularly bad example, not in the quality of the argument but in the dangers it presents for anyone looking for Lords reform in the future, we can apparently have absolutely any amendment whatever so long as it conceivably, by some long-stretched argument, has some effect on the future composition of the Lords.

A lot of people have been saying that we need to do more things once this Bill has become an Act, but, my word, I have been very much put off thinking that is a good idea having listened to today’s debate, because any one of the other issues—whether it is the age of retirement, the length of service, or the number of Bishops, for example— could apparently lead to precisely the same kind of debate that we have had today on amendments to this Bill. I have to say—and probably anyone could say it about me—that it is very unusual that you hear any new arguments in these debates, of which we have had many in the past.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Lord Grocott Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 3rd March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Strathclyde (Con)]

I am more than happy to agree with the noble Baroness on procedural shenanigans, which I must say I do not recognise at all over the course of the last few months. I am not doing any procedural shenanigans; I am actually replying to the noble Baroness, but I have made the point I wish to make. Are there no procedural shenanigans from anybody in the Labour Party actually engaging in the debate just started by my noble friend Lord True? I certainly give way to the noble Lord, Lord Grocott.

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

Has the noble Lord finished his remarks, because I do not want to encourage him to go on at length? I wish to respond to the point about why Labour Members have not spoken, but is he wishing to get up again? I do not want to intervene on him, I just want to—

[Lord Strathclyde (Con)]

Feel free.

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

Well, I have been waiting to say this for a long time, but I have managed to keep quiet. It was nine years ago that I first brought in a Bill to end the system of by-elections, which, had it been enacted, would have substantially solved the problem—and I think it is a problem—of people coming to this House by means of heredity.

I find it deeply ironic that the now apparently passionate advocates of my Bill include the noble Lords, Lord True and Lord Strathclyde, both of whom were among those who did all within their power to block it; that is not to mention the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, of course. When I brought the Bill in, the majority of hereditary Peers, as far as I could judge, were in favour of it. However, time and again a small group of people, four of five of whom—probably more— are here today, managed to filibuster in ways incredibly similar to those going on today: degrouping amendments, and putting down amendments at the last minute when there is barely time to respond to them. I would just like to know at what point in their political development this Damascene conversion occurred: from doing all within their power to block my Bill—satisfactorily, of course—to now thinking that it is the golden solution to finding consensus between the two sides of the House.

Perhaps, at some stage, the noble Lords could take this opportunity not only to explain why they have completely changed their mind but to apologise to the hereditary Peers who will be removed as a result of this—in the full knowledge that, if they had listened to my earlier Bill and not filibustered it, this debate would not be happening on anything like the scale that we have at the moment.

As we are taking a slight trip down memory lane, I could go even further if I wanted to, but I will stick to just nine years—mind you, I am tempted to go back 31 years, when I first introduced to the House of Commons a Bill to end the right of hereditary Peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords. One of its sponsors was my good and noble friend Lord Foulkes, alongside my noble friend Lord Rooker—we have stayed together over many years—but of course that was not successful either, so there is a certain satisfaction with where we are now.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Howard of Lympne (Con)]

If the noble Lord is correct, why did the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine, use the words “binding in honour”?

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

I cannot possibly interpret at this juncture the views of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine—I know that the noble Lord, Lord Howard, has resurrected him during this debate. I really do not know precisely why he used the wording, but I know the context in which that “agreement” took place. I was working in No. 10 at the time. We were told by the then Chief Whip, my predecessor, that he feared for the whole legislative programme if we did not concede to the 92 hereditary Peers remaining. I do not feel in any way guilty or dishonourable by regarding that as an agreement that is not valid.

[Lord Northbrook (Con)]

I am grateful for the noble Lord giving way. Does he recognise Alastair Campbell’s book when he said that he was very astonished that Viscount Cranborne did the deal and that it was only going to end in tears for him?

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

One person asked me to answer for Viscount Cranborne and I am now expected to answer for Alastair Campbell. The noble Lord needs to ask my good friend Alastair Campbell about that, but I know the facts are precisely as I described. Please do not take my word for it; take it from Viscount Cranborne. We are going to have a long debate, and I know that I have gone on far too long, but I hope that no one will again use that tired, dishonourable excuse that somehow a crucial agreement was reached which was binding to all subsequent Governments, when it was reached under duress.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

I totally understand why the noble Lord cannot be expected to answer for the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine, or anyone else, but perhaps he could answer for himself. He is quite right—magnanimity in victory—that he has got what he was asking for. If he thought that it was in the interests of this House when he introduced his Bill—well known as the Grocott Bill—to end the hereditary principle but to allow the Peers to remain in this House, what has changed? Why has he changed his view?

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

What has changed is that there was a general election, and this was a manifesto commitment. Broadly speaking, it is a good idea to obey manifesto commitments. The longer answer to the noble Lord’s question is that I was not the first to introduce such a Bill; Eric Lubbock was the first Member of this House to propose that there should be no more by-elections. Had it been agreed at the time that the Lubbock Bill, which I will call it, was introduced, there would be only about 25 hereditary Peers left. Due to the constant refusal of people to accept the end of the by-elections, a whole new generation of hereditary Peers has arrived, so that, for the objective of ending the hereditary principle in this House to be concluded, it would take another 40 or 50 years. It is spilt milk. I respect noble Lord, Lord Forsyth: he occasionally made the odd favourable comment towards my Bill, for which I am very grateful; it was an all-party Bill supported by all parties and in huge numbers. But times have changed. It is the time for apologies from Messrs True, Mancroft and Strathclyde to their colleagues for blocking the Bill in the way that they did. Along with the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, who we will have the pleasure of hearing from in the next amendment, they are the ones who have the explaining to do, not me.

[Lord Swire (Con)]

Does the noble Lord, who should be a little more cheerful having achieved what he set out to do, not accept that there were many of us who were not in this House and therefore unable to support his Bill or otherwise?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

I can respond in one sentence. The reason that I caved in on that amendment, on that particular day, is that we had already been rambling on for about an hour and a half on the subject and anything to shorten it was to my advantage. That principle could perhaps be applied to the current Bill.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My noble friend Lord Caithness is right to point out that the effect of this Bill is to make your Lordships’ House a second Chamber almost entirely nominated by the Prime Minister. I say “almost” because his amendment refers only to the Lords temporal; as noble Lords know, the Lords spiritual come here by a different means. As the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, has reminded us, a small number of Cross-Bench Peers have come in through nomination by the House of Lords Appointments Commission and what was at one time called the “people’s Peers” process.

Having served as a political secretary to a former Prime Minister, my noble friend Lady May of Maidenhead, I know that even those recommendations made by the independent commission are laid before the Prime Minister. It is at a time of the Prime Minister’s choosing—not the commission’s choosing—when those nominations are made. The rate and regularity with which those nominations can be made is often a cause of some consternation between the commission and the Government.

When the noble Baroness the Lord Privy Seal stands up, she can perhaps say a little bit about that. I think that the noble and learned Baroness, indeed many of us, would be delighted if there were some commitments on codifying that process a bit more formally, or at least a commitment to the number or regularity—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

My Lords, I will just make a couple of points. First, we are not abolishing hereditary Peers; we are abolishing the right of hereditary Peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords. Secondly, 26 years ago we removed 667 hereditary Peers and as far as I can judge, that has not had a devastating impact on the monarchy; in fact, the monarchy seems to have survived quite well. Thirdly, the fundamental difference between the hereditary principle as applied to sitting and voting here, and the hereditary principle as applied to the monarchy—like my noble friend Lord Brennan, I support the constitutional monarchy very strongly—is that if the monarch started to do what hereditary Peers in this House do, which is to express, as they are quite within their rights to do, detailed arguments in favour of one political party or another, I do not think the monarchy would last very long. There is a fundamental difference between the political role of hereditaries in this House, and the wholly significant and important non-political, head-of-state role of the monarchy at a national level.

[Lord Swire (Con)]

With that in mind, I invite the noble Lord to have a word with those who drafted the Labour manifesto, which says, as a standalone sentence: “Hereditary peers remain indefensible”.