House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Gareth Snell Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 15th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sir Oliver Dowden]

I am strongly of the view that we should consider all these things in the round. There is merit here—that is why we are proposing a reasoned amendment—but the risk of proceeding in a rushed fashion is that we come to regret it, as we have on many previous occasions.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

rose—

[Shaun Davies]

rose—

[Sir Oliver Dowden]

I will make some progress and then I will give way.

In 1999, Baroness Jay, the then Leader of the House of Lords, said that a partly reformed Lords with only excepted hereditaries remaining would be

“more legitimate, because its members have earned their places”

and would have more authority. That was termed the Jay doctrine at the time. If the excepted peers go, what other conventions are at risk of change—the Salisbury convention, or the restraint against vetoing secondary legislation? The lack of consultation and scrutiny, and the Government’s piecemeal approach to reform, has meant such questions have the potential to be reopened.

[Gareth Snell]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir Oliver Dowden]

I will give way first to the hon. Member for Telford (Shaun Davies) and then to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell).

[Sir Oliver Dowden]

I gently say to the hon. Gentleman that the reforms were introduced in 1999. By my calculation, the Labour party was in power for another 11 years and did precisely nothing further. I will come to this point in a moment, but the reason the hereditaries remained in the House of Lords in 1999 was to ensure that all these things were considered at the same time. The Government are breaking a principle that they agreed to previously.

[Gareth Snell]

The right hon. Gentleman rightly talks about the Salisbury convention. Is that his way of telling us that, as the Bill was a manifesto commitment— as pointed out by the right hon. Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson)—Conservative peers will be voting for it to comply with the convention that he has said is so important?

[Sir Oliver Dowden]

Well—

--- Later in debate ---

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for your guidance on acceptable conduct in this place. I think it is very important, and I am grateful to be able to make what I hope will be a relatively brief contribution to the debate on this Bill.

It will come as no surprise to Conservative Members that I fully support the Bill in front of us, which I think is a sensible, rational and timely first step towards reform of the other place in a way that gives us time—as the right hon. Member for Hertsmere (Sir Oliver Dowden) has so eloquently argued for—to consider other things as we go along. There is a time for evolution and a time for revolution, and at the moment, it is time for evolution in how we amend the House of Lords. It is a question of how we take the first steps towards removing the most indefensible part of that House and of our constitution, while allowing ourselves the time and space to consider the other issues that have been raised and the commitments we made in our manifesto. I gently remind Conservative Members that that manifesto delivered a majority Government—you could say that consultation was had, and therefore we enact our policies.

I enjoyed the contribution of the right hon. Member for Hertsmere. I do not ask him to speak for his party because it is in flux. However, I ask Conservative Members not just to complain about the scope of the Bill, especially the lack of reform—I welcome their support for reform of the upper House; it has been a long time coming, but better late than never—but to consider whether they can defend the right of 92 people to sit in the upper House by virtue of their birth.

Those 92 peers have been almost exclusively white men. When the House of Lords Act 1999 was passed, five women were allowed to continue as hereditary peers in the House of Lords, the last being the Countess of Mar, who retired in 2020. As my hon. Friend the Member for Telford (Shaun Davies) said, whenever the opportunity for a by-election arose for one of the seats held by women, the woman was replaced by a man. More than 200 candidates are on the roll of eligible peers who could stand in by-elections for those seats, had the House of Lords not amended its Standing Orders. I will take an intervention from any Conservative Member who can tell me how many of those on that roll are women. Anyone? No. The answer is two. Fewer than 1% of those eligible to fill those hereditary seats are women.

I have no doubt that Conservative Members share my concern about the inequality that arises if we say that a white man has a potential privilege when he is one of the 92 or when he is a member of the 200 families who, by 100-year-old letters patent, have been in a position to secure one of those seats. To me, that is the most indefensible aspect. It is not necessarily about who those people are. I do not doubt that every single member of the hereditary peers group, whether in my party or not, has expertise and a skillset that they can bring to bear. However, if, upon their expulsion, they wish to continue to contribute to public life, all parties will have nomination lists during this Parliament. They can use them, if they wish, to bring back their best and their brightest. Of course, when those hereditary peers are no longer Members of the House of Lords, they are entitled to do what we have all done and present themselves to the public for election to this place, with a mandate.

[Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)]

Conservative Members are clearly unembarrassed by the total lack of women among the hereditary peers. Does my hon. Friend agree that they should be embarrassed by the total lack of women on their Benches right now?

[Gareth Snell]

I am not sure that any Labour Member needs to quantify Conservative Members’ embarrassment; they do it for themselves.

The hon. Gentlemen seem to be confused about whether they want more or less reform. I think we know that the answer is that they do not want any reform, but they create a smokescreen of wanting to act faster and with more zeal than Labour Members simply because they wish to ruin the Bill. They want to press amendments that are not relevant and not in the Bill’s scope. They want to make arguments about retirement ages. When the right hon. Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson) argued that there should be a retirement age of 80, I am sure that he had not spoken to his right hon. Friend the Member for Herne Bay and Sandwich (Sir Roger Gale), who is 81, although, to look at him, one would not think he was a day over 60.

[Andrew Rosindell]

I am puzzled. It is clear that the hon. Gentleman does not like the current system, but he does not explain how our legislation would be better for removing those people who have so much wisdom, experience and knowledge. How will our country’s legislation benefit from the change?

[Gareth Snell]

The hon. Gentleman will forgive me for not agreeing with him. There is a lot of wisdom and experience in this place that can be used to improve our legislation. Even with the removal of the 92 hereditary peers, there will still be 650 peers, who have incredible insights and specialisms. The Bill removes a group of people whose only entitlement to be in the House of Lords comes from, as the Liberal Democrat spokesperson said, a birthright many hundreds of years old, and from being selected by their friends to sit with them. The hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) may not agree with me, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Telford pointed out, the election process in the other place is a farce. There are often more candidates than electors. It is almost akin to the Tory party leadership election.

[Pete Wishart]

The only other group that seems to reserve a place in the House of Lords is millionaires—party donors. Sixty-eight out of 284 political appointees between 2003 and 2013 gave £58 million to political parties. What will the hon. Gentleman do about them?

--- Later in debate ---

[Gareth Snell]

The hon. Gentleman tempts me to stray outside the scope of the Bill. Madam Deputy Speaker has been clear that the Bill is specifically about hereditary peers. The Government have committed to reform the appointments process for the House of Lords. Everything does not have to be done in the same Bill. As the former Deputy Prime Minister pointed out, the pace needs to be considered, so that there are no unintended consequences, about which he is rightly concerned. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) can chunter at me from a sedentary position, but when we are considering hereditary peers, we are looking at the 92.

If anyone wants to justify reserving seats in the House of Lords for 92 white men, I will take an intervention now. Conservative Members do not want to do that because they do not want to defend the indefensible. They want to complain and bellyache that they do not like what we are doing. They dress up their complaints as process concerns about unintended consequences and make spurious arguments about the Earl Marshal and the Lord Great Chamberlain. That all shows that the Conservative party has simply run out of steam and ideas. All Conservative Members can do is chunter and complain about what we want to do.

[Sir Roger Gale]

Setting aside the hon. Gentleman’s ageist remarks, which I find deeply offensive, let me consider the point that the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) made. Why is it okay for the Labour party to maintain the Prime Minister’s patronage to appoint party cronies to the House of Lords while abolishing the hereditary peers, who do a good job?

[Gareth Snell]

I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman if my suggestion that he did not look a day over 60 was ageist—perhaps I should have said “over 50”. I find it difficult to take an argument from Conservative Members about crony patronage and the House of Lords when the former Prime Minister Boris Johnson put hundreds of people in there. He did so against the advice of the House of Lords Appointments Commission, yet Conservative Members said nothing at the time and were happy about it. Now, all of a sudden, it is an absolute problem that needs to be resolved.

I welcome the fact that my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General has made it clear that, after we have completed the process of removing the excepted hereditary peers, the Government will move on to other parts of House of Lords reform, which will make the appointments process more transparent. That will allow us to have a considered debate about the way in which that process can happen. While we have prime ministerial patronage, it must be transparent. Frankly, Conservative Members can give no lessons to any of us about transparency in prime ministerial patronage. Boris Johnson packed the House of Lords with his friends and cronies against the advice of officials, and Conservative Members had nothing to say about it.

[Sir Gavin Williamson]

I am interested in the hon. Gentleman’s suggestion that further reforms will be coming down the line. That will entail further legislation, and we know how precious legislative time is. Can he—or perhaps the Paymaster General—tell us when the subsequent Lords reform Bills will be introduced in this Parliament?

--- Later in debate ---

[Gareth Snell]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his support. There will be more legislation. I am not a Front Bencher, but I know, because our manifesto said that we were committed to further reform, that that time will come. I am sure that there will be legislative time and that he will have an opportunity later in the debate to put the question to Labour Front Benchers directly, or perhaps to table a business question for a Thursday morning.

To draw my comments to a conclusion—

[Mr Holden]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Gareth Snell]

I would rather not, if that is okay—anyone else but the right hon. Gentleman. He was only 10 votes away from potentially getting a peerage himself, so perhaps for that reason he may not want to comment on the appointment process.

[Mr Holden]

The hon. Gentleman has had a nice laugh at my expense, but he knows what it is like to lose an election and to move seats. He made a good point about the Labour manifesto including the removal of hereditary peers, but as my right hon. Friend the Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson) made clear, the same paragraph includes the introduction of a retirement age at 80. Will the hon. Gentleman welcome any amendments to introduce that in this legislation?

[Gareth Snell]

Again, I am surprised I have to explain to the right hon. Gentleman how legislation works. A Government do not legislate on their whole manifesto in one Bill at the beginning of a Parliament. Those on my party’s Front Bench have said, and I fully accept that this is the right way to do it, that there will be a sequence of reforms over time, starting with the expulsion of the hereditary peers. That is the simplest way to start this process, allowing time and space for considered debate about the other proposed reforms that were in our manifesto and were supported by the British people.

In conclusion, all this Bill does is seek to end a 27-year anomaly that first came about when the Conservative party objected to previous reforms. By voting for it tonight, we can start to right that wrong, and we can start ourselves on a process of reform of the House of Lords. I look forward to welcoming all my new reforming friends to join us in the Aye Lobby this evening.

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Hoare]

I am going to stay mute on the “all” point, but my right hon. Friend echoes the point I was endeavouring to make, which is that a list of conversion, as it were, from hereditary to life should be considered by His Majesty’s Government, outwith leaving it to leaders of any party to nominate for a new year’s honour or a birthday honour, because that would clog up the system for those who are new to public life—echoing the point the Minister raised—where people want to make a contribution and may have caught the eye of the powers that be in order to secure a nomination.

I think there is a job of work that needs to be done. There are a number of ways in which one can land on the right solution, but it should not just be a case of, “Thank you so very much indeed for your service. Please return the ermine to the Lord Great Chamberlain. Your retirement party has been postponed because we could not find a room to have it in”, or whatever it may happen to be. I think there is a way which is elegant, which is kind, which is graceful and which has some democratic underpinning, because at least it will have gone through the appointments.

I close by saying that this is a missed opportunity, and the Labour Front Bench needs to consider that. I appreciate that they have the distorting effect of the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), who did take up a little Labour bandwidth. We all got constrained by delivering Brexit, or trying not to deliver Brexit. And then we all had the big national distortion of the pandemic. But to offer this dance of the seven veils, after 14 years of opposition, and on an issue that people in this place and outside have been talking about for over a century, suggests to me a lack of detailed preparedness by the Government in some policy areas. It cannot have been a shock to Labour that they won the election; it may have come as a pleasant surprise that they won so comprehensively, but it really cannot have come as a shock that they were likely to win the general election whenever it came, irrespective of how hard my colleagues and I were working to ensure that did not happen:

“There is a tide in the affairs of men

Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune”,

or misfortune in my party’s case, but we are where we are.

I hope that amendments are forthcoming—I do not think it is too late to work cross-party on this—to buttress this proposal and deliver some of that democratisation of the House of Lords, and to make sure it is more regionally reflective. I listened to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) talking about the number of white men. I will be careful as he is helping me on a constituency issue, for which I am grateful and I want to put my thanks on the record, but my party has given the country three female Prime Ministers, the first Prime Minister of Jewish heritage and the first Prime Minister of the Hindu faith, so I am not entirely certain that we need to take lessons from the Labour party on how to bring people who are not necessarily used to public life into public life.

[Gareth Snell]

The hon. Gentleman makes my point quite succinctly for me. Yes, there were three female leaders of his party, but they were elected; none of them had the opportunity to take up one of the 92 seats in the House of Lords. That is the anomaly that needs to be resolved.

[Simon Hoare]

Labour were very keen to stop the Member for Stoke Newington being elected, and doubtless she would have been donning ermine at some point, so again I think the hon. Gentleman is on slightly thin ice. I say to the hon. Member for Calder Valley (Josh Fenton-Glynn), who is looking confused, that I am talking about the Mother of the House, the right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott). I say to him, “Keep up, 007!” I do not know whether he noticed it during the election campaign, but there was quite a lot in the media about it. He should look it up—the House of Commons Library is frightfully helpful on these sorts of things.

So I say to my right hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere, with huge reluctance and sadness, that I am more than likely to sit this one out, as the Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee—and I am sure that the Committee will want to look at this in more detail when we are up and running. But the underlying principle that the Minister has set forward is a compelling one. It is a sadness, a disappointment and a surprise that he is not taking this opportunity, after 14 years preparing in opposition, and after a century of making the case from the centre-left of British politics, and with a massive Commons majority, and that this timid little church mouse of a Bill is the best that he can offer us this afternoon.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Gavin Williamson]

Indeed, and I want to encourage the Paymaster General. He has the potential to be known as a great reformer of the Labour party—he will write books about himself in the future—but he needs to be brave. He needs to be bold. I know that he can persuade his friends in the Whips Office to be bold. Fundamentally, we have a big opportunity. There is an unfairness. There is an injustice. So many people of so many faiths, and so many people of no faith at all, see that there are 26 bishops in the House of Lords. They do not reflect what the United Kingdom looks like today, so if the Government are not willing to table an amendment, I will table an amendment to remove those 26 bishops from the House of Lords.

[Gareth Snell]

rose—

[Sir Gavin Williamson]

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will support me in that mission to make the upper House a fairer and more reflective Chamber.

[Gareth Snell]

I thank my Staffordshire colleague for giving way. If he carries on with this strain of radicalism, he might even have a book written about him by the Paymaster General—scant as it might be. Is he taking his point to the final degree? Is he now advocating for the disestablishment of the Church of England, because that is where that argument ends up?

[Sir Gavin Williamson]

No, they are totally different things. There will be no disestablishment of the Church of England, but we need to lance the boil of the frankly ridiculous fact that we have clergy automatically sitting, as of right, in one of the Houses that make up this Parliament. To me, that is not right. It happens in Iran, but it does not happen elsewhere. I cannot see the justification for it, especially when it does not reflect the nations and regions of this country. Strong arguments have been made across this House, including on the Labour Benches, about the fact that hereditary peers do not reflect the make-up of this country. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) made a persuasive argument about the fact that they are nearly all male, and that only 1% of them—I think he mentioned—were female. Well, there is a similar challenge with those bishops. Of course, nowadays, only 2% of the British population attend Anglican services on a Sunday. More people declare that they have no religion than actually attend a church. Britain is a very different country today from how it was in the past.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

I am grateful to be called in this important debate. I have a little bit of experience of this issue, having served as a special adviser in the House of Lords, working with the now Leader of the House of Lords when she was on the Opposition Front Bench. I also worked with Baroness Stowell of Beeston and as special adviser to Baroness Evans of Bowes Park, as well as with some hereditary peers, including Freddie, Lord Howe and Patrick, the Earl of Courtown. It is important to acknowledge, as many Members have, the service that all Members of the House of Lords give to our country.

Ministers perhaps did not understand exactly where I was coming from when I intervened earlier, but my point has been made by Members from across the Opposition Benches. Why go for piecemeal reform when the Government have the space to ask the country what it wants? Why not put something forward with the legislative time available, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson) said? We could have a proper debate, as the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice) said, on the future of the country.

[Gareth Snell]

The right hon. Gentleman has made a number of contributions this afternoon and I have listened to them all, but I am not clear whether he supports the removal of hereditary peers from the House of Lords. Perhaps before he concludes his speech he could put it very clearly on the record whether he supports the principle of removing hereditary peers.

[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?

[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.

[Gareth Snell]

rose—

[Andrew Rosindell]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Holden]

I certainly did not find it in Basildon and Billericay—or in Romford when I visited it with my hon. Friend, or, indeed, in other seats across the country—and I think that our constituents will be slightly baffled. When it comes to a big piece of constitutional reform, why should this Government want to come forward with, potentially, a multiplicity of different Bills throughout the current Parliament, rather than putting something to the public to have a look at now, and then having a look at it right at the end? What constituents have been mentioning in recent weeks and months is their concern about the winter fuel payments or about what might be in the Government’s new Budget, particularly the jobs tax, which they fear will hit jobs throughout the country.

[Gareth Snell]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Holden]

I do not want to take up too much of the House’s time, so I am trying to reduce the number of interventions that I take.

My hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) hit the nail on the head when he said that this was a proper missed opportunity, but my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) made some important points. As he said, when we legislate we have to do so carefully, because we are fundamentally changing the nature of what we are looking at. Proper reform has been wanted by generations of politicians on both sides of the House, but particularly those in the Labour party. I do not understand why at this stage, with such a large majority and with time on their side, the Government are not seeking to put those changes through properly.

[Gareth Snell]

rose—

[Mr Holden]

I will give way again.

[Gareth Snell]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman. Perhaps I can help him. As a former special adviser in the House of Lords, he will know that carrying out reform in that House is incredibly complex. There appears to be a general consensus across all parties in this House on the eradication, or rather the expulsion, of the hereditary peers. If it were part of a larger combined bid, the right hon. Gentleman would risk losing that principle, because there would be more for us to fall out over and disagree on. Inevitably, his party would vote against it in Committee and on Third Reading, which would leave the whole package potentially at risk.

[Mr Holden]

I think that the hon. Member is missing my point. We have to see this as part of a package. Lord Irvine spoke about it in 1999. The hereditary peers were being kept there as the stone in the shoe, and should not be removed until the wider reform was settled. The Government have a very large majority in this House. They can certainly get stuff through if they wish, and I urge Ministers to consider that comprehensive reform. I understand what the hon. Member is saying—why not do it slice by slice?—but I think that the entire point of the hereditaries being there shines a light on the greater issues we are facing in the House of Lords, as was mentioned earlier by, for instance, my right hon. Friend the Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson) when he was talking about the religious Members of the Lords. If we are going to do a package, let us do a proper package.

It also concerns me that, having proposed a retirement age in their manifesto, the Government are apparently not seeking to legislate on that now. Why not? The scope of the Bill in relation to membership of the House of Lords is clearly wide enough for the purpose. In the Canadian upper House, for instance, the retirement age is 75, and in this country there is a mandatory retirement age of 75 for judges. I should be interested to hear from Ministers how they can justify a mandatory retirement age of 75 for those who interpret the law, but cannot justify it for those who make the law—not democratically elected, as Members well over that age have been in this House, but appointed. That is where the similarity with judicial appointments comes in. If the Bill is passed, Members of the House of Lords will be purely appointed. Obviously, there is already a retirement age for Lords Spiritual.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Holden]

What we are discussing today is a policy of the Government. My party is in opposition, because its manifesto was rejected by the public at the last general election. We are discussing a policy of the Government and what was in the manifesto on which the hon. Gentleman stood. It will be interesting to see whether he and others will back the manifesto on which they stood if amendments are tabled by the Opposition. We will have to see about that over the coming weeks.

[Gareth Snell]

Will the right hon. Member give way?

[Mr Holden]

Not again.

Currently, Members of the House of Lords are there by birthright or appointed by God, as it were, or the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister is going to pull out the hereditary peers, so it will just be him and God appointing people if this legislation goes through unchallenged. Putting even more power in the hands of the Executive—they have a majority of 174, as the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes) said, although some of their Members come and go at the moment—is a really dangerous thing to do, and we are not looking at the comprehensive package of reform that was promised.

Labour Members have talked about things that happened 25 years ago, when I—even though I might not look it—was still in short trousers. We need to reflect on the fact that this is a very different time from then. I hope that those on the Government Front Bench will consider what those on the Opposition Front Bench have mentioned today and look at the broader package, rather than looking at this issue in isolation, because they have the time and space to do so. I think the public would like to see a proper package brought forward, and the Government should concentrate on the people’s priorities, which are the cost of living and taxation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Ashley Fox]

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

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

[Gareth Snell]

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

[Sir Ashley Fox]

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Rosindell]

If we are to change our constitution so radically—I believe the Bill creates a radical change—then that should be done with thought, care and attention, as well as consultation and careful consideration. As I pointed out to my right hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden) earlier, I do not think this is an issue on the doorstep anywhere. During the general election campaign, I do not think anyone raised the issue as a serious matter they wanted us to deal with. There are so many other issues, yet we are rushing to make a major constitutional change without giving it due consideration.

We share a deep intergenerational responsibility in this House that rests heaviest on the Government of the day. We are the custodians of our nation and all that belongs to it, and not its master. We have a responsibility to preserve our nation and its constitution—an obligation between those who have passed on, those who are living and those who are yet to be born. That is the importance of the hereditary principle, something that Members on the Government Benches, and indeed some on the Conservative Benches, fail to appreciate.

Tony Blair’s new Labour Government took a three-inch-wide paintbrush to remake this great work of art of generations in their own image. They started a programme of thoughtless destruction, from the removal of the law Lords from the other place, with the creation of the Supreme Court, a notion alien to our constitutional heritage, to the culling of independently minded—I say those words clearly, Madam Deputy Speaker—hereditary peers and the appointment of partisan placemen.

It is no good for our constitution and it adds nothing to the work of our Parliament. It now appears that today’s Labour Government have recklessly come to finish the hatchet job on an ill-thought-out constitutional revolution in the name of so-called modernisation.

[Gareth Snell]

The hon. Gentleman just made the point that the hereditary peers are a bastion of independence, and the hon. Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild) said that many of the Conservative peers are long-serving Members of his party’s Front Bench team. How can those two things be reconciled?

[Andrew Rosindell]

I have worked with Members of the House of Lords over many of my 23 years in Parliament. They are not seeking re-election, preferment or title. They are here to serve our country and to assist this place in making better laws. All the hereditary peers and life peers—from all parties—with whom I have had the privilege to work have always been there to serve. To discard that so easily without serious long-term consideration to the effects of doing this is reckless.

Our constitution is the most vital part of our shared British heritage, and the hereditary peers are an integral part of that, which cannot be replicated by modern means. Yet the argument in defence of hereditary peers cannot be based solely on history, however important that may be. From the Duke of Wellington, who has been mentioned, and the Duke of Norfolk, to the Earl Attlee, the Lord Northbrook, the Viscount Craigavon, who was also mentioned, and the Lord Bethell of Romford, the hereditary peers bring a wealth of intergenerational experience and knowledge to our Parliament. They have an inherited obligation and a duty to serve. They are also invaluable to our parliamentary democracy, holding the Government to account, scrutinising legislation and raising often forgotten issues of national importance. Many hereditary peers are shining examples of exemplary parliamentarians.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Rosindell]

I say to the hon. Gentleman that it is quite the opposite. There are many Members of the House of Lords—life peers and hereditary peers—who take the Conservative Whip but who frankly act like independents, doing what they believe is in the interests of our country. That can be said for many on the Labour side as well. He will find that there are many more rebellions and people voting in different ways in Parliament in the Lords than in the Commons, because they are there to serve and they do not face re-election. For that reason, they are not subject to the usual pressures —lobbying, the Whips and all the rest of it—that we are all subject to, and that is why having that element is so important and is part of the mix that makes up the success of our Parliament.

[Gareth Snell]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Andrew Rosindell]

I will—one last time.

[Gareth Snell]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving in to my indulgences. This is an argument that could quite easily have been made during the passage of the original 1999 legislation: that the expulsion of the hereditaries would lead to a complete collapse of our scrutiny processes. Is he suggesting—I do not believe he is—that since ’99 and the removal of the other hereditaries, the House of Lords has not been fulfilling its function properly? That is certainly not how I would see the current House of Lords. If he does not believe that, surely removing the existing 92 will not have an impact on the scrutiny that he and I think is so important.

[Andrew Rosindell]

We cannot turn the clock back, but very many good people were ejected in that first legislation under the Blair Government. The compromise was to keep the 92 there. I think that is a good compromise and I do not really understand the rush for change; we should keep things as they are.

It is patently obvious that the Bill is a precursor for a wider and scandalous programme to weaken Parliament’s ability to hold the Executive to account and ride roughshod over our tried and tested constitution. Not only does the Bill open a slippery slope towards dissent-quelling, but it is an attack on the merits of the hereditary principle, which logically and inevitably leads to a fundamental undermining of the primary constitutional role of the monarchy itself. Maybe there are some Members on the Labour Benches who would like a republic, but I think the vast majority of British people would not want that, so to discard the hereditary principle is a very dangerous road to go down.

I urge the House to consider with the utmost seriousness the weight of intergenerational custodianship upon our shoulders when we vote on matters such as this, which are of grave constitutional significance. The removal of hereditary peers from the House of Lords would eradicate from the proceedings of Parliament some of the wisest and most dutiful servants of this great democratic institution. I believe the House should oppose this act of constitutional vandalism and continue to uphold the good and great conventions and traditions that have provided our cherished island nation with stability, continuity and wisdom for so many generations.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Glen]

No, I will make some progress, as there is not much time.

As with many areas of policy, and as witnessed in these first 100 days, the Bill exposes that, despite all those months sat on the Opposition Benches, the Government do not have a coherent plan with the next steps set out.

[Gareth Snell]

Will the shadow Minister give way?

[John Glen]

I will in a moment. I said that I would, so I will. As Lord Adonis has reminded us,

“there is no consensus on reform.”

The Government did have, as they kept telling us when it was the other way round, 14 years to deliver. They had 14 years to come up with that plan. Now they have an enormous majority, and they have just set out one step.

[Gareth Snell]

I thank the shadow Minister for giving way. He has diligently listened to all the debate this afternoon, and I thank him for that. He talks about a package of reforms. The last reform that his party brought forward in 2014 was a very small reform, with the expulsion of people for non-attendance, the right to resign or retire and the expulsion of those who committed a crime. Since then, 187 Members have retired or resigned and 16 have been expelled for non-attendance. If that was perfectly acceptable as a stand-alone reform without consideration of the consequential impacts, why is this Bill any different?

[John Glen]

I am sorry, but it is the hon. Gentleman’s Government who are now in charge of the agenda before Parliament. It is for them to be accountable for it. I am so challenged by the poverty of ambition that exists on the Government Benches. We are given to believe that they are planning a new wave of peers, and the Prime Minister’s former chief of staff has reportedly been overheard saying that she is top of the list. The Prime Minister was previously reported as trying to make our political system better, because it had previously been undermined by “lackeys and donors” appointed to the other place. Sadly, it seems that as soon as he got into Downing Street, he discovered the Government’s own lackeys and donors were already waiting for him. I think that reflects this Government’s wider approach and attitude to constitutional reform and our institutions.