Lord Mandelson: Government Response to Humble Address

Ashley Fox Excerpts

Tuesday 19th May 2026 Commons Chamber

[Darren Jones]

The hon. Gentleman is wrong. The intent is to increase scrutiny, not to decrease it.

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

Does the Minister recognise just how damning it is of the Government’s lack of regard for transparency and accountability that the ISC finds itself in the position of having to publicly condemn their actions?

[Darren Jones]

Questions about the Committee’s statement are for the Committee. As I have set out, we have complied fully with the Humble Address and the work of the Intelligence and Security Committee.

Government Procurement Strategy

Ashley Fox Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Chris Ward]

I appreciate how important Denby Pottery is to my hon. Friend’s constituency and how difficult it will be for workers there at the moment. I understand that Government officials have been working with Denby Pottery in recent weeks to ensure that support is in place as the administration process unfolds, and I hope that will support the workers affected as much as possible. I think she will have some support from Members on the Bench behind her on the broader point about the ceramics industry. In this package I have announced that we will look at the four sectors that are immediately critical to national security using the existing powers we have. That is not where I want to stop, but it is what I can do at the moment. I want to go further, and I am very happy to work with my hon. Friend and others to try to do so.

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

The Minister is right to try to support small businesses by cutting red tape, but will he explain why, while he is saying this at the Dispatch Box, another part of Government is requiring any business seeking a Government contract to demonstrate trade union recognition? Does he accept that that is completely irrelevant as to whether a business provides a good service and good value for money? Does he appreciate that that only imposes additional costs on businesses?

[Chris Ward]

Trade union rights are not inconsistent with what I am setting out. I am sorry, but I do not know what point the hon. Gentleman is making, because there is no requirement to have trade union recognition in Government contracts in the procurement system. I am not changing that or how that plays out; I am trying to simplify the system and remove burdens where I can. I am trying to look at the procurement system from start to finish, strip out all the duplication and erroneous stuff that has crept in and made it like a Christmas tree over time, and make it simpler and fairer. That will happen at the same time as ensuring that we deliver the generation of insourcing that this Government were elected to do, which can bring to an end decades of outsourcing by default.

Digital ID

Ashley Fox Excerpts

Monday 8th December 2025 Westminster Hall

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) for introducing this debate on behalf of the nearly 3 million people who signed the petition to stop digital ID. Some 5,300 of them were from my constituency, and I thank them for participating. From the emails that I have received, I am in no doubt that my constituents are opposed to the measure.

We all know why this proposal was introduced. It has nothing to do with well-thought-out policy and everything to do with the Prime Minister being in trouble. He saw a policy that, according to his focus groups, enjoyed broad support, so he announced it as Government policy without much thought as to the consequences. Not only did the Prime Minister’s anti-Midas touch annoy a lot of Labour supporters, but for the first time in 15 years it has caused serious scrutiny of such a policy.

Mandatory ID, be it physical or digital, fundamentally alters the relationship between the citizen and the state. It changes us from a country where the citizen is at liberty to do whatever he pleases, unless it is prohibited, to one where the citizen needs the permission of the state to do certain things. That is a serious shift in the balance of power between the citizen and the state, and not one that should be rushed through as a gimmick to help this most unpopular of Prime Ministers.

The Government claim that digital ID will help crack down on illegal migration and illegal working. Is there anyone on the Labour Benches who seriously believes that nonsense? All employers already have a legal duty to conduct a right-to-work check on people they employ, and those who break the law now will continue to do so. What is lacking is the will of this Government to enforce the existing law and deport illegal migrants.

While the Government say that this ID scheme will not be mandatory, it will effectively be compulsory for everyone in the workforce. The Minister responsible for delivering this policy is reported to have told his Cabinet colleagues that digital ID could transform people’s experience of the state, indicating his intention that it would become integrated with all public services. Any expansion of the use of digital ID for other services will see the scheme become mandatory in all but name for all citizens.

This policy was not in the Labour party manifesto. It has not been voted for by the British people. It is authoritarian, expensive and un-British, and on behalf of my constituents I shall resist it.

Official Secrets Act Case: Witness Statements

Ashley Fox Excerpts

Thursday 16th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Chris Ward]

I cannot reply on specifics of the 48 Group; I do not know that. But the National Security Adviser was not involved in any part of this, as the Prime Minister made clear yesterday.

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

The CPS decision not to prosecute leaves our nation less secure. What assurance can the Minister give the House that the Government did everything in their power to ensure that the CPS had the necessary evidence to prosecute?

[Chris Ward]

As I have said several times, this Government did everything they could to support the CPS in that process and to allow evidence to be submitted, but I gently point out again that one of the reasons that this did not proceed was Conservative policy at the time—not materially different from this policy—and the reliance on the 1911 Act.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Ashley Fox Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Thursday 4th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Whether we go back to 1924 or even further back—and I will during my speech—we find Conservatives in this House protecting their friends born into positions of power. This Bill will finally remove such an archaic right. Just as the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) —he is overseas at the moment, I understand—wants to send people, certainly in Wales, back down the coalmines, the Leader of the Opposition is stuck in the politics of the past.

Before I turn to the amendments sent back from the other place, I want to draw attention to comments made by the noble Lord Strathclyde. He said of this Bill that

“inevitably, there will be repercussions. They”—

the Government—

“are storing up huge problems for themselves.”

The Conservatives have not only complained that the Government are removing hereditary peers while offering “nothing in return”; more sinisterly, they have threatened to use delaying tactics on this Government’s agenda. We only have to look at their behaviour in debates in the upper House, to see that they have been trying to hold the Government hostage on the Football Governance Bill, the Employment Rights Bill and the Renters’ Rights Bill—all to protect the hereditary principle. We know that the Conservative party is in no fit state to take action on very much, but where is their energy being directed at present? It is being directed at the self-preservation of hereditary peers in the House of Lords. That is unacceptable and, frankly, it deserves to be highlighted.

As I say, the Bill has returned to the House amended by the other place. Most of the amendments serve to undermine the core purpose of the Bill, or go well beyond the Bill’s intended remit. Lords amendment 1 has to be read with its consequential amendment—Lords amendment 8. It seeks to end the system of hereditary peer by-elections while retaining the current cohort of hereditary peers. The Government cannot endorse those amendments, which fundamentally undermine the core purpose of the Bill. The Government have a manifesto commitment to bring about an immediate reform by removing the right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords. Lords amendment 1 would allow existing hereditary peers, the youngest of whom is 39, to remain in the other place for decades to come. That therefore blocks an immediate reform.

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

The Minister will be aware that the reason hereditaries still sit in the House of Lords was the deal done in 1999. The promise made by the then Labour Government was that hereditaries would remain until the House of Lords was properly reformed. The Minister is aware that he is removing the hereditaries but giving no assurance about when full reform of the House of Lords will take place. What assurance can he give this Chamber about when the Government will make proper proposals to reform the upper Chamber?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

As the Leader of the House of Lords has set out in the other place, immediately this Bill is on the statute book a Select Committee will be created to look at those issues of retirement and participation. The hon. Gentleman is talking about politics as they stood in 1999. This Government were elected on a manifesto that delivered 411 MPs in 2024, and this Government are following that manifesto.

Across both this House and the other place, there has been broad consensus that the hereditary route to the House of Lords should end. I also make it clear, as Ministers have from this Dispatch Box and Labour peers have in the other place, that this is not a judgment on individuals. It is not a judgment on the work and contribution of individual hereditary peers; it is a judgment on the principle. Let me also say that there is no barrier to any hereditary peers—in the case of the Conservative party, through a party list—being nominated as life peers, should the Leader of the Opposition, for example, wish to do that.

UK-EU Summit

Ashley Fox Excerpts

Tuesday 13th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There will be a particular benefit to small and medium-sized businesses, which simply have not had the capacity to deal with the additional red tape we have seen in recent years.

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

rose—

[Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The situation now is a quantum leap of improvement after what we saw from the Conservative Government.

[Sir Ashley Fox]

Will the SPS and energy deals that the Minister has in mind be on the basis of a mutual recognition of standards, or does he envisage the United Kingdom accepting EU standards now, being dynamically aligned and placing ourselves under the jurisdiction of the European Court?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

Just to be clear, whether on energy, an SPS agreement or employment rights, this Government are interested in a race to the top, not a race to the bottom. [Interruption.] Opposition Members feign interest in the details of the deal next Monday. The Leader of the Opposition did not even want to look at it before she went out at the weekend and made her mind up about it. That is not the behaviour of a serious Opposition party, let alone a party of government. But that is where the Conservatives are now: very happy to carp on about what they are against, not caring about reducing bills, not caring about people’s pay checks, not caring about people’s jobs, and forever trying not to spell out an alternative. They have not listened, and they certainly have not learned.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir John Hayes]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right; Sir Bill’s political career has not ended; his parliamentary one has. I can, like my right hon. Friend, acknowledge that Sir Bill has texted me this afternoon, along with no doubt many others—[Interruption.]—including my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green, I just gathered. This tension—between the will of the people as expressed in the 2016 referendum, and the prevailing assumptions of what I described earlier as the liberal establishment—underpins this debate.

In the spirit of generosity, which I tend to employ—there are exceptions, by the way; Members can intervene on me, if they like—I note that there are those on the Government Benches, such as the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy), who acknowledge, albeit grudgingly, that the referendum result cannot be reversed and that we cannot go back into the EU. That was not what those people said immediately after the referendum, of course. They fought hard for ages to try to frustrate the outcome. They used every parliamentary technique they could conjure, as well as extra-parliamentary techniques, including well-funded legal cases, to try to derail Brexit.

The scepticism personified by my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey), who said she was doubtful about the Government’s intent, is well founded. I know that the Minister will want to reassure us, when he rises at the end of the debate, that that scepticism—in his case, at least—will not prove to be a prediction of what might happen next. Scepticism is well founded, though, because of the history. It was a Labour politician who said, “You don’t need a crystal ball when you’ve got the record book”—Aneurin Bevan, of course. We have the record book when it comes to Labour, and, worse still, when it comes to the Liberal Democrats.

I hope the Minister will be crystal clear, as he has been invited to be throughout the debate, on dynamic alignment, or, as I think it would be better described, dynamic realignment: realigning our relationship with the EU. Such alignment would bring us closer not to our friends and neighbours in Europe—of course, co-operation and collaboration is a natural part of mature policies—but to the EU, in terms of governance, regulation, law, interference in our affairs and, crucially, jurisdiction. It is the exercise of authority that we are really debating here—not the ability or, indeed, the willingness to share, but the danger of succumbing to a power that takes authority further and further from the British people.

The hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes) talked about some of the challenges the world faces and the answers to those global challenges. He was right to do so, by the way; I thought the first half of his speech was very good, although it got worse as it went on. The answer to those challenges is not to become more globalist or to give in to the forces he described that exert power in an unaccountable way, but to bring power back to the people.

When those of us who advocated Brexit spoke of taking back control, we did so partly because we wanted power to be vested in this Parliament, which is accountable to the people whom that power affects. You, Madam Deputy Speaker, are almost a model for this, and others would do well to follow your model. We are answerable to and known by our constituents; they understand that we make decisions on their behalf. New Members of the House will be coming to terms with what that means and its relentlessness. I do not mind it myself, but I can see how it could wear down souls less forceful and robust than me. It is that constant interaction with our constituents that is the lifeblood of democracy.

Whoever knew who their Member of the European Parliament was? I could not remember who the Tories were, let alone the Members from the other parties. People certainly did not enjoy that kind of intimate relationship and sense of mutual ownership when we were members of the EU. We feel as though we own our constituencies and they feel as though they own us, and quite right too. [Interruption.] I am being chided, Madam Deputy Speaker. I first heard of my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) when he arrived here—I never knew who he was before then. I say that without disrespect.

[Sir Ashley Fox]

My right hon. Friend is correct. While I was in the European Parliament, opinion poll research was conducted into whether people could name their Member of the European Parliament, and only 2% of British people could name any Member of the European Parliament—regrettably, it was not me.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

I welcome the Government’s stated aim of negotiating a closer trading relationship with the European Union—I wish the Minister well—but given this Government’s record of negotiating international agreements, I worry about what the Prime Minister will agree on our behalf. We have seen his weakness in the negotiations on the Chagos islands. The Government intend to give away the sovereignty of a territory that we already own and then pay billions of pounds to lease it back. I can assure the Minister that when he comes to negotiate the details with the European Commission, he will find it a great deal tougher to deal with than the Government of Mauritius.

The Government say that the agreement will improve growth in our economy, and that is commendable, but we on the Conservative Benches would take that assurance far more seriously if the Government had not spent the last 10 months making life more difficult for British business. The Employment Rights Bill will increase costs to businesses by £5 billion a year, borne mostly by small and medium-sized enterprises, and the £25 billion national insurance jobs tax will make it more expensive to employ people—unless, of course, it is an Indian business importing workers from India, because then it will benefit from the new trade deal negotiated by the Secretary of State for Business and Trade.

A closer trading relationship with the EU would be very welcome. Trade frictions could be diminished easily. An agreement on sanitary and phytosanitary measures could be reached were the EU and the UK to recognise each other’s standards. Our standards are already the same as, or higher than, the EU’s, and the EU knows this. But the EU has no intention of doing that. It intends to wait until the UK has a Government who will agree to its rules, agree to the dynamic alignment of those rules and then agree that the Court of Justice of the European Union is the final arbiter of those rules.

It seems that the EU’s patience has been rewarded, because when I asked the Minister earlier to clarify what approach he intended to take, answer came there none. It is clear that this Government intend to sign us up to EU rules, over which this House will have no say. When those rules are changed by the EU, Britain will simply have to follow. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) that this is the beginning of a process to bring the United Kingdom within the regulatory control of the EU, and thereafter, perhaps an attempt by the Labour party to make us join the EU.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ashley Fox Excerpts

Thursday 24th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Pat McFadden]

The Cabinet Office has tripled in size in the past decade or so. I think it is right, after growth like that, that we look at productivity and how to get the best outcomes for the public. We have introduced a mutually agreed exit scheme. Some of the headcount reduction will be by transferring functions to other places, but I believe that the Cabinet Office can absorb a headcount reduction after, as I said, tripling in size over the past decade or so.

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

Can the Minister outline Government plans to reform the funding of fire authorities? That is especially important in Somerset, where changes to employer national insurance contributions, the ending of the rural support grant, the removal of the services grant and the reduction of the pension grant will cost Devon and Somerset Fire Authority nearly £2 million a year, at a time of rising costs.

[Pat McFadden]

I do not want to interrupt the collegiate mood we have had this morning by pointing out that we had to take those decisions after the inheritance we received. I cannot speak for every local authority settlement around the country, but the local authority settlements announced after the Budget were on the whole better than they have been for many years. They will not make up for the past 14 years, but they are better settlements than many local authorities have seen for some time.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ashley Fox Excerpts

Wednesday 12th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dame Nia Griffith]

Indeed. With the UK and Welsh Governments working together, we have secured more than £1.5 billion in investment and hundreds of jobs in Wales. Of course, we have established investment zones in Cardiff, Newport, Wrexham and Flintshire to provide a rocket-boost to sector strengths, such as advanced manufacturing.

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

9. What discussions she has had with the Welsh Government on school standards in Wales.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Dame Nia Griffith)]

The UK Government have delivered the biggest Budget settlement in the history of devolution, with £21 billion of new money for the Welsh Government. The Welsh Government are investing almost £200 million this year to support school standards across Wales, plus a further almost £170 million next year. The hon. Member’s Welsh Conservative colleagues tried to block that funding by voting against the Welsh Government Budget last week.

[Sir Ashley Fox]

Children in Wales have the lowest PISA —programme for international student assessment— scores in the United Kingdom and are significantly below the OECD average. Does the Minister believe that that could be related to 26 years of Labour government in Wales?

[Dame Nia Griffith]

I will take no lectures from the Conservatives. Their attacks ring hollow given the chronic underfunding of education and public services over the 14 years they were in power. Now, the UK and Welsh Governments are working together to ensure that every young person has the opportunity to succeed, by investing over £260 million extra in education and more than £260 million in local government, which sets school budgets in Wales. In spite of the shenanigans of Plaid and the Conservatives voting against the Welsh Government’s Budget, Labour is getting on and delivering certainty and support for teachers across Wales through increases to education and local authority budgets.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is a dedicated campaigner for his constituents. We know who has been standing in the way for the past 14 years: the Conservatives, and they have learned absolutely nothing. The Leader of the Opposition claims that she has never opposed growth or development, but that is not what she is telling her constituents. Only last month, she wrote in her newsletter that she will

“keep working with Conservative colleagues”

to block a vital energy infrastructure project in her own backyard. She is not alone; the shadow Foreign Secretary, the shadow Defence Secretary, the shadow Environment Secretary—they are all at it. What a bunch of blockers!

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

Q14. The Employment Rights Bill will grant union equality representatives the right to paid time off work. Will the Prime Minister grant special constables the right to take unpaid leave to perform their duties?

[The Prime Minister]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising the question of special constables, who play a very important role in our communities in keeping us safe. The number of special constables dropped under the last Government. We support the existing employer-supported policing scheme, and we will support our special constables, but the number dropped under the last Government.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ashley Fox Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Kirsty McNeill]

The increase in the national minimum wage is delivering on our commitment from day one in government that work should always pay. Modernising the UK labour market, including through extra pay and secure jobs, is at the heart of rebuilding our economy and will help us to achieve our plan for long-term national renewal and growth. In addition to the more than 13,000 workers in Glasgow my hon. Friend mentioned, national minimum wage increases will benefit workers across Scotland, with more than 4,000 in Dundee, 4,400 in the highlands and 2,900 in the Scottish Borders set to benefit, to name just a few.

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

The Government’s Employment Rights Bill will increase costs on small and medium-sized enterprises by £5 billion a year. It will make it easier to strike, and easier for employees to sue their employers. Combined with the tax rises announced in the Budget, is it not inevitable that this Labour Government will increase unemployment?

[Kirsty McNeill]

The hon. Gentleman might not be aware that unemployment actually came down in Scotland this week. We promised that there would be no return to austerity, and workers’ payslips across Scotland were indeed protected in the Budget. More than half of employees will see either a cut or no change in their national insurance bill. The smallest businesses and charities are protected, and our decision to increase employer national insurance will raise more than £25 billion to help to rebuild Britain.

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.