House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Debate between Gareth Snell and Alex Burghart

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—

--- Later in debate ---

[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]

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.

UK-EU Summit

Debate between Gareth Snell and Alex Burghart

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.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Debate between Gareth Snell and Alex Burghart

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.