Afghanistan

Lord Grocott Excerpts

Monday 12th July 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

We certainly do not consider our international allies in the way the noble Baroness seems to suggest. We all need to work together internationally to support the Afghan Government. As NATO partners have said, we have been very clear that this military withdrawal comes in the context of a renewed regional and domestic push for peace in Afghanistan. As she rightly says, the terms of the US-Taliban agreement involve commitments it made on preventing international terrorism in its territory, including its relationship with al-Qaeda, which it must deliver on. However, we will work with all international partners to provide the support we can to the Afghan Government.

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

The Leader of the House will be aware that the Prime Minister informed the Commons on Thursday that he had pledged to President Ghani that the UK would continue to support the Afghan national security forces with at least £58 million annually. Given that any settlement between the Afghan Government and the Taliban is bound to mean the Taliban’s involvement in government, what would be the policy of the UK towards maintaining these current levels of support in those circumstances? What safeguards would there be to ensure that the money is used for the purposes intended?

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

Of course we will work to ensure that any funding goes to where it should, and I am sure we will keep things under review as the situation goes on. The Prime Minister has been very clear to President Ghani about our commitment to support him and his Government and our resolve to counter terrorist threats going forward. Of course all these things will be under review as we work together, but we have a close dialogue with the Afghan Government, and that will continue, to make sure that we can support them in the best and most effective way that we can.

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

Lord Grocott Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading (Hansard) & 2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Friday 13th March 2020 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Grocott]

That the Bill be now read a second time.

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

My Lords, this is the third time in four years that I have introduced a Bill to end the hereditary Peers by-elections. From my point of view, of course, there are certain advantages in reintroducing the same Bill: it saves all the bother of having to write a brand-new speech, although there will be some variance. I must say how nice it is to see so many hereditary Peers here to speak in the debate—I think it is 10 out of the total of 30 or so who are speaking. I gently remind them—the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, is speaking first, so he can set the example—that it is quite clear from item 11(b) in the rules of conduct of this House that when Members have an interest, they should declare it before they speak. They quite clearly have an interest, so perhaps they can remember that.

On all the previous occasions, I have seen this Bill filibustered by a tiny number of Members of this House. I persist in trying to get it passed, knowing that there is overwhelming support in all parts of the Chamber—Labour, Liberal Democrat, Conservative and Cross Bench—for getting it on to the statute book. I include many hereditaries who have wished me luck this week in getting the Bill through, because—unlike a minority of their friends—they can see the sense in doing that.

Given that this process has been going on for so long, and that new Members have arrived and long-standing Members may not have caught up with recent developments, it may be helpful for me to take stock of this whole by-election saga: what has happened so far and what needs to be done. For our new listeners, here goes.

There are 92 hereditary Peers in this House, 90 of whom—when they die, retire or are expelled, though none have been—are replaced by a system of by-elections. The number 90 is constant, fixed in law by the 1999 House of Lords Act. Of the 90, 75 are elected on a party basis from the four groupings in this House. For a Conservative vacancy, the electorate consists of the Conservative hereditary Peers in the House; there are 46 at the moment. For a Cross-Bench vacancy, the electorate is 29; for Labour it is four and for the Liberal Democrats three. With such small numbers, the by-elections for these two parties are particularly absurd. There was a quite farcical by-election for a Liberal Democrat vacancy in April 2016, which many Members of the House will be familiar with, when there were more than twice as many candidates as voters—seven candidates and three voters. Six of the candidates received no votes at all and, with a 100% turnout, the winner got all three. The cost of the by-election was £100 for each vote counted, a total of £300. I would be quite happy to have done it for a mere £150. I can update the House on costs, which have escalated following a recent tendering process. The new prices for the by-elections are as follows: for a Conservative or Cross-Bench election, the cost to the House is £600; for a Labour or Liberal Democrat one, it is £570. So the Labour and Liberal Democrat hereditaries provide better value for money.

I invite any Peer in today’s debate who opposes my Bill to explain what it is that they most admire about an election with an electorate of three; but it gets worse. Earlier, I mentioned that 75 of the 90 are elected by party groups. The remaining 15 are elected by the whole House—811 of us. To explain, the 1999 Act reserved 15 hereditary places to enable those hereditary Peers who were Deputy Speakers at the time to remain in the House. Not surprisingly, however, after 20 years most of the original 15 are no longer Deputy Speakers and anyone who wins under one of these by-elections is not expected to be a Deputy Speaker. To summarise, in these Deputy Speaker by-elections, the departing Member does not have to be a Deputy Speaker and the person replacing him does not have to be one either: you know it makes sense.

There have been seven by-elections since the Second Reading of my previous Bill in September 2017. They are, in essence, parliamentary by-elections—they provide us with a new Member of Parliament—but not in terms that we would normally understand. Sadly, the media are not present to capture the drama of the count: “one”, “two”, “three”. The votes for each candidate are not announced by the returning officer and the winning candidate does not have the chance to thank his supporters. I think we all know why: the more light that shines on this system, the more ludicrous it is shown to be. I make no apology for saying, yet again, that in order to be a candidate for these by-elections, you have to be a hereditary Peer who has notified the Clerk of the Parliaments of your interest in standing for any vacancy that might arise. There are 216 names on the current register of hereditary Peers; 215 of them are men. It has been said so often that it loses its impact, but I will say it again: 215 of the 216 are men. Anyone opposing my Bill today needs to explain to the House why he or she thinks that is acceptable in the 21st century.

To summarise: there are 90 places in the House of Lords exclusively reserved, by law, for people who have inherited titles, and for which any vacancies are effectively for men only.

The main argument—I sometimes think almost the only argument from opponents of my Bill who want the by-elections to continue—is that during the discussions on the 1999 Act, the Government indicated that the 90 hereditaries would remain until there was comprehensive reform of the Lords. That argument carries no weight whatever, because of the absolutely fundamental principle of our constitution that no Government can bind their successors. If Governments could bind their successors, there would not be much point in holding general elections.

Another equally weak argument I have heard advanced and may hear again today is that because the hereditaries are not appointed by party leaders, they bring a uniquely independent perspective and judgment to our proceedings. Demonstrably, they do not. Apart from the Cross-Benchers, of course, the hereditaries are elected by the political parties and almost without exception they vote with their parties in any Divisions, just like the rest of us. So here we are, 21 years after the House of Lords Act, with a so-called temporary measure still in operation, while in the meantime, 37 new hereditary Peers have arrived in the House, all of them men, and the size of the House continues to grow.

That brings me to the Burns committee. As the House knows, the committee was established by the Lord Speaker in order to recommend ways to reduce the size of the House. The basic formula that the Burns committee recommended was to reduce the size gradually by ensuring that for every two departures, there should be one replacement. This put the hereditary Peers yet again in a privileged position because by law, whenever a vacancy occurs, a by-election has to take place to ensure that the number remains at 90. For the hereditaries it is one for one, while for the rest of us it is one for two. The effect is that as the overall numbers reduce, the proportion of hereditaries increases. I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Burns, will be speaking later in the debate and I look forward to hearing what he has to say.

Most people would surely think that the by-election system is indefensible, but unfortunately it continues to be defended by a small number of Members of this House. I have tried to abolish these by-elections with two previous Private Member’s Bills, first in 2016 and then in 2017. On both occasions, the Bill ran out of time thanks to dozens of wrecking amendments, nearly all of them tabled by two Peers who I am pleased to see are in their places: the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, and the noble Earl, Lord Caithness. Whenever votes have taken place at previous Committee stages, the majorities in favour of the Bill have been huge. One particular amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, was defeated by 127 votes to two. Both my previous Bills were lost, not by votes or by argument, but by procedural tricks.

On one occasion, 50 wrecking amendments were tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, and the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, the day before the Committee stage was due to begin. Both previous Bills ended in what were frankly embarrassing and chaotic scenes on the Floor of the House, so I think it is time for these two noble Lords to reflect on their tactics. They are clearly opposed to this Bill in principle and if that is the case, they both know what they should do. They certainly ought to because they have both been here since they were 21 and have a combined length of service of 108 years. What they should do is vote against the Second Reading. That is the mechanism by which you defeat a Bill to which you are irreconcilably opposed, not by procedural games on the Floor of the House.

I will put another challenge to them and indeed to any other Peer who agrees with them: if you think that by-elections with three electors and seven candidates that are for men only are an important part of our constitution, do not talk among yourselves, as I know you do. Take your case to the public. Have an outreach programme to schools and colleges explaining the benefits of the men-only system. Of course, they will not do this because they know that they cannot defend the system. The public would be as incredulous about it as are the overwhelming majority of Members of this House. By the way, the Lords is not getting too much favourable coverage in the media at the moment. I am sorry to say that noble Lords defending the by-elections today are inevitably making matters worse.

That brings me, finally and crucially, to the position of the Government. For my two previous Bills, the Government, while not opposing them outright, have said that now is not the right time. In September 2016, the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Chisholm, said that it was not the right time because the Government were busy

“implementing the result of the EU referendum.”—[Official Report, 9/9/16; col. 1249.]

In 2017, the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, who I am very pleased to see will be speaking later, thought that it was not the right time because the Government were waiting to hear the findings of the Burns committee. Both those reasons for delay are behind us.

So, I appeal to the Minister: we waited patiently for these two objections to be met, and now the way is clear for the Government to give the Bill a green light. I beg you, please do not say that now is not the right time because we are waiting for the report of the constitution, democracy and rights commission. The commission has not even been set up yet and we all know that it will take years, during which time we will have yet more of these wretched by-elections. By the way, I make one confident prediction about this commission, whatever its membership or terms of reference: whenever it comes up with its final report, it will not have a paragraph saying, “As we look to the future development of our democracy, we are unanimous in our belief in the importance of preserving the system of by-elections for hereditary Peers”.

I have brought this simple Bill back for a third time because I know that I have the overwhelming support of the House. I also know that, if any of the Bill’s opponents were to take the case for continuing with this system to the country, anywhere in the UK, they would be laughed out of court. These by-elections are indefensible, ludicrous, laughable, embarrassing, ridiculous, farcical and absurd. Those few Peers who continue to support them are defending the indefensible. The by-elections are way past their sell-by date. This Bill gets rid of them and I commend it to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Grocott]

My Lords, that was a pretty depressing conclusion to our debate. I have heard that argument many times and I am particularly disappointed that it has fallen to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, to read out the Government’s brief. He is always there taking the bullets when a very difficult job has to be done—in this case, defending the indefensible. He did it as well as anyone could; he adorns any group of hereditary Peers. I have not made, and will not make, any criticism whatever of hereditary Peers in general terms. There are many hereditary Peers who I do not think make a very good contribution, but there are many life Peers who I do not think make a very good contribution. Indeed, the very weak case presented by a number of hereditaries today was that, somehow, hereditary Peers, in their performance in this House, are fundamentally different from any other group in the Chamber.

[Lord Blunkett]

Will my noble friend produce a pamphlet highlighting some of the contributions made today? They seemed to suggest that genetics and the virility of our grandparents are reasons for being in this place that are not only equivalent to the reasons why others are here, but are actually superior, in essence, to the reasons why Members are elected to the other place.

[Lord Grocott]

I just say amen to my noble friend. I thank him for his earlier contribution and his steadfast support for the Bill. It is not long before we reach levels of absurdity in trying to defend the continuation of the present system. I thought my noble friend Lord Snape was pretty effective.

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, having sat through this entire debate, I am not sure that anybody has made a case for the continuation of the hereditary peerage. I do not know what the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, is going on about: the only people who have been talking about DNA or the so-called superiority of hereditary Peers over life Peers have been members of the Labour Party. This is all utter nonsense. Nobody has tried to make that case. The hereditary peerage came to an effective end after the general election of 1997. We are talking about a by-product, as some of my colleagues said, of the failure of the Government to then come forward with stage 2 reform. That is what this debate is about; it is not about the continuation of the hereditary peerage.

[Lord Grocott]

My Lords, I have to say that I do not think the second speech of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, was an improvement on his first. He should read the speech—he could not have been listening very carefully—of his noble friend Lord Mancroft, who made precisely the point about the particular skills and insights of hereditary Peers that are denied to the rest of us.

[Lord Mancroft]

My Lords, I was not making that point. I made no points about the prominence of the hereditary peerage and I echo the comments of my noble friend Lord Strathclyde. This debate is not about the hereditary peerage at all; it is about the future of this House, with or without hereditary Peers. The noble Lord, Lord Grocott, who has a very good case to make, damages his case by making remarks like that.

[Lord Grocott]

My Lords, the people who have been damaging their case are all the hereditary Peers—with the exception of the noble Earl, Lord Howe—who made contributions today. They have been particularly depressing in their unanimity, but they are also unrepresentative of the rest of the hereditary Peers, who are not here, because, as I said, there are many who wished this Bill well for the future.

We heard from nine hereditaries: Messrs Strathclyde, Trefgarne, Caithness, Trenchard, Reay, Mancroft, Glenarthur, Astor and Northbrook. I mention their names because they failed to do what the Companion requires, which is to declare an express, clear interest. Time is short, but I am being persuaded that I really ought to read out the extract from the document itself, the text to which we all adhere. The section headed “Rules of Conduct” on page 65 states:

“In order to assist in openness and accountability, Members shall … declare when speaking in the House or communicating with ministers or public servants any interest which is a relevant interest in the context of the debate or the matter under discussion.”


That is game, set, match and tournament. According to the rules of this House, they should have declared their interest.

[Lord Reay]

The noble Lord, Lord Grocott, clearly was not listening to the first line of my speech, in which I specifically declared that I had participated in a by-election. Perhaps he would like to check the record.

[Lord Grocott]

I know perfectly well that the noble Lord, Lord Reay, declared an interest in having fought a by-election. I readily concede that that is precisely what he said. He went on to say one or two other things which I do not think I have the time to deal with.

What is especially depressing about this is that, if this House cannot even agree to the Bill, please do not give us any nonsense about it being committed to any form of reform of this Chamber. This is the most understated, simple, obvious, straightforward, incremental reform—all the ticks that any constitutional conservative might wish to adhere to. They are all there, but this reform is being rejected by—I have to say—the hereditaries and one or two riders alongside them. I find that very depressing indeed. I also find it—and I do not say this lightly—without total honesty. I do not think the arguments of noble Lords opposing this Bill carry any weight. They say that this has to be a government Bill. I see no evidence in any of their histories that they have campaigned for a full government Bill on comprehensive reform of the second Chamber at any stage in their political careers—many of them very long indeed—except for occasionally referring to it as a kind of fig leaf for opposing my incremental reform. None of them addressed the blatant unacceptability of the “white men only” category. Perhaps they can explain to me why they were right not to mention it. I did not think they would; it is very wise to keep your head down when in doubt. That has been the character of the opposition to the Bill.

The contributions from across the board were very heartening. There were contributions from the noble Lords, Lord Tyler and Lord Rennard, and others on the Liberal Democrats Benches; from the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, to whom I am very grateful; and from many colleagues on this side whom I could easily mention. I thought the contribution from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, was very good. I shall mention just two or three significant contributions. One was made by the noble Lord, Lord Burns. I am most grateful to him. His committee was set up by the House when we decided that we must reduce our numbers and that his committee was the right one to look into it on behalf of the Lord Speaker. It is a well-respected committee. I understand why it cannot recommend proposals that would require legislation, as mine would—all very simple—but for him to say that he could personally see the case for it was heartening.

I must also thank the noble Lord, Lord Young, who made a brave speech. He never conceded his personal opinion to me while he was the Minister responding, but you did not need to be Sherlock Holmes to work out what it was. His contribution was very telling. I was going to say that I look forward to the day when the noble Earl, Lord Howe, has the freedom of the Back Benches, but I do not really look forward to that. I am sure that when he does, he will modify the position he has adopted. He would not be the first person who had to express views from the Dispatch Box that differed from those they held in private; even Chief Whips are occasionally involved in things that mean they would rather not look in the mirror. I would be interested to hear the noble Earl, as and when that day comes. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Holbeach, for his contribution; although he did not come out in support of the Bill directly, he gave his usual measured performance, with the skill that is customary for former Chief Whips.

I have found that sometimes, the only way to deal with this is with satire. This system is so ridiculous that I find it amazing that so many people can defend it with a straight face. Sadly, there are a number here who do so.

That brings me, finally, to the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Howe. He said that we cannot proceed—I hope I am not traducing him—because there is no agreement across the Chamber on this issue. If that were a principle of Parliament, we would never do anything. We would certainly have never had the 1911 or 1949 Parliament Acts, or the 1999 House of Lords Act. There is never a consensus for these kinds of things. All we have in this House is a view that is some 15 to one in favour of the Bill. That is not consensus, I agree—I am working on the remaining two or three—but it is an overwhelming majority. This House has spoken on three occasions now; it really is time that the phoney, self-serving arguments against the Bill are seen for what they are, and that we give this Bill a Second Reading, Committee stage, Report and get it on the statute book.

Bill read a second time.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Grocott]

That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

[Lord Grocott]

My Lords, at this stage it is the job of the proposer of the Bill to move that it be committed to a Committee of the whole House, and I do indeed wish to do so. But, in fairness to the House and in the tradition of openness and transparency, I will say that the last two Bills were filibustered and destroyed in Committee, in a way that was embarrassing and out of any kind of tradition of the norms of behaviour in Parliament. The result was that after the previous Bill’s second full day in Committee on the precious Floor of the House, we had not got through even the amendments to Clause 1 of a two-clause Bill, whereupon even my tolerance ran out and I put down a Motion that further consideration of the Bill should not be on the Floor of the House but in Grand Committee. That Motion carried without dissent because no one could argue seriously against it. It went into Grand Committee, and went through in a smooth and orderly way.

I say, not as a threat but a promise, that if Committee on the Bill is announced, when we go into Committee that if the Bill does not complete that stage—it has had four days in Committee already, over two years—in ample time on a Friday for a two-clause Bill, then at the earliest opportunity thereafter, in prime time in the House, will put down a Motion to ensure that it is completed in Grand Committee. With that proviso and explanation, I beg to move.

[Lord Strathclyde]

A Motion has been put forward by the noble Lord. I would like some clarification on the rather odd statement that he made.

This is a constitutional Bill; I do not think that anybody can disagree with that. It is a convention in both Houses that such Bills go to the Floor of the House for Committee stage unless there is agreement that they should not. The noble Lord, Lord Grocott, explained that, last time, there was agreement across the House that this Bill should go to a Grand Committee, having had one or two days on the Floor of the House. After that, I was slightly confused as to what the noble Lord said. Did he say that he would insist and ask the House for it to go to a Grand Committee, even though it is a constitutional Bill and even if there is not a consensus for it so to do? If that is what he said, does he not feel that that would create a dangerous precedent for constitutional Bills? If I am right in understanding what he said, does he then accept that other constitutional Bills that the Government may or may not bring forward during this Parliament should also go to a Grand Committee?

[Lord Grocott]

My concern is with my Bill, not with any Bills that may or may not be introduced by the Government. This House is the master of its own procedure. If the noble Lord wishes to continue filibustering in Committee, which he was openly involved in last time, he has the perfect right to do so. But the decision on whether—

[Lord Strathclyde]

I must object in the strongest possible terms. If the noble Lord looks at the number of times that I have spoken on this Bill over the past few years, he will see that it is considerably less than he has, if I may say so. At no point have I chosen to filibuster or even be part of a filibuster; I have moved only one amendment on a statutory and independent appointments commission, which I note the noble Lord did not mention at all in his winding-up speech.

[Lord Grocott]

I do not know who is doing the winding up at the moment, my Lords. We have all heard enough.

Motion agreed.

Referendums

Lord Grocott Excerpts

Wednesday 12th February 2020 Lords Chamber

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, the first duty of government is to safeguard the nation, and we treat the security and integrity of our democratic processes extremely seriously. We have no evidence to show that there was any successful interference in the EU referendum. However, as I said, we take any allegations of interference in our democratic processes extremely seriously. My understanding is that the report referred to by the noble Lord has been released by the Prime Minister.

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

When we look at the last three referenda—on the voting system in 2011, on Scottish independence in 2014 and on EU membership in 2016—one of the bizarre characteristics is that, before the ink was dry on the results of those referenda, the losers were campaigning for a second referendum to reverse the first one. Therefore, should one characteristic of future referenda not be a minimum interval before the same question is asked again? Otherwise, you have an absurd situation where referenda designed to be for a generation are in danger of being reversed within six months.

[Earl Howe]

The noble Lord makes a very good point. Of course, there was a very considerable interval between the first devolution referendums at the end of the 1970s and the second ones in the late 1990s.

Arrangement of Business

Lord Grocott Excerpts

Wednesday 26th June 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, surely the Leader of the House has to recognise that the role of this House in tabling regret amendments, rather than opposing orders, is an extremely important one. If the Prime Minister is allowed to continue in the misbelief that a regret amendment is the same as opposition, perhaps this House might find itself opposing statutory instruments rather than simply regretting them.

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

My Lords, is the Leader of the House going to answer the question? I will repeat it if she has missed it. At Prime Minister’s Question Time, the Prime Minister clearly made an inaccurate statement. I was in the Chamber at the time and it stunned me when she said what she said; I probably had not followed this as closely as I should have done. I assume that she would gather her information about events in this House from the Leader herself; I may be wrong in that respect but I guess it might be the case in Cabinet or in another context. Is the Leader of the House now going to tell the House that the Prime Minister made an error and that that error needs to be corrected? Obviously it cannot be corrected immediately in the House of Commons, and I am afraid that it certainly cannot be corrected with as large an audience as is available nationwide at Prime Minister’s Question Time, but the least damage will be done if the Leader of the House now apologises for what has happened on behalf of the Government and responds to my noble friend.

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

I think I have responded, in the sense that I have recognised the Opposition’s support. I have also said that I will take back the concerns about the way that this has been interpreted. However, I have been very clear to the Prime Minister and my other Cabinet colleagues, as I always have, that members of the Opposition in this House have supported the target. As I have said, we look forward to the debate later, and I hope we will persuade noble Lords of our commitment and our realism in trying to achieve the target.

Business of the House

Lord Grocott Excerpts

Thursday 4th April 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

I have to say that if the noble Lord had been speaking for 20 minutes, it would have been much less interesting.

I will not read them out, but in the Companion are two pages of very important information about Private Members’ Bills waiting to be discussed. Are we to have it that the Opposition can seize control of this House and accelerate Private Members’ Bills by arguing that they are urgent? There is an opportunity here for the noble Lord, Lord Grocott.

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

My Lords, the attraction of accelerating Private Members’ Bills to be considered in a day has great merit. For the record, my Private Member’s Bill had its Second Reading in September 2017 and has just reached Report. I hope that anyone considering acceleration of Private Members’ Bills in this way will agree to offer the same facility when I reintroduce my Bill.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

The noble Lord knows that I have sympathy for his Bill—although there are others here who do not wish to see his Bill proceed—but he needs to have a word with Sir Oliver Letwin, who is able to arrange these things, and get his colleagues lined up.

Lord Speaker: Powers

Lord Grocott Excerpts

Thursday 31st January 2019 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Grocott]

To ask the Leader of the House what plans she has to make proposals for a review of the powers of the Lord Speaker.

[The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Evans of Bowes Park) (Con)]

My Lords, this is a matter for the House to decide. Of course, it is open to any noble Lord to bring forward a proposal to the Procedure Committee. Although I do not intend to do it myself, I understand that a proposal for a review is likely to be tabled for the next meeting. As a member of the Procedure Committee, I will of course consider any proposal.

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

I am grateful, in part, for that. When the Leader considers that, she might reflect on a couple of things, one of which is that this must surely be the only legislative Assembly anywhere in the world where at Question Time the only person not allowed to speak is the Speaker. That must be a first by anyone’s standards. I simply say to her that, to anyone watching from the Public Gallery or elsewhere, the proceedings in this House at Question Time are often a complete shambles. They are a shouting match and unintelligible to a neutral observer. It is now nearly two years since we debated this matter in the House and I ask the Leader to ensure—as far as it is within her power to do so—that we have a debate on and reach a decision about the Lord Speaker’s power, perhaps in time for an experiment to start at the beginning of the next Session.

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

As I said to the noble Lord, my understanding is that a proposal will be coming before the Procedure Committee. I have not seen it, so I am afraid that I cannot comment further. However, I am sure that, following a discussion on it, the Senior Deputy Speaker will update the House.

Business of the House

Lord Grocott Excerpts

Thursday 17th January 2019 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Evans of Bowes Park) (Con)]

The noble Baroness will be aware that all our business next week has been tabled in the greens and has been available to noble Lords. We shall be publishing Forthcoming Business as soon as we can today because, as she may not be aware, the House of Commons business has just been announced through the business Statement, which we felt was likely to have an impact, and we wanted to discuss it through the usual channels to ensure that the House of Lords business matched. We will be talking through the usual channels as soon as we leave this Chamber in order that we can publish Forthcoming Business as soon as we can afterwards.

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

My Lords, on next week’s business, the House will be aware that a very exciting by-election is taking place at present, the result of which is to be declared next Wednesday. In the past, we have not had the sufficient information that one would normally expect from a returning officer of a by-election, and I wonder whether the Leader of the House could use her authority to arrange with the usual channels that on Wednesday, when the result is announced, key pieces of information such as turnout, the number of votes cast for each candidate, the number of spoilt ballots and all the other details which the House would wish to hear are provided.

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

I am sure the noble Lord is aware that this does not have much relevance to today’s Motion, but his comments have been heard.

Brexit: Negotiations

Lord Grocott Excerpts

Thursday 22nd November 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

I have already responded to these points and have nothing further to add. The ability of the CJEU to provide an interpretation of EU law is not the same as resolving disputes.

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

My Lords, there is a certain Alice in Wonderland aspect to the exchanges we have heard. A lot of the questions from ardent remainers—I am not criticising people; I am an ardent leaver—have complained about the extent to which there will still be some jurisdiction from the European Court of Justice over what we can and cannot do in this country. That seems a bizarre position for someone who is in favour of us remaining in the European Union to adopt.

Does the noble Baroness also share my dismay that, whenever in this unelected House a reference has been made to the 17.4 million people who voted to leave, there has been an audible groan? That is the first time that there has not been. It is not a good position for an unelected House to groan about a referendum of this unprecedented scale.

Finally, my noble friend Lord Reid is absolutely right—I agree with him, as I have done on most things throughout our pretty long political life—that this is a framework and it should not be oversold. However, after March next year we will be entering negotiations not as a member state of the European Union, subject to all the restrictions involved in being one of 28, but as an independent sovereign country able to make within this precious Parliament—the other part rather more precious than this one, I have to acknowledge—the laws that the people in our country are obliged to obey, and if they do not like the people making the laws, they will be able to throw them out, unlike the system under which we are living at present.

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

I agree with the noble Lord and thank him for his positive comments.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Lord Grocott Excerpts

Ping Pong (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 20th June 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Adonis]

My Lords, I have made it very clear that I am not giving way to the noble Lord.

It is precisely because of this dangerous new doctrine of government sovereignty trumping parliamentary sovereignty that those of us standing up for parliamentary democracy sought to enshrine these key procedural issues in the Bill. It is a sad day for Parliament that we did not succeed and that we may now be dependent on the Government to observe conventions that they have so far been unwilling to preserve.

I will make one final point on the position of this House. We have been remarkably assiduous on this Bill. I think it is true to say that we have spent longer debating it than any other Bill in our entire 800-year history—and, tellingly, we spent about 50% longer debating it than did the House of Commons. As a long-serving Member of your Lordships’ House, perhaps I may be allowed to say that our besetting weakness in this House is self-congratulation. It is not helped by the fact—I learned this trick as a Minister—that making a great show of congratulating the House on the brilliance of its revision is a seduction technique to minimise the extent of that revision.

In defence of the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, he has not gone in for much seduction, but there has been far too much self-congratulation on the other Benches of this House in the face of the reality of the situation that we face. The reality, as I see it, is this. We are presently on course for a hard Brexit and there is still no provision in statute to prevent such an outcome. On the contrary, the Government, with wafer-thin majorities—but none the less sufficient majorities—in the House of Commons have fought off all attempts at setting new national policy on a sensible and credible course. The truth is that for those of us in both Houses of Parliament who favour a sensible Brexit, and a people’s vote to allow the people to stop Brexit—

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

Will my noble friend give way?

Role of the Lord Speaker

Lord Grocott Excerpts

Thursday 30th March 2017 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Grocott]

To ask the Leader of the House what plans she has to initiate a review of the role of the Lord Speaker.

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

My Lords, almost 11 years ago, in June 2006, the House of Lords took what was considered at the time to be a quite dramatic, almost revolutionary step. Despite considerable opposition, the House decided to elect its own presiding officer: the Lord Speaker. Prior to that, the person sitting on the Woolsack had been a senior member of the Cabinet, appointed by the Prime Minister. When you think about it, it is astonishing that a legislative assembly, the House of Lords, should have had so many of its Members preferring to have a member of the Government as its figurehead rather than someone who the Members themselves could elect—almost as odd, you might think, as having by-elections to elect hereditary Peers.

I mention this bit of history for two reasons. First, I want to remind everyone that yesterday’s revolutionary suggestion soon becomes today’s accepted practice. I do not know of any Member of this House today who is suggesting that we should replace the Lord Speaker with a senior member of the Cabinet. Secondly, the strong opposition at the time explains why the newly elected Speaker was given the bare minimum of powers, reflecting the views of so many Members that we were embarking on such a risky new venture. In fact, I kid you not, when one of the candidates in the first Speaker’s election was asked what he planned to do with the role, he replied, “As little as possible”.

In keeping with the caution of this Chamber, I am suggesting two small changes to the role of the Speaker which I believe would improve both the efficiency of the House and the intelligibility to the public of the way in which we conduct our affairs. The first relates to Question Time. In 2011 the then Leader’s Group on Working Practices produced its report. On Question Time it had this to say:

“The conduct of oral questions is the topic which, to judge by the responses to our invitation for views, concerns Members of the House more than any other … When the political character of question time is combined with the larger size of the House, the result is an increasingly fractious and at times aggressive atmosphere … many Members, from whom the House might wish to hear, and whose knowledge and experience would be particularly valuable … are discouraged from participating”.


The House voted on the proposal of the Leader’s Group to transfer Question Time responsibilities to the Lord Speaker, but the Motion was defeated. But since that vote six years ago, there have been significant changes. The House has grown even larger, in both size and daily attendance. This has made it even more difficult for people without loud voices to make themselves heard at Question Time. What is more, there has been increasing scrutiny of this House and the way in which we manage our affairs by the media and the public. Something that should be of concern to us all is the impression given to the public when they view Question Time. At times it appears to be a complete shambles, with people shouting at each other and no one in control. Anyone who observed Question Time this morning would find at least one example of that.

I believe there is a simple and cost-free solution to this problem: we should give control of Question Time to the Lord Speaker. In recommending this, I want to make one thing very clear. I am not criticising in any way the current Leader of the House, the Chief Whip—I never criticise Chief Whips—or any other Minister who might intervene at Question Time. I am saying simply that where they sit in the Chamber, on the Front Bench, is an absurd position from which to see the House and exercise control.

The House of Lords is unique in many ways but none more so for being the only legislative Chamber anywhere on the planet where the person responsible for maintaining order has their back to half the audience. I know, I have done myself it from time to time. You cannot see who is standing up behind you. You need wing mirrors. The people in the Gallery—the people we are here to serve—cannot see who is in control either. They look to the person in the chair, as they would at any other public event. But the Lord Speaker’s role in the chair is purely decorative—and he does that very well. The Companion to the Standing Orders insists on this. Paragraph 4.06 says:

“The role of assisting the House at question time rests with the Leader of the House, not the Lord Speaker”.


I hear the objectors say, “You are eroding the authority of the Leader”, to which the answer is that from the very start the establishment of our elected Lord Speaker has involved the transfer of responsibilities from members of the Cabinet to the Speaker. I will give a couple of examples. Until 2006 the power to determine whether or not a Private Notice Question should be allowed, believe it or not, was in the hands of the Leader of the House. Imagine that for a moment. The power to grant an Urgent Question, invariably requested by a Member of the Opposition and, to put it mildly, not often welcomed by the Government, until 2006 was determined by the Leader of the House as a senior member of the Government. That power was transferred to the Lord Speaker, and rightly so.

Another precedent involves the Lord Chancellor. Prior to 2006, the power to recall Parliament during a recess lay with the Lord Chancellor—like the Leader, a senior member of the Government. That power now rests with the Lord Speaker. Paragraph 1.55 of the Companion says:

“The Lord Speaker may, after consultation with the government, recall the House whenever it stands adjourned”.


So there are two examples—Private Notice Questions and the recall of the Lords—where power has been transferred from the Government to our elected Lord Speaker. In my book, that is entirely consistent with, and indeed an enhancement of, our valued tradition of being a self-regulating House.

I need to emphasise very strongly that I am in no way recommending a Speaker comparable to the Speaker in the House of Commons. I do not think anyone here, including former MPs like me, would want a Lord Speaker who, for example, had to rule every day on seemingly endless, usually bogus, points of order. There are a number of experts on that sitting around me this afternoon, and occasionally I would include myself. But paragraph 1.52 of the Companion states quite clearly:

“The House does not recognise points of order”.


That prohibition would remain. All I am suggesting is that the Lord Speaker should in future perform precisely the functions that the Leader does at present—no more and no less. I have no doubt whatever that this modest change would diminish the shouting match which often characterises Question Time. It would make proceedings more intelligible to the public and encourage and enable many more Members to participate who are reluctant to do so at present.

I suggest one other change to the Lord Speaker’s role, and today is a timely day to suggest it. I would like to see the Speaker take control of the House when Statements are made. At present, all that happens is that the Minister making the Statement simply stands up and reads it with no introduction. It is bizarre, but we are so used to it that we do not regard it as unusual. I think the Lord Speaker should announce the Statement and call the Minister. Otherwise, the matter is not that intelligible to the public. I have sat in this House many times when halfway through a debate or between two orders a Minister stands up and reads a Statement. It would be helpful if that were done by the Lord Speaker. All we have at present is a message on the annunciator to say that a Statement is due. It would also fall to the Lord Speaker to manage Statements in order to prevent mini-speeches—we had the odd example of that today—and to ensure that as many Members as possible are able to contribute in the 20 minutes that are allowed.

I believe the role of the Lord Speaker has grown over the years entirely to the benefit of the House. I also believe that the profile and leadership shown by the current Lord Speaker in speaking for the House on matters of public interest which are relevant to the House as a whole—both to the press and to the public—have been very much to our advantage. Enhancing his role at Question Time, in particular, and for Ministerial Statements would establishing him more effectively in the eyes of the public and the media as the person who can speak for the House of Lords.

My proposals today represent a small but significant extension to the responsibilities which were given to our first Lord Speaker 11 years ago. Nearly half our Members today—362 out of 804—were not Members then. It is high time that we reflected on our experience of having an elected presiding officer and consider the changes that I have suggested. They would make our proceedings fairer to Members and more comprehensible to the public. They would cost nothing and disadvantage no one. I commend them to the Leader, who will be responding, and to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

His is not a wig.

[Lord Grocott]

It’s real.

[Lord Haskel]

He is lucky.

Thanks to several changes in recent years, the House now has a clearly established code of conduct, with powers to discipline or even expel Members who have broken the code. It is by being a champion for this code that the Lord Speaker plays an important role in maintaining the reputation of the House.

Over the years, we have taken small steps regarding behaviour, standards and procedure, sometimes initiated by the Lord Speaker. Question Time, obviously, is no exception. The role of the Lord Speaker in these matters does not necessarily need reform; what it needs is for the Speaker to be urged and encouraged in taking these small steps, judging when the House is ready for them.

The Speaker’s special role is to help maintain the correct balance between lawmaking and our civil rights and liberties. This is not easy. As times become more difficult, so the Speaker’s task becomes more difficult. At the same time, however, it becomes more necessary.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Snape (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, who, if I may say so, would have made a distinguished Lord Speaker himself, had the House taken a different view late last year. I am grateful, too, to my noble friend Lord Grocott for the opportunity to debate this matter today. I agree very much with what he and my noble friend Lord Rooker said about some of the procedures in your Lordships’ House. I have been a Member of this House now for 13 years and I am still baffled by some of the procedures and still wonder why we tolerate a system which, as was said earlier, benefits those with the loudest voices, those with the most confidence and those who feel that their words should be heard on each and every occasion.

I have to choose my words carefully in these days of equality but I think the self-regulatory system that we have at present discriminates against women Members of your Lordships’ House. A prime example of that took place about an hour or so ago. I have never met or heard before the noble Baroness who was trying to intervene from the Conservative Benches but I thought it was pretty ungallant of some of her colleagues to talk over her in the way that they did, and eventually she gave up and left. I really do believe that if we had a presiding officer—if the Lord Speaker had the power to call individual Members of the House—it would be fairer on those Members on both sides who do not particularly wish to participate in what is a bit of a bear garden.

There are more than 800 of us now, as my noble friend Lord Grocott reminded us earlier, and getting in sometimes at Question Time is extremely difficult. Someone once said all politics is local. All the complaints about what goes on in your Lordships’ House are usually inclined to involve whoever is making that particular complaint. But it is not just getting in to speak that is a problem; part of the weakness in my view of self-regulation in this House is what is actually said. I have lost count of the number of Second Reading speeches I have heard about amendments to particular Bills in the 13 years that I have been here. There is no way of correcting or intervening on noble Lords who behave in a particular way, but many of us do—I have probably been guilty of it. The temptation is there. The fact that there is no presiding officer to intervene makes it even easier.

My noble friend mentioned in particular Question Time on the 14th of this month. A Question was asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, about Great Western electrification. Without boring your Lordships about the ins and outs of the mistakes that have been made here and the hundreds of billions of pounds of public money that have been wasted on that project, I was rather anxious to hold the Minister to account. I did not manage to intervene on that Question, but no fewer than three noble Lords intervened, from both sides, asking questions which bore no relation to Great Western electrification. The word “railway” triggered off something in their minds, and off they went, one about the east coast, one about railways in Wales, and so on. Again, this is the sort of thing that happens with great regularity. I do not think that the House was particularly deprived by my non-participation on this occasion—

[Lord Grocott]

Oh, I don’t know.

[Lord Snape]

I am prepared to concede that that might be the case if my noble friend says so. However, it illustrates one of the weaknesses of self-regulation in this place.

While I am on my feet and complaining, another matter which having a Lord Speaker with real power would help to combat is the reading of speeches. I have with me a copy of the Companion—noble Lords on both sides will be relieved to know that I do not propose to read very much of it in the five minutes available to me. In paragraph 4, on conduct in the House, the Companion specifically says:

“The House has resolved that the reading of speeches is ‘alien to the custom of this House, and injurious to the traditional conduct of its debates’”.


Again, all too often speeches are read into the record. I understand that in the House of Representatives in the United States, it is possible to have a speech written out, send it to the Congressional Record—their version of Hansard—and it appears the following day. Perhaps we should adopt that system rather than having to sit through noble Lords on both sides—we all do it—reading speeches, some of which give the impression that the noble Lords have never seen them before and that they are written by somebody else anyway. Again, if we had a presiding officer, not necessarily intervening on each and every occasion the rules of conduct are breached, it would help to bring about a more sensible way of conducting our affairs. Having said that, I hope that the Leader of the House will listen to the debate, act on the genuine concerns that have been expressed during the course of it, and we should and I hope we will—thanks to her—look again at our proceedings.