House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Ashley Fox Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 15th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

The House of Lords plays an important part in our legislative process. It revises legislation and, just occasionally, causes us in this House to think again. I support reform of the House of Lords, but I want that reform to lead to a better upper Chamber. This Bill does the opposite.

In 1999, the Labour party sought to remove all hereditary peers from the House of Lords. To get its legislation through, it struck a compromise with the upper House. That compromise—the Weatherill amendment —enabled 92 hereditary peers to remain until the Government came forward with a comprehensive plan for House of Lords reform. The then Lord Chancellor, Lord Irvine, said that

“a compromise in these terms would guarantee that stage two would take place, because the Government with their great popular majority and their manifesto pledge would not tolerate 10 per cent. of the hereditary peerage remaining for long. But the 10 per cent. will go only when stage two has taken place. So it is a guarantee that it will take place.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 30 March 1999; Vol. 599, c. 207.]

Twenty-five years later, the House of Lords is unreformed. Despite winning majorities in 2001 and 2005, the last Labour Government did nothing to bring forward stage two of House of Lords reform.

[Dr Jeevun Sandher (Loughborough) (Lab)]

Whatever has happened in the years and decades gone by, this is the question before us now: a step forward to help reform the House of Lords. We do not claim that we in this House are perfect; we only make steps towards it. The step before us today is a simple one, and one that I think that no Member of this House can disagree with. It is that no son should have a place in the Lords, by right, because their father gives it to them. That is what is before us, and surely the hon. Gentleman can agree with that.

[Sir Ashley Fox]

Therein lies the problem, in that we now want to talk about stage 2. Although the Minister promises a second stage of reform, that is exactly what you promised 25 years ago, and then you did nothing. Our fear is that you will get rid of the hereditary peers and that the issue of further reform will then get delayed because there is never enough parliamentary time and actually, there will never be a stage 2. Put quite simply, we are cynical about the promises that are being made. We think you will take the hereditary peers and then do nothing.

[Alan Gemmell (Central Ayrshire) (Lab)]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Just before the intervention is taken, I must mention the reference to “you”. Surely you are not responding to a question that I have just asked; you are speaking to the Chair. Please continue, Sir Ashley.

[Sir Ashley Fox]

I am happy to give way to the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Alan Gemmell).

[Alan Gemmell]

Would the hon. Gentleman care to comment on the 14 years of Tory Administration, which were full of reforming zeal and could have transformed this country in so many ways, yet failed my country so much. I just wanted to let the House know that no family in Central Ayrshire, other than potentially the distant descendants of the Earl of Eglinton and Winton, might support hereditary peers remaining in the other place. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will vote with us tonight and begin this important step of reform.

[Sir Ashley Fox]

I would vote in favour of the removal of the hereditary peers as part of a package, but not so that the Government can remove them and then do nothing, which is what they did 25 years ago.

I would like the Minister to explain how he believes his reform will improve the functioning of Parliament. Who will the Government put in place of the hereditary peers? More former MPs, perhaps? Donors or trade union officials? Perhaps some former councillors? The upper House already has a surfeit of all the above. If we want an effective upper House, we need diversity of experience: perhaps some people who have worked in the private sector or run a business could help the Front Bench. The upper Chamber has quite enough former politicians without the Prime Minister appointing more people to buy him suits and glasses.

[Gareth Snell]

I am very much enjoying the speech by the hon. Member. Is he making an argument that the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), should not be entitled to an appointment list, and is he making a commitment on behalf of Members of his own party that they will forgo any appointments that they are offered under this Government?

[Sir Ashley Fox]

I would not dare to answer on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Northallerton.

I fear that this Government are not motivated by a desire to improve the legislature, and that they have brought this measure forward for party political advantage. They want to be rid of the hereditary peers because 42 of them are Conservative and only four are Labour. Once they have driven this Bill through Parliament, their desire for further reform will cool just as rapidly as it did 25 years ago.

[Chris Curtis (Milton Keynes North) (Lab)]

I was wondering, given that there are now so few Conservative Members of this Parliament after the recent general election, what proportion of the House of Lords the hon. Gentleman thinks should now be made up of Conservative Members.

[Sir Ashley Fox]

We are scrutinising the Government’s proposal. That is the job of the Opposition. The Minister said in his opening speech that hereditary peers are indefensible, and I agree, but so is granting 26 bishops the right to vote in our legislature. For some reason, the Minister does not seem quite so opposed to their presence. Could this be because, almost whatever the subject, the bishops can be relied upon to vote with the Labour party? If he was consistent, he would want to remove the bishops as well as the hereditary peers, yet he is silent.

The whole point of the remaining hereditary peers, and their occasional inconvenient by-elections, is that they are a constant reminder of the unfinished business of Lords reform. They are a reminder of the promises that Labour made 25 years ago, which have still not been fulfilled. The reason Labour wants to remove the remaining hereditary peers is so that the reform can be forgotten.

This is a bad Bill. It weakens the upper House, it reduces scrutiny of the Executive, and it gives more patronage to the Prime Minister. That is why I cannot support it.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Ashley Fox Excerpts

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

[Ellie Reeves]

We have made it clear that this is a first step of reform. We are committed to the other reforms set out in the manifesto, but it is important that there is proper consultation and that we take time to ensure that they are done in the right way. That work is ongoing.

Subject to the timely progress of the Bill, it will give due notice to existing hereditary peers, allowing for opportunities to give valedictory speeches, which is consistent with the approach taken in the 1999 Act.

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

On the future reforms, does the Minister not accept that when House of Lords reform was discussed in 1998-99, the hereditaries were retained as a temporary measure, yet the Labour Government never came forward with the second stage? Does she appreciate that many of us are slightly cynical about this Government’s ever bringing forward a future stage, so the solution might be to delay commencement until they bring forward proposals?

[Ellie Reeves]

Opposition Members had 14 years to bring about reform of the House of Lords, if that was what they wanted to do—but alas, they did not. Instead, this Government are taking an immediate first step on the road to reform of the House of Lords. It is long overdue and we are getting on with it.

Clause 5 simply establishes the short title of the legislation as the “House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Act 2024”. If the Bill is passed in 2025, the short title will automatically be changed to the “House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Act 2025”.

I note that a number of new clauses have been tabled. Of course, I look forward to hearing from the newest zealous member of the cause for constitutional reform, the right hon. Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson), as well as from the hon. Members for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) and for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) and others. I will not prejudge what they have to say on these matters, but I note again that this is a focused Bill that delivers on a clear manifesto commitment.

As I have said, the Bill is the first step in the Government’s broader plans to reform the second Chamber. We recognise that other elements of that agenda are more complex, and it is right that we take time to consider them properly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gareth Snell]

I know when to move on. [Laughter.] I would also never dare to call the hereditary peers low-hanging fruit, because that would be slightly disrespectful to them, but I understand the tenor and the tone of what the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) is saying, and I think he is right. This is about starting with something on which there is broad consensus and where the impact on the other House will change our constitutional set-up, but not in a way that will ultimately be detrimental to the important scrutiny role of the House of Lords.

I agree with the right hon. Member about the important role of the House of Lords Appointments Commission and the robustness with which its advice should be treated. Without wishing to go down the route of political point scoring, there is something to be said for independent verification of an individual’s suitability for that place, and how that ought to be respected and put on a footing that would potentially mean that incidents like those we have seen under previous Prime Ministers would not recur. Again, I would love to be able to make a commitment in this Chamber, but the only things I can commit to are those relating to my constituency and my own personal opinions.

[Sir Ashley Fox]

The hon. Member spoke about the need for consensus. Has he read new clauses 1 and 2, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson), which would remove the bishops from the upper House? I am sure that is something on which there is great agreement on the Government Benches. Does the hon. Member feel able to support new clauses 1 and 2?

[Gareth Snell]

The hon. Gentleman has highlighted a great example of where on the face on it, there may seem to be consensus, but I fear the immediate impact would not be as simple as he thinks. We have an established Church in this country. The Church of England is an established Church—it is part of who we are. I fear that the removal of the bishops from the House of Lords would open up a whole series of other conversations about whether or not we still have an established Church. It would potentially open up questions about political and ecclesiastical overlap. Again, I think we should debate those things; we should have time to debate, discuss and consider the role of the clergy and whether it is right to have bishops in the House of Lords. I do not see why that has to be done through a tacked-on amendment to this Bill, but it is something we should discuss in the future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Ashley Fox]

The Labour party promised immediate reform of the House of Lords in its manifesto and set out several steps that it would take. However, the Government have introduced just one of those steps—the step that is most politically convenient for them. Is it a coincidence that their proposals would remove 84 hereditaries who do not take the Labour Whip? They seem reluctant to take the other steps. Very few Government Members seem to want the 26 bishops to stay, but perhaps their remaining is convenient because when the bishops turn up, they vote with the Labour party more often than not.

I object to the Bill because I have a genuine fear that there is no second stage. The hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) is right: it will be this Bill and nothing else for the rest of the Parliament. Labour Members will wait in vain for the second stage. That is what happened when the Blair Government tried to reform the House of Lords. They ensured that the 92 hereditaries remained as a permanent reminder of the need for proper reform. Now the Government are removing the hereditaries, but not making clear any time scale or further proposals.

I therefore tabled amendment 24 and new clause 19. I want to pause commencement of the Bill unless and until the Government introduced legislative proposals for second-stage reform. Amendment 25, which my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) tabled, goes one better than amendment 24, so I am happy not to press my amendment and to vote instead for his. It provides a guarantee that proper reform will be introduced and an opportunity to reflect on the type of upper House we want.

I believe that we should have a smaller upper House, which should be wholly or largely appointed. It should not act as a rival to this place. Liberal Democrats who desire an elected second Chamber do not understand what they are letting themselves in for. Let us consider the United States, where the two chambers are sometimes commanded by different parties and very little can happen. A country with an executive presidential system can get away with that, but a parliamentary democracy could not function with a Government with a majority in this Chamber permanently blocked by an elected upper House.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson) has tabled several amendments that help enact the Labour party’s manifesto commitments: a retirement age, participation rates and other features that would improve the upper House.

I will vote for amendment 25, which I commend to the Cttee.

[Sir John Hayes]

Last time we debated this issue, I talked about legitimacy, continuity and dignity, and nothing I have heard today refutes the arguments I made then. Of course it is true that this House’s authority is drawn from the democratic legitimacy that enables each of us to speak for our constituents. We are chosen by them and answerable to them. However, that is not the only form of legitimacy.

When the Liberal Democrat spokesman offered her views on the subject, I was minded to ask, “Where do you stand on the Head of State?” Our sovereign is chosen by birth, not election. A Head of State is critical—at the apex of our constitution. As I pointed out on Second Reading, the Minister for the Cabinet Office, for whom I have great regard, as he knows, was appointed by the monarch, as I was when I became a Minister.