Oral Answers to Questions
Alex Burghart Excerpts(1 week, 6 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
The Government’s own cyber experts Innovate UK have warned the Government that the proposed Chinese embassy at the Royal Mint threatens to compromise the telephone and internet exchange that serves the financial City of London. The experts are now telling the Government what everyone else has known all along: the super-embassy poses a super-risk. Yet the Deputy Prime Minister’s office has said that any representations on the planning application have to be made available to the applicants. Perhaps the real Deputy Prime Minister can clear this up: are the Government seriously saying that if MI5 or GCHQ have concerns about security on this site, those concerns will have to be passed to the Chinese Communist party, or has the Deputy Prime Minister got it wrong?
Pat McFadden
When it comes to both engagement with China and with an issue like this, we will engage properly while always bearing in mind our own national security considerations. The approach we do not adopt is to withdraw from engagement, which the previous Government did for a number of years—flip-flopping from that to the previous era that they called the golden era. We will engage with China when it is in our economic interest, but we will always bear our national security interests in mind.
Alex Burghart
The previous Government did not engage—sorry, they did not disengage. At the heart of this are two simple facts. First, the Government already know that this site is a security risk. It is a security risk to the City of London and, through it, our economy and the economies of all nations that trade in London. Secondly, the Government have the power to block it. Ireland and Australia have both already blocked similar embassy developments. Why are this Government too weak to act?
Pat McFadden
The hon. Gentleman was right the first time when he said that the previous Government did not engage enough. As I said, a decision on this application will be taken with full consideration of our national security considerations. Those considerations are always part of these decisions, and our engagement with China and other countries. Where I agree with him is that when it comes to national cyber-security, we must bear in mind state threats as well as non-state threats, and that is very much part of our thinking as we respond to what is going on in the cyber-sphere.
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has already told the House about plans for a reduction in civil service numbers. Since he came into office, how many civil service roles in the Cabinet Office and its agencies have been eliminated?
Pat McFadden
We hope to see a reduction of around 2,000 in Cabinet Office numbers over the next few years. We have instituted a voluntary exit scheme, which will make the management of headcount easier and will come into force very soon.
Alex Burghart
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster very skilfully talked about the future, rather than the past year. I will let him know that during the past year, the number of roles in his Department and its agencies has increased by 828. That cannot give the House a great deal of confidence that his future cuts will be effective. Will he guarantee that that is a one-off and that he will go back and ensure that the Cabinet Office is actually reduced in size?
Pat McFadden
The hon. Gentleman was part of a Government who regularly produced headcount targets for civil servants that were about as reliable as the immigration targets that the Conservatives also produced. I have made it clear that we do not seek a particular headcount target; it depends on what people do. We are trying to reduce the overhead spend, but we are prepared to hire more people when it comes to frontline public service delivery. That is why we are hiring more teachers and getting the waiting lists down. We are not adopting the hon. Gentleman’s approach; therefore, I will not fall into the trap that he is trying to set.
UK-EU Summit
Alex Burghart Excerpts(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House recognises that the Conservative Party stands by the result of the 2016 referendum to leave the European Union (EU); calls on the Government to stand by that decision at the summit with the EU on 19 May 2025, to put the national interest first and not to row back on Brexit, for example by re-introducing free movement through a EU youth mobility scheme, accepting compulsory asylum transfers, creating dynamic alignment between the UK and the EU, by submitting the UK to further oversight from the European Court of Justice or by joining the EU’s carbon tax scheme which will lead to higher energy bills; further calls on the Government to stand by the will of the British people by ensuring that no new money is paid to the EU, that there is no reduction in UK fishing rights, that NATO remains the foundation of European security and that the UK can continue to undertake strategic and defence agreements with non-EU partners; and also calls on the Government to put the negotiated outcome to a vote in the House of Commons.
It gives me enormous pleasure to open this debate on one of the subjects that has been central to this House since I was first elected in 2017. It is a debate that is necessary this week, because we know that next week, the EU and this Government are going to meet in London to discuss the next steps in our arrangements. Before that agreement is reached, it is important that this House receives some clarity on what this Government are fighting for, what they stand for and what their red lines are, because even at this late stage, this House is unaware of the Government’s intentions.
I do not know whether you remember, Madam Deputy Speaker, but there was a very good TV programme in the 1980s called “Quantum Leap”. In it, an American scientist, Dr Samuel Butler—[Hon. Members: “Beckett!”] I stand corrected, and I apologise to the House. Dr Beckett stepped into the quantum leap accelerator and vanished, and awoke to find himself in strange new forms that were not his own. Every time the Prime Minister speaks, I think, “Which body has he leapt into now?” Is it the Prime Minister who spent his early life chastising all immigration law on the grounds that it was racist, or the Prime Minister who has a new-found love of strict immigration rules? Is it the Prime Minister who promised to protect winter fuel payments, or the one who immediately cast them away? Is it the Prime Minister who promised to protect farmers, but immediately did the opposite; the Prime Minister who said he knew what a woman was, but then changed his mind; or the Prime Minister who said he would not put taxes on working people, but then promptly did?
The Prime Minister does not know what he stands for or which way he looks, and that is a very difficult thing in negotiations. Our position is simple: there can be no going back. The Conservative party fought long and hard to take control of our laws, our borders and our money, and with those powers, we succeeded in securing 70 new trade deals and the fastest vaccine roll-out in Europe. The naysayers, gloomsters and dismal voices on the Opposition Benches said that it would come to nothing, but in 2015, UK trade—[Interruption.] I look forward to correcting the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson), who chunters from a sedentary position.
Alex Burghart
No.
In 2015, UK international trade stood at just over £1 trillion a year, but by 2023, it stood at £1.6 trillion a year—all in spite of Brexit. Our concern is that this Government have proven themselves to be really terrible negotiators. We have previously heard the Administration talk about the need for ruthless pragmatism; one can only wonder whether that is the same ruthless pragmatism that gave us the Chagos deal. When I was a history teacher, we used to say that the worst deal in history was the one that the Lenape people of north-east America did with the Dutch settlers. As the House will recall, they gave away Manhattan island for 60 guilders and a handful of beads, but at least they got 60 guilders and a handful of beads—they did not spend £18 billion of their own money on giving away their territory, as this Government have.
I wonder whether it is the same ruthless pragmatism that immediately gave out £9.4 billion in above-inflation pay rises to the unionised sectors in return for nothing at all—no agreements on productivity or reform. Is it the same ruthless pragmatism that gave us the collapse of the £450 million AstraZeneca deal, the botched steel mess that we all had to return during recess for, or the missed opportunities of the US tariff arrangement the other day? Our concern, of course, is that this will happen again.
Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
I wish I could say that I was enjoying the hon. Gentleman’s speech, but that would be stretching it a bit too far. I do not know why he is presenting all these faux disagreements; does he not appreciate that the Government are as hard Brexiteers as he is? How much damage does this Brexit have to do before both parties decide that it is far too much, and start to look at it seriously?
Alex Burghart
I always have respect and time for the hon. Gentleman’s wisdom, but I feel I must correct him. The Government are not hard Brexiteers—they are just Brexiteers today. Tomorrow, who knows? What we know is that they were against leaving the EU, and then they changed their minds. Those people who change their minds on such fundamental issues may well change them back—they may well turn on a sixpence and do it again.
The fact of the matter is that the Government have entered these negotiations with no clear objectives, and with red lines so thin and washed-out that they can be quickly discarded. However, today is an opportunity for the Labour party to come clean about what it wants and what it is doing, because Labour Members will have to vote on our motion, which sets out our red lines. Those red lines are very clear and precise, and in keeping with the will of the British people.
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
The hon. Member talks about the official Opposition’s motion being precise, but that is factually incorrect, in that the motion conflates freedom of movement with youth mobility. If youth mobility is good enough for Australia, Canada and Uruguay, it does not run against the red lines regarding freedom of movement. Does the hon. Member not understand that?
Alex Burghart
It is freedom of movement for young people, is it not? What we are asking for today is for the Labour party to set out what its clear position is. In a moment, I will explain why that is very important.
The fact is that up until this point, we have seen chaos in these negotiations. That will be easy for the Labour party to understand, because on 24 February, we heard the Home Secretary rule out a youth mobility deal—the Government were not going to do it and were not looking into it. At the beginning of March, though, the Postmaster General suggested in a Westminster Hall debate that he was open to such a deal, but then on 24 April, the Postmaster General ruled it out again. [Interruption.] I mean the Paymaster General—would the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds) like to be Postmaster General? Okay, Paymaster General it is. He ruled it out on 24 April, but then at the beginning of May, he once again ruled it in.
This does not end with the youth mobility scheme. On 23 January, Labour Ministers ruled out joining the Pan-Euro-Mediterranean area. Three days later, the Chancellor said that the Government were looking at it, and then on 3 February, the Government ruled it out again. The Government do not know what they are doing; they do not know what they want to achieve, have no objectives, and have very blurred red lines. There is an emerging sense that this will be a good deal—a good deal for the EU, in which the balance of benefits will run against the UK. Despite the fact that the Government do not wish to give a running commentary —they are content to give a running commentary to the press—it seems that the EU’s demands are being met in this negotiation, but because the UK has no demands, its demands cannot be met.
Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
The hon. Gentleman has referred to “Quantum Leap”. The point about Sam Beckett is that he kept leaping back into the past, because he could not cope with the future—that does seem rather apposite. I hope the hon. Gentleman agrees with many Labour Members that one of the important things about next Monday is that we will be able to move forward on the security and defence partnership. Given the threat posed by President Putin, can the hon. Gentleman put aside his blindness to the benefits to this country of co-operating with Europe and at least agree that that partnership would be a good thing to secure?
Alex Burghart
I am glad to be the one to break it to the hon. Lady that we already co-operate with Europe on defence, and have done so for a very long time. She will know that the cornerstone of our defence is—and always has been, since the second world war—NATO. Now is an apt moment to remember that, because today is the 85th anniversary of the first speech that Sir Winston Churchill made as Prime Minister, given from that Dispatch Box, or, rather, from the Dispatch Box that was there before the Chamber was bombed. It was his “blood, toil, tears and sweat” speech.
It is obviously incredibly important that we co-operate with our European partners on defence, but that is why we do. We spend 2.5% of GDP on defence—and the Opposition would like to spend 3%, and more—largely to help defend Europe, and we know of no reason, because the Government have not given one, why NATO is insufficient for that task.
Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)
British firms are calling for co-operation with our European allies so that there is investment in increased defence spending across Europe, including in my constituency. What would the shadow Minister say to them? The Government are calling for a security deal. Does he not agree that we need one with the EU?
Alex Burghart
I would say that if the terms of the deal are that the UK must pay to have access to that fund, we must ask very serious questions of our European allies about why we should have to contribute when we are already committed to their security. If the Government choose to go down that route, it is for the Government to explain why that should be the case.
The truth is that NATO must continue to be the cornerstone of our defence, but over the weekend there were reports in The Sunday Times that the EU might be inserted into our chain of command, which would be a very significant change.
The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Nick Thomas-Symonds)
Absolute nonsense.
Alex Burghart
From a sedentary position, the Paymaster General says that that is absolute nonsense. I am pleased to hear it, but the right hon. Gentleman has not yet had an opportunity to tell the House that. It was clear that someone in the Government, or within the EU, was briefing journalists over the weekend that this might be true. [Interruption.] I think the right hon. Gentleman needs to take responsibility for his special advisers. If there is to be a defence pact, it is for the Government to explain why it would make us safer.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
One thing puzzles me slightly about the position taken by the Government, which is a bit like that on the Chagos islands: we already owned them, but we entered a negotiation to give them away and rent them back. In this instance, Europe threatens us that we cannot talk about other matters until we sign up to this defence deal, but we already have a defence deal and we already co-operate: we have built weapons with France, Sweden and various other countries. Rather than what they would lose, what is it that we gain?
Alex Burghart
My right hon. Friend has a great deal of experience of these matters, and he has made a series of very important points, but it is for the Government to explain why this would be in the interests of the UK. The summit is taking place next week, and so far the Government have not done so.
Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)
Given that the last Government reduced our Army to a size not seen since the Napoleonic era, we should take no lectures on defence from Opposition Members. The people who will benefit from this are the defence contractors in my constituency who have been struggling to sell their components to the EU since Brexit and have had to cancel contracts, which has been affecting jobs all over the west midlands.
Alex Burghart
When I first arrived in the House, the leader of the hon. Gentleman’s party was advocating leaving NATO and giving up Trident, so I will take no lectures from those on his side of the House. My party is committed to 3% defence spending, and I think that those defence contractors in his constituency would very much like to see a Conservative Government spend some of that money in his patch.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
Would my hon. Friend care to disabuse Labour Members who seem to be under the impression that whatever amount we put in, somehow our defence contractors in the UK will get more out of the fund than we are contributing? The history of defence procurement in Europe is that France and Germany invariably make sure that they get more out of it than they put in, and we are always the losers. I do not think we will suddenly become winners when we are not a member of the EU.
Alex Burghart
My hon. Friend’s experience in these matters speaks volumes. The truth is that we must be absolutely certain that this will not be just another scheme for funnelling money into French defence companies while keeping it away from defence companies in other jurisdictions.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend share my hope that in next week’s negotiations the Government will make it abundantly clear to our European partners that for decades this country’s contribution to our collective defence has been well above the level that our economy, our population or our size would dictate, and that Europe has benefited from that? While I am in no way recommending a Trumpian approach to these matters, it is nevertheless important for the Government to make clear to our interlocutors the scale of our contribution to collective defence.
Alex Burghart
I fully agree with my hon. Friend. The fact is that the UK has made a disproportionate, but necessary, contribution to European defence for many decades. I think that we were right to do so, and I would support our doing so into the future, but it is only right for our friends to recognise that contribution and to treat us not as an external power coming to parlay, but rather as a close and long-term friend whose loyalty has already been proved many times over.
It would also be good today to have clarification from the Government of their position on EU lawmaking. I was lucky enough to have a call with my friend Sir William Cash this morning. It was an unusually brief call, lasting only 20 minutes. [Laughter.] Sir Bill put it very clearly to me: he said that in any new arrangement with the EU it was important for us to see no EU lawmaking, no jurisdiction for the European Court of Justice and no attempt to reapply the principles of EU law in our courts, because one principle of our departure from the EU was that we would take back control of our money, our borders and our laws.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
The hon. Member is right to say that there must be no further surrender to EU law, but, in the same vein, is there not a need to recover the territorial integrity of the United Kingdom? I represent a part of the United Kingdom where in 300 areas of law it is not this House but a foreign Parliament that makes the laws. Should the starting point of a reset not be recovering the integrity of this Parliament in the territory of this United Kingdom?
Alex Burghart
The hon. Gentleman has made a very good point. It is one that he has made often in the House, and I look forward to his making it to the Minister in a few moments’ time.
On the subject of fish, we are clear about the fact that there should be no multi-year deal, because that would reduce the UK’s leverage in future negotiations with the EU. We should have 12 nautical miles of exclusive access. That is what our fishermen want, and it is what the Conservative party supports. There should also be fair distribution of quota schemes, and no trade barriers during disputes. My right hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), the shadow Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, has made the position very clear. This is an opportunity to defend the UK’s fishermen, and to build on the deal that we had previously from the Brexit negotiations. We should not be giving up the freedom of our fishermen.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
It is important to remember the history here. There was no common fisheries policy until the prospect of Britain’s joining the common market arose, and then those countries created one simply so that they could rip us off.
Alex Burghart
Ain’t that the truth! Here is an opportunity for the Government to give guarantees and securities to our fishermen.
David Pinto-Duschinsky (Hendon) (Lab)
The hon. Member is talking about fishing rights. Under his Government, the UK catch suddenly dropped by 80%. Will he now apologise for the damage that he and his party did to the UK fishing industry?
Alex Burghart
We are the party that took fishermen out of the common fisheries policy, which is something that fishing communities wanted. We very much hope that this Government will not concede the rights that were hard won in those negotiations.
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
I wonder whether the shadow Minister has quantum leapt into a body in which Brexit has been a huge success. Could he say either way?
Alex Burghart
If the hon. Gentleman had heard my opening remarks, he would have heard that in 2015, the volume of UK trade was just over £1 trillion. By 2023, despite Brexit, that had gone up to £1.6 trillion. Sometimes the people who were on the other side of the argument, many of whom had understandable concerns—we were making a big constitutional change that had not been made in over 40 years—seem trapped in the past, like Dr Samuel Beckett, and unable to realise that there have been significant improvements in the UK’s trading position because of the freedoms that we acquired, and because of the 70 trade deals that the previous Government brought in. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to change his altered reality, there will be an audience for it in this House.
On the emissions trading scheme, we know that carbon prices are higher in the EU than they are in the UK. There is great concern among certain industries that if, as has been trailed in the press, the Government are planning to sign us up to the EU’s emissions trading system, there will be a heavy price to pay, particularly in the ceramics industry. Two weeks ago, we saw a ceramics factory in Stoke-on-Trent close, citing high energy prices under this Labour Government.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Sadly, high energy prices are a result of the policy of the hon. Gentleman’s Government, who had four industrial strategies, all of which promised significant help for the ceramics sector and it never materialised. One of the biggest problems for the ceramics sector is ensuring that the European Union’s food contact regulations, which it has to comply with to sell its wares, match the British system. If he were in power today, what would he do to ensure that our trading arrangements allow for free trade of the goods that my city makes and sells into Europe?
Alex Burghart
Well, it will be irrelevant if all the businesses shut down because of high energy prices. The hon. Gentleman can talk about the previous Administration, but it was his party that promised to cut energy bills by £300. Instead, they continue to go up, and the market expectation is that energy prices will continue to rise under this Government. That would be very bad for ceramics factories, such as the ones in his constituency.
There are a range of other things that we could go into. If there are going to be negotiations with the EU, there are plenty of things that might be raised, but we do not know whether the Government have raised them. They include the arrangements with France on illegal migration, mutual recognition of food standards, conformity certification, touring musicians, rules of origin and so on. The point is that the Government have not told us whether they want these things, whether they are pursuing them and whether it is negotiating them on our behalf.
We on this side of the House are clear: following the referendum, this country turned a page, and it is very important that the Labour party does not turn it back. The fact is that we are on the brink of witnessing yet another disastrous Labour deal. We know that when Labour negotiates, Britain loses. To leave the House in no doubt, if and when my party is back in power, we will reverse any handover of power, any imposition of EU law, any new rights for the ECJ and any new budgetary commitments. It is my party that took the country out of the EU, and it is my party that will keep it out. I commend this motion to the House.
Oral Answers to Questions
Alex Burghart Excerpts(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
I would like to turn to the sorry state of Labour-run Birmingham, where rats the size of dachshunds are terrifying local residents. Indeed, in The Daily Telegraph this morning, we read that
“Birmingham city council warns of a surge in rat-borne diseases…that the elderly, disabled people and babies are ‘particularly susceptible’ to”.
The Government have had emergency powers throughout this crisis, not least the Civil Contingencies Act 2004. Will the Minister set out for the House why they have declined to use them?
Ms Oppong-Asare
I thank the hon. Member for his question, and I am sure he would like to join me in praising the Deputy Prime Minister and her team for their hard work on this. A lot of the rubbish has been cleared, and I want to take this opportunity to thank all the staff in Birmingham and across Departments who have played a key role in responding quickly to and dealing tirelessly with this matter.
Alex Burghart
I am afraid I am not going to congratulate the Deputy Prime Minister, in much the same way that the people of Birmingham are not thanking her either. I very much hope that the Deputy Prime Minister will take the Prime Minister and maybe the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to Birmingham to see that, in fact, much of the rubbish has not been cleared. I also hope that the Labour party will undertake not to take any donations from Unite the union while this crisis is ongoing.
The Government have commissioners in Birmingham at the moment, but we know from answers to parliamentary questions that the commissioners are not involved in the negotiations to end this ongoing problem with the local union. The Government have powers to do so. Why are they not using those powers, and when will they bring an end to these strikes and set the people of Birmingham free?
Ms Oppong-Asare
I thank the hon. Member for the question, but I am slightly disappointed by the approach he has taken. It is important that we work collaboratively together. As he rightly pointed out, Birmingham is the focus here, and let us move the politics out of it. It is important that the dispute is resolved as swiftly as possible, and that is what the Deputy Prime Minister and her team are doing at the moment.
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
Will the Paymaster General give us an update on his negotiations with the European Union? He has not updated the House since the beginning of February, and there has been much speculation in the press. Will he take this opportunity to rule out dropping the right to annual quota negotiations on fishing?
The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Nick Thomas-Symonds)
We will negotiate in the interests of our fishers and understand and implement our marine protection rights. As I am sure the hon. Gentleman will understand, I will not give a running commentary on the negotiations, but we are clear that we will negotiate in the national interest and in line with the manifesto that the Government, with 411 Members of Parliament, were elected on.
Alex Burghart
The whole House will have heard the Minister fail to rule that out.
It was good to hear the Prime Minister recently praise the Brexit freedom to regulate as we wish on artificial intelligence; will the Minister assure the House that EU AI rules will not be applied to Northern Ireland?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
Again the hon. Gentleman comes with his questions on the reset. We have had an atmosphere of collegiality, and I want to join in by agreeing with the Leader of the Opposition that the previous Conservative Government left the EU without any plan for growth. That is absolutely true. The hon. Gentleman should follow the public debate on this issue. Major retailers including M&S, Sainsbury’s, Morrisons and Lidl all support this Government’s approach in the reset to get a sanitary and phytosanitary agreement. The hon. Gentleman should back that approach; otherwise, people will rightly conclude that he and his party have learned nothing.
Oral Answers to Questions
Alex Burghart Excerpts(3 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
We appear, regrettably, to be witnessing the start of a global trade war. Over the past week, the United States has placed tariffs on some of its major trading partners, and they have retaliated in kind. The President has said that he intends to place tariffs of 25% on EU goods soon. Should that happen, it is highly likely that the EU will respond.
Even if the United Kingdom were to avoid tariffs, the consequences for Northern Ireland could be particularly complex. What conversations has the Paymaster General had with his European counterparts to ensure that Northern Ireland is not caught in the crossfire of a trade war?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
First, we have a strong and proud tradition over centuries of free trade here in the United Kingdom, and we will continue to make the case for that. With regard to our specific trading relationship with the United States, the hon. Gentleman will have seen that, after conversations between the Prime Minister and the President in the Oval Office last Thursday, we wish to deepen our trading relationship with the United States. Specifically on Northern Ireland, I completely understand his point, and we will continue to monitor the impact of any such policy on Northern Ireland.
Alex Burghart
I am grateful to the Paymaster General for his response, but it sounds as though he has not yet had any conversations with his EU counterparts on the issue. I appreciate that he has a meeting on 19 May, but I am sure he will understand that tariffs may come much sooner than that. That being the case, will he undertake, first, to talk to his European counterparts and secondly, to come and give a statement to this House as soon as he has done so, so that we can understand that the Government are preparing for such an eventuality? Can he also make it clear to our friends in Europe that should trade and manufacturing be disrupted in Northern Ireland, we will not hesitate to use our powers under article 16 of the Windsor framework to protect businesses there?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
To reassure the hon. Gentleman, the Windsor framework taskforce is based in the Cabinet Office and I regularly discuss issues on Northern Ireland with my European counterparts. I can assure him that I will speak to Maro� �ef?ovi? on a number of occasions prior to 19 May. I hope the hon. Gentleman will take that reassurance. He should also be reassured that we will, of course, always act in the best interests of the people of Northern Ireland.
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
Why are the Government scared of allowing the National Security Adviser to give evidence to the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy?
Pat McFadden
The shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will be aware that accountability to Parliament is through Ministers. The Prime Minister is regularly accountable to Parliament, and I am very happy to appear before the Committee at any convenient time.
Alex Burghart
I am sure the Committee will be delighted to hear that. However, there is a precedent in this area: David Frost, now Lord Frost, was an adviser when he gave evidence to the Committee in May 2020. The Committee is unanimous: the new adviser must appear. The Government�s own Osmotherly rules say that Ministers should agree to a request for evidence from any
�named official, including special advisers�.
This Government promised greater transparency. Why are they breaking another promise?
Pat McFadden
Special advisers are appointed by the Minister whom they advise, and the line of accountability is through Ministers to Parliament. That is why the Prime Minister takes questions every week at this Dispatch Box. The National Security Adviser is an adviser to the Prime Minister, and as I said, I am also very happy�as are other Ministers, I imagine�to appear before the Committee at a convenient time.
Oral Answers to Questions
Alex Burghart Excerpts(3 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
The Government’s decision to repeal the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 will mean reopening many inquests and civil cases. Many of those cases will impact on the police. Does the Secretary of State accept that that will mean a significant cost to the Police Service of Northern Ireland?
Hilary Benn
As the hon. Gentleman is aware, the legacy legislation that the previous Government passed has been found to be flawed and unlawful in a number of respects, and it falls to this Government to clean up the mess that the last Government left. I am in the process of consultation with many parties. I have already indicated to the House the proposals that I put forward in the remedial order, and have said that I propose bringing legislation before the House when parliamentary time allows. It is important that people are able to pursue civil cases, and the ban on them by the last Government has been found to be unlawful. Why should people in Northern Ireland not be entitled to an inquest?
Alex Burghart
My question was about the liability that the Police Service of Northern Ireland might be under following the Secretary of State’s decision. Police numbers in Northern Ireland are at their lowest ever. Two weeks ago, Policy Exchange estimated that the cost to the PSNI of the repeal of the legacy Act might well stretch to hundreds of millions of pounds. If that is the case, will the Government step in to support the PSNI, or are they content to see a reduction in frontline policing and national security?
Hilary Benn
The Government have provided additional funding to the PSNI in the autumn statement through the additional security fund. I have read the Policy Exchange report, and it contains a lot of speculation about numbers. The fact remains that the legislation supported by the Government, of which the hon. Gentleman was part, has not worked; it was flawed and found to be unlawful. I am afraid that the Opposition will have to recognise that at some point, and it needs to be fixed.
UK-EU Relations
Alex Burghart Excerpts(4 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
I thank the Paymaster General for advance sight of his statement, and I am grateful to him for coming to the House today to give us a rendition of the speech that he gave in Brussels on Tuesday—I am sure that it sounded even better accompanied by a cool glass of Belgian Chardonnay and the promise of a long continental lunch.
I note that the Paymaster General described the Prime Minister’s meeting with 27 EU leaders this week as being an “informal retreat”. An informal retreat indeed—that is, one suspects, how these words will come to characterise this Government’s negotiations with the EU. The last Conservative Government took us out of the EU and, despite the attempts of the Labour party to frustrate the will of the people, into an era of our being a sovereign nation, which has brought major benefits.
Under the Conservative Government, we secured more than 70 trade deals with other countries around the world and, since leaving the EU, UK trade has increased from about £1.04 trillion in 2015 to £1.74 trillion last year. We ended the supremacy of EU law, we delivered on our promise to leave the common fisheries policy, and we delivered the fastest vaccine roll-out in Europe. We turned a page, and it is vital that the Labour Government do not turn it back.
The Paymaster General talks of ruthless pragmatism in our negotiations with the EU. I wonder whether this will be the same ruthless pragmatism that is bringing us the Chagos deal.Will it be the same ruthless pragmatism that has caused the Government to spend £9.4 billion a year on above-inflation pay rises for unionised sectors without any promise of reform? Perhaps it is the same ruthless pragmatism that saw the collapse of the £450 million AstraZeneca deal last week. When Labour negotiates, our country loses.
I have a great deal of respect for the Paymaster General—I hope he will do better than his friends and colleagues. He has talked to us about security, safety and prosperity—all very nice, but enough of the platitudes, let us talk about the plan. What do the Government actually want from the negotiations? What are the tangible gains they hope to make, and what are their red lines? We have heard about the customs union and a single market, but he knows that that is not enough. He says the Government “are not hitting rewind”, but we know the Government are open to dynamic alignment and a role for the European Court of Justice because he has twice declined to rule that out in this House. Going back to the ECJ for GB would be completely unacceptable.
On defence, the right hon. Gentleman mentioned the NATO Secretary-General’s plea to step up and project strength. Is that what the Government will do? I know the Secretary-General has been asking European countries for a marked increase in defence spending. What is the Government’s response to that? Will he confirm that NATO remains the cornerstone of our defence arrangements?
There was no mention of fish. A word of advice to the right hon. Gentleman: fish are very important, and they will be very important in these negotiations. What is the Government’s position? Will he commit to there being no reduction in our current fishing rights? It is reported that our friends and allies in the French Republic have said that nothing can be negotiated until fish are negotiated. Will he confirm that he has told them firmly and politely, “Non”?
There is no mention of free movement. I noticed the other day that the Home Secretary ruled out a youth mobility scheme. Is that Government policy or was that just the Home Office freelancing? I ask because last week in Westminster Hall the right hon. Gentleman seemed to be pretty open to the idea. What is the Government’s position?
On the Pan-Euro-Mediterranean convention—PEM—a Minister told the “Today” programme on 23 January that the Government were “not seeking” to join PEM. Later that day, the right hon. Gentleman said that the Government
“do not currently have any plans to join PEM”.—[Official Report, 23 January 2025; Vol. 760, c. 1091.]
On 26 January, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the Government were considering joining PEM, but then on 3 February, the right hon. Gentleman said in answer to a written question from the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) that the Government
“do not currently have any plans”.
I would be grateful if he could tell us what the Government’s position is, and if he cannot, perhaps he would be good enough just to make up another one.
The Opposition believe there should be no backsliding on free movement or compulsory asylum transfers. We believe that no new money should be paid to the EU. We believe that no reduction in our current fishing rights should be given away. We believe in no rule-taking, dynamic alignment or European Court jurisdiction. We believe in no compromise on the primacy of NATO as the cornerstone of European security. That is what the Opposition believe; it is time for the Government to tell us what they believe. A future Government will not be bound by a bad Labour deal.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I thank the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster for his contribution. Of course NATO remains the cornerstone of our security; that has been a cross-party position for decades. He asks about plans and red lines. I refer him to our manifesto, which was put to the people last year, that contains those clear red lines of no return to freedom of movement, the single market or the customs union. He can see in that examples of what the Government are seeking to negotiate.
The hon. Gentleman talks about negotiating international agreements. There are many people from whom I would take advice about international agreements, but I hope the House will forgive me if the Conservatives—the party that managed to send hundreds of millions of pounds to Rwanda and all they got in return was sending some volunteers and most of their Home Secretaries there—are not at the front of the queue for giving advice on how to negotiate international agreements.
I give some credit to the Leader of the Opposition, who strikes a markedly different tone on this issue from that struck by the hon. Gentleman today. She admits freely that the last Government left without a plan for growth, and that, frankly, they ended up making it up as they went along. I was surprised that the hon. Gentleman did not begin his remarks by repeating that apology. Perhaps he has a different view than the one taken by his leader.
The hon. Gentleman talks about the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice, but he was part of a Government who negotiated a role for the European Court of Justice in the Windsor framework. He talks about standards. This Government are committed to the highest standards, whether that is on product safety, employment rights or consumer rights. We believe in a race to the top on standards, not the race to the bottom that would be the dream of the Conservatives.
As the Government move forward, our test is the national interest. It is about making Britain safer, more secure and more prosperous. There is another test for the Leader of the Opposition, however. I see that she has put out a social media video about tests, which is worth a couple of minutes for mild entertainment if nothing else. The test for her is whether she will face down the ideologues in her party. Is she going to show some political courage and back the national interest, or is she just going to back down in the face of the ideologues in her party? On the basis of the hon. Gentleman’s contribution, I am not optimistic.
Oral Answers to Questions
Alex Burghart Excerpts(4 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
Yesterday in Davos, Mr Šefčovič suggested that the UK and the EU were talking about dynamic alignment. As the Paymaster General will be aware, that is, if true, a very significant step. Will he be clear with the House: is dynamic alignment on the table?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I have to give the hon. Gentleman top marks for audacity. I do not know whether Conservative MPs have heard, but a week ago, the Leader of the Opposition gave her new year speech, and, as I am sure they know, we listened to it extremely carefully. Do they know what she said about previous EU-UK negotiations? She said that the Conservative Government were engaging in them
“before we had a plan for growth outside the EU… These mistakes were made because we told people what they wanted to hear first and then tried to work it out later.”
Why doesn’t the—
Mr Speaker
Order. I think we are in danger—[Interruption.] I am not going to sit down, Minister. [Interruption.] Thank you. We have a lot of questions to get through. If you want to make a statement on that in future, I would welcome it.
Alex Burghart
I would welcome that, too, Mr Speaker, because the right hon. Gentleman was not answering my question—just as he did not answer the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper), and just as his Department is not answering questions of any hue at the moment, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood) made clear. It comes to something when Mr Šefčovič is a better guide to what is going on than the British Government. If the Government are committed to dynamic alignment, that is a significant step, as the right hon. Gentleman will know, because it could bring the European Court of Justice back into having jurisdiction over the United Kingdom. So, for the avoidance of doubt, will he rule out the ECJ having jurisdiction over the UK in any regard in the future?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I am astonished by the question, because the hon. Gentleman is also the shadow Northern Ireland Secretary, and will know the role that the European Court of Justice plays in the Windsor framework. Turning to his question about the negotiations, we have set out our red lines in the manifesto, and have set out examples of things that we are seeking to negotiate—that is already there.
The Leader of the Opposition was apologising last week for the conduct of the Conservative party in its relationship with the EU. Why is the hon. Gentleman not starting with an apology, or did he just not get the memo from his leader?
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
Given the news from Germany, will the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster update the House on the work the Cabinet Office is doing to prepare for the possibility of an outbreak of foot and mouth?
Pat McFadden
I am grateful to the shadow Minister for his question. Those of us of a certain age will remember the appalling consequences of the last serious outbreak of foot and mouth in the UK, more than 20 years ago. Let me say very clearly from this Dispatch Box that we are treating this with the utmost seriousness. I met with Cobra officials yesterday and have asked for several briefings since the outbreak in Germany, and my colleagues at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs at a ministerial and official level are taking this very seriously as well. We know the threat that such an outbreak would pose to our farming communities, and we want to work with farmers and do everything we possibly can to protect them from it. So far, there has been no outbreak in the UK, but we will—
Mr Speaker
Order. This is a very important subject; I totally agree. The trouble is, in topicals, I have to get a lot of Members in. As this subject is so important, I would always welcome a statement on Monday.
Alex Burghart
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his reply. Could he assure me that he is speaking to interested parties in Northern Ireland? Given that Northern Ireland is so closely connected to Ireland, which is part of the EU, farmers there are consequently very concerned that they may be affected by any spread of the disease. Will he therefore assure me that he is undertaking that work?
Pat McFadden
I will keep it short, Mr Speaker: we will ensure that we co-ordinate our response with all parts of the UK.
Oral Answers to Questions
Alex Burghart Excerpts(6 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
It is a pleasure to face the right hon. Gentleman across the Dispatch Box for what I believe is the first time. I am pleased to see three members of the Cabinet on the Front Bench—it is quite right that the Cabinet Office should be so well reflected.
The day after he entered Downing Street, the Prime Minister pledged to personally chair each mission delivery board to drive through change. We now hear that he is not chairing each mission delivery board. Why has the Prime Minister broken his pledge?
Pat McFadden
Let me begin by welcoming the hon. Gentleman to his position; I look forward to our exchanges. He is also the shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, so I hope his party leader will be giving him a Christmas bonus for productivity and hard work—he will certainly deserve it.
The Prime Minister is very engaged in the delivery of these missions, and meets for missions stocktakes regularly with the Secretaries of State in charge. That is the benefit of having this kind of programme: the Prime Minister can personally hold Secretaries of State to account and ensure they are all focused on delivery of the Government’s priorities.
Alex Burghart
The right hon. Gentleman is right: as the holder of two shadow portfolios, I get double the money. [Laughter.] I am sorry not to hear an explanation for why the Prime Minister has gone back on his word. There are growing concerns that the mission delivery boards are not being taken seriously. Those concerns were felt by members of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee yesterday, when the right hon. Gentleman’s very capable permanent secretary said that
“the governance and the wiring of how we do this might not be immediately observable”,
which is a masterful piece of civil service phraseology if ever there was one.
These boards are not Cabinet Sub-Committees, which means they are not authorised to make policy. The Prime Minister is not there, so his authority is absent. The Government will not reveal who is on them, what they discuss or when they meet. They are starting to sound like figments of the Government’s imagination—a litter of Schrödinger’s cats. Will the right hon. Gentleman at least commit to regular published updates on what each of the boards is doing, who sits on them, what decisions they make, what work they are undertaking and what achievements they have achieved?
Pat McFadden
The hon. Gentleman is going to get a published update in a couple of hours, when he will receive a very full account of what the boards have been doing, how they have been prioritising their work and what the next steps are. He is a former Cabinet Office Minister, so he will know that one of the wonderful things about the Cabinet Office is that it does a great deal of work under the bonnet—sometimes not in the full gaze of publicity—and that that is the privilege of all of us who have served in the Cabinet Office. That is true of this work. However, we are publishing a very important update later this morning.
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
Was the Cabinet Office’s propriety and ethics team informed by Downing Street of the former Transport Secretary’s conviction before she was appointed as a Minister of the Crown?
Pat McFadden
The former Transport Secretary had exchanges with the Prime Minister last week, which have resulted in her resigning from the post. She set out her reasons for her resignation in that letter. We now have a new Transport Secretary, who has already made an excellent start in the job.
Alex Burghart
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for restating what is already known. Obviously, it is a matter of public interest whether the propriety and ethics team had been informed before the right hon. Lady was made Transport Secretary. I ask him again: will he confirm whether the PET was informed by Downing Street of the former Transport Secretary’s conviction before she was appointed a Minister of the Crown?
Pat McFadden
All Cabinet Ministers have an interview and make declarations to the propriety and ethics team before they are appointed to the Government. I am aware of what I told the propriety and ethics team before my appointment, but I do not look through the declarations from every other Minister.
Plan for Change: Milestones for Mission-led Government
Alex Burghart Excerpts(6 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for advance sight of his statement. It was very nice to receive it only 12 hours after The Times, although I must say that I received the policy document itself only at 11.05 am, unlike Labour MPs at Pinewood studios who, according to social media, had the document some time before. While the Prime Minister is at Pinewood, I hope he will hear its owner’s concerns about the very substantial increase in business rates from 2026, which will affect the profits and viability of what was, under the Conservatives, a flourishing sector.
The Opposition congratulate the Government on their most recent reset—there are only a few more resets left before Christmas. The Labour party might want to try turning it off and, well, maybe just leaving it off, but it is good that it has taken the time to come up with an emergency list of priorities. After only 14 years in opposition and five months in power, it has finally decided on some things that it is going to work towards.
The statement was quite punchy about the past, unusually punchy for the right hon. Gentleman. If he is rattled, and he is not the rattling type, it is a sign that the Government must be feeling pretty unstable at the moment. Labour Members talk about legacy, and I wish them good fortune in government—I genuinely mean that.
The last Government had to clean up the mess from the greatest financial crisis in a century. The last Government had to deal with the biggest pandemic in a century. The last Government had to deal with the biggest war in Europe since 1945. [Interruption.] Labour Members might gloss over that, they might pretend it is not important, but history judges it very differently. It reflects very badly on the Labour party that it refuses to acknowledge the importance of those extremely significant events.
I will now turn to each of the new millstones in order.
First, raising living standards in every part of the United Kingdom so that working people have more money in their pockets, no matter where they live. How is this to be measured? What are the metrics? When will the data be published? Who will be held to account? We all need to know.
Secondly, building 1.5 million homes and fast-tracking planning decisions. The Office for Budget Responsibility has already said that this Government are very unlikely to build more homes than the last Conservative Government. What has changed since the Budget? Why do the Government now believe they will be able to achieve this? Is there more money? Have the spending plans changed?
Thirdly, tackling hospital backlogs. We have already seen funding first, reform later—a disastrous way to do business. NHS bosses have been briefed about this, and they are already briefing the press that this requirement will put enormous pressure on A&E without additional money beyond that given at the Budget. Is more money going to be made available for the NHS to fulfil this milestone?
Fourthly, policing. Only 3,000 of the 13,000 neighbourhood police officers are extra new police officers. This target is not genuine. Is there a proposal to deal with the backlog in the courts? Without that, extra police officers will lead only to greater backlog in the courts. Does the Labour party have a plan for this?
Fifthly, energy. In March, Labour’s missions document said that, by 2030, the UK would be the first major country in the world to run 100% on clean and cheap power. Since March, this has been degraded by 5%. Can we expect the target to be degraded by 5% every nine months?
Sixthly, getting children ready to learn. This is a genuinely wonderful target, but what does the right hon. Gentleman mean by “ready to learn”? How will it be measured? When will the House be told whether progress is being made?
Obviously, on all of these, there are good things to be done, but the missions will only mean anything if the Government are honest about what they are doing and about the milestones they are hitting or not hitting. Also, why have the Government downgraded certain other priorities? How have they chosen these six issues over immigration, over GP surgeries, over A&E, over defence, over the £300 energy bill reduction target or over becoming the fastest-growing economy in the G7? Why have the Government chosen these priorities? The House should be told.
Finally, who is taking responsibility—I mean real responsibility—for achieving the targets? A lot of us were pleased when, the other day, the Health Secretary said that individuals at the top of the health service would be held accountable with their jobs if targets were not hit. Will the same apply to Ministers? Who in Government is taking real responsibility for the targets? If the Government are serious, we need data, accountability and transparency. Will the right hon. Gentleman guarantee to the House that we will get that?
Pat McFadden
I have spent more of my life than I would have liked in opposition, and I learned one thing about being in opposition: one has to decide what one’s attack is. As I listened to the hon. Gentleman, I was not sure whether he supported or opposed the plan.
The hon. Gentleman refers to millstones. Let me tell him very clearly: the only millstone that this Government and this country have is the appalling legacy left by the Conservatives. Let us contrast what we are announcing today with their milestones of failure. They had record high waiting lists, the worst Parliament for living standards on record, a surrender on house building, a failure on infrastructure and a £22 billion hole in the public finances —those are their milestones of failure.
These are our choices today. The metrics by which we measure things are set out in the document before the House. The targets will make a real difference to people’s lives: higher living standards across the country, more housing, fewer people on NHS waiting lists, more community police and the best start in life for all children. That final metric is already measured when children start school at the age of five; under the hon. Gentleman’s Government, that metric fell, so our plan is to raise that, so that three out of four children can start school ready to learn. That is the measure that we will choose.
The truth is that the Conservatives could not tackle the challenges we have set out today, and they know it. They could not unblock the housing system or get the growth the country needs because they are the ones blocking the new housing and the infrastructure that we need. They could not fix the schools or the hospitals, or get more police on the streets, because they are still saying that they support the investment while opposing any revenue measure that pays for it, thereby sacrificing any reputation for economic competence that they had.
What a contrast. We will not subscribe to the fatalistic view that all we can look forward to is more of the kind of failure we saw over the past 14 years. We believe in setting out plans that will improve people’s lives, because we know that a united Government, with a clear sense of priorities, prepared to do the hard yards and make the difficult long-term choices for the country, can deliver a better future for people. That is what is set out in the plans we have published today.
House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill
Alex Burghart ExcerptsTuesday 12th November 2024
(7 months 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 Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 12 November 2024 - (12 Nov 2024)
Ellie Reeves
Previous attempts to reform the other place all in one go have failed. We want to see immediate reform of the other place, which is why we are getting on with this straightaway. We can then engage and consult on how best to deliver the other reforms, which we have set out clearly in our manifesto.
Alongside the Bill, the Leader of the House of Lords is engaging in dialogue with the other place on taking forward reforms to bring about a smaller and more active second Chamber. In fact, as we speak, she is leading a debate on that very subject in the other place. I look forward to further discussions on this matter in the House in due course, so that we get it right. None of the amendments that have been tabled contest the objective of the Bill to remove the right of people to sit and make laws in our legislature by virtue of an accident of birth. They should, therefore, not prevent us from making progress on this important and long overdue reform.
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
It is an honour to speak to the Bill in Committee. When we last discussed it, on Second Reading, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Sir Oliver Dowden)—a very great man—set out why the Opposition do not approve of the way in which the Government are going about this change. We believe that this nervous little Bill is misconceived and perhaps, at its worst, dishonest.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
I am a bit worried about what my hon. Friend is saying. Why do we need a comprehensive plan at all? Why not just leave it alone? As that great conservative, Lord Falkland, once said, “When it is not necessary to do something, it is necessary not to do it.”
Alex Burghart
As ever, my right hon. Friend is one step ahead of me. It is not that we seek a comprehensive reform of the House of Lords. It is that the Labour party promised that this would come. The Government promised that they would leave the remaining hereditary peers there until they had a plan for comprehensive reform, but that comprehensive plan is missing. Labour is throwing out the stone in the shoe of the accepted hereditary peers and dodging the hard, principled questions about how to ensure that the House of Lords functions most effectively.
Sir Julian Lewis
My hon. Friend made a passing reference to a fear that what is going here is a form of gerrymandering. Does he agree that if generous provision were to be made for really active remaining hereditary Members, of whom there are probably quite a few, to be given life peerages on a one-off basis, and on the basis of merit, that would dispose of the suspicion of gerrymandering?
Alex Burghart
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. He strikes at the critical failure of the legislation, which is that really the Government are seeking to remove Members of the upper House who happen not to take the Labour Whip. What we all agree on—or what I hope we all agree on—is that the role of the Lords is that of a chamber of scrutiny, and we must welcome more expert scrutiny. We have seen from the behaviour, attendance and work of hereditary peers that they are an intrinsic part of that scrutiny, so it is highly suspicious that the Labour party should seek to remove them. Indeed, if we set the precedent that the Government of the day can remove Members of one House because they do not agree with them, where will it end? Those Cross Bencher hereditary peers who will be axed by the measures have, as far as I can see, done an excellent job, yet they are not being given another way out such as that suggested by my right hon. Friend.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The hon. Gentleman will know that provisions in the 1999 Act stipulate a specific number of hereditary peers by party affiliation, making the Lords the only place where the party of a by-election victor is guaranteed before a vote has been cast. He is worried about a loss of expertise in the Lords as hereditary peers are expelled. If those peers stay—I do not think that they should—does he acknowledge that the ringfence protecting party political positions ought to be removed?
Alex Burghart
My point is more that the Government are seeking to remove highly experienced people without offering another way out. We would have been happy to debate that, but we are instead seeing an attempt to deliberately cut out a group of peers from the constitution.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the shadow Minister clarify his party’s position on House of Lords reform? We have heard two or three different views from the Conservative Benches. I remind him that, if we feel that hereditary peers are doing a good job, there is an opportunity for the leader of his party to give them life peerages.
Alex Burghart
It is very generous of the hon. Gentleman to say that the Prime Minister will create 40 peers at his command—I had no idea that the hon. Gentleman’s career was progressing at such a rate. We all know that that is not what is happening here; we all know that, in the coded words of the Minister, it is goodbye to the 88 hereditary peers, whose voices will not be heard any more. Our position is that it is time for a constitutional conference to consider these matters, and that the major issue is how to have an upper House that does not challenge the primacy of the Commons in conducting proper scrutiny of Government legislation in order to improve it.
Sir John Hayes
I am immensely grateful to my hon. Friend, who is making a speech in the spirit of his predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Sir Oliver Dowden), on why the legislation does not pass the efficacy test that I set for it on Second Reading. There is no suggestion that it will make the House of Lords a more effective chamber. A reasonable test of the legislation is whether it improves the status quo. If it does not, why on earth are we pursuing it? Indeed, why are we even debating it?
Alex Burghart
As ever, wisdom from the Deepings. The truth is that this will not make the upper House a better Chamber for scrutiny. All it will do is remove some of the Labour party’s opponents from that House.
The Labour party promised in its manifesto that
“The next Labour government will…bring about an immediate modernisation”
of the Lords. The manifesto promised that that modernisation would consist of a mandatory retirement age of 80, a new participation requirement, a strengthening of
“the circumstances in which disgraced members can be removed”
from that House, reform of the appointments process, and improvement of
“the national and regional balance of the second chamber.”
Although we on the Conservative Benches might not agree with those proposals, the Labour party promised to introduce them immediately, but the only immediate modernisation being undertaken is to remove a group of hard-working and diligent peers, including 33 Cross Benchers and their Convenor, for the crime of not being Labour party placements.
Freddie van Mierlo
As I am surprised that the Conservatives, as the so-called party of aspiration, are stalwartly defending the principle of hereditary peers. Do they not accept that, in a meritocracy, positions in the legislature should be open based on merit, not inheritance?
Alex Burghart
The point that we are making through our amendments is that the Labour party is undermining a key facet of the upper House: scrutiny. We are talking about a body of 88 hereditary peers who have already been performing that job, and have done nothing wrong, but are losing that job because of the measures introduced by the Bill.
Alex Burghart
I will give way one more time and then I will endeavour to conclude my remarks.
Gareth Snell
I thank the hon. Gentleman for taking a second intervention. Is he suggesting that life peers—I declare an interest in that my partner is a life peer—are unable to undertake the role of scrutiny? Even with these modest reforms, which are a stepping stone towards greater reform, my party will still be only the third largest party in the House of Lords, while his will still be the largest by some margin. Is he honestly saying that his life peers are unable to take scrutiny seriously?
Alex Burghart
I am delighted to hear that the hon. Gentleman has married so well. Of course, life peers do a fantastic job of scrutiny—they do so every day, and I enjoy reading their lordships’ Hansard. What we are talking about is a group of 88 hereditary peers, who have done a very good job in scrutinising Government legislation, but who are being removed, through no fault of their own, simply because they do not fit with the Labour’s party’s views. We believe that that is wrong.
I turn now to amendment 25 in my name, which concerns the very simple Conservative principle that constitutional change should not be rushed, and should certainly not be proposed for political advantage. We have inherited a constitution that has evolved through the generations and has the distinction of working. The current constitution of the other place has been effective in bringing expertise and a degree of independence to the work of legislative scrutiny. Like much of the uncodified British constitution, one might not have created such a system from scratch, but the tried-and-tested checks and balances of the House of Lords have complemented the work of the elected Commons.
The Lords does not claim to be a democratic Chamber, and that is the point: our House has primacy. We can see the dangers of ill-though-through constitutional change. None of us in this place will forget the difficulties caused by the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011, a foolish measure introduced by the coalition Government that created all manner of unintended consequences. It was rightly repealed by the Conservatives in the last Parliament to reinstate tried and tested long-standing conventions. Let that be a warning to the Government as they meddle, in the name of petty politics, with long-standing conventions that work. Walter Bagehot eloquently described the “dignified” and “efficient” elements of our constitution. In a sense, the hereditary peers represent both thanks to the way in which they diligently scrutinise legislation. Labour must take care that pulling on one thread—in this case, that of the hereditary peers—does not unravel a great deal more.
Amendment 25 seeks to ensure that there is proper scrutiny of the changes to the composition of our legislature. It makes the simple request that a Joint Committee of both Houses should be allowed to scrutinise and report on the Government’s so-called “immediate modernisation” plans, and that this place should agree before legislation comes into force. That plan would be led by the Conservative principle that constitutional change should not be rushed but carefully considered, and implemented only if the House is confident that it will work.
Amendment 26, which stands in my name, seeks clarity on the issue of disputed peerage claims. However, I have listened carefully to what the Minister has said, and I understand that existing mechanisms are in place. For that reason, we will not press it.
To conclude, we on the Conservative Benches think that this Bill is a sham of reform. It is fundamentally misconceived, focusing on the composition of the other place rather than on how we can ensure that it best performs its vital role of scrutiny. This is a Government and a Prime Minister who do not stand up to scrutiny—a Government led by politics, not by principles. My amendments seek to reinsert some principles into this process: that promises to both Parliament and the electorate should be kept, and that we should legislate only for what works, not for political advantage. I see no reason why the Government cannot accept the amendments today.
John Slinger
The right hon. Gentleman was keen to score my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell). He gave him four out of 10, and I think he was rather unfair.
John Slinger
Significantly higher, let us put it that way—eight or nine, I would say. If I may, I suggest that I would give Opposition Members between seven and 10 out of 10 for being patronising.
Alex Burghart
I echo the words of the Paymaster General in thanking everyone who has spoken this afternoon. It has been a good natured and interesting debate.
I want to echo some words of my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) in praise of the House of Lords. When I first came to this place, I bumped into Lord Young of Cookham, who I had known a few years previously, and I said, “How are you getting on in the upper House as a Minister?” He said, “It’s rather harder there than it is down your end.” When I asked him what he meant, he said, “Well, you see, when I stood up as a Minister in the House of Commons, I normally felt that, with the support of my officials, I was probably the best informed person in the room. But when you get to the Lords, you face five former Secretaries of State, three former heads of the civil service and people with expertise from across the sector, and what you find there is real scrutiny.”
I love this place and I do not wish to take anything away from it, but I do not wish to see it replicated; one of us is enough. That is why, despite the fact that the Opposition disagree with many of the things that the Labour Government are doing, we have been pleased to see that they have edged away from their long-standing commitment to an elected upper House. An elected upper House would replicate this place unnecessarily. It would inevitably get in the way of the primacy of the Commons and make the passage of law harder. It was very significant that, on 5 March, Lord Mandelson made an intervention with the Lord Speaker—on his very popular podcast—and said that the proposals of the former Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, for constitutional reform had
“barely been put in the oven…let alone…baked.”
I am very pleased that the Labour Government have taken that on board.
That said, the Bill in its present form cannot have the support of the Opposition. The Labour party has reneged on the solemn promise it made in 1998 not to get rid of the remaining hereditary peers until it brought forward a comprehensive plan for a reformed upper House. Many Government Members have said that the hereditary peers sit in the House of Lords by duty of right; well, that is not entirely right. The reason the remaining hereditary peers are in the House of Lords is that the Labour Government put them there. That was the agreement that was reached in 1998.
The remaining hereditary peers—who already sit in the Lords and scrutinise, night after night, the legislation introduced by this House—should not be treated in this way. Had the Government respected their position and made provision for them in a reformed Chamber, it would be very hard—not impossible, but very hard—to oppose this legislation. However, as it is, the Government are seeking to remove established scrutineers in order to replace them with Labour appointees, and we cannot support that.
The Minister’s argument that the Conservatives can nominate replacements is obviously not entirely genuine. Although we can put people forward, we cannot guarantee that they will go into the upper House. The Government could make that commitment tonight, but they have not done so. They have said nothing about the 33 Cross-Bench hereditary peers who will be removed by the legislation. Labour has broken its promise from 1998, and it has broken its promise to bring forward all its reforms immediately. The Conservative party will not support it.