House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Debate between Jack Rankin and Edward Leigh

Consideration of Lords amendments
Thursday 4th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I will make a bit of progress.

I know the Minister will say that the monarchy is popular—which it is—and that it does not have political power, but it has infinitely more influence than any hereditary peer. I do not think we should accept that the hereditary principle is entirely wrong. Even if we accept that and say it is quite wrong that somebody should be called an hereditary peer, which I suspect is a lot of the problem, why do we not just make all the existing hereditary peers—who, as we have heard, are not stately home owners; they are dedicated public servants, with scores of them having worked in Parliament for years—life peers? Given that they are dedicated public servants, if we hate the fact that they are called hereditary peers, why not have an evolutionary form and call them life peers? But we are not doing that.

Lords amendment 1, tabled by my party in the other place, is entirely sensible. Rather than kicking people out in a flash, the hereditary peers—which we could now call life peers, if it is the name that makes people unhappy—could simply fade away. There is a lot of merit in old people gradually fading away rather than dying.

[Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)]

Declare an interest!

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I do not declare an interest.

In a sense, that is already the case, as the Lords have suspended hereditary peer by-elections by amending the Standing Orders of their Chamber. Evolution rather than revolution—bending instead of breaking—is the usual method of British constitutional change. It has worked very well in the past, and I do not see why it should not work now. It is far wiser than overnight change.

There is also the matter of optics and fairness. This, of course, is a partisan point by its very nature, but of the 86 remaining hereditary peers, 48 are members of Opposition parties—Conservative or Liberal—31 are independent Cross Benchers, and two are totally non-affiliated. Britons pride themselves on the spirit of fair play. It is not, frankly, cricket for a governing party to expel Opposition Members from the national legislature. As Lord Strathclyde pointed out, if any other country were doing this—expelling Members of Parliament primarily because they were from Opposition parties—we would be launching petitions against it.

Horseracing

Debate between Jack Rankin and Edward Leigh

Thursday 24th October 2024 Westminster Hall

[Jack Rankin]

My hon. Friend is quite correct to say that. I am a big cricket fan and effectively we have seen what big money overseas can do to the heart of a sport that originated in this country and gives us a lot of power, and we must be really careful about what we do. Obviously, we should also acknowledge that if people are pushed to the black market, there will be even fewer barriers to entry there, which might have a bad effect on problem gambling overall.

So, we are at an important crossroads for British horseracing. As bookies’ takings, which fund the levy, continue to decline, it is important that the Government’s approach to gambling respects individual liberty, and drives growth rather than limiting it. Just to expand on that—

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

Order. Will the hon. Member now draw his remarks to a close?

[Jack Rankin]

Certainly, Sir Edward.

I hope the Chancellor will carefully consider introducing further punitive taxes on the gambling sector in next week’s Budget, because that would further squeeze the horseracing industry. And given that the Labour party made growth its priority, I hope that this Government will be forthright in their support of British horseracing—an industry that plays a vital role in my local economy and in generating this country’s unrivalled soft power.