It has been a central feature of membership of the House of Lords in recent years that it carries with it a greater sign of independence from the constraints or pressures of Government or party. Generally, such a person may have had a distinguished career in this place first, but once they have gone to the other place, the implications are clear that their aspirations to the highest ministerial office disappear. I think that there has been a general view around the Chamber that that is a good thing.
I do not wish to take up too much of the Committee's time on the generality of the clause, because we will have a separate stand part debate, but may I say simply that the principle that a person may resign from the House of Lords and subsequently, according to choice, disclaim their peerage—it is a matter for them—is a novelty, irrespective of whether safeguards are introduced to prevent somebody using the House of Lords as an antechamber to entering this place. That has given me some anxiety, which is substantially curable if the amendment tabled by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), or the Liberal Democrat amendment, is accepted. On that basis, if the Liberal Democrats press amendment 94 to a vote, we will support them. It is essential to have a mechanism to ensure that a person cannot use an appointment to the House of Lords as an antechamber to a political career in this place.
The issue goes further than that. I would be grateful if the Minister corrected me if I have got it wrong, but it seems to me that nothing in the system of resignation under clause 32 would prevent such events happening on a multiplicity of occasions. The Prime Minister could promote a person to the House of Lords as a Minister—the current Prime Minister has appointed 11 since he came to office; they are the ones known mainly as GOATs—and if the Bill were passed on the last day of this Parliament, one could envisage them deciding to resign their peerage, standing for election to the House, and if elected, having a career. The Prime Minister could then say on a whim, "Actually you would be much more useful to me in the House of Lords at the moment. I am going to make you a peer." As the Minister knows, under the current untrammelled patronage enjoyed by the Prime Minister, that would happen automatically. They could go back to the House of Lords, and perhaps take on a new peerage title. In the case of the noble Lord Mandelson of Foy in the county of Herefordshire and Hartlepool in the county of Durham, he might have to find a couple of other places where he has placed his seat at various times—
Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Dominic Grieve
(Conservative)
in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 26 January 2010.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee of the Whole House (HC) on Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
504 c762-3 Session
2009-10Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 19:39:48 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_615035
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_615035
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_615035