Black History Month

Dave Robertson Excerpts

Thursday 24th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mims Davies]

I thank the hon. Lady for that contribution —I have a brother myself of whom I am extremely proud, so I get that. There is something slightly less competitive in that relationship sometimes. I pay tribute to him and his work, and, above all, his skill.

[Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)]

If we are talking about footballers, can we remember people such as Alex Scott, who is a trailblazer for the women’s game, as well as those from the men’s game?

[Mims Davies]

I will be coming on to that in my remarks. As a former Sports Minister, I am absolutely focused on highlighting the women’s game and, above all, making sure that sport is not niche when it comes to reporting on women and their achievements—that it is literally a fair and level playing field—so I agree with the hon. Gentleman.

Of course, it is with a note of sadness that we need to remember one pioneer of black sport, Alford Gardner, who died earlier this month. Prior to his death, he was one of only two surviving Windrush passengers, and he was recognised at the Pride of Britain awards for his work establishing the first Caribbean cricket club in the UK. As Sports Minister, I was keen to encourage representation and further opportunity, particularly for football managers, and to work with the beautiful game on those things—if you cannot see it, can you believe that you can get there? I still think there is more to do.

We rightly herald the voyage of the Empire Windrush as the start of the story when it comes to truly understanding black history in the UK. I thank the Minister for her update to the House on what is being done to support the community.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Dave Robertson Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 15th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sir Gavin Williamson]

Is there no one new to give way to?

[Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)]

rose—

[Sir Gavin Williamson]

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman.

[Dave Robertson]

I thank my neighbour, the right hon. Member for Great Wyrley, Penkridge and Stone—apologies, I might have got that the wrong way around—for giving way. He has been selectively quoting from the Labour party manifesto. He says the manifesto says we will introduce a retirement age for peers, but fails to mention that the sentence starts with the words:

“At the end of the Parliament.”

I know the Conservative party had a problem sticking to Parliaments lasting five years and that we have had a lot of elections recently, but as far as I am aware, this Government do not intend to have quite so many elections. We intend to be here and pass a large amount of legislation. Will the right hon. Member response to that point?

[Sir Gavin Williamson]

I hate to correct my neighbour, but as I have the Labour party manifesto in front of me, I will read it to him.

“The next Labour government will therefore bring about an immediate modernisation, by introducing legislation to remove the right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords. Labour will also introduce a mandatory retirement age. At the end of the Parliament in which a member reaches 80 years of age, they will be required to retire from the House of Lords.”

So the manifesto talks about when the Member will retire not when the legislation will be introduced. We know the Paymaster General is an aspiring radical, potentially—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Holden]

I thank the hon. Member for his question. I do support their removal, but as part of a broader package of measures. I think that is the issue at stake today which Members on the Opposition Benches are concerned about. This piecemeal reform, which will remove people who are there by an accident of birth, will leave people in the House of Lords who are also there by accident or, in the case of bishops, by faith. It will leave the issue the public are perhaps most concerned about, which is pure patronage. Those two issues have been left totally to one side in the speeches made by Government Members. If we are to look at this issue properly, we need to look at it in the round.

We have had piecemeal change over the last few years. I was working in the House of Lords when voluntary retirement was introduced. That was built on many measures over the years, including the Life Peerages Act 1958, which was passed by a Conservative Government. If we are going to consider changing the situation in the House of Lords and what it is going to be, other conventions will be called into question. Surely it would be better to deal with the whole issue and get it right, than to have to legislate two or three times, or make further changes down the line? Why not get something that the whole House and the country can have a proper debate on and reach proper agreement, and then legislate in one piece?

[Dave Robertson]

I am taken by the right hon. Gentleman’s talk about getting it right, which was a phrase also used by the previous speaker, the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice). They both suggest taking the time to get it right, but surely that is what the Government are committed to doing. The Government are committed to the removal of hereditary peers, as was made very clear in the Labour party manifesto that was so widely supported across the country. Wider reform of the House of Lords should surely be subject to consultation, not just with people in this place but around the country. Surely, if we are to get this right, we need to take time over the consultation.

[Mr Holden]

I totally agree with the hon. Member. It is interesting that the Bill has not been subject to the pre-legislative scrutiny that would normally come forward, because of the broader implications for the second Chamber. I want it done properly, as a full package. I do not think slice-by-slice reform is what the country wants. I have some sympathy with those on the Liberal Democrat Front Bench who see the Bill as a step in the right direction, but I fundamentally disagree with them. We need a full package of reforms to see where we wish to end up.