---

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

I echo the sentiments of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, about the noble Lord, Lord Grocott. I did not realise he was ill. It is very sad that he is not with us today, and I know we will all wish him the very best recovery from the problems that he has at the moment. I was a great admirer of the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, because he was one of the few people on the Labour Benches who wanted to leave the EU when almost all his party wanted to remain in it. I thought that was an act of enormous courage.

8.45 pm

Having said that, I did not agree with the noble Lord that it was a farce that people on his side of the House were being elected by three people, because at least it meant that they were elected. Most of us, let us face it, are appointed to this House—those of us who are political appointees. This is where I differ. When I challenged the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, he said that at least half a dozen people would have rallied round to say that he should be appointed to this House.

At the end of the day, the appointment of the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, was made, as it was in my case, by one person, the leader of the party. If he had happened to fall out with the leader of the party on some personal or political issue, he would not be with us now; we have to bear that in mind. When we condemn electorates of three people, which applies, I agree, to the Labour Benches—a rather larger number on this side of the House elect people—at least it means that those hereditary Peers are actually elected to this House when all the rest of us are appointed.

I think we will miss something terribly much when these people no longer are represented in this House, because it is a unique part of this second Chamber that we have hereditary Peers in it. When they have gone, we will be left with nothing other than political chancers, like me, and donors and members of the blob of one sort or another. I think the House will be very much poorer when they have gone.