House of Lords Reform and Size of the House of Commons
Debate between Lord Bellingham and Michael Ellis(8 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Michael Ellis
We have a process whereby we accept that the size of the House of Lords needs to be looked at, but there are priorities, and that is not a priority in this Parliament. Attempts were made in the last Parliament. This Parliament has pressing business. Although the size of the House of Lords is recognised as large, reform needs to be dealt with in due course, and preferably by consensus.
Sir Henry Bellingham (North West Norfolk) (Con)
Before my hon. Friend moves on, will he give way on that point?
Michael Ellis
I need to make some progress, if I may. Time is moving on, as Mr Speaker said.
The coalition Government also introduced some small-scale reform under the Lords Spiritual (Women) Act 2015— the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) referred to bishops—which fast-tracks female bishops into the House of Lords by prioritising them in filling vacancies for the next 10 years. The reality is that there have been reforms. The first female bishop was introduced about a year ago in October 2015.
I should point out that the House of Lords has cut its operating costs by 14% in real terms since 2010. Its membership has changed, too. More than 150 peers have left the Lords since 2010, with more than 50 retiring since that facility was introduced two years ago. Indeed, there are 400 fewer Members of the House of Lords now than in 1998. The House of Lords is not as large as it was but is substantially smaller than in 1998.
It is right that the House of Lords continues to look at how it can work more effectively. Where further possible steps can command consensus, Her Majesty’s Government would welcome working with peers to take reasonable measures forward in this Parliament. If that is possible in consensus with peers, we would welcome doing so.
At the same time, it is vital that we continue to reform parliamentary boundaries. The Conservative manifesto commitment was to
“address the unfairness of the current Parliamentary boundaries, reduce the number of MPs to 600 to cut the cost of politics and make votes of more equal value.”
It is crucial that votes are of more equal value. Without the implementation of the boundary reforms, MPs will continue to represent constituencies that were drawn up on data that will be up to 20 years old at the 2020 general election, disregarding significant changes in the population. The principle of equal-sized constituencies, endorsed by the Committee on Standards in Public Life, is one that I would have thought Members on both sides of the House accepted. It is crucial to have votes of equal value across the United Kingdom.
Tributes to Nelson Mandela
Debate between Lord Bellingham and Michael Ellis(10 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)
It is a privilege and honour to follow the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn).
It is not easy to find the best words to describe Nelson Mandela, but his nobility, dignified nature and courage, and the inspiration he brought to countless others, have already been spoken of far more eloquently than I can speak of them. His absence of bitterness and resentment is perhaps the most extraordinary of all his attributes, and perhaps also the rarest. He was similar in one respect to Winston Churchill: in the magnanimity he showed, and spoke of showing, in victory.
Unlike many of the previous speakers, I never had the privilege of meeting Nelson Mandela, so I would like to honour him by mentioning just some of those who helped him in their small and various ways. There were millions who did so, including those who went to the concerts and those who went in their hundreds of thousands to marches. Of course the Jewish people, the people of my faith, played a crucial role in various stages of Mandela’s life, especially in his early decades. Apparently, the only white person he ever called a boss of his was Lazar Sidelsky, a Jewish lawyer from Johannesburg, who in the 1940s hired him as a legal clerk. In his 1994 autobiography, “Long Walk to Freedom”, Mr Mandela said:
“It was a Jewish firm, and in my experience I have found Jews to be more broadminded than most whites on issues of race and politics, perhaps because they themselves have historically been victims of prejudice.”
He went on:
“The fact that Lazar Sidelsky, one of the firm’s partners, would take on a young African as an articled clerk—almost unheard-of in those days—was evidence of that liberalism.”
Many years later, Mandela apparently attended the Bar Mitzvah of Sidelsky’s son, Barry. Countless other Jewish people had close relationships with Mr Mandela—people such as Isie Maisels, Harry Schwarz, Joe Slovo and Lionel Bernstein. Many others helped him in his long struggle and, in many cases, suffered for it. Arthur Goldreich helped to hide Mr Mandela and the ANC in the early 1960s. He apparently set up a fake farm to do so, but was unfortunately uncovered in 1963 by the South African apartheid security forces and later managed to escape to the country.
Benjamin Pogrund, the former deputy editor of the Rand Daily Mail, South Africa’s leading newspaper, was a pioneer in reporting politics at a time when it was not only unfashionable to report on black politics in South Africa but illegal. As has already been said, Mr Mandela was a politician, and the importance of having those political references transmitted in newsprint cannot be overstated. In 1961, Pogrund helped Mr Mandela to organise an illegal strike. In the 1980s, he was among the first non-family members to visit him in his cell on Robben Island. Of course there were others who were not supportive of Mr Mandela. Many in the small Jewish community in South Africa adopted a sort of benign neutrality.
Mr Mandela was always a strong supporter of the Palestinian people. I echo remarks made by Members on both sides of the House about how we now must look for leaders of a similar stature—I hope that that is possible—who can take the lead in other perennial conflicts around the world, and who can, like a colossus as Nelson Mandela was, bestride both sides of the argument. It will take someone of Mandela’s ilk to work towards reconciliation in those parts of the world. Nelson Mandela was always firm about Israel’s right to a peaceful existence, but he strongly supported the cause of the Palestinian people. In his work for reconciliation, he chose not to dig up the hatred and the anger, which are so justified in many cases. He famously said, “Those who wish to foster recrimination and hatred are like people who take poison expecting it to injure their enemies.”
In 1997, he agreed to receive, in South Africa, an honorary doctorate from Ben-Gurion university. He then went on to take about 30 honorary doctorates. It would be remiss of me not to mention Progressive party member Helen Suzman, the only politician in the South African Parliament between 1961 and 1974 who was opposed to apartheid.
Michael Ellis
A great woman, as my hon. Friend points out.
Apparently, when Helen Suzman was questioning a Minister in the South African Parliament and asking him to justify the apartheid policies that the South African Government were inflicting on the people of that country—she was alone in her views—the Minister said to her, “Your questions are embarrassing South Africa, ” and she responded, “It’s not my questions, it’s your answers.” She was made an honorary dame by Her Majesty the Queen in 1989 and the House will no doubt agree that she richly deserved that honour.
I wanted to honour Nelson Mandela in my speech today by mentioning just a small number of those people who helped him along that path and by giving the names of some of those who honoured him in their lifetimes. I pay tribute to a great man.