Oral Answers to Questions
Ellie Reeves Excerpts(4 days, 20 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Elaine Stewart (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Lab)
The Minister without Portfolio (Ellie Reeves)
Our plan for change is already delivering the change the country voted for a year ago. Great British Energy, headquartered in Aberdeen, is investing £1 billion in offshore wind supply chains, benefiting workers in our industrial heartlands. Britain had the highest growth in the G7 in the first quarter of this year, interest rates have been cut four times and wages are rising faster than prices. There is more to do, but after 14 years of decline under the Tories and almost two decades of SNP rule in Scotland, the country is turning a corner with this Labour Government.
Elaine Stewart
Last week, the Health Secretary shared his plans to improve the NHS by giving patients more control over their treatment. Patients in England are now able to book appointments and order their prescriptions on the NHS app. With the lack of an NHS app in Scotland being described as a “national embarrassment”, does the Minister agree with me that people living in Scotland are being left behind?
Ellie Reeves
My hon. Friend makes an important point. Under this Labour Government, NHS waiting lists are falling and we have an ambitious plan for the future of the NHS. Under the SNP, Scotland has an analogue Government in a digital age, and Scotland’s patients are missing out. Scotland needs a new direction, which I hope it will take with Anas Sarwar’s Scottish Labour party next year.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Yesterday, I met members of the Spanish Senate, with whom I discussed energy security and how to bring down energy bills for our residents on either side of the channel. It is clear that energy trading between the EU and the UK does not work properly. What can we do, and what progress has been made, to improve the interconnectors and make the investment that is so necessary?
Mr Speaker
Order. I am not quite sure whether it is relevant, but please answer if you are happy to, Minister.
Ellie Reeves
It is in the common understanding, and we want a deeper relationship with our partners in the EU on this issue.
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
In their plan for change, the Government pledged to get the country the highest sustained growth in the G7—or back to where the Conservative Government left it. However, it seems that this Government are on course to fail. All respected international analysis—by the OECD, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and so on—suggests that over the next four years, the UK economy will grow nothing like as fast as the United States or Canada. What analysis can the Minister point to that suggests otherwise?
Ellie Reeves
Since coming into government a year ago, we have taken measures to fix the mess left behind by the Conservatives. That is why, in the first quarter of this year, we were the fastest growing economy in the G7; interests rates have gone down four times, meaning people are paying less on their mortgages; and wages are rising faster than prices. That is the difference that a Labour Government make.
Alex Burghart
It is no surprise that the Minister could not point to any analysis, because no such analysis exists. That is because the Government have no plan for growth. They do have a plan for tax, and they have a plan for borrowing—much more borrowing. The Office for Budget Responsibility’s excoriating report earlier this week highlighted just how dangerous that is. Indeed, under this Government, there is the very real prospect of a sovereign debt crisis. Where is the Government’s plan to avoid that? It is not clear that the markets can wait until November.
Ellie Reeves
Our plan for growth is central to this mission-driven Government. Our investment in housing—building 1.5 million homes—will add £7 billion to the economy by the end of the Parliament. We are getting building, with spades in the ground on our rail and road projects, and getting on where the Tories failed this country for 14 years.
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
Oral Answers to Questions
Ellie Reeves Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
The Minister without Portfolio (Ellie Reeves)
My hon. Friend is right to celebrate the recent figures showing that the UK was the fastest-growing economy in the G7 in the first quarter of this year—a sign that this Government’s focus on growth is beginning to bear fruit. We are determined to drive growth in every corner of the country. The lower Thames crossing, which my hon. Friend has long campaigned for and this Government have approved, will deliver big benefits in Dartford and beyond.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
In terms of encouraging public participation in democracy and in politics, I have found that school visits are constructive, even in the far north of Scotland, and that is on a strictly non-party political basis. What thoughts might the Government have about encouraging other MPs to engage in that way? It is informative and constructive.
Ellie Reeves
Visiting schools in my constituency is one of my favourite parts of being a Member of Parliament, and I encourage all MPs to do the same. We will legislate to lower the voting age to 16 for all UK elections—when parliamentary time allows, and following engagement and planning with relevant stakeholders—as a way to drive forward participation in democracy.
Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)
At yesterday’s meeting of the all-party parliamentary group on haemophilia and contaminated blood, we heard from someone whose father was terminally ill and unlikely to survive to see the compensation to which he is entitled. It is not fair on people who have waited 40 years for justice that they are left at the starting line for compensation. Is there any way we can make a list of people who are in that situation and calculate their entitlement for their estate?
Oral Answers to Questions
Ellie Reeves Excerpts(2 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
The Minister without Portfolio (Ellie Reeves)
This Government were elected with an overwhelming mandate to deliver change. We inherited a country hit by an unprecedented cost of living crisis, with millions stuck on waiting lists and communities blighted by crime and antisocial behaviour. We are already delivering the change we promised. There will be a pay rise for 3 million workers, thanks to our increase in the national minimum wage. NHS waiting lists are down six months in a row, and there is funding for 13,000 neighbourhood police and community support officers. That was the change we promised, and that is the change we are delivering.
Jim Dickson
I thank the Minister for her answer. It is a really impressive catalogue of achievement in the early months of the Government. Can the Minister set out more specific detail for my constituents and the House on big infrastructure projects such as the lower Thames crossing? I am delighted that the Government have now given consent to it, and Dartford residents are delighted too. How can these big infrastructure projects not only kick-start economic growth but provide jobs, skills and opportunities for residents in Dartford and across the Thames estuary?
Ellie Reeves
My hon. Friend is a great champion for the people of Dartford. Fixing Britain’s creaking infrastructure is vital for our growth mission and plan for change. We are reforming our planning rules to cut through blockages to delivering infrastructure and to help meet our target of 150 planning decisions by the end of this Parliament. The Government are committed to working with the private sector to deliver the lower Thames crossing. As well as creating jobs, it will reduce congestion and drive economic growth by improving connectivity between Kent and Essex.
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
As the Minister is undoubtedly aware, part of the plan for change is kick-starting economic growth. Prior to the recess, the Secretary of State for Transport advised me in relation to her statement about electric vehicle charging that the Cabinet Office is responsible for EU reset negotiations. What assessment has the Cabinet Office made of the cost of the UK not being in a customs union with the EU?
Ellie Reeves
The Minister for the Cabinet Office has been negotiating with the EU in the country’s national interest. We have been clear that there will be no return to the customs union or single market, but the reset in our relations with the EU is an important one.
Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)
Key to much of that plan is the Government’s target to make the UK the fastest growing economy in the G7. But with the International Monetary Fund joining the Office for Budget Responsibility and the OECD in massively slashing projections for UK growth and the IMF not expecting the UK to be the fastest growing economy in the G7 in any year between now and 2030, how confident is the Minister that the Government will meet that target?
Ellie Reeves
The prediction is that we are set to be the largest growing European economy in the G7. Since coming into government in July, we have prioritised growth: for example, Universal Studios building Europe’s biggest theme park in Bedfordshire, and unblocking planning decisions on projects like the lower Thames crossing. We are getting on with delivering the growth that the country needs after 14 years of decline under the Conservatives.
Gurinder Singh Josan (Smethwick) (Lab)
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
The Minister without Portfolio (Ellie Reeves)
I am pleased to hear about the seven new free breakfast clubs in Carlisle, and I am delighted that Brent Knoll school in my constituency also has a new free breakfast club. With our plan for change, we will give children the best start in life, breaking down barriers to opportunity and putting money back in parents’ pockets by saving them up to £450 with the roll-out of free breakfast clubs.
Ellie Reeves
As we set out in our manifesto, the Government are committed to encouraging participation in our democracy and believe that it is unacceptable when legitimate voters are prevented or discouraged from voting. Although we have no plans to remove the voter ID rules, at the elections in May the veteran card will be accepted for the first time, and we are conducting a thorough review of the voter ID rules, evaluating how they impacted citizens at the general election.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Too many Government Departments and public bodies have foreign-made tableware purchased with British taxpayers’ money. May I invite the ministerial team to make a commitment to ensure that every Department replaces its foreign-made table set with a British-made one—preferably from Stoke-on-Trent?
Oral Answers to Questions
Ellie Reeves Excerpts(4 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)
The Minister without Portfolio (Ellie Reeves)
The Government regularly evaluate the effectiveness of all communication channels, including social media, to ensure that they are delivering and providing value for money for taxpayers, and that Government messaging appears in appropriate environments.
Josh Fenton-Glynn
Since Elon Musk purchased X three years ago, Departments have continued to spend money on subscriptions and ads on the site, and one Department has recorded a spend of more than �400,000 since 2022. Given the lack of adequate content moderation, and an increase in the peddling of conspiracy theories, misogyny and racism on the site, often actively encouraged by its owner, does the Minister think it right to review Government spending on X?
Ellie Reeves
I know that my hon. Friend takes a keen interest in these matters. In 2023, the previous Government suspended paid advertising on X while reviewing alignment with our safe guidelines. That suspension remains in place. We continue to post content, without paid promotion, to communicate important Government information.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Sarah Dyke
Women in rural areas often face additional barriers to their engagement in politics, at both local government and national Government levels. The reasons can vary: they may be social, cultural, structural, institutional, or often a perceived lack of knowledge. As we celebrate International Women�s Day, what steps is the Minister taking to address those barriers and encourage women in rural areas to access and engage with politics?
The Minister without Portfolio (Ellie Reeves)
I thank the hon. Member for that important question. She is absolutely right to highlight the barriers to politics that women in rural areas can face. We want more women in rural areas and around the country to be elected to local government and to Parliament. We should be proud that this House now has its highest ever number of elected women, including many outstanding women representing rural areas, but we know that there is much more we can do.
Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)
Ellie Reeves
I am delighted to hear about the falling waiting lists in my hon. Friend�s constituency. Waiting lists are indeed falling. Last month we announced that we had met our first step pledge to deliver 2 million additional NHS appointments seven months early. We are determined to keep up the pace of delivering our plan for change, for which the public voted.
Oral Answers to Questions
Ellie Reeves Excerpts(5 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
The Minister without Portfolio (Ellie Reeves)
Across all our work this Government are determined to deliver better value for money for taxpayers. That is why, shortly after we came to office, this Government scrapped the Conservative party’s VIP helicopter service, which was a grossly wasteful symbol of a Government who were totally out of touch with the problems facing the rest of the country. Under this Government, Ministers must ensure that they always make efficient and cost-effective travel arrangements, which the Government publish on gov.uk.
Joe Robertson
The Minister refers to helicopter travel, and she has given her description of the previous Government. Does she not accept that the Government are using VIP helicopter travel, not through the Ministry of Defence budget but through the Cabinet Office budget? Does that not make this Government grossly hypocritical, and is that not a symbol of how out of touch they are with the British public?
Ellie Reeves
Under the last Government, the former Prime Minister would take helicopters for short journeys at huge waste to the taxpayer. The Prime Minister’s ministerial travel under this Government is always decided with consideration for the most efficient and best use of time and, crucially, in the interests of the taxpayer.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
Alice Macdonald (Norwich North) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister without Portfolio (Ellie Reeves)
My hon. Friend has been a brilliant champion for more affordable housing in her constituency. Through our plan for change, we have committed to building 1.5 million homes this Parliament—the biggest increase in affordable housing in a generation, which will benefit families in Norwich and across the country. I am pleased to hear about the plans at Anglia Square, which are a powerful example of what can be achieved when a Labour council works with a Labour Government.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
General Election
Ellie Reeves Excerpts(6 months, 1 week ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Minister without Portfolio (Ellie Reeves)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris.
I thank the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) for moving the motion today. He did so on behalf of the signatories of the e-petition that asks for a general election, and I welcome the fact that the creator of the petition has been able to listen to this debate in the Public Gallery. I also welcome back to the House all Members who have spoken in this debate and wish you all a happy new year. I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to this petition debate on behalf of the Government.
I have yet to determine whether the Leader of the Opposition has added her name to the petition, following her comments at her third outing at Prime Minister’s questions. However, I must say that opposition appears to suit her extremely well. I wish her and her colleagues many more happy years on the Opposition Benches, signing petitions to their hearts’ content.
As hon. Members may be aware, I served as Labour’s deputy national campaign co-ordinator in the run-up to the general election; the prospect of another general election so soon after the last one—and a return to 5am daily starts—fills me with what I can only describe as joy. Thankfully, as a number of hon. Members have said today, our political system does not work on the basis that those who do not like the result of any particular election are granted a rerun. In the words of the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice), “You back the will of the people and the losers have to consent to the winners. That is how democracy works.” Without such a system, my party would no doubt have been tempted to request a rematch on many elections in recent years.
Of course, the lesson that we learned, which the Conservative party shows no sign of learning, is that the route back to government lies not in signing petitions calling for another general election but in facing up to the reasons for losing and fixing them. That is what we did under the leadership of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and it is why six months ago we were elected with the largest majority that any party has secured since 1997.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton and Clyde Valley (Imogen Walker) said, we were elected with a clear mandate for change. That is what we are delivering. Indeed, as my hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Sam Carling) said, this Government have already achieved more in our first six months in office than the previous Government managed in their 14 years in power.
The Chancellor delivered a Budget that stabilised the economy, prevented a return to austerity and protected working people’s payslips. As my hon. Friend the Member for Derby South (Baggy Shanker) said, we have announced £22 billion more for the NHS and ended the strike by doctors. We are increasing the schools budget by more than £2 billion. We have set up GB Energy and lifted the ban on onshore wind to help to deliver clean power by 2030.
Mike Wood
I thank the Minister for giving way. She refers to the promises made about GB Energy. Obviously, before the election the Labour party promised that its plans would result in energy costs for households being reduced by £300. When does she expect energy prices to be £300 lower?
Ellie Reeves
Achieving our target of clean energy by 2030 will not only give us energy security, so that we are not at the whim of tyrants such as Putin, but will help us to meet our targets for net zero and give consumers energy security. That is why it is central to what the Labour Government are trying to achieve and why it is one of our core missions.
We have also set up Border Security Command to smash the gangs and returned almost 13,500 people with no right to be here. We have published our national policy planning framework to pave the way for 1.5 million homes in this Parliament, accompanied by the infrastructure to support them. We have introduced legislation to deliver the biggest upgrade to workers’ rights in a generation and to transform the experience of private renting, which many hon. Members have spoken about today. And, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin (Alistair Strathern), among others, has said, all that has been against an extremely challenging backdrop.
Of course, no Government choose the circumstances in which they come to office, but there is no doubt that the previous Administration left us with the worst inheritance of any post-war Government, as many of my hon. Friends have noted today: a £22 billion black hole in the public finances—not a “management challenge” as the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) would like to have us believe, but a wrecking of the public finances by the previous Conservative Government; the worst Parliament on record for living standards; an unprecedented slowdown in wage growth; NHS waiting lists at 7.6 million, with 300,000 people waiting longer than a year for treatment; new home approvals that had dropped to record lows; higher energy bills and a weakening of our energy security; shoplifting at record highs and knife crime that had risen by 86% since 2015; and an open-borders policy. They promised to reduce net migration to under 100,000 and left us with a figure almost 10 times higher. They do not like us talking about it—they groan and chunter—but that is the reality of their record.
Of course, all that has meant that the Government have had to take hard decisions. Not all of those will be popular with everyone, but we will not shy away from making the big calls that are right for the country’s future, because that is what any responsible Government must do. We are not stopping there. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Southall (Deirdre Costigan) mentioned, in our Plan for Change, published last month, we set out what we will deliver for the British people during this Parliament. It starts with raising living standards in every part of the United Kingdom, so that working people have more money in their pockets, no matter where in the country they live. We will also build 1.5 million homes and fast-track planning decisions on at least 150 major infrastructure projects. That is more than in the last 14 years combined.
A healthy economy must be built on a healthy population, which is why the Prime Minister set out our elective reform plan to tackle waiting list backlogs through millions of more appointments, so that the NHS once again meets the 18-week standard for planned treatment. Feeling safe in our communities is a fundamental right for every citizen. That is why we are providing 13,000 additional officers, PCSOs and special constables in neighbourhood teams in England and Wales, so that every community has a named officer to turn to. Our Plan for Change also commits us to secure home-grown energy while protecting bill payers. We want to be on track for clean power by 2030. Finally, we are giving children the best start in life by ensuring that a record percentage of five-year-olds in England are ready to learn when they start school. That is a priority for this Government.
That is the change that the country voted for so decisively last year. That is the change we are delivering and that is what we will carry on doing. The House returned from the Christmas recess only today, so I had hoped to be able to carry through into the new year the spirit of peace on earth and good will towards all colleagues from all parties. But I am afraid that I must disappoint those who, only six months after the general election, now want a rerun. They are, of course, entitled to voice their opinions, and this Government are committed to serving everyone in the country to the best of our ability, no matter who they voted for, but, having secured such a resounding victory at last year’s general election, we have not only the right but the responsibility to implement our programme and the change that the country voted for. That is what we will do, and when the next election eventually comes, we will be proud to stand on our record.
Oral Answers to Questions
Ellie Reeves Excerpts(7 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
The Minister without Portfolio (Ellie Reeves)
There are currently four vacancies in the Prime Minister’s office that are being advertised. These roles are all advertised across the civil service or externally. The House will also have seen that the Prime Minister announced the appointment of Sir Chris Wormald as the new Cabinet Secretary earlier this week. I am sure the whole House will join me in congratulating him on his appointment.
Lincoln Jopp
I personally would be delighted to welcome the new Cabinet Secretary to his role. I thank the Minister for her answer, but in her list I did not hear her say whether the Cabinet Office is hiring a new Prime Minister’s envoy to the nations and regions, to carry out the vital work that was about to be done by Sue Gray when she decided not to take the job. Is the Cabinet Office hiring another person to undertake that role?
Ellie Reeves
The hon. Gentleman seems to have a curious interest in jobs at No. 10. If he is considering a career change, I would be very happy to have a private word with him.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
Gill German (Clwyd North) (Lab)
The Minister without Portfolio (Ellie Reeves)
It is shameful that child poverty increased by 700,000 under the last Government. Tackling child poverty is at the heart of this Government’s mission. The child poverty taskforce, which I sit on, will publish its strategy in the spring. Increasing the number of parents who are working, and their earnings and hours, plays a crucial role and that is why our plans to get Britain working and the Employment Rights Bill are important in tackling the scourge of child poverty.
House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill
Ellie Reeves ExcerptsTuesday 12th November 2024
(8 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)
The Minister without Portfolio (Ellie Reeves)
Thank you, Madam Chair. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, as I open this Committee of the whole House.
As I noted a number of times on Second Reading, this is a short and focused Bill. It delivers on the Government’s manifesto commitment to bring about an immediate reform by removing the rights of the remaining hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords. This Bill is a matter of principle. In the 21st century, it cannot be right for there to be places in our legislature reserved for those born into certain families. Having now seen all the amendments tabled by parties from across the House, it is clear that there is no principled objection to the aim of the Bill, which is to remove the right of people to sit and make laws in our legislature by virtue of an accident of birth. Therefore, I hope that all Members across the House can join Government Members in voting for this important and long-overdue legislation.
I look forward to hearing from hon. Members over the course of today’s debate, but I shall start with the detail of the Bill itself. Clause 1 is clear, straightforward and central to the overall purpose of the Bill. It removes membership of the House of Lords from the remaining hereditary peers. Specifically, clause 1 repeals section 2 of the House of Lords Act 1999, which currently provides an exception to the general exclusion of hereditary peers from membership of the House in section 1 of the 1999 Act. Under that exception, 90 hereditary peers and those hereditary peers holding the office of Earl Marshal or performing the office of Lord Great Chamberlain continue to be Members of the other place.
The clause is a core part of the Bill and delivers the Government’s clear manifesto commitment to remove the right of the remaining hereditary peers to sit and vote in the other place. It will result in the removal of the 92 reserved places for hereditary peers. There are currently vacancies in the seats reserved for hereditary peers—at present, there are 88 hereditary peers in the other place. Such vacancies would usually be filled by a hereditary peer by-election, but such by-elections have been paused until January 2026 by changes to the Standing Orders agreed by the other place in July 2024.
The Government value the good work done by hereditary peers, and we have spoken on several occasions about the individuals who have served in Parliament with duty and dedication. These reforms are not personal, but they are long overdue and essential.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
The Government would find considerable sympathy for their position if they were to make provision for those hereditary peers currently in the House of Lords who have done good work and who have acquired a lot of experience by possibly introducing a phase-out or a generous allocation of life peerages to those who are considered worthy on the basis of their past record of participation.
Ellie Reeves
I thank the right hon. Member for his intervention. There would of course be no bar on the Leader of the Opposition nominating any of those who have served as hereditary peers for life peerages in the normal way.
Sir Julian Lewis
That sounds reasonable, except for the fact that, unless there were a phasing of the process, it would not be possible within the numbers available to the Leader of the Opposition to nominate more than a small fraction. Can the Minister offer any more flexibility on that?
Ellie Reeves
I thank the right hon. Member for his intervention, but, with the greatest of respect, it is for the Leader of the Opposition to nominate those whom they consider appropriate for life peerages. On phasing out, the measures in the 1999 Act were meant only to be temporary ones. Twenty-five years later, we are still having these debates.
Clause 2 abolishes the jurisdiction of the House of Lords in relation to hereditary peerage claims. I appreciate that the subject of hereditary peerage claims may be a novel one to hon. Members and one that was not discussed on Second Reading, so let me provide a clear explanation of what hereditary peerage claims are, why they are mentioned in the Bill, and why the Government are proposing to remove the jurisdiction of the House of Lords. A hereditary peerage claim—or peerage claim, as I will refer to them—is when a person seeks to be formally recognised as the holder of the title of a hereditary peerage. Usually, the claimant of the peerage is the undisputed heir and is simply entered on the Roll of the Peerage following an application to the Lord Chancellor.
However, there can be some cases where the claim is disputed or complex. Currently, these cases are usually referred to the other place to advise the Crown on how to determine the claim. The House also confirms undisputed successions of Irish peerages in parallel with an application to the Lord Chancellor. Complex or disputed peerage claims occur very infrequently. There have been fewer than 10 claims considered by the other place in the past 50 years. Given that the Bill removes the final link between hereditary peerage and membership of the House of Lords, it is no longer appropriate for these issues to be dealt with by the other place. That is why the Bill would abolish the jurisdiction of the other place in relation to peerage claims. The intention is that future complex or disputed peerage claims that would otherwise have been considered by the other place will instead be referred to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council under section 4 of the Judicial Committee Act 1833.
Undisputed successions to Irish peerages will, like other types of peerage, continue to be dealt with by the Lord Chancellor. As hon. Members know, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, which is made up of justices of the Supreme Court and other senior judges, already has a well-established constitutional role in advising the sovereign and is the appropriate body to consider these matters. The Government have discussed this matter with the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, which is content to take on this function. Therefore, the Government believe that, following the removal of the hereditary peers, it is appropriate for the other place’s jurisdiction in relation to peerage claims to come to an end.
I thought that it would be helpful to briefly address amendment 26 to this clause tabled by the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart). The amendment makes it explicit that the jurisdiction for considering peerage claims would be transferred to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. The Government’s position is that it is unnecessary to expressly state in the Bill the transfer of the jurisdiction of peerage claims. That is because, as I have set out, matters such as peerage claims can already be referred to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council by the Crown under section 4 of the Judicial Committee Act 1833. I therefore urge the hon. Member not to press his amendment.
Turning to other parts of the Bill, clause 3 makes consequential amendments to reflect the repeal of section 2 of the House of Lords Act 1999, and more generally on the basis that there will no longer be any Members of the House by virtue of a hereditary peerage. The amendments reflect the fact that certain provisions in the Peerage Act 1963, the House of Lords Act 1999, the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, and the House of Lords Reform Act 2014 are now redundant as a result of this legislation.
Clause 4 sets out the territorial extent of the Bill and when it will commence. An amendment or repeal made by the Bill has the same extent as the provision amended or repealed. Subject to that, the Bill extends to England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
There are those who believe that this reform is about making the House of Lords more democratic. Clearly, the Minister cannot be among them, because these provisions do not seem to make it any more democratic in a meaningful way. Can she confirm, therefore, that she is not in favour of a more democratically elected House of Lords?
Ellie Reeves
This legislation is the first step of reform of the House of Lords, as set out in our manifesto. In our manifesto, we committed to this reform immediately, which is why we are discussing it today.
On commencement, the Bill will come into force at the end of the Session of Parliament in which it receives Royal Assent. If the Bill passes in this Session, hereditary peers who are Members of the other place will depart at the end of the Session. The timing of the implementation of the Bill ensures the delivery of the manifesto commitment for immediate reform in a timely fashion while not undermining the business of the House with the sudden departure of a number of hereditary peers in the middle of a parliamentary Session.
Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)
My right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) touched on when the Minister thinks more legislation will be coming forward, and the Minister proudly boasted about delivering on one of Labour’s manifesto commitments. When, over the next two, three or four years, does she anticipate the other pieces of legislation will be forthcoming to deliver on the rest of the manifesto?
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.
Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)
Why are the Government proceeding with such timidity and “first steps” when they have such a large majority and could push through their will if they wanted to?
Ellie Reeves
This is an immediate first step on the road to wider reform, and one that is long overdue since the 1999 Act. It is right that we are getting on with it, and doing so in the first Session of this Parliament.
Sir Gavin Williamson
The hon. Lady has tried to paint the Labour party as a great reforming party; yet in 2012, when there was an opportunity to reform the House of Lords systematically, Labour Members voted against it. Why is she so scared to take on more bold suggestions to deliver her manifesto?
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.
Ellie Reeves
Thank you, Madam Chair. I am grateful to right hon. and hon. Members for taking the time to debate these issues in Committee, and I have listened to their contributions with interest. I am particularly grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell), as well as to other Labour Members, for providing a powerful voice in support of this important legislation.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), who demonstrated on Second Reading that there is strong cross-party support for this first step in reforming the upper Chamber. I am also grateful to the right hon. Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson), who has taken a surprising interest in these issues, and to the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart). I stress that we are grateful to all peers, including hereditary peers, who have committed themselves to valuable public service. I reiterate that there is no block to hereditary peers coming back as life peers if their party wishes to nominate them.
What has become clear during the course of this debate is that the Conservatives do not have a coherent position on House of Lords reform. It is not clear whether the Opposition Front Benchers want to retain hereditary peers; it is not clear whether they want faster and further reform; and it is not clear whether they agree with the amendments tabled by the right hon. Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge. But what is clear is that they cannot agree among themselves about the Bill—more division and chaos.
Stephen Gethins
The Minister will be aware that it has been over 100 years since Keir Hardie committed to abolishing the House of Lords so, to be clear, will we have to wait another 100 years for the Labour party to get around to it?
Ellie Reeves
We have taken an immediate first step, as set out in our manifesto, to remove hereditary peers from the House of Lords. The hon. Member will know well that there were a number of other commitments in our manifesto, and we are considering the best way to implement them. It is right that we take the time to do that properly.
I will address the amendments. New clause 20, tabled by the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart), seeks to provide a description of the purpose of the Bill. The Government cannot accept his new clause. His explanatory statement says:
“This new clause describes the purpose of the Bill.”
For his benefit, I am happy to clarify the purpose of the Bill, which should be self-evident to anyone who has taken the time to read it. The Bill is designed to remove the outdated and indefensible right for hereditary peers to sit and vote in the upper Chamber. In 2024, no place in our legislature should be reserved for individuals who are born into certain families. I add that his new clause fails to take into account the presence of the Law Lords. Several such peers sit in the other place, and make a valuable contribution to its proceedings, as Members of the Lords Temporal under the Appellate Jurisdiction Act 1876. His new clause therefore falls at the first hurdle, and I respectfully ask him not to press it to a Division.
Amendment 25, also tabled by the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar, seeks to delay the Bill’s implementation. Delaying its implementation goes against the Government’s manifesto commitments. We were clear that we would implement immediate reform to the second Chamber by removing the outdated and indefensible right for hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords. The Government set out in our manifesto a number of other commitments to reforming the other place, and it is right that we take the time to consider how best to implement them. I therefore ask the hon. Member not to press the new clause to a Division.
Amendments 8 and 9, and new clause 7, which were tabled by the hon. Member for Richmond Park, seek to impose a statutory duty on the Government to take forward proposals to secure a democratic mandate for the House of Lords via the introduction of democratically elected Members. Although the Government agree with the hon. Member that the second Chamber needs reforming, we cannot accept this amendment. This is a focused Bill that delivers the Government’s manifesto commitment to bring about an immediate reform by removing the right of the remaining hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords.
The Government have committed to more fundamental reform through the establishment of an alternative second Chamber that is more representative of the regions and nations of the UK. The Government will consult on proposals in order to provide the public with an opportunity to give their views on how to ensure this alternative Chamber best serves them. Details of the process will be set out in due course, and the House will no doubt take a close interest in that process as it is taken forward. It is right that we take time to consider how best to implement the other manifesto commitments, including our commitment to consult on an alternative second chamber, engaging with parliamentarians and the public where appropriate over the course of this Parliament. With that in mind, I ask the hon. Member to not press her amendments to a Division.
I now turn to new clause 8, tabled by the hon. Member for Richmond Park, and new clauses 9, 10 and 14, tabled by the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire, regarding the role of the House of Lords Appointments Commission in advising the Prime Minister on appointments to the other place. I thank the hon. Members for their interest in reform of the House of Lords’ appointment process. I think we are all in agreement that it is vital that peers meet the high standard that the public expect of them, for the good functioning and reputation of the second Chamber and of Parliament more broadly.
Constitutionally, it is for the Prime Minister—accountable to Parliament and the electorate—to make recommendations to the sovereign on new peers. As part of its role, the House of Lords Appointments Commission advises the Prime Minister on the propriety of nominations to the House. In that role, HOLAC considers whether a person is in good standing in the community in general and with the public regulatory authorities in particular, and whether the past conduct of that person would not reasonably be regarded as bringing the House of Lords into disrepute. The Prime Minister of course respects and values the commission’s advice, and will place great weight on it when making decisions on peerage recommendations. The hon. Members will be pleased to know that the Government’s manifesto committed to improving the appointments process to ensure the quality of new appointments, and to seek to improve the national and regional balance of the second Chamber so that it better reflects the country it serves. The Government are actively considering how this can be achieved.
New clause 14, tabled by the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire, would remove the Prime Minister’s role in advising the sovereign on new appointments and hand it completely to the House of Lords Appointments Commission. That would be a significant change to the commission’s role, one that would require very careful consideration. This, however, is a focused Bill that delivers the Government’s manifesto commitment to bring about an immediate reform by removing the right of the remaining hereditary peers to sit and vote in the other place. I therefore respectfully request that the hon. Members not press their new clauses to a Division.
New clauses 11 and 12, tabled by the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire, relate to Members or prospective Members of the other place who have made registered political loans or donations of over £11,180 since 2001. The Government believe that the second Chamber is enriched by Members who bring diverse experience in support of the House of Lords’ core functions of scrutinising legislation and holding the Government of the day to account. The House of Lords Appointments Commission is responsible for vetting all candidates for propriety, and considers party donations as part of that vetting. I therefore respectfully ask the hon. Member not to press his new clause to a Division.
Amendment 15 and new clause 13, tabled by the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire, would prevent individuals who were Members of the House of Commons in the current or previous Parliament or in the previous five years from being appointed as, or remaining as, Members of the House of Lords. I should declare an interest: my husband, until recently the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead, is now a Member of the other place and is also a Government Whip. This is recorded in the list of Ministers’ interests that was published last week.
I thank the hon. Member for tabling those amendments; however, the Government cannot accept them. As I said, the Government are supportive of the inclusion of individuals from all backgrounds, and believe that the other place is enriched by Members who bring diverse experience. That of course includes former Members of this place. Former Members can bring valuable insights to the other place, particularly with their experience of the scrutiny of legislation. Denying such eligibility for a specific time period would be unnecessary and prevent valuable contributions being made. I therefore ask the hon. Member not to press his amendments.
Ellie Reeves
The Bill has the simple objective of removing the remaining 92 spaces reserved for hereditary peers in the House of Lords, thereby completing the process started in 1999.
Ellie Reeves
I was very generous with my time in my opening remarks and we have had a full debate.
Of course, the Government have committed to wider reforms to the other place, including establishing an alternative second Chamber that is more representative of the regions and nations of the UK. The Government will consult on proposals to seek the input of the British public on how politics can best serve them. However, as I have set out, this Bill is not the vehicle for considering wider changes. I therefore respectfully request that the right hon. Member does not press the amendments.
Amendments 3 and 7 and new clause 3, which were also tabled by the right hon. Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge, would introduce a retirement age of 80 for Members of the other place. Amendment 4 and new clause 4, which were also tabled by the right hon. Member, seek to impose a participation requirement on all Members of the House of Lords.
Ellie Reeves
The introduction of a retirement age or a participation requirement is not the purpose of the Bill. The right hon. Member, along with other Members of the House, will be aware that the Government included a commitment in their manifesto to introduce a mandatory retirement age, whereby 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. I am sure he is also fully aware that the Labour manifesto included a commitment to introduce a participation requirement for peers. The House of Lords plays an important role in scrutinising legislation and holding the Government of the day to account, and the Government recognise the valuable contribution of many peers. It is important that all Members participate in support of those core functions.
Sir Gavin Williamson
I thank the hon. Lady for giving way. What is being proposed in these clauses is very much in the spirit of the Labour manifesto. I appreciate the fact that the Government are going to whip their party hard in order to defeat their own manifesto and any potential changes, but will she engage with me and other colleagues to discuss how she could implement these changes as part of the Bill in the other House, because there is an appetite for them and it is disappointing, especially on the Lords Spiritual, that they are going to impose a three-line Whip on an issue of conscience?
Ellie Reeves
It is good to see the right hon. Member’s enthusiasm for reform of the House of Lords; it is a shame that he has only found it now that he is in opposition, not over the past 14 years when his party was in government and could have done something about it. This is an immediate first step, as was set out in our manifesto. We have been clear that we will consult about the implementation of the other measures set out in our manifesto and we will do just that.
We have heard a range of views today on the Government’s other manifesto commitments, including exactly how a participation requirement might work. The debate has shown why it is exactly the right thing that the Government take time to consider how best to implement the other commitments, while starting with the immediate reform that the Bill will deliver.
In conclusion, the amendments tabled by Opposition Members are not appropriate for the Bill, which deals with one principal issue—the need to remove the outdated and indefensible right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords. That is our objective and we are focused on delivering it. The Government intend to deliver the other manifesto commitments to bring about a smaller and more active second Chamber. We are also committed to replacing the other place with an alternative second Chamber that is more representative of the regions and nations. As I said, we will consult on proposals and seek the input of the British public on how politics can best serve them.
Reform of the House of Lords is long overdue and essential. The Government are committed to delivering those reforms, and passing this vital legislation is the first step on that journey. In that spirit, I commend the Bill to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 2 and 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 4
Extent and commencement
Amendment proposed: 25, page 2, line 16, leave out from “force” to end of line 17 and insert
“only when the House of Commons has agreed a resolution which—
(a) endorses the conclusions of the report a joint committee appointed for the purpose specified in subsection (3A), and
(b) determines accordingly that this Act shall come into force at the end of the Session of Parliament in which this resolution is passed.
(3A) The purpose of the joint committee of the House of Commons and the House of Lords referred to in subsection (3) is to consider and report upon the Government’s stated plans for reform of the House of Lords, including—
(a) the removal of the right of excepted hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords,
(b) the introduction of a mandatory retirement age for members of the House of Lords,
(c) a new participation threshold to enable continuing membership of the House of Lords,
(d) changes to the circumstances in which disgraced members of the House of Lords can be removed, and
(e) changes to the process of appointment of members of the House of Lords.”—(Alex Burghart.)
This amendment provides that the Bill would only come into effect after the report of a joint committee on wider reforms of the composition of the House of Lords has been approved by a resolution of the House of Commons.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Oral Answers to Questions
Ellie Reeves Excerpts(8 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)
The Minister without Portfolio (Ellie Reeves)
We were elected on a manifesto with five missions to rebuild Britain and turn the page on 14 years of decline under the Conservative party. Those five missions offer real and tangible benefits to people living in every part of our country: higher living standards, cleaner energy, safer streets, longer and healthier lives, and a renewed confidence that the future will be better for our children. I am delighted to report to the House that we have already begun the change that we set out in our national missions, making our economy stable, launching a new border security command, setting up Great British Energy and setting out ambitious plans for housing.
Alan Gemmell
The excellent Ayrshire chamber of commerce is helping Ayrshire businesses to grow. After 17 years of the Scottish National party failing business in Scotland, businesses in Ayrshire need that support, as well as this Government’s five missions. Does the Minister agree that, to deliver the change that our country needs, we need a new way of doing politics, working in partnership with communities, business, civil society and trade unions?
Ellie Reeves
I thank my hon. Friend for that question and commend the work of the Ayrshire chamber of commerce and businesses in his constituency. The Prime Minister has set a clear direction for missions to mobilise action beyond Government, including across business, civil society and local government. Missions require wider sectoral and societal engagement and action across the UK; they are not simply tasks for one agency or sector. I am pleased by the progress that we are making in this area, and was delighted last week to see the launch of the civil society covenant, which marked a new beginning in the Government’s relationship with, and made clear the pivotal role of, civil society in delivering our missions.
Mr Charters
Brew York and Piglets Adventure Farm are just two examples of highly innovative businesses in my constituency. Does my hon. Friend agree that, from lager to lambing, businesses will play a critical role in delivering the five missions, so business engagement is key?
Ellie Reeves
I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting the work that Brew York and Piglets Adventure Farm do in his constituency. I absolutely agree that engagement and working with business will be key to delivering on all five of our missions.
Emily Darlington
I congratulate the Government on trying to use the missions to stop the siloed working between Departments in order to achieve the change that the country needs. On the housing mission, it is important that we link in the Treasury and the Departments for Health and Social Care, for Transport, for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and for Energy Security and Net Zero, to ensure that we build the 1.5 million homes that we need. In Milton Keynes, we have seen how house building can create opportunities, but public support is lost when the necessary vital public services and infra- structure do not come alongside new houses. How is the Cabinet Office bringing together all those Departments so that we can achieve our housing mission?
Ellie Reeves
I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting the importance of housing, which is central to what we are doing in government. Each of our five national missions is ambitious and will require input and action from a number of Government Departments. That is precisely why we are running them as missions, and not in the traditional departmental silos. As would be expected, the Cabinet Office is key to supporting that; the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who is deputy chair on all mission boards, and myself are playing active roles in facilitating that cross-Government working, supported by a specialist mission delivery unit in the Cabinet office.
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
The Minister without Portfolio (Ellie Reeves)
The behaviour of Conservative Ministers in their 14 years in power—partying in Downing Street while people in the whole country sacrificed their freedom, handing lucrative covid contracts to friends and donors, and failing to expel MPs caught breaking the rules—shattered trust in politics. This new Government are determined to restore trust in politics. The Prime Minister has made it clear that he expects the highest standards from those who have the privilege of serving in his Government, and he will soon be issuing an updated ministerial code. Alongside this, we are taking a range of other measures to restore confidence in government as a force for good.
Dr Chambers
As a veterinary surgeon, I am expected to maintain the highest professional and behavioural standards at all times, as are those in many other regulated professions such as doctors and teachers, and if I fail to meet those standards I face the very real prospect of being struck off. Given the behaviour of previous Ministers and even a Prime Minister, does the Minister agree that, if we enshrined the ministerial code in law, that would restore trust in politics and ensure that people who lie and break the rules face very real consequences?
Ellie Reeves
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. As the Leader of the House has said:
“This new Parliament offers a chance to turn the page after the sorry and sordid record of the last.”—[Official Report, 25 July 2024; Vol. 752, c. 857.]
That is why we will be issuing a new robust ministerial code. As we promised in our manifesto, the House has established a Modernisation Committee, which will be tasked with driving up standards and addressing the culture of the House. That sits alongside the work the Cabinet Office is doing to improve standards and confidence in politics.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
The Opposition support the new Government’s aspirations for the highest ministerial standards, and we acknowledge the significant experience that the Prime Minister’s former chief of staff can bring to her role as envoy to the nations and regions. Why then, in breach of Cabinet Office guidance, have Ministers not published a word on her terms of reference, her new salary or her special adviser severance payment, and is she correct in her understanding that she is at the top of the list of new peers?
Ellie Reeves
Anything in relation to the former chief of staff will be announced in due course. It is not right for me to comment on the terms and conditions of any individual.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
Dr Beccy Cooper (Worthing West) (Lab)
The Minister without Portfolio (Ellie Reeves)
We have seen record numbers of our fellow citizens—2.8 million—excluded from the workforce because of long-term sickness. This Government recognise that taking action to improve health outcomes and address economic inactivity is vital for achieving sustainable economic growth. We will produce a White Paper to get Britain working. That will support other steps that we are taking across Government, creating more good jobs in clean energy through our modern industrial strategy, making work pay and improving the quality of work through our new deal for working people. We are also committed to cutting NHS waiting times, improving mental health support so that we can tackle the root causes of inactivity and fix the foundations.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office, the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds), gave a very helpful reply to a question on infected blood compensation. What discussions has he had with victims and families of the infected blood scandal in Northern Ireland since the final report was published in August this year?
House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill
Ellie Reeves ExcerptsTuesday 15th October 2024
(8 months, 4 weeks 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
The Minister without Portfolio (Ellie Reeves)
It is a pleasure to close this important debate on the Second Reading of the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill. The hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) reminded us in his contribution that today marks three years since the murder of our friend and former colleague Sir David Amess. I am sure that the thoughts of all of us across the House are with his family.
I thank Members from both sides of the House for their thoughtful and measured—at times—contributions to the debate. It has been a debate many years in the making, and it is an important moment in the history of this country’s legislature.
I want to take the opportunity to congratulate all the Members who made their maiden speeches today: my hon. Friends the Members for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Claire Hazelgrove), for Knowsley (Anneliese Midgley), for Mid and South Pembrokeshire (Henry Tufnell) and for Glasgow North East (Maureen Burke), and the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone).
My hon. Friend the Member for Mid and South Pembrokeshire recalled campaigning at the general election in the great Welsh weather, which reminded me of the rally I did with him in the pouring rain on that first weekend. Happily, I remembered my umbrella.
I am sure that all those who made their maiden speeches today will make a fantastic contribution to this Parliament and to their constituencies, which they talked so passionately about, and I wish them all the best with their parliamentary careers.
As we heard earlier from my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office, this important Bill delivers on the Government’s manifesto commitment and is the first step in bringing about wider reform to the House of Lords. We firmly believe that the time has now come finally to end the hereditary aspect of the other place—a feature of our constitution that makes us an outlier among nearly all other democracies.
Ben Coleman
We are talking not just about today but about what happened 25 years ago. Looking back at today’s debate, has my hon. Friend been struck, as I have, by Opposition Members’ saying that this reform has come too soon, that there has not been enough discussion, that it will cause dire consequences and that we should be looking wider? Those are not arguments from today but from 25 years ago. Does she not think that the Conservatives should be straight and not just fluff things—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Interventions should be short.
Ellie Reeves
My hon. Friend is right. Listening to some of the contributions today, it is not clear where Opposition Members stand. They talk about reform being too fast and then not fast enough. They talk about it going too far, and then not far enough.
Shaun Davies
Is it not the case that the only time there is House of Lords reform is under a Labour Government? In 1997 we had a mandate to reform the House of Lords. In 2024 we have a mandate to reform the House of Lords, and we should get on with it.
Ellie Reeves
There is lots of talk of reform from Opposition Members. They had 14 years, but chose not to do it.
Sir Desmond Swayne
The Conservative Government introduced a comprehensive Bill involving the election of peers. I was the Prime Minister’s Parliamentary Private Secretary at the time. It failed—notwithstanding the fact that I thought it was awful—because Labour withdrew its support for the timetable motion, which meant, as a constitutional Bill, it would have taken the Government’s entire timetable. For that reason, the Government withdrew the measure.
Ellie Reeves
That was four Governments ago. It failed due to the timetabling motion and the fact that the Conservatives could not get agreement even within their own party.
There have been, and are, hereditary peers who have made real and lasting contributions to public life. However, this is a matter of principle. It is not right that anyone should be able to take up a seat in our legislature and vote on our laws purely by virtue of the family that they were born into. Instead, this Government are committed to a smaller second Chamber that better reflects the country it serves. This Bill brings us a step closer to achieving that aim.
Andrew Rosindell
The hon. Lady talks about the family that hereditary peers happen to have been born into, and says that therefore it is wrong that they should have any influence over legislation. Is she therefore questioning the principle of Royal Assent?
Ellie Reeves
Absolutely not. I listened to the hon. Member’s contribution; the royal family and the monarchy are one of our country’s greatest assets. The contribution of the King and the working members of the royal family to public life in the UK is incredibly significant. The Government have enormous respect for the unique role that the royal family play in our nation. This reform does not affect the role of the sovereign. Ours is a model of constitutional monarchy that continues to be practised worldwide. By contrast, the UK is only one of two Parliaments in the world that retains a hereditary element. To seek to make any comparison between the two is not credible. The sovereign is our Head of State and provides stability, continuity and a national focus. Nothing in the Bill changes that.
Let me turn to the reasoned amendment tabled by the official Opposition. The Government have introduced the Bill to end the outdated and indefensible right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords. I am sure that the House will agree that it is important for Parliament to give proper consideration to the Bill, which reflects a Government manifesto commitment, rather than to dismiss it out of hand. Although the Government are grateful for the contributions that hereditary peers and their predecessors have made to the other place, it simply cannot be right that the second Chamber retains a hereditary element in the 21st century.
Let us be clear. Those on the Opposition Benches talked today about consultation and engagement. First, I will not take any lectures on consultation from the Conservative party, which rammed through a Budget without engagement with the Office for Budget Responsibility and proceeded to crash the economy that has left people in my constituency and across the country still paying the price in their mortgages and rents.
On the substance of the Bill, the right hon. Member for Hertsmere (Sir Oliver Dowden) could not even be clear, when asked, whether he is in favour of the principle of removing hereditary peers from the second Chamber. From the sometimes quite lively contributions from the Opposition Benches, one thing is clear: there is a wide range of views that are not always consistent with one another. The new-found, if at times slightly confused, zeal for the job of reform of the second Chamber is noted, yet Opposition Members had more than 14 years to bring about reform and never did so. Those on the Labour Benches laid out our commitments for reform in our manifesto, which was scrutinised by the public and then overwhelmingly voted for.
Pete Wishart
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Will she tell the House whether it is still Labour’s ambition to abolish the House of Lords in its current condition and set up a democratically elected Chamber, yes or no?
Ellie Reeves
We set out in our manifesto that we want to see an alternative second Chamber that is more representative of the nations and regions. I will say a little more about that later.
Our manifesto was scrutinised by the public and then overwhelmingly voted for. This is a tightly drafted piece of legislation that directly makes provisions for the specific commitment to remove immediately the rights of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords. I am confident that there will be no shortage of scrutiny from Members of this House and Members of the other place throughout the passage of the Bill. The effect of the reasoned amendment tabled by the right hon. Member for Hertsmere would prevent the House from scrutinising the Bill.
Sir Gavin Williamson
If amendments come forward in Committee of the Whole House that reflect the aspirations of what the Labour party set out in its manifesto, will the Government work with Members to ensure they become a part of the Bill?
Ellie Reeves
What I am interested in is whether the right hon. Member, with his new radicalism, will be voting with the Government tonight.
The Government are committed to House of Lords reform and the Bill is the first step in that process. It has been said by Opposition Members that the introduction of the Bill breaks a commitment made in 1999 to retain the hereditary peers in the House until the second stage of House of Lords reform has been completed. That agreement, to the extent that it was ever binding, was not entered into and does not bind this Government. It is not right that a discussion between political parties a quarter of a century ago should still somehow mean that it is illegitimate for the Government to bring forward the Bill today. This Government were elected on a manifesto commitment to bring about immediate reform by removing the right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords. It is right that we take time to consider how best to implement our other manifesto commitments, engaging with peers and the public where appropriate over the course of this Parliament.
Mr Holden
The hon. Lady has made the point at the Dispatch Box that conventions from 25 years ago should not stand today. Does she agree that that should also apply to other conventions made with the House of Lords, such as the Salisbury-Addison convention, which ensures that legislation gets through?
Ellie Reeves
The Salisbury convention means that measures that were proposed in manifestos cannot be blocked, but an agreement made a quarter of a century ago cannot now bind this Government and this House. This measure was a clear manifesto commitment, and it is important that we proceed with the Bill.
We heard a great many speeches today. Members including the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes)— I know he is keen to intervene—spoke of the experience and the contributions of hereditary peers. Let me make it absolutely clear that the Bill is not about individuals, but about fulfilling a manifesto commitment to remove the right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords. Of course this Government value the contribution of hereditary peers, but retaining 92 of them was always intended to be a temporary measure, and now is the right time to introduce this reform. The Government were elected with a clear mandate to address the issue, and the Bill is delivering on that.
Sir John Hayes
I do not support the removal of those peers, but if it were part of a bigger package of reform, one could at least argue, from the Minister’s point of view, that it was a holistic measure in line with a manifesto commitment. This is a very partial reform, which focuses on the removal of those very hard-working and good hereditaries, rather than being part of a more creative and holistic solution.
Ellie Reeves
We said in our manifesto that removing the 92 remaining hereditary peers from the legislature was a first step towards achieving the reforms of the House of Lords that we wanted to see, and it is right that we do not delay that first step. The wording in our manifesto was clear: this would be an “immediate” first step, and that is what we are delivering in the Bill.
The right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings and the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell), among others, talked about our traditions. Any suggestion that the Government are somehow against traditions or the ceremonies of our past is nonsense. We value and respect our history, and its continued inclusion in our national life makes our country all the better, but the continued reservation of those 92 seats for people who are simply there because of the families they were born into cannot be justified any longer. That is an important matter of principle.
A number of Members, including the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) and the right hon. Member for Herne Bay and Sandwich (Sir Roger Gale), wondered whether hereditary peers could be given life peerages. As my noble Friend Baroness Smith of Basildon said in the other place when the Bill was introduced, Members who leave as hereditary peers can return as life peers. There is nothing to prevent them from doing so if their party wishes to nominate them in the normal way.
Simon Hoare
That is all clear and understood. The point that I was making, along with other Members, was that it would be a gesture of graceful good will to make life peers of those who are currently hereditaries. Placing them on a separate list, outwith new year, birthday or party leader nominations, would be an act of generosity reflecting the work that they had done, and would underline the Minister’s point that there is nothing personal in this.
Ellie Reeves
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention and, indeed, for his contribution to the debate. That is not a commitment that we are in a position to make; it would be for the new Leader of the Opposition to nominate for peerages those whom he or she wished to nominate, in the normal way.
A number of Members, including the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart), talked about wider reform of the House of Lords. As set out in the Labour manifesto, the Government are committed to replacing the House of Lords with an alternative second Chamber that is more representative of the regions and nations of the UK. That would be a major change to the functioning of our Parliament and our constitution, so it is right that it should be preceded by a significant period of detailed consideration and consultation. The Government will set out further details of that process in due course, including how we will seek the British public’s input on how politics can best serve them. However, that should not prevent progress on other important and long-overdue reforms, including through this Bill and other initial reforms, to help deliver a smaller and more active second Chamber. The Government’s manifesto made it clear that the measures in the Bill would be introduced to implement immediate reform, which is what we are setting out to do.
The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), too, talked about wider reform. I thank her for taking the time to meet me and the Minister for the Cabinet Office to talk about her concerns and her ambitions for further reform; I am grateful for that engagement. I want to stress that this is a new Government with a fresh mandate and a set of manifesto pledges that we are committed to implement. This Bill delivers immediate reform. As my right hon. Friend mentioned in his opening speech, part of the reason why there has been no further progress over the last 25 years is the argument that nothing should be done until everything has been done. We firmly believe in taking this first step as a matter of priority, and it is right that we take time to consider how best to implement other manifesto commitments that the Government have previously set out. We will engage with peers and the public, where appropriate, over the course of this Parliament and update the House in due course.
The hon. Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild) made a point about the commencement of the Bill. The Bill will remove the remaining hereditary peers at the end of the parliamentary Session in which it receives Royal Assent. The timing of the Bill’s implementation ensures that the business of the House will not be undermined by the sudden departure of a number of hereditary peers in the middle of the Session. Subject to the timely progress of the Bill, we will give notice to existing hereditary peers to give valedictory speeches.
The hon. Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) raised some concerns about the balance in the House of Lords if this Bill is passed. It is important to point out that no political party has held an overall majority in the House of Lords in recent times, and this Bill will not change that. The role of the Lords is to scrutinise and hold the Government to account in the context of the primacy of the House of Commons. The hon. Member is right to say that the Bill decreases the number of peers on the Opposition Benches, but the share of the Opposition’s seats in the Lords will reduce from around 34% to around 32%. Given that the Conservatives will remain the largest party in the second Chamber, I am sure that hon. Members will agree that the Bill is hardly a power grab.
I very much look forward to engaging with the shadow spokespeople from the Opposition parties. I have welcomed discussing this matter with the hon. Member for Richmond Park and Members of other parties who made time to discuss the Bill at drop-in sessions last week. I look forward to further engagement with all those who attend the Committee of the whole House, especially given the important views that have been expressed today.
I stress again that this Bill is about finally removing an outdated and indefensible principle, and not about individuals. As my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office mentioned at the beginning of the debate, the current hereditary peers and their predecessors have made notable contributions to the other place, the merits of which we have heard in this House today. This is the first step in reform and not the last. The other reforms set out in our manifesto are more complex and it is right to take the time to properly consider their implementation. I know that the Leader of the House of Lords has outlined her commitment to meaningful dialogue with Members of the other place on further reforms to bring about a smaller and more active second Chamber.
The Government remain committed in the long term to replacing the House of Lords with an alternative second Chamber that is more representative of the nations and regions and of how the public can have politics best serve them. As the manifesto makes clear, it is right to start with this immediate reform, completing the work that we began 25 years ago. I commend this Bill to the House.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The House divided: Ayes 105, Noes 453.
[Division No. 19, 6.55 pm]
Question accordingly negatived.
[Division lists were not available at the time of publication.]
Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 62(2)), That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Question agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill (Programme)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill:
Committal
(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Committee of the whole House.
Proceedings in Committee, on Consideration and on Third Reading
(2) Proceedings in Committee of the whole House shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion five hours after their commencement.
(3) Any proceedings on Consideration and proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion six hours after the commencement of proceedings in Committee of the whole House.
(4) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings in Committee of the whole House, to any proceedings on Consideration or to proceedings on Third Reading.
Other proceedings
(5) Any other proceedings on the Bill may be programmed.—(Vicky Foxcroft.)
Question agreed to.