Hereditary Peers (Democratic Rights) (Hansard, 15 June 1994)

§ Mr. Bruce Grocott (The Wrekin)

I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to abolish the right of hereditary peers and peeresses to sit in the House of Lords; to establish their right to vote in general elections and to stand for election to the House of Commons; and for connected purposes. In spending so much time, as the House does, on detailed, complex and intricate legislation, we sometimes miss the glaringly obvious. My Bill deals with the glaringly obvious — that in a democracy it is absurd that people should inherit the right to legislate.

My Bill does not attempt to deal with the overall question of the reform of the House of Lords or whether we need a second Chamber. It deals simply with hereditary members of the peerage.

The House of Lords has the most bizarre and indefensible composition of any parliamentary chamber in the world. At the last count, there were 1,203 Members of the Lords, 759 of whom inherited their title. Those 759 born peers are there because they were born in the right bed at the right time.

I need hardly remind the House of the bizarre ways in which those 759 people carne to obtain their titles— they are varied and colourful. The dukes are a prime example. Four of the dukes— of Buccleuch and Queensberry, of Grafton, of Richmond Lennox and Gordon and of Saint Albans— are descendants of the various mistresses of Charles II. One is by Lucy Walter, one by Barbara Villiers, one by Louise de Kéerouaille and the other by Nell Gwynne.

I have nothing against Charles II's mistresses or their descendants, but I cannot for the life of me see why they should inherit the right to legislate.

If my Bill were passed, it would not make much difference to the lives of those people. When the figures were last checked, one of those dukes was on permanent leave of absence and the other three attended on just 32 occasions out of a possible 736 attendances. Of the 759 hereditary peers, no fewer than 70 per cent. attended fewer than 5 per cent. of sittings and 44 per cent.— 333 peers — did not attend the Lords at all.

We are frequently told by traditionalists that the hereditary peerage is just a quaint British custom and that it does no harm or damage, so why bother with it? Sadly, that is not true.

Neither can it be said that there is any received wisdom among those hereditary peers. One of the most important votes in the Lords in recent years was the poll tax vote on 23 May 1988. The Lords had a chance to stop a Bill that everyone, apart from the then Conservative party, knew was ludicrous and that now everyone, including the Conservative party, knows was ludicrous. Their lordships were solidly in favour of the poll tax— 317 were in favour and 183 were against. That made a total of 500, so 702 either abstained, could not make it to the Chamber or did not understand the question.

The attendance of 500 was one of the biggest this century. Hon. Members may have read that one of their lordships said in the debate that one of the nice things about the debate was that one met so many old friends that an one had not seen for many years.

It is not always realised that the hereditary peers passed the poll tax legislation. The life peers voted marginally 632 against— 125 to 97— but the hereditary peers tipped the balance, with 54 against and 220 in favour. So much for the common sense of the aristocracy.

That vote should come as no surprise to us, because their lordships vote, as we do most of the time, according to party affiliation. Of the 759 hereditary peers, only 364 are listed as supporting a political party. Of those, 12 are Labour, 24 are Liberal Democrats and 328 are Conservatives. If I were to include the other 395 who have not answered the question, I have no doubt that the Conservative majority would be even larger.

I read a recent debate held in another place on its own future. It was incredibly smug and self-satisfied and, in the light of the figures that I have just cited, I find it staggering that one peer could say, "Your Lordships' House stands as an independent bulwark"—

§ Mr. Grocott

I am paraphrasing, Madam Speaker. The noble Lord said in effect that the House of Lords was an independent bulwark against extremism at either end of the political spectrum.

I do not want to make this a party political issue so I shall now quote Winston Churchill who, when talking about the hereditary peerage in the early part of the century, described the House of Lords as one-sided, hereditary, unpurged, unrepresentative, irresponsible, absentee … filled with old doddering peers, cute financial magnates, clever wire pullers and big brewers with bulbous noses. I do not agree about the bulbous noses, but I think that we can all understand his drift. He was speaking at the beginning of the century, but the social composition of the House of Lords has not changed that much.

According to the latest figures that I have seen, 60 per cent. of hereditary peers were described as fanners and landowners, 15 per cent. as industrialists and 12 per cent. as being involved in banking, finance and insurance. Even so—I again paraphrase a debate held the other day in the House of Lords—one peer in effect said without any hint of vanity or complacency that it was right to acknowledge that diversity was their greatest strength.

My simple proposition is that in a democracy it is ludicrous for people to inherit the right to legislate, and I am sure that the Bill will have all-party support. In fact, one of the inspirations for my presenting the Bill was the Prime Minister's rallying call for a classless society. I have not been able to check whether he will support the Bill, but, in the light of his known position on a classless society, I think that he should be behind me on this matter.

Should there still be any waverers among the Tories, let me put to them a simple proposition. If, in the Russia of today, for example, there were a Baron Trotsky, a Viscount Stalin or a Lord Lenin, the Tories would rightly be saying that in a democracy it was ludicrous that people should inherit titles, and we would say the same if there were descendants of Bismarck in the German Parliament or descendants of Napoleon in the French Parliament. However, there is a more urgent reason for dealing with the problem, and quickly.

There is a growing trend, which I welcome, for Members of Parliament to act as observers of elections abroad to ascertain whether voting systems are democratic. Of course, we can send people from the House of Lords.

633 Have people queuing outside polling stations in hot African countries ever been questioned by a duke, marquess, earl or viscount about how well their system was operating? If I were in such a queue, my response would be, "Physician, heal thyself."

The democratic rights of the House of Commons have been fought for and they are precious. Your symbolic struggle, Madam Speaker, to be the Speaker of the House is symptomatic of the struggle of democratic power against hereditary power and you, perhaps more than anyone else, are the symbol of that. There are more hereditary peers in Parliament than democratically elected Members of this House. Their right to vote and to legislate for the people whom we represent would be laughable were it not so serious. It is indefensible in a democracy. It requires a simple Act of Parliament to put it right, a step that no one who cares about democracy could oppose. I commend the Bill to the House.