Income tax (charge)
Andrew Rosindell Excerpts(3 weeks, 2 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jon Trickett (Normanton and Hemsworth) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will try to be reasonably quick.
I pay tribute to the maiden speeches we have heard today, which were exceptional. In particular, I associate myself with the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham and Rainham (Margaret Mullane) when she said that she stands for working class life and communities, and will do everything she can for them. That is how I have seen my 28 years in this place, too.
I think I am probably the only person on the Labour Benches today who was here in 1997, so I want to say something to the Government and to all our Back Benchers. I was there when Labour came into office—I was elected in 1996, so I was here in ’97—and the same lack of humility shown then by the Conservative party, which had been thrashed by the electorate, is being shown today. There is the same short-term memory of the failures their Government had committed under John Major and the other Prime Minister before that, and the same lack of remorse. There is a lack of remorse for what we have now: food bank Britain, with millions of people in poverty. Not a word from those on the Conservative Benches. There are millions of people on NHS waiting lists. No remorse from the party opposite for that. There is no remorse for the fact that our economy has not been properly invested in throughout their whole period in office. This country was the lowest investor in the whole of the G7. There is no remorse for all the other failures either, and no sense of humility when the public told them that they had made a series of mistakes.
Jon Trickett
No, I am going to try to be quick. I am not going to take any interventions.
All those matters, and others too, require us to make a change in the direction of our economy. That is what this Budget has begun to do; we are turning the page.
One final reflection on ’97. When Labour introduced the minimum wage, one of the great reforms of the century, the Tories kept us in the Lobby night after night after night. We were proud to do it. The arguments they made then have a parallel with the arguments they are making about our Budget today—that there will be job losses, an impact on profitability, small firms will be in trouble and so on. Let me say this. Eventually, they accepted the minimum wage because it was the right thing to do. There were no job losses and there was no impact on profitability. So, I say to those on the Government Front Bench: continue in the direction you are travelling, but move faster and be even more radical. I recommend that they have a look at Spain, where a socialist Government are in place. They have—I think I am right in saying—the highest rate of growth in the G7. They introduced a 0.5% wealth tax on estates worth more than €3 million a year and they are getting high growth. That shows that a determined Government restructuring the economy, as we need to do, can deliver change and not damage a country’s economic success.
I represent 23 villages, all former mining communities that were treated brutally by the Tory party 40 years ago. It is a distant memory for many, but I remember every single moment of the strike. They destroyed the mining industry and have done nothing to replace it in the last 40 years, so we have widespread poverty, as there is in all post-industrial communities throughout our country. They perpetrated a hoax on those communities by saying that they would level up. The levelling-up fund was not directed to where poverty was. In any event, it was a competition in deprivation between one area and another. My communities got nothing, yet we are struggling desperately to achieve growth. Levelling up was a great slogan, but it was used as a trick to persuade people to vote Conservative in 2019. What happened? People have learnt their lesson.
Let me come on to one point that I am worried about and then on to a general point. On transport, the differences in the distribution of funding for transport are extraordinary. The previous Government—that lot—spent £418 per head on transport in Yorkshire. In London, it was £1,200. That is three times as much per head per year spent on transport in London than in Yorkshire, and that leaves us with problems. I represent 23 villages—rural communities in many ways, deprived communities, post-mining communities. To get from one community to another, bearing in mind over 20,000 people in our area do not have a car and the trains do not work very well—the train service has left us without adequate public transport by train—the only option is the bus. Buses often do not start until 8 o’clock, but people begin work at 7, or leave home at 7. I have met women walking from one village to another in the dark on unlit streets because the bus service has not yet started. That is a problem the Conservatives created.
I regret this Government’s decision to raise bus fares from £2 to £3. I do not suppose there is anybody in this whole Parliament who does not have access to a car, but there are many people across the country who do not have a car because wages are so low. People are walking in the dark at 7 o’clock in the morning to get to work from one village to another. And for those of us who do have a bus service, it is going up by 50%. It will be roughly £6 a day to get to and from work. That is £30 a week and £1,500 a year in bus fares to get to work and back. Clearly, that gives us a problem. In my constituency, there are villages that are only seven miles apart, yet the bus takes one hour and 19 minutes to get from the one you live in to the one where you work. That is completely unsatisfactory. If we are going to raise bus fares—that is the decision that has been made, which I regret—we need to reform the way buses operate so that they are accessible to communities. The Government have made some announcements in relation to that already, which is welcome.
My final point is on the lack of investment the Conservative party presided over for years. I heard the shadow Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Godalming and Ash (Jeremy Hunt) saying today, “Okay, there might have been a black hole in the public finances, but we were going to cover it with cuts.” That is effectively what he said. The cuts were always taking place to investment and they were going to cut more investment. If we measure my constituency by GDP per head—a controversial measure, but the one we are familiar with—that lack of investment means the average worker produces £29,000 per year of GDP. Wages are pegged to productivity, as we all know, so we have low wages—less than £30,000 a year. But listen to this. In Camden—we know it is a different economy in Camden—GDP per head is £174,000. The regional differences between output, capacity and productivity are all the result of that failure to invest.
The Budget sets out to invest, and to invest big and go for growth, but I will be pressing, for all the held-back, post-industrial communities up and down our country— not only the coalfields but in the midlands and elsewhere —for the investment we achieve and the growth we deliver to be more equitable than it has been under the Conservatives.
With those few thoughts, and an encouragement to be more radical and even more bold for the future—let us bear in mind ’97—I wish the Budget well.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs Russell). It was enlightening for me to listen to her because she listed a huge array of things on which the Government are now going to be spending a lot more money. They are all very good causes of absolute benefit to the people of our country. The one problem I have listening to her, and to all the Labour Members, is that we do not have any money left: we have spent it all. We had to spend half a trillion pounds on the pandemic, but I notice that no one has mentioned that. We are, in effect, running on tick. We are living beyond our means, we are spending money we do not have, and all we are doing, laudable though it may be to spend the money we are discussing today, is handing huge debts to future generations.
I have to remind Labour Members that every Labour Government we have ever had in my lifetime has left this country with higher debt, more unemployment and an economy in a worse state. I would also remind them that it was in 1979, after years of failed socialist government, that we finished up having to rebuild the economy under a Prime Minister who had the determination to do what was right for our country, and those economic reforms led to years of prosperity.
Andy MacNae
It sounds as though the hon. Member is giving up on Britain. He seems to be saying that there is no point in trying to find a better future for ourselves because there is no money left, and the previous Labour Government left no money. Would he recognise that the level of debt left in this country at the end of the recent Conservative Administration is twice what was left by the Labour Government in 2010?
Andrew Rosindell
The hon. Member forgets about the pandemic and its associated costs. The reality is that we have to create the wealth before we spend it. For many years I have heard Labour Members talk about how to spend money. I very rarely hear how we actually create the wealth we need to spend on our public services, and that is where it all goes wrong.
Andrew Rosindell
No, I will not give way.
The Chancellor yesterday painted a dire picture of our country’s future. Under Labour, it is not the economy that is booming but the size of the state, with an ever-increasing burden of taxation on working people. Under this Government, it is not the businessmen in my constituency of Romford who are being supported with the future success of their enterprise but the climate alarmist, with a public energy company that will not even produce any energy. How sensible is that? It is not the young family in areas such as Collier Row or the pensioner in Rush Green—both in my constituency—who are being supported by, for example, a decrease in stamp duty or help with energy payments, but, of course, the union bosses who are able to deliver over-inflated pay rises to the public sector, and the private sector is once again paying for that.
Despite the Government’s talk of growth, this Budget is preparing us for the return of the dark days of the 1970s, with hard-working people paying the price. Indeed, the Government are so lacking in aspiration for this country that they want the Office for Budget Responsibility not only to mark their work but, it seems to me, to do their homework completely. They are even gifting the OBR more powers, as was outlined in the King’s Speech.
In my view, Britain’s potential is far greater than a high-tax, low-growth and dysfunctional big state. Far from my “giving up on Britain”, as the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Andy MacNae) said—quite the opposite—I love this country, I believe in this country, and I hate to see what socialism has done to this country over the years. Labour Governments always end up in a worse situation than when they started, and Conservative Governments always have to come in and pick up the pieces, and restore the economy back to prosperity and vibrancy again. In five years’ time, I am sure we will have to do the same.
It is now clear that, under this Labour Government, the British people face a tyranny of taxation. Not content with the record-breaking tax burden that already exists, Labour is adding to the load on the shoulders of hard-working people. Under Labour, it will be harder than ever to buy a property. The journey to work of my constituents in Romford who are lucky enough to own their own home is going to be even more expensive than it is already under the control of the Mayor of London, Mr Khan, with the rise in bus fares. Once they get to work, my constituents will have far less in their pay packet, because the increase in national insurance paid by employers will, of course, clearly be passed on to employees. It is nothing but a stealth tax by this supposedly transparent Labour Government, and it is job destroying. Businesses in my constituency have already been telling me that they will not be employing people because of this reckless increase in national insurance. My constituents, all our constituents, might even lose their jobs. [Interruption.] They will lose their jobs, as businesses struggle with the national insurance increase. The costs of that will be phenomenal, and the growth-crushing increase in capital gains tax will also have a big impact.
As if that was not enough, when someone sadly passes away, the Labour Government want to make it even harder for them to pass on what they have earned throughout their life to their loved ones, by expanding inheritance tax to pensions and so on. That is incredibly cruel. People pay tax throughout their life, and will pay more tax when they die. Is that really the kind of thing a Labour Government should be doing? It will harm a lot of families who would inherit but will not be able to because of the cash grab from this Budget.
I do not believe that the Government are pro-worker at all. They cannot even define what a worker is. Labour used to be the party of the state from cradle to grave. Now it seems to be the party of taxing my Essex constituents from cradle to grave and beyond. This has been a very Essex-weighted debate, with contributions from my hon. Friends the Members for Epping Forest (Dr Hudson) and for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin), my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale), the hon. Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) and others. People in my county of Essex are very disillusioned by all this, because they are aspirational and hard-working. They are market traders and small business people. They will be devastated by all this. I warn Labour Members that they will find that out when they next knock on doors in their constituency.
As Margaret Thatcher warned us—[Laughter.] Well, she did rescue our country’s economy; let’s be honest about it. [Interruption.] She really did, and we are still benefiting today from the reforms that she introduced. As Margaret Thatcher said, any Government who impose high taxation are taking power away from the people and giving themselves power over the people. Of course taxation at some level is always necessary. It has to be in place to support our nation’s armed forces, to support families and protect pensioners, and for investment in necessary infrastructure and public services for the future. But what are the Labour Government doing with all the hard-earned money that the working people of this country have created? I think they will be spending billions of pounds on things that will go to waste.
Chris Vince
Does the hon. Gentleman not think that there was quite a lot of waste under the previous Government? There were dodgy personal protective equipment contracts that did not result in money being spent on PPE. Is that the sort of waste our Government should claw back?
Andrew Rosindell
I have to say that I agree with the hon. Gentleman. The last Government wasted a huge amount of money—[Interruption.] No, they did. No wonder we lost the election. But this is not a political point; this is about how we run the country effectively and efficiently. My hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex made a range of serious points about how we are going to survive as a country. We cannot keep spending money like this. It does not work, and future generations will suffer because of it. The last Government failed, but this Government are going way further. This is all simply unaffordable, and I worry about the future of our country if we cannot see where this will eventually lead.
The Labour Government are spending billions of pounds on a renewable energy company that will not produce any energy—another vanity project. They are spending billions of pounds on public sector wage hikes, and are pouring even more taxpayers’ money into public services, with virtually no concrete productivity targets.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that those pay rises will go to hard-working people who are themselves taxpayers?
Andrew Rosindell
Look, we have to live within our means. Of course I do not object to money being spent wisely and sensibly—it is the role of any Government to ensure that the money we spend goes where it is really needed in our country. The problem I have is that all this is unaffordable. We are about 100% of our GDP in debt. That is the highest that debt has been in our entire history. We cannot go on doing this. Eventually it will all come crashing down, and every hon. Member who let it happen without speaking out, as I am doing today, will have to take responsibility when future generations have to pick up the pieces. We cannot afford the debt we are getting into.
If hard-working people are being taxed, they rightly expect the money to be put to good use, to boost infrastructure. We should focus on local services and economic growth, not ideological consumption. Again, the people of Romford and throughout the borough of Havering and the county of Essex will be rightly outraged that there is so much unfairness, especially in local government funding. The funding formula has not been addressed in the Budget, from what I can see. That is a serious issue in the London borough of Havering, where my constituency is based. Despite this being the greatest example of tax and spend that I can remember since I have been a Member of Parliament, nothing has been done to address that very serious problem.
The funding formula is unfair, outdated and discriminatory. It fails to address local demographic shifts. Local people, businesses and public services are the bedrock of our economy. They face acute financial pressures in my constituency. They deserve an ambitious programme of reform, so that the money we pay in can be spent on our local services, instead of us closing down libraries and facilities, which my council is sadly now doing—necessarily, because of a lack of funding. It is a question of priorities. My local council should not close libraries, but at the end of the day, we are not being funded fairly, and the Government need to address that. If local services are not provided, people will be angry and disillusioned, and local communities will be harmed.
I speak not only for Essex and the surrounding London boroughs, but for all hard-working people the length and breadth of this country when I say that the United Kingdom has no place being a high tax, low growth and low aspiration nation. If the Chancellor wants growth, I encourage her to look to nations whose economies are expanding much faster than ours is due to under the sluggish and rather depressing growth forecasts she outlined yesterday. The formula for some of those countries is the same, whether they are in north America, Asia or Europe: low taxes that give people back the money that is rightly theirs, policies that incentivise enterprise and growth in the economy, and a lean state with minimal regulation. Investment in infrastructure is critical, and truly local public services are vital to people. They also create a basis for private investment.
In Britain, cutting red tape and reaping the benefits of Brexit—we really should do that—will attract booming business and stimulate success. The mantra that the state should manage decline needs to be rejected. The British people deserve better than this. I encourage the Government to follow not the example of failed Labour Governments littered throughout history, but the nation-saving policies embarked on in 1979 by a Prime Minister who had a vision of a greater Britain and more prosperous United Kingdom.
We must pursue an agenda of low taxes, economic growth and an efficient state that improves the public services that look after the elderly and those truly in need. The people of this country do not want, and simply cannot afford, a return to red-blooded socialism that discriminates against hard-working people, decimates our economy, destroys jobs, curtails growth and restricts freedom. The British people need a small state that works, not a bloated state that holds our country back.
Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)
I congratulate all those on this side of the House who have made their maiden speeches this afternoon. It has been absolutely fantastic to hear all those stories.
It has been a long 14 years since we had a Government and a Budget that will deliver for Scotland, the UK and working people. We have had 14 years of austerity, 14 years of chaos, seven Chancellors and 19 fiscal events, but not one of them delivered a thing. Opposition MP after Opposition MP—wherever they have gone—welcomed investment and said, “I want a new hospital; I want this and that,” but not one of them had an idea about how to pay for it. Yesterday, I was proud to sit and listen to a Chancellor who was being honest with the British people about the mess that was left, what we will spend, the improvements that we will make, and how we are going to pay for them.
That is what changed yesterday as we heard the first female Chancellor deliver the first Labour Budget in 14 years, and what a Budget it was. It boosted public investment by over £100 billion and maintained the fuel duty freeze and 5% cut, which are vital for families and small businesses in Dunfermline and Dollar, and across Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom. Alongside that, the Budget supported the take-up of electric vehicles and abolished non-dom tax loopholes, raising £12.7 billion. It increased, extended and reformed the energy profits levy, as we promised to do, and kick-started GB Energy, which is headquartered in Aberdeen, to deliver the clean energy and green jobs that we will need in the future. Despite GB Energy being described by Conservative Members as a vanity project, it will deliver the infrastructure that this country needs, which they failed to deliver in 14 years.
We have increased the employment allowance for small businesses to £10,500. As someone who used to run a small business, I know how well that will be received. We have preserved the state triple lock on pensions, which will see over 12 million pensioners gain up to £475 next year. We have provided an uplift of £2.9 million for the defence budget, while maintaining £3 billion in annual support for Ukraine for as long as it takes.
As has been mentioned by my hon. Friends, this UK Labour Government will deliver a total of £47.7 billion in Scotland—the largest settlement in the history of devolution. That includes an additional £1.5 billion for the Scottish Government this financial year, and an additional £3.4 billion next year.
Andrew Rosindell
It is a bonanza of expenditure; a lot of money is being spent. The hon. Gentleman said earlier that he would explain how it will be paid for. Just for clarification, will he please explain where all this money is coming from and how we are going to pay off the debt in the long term?
Graeme Downie
I believe the Chancellor outlined all of that absolutely perfectly yesterday. I would never seek to improve on the performance of our fantastic Chancellor, from whom we heard just yesterday.
Whereas the rest of the UK has only had to endure 14 years of the Conservatives’ incompetence, we in Scotland have suffered even more. We have had 17 years of the SNP blaming the Tories for its own economic incompetence and decisions. We have had years of two failed Governments who have been content to play political games, rather than come to the help of the people of Scotland.
House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill
Andrew Rosindell ExcerptsTuesday 15th October 2024
(1 month, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill 2024-26 View all House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Nick Thomas-Symonds
How can Members of the Conservative party talk about stuffing the upper House with people after the events of the last 14 years? I thought irony had died. As for the right hon. Gentleman’s point about life peers, I have just said that having been a hereditary peer is no bar to becoming a Member of the Lords. That will be a matter for the new Leader of the Opposition, having looked at the contributions individuals have made. I have not denigrated the contributions of hereditary peers—far from it. I have thanked people for their public service in the upper House, but it is for the new Leader of the Opposition to decide whether to put forward former hereditary peers as life peers. There will be no objection from Labour Members.
I have covered why the removal of the hereditary peers from the other place is overdue. Let me turn to why it is essential. It is indefensible in this day and age for people to sit in our legislature as a result of an accident of birth. Prime Minister Harold Wilson, putting forward a programme for change in this House in October 1968, said:
“the Government believe that reform should achieve the following objectives: first, the hereditary basis for membership should be eliminated”.—[Official Report, 30 October 1968; Vol. 772, c. 34.]
All these years later, that first objective still needs to be fully achieved. It is time for the hereditary nature of the House of Lords to come to an end. The former Lord Speaker Lord Fowler put it eloquently:
“It is not a question of personalities; it is a question of whether appointment of the House based on heredity is the right solution for the 21st century, and I do not believe that it is.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 23 July 2024; Vol. 839, c. 388.]
As I said in response to the right hon. Member for Herne Bay and Sandwich (Sir Roger Gale), the Bill is not an attack on individuals in the other place. As I have said twice already, we recognise individual contributions. We are saying that we should reflect on the millions of people who were unable to make the same contribution as a result of the family they were born into. The time has come for change. If we are to maintain trust in our democratic institutions, it is important that our second Chamber reflects modern Britain. I hope Members will vote for the Bill this evening, and agree with me that it is indefensible, in this day and age, that over a 10th of our second Chamber is essentially reserved for certain individuals due to an accident of birth.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
I am deeply worried about the Minister’s arguments. If he talks in that way about accidents of birth, how can he possibly defend constitutional monarchy? If he questions the hereditary principle in this place, how can he defend the idea of a hereditary monarchy?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
If the hon. Gentleman had been here at the start at the debate, he would have heard exactly the same point made to me in the first intervention. I will repeat the two points I made in response. First, that is a completely different part of our constitution, and no monarch has withheld Royal Assent from a Bill since the reign of Queen Anne. Secondly, we have a constitutional monarchy that enjoys popular support. I gave the same answer to the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) at the start of the debate.
Let me summarise this short five-clause Bill. Clause 1 removes the remaining hereditary peers from the House of Lords and puts an end to the right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in that House. Clause 2 removes the current role of the House of Lords in considering peerage claims, reflecting the removal of the link between hereditary peerage and the House of Lords. Complex or disputed claims will now be referred to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, under section 4 of the Judicial Committee Act 1833, instead of the House of Lords. Clause 3 makes consequential amendments, and clause 4 sets out the territorial extent of the Bill and when it will commence. The Bill will remove the remaining hereditary peers at the end of the parliamentary Session in which it receives Royal Assent. Finally, clause 5 establishes the short title of the Bill.
To conclude, the Bill fulfils an explicit manifesto commitment to deliver this reform to the House of Lords.
Sir Oliver Dowden
I very much hope that the hon. Gentleman grows into a sturdy oak, like all the great oaks on the Benches behind me. There is a path to be followed to achieve that. Many people may well enter the House with pre-existing views, and that is of course the basis on which many of them were elected, but my argument is that we should consider the consequences of one change in relation to hereditaries for the wider composition of the House of Lords and the constitution.
Andrew Rosindell
My right hon. Friend rightly talks about the consequences of the changes. Has he also considered the effect of the removal of the Earl Marshal and the Lord Great Chamberlain of England, which were protected in the 1999 legislation introduced by the then Labour Government? Will my right hon. Friend commit to supporting their retention in the House of Lords on a constitutional basis?
Sir Oliver Dowden
That is a very important point. I believe that the Government have plans to address that in the legislation. Having those people, with their experience of organising coronations—as I saw during the coronation two years ago—is another part of how our constitution works. All of the elements work together, and if we pick away at one, there are unintended consequences.
Gareth Snell
I am not sure that any Labour Member needs to quantify Conservative Members’ embarrassment; they do it for themselves.
The hon. Gentlemen seem to be confused about whether they want more or less reform. I think we know that the answer is that they do not want any reform, but they create a smokescreen of wanting to act faster and with more zeal than Labour Members simply because they wish to ruin the Bill. They want to press amendments that are not relevant and not in the Bill’s scope. They want to make arguments about retirement ages. When the right hon. Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson) argued that there should be a retirement age of 80, I am sure that he had not spoken to his right hon. Friend the Member for Herne Bay and Sandwich (Sir Roger Gale), who is 81, although, to look at him, one would not think he was a day over 60.
Andrew Rosindell
I am puzzled. It is clear that the hon. Gentleman does not like the current system, but he does not explain how our legislation would be better for removing those people who have so much wisdom, experience and knowledge. How will our country’s legislation benefit from the change?
Gareth Snell
The hon. Gentleman will forgive me for not agreeing with him. There is a lot of wisdom and experience in this place that can be used to improve our legislation. Even with the removal of the 92 hereditary peers, there will still be 650 peers, who have incredible insights and specialisms. The Bill removes a group of people whose only entitlement to be in the House of Lords comes from, as the Liberal Democrat spokesperson said, a birthright many hundreds of years old, and from being selected by their friends to sit with them. The hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) may not agree with me, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Telford pointed out, the election process in the other place is a farce. There are often more candidates than electors. It is almost akin to the Tory party leadership election.
Andrew Rosindell
My right hon. Friend is making some extremely valid points. I agree with him that if there is going to be change, it should be done altogether, but I am slightly concerned by the radicalism of this measure. I did not find that anybody on the doorsteps in Romford actually wanted to make this such a big issue and radically change our constitution. Did he find that in Billericay?
Mr Holden
I certainly did not find it in Basildon and Billericay—or in Romford when I visited it with my hon. Friend, or, indeed, in other seats across the country—and I think that our constituents will be slightly baffled. When it comes to a big piece of constitutional reform, why should this Government want to come forward with, potentially, a multiplicity of different Bills throughout the current Parliament, rather than putting something to the public to have a look at now, and then having a look at it right at the end? What constituents have been mentioning in recent weeks and months is their concern about the winter fuel payments or about what might be in the Government’s new Budget, particularly the jobs tax, which they fear will hit jobs throughout the country.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
Looking at the other side of the Chamber, I see the coat of arms of our late, dear friend Sir David Amess, who was murdered exactly three years ago today. He was a staunch defender of our traditions, our conventions and our British constitution. If he were here, I have no doubt he would argue to protect the institution of the House of Lords. I will be doing the same, and I am proud to do so.
The English constitution is not something that can be drafted today by a 21st century-style committee of experts. If we were to establish such a body, its product would be alien to us and offer far less respect and admiration than what we have today. Indeed, our English constitution—[Interruption.] Our British constitution is our birthright and the envy of the world. It is like a fine, intricate oil painting, with brush strokes meticulously painted by generation upon generation over a millennium. Our constitution depicts a priceless image of the values, the character and the way of life of the British people. I believe we must cherish and defend it, not discard it so easily without careful thought and attention to what we are doing.
Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman talks movingly, comparing our evolving and changing constitution to art, but are the measures set out in the Bill not just the latest in the evolution of that changing constitution, which will make it ever better?
Andrew Rosindell
If we are to change our constitution so radically—I believe the Bill creates a radical change—then that should be done with thought, care and attention, as well as consultation and careful consideration. As I pointed out to my right hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden) earlier, I do not think this is an issue on the doorstep anywhere. During the general election campaign, I do not think anyone raised the issue as a serious matter they wanted us to deal with. There are so many other issues, yet we are rushing to make a major constitutional change without giving it due consideration.
We share a deep intergenerational responsibility in this House that rests heaviest on the Government of the day. We are the custodians of our nation and all that belongs to it, and not its master. We have a responsibility to preserve our nation and its constitution—an obligation between those who have passed on, those who are living and those who are yet to be born. That is the importance of the hereditary principle, something that Members on the Government Benches, and indeed some on the Conservative Benches, fail to appreciate.
Tony Blair’s new Labour Government took a three-inch-wide paintbrush to remake this great work of art of generations in their own image. They started a programme of thoughtless destruction, from the removal of the law Lords from the other place, with the creation of the Supreme Court, a notion alien to our constitutional heritage, to the culling of independently minded—I say those words clearly, Madam Deputy Speaker—hereditary peers and the appointment of partisan placemen.
It is no good for our constitution and it adds nothing to the work of our Parliament. It now appears that today’s Labour Government have recklessly come to finish the hatchet job on an ill-thought-out constitutional revolution in the name of so-called modernisation.
Gareth Snell
The hon. Gentleman just made the point that the hereditary peers are a bastion of independence, and the hon. Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild) said that many of the Conservative peers are long-serving Members of his party’s Front Bench team. How can those two things be reconciled?
Andrew Rosindell
I have worked with Members of the House of Lords over many of my 23 years in Parliament. They are not seeking re-election, preferment or title. They are here to serve our country and to assist this place in making better laws. All the hereditary peers and life peers—from all parties—with whom I have had the privilege to work have always been there to serve. To discard that so easily without serious long-term consideration to the effects of doing this is reckless.
Our constitution is the most vital part of our shared British heritage, and the hereditary peers are an integral part of that, which cannot be replicated by modern means. Yet the argument in defence of hereditary peers cannot be based solely on history, however important that may be. From the Duke of Wellington, who has been mentioned, and the Duke of Norfolk, to the Earl Attlee, the Lord Northbrook, the Viscount Craigavon, who was also mentioned, and the Lord Bethell of Romford, the hereditary peers bring a wealth of intergenerational experience and knowledge to our Parliament. They have an inherited obligation and a duty to serve. They are also invaluable to our parliamentary democracy, holding the Government to account, scrutinising legislation and raising often forgotten issues of national importance. Many hereditary peers are shining examples of exemplary parliamentarians.
Shaun Davies
If I follow the hon. Member’s argument correctly, is he saying that he would he be in favour of reversing the compromise of 1999 and going back to having more hereditary peers in the House of Lords?
Andrew Rosindell
I do not object to the hereditary principle. I believe that hereditary peers play a vital part in the overall mix of the British Parliament. Indeed, the hereditary principle is enshrined in our constitution via the monarchy itself. In fact, our Parliament is made up of the Crown, the House of Lords and the House of Commons. Those who argue to discard the hereditary principle should beware that the Crown itself is in peril if we continue to go down this road—[Interruption.] If I may continue, Madam Deputy Speaker, the removal of hereditary peers would be a grave loss to our Parliament and our country. It would be a purge of many substantial, independent voices that are immune to political patronage and work solely in the public interest for King and country. They do not seek to be popular or to win re-election; they exist to serve our nation.
It has been said that a fence should not be removed before we know why it was put up in the first place. Labour would have done well to heed this lesson from its last period of governance. Rushing to change our tried and tested system without considering the full consequences of its actions would be to commit an act of constitutional vandalism.
Why are the Government embarking on this action? What in God’s name motivates them? Is it simply to eradicate dissent in the other place? If so, this can be described only as self-serving political radicalism. Not content with a simple majority of 157 in the House of Commons—although I think that figure has gone down now as the number of independents has risen—this Government seemingly aim to eradicate dissent in the upper House through this damaging legislation.
The Bill entails the removal of Conservatives, Cross Benchers, Liberal Democrats and non-affiliated peers—but only a small number of Labour peers—who often provide the most substantial dissent to and constructive criticism of the Government’s legislative proposals. Worse still, I fear that the removal of the 92 hereditary peers is only the beginning. The next step would be the introduction of an age cap for membership, provoking an even more numerically significant second cull of dissent, enabling Labour to pack the other place with political appointments and abolishing any form of effective Opposition in the upper House.
Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman seems to be operating on the premise that all hereditary peers are Conservatives. Why does he think that people with entrenched privilege are naturally Conservative?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Interventions are made by colleagues who have been contributing and spending time in the Chamber and not just wandering in; the hon. Member got very lucky just then. Mr Rosindell, please go ahead.
Andrew Rosindell
I say to the hon. Gentleman that it is quite the opposite. There are many Members of the House of Lords—life peers and hereditary peers—who take the Conservative Whip but who frankly act like independents, doing what they believe is in the interests of our country. That can be said for many on the Labour side as well. He will find that there are many more rebellions and people voting in different ways in Parliament in the Lords than in the Commons, because they are there to serve and they do not face re-election. For that reason, they are not subject to the usual pressures —lobbying, the Whips and all the rest of it—that we are all subject to, and that is why having that element is so important and is part of the mix that makes up the success of our Parliament.
Gareth Snell
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving in to my indulgences. This is an argument that could quite easily have been made during the passage of the original 1999 legislation: that the expulsion of the hereditaries would lead to a complete collapse of our scrutiny processes. Is he suggesting—I do not believe he is—that since ’99 and the removal of the other hereditaries, the House of Lords has not been fulfilling its function properly? That is certainly not how I would see the current House of Lords. If he does not believe that, surely removing the existing 92 will not have an impact on the scrutiny that he and I think is so important.
Andrew Rosindell
We cannot turn the clock back, but very many good people were ejected in that first legislation under the Blair Government. The compromise was to keep the 92 there. I think that is a good compromise and I do not really understand the rush for change; we should keep things as they are.
It is patently obvious that the Bill is a precursor for a wider and scandalous programme to weaken Parliament’s ability to hold the Executive to account and ride roughshod over our tried and tested constitution. Not only does the Bill open a slippery slope towards dissent-quelling, but it is an attack on the merits of the hereditary principle, which logically and inevitably leads to a fundamental undermining of the primary constitutional role of the monarchy itself. Maybe there are some Members on the Labour Benches who would like a republic, but I think the vast majority of British people would not want that, so to discard the hereditary principle is a very dangerous road to go down.
I urge the House to consider with the utmost seriousness the weight of intergenerational custodianship upon our shoulders when we vote on matters such as this, which are of grave constitutional significance. The removal of hereditary peers from the House of Lords would eradicate from the proceedings of Parliament some of the wisest and most dutiful servants of this great democratic institution. I believe the House should oppose this act of constitutional vandalism and continue to uphold the good and great conventions and traditions that have provided our cherished island nation with stability, continuity and wisdom for so many generations.
Ellie Reeves
That was four Governments ago. It failed due to the timetabling motion and the fact that the Conservatives could not get agreement even within their own party.
There have been, and are, hereditary peers who have made real and lasting contributions to public life. However, this is a matter of principle. It is not right that anyone should be able to take up a seat in our legislature and vote on our laws purely by virtue of the family that they were born into. Instead, this Government are committed to a smaller second Chamber that better reflects the country it serves. This Bill brings us a step closer to achieving that aim.
Andrew Rosindell
The hon. Lady talks about the family that hereditary peers happen to have been born into, and says that therefore it is wrong that they should have any influence over legislation. Is she therefore questioning the principle of Royal Assent?
Ellie Reeves
Absolutely not. I listened to the hon. Member’s contribution; the royal family and the monarchy are one of our country’s greatest assets. The contribution of the King and the working members of the royal family to public life in the UK is incredibly significant. The Government have enormous respect for the unique role that the royal family play in our nation. This reform does not affect the role of the sovereign. Ours is a model of constitutional monarchy that continues to be practised worldwide. By contrast, the UK is only one of two Parliaments in the world that retains a hereditary element. To seek to make any comparison between the two is not credible. The sovereign is our Head of State and provides stability, continuity and a national focus. Nothing in the Bill changes that.
Let me turn to the reasoned amendment tabled by the official Opposition. The Government have introduced the Bill to end the outdated and indefensible right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords. I am sure that the House will agree that it is important for Parliament to give proper consideration to the Bill, which reflects a Government manifesto commitment, rather than to dismiss it out of hand. Although the Government are grateful for the contributions that hereditary peers and their predecessors have made to the other place, it simply cannot be right that the second Chamber retains a hereditary element in the 21st century.
Let us be clear. Those on the Opposition Benches talked today about consultation and engagement. First, I will not take any lectures on consultation from the Conservative party, which rammed through a Budget without engagement with the Office for Budget Responsibility and proceeded to crash the economy that has left people in my constituency and across the country still paying the price in their mortgages and rents.
On the substance of the Bill, the right hon. Member for Hertsmere (Sir Oliver Dowden) could not even be clear, when asked, whether he is in favour of the principle of removing hereditary peers from the second Chamber. From the sometimes quite lively contributions from the Opposition Benches, one thing is clear: there is a wide range of views that are not always consistent with one another. The new-found, if at times slightly confused, zeal for the job of reform of the second Chamber is noted, yet Opposition Members had more than 14 years to bring about reform and never did so. Those on the Labour Benches laid out our commitments for reform in our manifesto, which was scrutinised by the public and then overwhelmingly voted for.