Draft Representation of the People (Scotland) (Amendment) regulations 2018

Tommy Sheppard Excerpts

Wednesday 7th February 2018 General Committees

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)]

I rise briefly to associate the third party with the contextual remarks of the Minister and the shadow Minister that recognised not only the advances we have made to our democracy in the past century, but that there is always more to do. For our part, we welcome the proposals and wish to offer no opposition to them. They are a valuable step in the right direction, and I know that the Scottish Government agree with them and will be making regulations of their own to be effective on the same day, so that the totality of the electorate and elections are included in the advance.

[The Chair]

I call the Minister to sum up.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tommy Sheppard Excerpts

Wednesday 7th February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP)]

7. What discussions she has had with Cabinet colleagues on negotiating a transitional arrangement with the EU that benefits Northern Ireland after the UK leaves the EU.

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)]

14. What discussions she has had with Cabinet colleagues on negotiating a transitional arrangement with the EU that benefits Northern Ireland after the UK leaves the EU.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr Shailesh Vara)]

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has regular conversations with Cabinet colleagues on a range of EU exit issues, including on an implementation period. We recognise the importance of negotiating an implementation period that benefits the whole UK, including Northern Ireland. [Interruption.] We welcome the EU’s agreement to negotiate an implementation period. The precise terms should be agreed as quickly as possible to provide vital certainty to businesses and citizens. [Interruption.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Vara]

I say again that the United Kingdom is committed to leaving the single market and customs union and to the integrity of the constitution and our economy.

[Tommy Sheppard]

I think that we are all a little confused about how the Government intend to avoid a hard border on the island of Ireland. The Minister’s Cabinet colleagues are falling over themselves to secure the maximum possible separation from the EU and the least possible realignment. Has he ruled out the idea of separate arrangements for Northern Ireland governing trade and commerce, or not?

[Mr Vara]

Let me say again that the constitutional and economic integrity of the United Kingdom remains. We are in phase 2 of the negotiations, and these matters are currently being discussed. I am sure that all the parties—Ireland, the United Kingdom and the European Union—recognise the difficulty of the issue and will be as flexible and innovative as possible.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tommy Sheppard Excerpts

Wednesday 17th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Alistair Burt]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. We have just this year allocated £3 million to co-existence projects so that those from the Palestinian community and Israelis can work more effectively together. One of the problems in recent years has been a growing divide between communities. We want to find projects that will break down barriers rather than erect them.

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)]

Will the Government oppose President Trump’s latest threat to withdraw funding from UNRWA, and will the Government attend a conference of donor countries, convened by the Norwegian Government and the EU, to discuss the imminent crisis that would result?

Carillion

Tommy Sheppard Excerpts

Monday 15th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that. Let me make two points in response to her. First, the Government, through the official receiver, are continuing to make provision for payments both to suppliers and subcontractors. If any subcontractor experiences any difficulties, I encourage them to talk in the first place to the Insolvency Service. This is exactly the sort of risk that led us to decide to set up a hotline for Members of Parliament and their staff, so that if anything does seem to be going wrong, Ministers can be alerted to it rapidly. May I also say to her that HMRC and the Treasury have been fully in the loop at all stages of these discussions, but I will make sure the point she has just made to the House is reinforced when I chair a meeting of interested Ministers later today?

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)]

I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement. Obviously, our immediate thoughts are with the workers involved and their families—those affected by this announcement directly and the many thousands more who are indirectly affected. I am aware that the Scottish Government are working with the liquidator to try to work on contingency plans, and I seek an assurance from him that he will assist the Scottish Government in those endeavours. I also want to know what assurances he will give that UK-funded projects in Scotland will continue in light of Carillion’s collapse. What assurances can he give to the workers involved that their jobs will be safe?

Since July last year, the Scottish Government have been setting about trying to manage the risk involved in these contracts, and we have to ask: given that since last July the UK Government have awarded more than £2 billion-worth of contracts to this company, despite it having had three profit warnings, what due diligence has been undertaken by UK Ministers? Is it incompetence or ideology that has led Ministers to sign off multi-million contracts to a company that was on the verge of going bust? It was not the employees or the communities that depend on these contracts that awarded the contracts, so it is for the Government to intervene and pick up the pieces when something like this happens. In recent years, we have had similar things happen in Scotland—we had Tata steel in Motherwell, BiFab engineering in Fife and others—and the Scottish Government worked night and day to save those jobs, and they succeeded. I would welcome a similar commitment from the UK Government to make that effort to try to protect these jobs.

In conclusion, many thousands of people are today worried about whether they will have a job next week and, if they do, who will be paying their wages and will their pension will be protected, so it is important that assurances are given that safeguards will be in place. There will be some joint venture projects, where other companies can take over the contract, and there may be some projects that can be easily transferred to another company. But there will also be some projects where the only solution will be to take the jobs and the project in-house and for them to be directly managed by the Government or their agencies. I seek an assurance from the Minister that where those circumstances pertain, that is what the Government will do in order to safeguard jobs and their services, which these contracts provide.

[Mr Lidington]

The hon. Gentleman spoke to this issue with the seriousness it deserved and in a constructive fashion. I can give him two assurances. The first is that the Government are certainly going to continue to pay the wages—salaries, as well as those of suppliers and subcontractors—in respect of UK Government contracts in Scotland, in the same fashion as occurs anywhere else in the UK. Secondly, as I think I said in my statement, the Government will be in discussions with the official receiver about the future provision of those services. I believe we will end up with a situation in which some are transferred to an alternative external contractor but others are taken in house by a Department or other agency of government.

On contact with the Scottish Government, we have had regular and constructive communications with them throughout the period in which the UK Government have been monitoring Carillion. Our priority has been to maintain public and essential services in every part of the UK, whether those are the responsibility of UK Government Departments or of devolved bodies. This morning, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland spoke to Keith Brown MSP, the Scottish Government Cabinet Secretary for the Economy, and assured him of the UK Government’s determination to support the Scottish Government in responding to the concerns of pension stakeholders, employees and contractors in Scotland, as well as those everywhere else in the UK.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tommy Sheppard Excerpts

Wednesday 10th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Chloe Smith]

I am very well aware of the arguments, although I confess that at this point, 24 hours into my role, I have not yet had a chance to study that particular private Member’s Bill. I shall be happy to do that and take up the conversation from that point.

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)]

May I, too, welcome the Minister to her post? She is the fourth I have had the privilege of facing in the past two years.

The biggest threat to the integrity of the electoral registration process is the fact that millions of our citizens are not on the electoral register. All the Minister’s predecessors promised that they would bring forward proposals to address this problem. We were told that there would be a plan at Easter last year, then in the summer, then in December, but still nothing. When will she bring forward proposals to make sure that we can increase the number of people on the register?

[Chloe Smith]

The hon. Gentleman will know that in fact we have near-record levels of participation in our democracy. Voter turnout has risen. The completeness and accuracy of the electoral register have improved. There have been 30 million new registrations to vote since the introduction of IER—individual electoral registration—in 2014. Seventy-five per cent. of those used the “Register to vote” website, which I am sure he will agree is an important reform. The electoral register for the 2017 general election reached a record level of over 46 million electors. I do not agree with his assessment.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tommy Sheppard Excerpts

Wednesday 6th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)]

May I associate myself and the Scottish National party with the Secretary of State’s comments about the late Jimmy Hood?

We are more than halfway through consideration in Committee of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill and, in particular, its effect on devolution. I think that the people of Scotland need clarity during this process. The Secretary of State knows that there is widespread concern throughout the House, and in his own party, about the measures in clause 11. He has indicated that there will be amendments, so may I ask him this? Will the Government table amendments to clause 11, yes or no?

[David Mundell]

Yes.

[Mr Speaker]

I hope that the hon. Gentleman’s second question is shorter.

[Tommy Sheppard]

May I ask the Secretary of State when that will happen?

[David Mundell]

The answer is that it will happen on Report. We have been very clear about this. The Committee stage is about listening and adapting to issues that have been raised; we have listened to my hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire, and we will table amendments to clause 11.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Tommy Sheppard Excerpts

Committee: 4th sitting: House of Commons
Monday 4th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jack]

I will come to that. That is going to happen anyway—by legislative consent motion.

Clause 11 preserves the current devolution settlement. Holyrood will not be stopped doing anything that it can do now, and nor will it automatically become able to do anything that our current EU membership stops it doing. This is simple and easy to understand, and it provides a solid basis for the talks currently taking place over which EU powers will be devolved.

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)]

I think the hon. Gentleman misunderstands what is happening. At the minute, the EU has legislative competence in 111 devolved areas, to ensure compatibility with the treaty on European Union. After Brexit, that will not be the case; what is being proposed is that the UK Parliament should be given legislative competence over these devolved areas that it currently does not have. That is a material change and constraint on devolution.

[Mr Jack]

That is correct—that is what we are negotiating about. The 111 powers are already devolved at implementation level. That exists at the moment. The question is about where the frameworks sit in respect of the powers that come back from the EU. We have to look at our internal market and how we would better run our country.

On issues such as food standards, it makes complete sense for us to have one framework for the United Kingdom, so that everyone can participate in the trade deals that we do. If we had different rules and regulations in different parts of the United Kingdom, our overseas trade agreements and internal market would fall apart.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tommy Sheppard]

I was going to reassure the hon. Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr), who is no longer in the Chamber, that, given the lateness of the hour, I can do nothing other than be reasonable and mild mannered in my presentation. He seemed fearful that SNP Members would go berserk and worried that we were putting our case with too much passion. Let me try to put this as reasonably as I can.

I want to agree with Members who have talked about the positive cross-party nature of what is happening. There are three parties on the Opposition side of the House that differ quite significantly on our preferred constitutional outcome or endgame for Scotland, but we are united in trying to defend the gains of devolution that have been made during the past 20 years. Indeed, I think that some of the Scottish Tories might feel that way too, given the discussions we have had in the Scottish Affairs Committee. They seem too timorous to exercise that conviction by going through the Lobby with us tonight, but perhaps they will be persuaded in the fullness of time.

By way of context, we need to remember two things. One is how the interplay between the referendums of 2014 and 2016 in Scotland affects this debate. I was on the losing side in 2014—I lost the Scottish independence campaign—and I accept that result. However, it is important in understanding why Scotland voted to remain in the United Kingdom to look at some of the assurances that were given by the people who won that campaign, because that affects this debate. I am going to talk not about the obvious one, which is what was said about EU membership itself, but about two other things.

First, all parties that campaigned for a no vote in the 2014 referendum went out of their way to stress that there was no threat to the devolution settlement, and that they would defend and extend it. The other assurance given was that should Scotland vote to remain in a political Union with England, Wales and Northern Ireland, this was not a matter of one country being subsumed into a much larger neighbour, but the creation of a partnership of equals—a multinational yet unitary state—with the views of Scotland therefore respected in any future debates. I am now calling to collect from this Government on both their respect for and commitment to devolution because, as far as I can see, the way in which clause 11 is currently written means that it recognises neither of those points. It is regrettable that at this relatively advanced stage of our discussions on the Bill, we still do not have any agreement whatsoever about some basic things.

The other factor we need to remember by way of context is of course the debate about devolution itself. I was heavily involved in the campaign that led to the creation of the Scottish Parliament, arguing for yes, yes in 1997. I was not in the House when Members debated the Bill that became the Scotland Act 1998, but I observed the proceedings and we can read the transcripts. We know that Parliament, led by the late Donald Dewar, clearly took a maximalist position. It basically said that everything should be devolved unless there was a case for its not being so, which is why the 1998 Act lists not the powers that are devolved, but the powers that are reserved.

If we had not been in the European Union when Parliament was debating the Act, how many of the 111 areas of responsibility would have been reserved and how many would have been devolved to the Scottish Government? The truth is that practically all of them would have been devolved without question, because there would have been no compelling case for reserving them. I think that people misunderstand the nature of the debate when they talk about the transfer of competences from the EU to the UK following Brexit.

Let us be quite clear that the reason why the European Union currently has some legislative competence in devolved areas is to ensure compliance with the treaty on European Union. That is what this is about. If Brexit goes ahead and we come out of the European Union, that, de facto, will not be required, so whatever the UK Government say about taking on these areas of competence, it will not be about complying with the terms of the treaty on European Union. The only thing it can be about, given that we already have a single economy in the United Kingdom, is convergence on policy. The transfer raises the possibility that we will move from compliance with international agreements to compliance with domestic policy. That is what I mean by a power grab, because it represents a severe potential constraint on the ability of the Scottish Parliament to legislate and act in its devolved areas.

Ministers will say, “That’s not the intention. This is a drop-off point for the powers so that we can then decide the best way for them to go to their final resting place.” I have to say to them that we are politicians, not psychics. We have to deal with what is written in the Bill that they have brought before us, not their intentions for what might happen as they go towards their endgame. What is written in the Bill is most clearly not what is being argued for by Ministers. If that were the case, we would have a schedule by now outlining which of the 111 powers can go straight to the devolved authorities on exit day, which of them definitely need to be reserved in the context of the 1998 Act, and which of them need further exploration through some sort of process, but we have heard nothing about a single one of them.

I say to Ministers that, even from a public relations point of view, would it not have been sensible to at least chuck a few of these powers the way of the devolved Administrations? No. 9 on the list is about blood safety. What is it about the Scottish health service and blood transfusion service that they do not trust? Why on earth would blood safety need to be reserved to the UK? Energy efficiency is another power on the list. Is it the end of the world if Scotland pioneers aspects of efficient energy use and perhaps leads the way in the UK? How is that a threat to the Union? Why do Ministers need to keep those powers? There are other examples that illustrate the ridiculousness of arguing that there should be even a temporary drop-off of these powers at Westminster. Such powers should clearly go to the devolved Administrations.

I am left wondering why this is being done. The obvious first answer is the phenomenal degree of administrative competence involved. I think that there is malintent on the part of some Conservative Members, but probably not on the part of its Front Benchers. However, I think Ministers have got themselves into a situation in which, because they have been incapable of producing a plan, they simply have no option but to say, “Trust us for now; we’ll do the best thing in the end.” It is very difficult for this Parliament to accept those assurances.

I think there is another red herring with the idea that a further reason why these powers need to be retained and examined further is that there might otherwise be interference with the United Kingdom’s ability to strut the post-Brexit globe in its ambition for “Empire 2.0”. There is a fearfulness that people in Scotland or Wales might act like the Wallonians and try to frustrate the creation of an international trade agreement. How ridiculous is that? Would it really matter if the Scottish Government introduced a policy that said, “We don’t wish to have genetically modified food in our food chain”? How is that a threat to an international trade agreement? All that would need to be done would be simply to specify that that was what people would need to deal with in Scotland, and that anybody wishing to sign the agreement would, quite reasonably, be able to do so.

The only way that that could become a threat to post-Brexit deals would be if there was a suggestion that the Scottish Government and the Welsh Assembly should take to themselves a power to veto a future UK international trade agreement, but no such power is being discussed. It is ridiculous that we should not by now be discussing which powers are going where, rather than arguing that nothing can be done apart from a power grab by the Westminster Government.

Finally, the common frameworks that we need for these 111 areas are going to be entirely different, depending on the individual area. In some cases, it might just be a simple matter of agencies north and south of the border talking to each other and sharing best practice. There are probably very few areas that actually require a full-blown statutory regulatory framework across the United Kingdom.

[Chris Skidmore]

indicated assent.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Mr Robin Walker)]

indicated assent.

[Tommy Sheppard]

The Ministers are nodding their heads. If that is the case, why have they not identified them? Why not bring forward proposals for dealing with the joint arrangements? I do not attribute malintent to those on the Government Front Bench, but there are people within the Conservative party—I see that the Scottish Tories have gone home—[Interruption.] I am sorry; they have left the hon. Member for Gordon (Colin Clark) as the lone representative. [Interruption.] Two of yer! I withdraw the remark; only 80% of them have gone home.

Conservative Members talk about the process we are engaged in. We are engaged in a process of considering amendments to a Bill. I say to the Scottish Conservatives that they should think again about going through the Lobby with the Government tonight, because if they do so, they will give the Government succour, rather than putting pressure on them to come forward and make agreements and changes. If that happens, it will provide sustenance to those Conservative Members who never believed in devolution in the first place, and who will use Brexit as an opportunity to roll it back and take power to the centre.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tommy Sheppard Excerpts

Wednesday 29th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)]

Q9. Does the First Secretary agree with the Lord Speaker’s committee that the House of Lords should be reduced to 600 and that the term should be limited to 15 years? Does he not feel the slightest sense of embarrassment that the crisis of credibility in the undemocratic upper Chamber has become so acute that its Members are themselves begging for reform while the elected Government refuse to act?

[Damian Green]

When the hon. Gentleman says that all Members of the House of Lords are begging for reform, he may not necessarily be representing the entire range of views in another place, but I am happy to assure him that the Government are looking very carefully at the proposal of the Burns committee. We will, of course, respond in due course.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tommy Sheppard Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)]

The Cabinet Office is supposedly co-ordinating this country’s exit from the European Union, so it really ought to know this stuff. The Minister has not answered the question. Will she clarify whether that is because she does not think that Parliament is entitled to the information about how many staff are working on it and how much it costs, or is it because the process is such a shambles that she is unable to provide that information?

[Caroline Nokes]

We have already created 3,000 new roles, 2,000 of which have been filled. As I have said, further roles will be created and, specifically, the Cabinet Office is working most closely with those Departments most affected.

House of Lords Reform: Lord Speaker’s Committee

Tommy Sheppard Excerpts

Wednesday 15th November 2017 Westminster Hall

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the report of the Lord Speaker’s Committee on reform of the House of Lords.

It is a pleasure to serve under your stewardship, Mr Howarth, for what I hope will be a scintillating debate. I say at the outset that none of what I am about to say should be taken as a slight or criticism on any individual Member of the upper House. I have, in my limited time in this place, worked with many of them in all-party groups and on various campaigns where we share the same objectives, and I have found them, to a man and woman, to be people of integrity and ability and to exude a commitment to public service.

That aside, the institution of the House of Lords is fast becoming a national embarrassment. It is something we urgently need to address. The House of Lords is the largest legislative assembly anywhere in the world, with the sole exception of the People’s Republic of China. It is an institution where no one is elected by the wider citizenry, and it is accountable to no one. It is staggeringly unrepresentative of the population at large: only 26% of its Members are women; 44% of its Members live in London and the south-east of England; and 56% of its Members are older than 70 years of age. That is an institution that in no way reflects contemporary society. It is also an expensive institution, costing almost £100 million for every year that it operates, £20 million of which goes on the expenses and stipends of the Members who serve in that Chamber.

We are fast approaching a situation where the legitimacy and credibility of the House of Lords will be in crisis. Unless we do something about it, that crisis of credibility will extend to us as well by implication.

The Parliament Act 1911 first established that the House of Commons, the elected Chamber of this Parliament, should have primacy over the House of Lords. The preamble of that Act noted that the intention was to introduce

“a Second Chamber constituted on a popular instead of hereditary basis, but such substitution cannot be immediately brought into operation”.

For the 106 years since the passage of that Act, we have argued about how to make the upper House a popular and democratic institution. For most of that time, the argument has been led by this Chamber—elected Members representing the people—which has argued for shining the flashlight of democracy into the darker recesses of our Parliament. What we have today, however, is something quite remarkable. We have a situation where the Government of the day have said publicly that they will not countenance any reform of the upper House; they do not have the time or inclination to consider those arguments.

In frustration, Members of the upper House themselves have got together to beg the case for reform. That is a remarkable volte-face from the arguments we have had for over 100 years. I hope that the Minister, when he concludes, feels just the slightest sense of embarrassment at the situation. Here we are contemplating reform of the House of Lords not because of any motion or suggestion from an elected Member of the House of Commons but because the House of Lords is asking us to take action to try to salvage its credibility and reform its institution.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate and on his contribution. Does he not think that one of the main reasons why many Members of the House of Commons are reluctant to push reform of the House of Lords is that they want to end up there? They see it is quite a cushy retirement number, rather than seeing any practical function that a second Chamber might offer. We should be proud of the Scottish National party’s long-standing tradition of not taking seats in the House of Lords.

[Tommy Sheppard]

I agree. It is inconsistent for someone to say they wish to abolish an institution but then prop it up by serving in it and trying to enhance its credibility. That, however, is a political contradiction that others will have to wrestle with. I am glad to say it is not one my own party faces.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

I have been following the hon. Gentleman’s arguments and facts carefully, and he is making an extremely powerful case. I have no intention of going to the House of Lords—nor will I be invited, I guess. There is another case for not reforming the House of Lords. Some of us believe it is an affront to democracy and should be abolished. Reforming it gives it greater credibility. Does he not agree that there is a danger in reform and that abolition is the better solution?

[Tommy Sheppard]

I do indeed, although the way I would put it is that I wish the reforms to be so extensive that they are tantamount to abolition. Starting with a clean sheet of paper would probably be the best way to go forward. I will come to arguments for the alternative later.

As I read the report and read between the lines, I can almost sense the authors’ exasperation at the situation they are in: their remit has been necessarily constrained to a very narrow one about the size of the House of Lords. They are not able to take into account other matters, looking at the wider context of the institution. I also sense—it is mentioned several times—their frustration at having to search for ways other than legislative and statutory reform to try to achieve some sort of change. I applaud their ingenuity in finding ways within existing statutes and by using procedures such as the code of conduct to set out how they may be able to achieve some of their suggested changes without reference to primary legislation. None of that removes the need for us as an elected Chamber to look at legislative reform. It is an abrogation of political responsibility by the Government, as well as a kick in the teeth for public opinion, that they refuse to countenance bringing forward legislative reform.

The report is necessarily limited, but I would describe it as extremely small baby steps on the road to reform. To give an idea of just how limited they are, one of the key suggestions is to bring in a fixed term of 15 years for Members to serve in the upper House. The suggestion is to phase that in, and it would not be fully implemented until 2042. That’s right—2042. I doubt whether I will be around to see what happens in 2042. To understand just how modest the suggestion is, NASA intends to put a human being on Mars by 2042. We seem to be incapable of suggesting that we can bring in fixed-term appointments for the House of Lords before, as a species, we are capable of colonising other planets. That puts it somewhat in perspective.

Given that the Committee found ways, without reference to legislation, to suggest reform, we should embrace its suggestions and perhaps be a little more ambitious about their application. In considering the report, I suggest to its authors and the upper House that, if they have found ways to bring in fixed-term appointments, why 15 years? On what possible grounds is it okay for someone first to be appointed rather than elected and secondly to serve without sanction or accountability for one and a half decades? Why not cut that in half and make it seven years? Then we could accelerate the process of moving to fixed-term appointments much more quickly.

The Committee suggested through various procedures to reduce steadily the size of the Chamber by appointing one new peer for every two who die, resign or otherwise leave the upper House. If we can have two out, one in, why not have one out, none in? Why not have a moratorium on appointments until the House begins to shrink to a more acceptable level?

We should also be concerned about the things that the report, by its own admission, does not say, and the problems that it does not address—indeed, it recognises that its limited suggestions will exacerbate some of the other problems. Consider, for example, the hereditary peers. Not only are 92 people who are appointed to make the laws of our land not elected by anybody, but the only basis for their appointment is accident of birth. They are not even the aristocracy—they are the progeny of aristocracy from centuries past. That is such an anachronism that it is an affront to every democratic ideal that we must surely espouse. A rather sordid deal was done between the Blair Government and the then Tory Leader of the House of Lords—against, by the way, the wishes of the then leader of the Conservative party—to protect the 92 hereditary peers. That was seen as an interim step, yet every attempt to follow through and complete the abolition of hereditary peers has been blocked by the institution itself and those who support it.

[David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware that next year my private Member’s Bill, the House of Lords (Exclusion of Hereditary Peers) Bill, will have its Second Reading. The Government could accept that as part of the deal to reduce the size of the House of Lords immediately.

[Tommy Sheppard]

Indeed, and it is regrettable that an individual Member has to use the procedures of the House to pursue such an objective when it is so glaringly obvious that the Government should act on this issue to improve our democratic system. When he responds to the debate, perhaps the Minister will explain why the Government see fit to take no action whatever on Lords reform.

Hereditary peers are an anachronism and an affront to democracy, but under proposals in the report, which would reduce the size of the House of Lords from more than 800 Members to below 600, they are untouched. That means that their influence will increase as a proportion of the upper Chamber. Rather than tackle the problem, this tinkering will make it worse and give hereditary peers even more influence over the rest of us. We must do something urgently to tackle that democratic affront.

The report also acknowledges the situation of the Lords Spiritual, which is not to be reformed in any way, shape or form. I have many colleagues and friends who are active in the Church of England and I mean them no disrespect, but it is ridiculous in our multicultural, multi-faith society that, if any spiritual leaders are to be appointed anywhere in our legislature, that should be the preserve of just one faith and one Church in this country. That is an affront to people of other faiths and of none, and it is urgently in need of reform. I say that knowing that many people in the Church of England would agree with me and seek such reform themselves, yet the report says nothing about the issue. Indeed, it admits that the influence of the Lords Spiritual in the upper Chamber will increase under the proposals, rather than be reduced, because their number as a proportion of the upper House will increase.

The most glaringly obvious omission in the report, which its authors acknowledge, is the fact that we have not even begun to debate the method of constitution and selection of the upper Chamber. I believe in a bicameral system. I think there is a need for an upper revising Chamber, although the arguments for it need to be made. One argument most often made is not an argument for an upper House; it is an argument about the inadequacy of the primary Chamber. It suggests that we need the House of Lords because the way the House of Commons operates means that it is often capable of getting things wrong and making bad draft legislation, so everybody needs a second look and it must all be revised. That is an argument for improving our procedures in the House of Commons and considering how we originate, deliberate on and make legislation; it is not in itself a justification for a second Chamber.

I believe that there should be a revising Chamber as that has some merit in a democratic system and our parliamentary institutions. However, a fundamental tenet of my belief is that those who make laws over others should be accountable to those who serve under those laws. The governors must be appointed by the governed, otherwise they lose respect, credibility and legitimacy. If we are to consider a new upper Chamber by 2042, surely we must advance the argument that it should be an elected Chamber that is representative of the citizenry of the country. When devising a new Chamber we should take the opportunity to build in procedures that will overcome the current inadequacies and democratic deficits. We must ensure proper representation of women in the Chamber, and of the age range and ethnic mix in the country. We also need a proper geographic spread to represent the regions and nations of the United Kingdom. That is an argument whose time has come. It is something that we need to advance, and if we do so I think that many Members of the upper Chamber will be willing to join that cause.

In conclusion, I ask the Minister ever so gently whether he will reconsider his position, take off the blinkers, realise the degree of public concern about this issue, and commit the Government—not next week or month, perhaps not even next year, but before the end of this parliamentary term—to bringing forward the reforms that are so urgent and necessary. We are now at a crisis point. A report published by the Electoral Reform Society last week contained an extensive survey of public opinion in this country. It showed that only 10% of those polled agree with the House of Lords remaining unchanged as it is today. Fully 62% now believe that the upper Chamber should be elected. That number is increasing, and if we do not act it will increase further, and the political crisis in our institutions will continue. It is time to act.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Graham]

I am glad that the hon. Lady has raised that point. My favourite Prime Minister is David Lloyd George, a strong Welshman who was responsible for the “People’s Budget” in 1909, and who in 1911 pushed through reforms. However, he came unstuck on the issue of Lords and patronage in the 1920s, with similar issues to those that came a century or so later. There is a need for more clarity about the appointments process. I will come on to some of the suggestions in the report, but I think the process should be strengthened and there should be greater transparency. We should make sure that there is fair and transparent way to appoint Members in all parties, as well as independents and Cross Benchers.

I welcome the report produced by the Lord Speaker’s Committee, which proposes to reduce the number of peers to 600. It advocates that any new peers should have to sign an undertaking to serve a 15-year term before retiring from the House, requiring real commitment from them. It recommends a two out, one in system for life peers to get the number down from 800 to 600. After that, there would be a one out, one in system. Finally, it proposes a democratic link through the allocation of new peers to each party according to the average between their vote share and Commons seat share at the most recent election; it also proposes keeping 134 independent Cross Benchers, reflecting the current proportion of Cross Benchers who sit in the House of Lords. Those people are not bound by party loyalty, but are there to serve their country, and provide a valuable, independent voice.

Those are all sensible suggestions. The report proposes the implementation of meaningful reform without the loss of the beneficial aspects currently supplied by the Lords. It is important that any reforms should also respect the Parliament Act 1911 and ensure that the reformed House of Lords does not undermine the supremacy of the House of Commons, which I fear a fully elected upper House just might do. It is important to respect that principle, which has underpinned our parliamentary democracy for the past century; it is just as relevant now as it was in 1911 that those who have been directly elected and who have constituency links can have the final say on laws, and make sure that they are pushed through to reflect their constituents’ views.

I agree with the hon. Member for Edinburgh East on one point: hereditary peers and Lords Spiritual. I am all for tradition, but as a democrat I cannot justifiably defend the continuation of such peers in the Lords, should any reforms be enacted. I would therefore push for the reforms to go further, with current hereditary peers allowed to complete their term, but an eventual phasing out of hereditary peers from the House of Lords.

[Tommy Sheppard]

I welcome the fact that the hon. Gentleman wants to push things further, but that can be done only through legislation—not the mechanisms suggested in the report. Would he support petitioning the Government for such legislation?

[Luke Graham]

Yes, I would. I am coming to my point about that. House of Lords reform is always another decade away, but when we complete our current constitutional obligations through Brexit—which I think the hon. Gentleman will agree is challenge enough—I hope we can turn our attention to the House of Lords. Then people will not have to wait another decade before reform is allowed in that most respected other place.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Skidmore]

Well, we had our chance in the House of Commons to drive reform—[Interruption.] I know the hon. Gentleman was not there at the time, but Labour Members voted with Members of another party to block the programme motion. I do not want to revisit the details, but they show that we had the opportunity to introduce a partially elected Chamber. The coalition Government—this is now in the annals of constitutional history—attempted to introduce an elected Chamber, but that was not possible, so we have learnt that the best way forward is to work with the Lords to look at what is possible and achieve change within a realistic timetable.

That is why we welcome the work of the Lord Speaker’s Committee, which was chaired by Lord Burns. As Members are aware, in December 2016 the House of Lords passed a motion stating that its size should be reduced. The Government welcome the fact that the House of Lords had that debate and passed that motion. It is absolutely vital that the House of Lords recognised that its size should be reduced and that methods for how that might be achieved should be explored.

Following the motion, the Lord Speaker established a Committee, chaired by Lord Burns, to identify practical and politically viable options for reducing the size of the House that would not require primary legislation. Just as important as the point about consensus is the point about primary legislation. Achieving this viable change that allows us to reduce the numbers in the House of Lords over a period of time—I will look at the detail in a moment—is about the art of the possible and ensuring that we can begin the process that is needed.

The Government thank Lord Burns and his cross-party Committee for their work. It met 22 times and took evidence from more than 60 Members of the other place. They clearly put a great deal of work and effort into the report. Its key recommendations include a reduction in the size of the House of Lords to 600 Members, which would then become a cap. To reach the target of 600, there should be a guiding principle of two out, one in. When the target of 600 had been reached, all vacancies would be allocated on a one-out, one-in system. Vacancies should be overseen by the House of Lords Appointments Commission and allocated to each of the parties according to a mean average of their percentage share of the seats in the House of Commons and their percentage share of the national vote in the most recent general election. It also recommended fixed-term membership of the House of 15 years for new appointments, enforced by the House of Lords code of conduct.

The Government will consider the recommendations carefully. The report is incredibly detailed, and I encourage all hon. Members of both Houses who have not read the report to read through its pages.

[Tommy Sheppard]

I am keen to press the Minister on one point. The report’s introduction makes it clear that for the non-legislative reforms to work, they will require the consent of the Prime Minister of the day for the appointments they make to the upper House, both in terms of the number and the proportion across the parties. Is he in a position to say on behalf of the current Government and Prime Minister whether they will try to achieve those objectives or seek to frustrate them?

[Chris Skidmore]

Following on from my key point about consensus, the history of Lords reform shows us that if proposals are to be effective and stand any chance of succeeding, they will need to command a consensus across the House of Lords. The Government want to listen closely to what peers have to say in response to the report. I believe that before the Government set out their position, it is important to test the mood of the House of Lords on the proposals to see whether a consensus will emerge.

On the question asked by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich, the Government will make time for a debate in the Lords, and I can say today that it will take place before Christmas. I hope this debate provides material for the Lords to consider. It has been incredibly timely, given that the Lords will debate this issue in the other place before Christmas. The Government look forward to that debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tommy Sheppard]

I do not want to repeat the points that I made earlier. I thank all Members for their contributions to the debate, including the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Luke Graham) in particular, and the fact that he will support campaigning for the Government to provide time for legislative reform. We will obviously not go as far with reform as I might like, but the fact that he says there should be some is useful.

I thank the right hon. Member for Delyn (David Hanson) and appreciate his efforts to get the hereditary principle addressed. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) pointed out, where his proposal lies on the Order Paper at the moment means that is unlikely to be successful, which underlines the need for a rather better response than we heard from the Minister about making Government time available to debate reform of the upper House. He says that the Government are not in favour of comprehensive reform, but I am struggling to understand which reforms they are in favour of and what time they will make available. The airing of issues today should be regarded as the beginning of the debate in this parliamentary Session. After the upper House has its debate, I hope that the Government will reflect on the need for the Commons to have a proper, considered discussion that will lead to legislative reform of the upper House. If we fail to act, I fear that we will increasingly lose credibility in the eyes of the wider electorate, for whom the time for reform is now.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the report of the Lord Speaker’s Committee on reform of the House of Lords.