House of Lords Podcast: Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate

‘This is a bit like Deja-vu, this particular legislation’

Lord Kirkhope also explains why he is putting forward changes to the Nationality and Borders Bill based upon his experience as a former immigration minister.

‘It is House of Lords, which in my opinion, and from my experience, now does better and more full scrutiny of legislation than the House of Commons.’

He also explains what happens in the chamber and behind the scenes at each stage of the legislative process in the House of Lords as members consider draft laws and try to help the government refine them.

‘I was a whip and my job was to make sure that legislation got through… and what I've got to watch out for now is the operation of the whips.’

Lord Kirkhope is also a former whip in the House of Commons. He explains how the job worked and what, in his view, was the worst thing an MP could do.

‘It's quite a... What can I say, quite a challenge? How are you going to amuse the monarch?’

Finally, we ask Lord Kirkhope about his time writing to Her Majesty The Queen to inform her on what was happening each day in Parliament, and we find out what she thought of his updates.

• Find out more about Lord Kirkhope’s parliamentary career
• Follow Lord Kirkhope on Twitter

Transcript

Lord Kirkhope:

Hello, I'm Timothy Kirkhope, Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate. I've been in the House of Lords since 2016, sitting on the Conservative benches. And before that, I had 17 years as a Member of the European Parliament representing Yorkshire. And before that, I was 10 years in the House of Commons, and a Member of Parliament for Leeds, ending up as a minister at the Home Office, looking after immigration and asylum. So, I've had quite a long political career in these three places.

Amy:

And you recently said that you are one of, if not, the only person alive to have served in four legislatures as a representative of the UK, as you just said, that's local government, as an MP and an MEP before, of course, joining the House of Lords. I was wondering if you could start off by sharing your thoughts on the difference between them as a member?

Lord Kirkhope:

Yes. They each have their own flavours. Of course, they do. Quite right. I didn't mention in my introduction that I had been a member of a county council, which I was back in the 1980s. Of course, it is a legislative body, but only at a level which deals with local laws rather than national laws. So, that is the big difference in a way. When you go to the European Parliament, the European Parliament deals essentially with European legislation that affects all the members, as we used to be, of the EU. And so, it's a very wide area covered. In the House of Commons, of course, it’s national legislation.

Lord Kirkhope:

And even there, of course, we have interesting situations where Scotland has its own devolved parliament and Wales, and of course, certain things are therefore the competence of those assemblies rather than the House of Commons nowadays. So, there are considerable differences. But I think what is common is the scrutiny that is deployed in each of these places. And I would say without hesitation, I think the European Parliament certainly was very strong on scrutiny, but one of the attractions about now being in the House of Lords is that of the two chambers of the British Parliament, it is House of Lords, which in my opinion, and from my experience, now does better and more full scrutiny of legislation than the House of Commons.

Amy:

And in the week we are recording the Nationality and Borders Bill is being scrutinised by the House of Lords at committee stage. That's where members go through the bill line by line. And you spoke yesterday about some of the changes you've put forward. Do you just want to explain a little bit about what those are?

Lord Kirkhope:

Well, certainly first of all, of course, this is a bit like Deja-vu, this particular legislation, because when I was in the Home Office, I was the minister responsible for our borders, for asylum, for immigration, I had to be involved in quite a lot of legislation. So to me, this arriving on the scene was something I really wanted to get my teeth into. Also, perhaps to offer some of my experiences, even though they were some years ago. And that is the reason why I decided to put forward amendments. One of the proposals of the government was to have an arrangement whereby we can offshore asylum applications so that we can actually move asylum applicants to another country, somewhere else in the world where their applications can be dealt with before they're dealt with here.

Lord Kirkhope:

And I did point out very politely, as one always does, to the government that I had looked at this very thoroughly, not only as a minister but also subsequently as a chair of a commission our party set up about 20 years ago now. As to whether or not offshoring was a practical proposition, we had enough nerve then to suggest possibly islands around our own country. In other words, within our own territorial jurisdiction would be what we termed offshore locations. We didn't have enough nerve to go further and suggest that this could be outside of territorial jurisdiction, as the present government is suggesting. Countries, hundreds or thousands of miles away, which may or may not have any relevance or connection to the people who are applying for refuge.

Lord Kirkhope:

So, I put down an amendment suggesting the government forgot about this idea. As one expects at a committee stage, the minister explained why the government thought it was a good idea, and we are now where we are, and waiting perhaps for a report stage where I intend, if the government doesn't change its position, I intend on bringing in the matter back. I hope the government will see sense and we can end up with a more practical application of asylum regulations.

Amy:

You mentioned that the Nationality and Borders Bill is moving on, of course, to report stage. I wondered if, for anyone that doesn't know perhaps about a bill's passage through the Lords, if you could tell us a little bit about the main differences between committee stage and report stage.

Lord Kirkhope:

Certainly. First of all, I've got to say that the way in which the Lords looks at legislation pretty well mirrors, what happens in the Commons. So, the stages are almost exactly the same, except the end product in the Lords is a little different. And therefore the relationship back to the Commons... I'll just explain this though. The bill may well have gone through the Commons. It's gone through its stages. It is then sent to the House of Lords for our review. It's introduced, and then we have a second reading. The second reading allows people to talk generally about the subject, in the bill. At that point, it's not usual for people to talk about any amendment to it. They talk about what's wrong with it, and they give their own personal recollections. And some people actually do go on too long talking about their lives.

Lord Kirkhope:

But second reading is an opportunity for a more general debate. The bill then goes from second reading and awaits its turn in the timetable to come to what is called committee stage. In the meantime, anyone who's been on second reading is entitled at that point to put down amendments. And the amendments are put down for the committee stage and debated. And usually, they've got a few signatures to them. One person will promote something, but usually goes around and says, would other people sign up? My amendments yesterday, one was a cross-party amendment and another one was a Conservative amendment because all the people signing up to it were Conservative peers as it happens.

Lord Kirkhope:

When you get your signatures, you put these things down on the order paper, and then you come to the committee stage in which the amendments are then debated. We do not vote normally on that stage. When we debate them, we ask the minister to review them and consider our changes. When we finish the amendments, gone through them all, debated them all, the minister goes away. We go away. We then have discussions with the minister or the minister with us. And we get the impression whether or not the government is likely to concede anything. If not, on those areas that they do not, we then come to what is called report stage. Report stage, which is usually two or three weeks or maybe longer after the committee stage. Those amendments can be re-laid if the person concerned really wants to. And it is at report stage that the minister either concedes or does not. But if they do not, then that is the point at which votes are taken and the House then has changed, effectively, the bill in its hands.

Lord Kirkhope:

What then happens is that the bill goes back to the Commons and the Commons sees those amendments, because the bill has been amended. They then are asked by government in the Commons to decide whether they want to agree with the Lords, those amendments to remain or whether they want to overturn them. And this is where it becomes interesting because, more often than not, the Commons will then be whipped to overturn our amendments and go back to what the government originally proposed. We normally, when we get a bill back again, we'll accept that. We have to then say yes or no. We'll accept the fact that the Commons has overturned us or has supported us. It is very rare for the House of Lords then to again, overturn the will of the Commons, because the one thing I appreciate, everybody appreciates is that the House of Commons is the elected chamber and it has priority and primacy in relation to legislation.

Lord Kirkhope:

So, unless there was an issue which is not terribly important... I'll put it that way, it doesn't matter one way or the other, we are unlikely to continue to resist the government's proposals. We certainly do not, if a matter has been in the manifesto of a governing party in the election, it is most unusual for the House of Lords to try and overturn a bill or parts of a bill that are following the manifesto promises. And that is how it works. Then of course, ultimately there is a third reading when the thing is completed and the bill is then passed and goes to Royal Assent. That's the process. We have had a thing called ping pong, which is where we are in disagreement and we've decided to stick our necks out and keep on disagreeing with the House of Commons.

Lord Kirkhope:

So, it goes back to them. They reverse our views, comes back to us, we reverse their views. Ping pong can only go on for a certain amount of time. And yet again, we, I think are constitutionally bound to ultimately give way to the Commons if it persists in what it wants. And that is why the system works. If we had equal powers and we continued to employ those and to dispute the Commons, then I think that would create a crisis. And it would also put in question, in my view, the status of the two Houses of Parliament, because they have to work together, and the joy about an appointed chamber as the House of Lords is, that it must always understand that it is not an elected chamber. It is there to reform, it is there to actually revise and to suggest to government changes, where appropriate using its expertise and its knowledge of the subject.

Matt:

You mentioned you're a member of a Conservative party in the Lords. Can you tell us a bit about, the differences, I guess, between being a Commons backbencher and a Lords backbencher, in terms of how free you feel to push for these changes? Tactics-wise, is it different being a government backbencher than perhaps being even an opposition backbencher?

Lord Kirkhope:

Well, I was quite fortunate in the Commons that I was only a backbencher for nearly two years because I became a whip fairly early on in my parliamentary career. And I remained in the whip's office under Margaret Thatcher and John Major for five years. So, I have, if you like a whips mentality to some extent. And in those days we were very hard-pressed. The Conservative party was hard-pressed. We had virtually no majority at all after Margaret Thatcher went. In the earlier part of John Major's time, we were under great pressure. And of course, we were trying to deal with some very complicated and controversial treaties, including the Maastricht Treaty, which was the one that confirmed our membership of the European Union.

Lord Kirkhope:

So, I was a whip and my job was to make sure that legislation got through. Here I have ironically, I suppose, a situation with all those years in between, I'm a backbencher in the House of Lords for the Conservatives. And what I've got to watch out for now is the operation of the whips. But I think it's quite useful for me to understand the mentality of whips and to have been one for so long. So, I know roughly where they're coming from, what is tolerated and what is not tolerated. I think the point about it, looking at it from a whips' perspective, any measures that are going on, what a whip does not like is to be unaware of the intentions of a backbencher. We always felt in the Commons, certainly, if somebody told us they were going to do one thing and then they did the opposite when it came to voting on important measures, that was literally the worst offence. If someone said to you, "I'm sorry, I really am not going to vote for this." Okay. You might want to argue with them quite a while,

Lord Kirkhope:

and we did and try to persuade them, but at the end of the day at least we had some clear knowledge that they were going to do a certain thing. We could then adjust the attendance and all the rest of it to cover it. And so, that is the big offence. I don't rebel very much. I did rebel on Europe in the Lords when I was first there because I am a pro-European. And although I'm supposed to have got over Brexit, I keep being told this by some of my friends, I nevertheless felt there were certain things about the withdrawal arrangements, where we needed to put ourselves in a position where we would have good friendly relations with Europe in the future.

Lord Kirkhope:

And I felt some of that legislation was a little bit antagonistic and that's where I rebelled, and I voted. But by and large, I'm pretty loyal. I've no intention of being a regular rebel on everything just for the sake of it. It's pointless anyway because I think you have to think of it in terms of individual items of business, but by and large, I'm happy enough with the program.

Matt:

That's a really interesting answer. You're certainly looking to improve legislation, aren't you? Rather than seek trouble, particularly being you're a government backbencher, you are sat on the Conservative benches in the Lords. So it's really interesting to hear the rhythms of Parliament and the dialogue that goes on behind the scenes. Which we don't see because it's not in Hansard, it's not filmed. So, I was just wondering if you could say a bit more about what kind of reaction you get from whips offices, when you, as a Conservative backbencher were putting down amendments, are they on the phone asking you for what you're seeking to achieve and things like that?

Lord Kirkhope:

A little bit of that, yes. And I'm quite able to explain that, but the way I do it or try to do it, I don't do it in a confrontational way. In the two speeches I've made so far in amendments on the Nationality and Borders Bill have been hoping to help the government and explain in a polite manner, that one or two of the ideas that they're trying to pursue at the moment, perhaps haven't been sufficiently thought through and offering an opportunity to the government to think again, in the hope, that they will come back at the next stage of the legislative procedure, the report stage with some changes, which are more likely to meet what I suggested. If that isn't the case, then, of course, we put the amendments down again and if necessary, we have to vote on them and this is the way the process works.

Lord Kirkhope:

But I would say to you, there's been a lot of controversy recently about whips and whipping, particularly in the Commons. Whenever I go anywhere and say that in my time in the whips' office there, we operated like a social services operation looking after the interests of our members as much as getting business through, I always get loads, peals of laughter from every audience I tell this to. When I suggest that we could be anything other than thugs, which we certainly were not. We were doing things by friendly persuasion and argument. And I think that is inevitably, anyway, the best way in which to get results. Behaving in a high handed manner as a whip, getting really rough with people, that seems to me to be a failure on the part of whips and likely to result in failure in terms of getting what you want.

Matt:

We are speaking the day after the Nationality and Borders Bill, the house was sitting incredibly late into the night.

Lord Kirkhope:

Well, you say the day after. Actually, we're talking on the very day.

Matt:

The same, yeah.

Lord Kirkhope:

3.20 in the morning.

Matt:

3.20, exactly. I was going to say I was very much tucked up in bed at that time. Unlike a number of members who were working on that bill, but...

Lord Kirkhope:

I wasn't there either actually by then, I must admit. I was watching it on my iPad until the iPad ran out of juice.

Matt:

I was just going to ask around the longer timeframe to consider bills in the Lords compared to with the Commons. And just to ask you about how you feel about, does that give you a real opportunity to get under the skin of issues raised in draft legislation because there is a bit more time?

Lord Kirkhope:

Yes. But again, on a very controversial bill, very complex and controversial bill like the nationality, like the health one, I don't think myself that enough time is given. And this leads to frustrations as we actually saw last night in the chamber, there was a breakdown really in terms of the relations between government and speakers, by about 11 o'clock last night, where the government clearly was saying, 'look, we're not getting on fast enough here. We've got to get this through. This is very important.' When other people who were raising matters, I think probably legitimately, felt that they needed the time and why couldn't we give another day or whatever, but the government were determined to keep to a timetable. Hence, of course, the government insisted and the matter went on until it did conclude, which as I say, it was 3.20 in the morning. That is unlikely now to happen in the House of Commons.

Lord Kirkhope:

In my day, as a whip there, when we were passing business in the '90s, we did quite a lot of overnight stuff. I remember many occasions, Maastricht was one, of course, we were there all night. And once you get past, I think it's nine o'clock in the morning, the next day's business is ended. You don't have the next day's business. All of that was going on then, but it doesn't now because, I think probably quite sensibly, because of the pressures on Members of Parliament, their families and all that, and the responsibilities of Members of Parliament, it was decided that apart from special circumstances, the House of Commons would rise at a reasonable time in the evening. And therefore we don't tend to get that, but the House of Lords has no such limitations.

Lord Kirkhope:

It's quite a lot of stamina there, when you take a look at the list of Lords and what they've done in their lives, it's hardly surprising that they show these displays of stamina. Most of them had considerably pressured lives in very important positions, so seem to be able to take it. And particularly if we're dealing with important matters, it's terribly important that they should be able to use that expertise and bring it to bear on the legislation we are discussing.

Matt:

On a slightly different topic. I cannot, not ask you about your time as a whip and your role as the Vice Chamberlain of the Household when you were in the Commons. Some people might know that is the role responsible for writing to the Queen about what's happening in Parliament and also is typically the person taken hostage before State Opening. So, my first question is, did you get taken hostage? And what was that like? And otherwise what's it like being a member of the Royal House for that purpose and writing about what's going on in the Parliament?

Lord Kirkhope:

It's not false pretences exactly, because I was the Vice Chamberlain of the Household, but I was only the Vice Chamberlain for a period of time that did not include a State Opening. I was moved to the Home Office quickly, ahead of time. So therefore I only did that job as Vice Chamberlain, for a very short time. I think a month or two or three months, something like that. But the interesting thing about that job is it is a person who is... Let's put it this way in the whips office, there's a seniority. So the third or fourth person in the whips office from the chief whip is the person that gets the position of Vice Chamberlain in the Household.

Lord Kirkhope:

And yes, indeed writes a note. And my predecessor, I asked him for some advice. I said, 'What would you write for her?' He said, 'Well, the important thing to do is not to give her another copy of Hansard. Her Majesty likes to hear about the fun that goes on in Parliament. So make sure what you write is going to amuse her.' And it's quite a... What can I say, quite a challenge? How are you going to amuse the monarch? And I did it longhand and I did it neatly and she only wanted one side of A4 and it had to be ready for 4.15 on a sitting day.

Matt:

That sounds like a lot of pressure.

Lord Kirkhope:

So, I went down to my desk and I was scribbling away. The first one I sent, I won't go into the detail of who I talked about, but there were a couple of troublesome MPs at that time, not in my party, who were making a great fuss about something or rather, and I told Her Majesty about it. And I put a little joke in, 'Once again, Mr. so and so is causing hassle here in Parliament, your Majesty' and that sort of thing. And I sent it in and I thought to myself 'She won't be reading it, no one actually reads this.' And I kept on sending them in for several days and nothing, I thought, well, they're probably being put somewhere, probably the wastepaper basket, but I then got a note back from one of her officials saying that Her Majesty had read with great interest, the notes and was particularly amused by my references to Mr So and so

Lord Kirkhope:

So I thought, 'Oh, I've clicked.' And, and then of course I also had to physically meet Her Majesty as well. I had to put my proper garb on, my tails and I had to carry my Vice Chamberlain's wand, which is very like a snooker cue and you hold it in your right hand and, when you are in her presence, you have to juggle with this thing in one hand while you have parchment in the other for her to sign. So I had to take things for her to sign. I remember a double taxation relief order, which needed to have Elizabeth R on it. So I took it to her in her private rooms in Buckingham Palace. And I must admit, I was quite touched by being apparently alone. I'm not sure I was actually, I think there were others somewhere, but being with Her Majesty while she signed her signature on something and handed it back, it was quite an experience.

Matt:

That's really interesting. Again, unseen parts of parliamentary work.

Amy:

You've clearly had some great experiences in Parliament. And I just wanted to ask, have you got a favourite moment from your time in the Lords?

Lord Kirkhope:

In the Lords? Well, I've only been there a short time. I've been there five years. I think one of the things that I learned, and I think this is quite important when you go to the Lords, you think you're clever. That's why you are in the Lords. You think you know everything about a subject. I'm a lawyer. I thought I knew quite a lot about the law really, but I've never been what I could describe as an academic lawyer or a judge or anything. I was just a, - I am still - a solicitor. Anyway, a case comes up in a matter being debated. And I thought I'd be quite clever. So I wrote down a note and I got on my feet and I said, 'Well, I refer you to the case of something versus something, which decided that blah, blah, blah, and this person was innocent, whatever it was, wasn't guilty of this.

Lord Kirkhope:

And I thought 'That's rather clever' and I sat down. What it taught me though, was that whenever you do this, there's a speaking list and to always look carefully at who is on the list, but not just the names, what are their categories? What are they, or what were they now? The next name on the list was Lord Walker. If I had thought anything about that name, I would've assumed that he was a peer who'd been making crisps. But of course, this Walker happened to be Lord Walker who had been the Principal of the Supreme Court of Justice. And he got up after me and said, 'Well this is interesting what the noble Lord said because I do recollect this case on which I presided that he's referred to. And, and although I agree with some of his conclusions, I'm afraid he's missed one of the main points about it.'

Lord Kirkhope:

So, I was put back in my box, as they say, I was pushed back and I realized, then if you are going to be clever, look at the list, check out who's coming next. Who's going to be cleverer than you. And because we are such a diverse house, much more diverse than the Commons in all the categories you can think of. We are more diverse and we have more experience of life in so many fields compared with the Commons that I think you've just got to understand that, whatever you bring to it, others can bring as much, or if not more.

Amy:

Lord Kirkhope, thanks very much for joining us on the podcast today.

Lord Kirkhope:

It's been a great pleasure and privilege. Thank you very much.