House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Committee of the whole House
Tuesday 12th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Olney]

I very much look forward to having that debate in a future Session of this Parliament and on a future piece of legislation. That is why I tabled new clause 7—to call on the Government to make a commitment to future legislation, so that we in this House can debate and support broader and further reforms to ensure the democratic legitimacy of the House of Lords.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

Does the hon. Lady recall that, in fact, we have had that debate? We had it last in a proper sense in 2007, on Jack Straw’s proposals when, on the basis of the consensus that we are trying to establish here, consensus there was none, and the thing descended into complete chaos. Would she remember that, when making her proposals? If she thinks there will be consensus on this extremely difficult issue of an elected House of Lords, I am afraid she is in cloud cuckoo land.

[Sarah Olney]

Well, how polite of the right hon. Gentleman to say so. Obviously, I do not personally recall what happened in 2007. What we are trying to establish today are the steps that can be taken to reform the House of Lords. We very much support the step that we are debating today—that first step upon which, as the Minister said in her opening remarks, there is broad consensus. We want to see broader reform of the House of Lords and we want the Government to bring forward further proposals in due course. New clause 7 is about pushing them to produce those further proposals in a timely fashion, so that we can hold that debate in this Parliament and progress the cause of measures on which we can find consensus across the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Gavin Williamson]

I am getting excited that the hon. Member is discovering a little radicalism, because I always felt I was in his heart, but perhaps the eyes of the Whips have squeezed it out of him of late. The hon. Gentleman makes a very thoughtful and interesting point, and I would very much like to work on a cross-party basis to get the legislation into the best possible shape.

On minimum contributions, a number of peers in the upper House have continuously failed to make a significant contribution. There are routes for them to be able to exit out of the upper House, but they have chosen not to do so. That causes real problems and real challenges for the upper House, and new clause 4 would offer a way to tackle them.

[Dr Murrison]

I think I will agree with what my right hon. Friend will come on to suggest, but are we being a little unfair on their lordships, since clearly a lot of them did not get the memo that says, “You have been appointed to this high honour, and you will turn up and do some meaningful work”? Some of them think they are simply at the apex of the UK honours system. Is not the fundamental issue that we have failed to separate the honours system and doing a piece of work in our Parliament?

[Sir Gavin Williamson]

My right hon. Friend is spot on. There has sometimes been that confusion, and new clause 4, or anything that the Government would look to bring forward—as backed up by their manifesto and popular support for such a move—would mean that we could get the upper House working much better.

The introduction of a mandatory retirement age is another thoughtful and, dare I say it, far-reaching policy that was in Labour’s manifesto. I pay tribute to the Paymaster General. We all know he is one of the finest authors in this House, and his publications are still available on Amazon, although they are not quite as sought after as those of the former right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip. I am sure that the volume on the Prime Minister that will no doubt be coming forward will be a real hot seller, but the Paymaster General is a great author and he came up with the mandatory retirement age, I imagine, and it is a good policy. It is certainly worth including in this legislation that he is bringing forward.

It is not onerous in adding too much to the Bill, and it would have a significant impact in reducing the size of the House of Lords. We know that the House of Lords is the largest legislative chamber outside of the People’s Republic of China. The simple act of introducing a mandatory retirement age, which was a key part of the Labour party’s manifesto, would considerably reduce the number of life peers. It would also have a significant impact on reducing the cost of the House of Lords.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Gavin Williamson]

I always have felt that my right hon. Friend was all the collective historical, accumulated wisdom that we could ever possibly want. I have always believed that the greatest strength of conservatism can be the ability to reform and to have a radical approach to change our country and the world in the shape that we wish it to be.

[Dr Murrison]

I am very much warming to what my right hon. Friend has to say. He rightly speaks of the Reformation, but will he recall that, broadly speaking, there were two reformations in this country? There was the English Reformation and the Scottish Reformation. We never have any discussion about the place of the other established Church, the Scottish Church, in our constitutional arrangements. That seems to be a quirk of history. I am not for one moment suggesting that Moderator of the Church of Scotland should sit in the other place, but it underscores and highlights the issue that my right hon. Friend has raised about the position of the English bishops.

[Sir Gavin Williamson]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely correct. The position of the Lords Spiritual throws up more questions than it answers, and that is why I deeply urge those on the Treasury Bench to look at my amendment and to ask whether they can make their legislation better. Can they be the Government that I think they wish to be, in order to deliver that change?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I think we can all agree that the other place, for all that it is seemingly undemocratic, works quite well. The Lords actually listen to debates, and they vote according to their conscience. They regularly defeat the Government, and they improve Bills again and again. If it works, why change it?

Will the Paymaster General please think about the idea that I have suggested? We could get some sort of compromise by which all parties in the House of Lords are reduced by the same amount. We could reduce the Lords to around 600 Members, give more power to the House of Lords Appointments Commission and, in future, keep the number at about 600.

[Dr Murrison]

I am very much attracted to the argument laid out by the Father of the House. He is right to say that consensus in these sorts of matters is nigh on impossible, as poor Jack Straw found out in 2007. The Father of the House is also right to aim for a reductionist strategy in trying to decide what we can do to improve the situation. That will get a majority consensus in this House, difficult though census most certainly is in these matters.

This debate has been characterised by some levity, which is okay—it is positive. It probably reflects the fact that most of our constituents are not usually seized by constitutional matters, which is not to say that such matters are not important, because plainly they are. The attendance here today is not what one might expect for a matter of this importance. That probably reflects the fact that when we are all knocking on doors a few months ago, this kind of thing really was not No. 1 among people’s concerns, but it remains important nevertheless.

I confess that I have been on something of a journey since 2007, at which time I was persuaded that the upper House ought to be elected. I am not any more, because I have seen in the workings of this place how it is possible for this place ultimately to be challenged by a subordinate secondary Chamber that is itself elected. Try as I might, I cannot work out how it is possible to avoid that kind of situation. This is the primary part of our legislature, and that must remain the case. We must be unchallenged, but we need checks and balances, which is precisely what the upper House aims to provide.

Many have spoken today about who we might remove from the upper House. I have no objection in principle to the things that the Government are trying to do, but I am persuaded that matters of this sort should be part of a wider package, which is why I will be supporting the Opposition amendment today. However, my view is that we have probably got this round the wrong way, which is why I very much support the amendments being brought forward by my right hon. Friend the Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson) in relation to the bishops.

I remember when I was pontificating in another country—a majority Muslim country that was a nascent democracy—on democracy. At the end of my spiel, a lady put up her hand and, to her great credit, said, “I have listened very carefully to what you have said, but with the greatest of respect, who are you to come here and lecture us, given that you have within your legislature people who are there by dint of hereditary right and people who are there because they are part of a particular religious persuasion?”

We have heard some quotes today, including from G. K. Chesterton. I am not sure whether I can match that, but I think I probably can. Robert Burns said:

“O wad some Pow’r the giftie gie us

To see oursels as ithers see us!”

I like that. He is saying that it is important to note how we appear to other people, other countries and other legislatures, and it seems to me that that lady, all those years ago, had the measure of it. We may not think we are a theocracy in the same way as Iran is, or that we retain the hereditary principle in the same way as Lesotho or Swaziland do, but we are and we do. We need to remedy that, because appearances matter and that lady was absolutely right. That is why I support my right hon. Friend’s amendment, and I hope that the Government will reflect on that.

I also agree with the assertion of the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) that this is it, and that it is no good hoping for another Bill. That Bill is not going to come. If it does, there is no guarantee that it will not end up in the same place as poor Jack Straw’s measures ended up in 2007. Given the difficulty with consensus, I suspect that that is exactly where such a measure would land. So this is it.

I do not particularly want to see our legislature populated by people who are there because they are representative of one particular faith community in this country. I am an Anglican, just like my right hon. Friend the Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge. I am a practising Anglican and I value the views of bishops —of course I do—but it is simply not right to have them being politicians in dog collars generally propagating a left liberal world view. I would much rather that they were in their dioceses engaged in the cure of souls. That is where I, as an Anglican, want to see them.

I will certainly support my Front Bench’s measured amendments this evening. I very much hope that the Government have been listening carefully to what has been said. These grave, serious matters need to be debated in a careful and measured way. I see virtue not in ploughing ahead with the Bill as an emergency but in incorporating it into a wider set of proposals at a later stage, although hopefully not too late, so that we can consider these things in the round. I hope we will be able to see those proposals before too long. I live in hope.

The Labour party has had 14 years to consider all of this. My view is that this Bill will be it. That is disappointing and a missed opportunity.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Murrison]

I am listening with the greatest of respect and interest to the hon. Member. Does he think that there would be virtue and merit in having a unicameral system, a bit like the plan B suggested by my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), rather than having a competing elected upper House—because this is the primary Chamber in our system?

[Iqbal Mohamed]

Again, I will confess to my lack of knowledge on the detail around the alternative proposed by the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis). I would defer to the House to select an appropriate working model that best represented the people of our country.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 15th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. As we look to the other reforms, from the retirement age to participation, the Government will look to build wide support on the way forward—support that, frankly, has not been found in previous attempts at reform. At its heart is the principle that people are placed in the House of Lords to serve the public, and I look forward to debating those wider reforms with Conservative Members, but not in this Bill.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

Does the Minister recognise that a recent survey of Church of England clergy showed the need to reform the participation of Church of England bishops in our legislature? Will he reflect on that, and on the fact that it looks like we are in danger of having bishops who, instead of focusing their efforts on the cure of souls, are more like mitred politicians? That cannot be good for any of us. Finally, we are talking about the Church of England in the Parliament of the United Kingdom. In that respect, my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) is correct about expanding the clergy’s membership to include other denominations, or removing them entirely if that proves impossible, for reasons that are pretty clear.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

The Church has recognised the need for reform, particularly in terms of size, and today’s debate is further evidence of why it is sensible to reform in stages.

Reporting Ministerial Gifts and Hospitality

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Monday 14th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Ellie Reeves]

Of course, the Conservatives created and presided over this loophole in the rules. They broke the rules during covid lockdown and gave fast-track passes to their friends and donors for covid contracts, so we will not take lectures from them on this.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

Does the Minister agree that the use of police outriders, whistles and sirens to facilitate the ferrying of the favoured few around capital cities characterises the capital cities of less enlightened realms and not—until this point—our own? Does she also agree that the special escort group needs to be used sparingly, and not to ferry entertainers around, regardless of the number of free tickets dispensed to senior members of the Government?

[Ellie Reeves]

As I said in a previous answer, that is an operational matter for the police and not something I can comment on further.

Anniversary of 7 October Attacks: Middle East

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Monday 7th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

We do need to help and assist with the health services in Lebanon—along with the other humanitarian support and the support for training and other matters that we are putting in, it is so important that we do that. We are in constant contact with the Lebanese authorities in relation to that.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

Many of us have been fortunate enough to see the good work that UNRWA has done on the ground over many years, but, to be effective, an aid delivery vehicle needs to be rigorously impartial. Given that, will the Government treat UNRWA with caution and carefully, and remember that other aid delivery agencies are available?

[The Prime Minister]

We of course have to be careful to ensure that any agency absolutely complies with international law and, where there are any allegations, we must ensure that they are properly investigated and any wrongdoing is rooted out. We do have to provide, or help to provide, aid across the region, but that is caveated by the first part of my statement in relation to the point that the right hon. Gentleman rightly raises.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Wednesday 26th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I was pleased to have a call last night with the First Minister of Scotland. It was important that I spoke to her on my first day in office, because I wanted to express my desire to work constructively with the Scottish Government so that together we can deliver for the people of Scotland. That is what I plan to do. Indeed, I hope that crime is one thing that we can collaborate on. The right hon. Gentleman will know that violent crime is rising in Scotland and police numbers are falling, whereas we are increasing police numbers here. I look forward to working with the Scottish Government on our shared challenges, because I believe in a strong United Kingdom.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

Q8. What a pleasure it was to welcome the Prime Minister to my constituency in the summer. He will know that one of the burning issues in my constituency is the proposed waste incinerator at Westbury. With the Government rightly reviewing their air quality targets, will my right hon. Friend signal his intent to continue promoting public health, net zero and the environment by placing a moratorium on any more unwanted unnecessary toxic waste burners?

[The Prime Minister]

My right hon. Friend is a vociferous campaigner on that issue, as I learnt over the summer. He will know that local authorities determine these issues, but I reassure him that all large incinerators in England must comply with strict emission limits and receive permits only if plants do not cause any damage to human health. Hopefully, that is reassuring for him.

Health and Social Care Update

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Thursday 22nd September 2022 Commons Chamber

[Dr Coffey]

That will vary according to the provision that has been in place. I am sure the right hon. Lady will want to be careful and considerate in how she addresses the local NHS in order to tackle the issue of patients who do not need to be in hospital, in order to help them with some of the features that they enjoy.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. Does she agree that although we are terribly grateful to people from overseas who are among the very best, kindest and most compassionate of carers, we must ensure that we grow our indigenous workforce, and that to do so, it has to be financially competitive for those people to work in the care sector and a professional career structure must be open to them? If that does not happen, we will not make any inroads into the 13,500 beds that are currently occupied by people who should not be in hospital—who need to be in homely settings in the community—ambulances will continue to queue around the block, and frail elderly people will not get the care they are entitled to.

[Dr Coffey]

My right hon. Friend is right to consider the issue on a broader scale, but of course, we will be focusing on that with the local NHS. There are certainly some parts of the country where there is not the same provision and discharges are not happening to capacity, while in other parts of the country there are extraordinary amounts. That is what we need to focus on locally.

Tributes to Her Late Majesty The Queen

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Friday 9th September 2022 Commons Chamber

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

I rise with the deep and profound condolences of my constituents in South West Wiltshire. A good and gracious lady has been taken from us, and we are all the poorer for that. A lady who has shaped the contours of our national life for 70 years has gone, but her legacy endures. If anyone doubts that, just look at the pictures of His Majesty, in the hour of his grief, greeting the crowds that have gathered outside Buckingham Palace today.

Mr Deputy Speaker, grown men don’t cry, do they? Well, they do. I have cried twice in my adult life, once when my father died and once last night, for a woman that I had only met once—at the aforementioned gin and tonic opportunity that a number of hon. and right hon. Members have cited today, although unfortunately in my case there was no gin and tonic. The reason it is so profound is that, for most of us, for all of our lives she has been a constant—somebody who has always been there; a rock; a stable place; someone to look to and to admire. Like many colleagues around the House today, when I go to primary schools, I am asked two questions usually, one more difficult to answer than the other: “Have you met the Queen?”, and, “How much are you paid?”

Last night I called my mother, because I knew she would be upset, and she was. In June 1953, she and many of her generation lined the streets of London to watch another young woman go to her coronation. That was a profound moment for her and an extraordinary moment in the life of our nation. Very soon we will do something similar again, under altogether more sombre circumstances. Her sense of profound loss is certainly replicated right across this land, by people of all generations and, if I may say so, as I remain a member of His Majesty’s armed forces, particularly by members of the armed forces of this country, who have lost their commander in chief, many of whom live in the towns and villages around Salisbury plain that I have the honour and privilege to represent.

In 878, Alfred the Great secured the future of what became Wessex and ultimately the nation state we know today. “The Great” is a descriptor that should not be used lightly. Queen Elizabeth II is the benchmark for monarchs in this age and in ages past. She is Elizabeth the Great. As the Elizabethan age closes and the Carolean era dawns, we have to understand that it will look and feel different. We will look and feel different. But difference will bring renewal and it will bring opportunity, as His Majesty has demonstrated today.

Rest well, your Majesty. God save the King.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Wednesday 20th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[Alok Sharma]

My right hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right. The small island developing states face a very acute climate emergency that is putting many millions of lives and livelihoods at risk. Yes, we need every country to come forward and deliver on its commitments, and particularly the biggest emitters: the G20.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs published some excellent new targets for incineration in March. Will the COP26 President follow through on that and make a moratorium on waste incineration one of his objectives for the remainder of his presidency?

[Alok Sharma]

In this role, as my right hon. Friend knows, I am trying to corral international action. He raises an important point, and I will make sure it is raised with the appropriate Department.

Northern Ireland Protocol Bill

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 13th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[Sir Robert Neill]

It does not avail us in relation to the international law test, and the difficulty with this Bill is that it is seeking to disapply parts of the protocol in domestic law, but in a way that breaches an international obligation. In any event, could it be said that all available means had been taken to rectify that potential difficulty? That comes back to my point that the Government—any Government—should have to come to the House and set that out.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

I admire the elegant way in which my hon. Friend has set out the three tests. However, the Joint Committee has been working at this for a long time and it has failed to make progress. At what stage, and in what circumstances, does he envisage that we could proceed on the basis of the provision we are debating at the moment? It seems to me that we have exhausted the possibilities and we are in the position of having to do this now to defend the Good Friday agreement. So why on earth is it necessary to have an amendment that would put another hurdle in the way of Ministers’ trying to resolve this?

[Sir Robert Neill]

With respect, I do not think the amendment would put another hurdle in the way, because it would not prevent the Bill from proceeding and it would not prevent what I know my right hon. Friend wants to see, which is a negotiated settlement. By far the best thing, which everyone in this Committee wants, is for the protocol to be renegotiated. I concede at once that the protocol is not working properly or as it was intended. I also readily concede that part of that is due to a rather intransigent stance taken by the European Commission and its refusal, for example, to give greater flexibility to Vice-President Šefčovič in his negotiating mandate. This is not an issue where all the fault is on one side at all. The EU has not acted wisely or helpfully in these matters, but that is not the same as saying that the international law test is therefore automatically made out as of now.

Independent Adviser on Ministers’ Interests Resignation

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Thursday 16th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Michael Ellis]

Any Prime Minister of any political party appoints their own advisers. That is historically what has taken place, and that is no doubt what will take place in the future.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

Lord Geidt is a public servant of superb, unequalled reputation and the utmost integrity, and his departure is greatly to be regretted. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree with me more generally that those placed in a position of judgment over others must not have a previously stated position on the matter in question?

[Michael Ellis]

My right hon. Friend makes a very good point, and it of course is an age-old principle of natural justice that no person should be a judge in their own cause. Where an individual has given a view on the guilt or innocence of any person, they ought not then to sit in judgment on that person. I know the point that he is referring to, and I have no doubt that the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) will consider that.