Oral Answers to Questions

Gareth Snell Excerpts

Wednesday 17th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I didn’t realise you had changed your name to Gareth Snell, Mr Jopp. I know you are due to be called, but I have to take two questions from each side to get the political balance.

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

When the Minister rolls out digital ID, will he give serious thought to engaging organisations like conformity assessment bodies and the public libraries network so that those who need the ID can get help at the point of application?

[Ian Murray]

One of the aspects of digital ID that is under-debated in this House is the fact that those who are furthest away geographically and economically from digital inclusion will benefit the most from it. That is why we are investing millions of pounds into the digital inclusion programme, which has just announced 80 projects, including many in my hon. Friend’s constituency. We have to make sure that the entirety of the public, wherever they are in the country and whichever economic situation they are in, benefit from digital government and better public services.

Oral Answers to Questions

Gareth Snell Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jo Stevens]

The Government have absolutely nothing to hide.

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

2. What recent discussions she has had with Cabinet colleagues on increasing economic growth in Wales.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Secretary of State for Wales (Jo Stevens)]

Growth is the No. 1 mission of this Government. We are creating tens of thousands of jobs in every corner of Wales, including through billions of pounds of investment in nuclear power in Anglesey, two AI growth zones, a defence growth deal, two freeports and two investment zones, which will deliver further economic growth to Wales.

[Gareth Snell]

Because of decisions made by the UK Labour Government, the minimum wage and the living wage will increase, boosting wages for thousands of workers across this country, including 160,000 people in Wales. Could the Secretary of State set out what impact she thinks this critical announcement will have on the economy and people of Wales?

[Jo Stevens]

From April, a full-time worker on the national living wage will see their annual pay rise by £900, on top of the £1,400 increase that we announced in the previous Budget, and 18 to 20-year-olds working full time on the national minimum wage will get an annual increase of £1,500, which, when added to last year’s increase of £2,500, means £4,000 extra a year. This Labour Government are supporting the lowest-paid workers across the country, with 2.7 million workers in Stoke-on-Trent Central, Cardiff East and every other constituency directly benefiting.

Government Procurement

Gareth Snell Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd December 2025 Commons Chamber

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

When I had the privilege of leading a council in north Staffordshire, we tried to invent a model that allowed us to use the Public Services (Social Value) Act 2012 in exactly the way that my hon. Friend describes, so that when we were working with a registered social landlord on house building, for example, we could stipulate that a proportion of the bricks should come from the local area and that, in turn, apprentices would be working in those factories. I found that it was a matter of political will, but also that procurement officers sometimes struggled to understand how to quantify social value. Does my hon. Friend have a solution—one that the Minister could then cascade through Government—for working out the social value that we are all seeking to achieve?

[Barry Gardiner]

My hon. Friend gives an apposite example of some of the problems that can arise. I will not be so bold as to say I have the solution, but I will at least try to set out the problem with clarity, so that the Minister can ensure that his officers are able to provide a proper solution.

The model details eight types of social value, each with several areas of activity. Those cover fair work, training to address skills gaps, support for small business and community business, action for sustainability, crime reduction, overcoming barriers to work, and support for health and wellbeing. Contracting authorities can choose which of those are relevant to a particular procurement, but one element is mandatory: where a type of social value is selected, the standard reporting metric set out in the model must then be used for monitoring and reporting. Herein lies the problem. These monitoring requirements will influence how social value requirements are described in tenders and contracts. A contracting authority using a targeted recruitment and training toolkit would struggle to comply with the standard reporting metrics, as they would not relate to the tried and tested specifications that are used.

Many of the options in the social value model are related to the jobs, skills and SME opportunities that are contemplated in the national procurement policy statement. However, the model appears to be expecting procurement officials to create tender requirements whereby potential contractors will identify labour shortages and community needs and then propose ways to fill these gaps in the delivery of the contract. That may be possible with a services contract, but it is really not workable in a large, complex building and infrastructure development.

What are my concerns? First, apart from the way outputs are recorded, no specific elements of the social value model are mandatory for contracting authorities, so the provision of opportunities for people who are currently disadvantaged in the labour market is not mandatory. Contracting authorities can choose to focus on other activities contained in the social value model.

Secondly, the approach for every social value option is to require bidders for the contract to provide a comprehensive method statement at tender stage. That puts a heavy burden on potential contractors and is a huge barrier to small businesses bidding for contracts, which is perverse when breaking down barriers to SME engagement is one of the Procurement Act principles and a core mission of the Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Chris Ward)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Brent West (Barry Gardiner) for securing the debate. He raised a number of important and specific points, which I will answer shortly. If he will permit me, I will briefly set out the Government’s approach to procurement, not least because it is the first opportunity that I have had to do so as the Minister responsible for procurement.

I want to emphasise that this Government and I see public procurement as an incredibly important vehicle for social and economic change, and not in the slightest bit boring. Public procurement accounts for one in every three pounds of public spending, totalling some £400 billion a year, so it is a huge opportunity and responsibility to make sure that that budget is spent wisely, and that it does everything possible to boost British jobs and growth, and delivers opportunity and fairness across the country.

[Gareth Snell]

To follow up on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (John Slinger) about the great announcement that police forces will be able to buy things locally, when will the Minister extend that to ensure that British police services are buying British cars, that the Government car service is buying British cars, that the Motability scheme is using British cars and that the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office fleet is using British cars? All those currently use foreign-made vehicles, which is not using British taxpayers’ money for British jobs.

[Chris Ward]

As my hon. Friend knows, the Budget announced progress on that with the Motability scheme, and the Chancellor has spoken many times about the need to buy British. Hopefully, we can start to roll that out and make much greater progress on it. I am glad he welcomes today’s announcement, which I will come to, but whether we are talking about British steel, British shipbuilding, wind farms or, as we saw in the Budget last week, driving innovation and spurring investment across the UK, we need to do far more to ensure that we buy British.

That is also why, just this week, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (John Slinger) said, we have announced measures to allow local authorities to reserve contracts for suppliers in their area. That will help to keep more than £1 billion of potential spend in local communities, and it will benefit small and local firms considerably. This flows from our decision earlier this year to publish a national procurement policy statement that required contracting authorities to consider wider objectives, such as creating local skills, jobs and opportunities, and to maximise procurement spend with small and medium-sized enterprises.

Over the summer, the Government consulted on a range of proposals to go further, including broadening the definition of national security to economic security, allowing greater support for critical UK industries, such as shipbuilding or steel, and plans to introduce a public interest test to support and help deliver a wave of insourcing. The proposals also included further expanding support and opportunities for SMEs, including tackling the scourge of late payments, and, to go to the thrust of the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent West, reforming and tightening the definition of social value to see it delivered much more effectively.

We are working through the consultation responses. I have met with a number of businesses, unions and contracting authorities to discuss this further, and we are drawing up plans to bring forward legislation in the next session for a new procurement Bill to deliver these changes.

As the Minister responsible for procurement, I have two central goals. The first is to make the current procurement regime less bureaucratic and burdensome—streamlining the processes wherever possible, reducing unnecessary form-filling and, in particular, making it easier and fairer for SMEs. The second is to ensure that every pound of that £400 billion procurement budget is used to support British jobs, British industries and growth across the country. Within that second goal lies the question of social value, which my hon. Friend raised. I am sympathetic to a number of points he made, and I have discussed particularly with SMEs recently how we can do more in this space.

As my hon. Friend said, the social value model was introduced in 2019 and refreshed in 2025. It is not currently mandatory for all contracting authorities or contracts, and it is applicable only to central Government Departments, executive agencies and non-departmental bodies. As I said, we are consulting on changes that will open up procurement on social value grounds much more widely.

As my hon. Friend will know, the purpose of the social value model in the guidance, which has been in place for only a couple of months, is to ensure that contracting authorities can reward suppliers for more than simply best price, so that they can reflect quality jobs, support people into work and do training opportunities. For example, if we want to build a new road or a new infrastructure project, the contracting authority can consider more than price; it can consider what it does to help the community.

I agree with my hon. Friend that the definition of “community” needs to be improved and clarified. We need to be much clearer about community voice and view on this issue; again, I want to try to bring that forward in the legislation. It is early days to assess the impact of those measures, but I take on board the points that he raises regarding flaws in the process and the need to go further. As I said, that chimes with some of the points that he made.

I am particularly conscious that social value does not become just a tick-box exercise, particularly where large companies can employ more people and consultants and win contracts simply by being able to fill in a form better. That is absolutely not what social value is or should be, and it will absolutely not be what this Government allow to happen when we bring forward legislation in the next Session.

We also need to look at the threshold at which social value requirements apply so that we can ensure that SMEs and community groups have a much more level playing field and we can open up the requirement much more. Again, that will be a part of the consultation process.

My hon. Friend asks about the targeted recruitment and training approach for large contracts, and again he made some very good points. I agree that it needs to be a tool to provide local communities with the skills they need. At the moment, the social value model provides some flexibility for contracting authorities in that regard—for example, things such as skills gaps or local problems in the area—but we can do more. I will consider the points he raises and get back to him, and I thank him for those.

My hon. Friend also asks whether all vacancies for works contracts are on the DWP “Find a job” website, and the answer is yes. As of February 2025, there has been a requirement for all Government suppliers to advertise jobs relating to Government contracts in the local jobcentre. As I am sure he can recognise, the aim is to ensure that local people have every opportunity to access quality jobs, but again I will look at the points he makes about how that is playing out and if we can improve it.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) mentioned Northern Ireland and how we can do more to support procurement there. I am talking with the Northern Ireland Executive about how we can work together and try to ensure that new legislation that we bring forward in the next Session can apply in Northern Ireland, should they wish it to do so.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Brent West for securing this important debate. Procurement is one of the most important levers we have in government, and we should have far more debates in this House on it. Procurement matters to Government, to taxpayers, to British business, to workers and to people across the country. The best way that we can support UK businesses further to deliver growth is to go further and faster on reforming public procurement. That is what this Government have already done, and that is what we will continue to do. We will deliver a simpler, less bureaucratic process, better value for taxpayers and more opportunities for local jobs and skills in all parts of the country, and we will bring that forward soon. I thank again my hon. Friend and other Members for contributing to the debate tonight.

Question put and agreed to.

Infected Blood Compensation Scheme

Gareth Snell Excerpts

Thursday 30th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the painstaking, significant work he did when he was Paymaster General. The reference to Sir Tyrone Urch and his report is apposite, because I asked Sir Tyrone to look at the workings of IBCA—to look, practically, at what barriers are still there to delivering compensation quickly. Of course, Sir Tyrone’s first recommendation was around policy stability. As I said when I was before the inquiry in May, we would not want to be making changes to the scheme that were detrimental to the ability to deliver the compensation quickly. That is something that I think is really important going forward.

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

I congratulate and thank the Minister for his work on this; I know how much of his time it is taking. Further to the points made by my hon. Friends the Members for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford) and for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier), and the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), there is a perversity in the people who were failed by the state potentially being asked to repay 40% of their compensation to the same state that failed them.

The Minister has clearly set out that that is in line with policy; is he willing to stand at that Dispatch Box and state, categorically, that that is fair? If he cannot say that it is fair, will he at least undertake to again raise this issue with the Treasury, so that those people who were failed by the state are not then penalised by the state?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

My hon. Friend and a number of Members have made that case powerfully. I will say to the House that they can be assured that I look at all aspects of this scheme and test whether they are fair, and I think we can see, across parties, the strength of feeling on this today.

China Spying Case

Gareth Snell Excerpts

Tuesday 28th October 2025 Commons Chamber

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

The right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) touched on several relevant points. There was a time in this House when a Member coming under attack and finding themselves on the wrong end of something was a moment of unification for us, and we would come together to find a way forward collectively. It should be of great regret to us all that following the events that happened to the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns) and the right hon. Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat), we are throwing political rocks at one another about meetings that may or may not have happened over the last six or seven years. I do not know the hon. Lady, but I know the right hon. Gentleman. He is a gentleman of the utmost standing and principle, and I cannot imagine the horrors that he has been through and how much they have disrupted his life. We should keep that at the forefront of our minds in this debate.

We have had a complex relationship with China for the past decade. I cannot be the only one who is old enough to remember the pictures of the President of China pulling pints in the Plough with the former Prime Minister, who was subsequently the Foreign Secretary when some of what we are talking about was happening. We have not had a consistent approach to China publicly. I say “publicly”, because the evidence we have heard from various Opposition Members this evening makes it quite clear that officials in the last Government were naming China as a threat. They were using that terminology, but unfortunately the political faces of that Administration were not.

I will not get into the rights and wrongs of that, but it is clear that there has been inconsistency in the language applied to China throughout this period. If I were more legally minded, I would say that that may have led to the current situation, in which the CPS is saying one thing and the DNSA is saying something else, and we are getting the interpretation of an illustrious former Attorney General, the right hon. and learned Member for Torridge and Tavistock (Sir Geoffrey Cox). By the way, I remember the debate in November 2017 when we argued for a Humble Address. Many Conservative Members said that it was a terrible idea to publish Government information, and it could never be done because it would undermine that information. They said that in the future, they might ask for such information and we would say no, and we are clearly at that point today.

We all invest a lot of time and energy into this job, and into our staff. We are at the mercy of the vetting services to make sure that the staff who work for us are looked into properly. We just do not know, for instance, whether operatives from other hostile states are active in staffing units. We can pretend we do, but we honestly do not. I hope we will get some answers from the Minister about how we have got to this point, but what I want to understand is how will we make sure that the same thing does not happen again.

How will we get to a point, in this Parliament, where we can be sure that every Member of Parliament—regardless of which political party they come from, the position they hold, their standing or their length of service—is free from such political interference, oversight and spying? How can we ensure that no more Members are sanctioned, as the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green was? He has talked eloquently to the House on numerous occasions about the disruption to his life. For us to do our job properly, we must have confidence in the people around us and the advice we receive from officials, and we have to be certain that the processes that are in place to keep us safe are doing their job.

Ultimately, we all come here to do a job, and to do it well. We are only human, and we ought to hold at the forefront of our minds the fact that mistakes have been made—I think we would all agree on that; I do not think anyone can say, hand on heart, that everything has gone perfectly up to this point—but the key thing is how we learn from that and prevent it from happening again. That, Madam Deputy Speaker, is where I will draw my remarks to a conclusion.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Gareth Snell Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Thursday 4th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Alex Burghart]

Sit down. Those public servants are in the Lords because the last Labour Government put them there as part of the deal that it struck on long-term constitutional change.

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

I obviously declare an interest as my wife is a Member of the House of Lords—and a salaried Minister, for good fortune. The shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster recognises that the Labour party won an election but is talking about deals that go back further. Does he not realise that he risks undermining the Salisbury-Addison convention, which says that manifesto commitments should pass through the other place without hindrance? I know that the hon. Gentleman aspires to be back in government one day. Does he not recognise that by doing down that convention, he risks his own future legislative programme should the Conservatives ever get back into power in future?

[Alex Burghart]

The hon. Gentleman will understand that this legislation is not being blocked but improved. That is what Parliament does, and that is how the process of scrutiny works. He will see very clearly that the amendments make significant improvements to the faulty legislation that his party brought forward.

[Gareth Snell]

I thank the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster for his indulgence. He says that Lords amendment 1 makes a significant improvement to the Bill. Why, then, when it was brought forward in the other place by Lord Grocott as a private Member’s Bill and in this place by David, now Lord, Hanson, did the Conservatives block it and say that it was a terrible idea?

[Alex Burghart]

I do not recall us saying that it was a terrible idea. I distinctly remember many Conservative peers speaking in favour of it actually, but that is part of the joy of the independence of the upper House, which, as I will shortly explain, risks being undermined by this legislation.

What the Government are now trying to do is remove a group of public servants who have done nothing wrong and who have simply served their country and continue to do so. The reason they are being removed is very clear: the Government cannot rely on their votes. Consequently, they are attempting to take a group of opponents out of Parliament by Act of Parliament. This is simply Cromwellian. I am not suggesting that the Prime Minister is a second Cromwell. Cromwell was a great man—a “brave, bad man” as Clarendon said—while the Prime Minister is just a man.

I do not believe that the Government have Cromwellian intent. They are doing something clumsy and foolish, but—I mean this seriously—what they are doing will set a precedent. I do not believe it is a route that the Paymaster General would follow, but the people who come after him may be much more like Cromwell than he. [Interruption.] There is laughter from behind the Paymaster General, but I want us to think seriously about what future Parliaments might look like. If the precedent is set that political opponents can be removed by Act of Parliament, someone in the future, even if maybe not tomorrow, in two years or in 10 years, will point back to this—I guarantee it. It does not need to happen this way.

We have a group of people already in the House of Lords and already doing a job. Take Viscount Stansgate, who is an excellent Member of the House of Lords and Deputy Speaker. As I am sure hon. Members know, there are 65 hereditary peers who sit on parliamentary Committees, so this change will be enormously and unnecessarily disruptive to the working of the House. It would be much better to leave them in place and let them do their jobs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Burghart]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point—there are other types of honour—but we already have peers who have stood down, and they get to keep their titles. They are called Members of the Lords but do not sit in the Lords, so the disjuncture already exists. [Interruption.] Would the Paymaster General mind passing me the water? I have got a terrible throat.

We already have peerages that work the other way round. We are suggesting that it ought to be possible for somebody who is perhaps in advanced years or not well to accept a peerage without feeling that they are under an obligation to go and sit on the red Benches. That is a perfectly reasonable request.

[Gareth Snell]

rose—

[Alex Burghart]

Go on—one more time.

[Gareth Snell]

I thank the shadow Minister for giving way to me for a third time. I presume what he is suggesting is more about the title and the style than about a seat in the legislature. He will know that under the 2011 royal warrant that granted the justices of the Supreme Court the style and title of Lord, that did not come with any connection whatsoever to the legislature. So there is a way of doing what he suggests that does not require the Lords amendment: it can be done via royal warrant through an Order in Council.

[Alex Burghart]

The hon. Gentleman is very well informed, and he is exactly right. This amendment, as was discussed in the Lords, would add clarity to the process and mean that it would become more routine than occasional. In that, however, he is entirely right.

I will conclude by saying that good amendments have been sent back by their Lordships; amendments that improve this Bill in more ways than one and which would keep the considerable skill and expertise of the hereditary peers on the red Benches for a little time longer. They would not prevent the Labour Government from bringing in more peers if they wanted to and they also raise important questions about ministerial pay and how we use our titles. I am very pleased that we have reached common ground on the issue of advocate powers, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gareth Snell]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent point. The work that Lord Grocott did on this in the other place is commendable, but it was sadly blocked time and again by the Conservatives. On my hon. Friend’s point about the youngest hereditary peer and the number of general elections that may have passed before he will have seen himself out, by no longer being a Member of the House of Lords he would regain his right to vote and stand in general elections, so if he wished to return to Parliament, there would be plenty of places in this House that he could try for.

[Shaun Davies]

My hon. Friend makes a valid point. A point that has been made by other Members, including from the Opposition Benches, is that there is nothing stopping the Leader of the Opposition putting forward any hereditary peers for life peerages.

[Shaun Davies]

The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. This is about priorities and choices. The Leader of the Opposition will be able to nominate people this year and next year—and maybe the year after, if she is still in place. She can make a decision on whether to put forward a hereditary peer or someone else during that spell.

[Gareth Snell]

I am sorry to intervene again, but this is an important point. Since the general election, there have been 21 nominees to the other place. That would have counted for half the entire hereditary peerage group of the Conservative party, had the Leader of the Opposition taken the opportunity to promote them to life peerages. By not doing so, the Conservatives have chosen to keep those hereditary peers out.

[Shaun Davies]

The Leader of the Opposition has a number of tough choices ahead of her, and those choices will no doubt be executed using her good political judgment.

To conclude, to right hon. and hon. Members from different sides of the Chamber who say that we need more reform of Parliament, the House of Lords, the constitution and the way in which the country works, I say—as a moderniser and the MP for an area for which the current system does not work—that I could not agree more. But this modest change—this slender Bill—has taken around 10 hours in this place and 40 in the other place, with more than 180 amendments tabled, so imagine how a larger and more far-reaching Bill would be treated. As the Minister has stated, many Members from across the political spectrum in the other place have called for a cross-party approach, and that is exactly what the Government are doing through the establishment of a Select Committee.

Let me close on this thought. We have heard for many decades the promise of future reforms. I support and will vote with the Government today on the basis that those future reforms will come through. I hope that the Government will be true to their word, and constituents like mine, who have seen themselves locked out of this place for far too long, will have the opportunity to serve it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Edward Leigh]

Of course, nothing in our constitution is perfect. We would not be starting here—we accept that. We are just saying that this is a group of dedicated public servants who have done nothing wrong, and we are simply asking that they should be allowed to carry on their work, rather than be kicked out primarily because they are from Opposition parties.

[Gareth Snell]

Will the Father of the House give way?

[Sir Edward Leigh]

No. The hon. Gentleman is a very good chap, but he has had a lot of turns.

We all know that the real reason behind all of this is that the Government want to make space for more of their donors and cronies to enter the House of Lords, and that is entirely understandable. By the way, I think that there are sensible reforms that could be made in the House of Lords and that there has been a lot of abuse. I think that too many people have been appointed to the House of Lords—this is where the SNP has a good point—who are donors and cronies.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir John Hayes]

The point has been repeatedly made from the Government Benches that this is a matter of principle and that hereditary power is unacceptable. Now, the hon. Member is right that the King has no role in introducing legislation, and so on and so forth, but the King does have immense political influence. Which Labour Back Bencher meets the Prime Minister weekly to discuss the affairs of state?

[Gareth Snell]

rose—

[Sir John Hayes]

Madam Deputy Speaker, the king of Stoke!

Which Labour Back Bencher receives a regular report from the Whips on the proceedings of this House? That is what the King has. The King rightly has powers, and he derives his power by birth.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gareth Snell]

I draw attention to my interest on two fronts, in that my wife is a life peer in the House of Lords and a salaried Minister.

[Jacob Collier (Burton and Uttoxeter) (Lab)]

And a very good one at that.

[Gareth Snell]

Yes, she is very good. I thank my hon. Friend for that.

I want to start by addressing some of the points that the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) made—he has left. His characterisation of the House of Lords is grossly unfair. He characterised everybody who is a Member as being some sort of pocket-stuffing hanger-on. I think that exposes more about his particular brand of petty grievance politics than it does about the actual calibre of the individuals down at the end of the corridor. Regardless of party affiliation or whether they are independent or bishops, the Members I have come across—in Committee or Joint Committee work, or in delegations when I was previously in the House are—good people who want to see the nation benefit and our country thrive and see good politics and good governance. The characterisation is often unfair and the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire belittles his own position as a Member of this House.

[Stephen Gethins]

I intervene merely because my hon. Friend is not here to defend himself, so I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving way. There are a number of fine people in the House of Lords and I have worked with them in a number of ways. However, democratic accountability should be at the heart. Labour promised to scrap the House of Lords in the first ever manifesto it produced over a century ago, so although his hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead Central and Whickham (Mark Ferguson) might have been waiting 1,100 years, we have been waiting 110 years for Labour to fulfil its commitment to electing and giving them that democratic mandate.

[Gareth Snell]

Without getting drawn into the debate on the rights and wrongs, I will say that if the Scottish National party had wanted an elected second Chamber, it could have had one in the Scottish Parliament but chose not to. There are things about the way in which our democracy works that mean the SNP Members come down here simply to have a pop at this place for their grievance politics in Scotland. Frankly, if the SNP spent more time thinking about how it could help the nation rather than its petty nationalism, we might be in a better place as a country and things would be better in Scotland.

In a point relating to amendment 1, as my hon. Friend the Member for Telford (Shaun Davies) rightly pointed out, Lord Grocott has proposed this Bill in the House of Lords numerous times over the past 20 years. He has tried to get to the point when there could have been an opportunity over the past two decades for Members who are here by virtue of the hereditary principle to be phased out over time. At every opportunity, it was blocked by the Conservative party; at every opportunity, it was talked out.

When the Bill was introduced in this place, first by David Hanson and then by John Spellar, the Conservative party opposed it, saying that the principle was wrong and there was not enough reform. I therefore feel that it is slightly disingenuous now to propose something that the Conservatives have opposed for the past two decades as their solution to the problem that they themselves created by not accepting it in the first place. It is slightly unfair, and it is a categorisation of their own politics that they seek to find ways to frustrate the Bill because they have no option for themselves.

On the somewhat spuriously suggestion that this is a way of neutering opposition in the other place, the number of Conservative peers, even after the expulsion of the hereditaries, will still make them the largest party in the House of Lords, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) pointed out. The Labour party is currently the third largest party in the House of Lords, after the Cross Benchers. Even after the removal of some of the Cross Benchers who sit by virtue of a hereditary peerage, they will still only be slightly behind the Labour party. The idea that this will remove any form of opposition in the upper House is simply incorrect—it does not hold water.

The other idea that good scrutiny of legislation in the House of Lords can somehow happen only by virtue of the application of the minds of the hereditary peers is equally incorrect. Some of the best challenges to Government in this Parliament have come from Members of the House of Lords who have been appointed. It does not necessarily mean they are less likely to be independent because they are not there by virtue of a hereditary peerage. I genuinely do not see that for myself. The times when I have sat and watched the House of Lords, because their sitting hours are later, I have seen that the challenges that come from the bishops, the Cross Benchers and the members of the Conservative and Liberal parties, regardless of how they reached there, have been thoughtful and well considered, and long may that continue. I do not think that is diminished by virtue of the fact that we say to a small group of those who have a right in the House of Lords, “Your route into this place was an irregularity, and we are seeking to sort that.”

The shadow Paymaster General, the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart), disputed my figure. There have been 21 appointments to the House of Lords who have had the Conservative Whip. I appreciate that some of those have been resignation honours from previous Prime Ministers—and there were a few to get through because of the way their party operated—but there have been 21. At any point, the former Prime Ministers could have said, “We would like to consider giving those to members of the hereditary group who are not able to continue.” There have been a number of appointees who were not part of a resignation honours list, and again, the Conservative party did not take the opportunity to say to Earl Howe, “We are going to make sure that you can continue.”

[Alex Burghart]

The hon. Gentleman is making a good speech. Does he think that, given the policy they have embarked on, the Government should have a duty to protect Cross Benchers who have no party representation in this House? The hereditary peers who are Cross Benchers will otherwise go by the wayside. Would he at least support his Government doing that?

[Gareth Snell]

It is hard to overestimate the valuable contribution that the Cross-Bench peers make to the House of Lords, not least the number of retired members of the judiciary who come in to fulfil certain judicial or pseudo-judicial responsibilities. The hon. Gentleman probably has an element of a point that I would almost agree with: there is a conversation to be had about how we ensure that the Cross Benchers continue to have representation that reflects the breadth of the country and the skills that Parliament needs. Obviously, there is a role for the House of Lords Appointments Commission, which can make recommendations for new Cross-Bench peers. How that works going forward I am sure is something that will be considered.

Again, there will still be 151 Cross-Bench peers even after the number of hereditary peers have been expelled from the House. That is a large number of peers, all of whom bring an expertise to the House that should be looked at. If there are new Cross-Bench peers to come in, I am sure that the commission will make that recommendation.

The idea that the House of Lords will somehow cease to function by virtue of the immediate abolition of hereditary peers does not hold water or make sense. We should simply say, “We are going to have a clean break. Thank you very much for your service—we appreciate it. If you wish to come back to politics or to Parliament, you can be nominated to the House of Lords for a life peerage, or you can seek election to this House.” If the Conservative party really wanted to ensure that some of those hereditary peers were able to come back to this place, they could say, “We’re going to make sure you are our candidates” for the 25 safest Conservative seats—if there are 25 safe seats for any party these days. It could say, “You can make a valuable contribution to politics in a way that gives you a seat in one of the two legislatures.” There are ways of doing it that simply do not allow for the withering of the situation that we have.

[Andrew Rosindell]

What I am puzzled about is this: how does the abolition of these great people who have come to this place with a duty of service that they have inherited and served the country benefit the people of Stoke-on-Trent? How will our constituents benefit by this change to our constitution? Does the hon. Member really think that this country will be so much better for having got rid of our hereditary peers, who have such a great duty of service to our country?

[Gareth Snell]

The hon. Gentleman poses a fair question. I would argue that having a ringfenced number of seats reserved almost exclusively for white men sends the wrong message to my constituents. I fully accept that there are Members of the House of Lords at whom my constituents can look and think, “They have done something spectacular with their lives.” [Interruption.] Before the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire jumps up, there are Members who have come in through the by-election process after making good contributions in their careers, and their being there does bring something, but I do not believe that my constituents would be diminished or harmed by their expulsion. I cannot see any justification for keeping 92 people in this legislature by virtue of appointments made many decades ago.

[Andrew Rosindell]

It is a small element.

[Gareth Snell]

It is a small element, as the hon. Gentleman says, but by that same logic, the removal of that small element will not have a big impact. We are grasping at straws.

Let me address the suggestion that this is an attack on the hereditary principle. The hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) is probably one Member of the House who understands quite well the role of the Earl Marshal. He will continue to be an officer of the House of Lords, and the role will still be intrinsically linked to the families of the Duke of Norfolk, but he will simply not be able to vote in Divisions or participate in debates. I do not believe therefore that this is necessarily an attack on the hereditary principle per se; it is simply about saying that there is no place for the hereditary principle in a modern-day democracy.

I will move on the point about giving out titles as rewards. I do not believe that the amendment is necessary to achieve the Conservative party’s aims, not least because the monarch, as the font of all honour, can create whatever titles and styles he likes, with whatever caveats he likes, through letters patent. It does not immediately mean that one has to become a Member of the House of Lords by virtue of having a life peerage if the letters patent say something different. I am sure that the shadow Paymaster General is well read up on the Wensleydale decision of 1856, when a life peerage was created for Sir James Parke but it was specified that he could not be a Member of the House of Lords. The principle of establishing titles and styles for reward and recognition without tying them to seats in the Lords already exists, so the amendment is entirely unnecessary.

My final point, which has not been the subject of much discussion—as it is not a party knockabout issue—relates to Lords amendment 4, on the capacity of colleagues in the House of Lords. It is clear that many Members of the House of Lords have served our country and their communities well, but some find themselves in old age and declining health. They deserve the dignity of being allowed to retire from that place without it becoming a story of capacity. The amendment, which was accepted by the Government and the Opposition in the Lords, is an important way of recognising that we can make small changes every day to the House of Lords, as the previous Government did on the ability to retire and take a leave of absence. This Government are ensuring that resignation can be granted for Members subject to power of attorney—that is an important change and I hope that it gets cross-party support.

To summarise what my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead Central and Whickham (Mark Ferguson) said, this legislation has been a long time coming and is part of the evolution of the House of Lords. The Opposition amendments do nothing to improve the Bill; they would simply slow the pace of reform and add bits that do nothing more than frustrate the passage of the Bill when it goes back to the other place. I urge the House to reject the Opposition amendments and to support the Government in bringing dignity to those who need to retire with capacity issues, so that we can progress with building a more modern and successful democracy.

UK-EU Summit

Gareth Snell Excerpts

Tuesday 13th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Alex Burghart]

If the hon. Gentleman had heard my opening remarks, he would have heard that in 2015, the volume of UK trade was just over £1 trillion. By 2023, despite Brexit, that had gone up to £1.6 trillion. Sometimes the people who were on the other side of the argument, many of whom had understandable concerns—we were making a big constitutional change that had not been made in over 40 years—seem trapped in the past, like Dr Samuel Beckett, and unable to realise that there have been significant improvements in the UK’s trading position because of the freedoms that we acquired, and because of the 70 trade deals that the previous Government brought in. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to change his altered reality, there will be an audience for it in this House.

On the emissions trading scheme, we know that carbon prices are higher in the EU than they are in the UK. There is great concern among certain industries that if, as has been trailed in the press, the Government are planning to sign us up to the EU’s emissions trading system, there will be a heavy price to pay, particularly in the ceramics industry. Two weeks ago, we saw a ceramics factory in Stoke-on-Trent close, citing high energy prices under this Labour Government.

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

Sadly, high energy prices are a result of the policy of the hon. Gentleman’s Government, who had four industrial strategies, all of which promised significant help for the ceramics sector and it never materialised. One of the biggest problems for the ceramics sector is ensuring that the European Union’s food contact regulations, which it has to comply with to sell its wares, match the British system. If he were in power today, what would he do to ensure that our trading arrangements allow for free trade of the goods that my city makes and sells into Europe?

[Alex Burghart]

Well, it will be irrelevant if all the businesses shut down because of high energy prices. The hon. Gentleman can talk about the previous Administration, but it was his party that promised to cut energy bills by £300. Instead, they continue to go up, and the market expectation is that energy prices will continue to rise under this Government. That would be very bad for ceramics factories, such as the ones in his constituency.

There are a range of other things that we could go into. If there are going to be negotiations with the EU, there are plenty of things that might be raised, but we do not know whether the Government have raised them. They include the arrangements with France on illegal migration, mutual recognition of food standards, conformity certification, touring musicians, rules of origin and so on. The point is that the Government have not told us whether they want these things, whether they are pursuing them and whether it is negotiating them on our behalf.

We on this side of the House are clear: following the referendum, this country turned a page, and it is very important that the Labour party does not turn it back. The fact is that we are on the brink of witnessing yet another disastrous Labour deal. We know that when Labour negotiates, Britain loses. To leave the House in no doubt, if and when my party is back in power, we will reverse any handover of power, any imposition of EU law, any new rights for the ECJ and any new budgetary commitments. It is my party that took the country out of the EU, and it is my party that will keep it out. I commend this motion to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Joy Morrissey]

The hon. Gentleman should allow us to fulfil the deal to which we are committed. We have put in place a trade deal and the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023. Unless there are new negotiations to be had, what exactly is the purpose of the summit?

I was going to end my speech, but the hon. Gentleman has inspired me to continue. The Government’s amendment relates to NATO, but NATO has nothing to do with the EU; it is a completely separate entity. Talk of dynamic realignment on defence came about after we left the EU. Ensuring an ever closer Union, through military, policing and social policy, has always been part of the plan of the European Union. That is welcome to internationalists, Liberal Democrats and Labour Members. I am sure that they would all love to have another way of binding us to the EU. NATO is separate; it has one document that has been agreed in the post-war period—

[Gareth Snell]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Joy Morrissey]

No, I will not.

NATO gives us an alignment on military matters that needs to be protected and fostered. A Liberal Democrat Member mentioned our technical and military capability. That is not the issue; the issue is: who bears the cost of our military capacity, which we deploy in defence of Europe and the free world? NATO was created post war, during the cold war, when we needed that strategic protection in Europe. That still holds true. Why would we disrupt that, and muddy the waters with this motion, which brings in NATO, which is separate from the EU? Why would we talk about something related to the military in a debate on EU jurisdiction?

Oral Answers to Questions

Gareth Snell Excerpts

Thursday 24th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[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?

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Georgia Gould)]

We know of the brilliant craftsmanship of the Stoke-on-Trent industry. We are committed to supporting British businesses and ensuring that they have the best chance of winning public contracts. Our new national policy statement asks contracting authorities to maximise spend with small and medium-sized enterprises and to support our industrial strategy.

Oral Answers to Questions

Gareth Snell Excerpts

Wednesday 5th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising what is a really important issue for his constituents and for so many constituents. I am pleased to confirm that we have put down £69 billion for councils—that is a 6.8% cash-terms increase—including up to £3.7 billion in vital additional funding for social care. We have doubled the funding for the disabled facilities grant, with an additional £86 million to allow 7,800 more disabled and elderly people to make improvements that enable more independent lives, and we will continue to do so, working across the House.

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

Eighty-three proud pottery workers woke up on Monday morning with no job, following the collapse of the 200-year-old Royal Stafford pottery firm. It is a crisis in our ceramics industry, with escalating prices for energy, and fake and foreign imports causing a real problem. Will the Prime Minister, through his offices, arrange for the energy companies to meet Ceramics UK and the GMB, as the voice of the workforce, so that we can hammer out a new deal? Will he promote, through public procurement, buying British so that proud manufacturing jobs in Stoke can be protected?

[The Prime Minister]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this really important issue. It is obviously a question of jobs, but it is also a question of identity and a sense of place. Of course we will work with the energy companies and have the relevant meetings, as he suggests.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Gareth Snell Excerpts

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

[Alex Burghart]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. He strikes at the critical failure of the legislation, which is that really the Government are seeking to remove Members of the upper House who happen not to take the Labour Whip. What we all agree on—or what I hope we all agree on—is that the role of the Lords is that of a chamber of scrutiny, and we must welcome more expert scrutiny. We have seen from the behaviour, attendance and work of hereditary peers that they are an intrinsic part of that scrutiny, so it is highly suspicious that the Labour party should seek to remove them. Indeed, if we set the precedent that the Government of the day can remove Members of one House because they do not agree with them, where will it end? Those Cross Bencher hereditary peers who will be axed by the measures have, as far as I can see, done an excellent job, yet they are not being given another way out such as that suggested by my right hon. Friend.

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

The hon. Gentleman will know that provisions in the 1999 Act stipulate a specific number of hereditary peers by party affiliation, making the Lords the only place where the party of a by-election victor is guaranteed before a vote has been cast. He is worried about a loss of expertise in the Lords as hereditary peers are expelled. If those peers stay—I do not think that they should—does he acknowledge that the ringfence protecting party political positions ought to be removed?

[Alex Burghart]

My point is more that the Government are seeking to remove highly experienced people without offering another way out. We would have been happy to debate that, but we are instead seeing an attempt to deliberately cut out a group of peers from the constitution.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gareth Snell]

rose—

[Alex Burghart]

I will give way one more time and then I will endeavour to conclude my remarks.

[Gareth Snell]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for taking a second intervention. Is he suggesting that life peers—I declare an interest in that my partner is a life peer—are unable to undertake the role of scrutiny? Even with these modest reforms, which are a stepping stone towards greater reform, my party will still be only the third largest party in the House of Lords, while his will still be the largest by some margin. Is he honestly saying that his life peers are unable to take scrutiny seriously?

[Alex Burghart]

I am delighted to hear that the hon. Gentleman has married so well. Of course, life peers do a fantastic job of scrutiny—they do so every day, and I enjoy reading their lordships’ Hansard. What we are talking about is a group of 88 hereditary peers, who have done a very good job in scrutinising Government legislation, but who are being removed, through no fault of their own, simply because they do not fit with the Labour’s party’s views. We believe that that is wrong.

I turn now to amendment 25 in my name, which concerns the very simple Conservative principle that constitutional change should not be rushed, and should certainly not be proposed for political advantage. We have inherited a constitution that has evolved through the generations and has the distinction of working. The current constitution of the other place has been effective in bringing expertise and a degree of independence to the work of legislative scrutiny. Like much of the uncodified British constitution, one might not have created such a system from scratch, but the tried-and-tested checks and balances of the House of Lords have complemented the work of the elected Commons.

The Lords does not claim to be a democratic Chamber, and that is the point: our House has primacy. We can see the dangers of ill-though-through constitutional change. None of us in this place will forget the difficulties caused by the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011, a foolish measure introduced by the coalition Government that created all manner of unintended consequences. It was rightly repealed by the Conservatives in the last Parliament to reinstate tried and tested long-standing conventions. Let that be a warning to the Government as they meddle, in the name of petty politics, with long-standing conventions that work. Walter Bagehot eloquently described the “dignified” and “efficient” elements of our constitution. In a sense, the hereditary peers represent both thanks to the way in which they diligently scrutinise legislation. Labour must take care that pulling on one thread—in this case, that of the hereditary peers—does not unravel a great deal more.

Amendment 25 seeks to ensure that there is proper scrutiny of the changes to the composition of our legislature. It makes the simple request that a Joint Committee of both Houses should be allowed to scrutinise and report on the Government’s so-called “immediate modernisation” plans, and that this place should agree before legislation comes into force. That plan would be led by the Conservative principle that constitutional change should not be rushed but carefully considered, and implemented only if the House is confident that it will work.

Amendment 26, which stands in my name, seeks clarity on the issue of disputed peerage claims. However, I have listened carefully to what the Minister has said, and I understand that existing mechanisms are in place. For that reason, we will not press it.

To conclude, we on the Conservative Benches think that this Bill is a sham of reform. It is fundamentally misconceived, focusing on the composition of the other place rather than on how we can ensure that it best performs its vital role of scrutiny. This is a Government and a Prime Minister who do not stand up to scrutiny—a Government led by politics, not by principles. My amendments seek to reinsert some principles into this process: that promises to both Parliament and the electorate should be kept, and that we should legislate only for what works, not for political advantage. I see no reason why the Government cannot accept the amendments today.

[Gareth Snell]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Madam Chair. I will keep my comments brief, because I know that that will entertain the Committee more. [Hon. Members: “More!”] I have not started yet—give me time. I very much enjoyed the Bill’s Second Reading, which is why I have come back for a second go.

I genuinely welcome the new reforming zeal of the right hon. Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson), and I believe there are merits to some of the amendments that bear his name. I am glad that the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy) has said that those amendments are part of our manifesto, because they are, as is this Bill. I am sure that means that he will want the Salisbury convention to be accepted in the other place when the Bill reaches it, meaning that Opposition Members in the House of Lords will make no attempt to prevent its successful passage. I am sure that at some point in today’s proceedings, an Opposition Front Bencher will be able to confirm for the record that the Bill will pass smoothly once it has passed this House.

We have just heard the importance of the primacy of this House stated eloquently by the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart). This House is going to make a decision on the Bill today—to decide whether we believe there should be a role for hereditary peers in the House of Lords—and it will then be sent to the House of Lords. Given the importance of convention, history and statute, I am sure that he will be able to confirm that the House of Lords will happily pass it, without any attempts by Opposition Members to amend it. I doubt it, but I hope so.

The point of the Bill, and the reason why I believe it deserves support from all sides of the House, is that—as my hon. Friend the Minister pointed out—this is the first step in a package of House of Lords reform.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman is a serious individual on the Government Benches, and I respect him very much, but does he not understand that given the delicate set of constitutional arrangements we have, it is not unreasonable to expect the Government to come forward with a plan that sets out several steps, taking us on the journey that they intend to go on, with some substance behind it? Given the number of years the Government have had since the previous changes over a quarter of a century ago, it is not unreasonable to expect a little more detail on those second, third and fourth steps, or a timetable.

[Gareth Snell]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention, and to a degree, I agree. That is why we set out in our manifesto the package of reforms and changes that we hope to see made to the other place during this Parliament, in order to deliver on the promises we made in the election. He is absolutely right to say that constitutional reform is a delicate thing; that is why it is important that we make these reforms with consideration and in small steps, to make sure that the unintended consequences of large-scale reform are not felt.

The Conservative party made modest reforms during previous Parliaments, such as giving Members of the House of Lords the ability to retire from it. That was a small change, but one with consequential impacts—far more Members have left the House of Lords under that provision than will be impacted by the provisions in this Bill. That was done thoughtfully, carefully, slowly and, I think, consensually.

Similarly, I think that the principle of this Bill—that hereditary peers will no longer have the right to sit in the House of Lords—has already been established in this House. None of the amendments that have been tabled today seeks to overturn that; none of them seeks to make a case for the continuation of hereditary peers. As such, the consensus that the right hon. Gentleman rightly talks about exists in this Bill. The more we seek to tack on to the Bill—taking other elements of constitutional reform and adding them to the Bill—the more we risk that consensus falling apart. We risk this House not having a settled position, creating the opportunity for potential wrecking amendments. I do not suggest that Opposition Members are tabling wrecking amendments, but they could be tabled elsewhere to completely flatline what is a very modest and sensible reform.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

The hon. Gentleman is making a very reasonable speech. Would it be fair to say that he means this is almost a case of going for the low-hanging fruit on which everybody has a measure of agreement, while recognising that future steps may be a lot more complex and potentially dangerous if we get them wrong?

There is one aspect that is not of itself an argument for keeping the hereditary peers, but is something that will be lost if and when they go. That is, the hereditary peers are one group of people who are not appointed subject to prime ministerial patronage. Without straying beyond the scope of today’s debate, could the hon. Gentleman give us an inkling of whether something like putting the House of Lords Appointments Commission on a statutory basis is a reform that the Government might consider, bearing in mind some of the controversial cases where people have been imposed on the House of Lords in defiance of the commission’s preferences?

[Gareth Snell]

I could not possibly begin to offer an opinion on the thoughts of the Government, but I know that my hon. Friends on the Front Bench will have heard that question.

[Sir Gavin Williamson]

He should be in it!

[Gareth Snell]

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

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

[Sir Ashley Fox]

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

[Gareth Snell]

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

[Sir Gavin Williamson]

We do not usually have so much debate in Staffordshire on these matters; we usually have a lot of consensus in Staffordshire. I want to clarify that the amendments that I seek to make to the Bill would not disestablish the Church of England, but would remove from our constitutional arrangements an anomaly—just as the Bill attempts to remove an anomaly.

[Gareth Snell]

The right hon. Gentleman is right: this is probably more Staffordshire than anybody needs to hear in this debate, so I will conclude my remarks momentarily.

I do not disagree with the necessary principle that the right hon. Gentleman is putting forward about whether or not bishops should be entitled to seats in the House of Lords by virtue of their being bishops. On Thursday, a Bill is to be debated that would amend the right of women bishops to sit in the House of Lords, because we have always, over time, gently updated and amended our constitution to ensure that it reflects the society we want to be. I would welcome an opportunity to properly debate and consider this matter. The right hon. Gentleman says that it is not his intention to disestablish the Church of England by the removal of the bishops, but there are consequences to these actions, which deserve more consideration and debate—

[Sir Gavin Williamson]

What are they?

[Gareth Snell]

The right hon. Gentleman asks, “What are they?” That is why we should have a debate in the future to give us an opportunity to explore that. Today, having had a Second Reading debate, we have the Committee stage of this Bill to look exclusively at the responsibilities of hereditary peers and the role they play in our democracy.

[Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)]

Instead of saying that we need a debate in future on whether such a reform might risk disestablishment, will the hon. Gentleman explain what he considers to be the legal and constitutional consequences that would risk disestablishing the Church?

[Gareth Snell]

I think the very fact that we that we would be seeking to expel the bishops, who are the representatives of the Church of England, from the national legislature, would by its nature start a consideration of that process. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman may say that it does not, but he does not know that. I fear that a well-meaning amendment tabled by the right hon. Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge would create a more significant debate about the role of the Church in our country. Although we may want to have that debate, I am not sure it should be triggered on the back of an amendment to a short, tightly drafted Bill about the role of hereditary peers in the House of Lords. If the hon. Member for West Suffolk wants to bring something forward, I would be more than happy to talk to him about how I could support it, but it should not be tacked on to a Bill on which there is already clear consensus around the role and responsibilities of hereditary peers. That, I hope, deals with the point that he raised.

Finally, on Second Reading we heard a great deal about our manifesto and the Labour party’s commitment to House of Lords reform. The ’99 reforms were one of the most significant changes to our constitutional settlement that there had been for a very long time. It was not just about the expulsion of the hereditary peers, but the creation of the Lord Speaker and the removal of the Law Lords to sit in the Supreme Court. It was a package that came forward, over time, in a series of Bills to implement the commitment that we made at the ’97 election. That, for me, is the start of where we are today. We will put through the Bill that does the first part, bank that and then move on. I know that there is an appetite across the House for considerable House of Lords reform—that has been evident from Opposition speeches—but we need to bank what we have done and move forward.

I hope that today we shall pass the Bill through Committee unamended and on to Third Reading, so that it can make its way to the other place where, because of the commitment that I know the Minister will give in summing up later, the Salisbury convention will be engaged; that it can pass through the House of Lords quickly, without change; and that we can move on with the rest of the reform that we require.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

I rise to speak in support of new clauses 7 and 8, which stand in my name, and their associated consequential amendments. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell), simply because I think that much of what he said supports my amendments. Certainly some of the points he made, I shall be making also.

My Liberal Democrat colleagues and I are proud that it is our party that has for decades led the call for reform of the House of Lords with a democratic mandate. The Bill is a welcome step forward, and one that we support. However, we do believe that broader and bolder reform of our upper Chamber is needed, which is why I have tabled these two new clauses to extend the powers of this legislation. The new clauses would finally see the House of Lords with a democratic mandate and would ensure that the House of Lords Appointments Commission could never again be sidestepped and ignored by an unscrupulous Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Gavin Williamson]

My right hon. Friend and I agree on so many things, but perhaps I am just wanting to see this change happen. By adding new clause 4—introducing Labour’s manifesto commitment as part of this Bill—we can significantly reduce the size of the upper House and avoid the kind of intimate crush that he sets out.

[Gareth Snell]

I do not wish to pause the right hon. Gentleman while he is in the middle of his intimate crush, but as someone who is always a fan of a clause IV, I understand what he is trying to achieve with this new clause 4. However, I would put to him one point. Under new clause 4(2), participation in a Division would in itself not be the only thing required; a Member could simply turn up, be seen and take their seat, and they would not have to take part in a Division or contribute. So his new clause would not achieve what he is seeking. He will undoubtedly bring this measure back in a future Bill, so will he consider retrospective application? One of my worries is that a number of Members of the other House have not turned up for many weeks or months, and in fact there are some who over the last two and a half years have an attendance rate of less than 5%, so would it not be wrong for them simply to turn up now, get their tick and then wait eight weeks? If we were to say, “Let’s retrospectively apply this from today,” the right hon. Gentleman would have a huge clear-out of those who have not made any contributions so far, and given that they have not turned up so far, they would not be missing much.

[Sir Gavin Williamson]

I am getting excited that the hon. Member is discovering a little radicalism, because I always felt I was in his heart, but perhaps the eyes of the Whips have squeezed it out of him of late. The hon. Gentleman makes a very thoughtful and interesting point, and I would very much like to work on a cross-party basis to get the legislation into the best possible shape.

On minimum contributions, a number of peers in the upper House have continuously failed to make a significant contribution. There are routes for them to be able to exit out of the upper House, but they have chosen not to do so. That causes real problems and real challenges for the upper House, and new clause 4 would offer a way to tackle them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gareth Snell]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for being so generous and gracious with his time. He rightly points out that his new clauses 1 and 2 are not Labour party manifesto commitments, so he will understand why they could cause the Bill to become unstuck when the Salisbury convention is applied at the other end, as the Minister will confirm later. Has he used his position of power and influence to confirm that Conservative Members in the upper House, with their plurality and majority in most votes, will support new clauses 3 and 4, so that the Bill can still make its passage and deliver the one thing on which we have consensus?

[Sir Gavin Williamson]

The hon. Gentleman flatters me by suggesting that I have any power. Once, as Chief Whip, I could have had a gentle nudge on the tiller to make things happen, but sadly the only army I can now bring to bear is me. I will happily do what I can on these important new clauses, and I will walk side-by-side with the Paymaster General, through the Lobby to deliver for his party on its manifesto commitment, but I am afraid that is the only commitment I can make, because I would not wish to over-promise.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pete Wishart]

There is a point of principle behind our position on the House of Lords, and it is a simple word: democracy. We refuse to have anybody in the House of Lords because we believe that people should have an electoral mandate—democratic backing from the people of this country—to serve in the legislature. That is something on which the hon. Lady and I will never agree. I believe she is quite happy and satisfied that unelected peers continue to inhabit the other place.

My party is hopeful that the House of Lords might sometimes challenge Governments, and perhaps make them think again, but it always backs down. Any attempt to get the House of Lords to agree to any sort of principle is a waste of time.

[Gareth Snell]

The hon. Gentleman is clearly very pleased with himself and his amendments. The only seat as secure as a seat in the House of Lords is a seat at the top of a regional list for proportional representation. He has tabled a well-meaning amendment to prohibit any Member who has served in this Parliament or the last from seeking a seat in the House of Lords. Would he apply that to his own party, so that any Member who has served in this Parliament or the last is not eligible to seek nomination or election to the Scottish Parliament?

[Pete Wishart]

I say to the hon. Gentleman, ever so gently, that he should leave bypassing devolution to his friends from Scottish Labour, because they are just a little bit better at it than him. It is their job to constantly speak about the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government. To be fair to them, they have done a fantastic job—they barely even mention the UK Government. Every single contribution they make is about the Scottish Government, so maybe just leave it to them, shall we?

--- Later in debate ---

[Pete Wishart]

We do not put people in the House of Lords. If people want to give us a million pounds, they can—please, if anyone is watching on TV, we could do with a million pounds. Sorry to disappoint anybody thinking about doing that, because we cannot give them a place in the House of Lords. I will give way one last time to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central, who I have given way to once already.

[Gareth Snell]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way again. I agree with him about the necessity for probity, ethics and transparency in politics, and I also enjoy his righteous speeches in this place. Obviously, he is a moral guiding compass for us all, so will he now make a clear and unambiguous declaration that not a single person who has ever donated to the Scottish National party or served as a Scottish National party Member of Parliament has ever been given a position in a publicly funded quango, or a publicly funded seat on a board, or been in receipt of any publicly funded donation? Obviously, I want to ensure that we aspire to the bar that the hon. Gentleman sets.

[Pete Wishart]

What I can say categorically to the hon. Gentleman is that there is nobody who has given one single penny to the Scottish National party— [Interruption.] Again, I appeal to people watching, if they want to give us money, please do so, but one thing we can never do—we never have and never will—is, in return, offer a place in our legislature or the ability to govern in this country. We do not do that, we cannot do that and we will never, ever do that.

Let me point to the scale of the difficulty of the problem when it comes to the donors. Some 68 out of 284 nominations from political parties between 2013 and 2023 were for political donors who had handed over £58 million to one of the three main parties. Over the course of that decade, some 12 of them gave £1 million. Now that might sound familiar to some Labour Members—£1 million is what people used to give to the Labour party under Tony Blair in the early 2000s to get a place in the House of Lords. Come on! Where is inflation when it comes to this? We would expect it to cost £1.5 million to get a place in the House of Lords now, but the going rate is seemingly still about £1 million.

Cash for honours was a disaster for Labour. It was absolutely awful. We saw the spectacle of a sitting Prime Minister being interviewed by the police about the donations that were being given to the Labour party. Those donations were interpreted as inducements to secure a place in the House of Lords. The Prime Minister was interviewed under caution and two of his personal staff were arrested. After that experience, we would be right to expect some sort of clarity in their thinking to take place. They could have decided never to get into that type of territory again—that they would do everything possible to ensure that money was taken out of politics, so that there would never be a whiff of suspicion that such a thing would happen again. But not a bit of it. Donors still go into the House of Lords, money still goes into the political party, and the public want it stopped.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Baker]

We do actually have a former moderator of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland in the House of Lords. I very much enjoyed the right hon. Gentleman’s speech—his points were made very passionately and with great conviction—but his party was in government as a majority Government for many years, and it did nothing on that issue.

[Gareth Snell]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point: not only were the Conservatives a majority Government in this place, they had a plurality in the other place, so they were unfettered. Does my hon. Friend accept that, while the argument of the right hon. Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson) may be well-meaning, bolting a non-manifesto commitment on to a manifesto commitment risks derailing a Bill that has already been all but agreed under the Salisbury convention at the Dispatch Box by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart), and therefore risks losing all forms of reform that we are offering?

[Richard Baker]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point—I could not agree more. It risks derailing the Bill and the potential to make urgent progress on this particular issue, which it is so important that we as a House deal with this evening.

As other Members have said—I want to make this point very clearly—this reform is about principle, not about personalities. In my own career before taking up my seat in this House, I received the support and assistance of hereditary Members of the House of Lords in many campaigns on a whole range of matters of public policy, and I valued that support. Since my election, I have had the opportunity to speak with hereditary peers who have brought significant experience to the House of Lords, who have been diligent and committed, and who have greatly valued their role in the House. Nevertheless, it is clearly the case that in advance of further reforms, membership of the House of Lords should be based on experience and expertise, not birthright. The fact that there are still no female hereditary peers is another example of how that approach to membership of the House of Lords cannot align with what I believe should be the shared goal of making the House more inclusive and representative of wider society.

Earlier in the debate, we heard some contributions suggesting that passing this Bill would somehow jeopardise the work of the House of Lords or reduce its effectiveness. There will still be over 700 peers left, so I do not think we are in danger of a shortage of peers in this Parliament. I believe that this reform must be taken forward now, and having recently joined the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, I look forward to further deliberation on reform of our second chamber.

Turning again to the speech made by the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire, I was pleased to hear him laud Gordon Brown—that has not always been the case in speeches he has made. Gordon Brown’s leadership of the Commission on the UK’s Future, established by the Labour party in opposition, was a vital contribution to the debate on how we take forward the constitutional arrangements for government in our country. The commission’s report absolutely needs to be an active document in this Parliament, discussed in this Chamber and I hope by the Select Committee that I have just joined, when we look forward to the future of our constitutional arrangements. The report is right to set out the proposal for a council of nations and regions. It shows also the necessity for reform in regard to hereditary peers, and why those wider reforms of the House of Lords will be important in relation to public confidence in our institutions of government.

The report highlighted research showing that 71% of people in the UK back overhauling the House of Lords. That support cuts across all parties, nations and regions: nearly half the British public think that the Lords does not work well. Support for the current composition of the second Chamber was reported by the commission at just 12%. I believe my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) has recorded even lower levels in other research. It just shows why this reform is desperately required if we are to attain confidence in our second Chamber.

Analysis shows that a majority of Members of the House of Lords are based in London and the south-east. If we want to increase confidence in this Parliament, in Westminster, that issue must be addressed, along with further devolution to other parts of the United Kingdom and the nations of the United Kingdom. A second Chamber whose membership is far more reflective of all the nations and regions of the UK can only help generate greater confidence in our legislature in every part of the country.